Do Indian scientists get what they deserve?
A NON-SCIENTIFIC approach and closed-door decision-making in the sanctioning of grants, are blamed for hampering scientific research in India -particularly in government laboratories. This is one of the findings in a recent study of the problems of Jllanagement of scientific research, conducted by the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), Delhi.
Leading Indian scientists, including M G K Menon, Yash Pal and C N R Rao, agree that career advancement in India depends more on favouritism than on the quality of work. "This prompted us to find out whether this view is shared by the researcher in the laboratory," says Ashok lain, director of NIST ADS. Often, however, the best talent is not available because the cream of engineering and science institutions opt for the civil services or jobs in management as these are associated with power and glamour. "Research is therefore a second choice at best," says H P Garg, who heads the Centre of Energy Studies at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.
Promotions and grants V Mohanan, a scientist at the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, notes that when promoting scientists at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) under the Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme, 30 per cent weightage is given to confidential reports drawn up by the departmental head; another 30 per cent to evaluation by a senior scientist and . the remaining 40 per cent on the candidate's these are (J interview.
The NISTADS study shows more than half the respondents said career advancement is decided by favouritism rather than the quality of the candidate's work, that the institutional environment is unhealthy for research and professional experience does not count during recruitment. Instead, recruitment is influenced by academic qualifications, papers published in foreign journals and having connections with people in authority.
As many as 44 per cent of the respondents said research institutes are run on the basis of authority, as is the case with most government institutes, and so cannot provide the intellectually stimulating environment needed for research. And, about 45 per cent agreed that young researchers do not get adequate recognition for their work and their seniors tended to hijack the credit.
In another interesting finding, 45 per cent of scientist- of respondents rated as inadequate type level of their dialogue with their colleagues and counterparts on professional matters.
The track record of researchers in privately run laboratories is better than those in government-funded bodies and the reason ascribed by B K Raizada, vice-president of Ranbaxy Laboratories, is that private sector researchers are under a far greater degree of accountability, but they enjoy more flexibility. "We handle our scientific personnel with kid gloves," says Raizada. "They have highly irregular working hours, schedules and demands. Therefore, our R&D set-up is totally delinked from the other departments that operate on a more set pattern."
A senior official at Engineers India Ltd comments that while such flexibility can give an R&D department a sense of independence, it d6es not mean that there is a greater degree of professional satisfaction than in a government laboratory . lain, meanwhile, suggests that more open functioning of scientific establishments is needed to make them more acceptable to scientists. This, he adds, involves making public why a research project is being evaluated, how grants are sanctioned and how project proposals are approved. This would put moral pressure on R&D decision-makers and, lain maintains, result in better quality research.