Specific goal and specific evaluation parameter should be the basis of development for all Indian Institutes.
B. B. Goel
Tuesday, 11 August 2009 12:39 UTC
India has so many national institutes and central universities but almost none have any clear mandate (no sane person really cares what is mentioned in its websites or published in annual reports). Few Institutes had some clear mandates but their research activities, proud showpiece publications are not much related to their stated objectives as mentioned when they were established. Sometime ago VC of influential universities like JNU used to either get a brand new Institute of his own or become a federal minister of science and technology. That time politicians used to think that scientists and academicians are very learned person and they only can meet our scientific and technological requirements. But since last few years politicians do not think that way. They realized that they (politicians) can not do worse job as compared to those “scientists”. Now they do not want to waste any ministerial post for those people while there are so many aspiring candidates to satisfy in this era of coalition politics. Till few years ago if you were the DBT chairman, your hubby will have no problem to have his new Institute, your son will get an “international faculty” position in Delhi Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Many such institutes recruit on the basis of what those founding father (of such Institutes) desires. Many of us assumed that they definitely recruited the best person as per their own experiences, as they were “honest” and “successful” scientists, as we know from Indian media. I assume they recruited as per academic record, publications, awards etc (“standard” set of rules, you know), although some people allege that representation of people from certain geographical area and specific institute/university is way above any logical explanation. Anyway, now evaluate those pet institutes, institutes like Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Studies or NIPGR etc according to its performance. Surely nowhere near international standard. That’s the picture for majority of Indian Institutes. Why so? What went wrong? What India, as a country, achieved from the national recourses we spent on such institutes?
Will it not be prudent to set specific goals for each Institute? That goal should be set on the basis of INDIAN socio-economic requirements, not on the basis of what a faculty used to do in US or other countries. Do not let the faculties throw all over the places and produce nothing but some scattered publications. Monitor their progress on the basis of that mandate. Remunerate ALL the faculties (including Director) and other staff on that basis. Set proper punitive measures if they fail to meet the mandated goal of the Institute. More remuneration you ask, more responsibility you need to take and in case of failure you will be punished at maximum level. Recruit the director on that basis and then give him total freedom to recruit. Every person may have his/her own criteria on judging research and scientific potential. Let him exercise him personal thinking and hold him accountable for his actions. It is useless to device golden rules to select new faculties while not having any such criteria for existing faculties and above all for the director who is responsible to develop and maintain the team, work culture and overall responsibility for all the policies of that organization. If some productive scientist or any other staff think that s/he is being unreasonably penalized for no fault of him/her, s/he will get out of that institute to save his financial and career development.
This is my idea. Let others suggest if that is the better way to approach to improve Indian research or if they have other alternatives. Specific goal and specific evaluation parameter should be the basis of development for all Indian Institutes.
Updated 11 August 2009 14:58 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Anonymous
Indian Govt or specific agency responsible for that Institute should promise a minimum financial support for a specific time frame. After certain time, the Institute should generate a certain percentage of its expenditure through its own research. Aspiring candidates for the Director position should agree with the Institute’s scientific-technological and financial mandate.
-
Good suggestions. I fully agree. But the main question is: CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED?
The only way is to put forward such recommendations to our national policy makers first, before it get lost-in-translation among our self-serving scientific community. -
Anonymous
The general attitude in higher positions in Indian science (and many other institutions) is: I can be an average Joe but I want a genius Sam to work under me. You can tell me how I can select genius Sam, as I can not judge a genius myself (as you can understand). Now we all can discuss how stringently we can evaluate those Sams. If they do not pass our quality standard I can easily throw him out and look for another Sam. But we all must agree that it’s the fault of Sams if the Institute I run or the department I take care can not perform properly.
This is evident from the functioning of almost every Institute, including IITs. -
Anonymous
This is good idea but difficult to implement. First thing is selection of director, you need to hire from abroad in order to get proven scientist. Why highly successful scientist will join govt. job (Maximum Rs 1 lacks). What is guarantee that director will be honest, getting honest person in todays time is nearly impossible. Once you give full power, person may misuse power. For his failure, he will blame junior staff. Even you know person have not perform as per standard you can not make him out of job as court protect jobs. What is guarantee that reviewers, who will evaluate performance will be honest. Top scientists also support each other, even they know that institute is not performing still they give positive report because they also know in some committee this director will be one of the reviewer in their assessment. This is not problem in India even in publication of international journals, lobbying help to grow.
What will be definition of performance, how to assess the performance of this new institute, if we are not publishing paper or patent then we start to give argument; publishing is not important; top scientist in the world publish only two papers etc. Human is not perfect wherever they have chance to manipulate they take full advantage. In case of science, assessment is subjective as one can not be accessed based on numbers, this is the reason people are taking full advantage of system.
-
Anonymous
In-fact most of us is not interested in fair system. We wants a system where we are most comfortable or valuable. If we are publishing then we wants scientist should be assesses based on publication, if we are doing technology we wants assessment based on patent etc. Even if we do not publish/patent we wish that we should be assessed based on other criteria like interview, report etc. One side we say indian institute are not doing good because they are not publishing other side we said publishing is not important. Some time we believe in hard work in science other side we start to talk that enjoying life is more important then to working like scientific labour in US. This is the reason blogs are not popular in general public, most of the time repetition of same stuff nothing to do with topic.
-
Some excellent points been raised in previous comments. Yes, I fully accept that human being has a tendency to promote him/herself. And that’s why we need law; we need some PRE-selected parameters to judge “success” or any socially acceptable behavior. Now those people who are entrusted to do the job of pre-selection should follow a broader consensus on what they are trying to achieve and ask for public opinion. In this case I think personally: First development of India, secondly via science and technology (as we are trained in that area and now discussing it). OK. Agreed so far?
Now determine what should be the priority for India to invest money on? Should we give more importance on AIDS, Cancer, Alzheimer, Parkinson’s, Malaria, TB and so on. In agriculture should we emphasize on producing single chain antibodies or therapeutic proteins in plants or producing draught tolerant crop plants that can be cultivated in India. So we need to set our broader target depending on specific needs of the country. Each subject has very specific requirement. We must not waste money on moon mission or extra terrestrial life but on drip irrigation, water conservation, renewable energy sufficiency, urban planning, public sanitation etc.
Agreed so far?Will we agree that publication is the by-product of doing good science (leave the “reality” for the time being)? If I can provide a feasible solution of solar energy in deserts of Rajasthan without asking few billion USD for “research” (to develop sophisticated computer program to run mirrors exactly towards sun as I might have the training in Arizona and knows that), then, as a policy maker, I will give such grant proposal more importance than investing on cyclotron or cold fission research for meeting our energy requirement. But that cheap solution may not need great technology or can generate great papers but a welcome solution for a national problem (with potential for export to some countries with similar condition). Or think of a drip irrigation technology to produce crops in arid regions. That also will not give Cell/Science/Nature paper but very effective. We need to remember that science and technology NEVER can make a country superpower but once a country becomes a super-power, it becomes science power house (as evident by history of science evolution: NATURE. 2008. 545: 412-413).
There are many countries that could not put satellite into orbit by its own or have nuclear powered submarines but can provide higher literacy rate, better education, less civil conflict, drinking water for all, better road, better public health and sanitation and so on. In short, better quality of life for its people. BTW, I am not against those, but we need to remember our national constrains. We are not a country where 78% people give tax and having hundreds of billions of USD as R&D budget. Once we reach that stage we surely can do many fancy, “ground-braking” researches. These did not need ground breaking research but achieved much higher in terms of general public or as a country. Check countries like Chili, Argentina, Poland, Romania, Brazil, China and many others. Take a representative picture of a city/village in those countries and compare with that with India.
When we discuss Science, we forget our bigger picture, our social and national obligations and constrains. So I really get annoyed when a scientist ask “same salary of US” then I love to ask him how much do you think a police constable or a school teacher should get; how much you should pay for your milk and rice, what should be the income of a common farmer? No, I did not ask those questions as I know that he has not reached that maturity and level of honesty to understand my Qs.
We never prefer to see the world through the eyes of a policy maker. Lack of planning is almost everywhere in India, including science. -
Anonymous
Surely “blogs are not popular” with some people when average Joes start telling the truth and demand accountability. Internet is by far the best innovation of science of last century. It gave general public a voice to reach other people and make a bigger forum to build public opinions. Some naive people in guise of scientist never bother to check what common people can do with blogging in countries like Iran in recent days.
-
Anonymous
Ruler community in feudal India will never like the idea that people have started asking questions, demanding accountability. They are self-obsessed with the idea that they are doing great job. India is doing great. Blue eyed elites never like red eyed people to raise questions but expect them to solve the problems they offer. Only those questions raised by our privileged section is valid, everything else is “out of topic”.
Probably India needs to wait for a Pralhad in the regime of demons who can think about reality, about the country. It’s much better to discuss such ideas, new ideas with politicians, may be like Rahul Gandhi or someone like him who still have the honesty and dream to make a better India than majority of our self-serving, so-called scientists who reign supreme in post-independent India. -
Anonymous
If a person does not know what type of team s/he likes to build to achieve the stated target, then, s/he does not deserve to be the team leader, the director.
A director should decide how much resource he needs to allocate for basic research and how much on applied research depending on monetary support he received for his institute. If he can not do it then he is not fit for that job.
What is the problem to pre-determine a specific number of publications of specific quality (in journals with certain impact factor) to those allocated for basic research and specific number of patent/product within a specified time for those allocated for applied research and make all those criteria public and bounding to all research staff?
Publication of CVs for ALL the scientific and administrative staff also should be mandatory in any institute that receives public money from Govt. -
Anonymous
Sorry but please know the truth about the person before laminating him Honest (with due respect) in case of Politicians.
Ask his secretory how many students he has jacked for several scholarships by Indian govt in all fields. May be none or may be many ;)
Results
-
