SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY – A STITCH IN TIME
Vivek Monteiro
THE recent letter signed by 26 eminent scientists and academics addressed to the principal scientific advisor of the government of India, in response to the 2024 Vigyan Yuva S S Bhatnagar awards is remarkable and important in many ways.
Firstly, because the signatories are among the most distinguished and highly awarded persons in the country in the fields of the physical sciences, life sciences and mathematics. All 26 are previous recipients of the S S Bhatnagar (SSB) award – which is the highest national award to young scientists for outstanding work in science and mathematics. Two of the signatories are sitting directors of premier national and international institutes – the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences (ICTS) (Bengaluru), and the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) (Trieste, Italy). Two others are former directors of the premier science institutes – Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR)(Mumbai) and the National Centre for Biological Studies (NCBS)(Bengaluru). All the signatories are distinguished faculty in what are indisputably among the most prestigious teaching and research institutes in the country and the world.
The letter was written in the background of the following sequence of events. The SSB awardees are selected by a rigorous process of review by an expert committee of senior scientists. This year, two names from the list of selected young scientists for the VYSSB award recommended by the aforementioned committee were dropped and did not appear in the final list of awardees.
The letter interrogates the procedure employed for making the final selection. It puts on record that “unfair non-scientific considerations may have influenced the final list of this year’s awardees overriding the recommendations of the expert committee”. It highlights “the need to preserve the integrity of this prestigious award”. It concludes with the statement: “In order to uphold the integrity of the Bhatnagar award, we seek assurance that the procedures and criteria for determining Vigyan Yuva Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar awards are fully fair, transparent and free of extraneous considerations”.
The two names dropped are those of theoretical physicist Suvrat Raju, who is a full professor of physics at the ICTS, and astrophysicist Prateek Sharma, associate professor at the IISc. Both scientists have publicly articulated their views on various issues of national importance, in which they also make it clear that these views are put forward in a personal capacity as citizens and not as representatives of their parent institutions.
Last year the Modi government had abolished all earlier government awards for scientific achievement and replaced these by a ‘Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar Committee’ process with awards in four categories . That this process has been interrogated in the first year itself by the most senior and reputed scientists and academics in the country is a development whose importance cannot be underestimated.
The letter is carefully and thoughtfully worded. It asserts and affirms the integrity of the scientific process which must be ‘fully fair and transparent’ and “free of extraneous consideration”. Many of the signatories are still in service. They may not be permitted by service regulations to make public statements contrary to government policy in their official capacity. But they are permitted, in fact, mandated, to uphold the integrity of the scientific process, in their official capacity, as scientists.
This mandate is derived not only from their profession as scientists. As citizens of India, they are also required to uphold ‘scientific temper’, by article 51 A of the Indian constitution, as a fundamental duty. The government itself, is equally mandated to uphold scientific temper. Scientific temper, as defined in the seminal 1981 “Statement on Scientific Temper” asserts “that the fullest use of the method of science in everyday life and in every aspect of human endeavour from ethics to politics and economics, is essential for human survival and progress”.
The letter may not result in any change in the decision regarding the award, though the government would undoubtedly earn both goodwill and credibility if it did rectify its decision in response to the letter. What it has already achieved is a redefinition of boundaries. It will enthuse and invigorate the scientific community of the country, especially the young scientists, to ‘think scientifically, and act scientifically’.
The willingness to ask questions is the core of the scientific process. One of the key slogans of the movement to promote scientific temper in our country is “Ask Why”. Scientific temper thus requires a democratic polity for its proper exercise. What the letter highlights is that the exercise of scientific temper can also strengthen democratic politics. Just as the judiciary is an essential check on arbitrary and unjustified exercise of political power, the collective efforts of the scientific community in its own way can also become an effective check on arbitrary and unjustified exercise of authority. In this age of science and technology, scientific scrutiny can become as important as judicial scrutiny.