Tag Archives: science

Uncategorized

Science fiction in an old Tamil film lyric: Subtle Patriarchy in Promotion of Science!

This blog is written on 30th May 2020, as the number of Corona affected cases in India is increasing steadily, with the number of affected approaching 175000 and the number of deaths approaching 5000. It does not seem to have stopped anything else. We have a standoff between China and India. An unarmed African American was brutally killed by a police officer in front of another officer and some public watching around, with the street cameras recording the gory incident. India is facing the worst migration crisis since the partition. There have been a focus on Science with some pointing out Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel being a scientist and suggesting that Scientists should take part in policy making, if not in politics. May be a good time to write a blog to promote Science. In particular, one of the lines in the lyric says ‘We need to make an instrument that will help our kids learn sitting at home, without having to go to schools’. This is happening now. But, why on patriarchy now? Why not? Nandita Das has released a short movie on domestic violence in particular during the lock down (1).

One of my favorite comedians from Tamil films is N. S. Krishnan (NSK). His wife T. A. Madhuram (TAM) and he formed a good couple in life and movies. When they were both on travel to Pune from Madras to act together for the first time in a film ‘Vasanthasena’, NSK fell in love and they were married (2). NSK did not tell TAM that he was already married and his wife, Nagammal, was in Nager Coil at that time. It was not unusual those days for some one like NSK to have two wives. The NSK-TAM couple was a big draw in movies and they enjoyed fame and money like those of the hero/heroines in those days. As Randor Guy says in the the Hindu article “People loved their brand of comedy, satire, irony and social relevance.” The Wikipedia page on NSK says “He was a Gandhian, patriot and philanthropist, yet a controversial figure”. He was an active member of Dravidian movement, which takes pride about their role in empowering women. Both NSK and TAM had a very successful professional career in movies. As it was common those days, they both were good singers and all the songs in their movies were sung by them.

One of the popular songs by this couple came in a movie called ‘Nallathambi’ written by Udumalai Narayana Kavi. I have mentioned the lyricist in another blog earlier (3). The complete lyric in Tamil can be seen in a blog called Dhool Lyrics (4). As with many of their songs, this is a duet as well, sung by a husband and wife in the movie. Husband introduces Science to his wife and sings about the advantages of Science. Let me offer a translation, more as a prose, below:

Husband to wife: Aa, come, sit down. I am going to promote Science and invite the Westerners for a feast and show them what I have done. Will undo the plows used in Thanjavur and learn all Science thoroughly. I will find a way to produce a kid without a husband and wife. I will ensure that ignorance and superstition are demolished. I will use atomic energy to ensure that people live longer. Unlike the leaders from other Nations who have used atomic energy to kill people and destroy cities, I will use it to demolish ignorance and superstition and also to help in long and healthy life for humans.

Not only that, I will find ways to grow dresses for men and women from the cotton plant directly. I will find ways to make the old people look and live like young. I will show what my hands can do and create wind and rain. I will create a motor and fix it in a bullock cart and take your mother in that. Will take you in that as well and show how it runs.

Wife: Sounds great, but what are you going to do for our home?

Husband: For our home, tell me what do you need?

Wife: I need machines to remove the husk in rice, to grind rice/dal for making idli/dosa, and for pumping water. I need a machine as well to cook all day. I would like to have a water tap in our back yard and an air conditioner in our home. I need an instrument to help kids learn from home without having to go to school.

Husband: Is that all?

Wife: I forgot one: I need a machine which on clicking a button should serve idli and coffee on our table. I need fan above our bed and a machine to show time.

Husband: You mad lady, look at the women in our country. They do all the work at home. There are some women, who look at those from the West and long to have a life like them. Our women go to forest, do field work, work at home and eat rice. The women who want to copy Western women, go in car, roam around town, dress themselves in front of the mirror and have coffee (both of them laugh as it sounds funny to them).

The lyrics in Tamil is written in a colloquial language and rhymes well. The song was quite popular and I knew it by heart. Until a few days ago, I did not try to analyze it. When I was listening to it recently, it just occurred to me that, the guy wants to use scientific advances to help in his work. As the famous dialog in 3 idiots says, “A machine is anything that reduces human effort”. He brags about that to his wife and says he will show the western world his accomplishments. When the wife asks him to make some machines to help in her work, he calls her mad and preaches about how our country women are great as they do all these work by themselves!

Of course, now we can see that most of what was written in this song has been achieved. We have machines to do most of what both of them wanted. However, in 1949, when this movie was made and Udumalai Narayana Kavi wrote this song, the lyricist, NSK and TAM and everyone in the movie crew and all the people who listened to this song did not find anything wrong. All those watching the movie, may have laughed with NSK and TAM as the song ends comparing our hard working women in the country with Westernized women who just roam around having coffee! It is not as subtle, isn’t it.

References:

  1. “Listen to her” a short movie by Nandita Das.
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/lighter-vein-column-nsk-part-3/article6639763.ece
  3. https://earunan.org/2015/04/02/learning-history/
  4. The lyrics of the song can be seen in Tamil in this link: http://lyricsdhool.blogspot.com/2017/03/vignanatha-valarka-porendi-nallathambi.html
Standard
Indian Institute of Science, Uncategorized

Faculty Recruitment in Institutions with Emphasis on Teaching and Research!

I have been planning to write on this topic for sometime and finally the Editorial published in Current Science dated 10 July 2018 triggered me (1). I wanted to write this as there had been a huge response to another editorial I wrote three months ago on conflict of interest in Indian Science (2). I had written some other editorials and several comments in Current Science (3) and these have attracted comments from a few with similar views, mostly from the Academia. However, the Editorial on Conflict of Interest elicited applaud from many and anger from some, in the academia. Many appreciated this for speaking the truth. What surprised me was that this Editorial was also covered by some news media, http://www.dailyo.in (4). Dinesh Sharma titled the news as ‘How conflict of interest is murdering Indian Science’.  I was worried about the news  coverage of academic matters, given that news has to be sensational. Indian Science is alive. Of course, it is not performing to its potential, which is perhaps true for many things in India. Conflict of interest is certainly a factor that is affecting it.

Another unusual comment I had for my editorial follows: “pl do not become a knight in shining armour. The matters are nuanced. You have a large following. They should not go tilting at all the wind mills”. Though, I had disagreed with this comment at that time, I do share some worries. In fact, Saibal Gupta has articulated my worries well in his editorial. (1) His editorial is about ranking Institutions and how all the various numerical indices may not be able to identify great faculty candidates. He goes on to say: “What might the solution be? This is a difficult one, as it involves the ability, confidence and wisdom of our faculty selectors to be able to look beyond ‘numbers’. For reasons not entirely academic, and we must admit, our own transgressions over time, academic decisions that do not conform to the ‘number’ game have become legally open to challenge, and can easily become fodder for a news-hungry media that is ‘looking’ for evidence of academic corruption. We need to convince ourselves that there is space for admitting people who we recognize as good in the fundamentals, and who we believe would be able to think ‘differently’.”

There has been some ‘transgressions’ as Gupta points out and there have been clear cases of conflict of interest as I pointed out. However, one should not forget the fact that many institutions, in particular, IITs and IISc, have sustained quality for many decades. This would not have been possible if the whole system was corrupt. I do believe that there is always room for improvement and perfection would remain a goal, that is never attained. On the other hand, I have also seen that the perception of corruption in India, in every field, may be far higher than the real corruption.  Anyone who is not selected may conclude, there is corruption everywhere. Obviously that number would be large. We do have honest people in every system and India has been surviving and growing thanks to the tireless work of many such people.

I wanted to share with everyone interested some information about how a faculty member is selected. I have been directly involved in this for about a decade now. A committee looks at all the applications and decide whether or not to consider the applicant further. There are many reasons why an application may not be considered further. Our Department does not like to inbreed i.e. none of our Ph. D. students are generally considered for faculty positions in our Department. There are other Departments in IISc and also other Institutions, that may not share our view. Another reason a candidate may not be considered is because the Department may not be looking at some research areas at that point in time. If for example, one theoretical chemist was hired recently, and the Department is not keen on hiring another theoretical chemist, applicants record would not matter. The number of publications, impact factor, number of citations and h-index, none of them may count.  If the research area of the candidate is considered to have significant overlap with that of an existing faculty  member, not just the recently hired ones, that applicant is unlikely to be hired as well.

At any point in time, we may like to hire faculty members in some areas. We do look at the candidate’s record in terms of past publications and future research plan. We do not necessarily go by the number of publications, impact factors of the Journals in which they are published and citations. Particularly, in my field, for example, the Journal of Chemical Physics, has a good reputation though it may have a lower impact factor than the Journal of American Chemical Society or Angewandte Chemie. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that only a small number of papers dealing with physical chemistry/chemical physics are published in these ‘general chemistry’ Journals. Even among the few papers appearing in these Journals (and also the ‘general science Journals like Science and Nature), most have dramatic conclusions about topics that have huge appeal to chemists/scientists. I can cite two examples that I am aware of. In 2013, Science published a paper on ‘visualizing hydrogen bonds’ and the authors were from Physics and Chemistry Departments (5). It was covered in all magazines and I wrote a ‘Research News’ in Current Science as well (6). Later on a more detailed study questioning this interpretation was published in Physical Review Journals. I can only guess Science refused to publish them. (7) That is only for the experts.

Somewhat coincidentally, in 2013 Science had published a paper on the first observation of the ‘Criegee intermediate’ which is very important in atmospheric chemistry (8). Science was not interested in publishing a more thorough work, which provided more accurate and thorough data and that was published in the Journal of Chemical Physics (9). This work was done by Y. P. Lee and coworkers from Taiwan. I was listening to him during the Asian Spectroscopy Conference in Taiwan in 2017. In his talk, he mentioned the following: “We have published several papers on this important intermediate and the significance of these papers is inversely related to the impact factor of the Journal in which these are published” Scientists know the difference and it is what we call a ‘peer evaluation’. This appears as ‘perception’ in World ranking . Peer evaluation, appearing as perception in these ranking should not be confused with what a commoner might think about perception. In judging Science, peer evaluation is not perfect, but there is nothing better.  I just heard from someone that UGC was planning to remove this ‘perception’ in national ranking, and I think it is a bad idea. Most from India may have heard about Vashishta, an ancient saint. To be certified as a ‘great saint’ by Vashishta was considered the greatest of honor a saint could get. In Tamil “வஷிஸ்டர் வாயாலே பிரம்மரிஷி’. Peer evaluation is just that.

Candidates who work on the same areas from Ph. D. to postdoc and have plans to continue in the same area are unlikely to be considered irrespective of the impact factors and citations. When we look at the postdoctoral work, we try to judge if there is any original contribution from the candidate. Candidates have to show and prove that they can think independently. That they can identify an important unsolved problem and know how to tackle it. Once a candidate is shortlisted, (s)he is invited to give a talk based on past work and also a talk on future research plan. All faculty members attend these talks and ask questions. Reference letters from referees suggested by the candidate and also some experts working in related area are sought. These letters play a crucial role. Often, faculty members who have supervised and/or worked with a candidate are the best judges and most provide an honest evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate. When I returned to India, I have had requests from students with whom I had no interaction, asking for a reference letter. I have always refused. These letters are not to be confused with ‘recommendation’ as commonly known in appointments in India. I cannot recommend a son’s friend or a friend’s son for any job. I can recommend my students and anyone else with whom I have worked based on my observations.

Candidate gets to meet with all faculty members and discuss for about 30 minutes with each, in addition to giving a one hour seminar and 30 minute research plan presentation. There has to be a nearly unanimous view among the faculty members about whether a candidate can be hired. There is very little room for corruption or influence in this affair, if all the faculty members express their opinion. Over the last decade or so, when I have been closely involved in this process, no one has ever tried to influence the selection of Assistant Professors. Is there a possibility that the collective judgement of the faculty members can go wrong? That probability is certainly not zero. However, to repeat myself, no one has tried to influence the selection of candidates for faculty positions in my experience.

References (all the weblinks were accessed on 13 July 2018):

    1. Saibal Gupta “Balancing teaching, research and institutional rankings” Current Science, Volume 115, pages 7-8 (2018). http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/115/01/0007.pdf
    2. E. Arunan “Is Indian Science Ready to Tackle Conflict of Interest Rationally?” Current Science, Volume 114, pages 1385-1386 (2018) http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/114/07/1385.pdf
    3. http://ipc.iisc.ac.in/~ea/current_science.html.
    4. https://www.dailyo.in/technology/science-in-india-cv-raman-current-science-indian-institute-of-science/story/1/23673.html
    5. Zhang, J., Chen, P., Yuan, B., Ji, W., Cheng, Z. and Qiu, X., Science, vol 342, issue 6158, pp 611-614, (2013). DOI:10.1126/science.1242603.
    6. E. Arunan “Hydrogen bond seen, halogen bond defined and carbon bond proposed: Intermolecular bonding, a field that is maturing” Current Science, vol 105, pp 892-894 (2013).
    7. https://pubpeer.com/publications/345962A4190EDDB394CDEFB056026E#fb16414.
    8.  Su, Yu-Te; Huang, Yu-Hsuan; Witek, Henryk A.; et al. SCIENCE   Volume: 340   Issue: 6129   Pages: 174-176(2013).
    9. Ting, Wei-Lun; Chang, Chun-Hung; Lee, Yu-Fang; et al. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS   Volume: 141   Issue: 10     Article Number: 104308 (201)
Standard
Indian Institute of Science, J N Tata, Uncategorized

J N Tata planned the Indian Institute of Science and Swami Vivekananda did not influence it!

It is 27th May again! In 1909 on this day, the vesting order for the establishment of the Indian Institute of Science was issued. Last year on this day, I had written a blog about this great institute and the Indian Association for Cultivation of Science and argued that they defined India before independence (1). One of the reasons was the choice in naming these institutions as Indian. Calcutta in the state of Bengal and Bangalore in the Mysore Kingdom built educational institutions named as ‘Indian’, many decades before India got independence. In Uttar Pradesh, Banaras Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University were established in the following decades. One can still see this difference in the view points of the people of eastern and southern India in comparison to the northern states. Often I feel that there is a huge communication gap between the people of these regions in India for historic and geographic reasons.

This blog is not about the names though. It is about whose vision led to the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). It is become a popular myth that IISc resulted from a stimulating discussion between J N Tata and Swami Vivekananda while on a ship from Yokohama to Vancouver. A recent post in TheBetterIndia mentions that they met on 31 May in 1893 (2). If one is not careful in reading this post, the myth will resonate as a fact. I have written a few blogs about learning history and pointed out how difficult it is to learn history (3-5). I also believed in this myth and have written about this in my first blog on ‘Learning History’ (3) and also a recent editorial in Current Science focusing on conflict of interest (6). I had email discussions with two experts: Dr. Subbarayappa who authored a book on the history of Indian Institute of Science (7) and Prof. P. Balaram, our former Director, who ensured that we will have an Archives and Publications Cell at IISc. I have also been helped by Mr. Sharath Ahuja, who was taking care of the Archives and Publications Cell in the initial years. I am pleased to share the images from Mr. Ahuja, of the Tata statue at IISc and the commemorative stamp issued by the Government of India during our Centenary. You can see the replica of our Main Building held by Tata in his hands! It is a fitting statue for the founder in front of the iconic building shown in the stamp.

The letter written by J. N. Tata to Swami Vivekanada, on 23rd November 1898, offers the most important clue. This is reproduced in the book by Subbarayappa and also the TheBetterIndia portal. This is what Tata says at the beginning: “I trust, you remember me as a fellow- traveller on your voyage from Japan to Chicago. I very much recall at this moment your views on the growth of the ascetic spirit in India, and the duty, not of destroying, but of diverting it into useful channels.” Clearly, he does not mention about any discussion about the need for a research institution. On the other hand, Tata continues this sentence with: “I recall these ideas in connection with my scheme of Research Institute of Science for India, of which you have doubtless heard or read”  (emphasis added).

Prof. Balaram gave an excellent talk on the history of the Indian Institute of Science at the National Centre for Biological Sciences recently. Thankfully his talk is available on YouTube (8). I would encourage anyone interested in the history of Indian Science in 20th Century, not just IISc, to listen to this talk spending the 90+ minutes! Prof. Balaram quotes from primary sources about J. N. Tata’s plans for Science and a research Institution in India years before he met Swami Vivekananda during his voyage to Chicago. Why then, Prof. Balaram decided to include Swami Vivekananda in the commemorative stamp during the centenary of IISc? His talk has some clues as to how this happened. If you are keen, you may listen to the talk.

Tata in his letter went on to say the following: “I am of opinion that if such a crusade in favour of an asceticism of this kind were undertaken by a competent leader, it would greatly help asceticism, science, and the good name of our common country; and I know not who would make a more fitting general of such a campaign than Vivekananda.” Tata clearly wanted Swami Vivekananda to lead the Institute. In his book, Dr. Subbarayappa mentions that Swami Vivekananda’s reply to the letter by Tata could not be traced. However, an Editorial was published in April 1899 in Prabhuddha Bharata, a magazine started by Swami Vivekananda. The editorial is not signed and perhaps was written by the Swami. It starts with this sentence: “We are not aware if any project at once so opportune and so far reaching in its beneficent effects was ever mooted in India, as that of the post-graduate research University of Mr. Tata. The scheme grasps the vital point of weakness in our national well-being with a clearness of vision and tightness of grip, the masterliness of which is only equalled by the munificence of the gift which is ushered to the public”. The scanned image of the editorial can be seen below:

J N TATA AND SWAMI VIVEKANANDA001.jpg

Clearly, Swami Vivekananda recognizes IISc as an outcome of a project mooted by Tata and was very enthusiastic of this project. He was invited by Tata to be the first head of the Institution. However, it is clear that Indian Institute of Science was the result of J. N. Tata’s vision and this vision was not influenced by any discussion with Swami Vivekananda. J. N. Tata not only planned IISc, he also built steel and power plants to help India become what it is today. One cannot celebrate IISc or India, without celebrating the great J. N. Tata.

  1. https://earunan.org/2017/05/28/indian-institute-of-science-iisc-and-indian-association-for-cultivation-of-science-iacs-defined-india-before-independence/
  2. https://www.thebetterindia.com/127599/swami-vivekananda-jamsetji-tata-chicago-conference-iisc/
  3. https://earunan.org/2015/04/02/learning-history/
  4. https://earunan.org/2015/04/11/learning-history-ii-and-happy-new-year/
  5. https://earunan.org/2015/04/14/learning-history-3-birthday-new-year-and-so-on/
  6. E. Arunan, Curr. Sci. (Weblink: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/114/07/1385.pdf )
  7. B. V. Subbarayappa “In Pursuit of Excellence: A History of The Indian Institute of Science” Tata-McGraw-Hill 1992.
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=horcEiRiHh0

 

Standard
Indian Institute of Science, Uncategorized

Jawaharlal Nehru and C. V. Raman: Nehru’s vision is more important for Science in India, not Raman’s!

Some of my friends had forwarded articles from the Swarajya online magazine now and then and it was clear to me that the articles that were sent to me by my friends had an agenda and truth would be left out if the agenda would be in danger. So far, I never thought I should respond to them. It is impossible to respond to everything written whether you agree with them or not. Once in a while, I have posted my views in Facebook and rarely in Twitter.  A recent article published in Swarajya titled “The Double Life of CV Raman” (1), which claims to show how Indian Science should be funded, finally triggered me enough to write this blog. At least for those who care to know, some facts must be given. This article mentions Raman’s great contributions to physics for long and at the end mentions two incidents to prove Raman had a better vision than Nehru. I am surprised  that the author thought Raman had a vision and quotes these incidents to prove this.

The first incident is from a biography of Raman written by Uma Paramaeswaran. Raman criticized Nehru’s plans to start CSIR laboratories and insisted that funds should only be given to individual scientists and not for national laboratories. This is wrong on many counts. Also, this clearly shows how blind one can become when they are committed to an ideology. National Laboratories are not some ‘socialists plan’. Every country in this world irrespective of their ideology have them from the USA, France, UK to Russia and India. Supporting individual scientists and national laboratories are not an ‘either or’ choice! This should be obvious to anyone! Of course, not for some one whose only aim is to discredit Nehru.

Nehru not only formed CSIR laboratories with an objective to promote technology in India, but also started IITs to promote individual excellence where faculty and students pursued their blue-sky research. Our founding fathers had vision for the country and Raman and the author of this article do not. Under Nehru’s leadership, India not only started CSIR and IITs, ITIs were started. Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) was established in 1958. Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR) was established in 1962 and Nehru’s close aide and scientist Vikram Sarabhai headed it. This became ISRO and the rest is history. After blaming 7 decades of misrule, among the first things Modi did as the PM was to come to ISRO and watch the successful launch of Mangalyaan. Physical Research Laboratories, established under Department of Space, in Ahmedabad has not perhaps shined as the Jet Propulsion Laboratories in Los Angeles, but it has provided crucial support to ISRO. Several state Universities have done outstanding research before and after independence. especially in the first three decades. I personally know Scientists from the National Aerospace Laboratory in Bangalore who have worked towards ISRO’s needs. As I had pointed out in another article, a recent DG-CSIR, who was consumed by the number game, had told some of them to stop doing that and do something that can be published. That’s certainly not Nehru’s fault.

ISRO has shined from the beginning. Are the CSIR and DRDO laboratories and state Universities doing great today? Most of them are not doing that well. Nehru started all of them and some have succeeded and many have failed. Blaming Nehru’s policies for the failure of some is obviously motivated by a political agenda. Did Raman have a different policy, which India could have followed and succeeded better in Science? He is quoted as shouting ‘fund me and individuals and don’t start CSIR’? At best, it sounds childish to me. This article does not describe any other policies of Raman that India could have followed. I doubt if Raman ever had any such policy. For those who would like to have a complete picture of Raman, I would suggest a book titled ‘Dispersed Radiance’ written by Abha Sur, a Ph. D. in Physical Chemistry who became a social scientist later (2)

Raman has been a typical example of how scientists in India have behaved in independent India as he seems to have mentioned. “He (Raman) felt Nehru had allowed Indian science to be hijacked by self-serving people who were given control of policy making.” Now let us look at some facts. Meghnad Saha invited Raman to work with Congress before Independence and help form scientific policies for an independent India. Raman refused and felt his job was to just work on his science and not help the future Government. To his credit, Raman kept to himself from the Government before and after Independence.  When he did not get what he wanted, he shouted.

The second incident quoted, based on a personal conversation with Raman’s grandson, is difficult for me to believe. The article mentions about “Raman ‘picking up a bust of Nehru that stood on the shelf and hurling to the ground’, breaking it into pieces”. Was he that immature and consumed by anger? It seems like many Indian scientists have followed this ‘throwing tantrums’ to achieve their goals. In a matured democratic society, it should not work. However I see this working even today in my own Institute. Some professors think, they are so great and they can shout and abuse anyone from a Director to a clerk. . Raman probably did it in his house. Some scientists today do it in the work place. They are following the bad example set by Raman.  In a civilized society, such an act should be a punishable offense!

Raman was invited to become the Director of the Indian Institute of Science and he started in 1933. He could not survive as the Director for long and he was asked to step down within a few years. There is a book on the history of our Institute titled ‘In pursuit of excellence’ written by Subbarayappa (3) and those who want to know his side of this episode can read the book. Irrespective of whose fault it is, Raman had to resign as the Director of IISc, much before India became Independent and Nehru became the Prime Minister. Many others have served as the Director of IISc admirably, including his successor, Prof. Jan Chandra Ghosh who took over in 1939. He excelled as the Director of IISc and was asked to start the first Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur. He did that and then he was invited to be the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University. When he was to leave IIT Kharagpur, the students went on strike asking him to stay. Raman did not have such quality as a leader of science. He was an individual who excelled in Science and I doubt if he ever had any policy for Science or Nation!

There was a controversy between Raman and Born as they had different views on lattice dynamics. This is almost typical and nothing unusual. What was unusual in this controversy is that Raman was unwilling to listen and discuss. He nearly became a believer and went to the extent of forcing his students to prove his theory right. At least during this episode, he did not seem to have promoted independent thinking which is essential in Science. He rejected papers having a different view when he was the Editor of Current Science. Eventually, his theory turned out to be incomplete if not incorrect. For Indians, hero worship is in the blood. For me, whether it is Nehru or Raman, learn about what all they did and come to your own conclusions. Be wary of authors like the ones who wrote in Swarajya claiming Raman’s plans are better than Nehru’s without even mentioning any such plans! It would be easy to spot them.

References:

  1. https://swarajyamag.com/amp/story/science%2Fthe-double-life-of-cv-raman (Accessed on 4 March 2018)
  2. Abha Sur, “Dispersed Radiance” Navayana Publishers (2011).
  3. B. V. Subbarayappa, “In pursuit of Excellence: History of the Indian Institute of Science” Tata McGraw-Hill Publications (1992)
Standard
Uncategorized

Ethics cannot solve the problem of superstition! Is Sarukkai’s claim that it can, devoid of ethics?

Since, our Independence seven decades ago, most everyone has pointed out that India is lagging behind in many fields by, perhaps, decades. Most of the world organized a ‘March for Science’ in April 2017 and Indian scientists caught up rather quickly by marching for Science in August 2017, within a few months. One Director of a CSIR lab used the pretext of potential violence to order (or was it an advice?) all his staff not to join the March.

Many scientists participated in this and it was covered in national and international news. Sundar Sarukkai, perhaps the only philosopher of Science in India, currently at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore wrote a commentary in The Hindu proclaiming that the March for Science was unscientific. (1) We need more philosophers of Science in India and perhaps we need more in many major fields of Science as well. Sarukkai’s reasons for calling the march unscientific did not appeal to some scientists from India and two of them wrote a long response. Rahul Siddharthan’s response came in Wire (2) and Felix Bast (3) put it in his blog. A social scientist also disagreed and pointed out that the March for Science was needed even for social science (4). Wire offered a chance for Sarukkai to respond to Siddharthan’s counter and published it too.  Sarukkai’s response was titled “To Stop Superstition, We Need Viable Ethical Perspectives, Not More Science” (5).

I contend that viable ethical perspectives cannot by itself counter superstition. Let us look at what ‘viable ethical perspective’ means and see if there is any hope for it to counter superstition. Let me use Google dictionary for ease of use. The first word ‘viable’ is simple enough and it means ‘workable, practicable, feasible’ and so on. I am convinced that most every reader of this article would know what ‘viable’ means. The third word ‘perspective’ means among other things ‘point of view’. It is surprising how a philosopher of science chose to put this as a viable alternative to Science to counter superstition. Obviously, points of view will differ. Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘perspective as a particular way of thinking’. Clearly, different people can have different perspectives! This will certainly not help in clearing ‘superstition’ and it can only help sustain superstition.

Now let us look at the second word ‘ethical’. This seems to be the most important word suggested by Sarukkai to counter superstition instead of ‘more science’. Perhaps he believes that the advances in Science are already enough to counter superstition and we do not need any more Science. I hope he did not mean ‘ethics’ instead of Science. Though most everyone would have heard about this word as well, let us look at what ‘ethics’ means. According to Google ‘ethics is a branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles’. Could this help in removing superstition? Let us first define ‘superstition’. According to Google, It is any belief or practice that is irrational. It is not obvious to me how ‘following any moral principles’ can stop ‘irrational belief’? Let me give you some examples.

One of the most widely held superstitious belief was that ‘earth was flat’. Aryabhatta, according to the Wikipedia page found today, has estimated the circumference of earth as 39,968 km, very close to the value accepted today, 40,075 km (5). Aristotle had also argued that earth was spherical.  I am not sure if we still have human beings who hold this belief. It agrees with what one can see in front of their eyes. If someone believes this, (s)he cannot be held immoral for propagating this view. (S)he is not deceiving or cheating anyone when claiming earth is flat. For others, (s)he is spreading a superstition as they know the fact that earth is not flat.

If this sounds like one of the tales from a distant past, I accidentally stumbled on a TV show recently, in which one Hindu scholar was comparing someone talking to the forefathers who have long been dead with someone using a mobile phone and talking to someone else living in America. He mentioned that in both cases we cannot see how our voice reaches them. I did not think his comparison was fair or scientific. He seemed pretty convinced with this analogy and offered it as a proof that we could communicate with our forefathers who are no longer alive. While I can understand, with Science, how a person from here can talk to another living person in America using a mobile phone, I do not know how to understand some one talking to his/her dead relative! I certainly would neither claim I understand everything nor would say if I don’t understand something it must be wrong. That scholar seems very convinced and clearly believed what he said. I do think it is a superstitious belief. If that scholar believes what he says, how can I say he is being immoral or unethical? If I find a way to prove or disprove his claim scientifically, it can convince many. If he believes what he says, ethics or moral would never stop him from doing this.

It so happens that a solar eclipse is expected today, on 21 August 2017! There have been a lot of superstitious believes about the solar eclipse (7). Science has dispelled many such superstitions. I am not sure if ethics could have ever done what Science did. I have been a Scientist by career and I do not claim Science will solve every problem humanity faces. That is not even the objective of Science. Science, in my view, is a pursuit to understand nature. Such understanding can be used or abused by scientists and other humans. When it is abused, those who abuse are lacking in moral/ethics. As far as superstitions are concerned, Science can dispel it with understanding. Could we have scientists who understand some things and do not reveal it to others? Yes, of course. However, by way of practice, Science encourages everyone to share what they have learned. As it is commonly known, Science encourages ‘publish or perish’ culture. Wouldn’t the Philosopher of Science, Sundar Sarukkai, be able to see the difference? I would think he can.

Sarukkai argues about scientists having different perceptions about how science is practiced. Let us look at ethics and morals. There is no common code of ethics or morals accepted by various societies now. Even within a same society, ethics and morals change with time. In the past, religion defined morality and we have had many of them. For example, Tamils think of Thirukkural as an important book prescribing ethics and morals for life. One of the Kural mentions that a wife who treats her husband as God will be powerful to demand and get rain from nature when she wants. It was perhaps written more than 2000 years ago. Today this Kural could be thought of us promoting patriarchy and suppressing women and dare I say, it is immoral and unethical. Bhagavad Gita talks about caste system, which I think is a very immoral system. It is indeed surprising to see that Sarukkai thinks ethics can fight superstition and not more science.

Today, most every nation has a constitution and rule of law. For the rule of law, ignorance is not a defense. Whether you are aware of it or not, if you do not follow the rules, you can be punished. Whether you like it or not, if you do not follow the rules, you can be punished. For example, I think it is silly to play the National Anthem before every movie and I hope the Supreme Court applies its mind soon and reverses it. However, until it does, whether I like it or not, if I go to a movie theater and do not stand up when the National Anthem plays, I can be booked for violating the rules. What about ethics and morals? Where is one supposed to find them? While some one ignorant of a law may do something illegal and face punishment if caught, ignorance of knowledge is not illegal or immoral or unethical. Refusing to learn is not illegal or immoral or unethical. A believer can choose to say Darwin is missing the grand design and refuse to read his book or the major advances in Science since his book. It is not illegal, immoral or unethical.

Many years ago, when I was a faculty in IIT Kanpur, one Professor from an Engineering Department of IIT Delhi, gave a talk with the title ‘How to solve all the problems in the World?’ As I was curious, I went to the talk. His advice was that we all read Bhagavatam and accept what it says in resolving conflicts.  At the end of the lecture, I told the speaker: What you have given us today is a way to create problems, not solve problems.

Einstein’s quote on science and religion is quoted often: ”Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. Following Sarukkai’s suggestion of ethics as an alternative to fight superstition, let me rephrase it: Science without Ethics is lame, Ethics without Science is blind! You cannot fight superstition without Science. By suggesting that ethics can solve the problem of superstition, is Sarukkai being unethical? He would be if he is spreading this message without believing it and misleading the reader. Lying would be considered immoral in every society or country, I assume. If he believes it, I cannot call him unethical! He is certainly being unscientific!

References (All links were accessed on 21 August 2017 and found to be working):

  1. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-march-from-yesterday/article19459043.ece
  2. https://thewire.in/166906/sundar-sarukkai-march-for-science-scientific-temper-fundamentalism/
  3. http://flexyble.blogspot.in/2017/08/what-construes-pseudoscience.html
  4. https://thewire.in/167673/sundar-sarukkai-march-for-science-superstition-lynching/
  5. https://thewire.in/169312/march-for-science-scientific-method-sociology/
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata
  7. https://www.bustle.com/p/11-creepy-superstitions-people-have-had-about-solar-eclipses-throughout-history-77240
Standard
Uncategorized

Science and humanity!: Gravitons and Lovons

Some of the recent happenings, which influenced me significantly, led me to think about gravity and love. While I cannot mention all those things in this blog, I should point out two. One is the last blog I wrote about the borders in Science and Nations (1). Many have discussed about the border between Science and Religion.  Maybe, I should write Science and Humanity, because I see that most of the religions have not managed to promote love, which is often proclaimed as one of their goals.  Another is a recent article published in the Journal Judgment and Decision Making titled On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound b—s— . (2)

I am almost convinced that many would have compared gravity and love and I am writing this blog without doing a Google search on these words together or a search in science or philosophical Journals. So this is my views, not influenced by others as yet. I started thinking about this analogy when I saw the authoritative article on pseudo-profund b—s—. I am reproducing one statement from the abstract:  “Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge b—s— statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief)”. Now you see why I thought of religion. This article appears to be an empirical study to understand why some people believe in statements that clearly appear to be ‘b—s—‘ to a Scientist or perhaps, a rationalist. Such empirical studies are accepted as good scientific procedures! The authors point out that “Despite these seemingly commonplace observations, we know of no psychological research on b—s—.” Such justifications are important for a scientific investigation on any problem.

Though all of us know gravity, we still do not know how gravity works. For example, if we have to take a mango (let me use a fruit that is native to where we live) from a tree, you can get a really long rod or tie together small rods with ropes, and tie a scythe at the end. Have a ladder or stool or go to the rooftop. Use this rod to reach the mango and cut it off from the branch by using the scythe. I have seen my father in law doing it in their house many times. Once the  mango is cutoff from the branch, it falls down. Gravity has helped us now. Mango was bound to the branch physically and a scythe was used to cutoff the link. Why does the mango fall down and not stay where it was or go up, when it’s link is cutoff! Of course, we all know it is due to gravity now.

We know electric and magnetic fields and we know that the opposite charges (poles) attract and like charges (poles) repel. Most students in physics may have done some experiments to look at the line of forces acting on magnetic materials. How does the earth pull the mango down? There are some speculations about ‘gravitons‘ which are hypothetical elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity. The wikipedia page on graviton looks reasonable (3). Basically we have a rope made of gravitons, that we cannot see, and it has pulled the mango down. Beyond this invisible gravitons, we know how gravity works. We can do experiments, make predictions, others can repeat our experiments and we all come to the same conclusions. Though, ‘graviton‘ cannot be seen, gravity is science!

Now let us look at how two people are attracted. We say they are in ‘love’ with each other. May be some one has done an empirical study, like the study on b—s— and come to conclusions about which two individuals may fall in love. I am not aware of them.’Love at first sight’ is a phrase commonly used. It is there from our Ramayanam (for Tamils, Ramayana for others) and the great poet Kamban says ‘அண்ணலும் நோக்கினார்  அவளும் நோக்கினாள்’ (‘annalum nokkinaar avalum nokkinaal’ which translates to ‘Rama looked at Sita and Sita looked at Rama at the same time). They fell in love and we have an epic. Do we have ‘lovons‘ that was mediating between Rama and Sita? Though they both fell in love, their marriage happens after Rama wins her in a contest and it was arranged.

I come from a background in which arranged marriage is still common and ‘love’ starts post marriage and it has worked very well for the most part. From the day of marriage, husband and wife live together and ‘love’ or affinity develops over a period of time. As I knew this would be the case in my life, and I really didn’t want to challenge this practice, I have somehow ensured that I would not possess any ‘lovons‘ or in case a girl were to send ‘lovons‘ to me, I would be transparent. It seems like, this attractive force of ‘love’ which could operate through the ‘imaginary particle lovon‘ can be controlled by humans, who have been conditioned to grow in a certain way. I do realize that, irrespective of the surroundings, some individuals can transmit and receive ‘lovons‘ and when they say they are in ‘love’, we cannot ask them to prove it. We have to accept it. I am not aware of any experiments that can be done to measure the ‘forces’ operating between them.

As with gravity, love is also attractive. If we have only attractive forces, it will be fatal and I am sure, many would have heard this term ‘fatal attraction’. When the mango falls down due to gravity, it will be crushed. We need to counter it with some repulsive forces, such as a cushioned bag, to collect the mango when it falls so that mango is not hurt and then taste the king of fruit. Even as I write, my love for mango is kindling my emotions and my mouth started watering. My love for mango started working. The gravitational force between earth and moon is balanced by the centrifugal force as they revolve around themselves and also the sun, resulting in a stable orbit. Between two people who are attracted by love, there has to be a ‘repulsive force’, one can see this as the space required for the individuals to exist independently, for a stable relationship. If this space is not provided, ‘love’ would not be enough to hold them together.

This article on ‘profound b—s—‘ concludes that those who are religious tend to accept ‘profound b—s—‘ more readily than others. Every religion promotes love. I come from a ‘shaivite’ family (people worshiping Shiva’ and we say ‘அன்பே சிவம்’ (anbae sivam, which means Shiva is nothing but love’) Christ said ‘love thy neighbour’. I am not sure if scientists will ever be able to explain the forces of ‘love’. That is for philosophers, I suppose. If only we can find ways to promote love, world will be a great place. We may never be able to discover ‘lovons‘ but we know love is real, may be not scientific. We may or may not be able to discover ‘gravitons‘ but we know gravity is real and scientific.

Perhaps we should stop comparing science and religion. Perhaps we should start giving equal emphasis for science and social science in schools and colleges. Without a doubt, religion has been used to exploit people and and kill each other as well. Religion does not encourage questioning and science does. Faith by definition cannot be questioned. Science starts by questioning what we observe. Ideally religion should promote love and science could be indifferent to this. Did Einstein say “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind’? (4) I have also heard people saying ‘love is blind’.

  1. https://earunan.org/2016/09/20/borders-in-science-and-nation-the-need-for-them-and-the-need-to-have-a-healthy-disrespect-for-them/ Accessed on 24 September 2016.
  2. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html Accessed 24 September 2016
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Accessed 24 September 2016.
  4. 4. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins161289.html Accessed on 24 September 2016
Standard
Uncategorized

Borders in Science and Nation: The need for them and the need to have a healthy disrespect for them!

Tamil is an ancient language that has been around for several millennia. Several philosophers have written poetry, which are very old, but their content remains applicable for all the times. One such poem was written by Kanian Poongundranaar during the Tamil Sangam (which are perhaps comparable to Academic Societies today) period, which started around 300 BC (1). This poem starts as: யாதும் ஊரே யாவரும் கேளிர் (Yaadhum Oorae, yaavarum kaelir), loosely translated as “All towns are the same and all people are our kin”. This is depicted in the United Nations Organization for the profound truth it conveys (2). The translation given in the Wikipedia page quoted says ‘all men are our kin’. This is incorrect and ‘all are our kin’ is the right translation. He did not envision any borders between towns!

I have written earlier about how I became a physical chemist, bordering physics and chemistry. I have been in the editorial advisory board of Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (PCCP), a Journal published by the Owner societies. The title of the Journal implies that the border between physics and chemistry are thin and either can be the first or last name, for the sub-discipline. More importantly, this Journal showed how borders between the nation-states of Europe had become thin. This Journal combined several favorite Journals in physical chemistry published in various nations in the UK and Europe (among them were two Journals named after two of the greatest scientists of all time, Faraday and Bunsen, Faraday Discussion, published in UK and ‘Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft für physikalische Chemie‘ published in German). PCCP has established itself as one of the leading Journals in this area. Brexit may have happened but I am confident that PCCP will continue, at least, for my lifetime. It is published by the Owner Societies, which has many of the European Chemical Societies as its members. A few years ago, Chemistry, an Asian Journal came into existence as well.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, I remember learning that chemistry is a study of matter and physics is a study of energy. Of course, Einstein’s famous equation E = mc^2 was already known having energy on the left hand side and matter (it’s mass) on the right hand side. One can translate this equation as physics = chemistry. However, still physics and chemistry as individual and independent disciplines exist and it may continue to exist. One subtle difference, that would be lost in this generalization is that chemists worry more about how atoms combine to form molecules or liquids or solids. They worry about the interactions between them and how they transform from one to another. Study of making and breaking bonds between atoms is indeed chemistry. Though atomic physics exists, there is no atomic chemistry. Atoms have to join together for chemistry!

Science, as a pursuit of understanding nature really cannot have a border. However, it is important to have disciplines and sub-disciplines, and sub-sub-disciplines and for individual researchers, focus on one specific problem in a narrow sub-discipline is needed. Divide and conquer works. One soon realizes that even to solve a specific problem in Science, it is important to have contributions from many disciplines. Again, taking a personal example, we have established experimental laboratories in India, where we can make the weakest bond, even between inert gases such as argon and neon and study them with a pulsed nozzle Fourier transform microwave spectrometer. We can also break the strongest bond, the triple bond between two N atoms in N2, in a single pulse shock tube. In both laboratories, building the experimental facilities involved knowledge of mechanical engineering, electronics and communication engineering, vacuum techniques, physics, chemistry and, of course, maths. One lifetime is not enough to learn all these thoroughly but even to talk to experts in all these area one needs to understand these subjects to some extent. It is important to collaborate and that involves mutual trust and respect. Learning all these subjects is not trivial and may require different skills one person may not be able to acquire. None of this skills are more important than others.

We have had humans on this earth for 200,000 years or more.  Currently, we have more than 7 billion people on our earth and they are distributed in about 250+ countries. We started living in caves, feeling secure and hunting animals, migrated to plains, started farming, developed languages to communicate with each other and started developing codes  of conduct so that we can all coexist. We really had no choice about whether to exist, but having come in to this world, we had to find ways to coexist. Religion was found and religious texts prescribed rules for life. Eventually, over the last few hundred years, the nation-state model has started working well. Most nations are democratic and they have a constitution to guide them with elected representatives who have a fixed term.

Given the size of this world, it is not practical to be governed by one ruler or executive and so we have many countries, which are divided in to states, which are divided into districts, and so on. And we have the United Nations. Any conflict in smaller entities is resolved by discussion and arbitration, with mutually agreed rules. While these borders are needed for practical purposes, as the borders in Science, we need to realize that these are arbitrary and came in to existence rather recently. As much as a chemist has no reason to hate a physicist, I don’t see any reason for a person from one district or state or country to hate another one from a different district or state or country. One could add, language and religion as well, which are drawing borders between people. As it is true in the border areas of science, one can note that in the borders drawn based on language, religion, state, nations etc… there is really no big difference between the two sides.

Those from India now are worried about two things as a nation. Tension in the borders between India and Pakistan and the tension in the borders between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. When we realize that the senior leader of the ruling party BJP, Advani was born in what is Pakistan today, one can get a different perspective. Hosur, a small town in Tamil Nadu, bordering Karnataka, has it’s name in Kannada (Hosur in Kannada means new town). I have been to temples 60 km north of Bangalore (Yoganarasimha temple), where I saw the statues of 13 Aalwargal (Vaishnavite saints, following Vishnu as their God) who wrote poems in Tamil. Clearly the borders have been drawn recently. If we use them for any reason other than administrative simplicity. we will have problems.

Scientists know the importance of collaboration. Again, taking an example from a field that has excited me i.e. the hydrogen bond, one of the most important paper was published recently in Science, from China through a collaboration between physicists and chemists (3). They could see ‘the hydrogen bond’, when seeing atoms and molecules were thought to be impossible, not so long ago! Readers having no access to Science, may not be able to read it and anyone interested is welcome to read a commentary I wrote in Current Science, which is available online with free access (4). Naturally, when people from across the borders work together, they can achieve lot more than what is possible when they work independently. However, not only in Science, but also in human relations, mutual trust and respect are important. When that is lost, there will be tension,war, destruction …. Sooner or later, people realize that, it is better to develop mutual trust and respect and find ways to coexist.

I recommend an autobiograpy written by Prof. Curt Wittig from the University of Southern California (5). It is long but worth reading. A part of this was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry A in a Festchrift in his honor a few years ago. He has done some beautiful experiments in physical chemistry that helped in understanding the microscopic details of how chemical reactions happen. From his autobiography, one can learn a few things about the nations and their borders in Europe. The city in which he was born kept changing hands to different countries. His experiences in the Chicago southern neighborhood is unbelievable. It also shows that where you started in life hardly matters. Given the right opportunities, you can excel in your career and life.

In closing, let me reiterate: One should not take any of the borders too seriously, if one is interested in real progress. In the references below, two are to Wikipedia pages and they have to be understood as unauthenticated information.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_period Accessed on 20 September 2016.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaniyan_Pungundranar Accessed on 20 September 2016.
  3. J. Zhang, P. Chen, B. Yuan, W. Ji, Z. Cheng, X. Qiu, Science,Vol. 342, Issue 6158, pp. 611-614 2013. Link: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/611
  4. E. Arunan, Curr. Sci. VOL. 105, NO. 7, pp 892-894.  Link: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/105/07/0892.pdf
  5. C. Wittig autobiography, longer version available at http://www.curtwittig.com/wp-content/uploads/curt-wittig-autobio.pdf
Standard