Is India a Science Superpower?

Not quite, says Meera Nanda, philosopher of science, in this 2005 article in Frontline, which ends with these words:

If India wants to become a genuine "science superpower", Indian scientists will have to do much more than just get integrated into the global pecking order of corporate research and development. They will have to develop a genuine culture of open, fearless questioning and experimentation within their laboratories and in the larger culture outside the walls of the laboratory.

This will require an overhaul of science education so that science is not treated as merely a matter of rote learning of technical formulas, but is integrated into a new secular understanding of nature and life. It is not enough for the institutions of higher learning in India to produce doctors and engineers who can perform well in the West, or in the IT/BT jobs imported from the West. They must produce critical thinkers who are engaged with larger issues that affect the cultural climate of their societies.

Until then, India will remain the "pseudo-science superpower" of the world.

I haven't read much by Nanda. While this article seems reasonable, other bits I've read—like the opening pages of Prophets Facing Backwards—seem to me rather shrill and simplistic, and her analysis of modern India too reliant on caricatures of both "postmodern intellectuals" (ascribing them too much influence in India) and the religious. It was no surprise when I noticed Dennett's endorsement of her book, which her publisher has paired with Dawkins' on Amazon. To her credit, she has sharply distanced herself from Harris. If I can motivate myself to read her forthcoming, God and Globalization in India, I'll attempt a proper review.

Comments

[Usha]

She does come across as a bit shrill, but she makes some points that need to be made. Interestingly, did you notice she works for the Templeton Foundation?

[vp]

I find the question and the premise itself more than a little exasperating. In order to get some perspective, consider these questions:

1. In the last 60 years, how many Nobel prizes have Indian scientists (as opposed to India-born scientists) won ?

2. What major fundamental discoveries have Indian scientists made ? How many life-saving drugs have been developed in India ? What major technological breakthroughs can be attributed to Indian scientists ?

Superpower indeed. India is as much of a science superpower as it is a medal-winning powerhouse at the olympic games.

[Namit]

I took the question to be rhetorical.

It struck me that if each culture is seen as a middle-aged patient with multiple ailments—in this case, India—Nanda, I think, does a good job of describing many symptoms. Beyond that, I largely see the skills of a pharmacist on the diagnosis front, and those of a quack for the cure.

[Meera Nanda]

Oh well. I may not be as smart as you all and your intellectual heroes. But why are you all sitting so silently. Instead of condemning me, come out and condemn the deadwood of falsified ideas ...

[vp]

Assuming that the comment posted above is indeed coming from Meera Nanda:

Ms Nanda,

I can't speak for Namit and Usha and their views regarding your work, but I find that you have not addressed the issues I raised in my comment. I still maintain that the question itself is silly. We have to understand that science and technology are related but different things. Just having a large pool of technically trained workers, many of whom are barely competent, does not make a country a "science superpower", genuine or otherwise. To pursue my sports analogy further, just because we have a billion people in India who can run doesn't mean we have international level athletes.

I also sense no specific aspiration in Indian culture of wanting to become a "science superpower". There is a sense of pride and much hype, especially in the media, when Indian scientists win awards or when India's government science and technology establishments accomplish something. That however, is not very different from the hype at the Oscars awarded to Slumdog Millionaire.

Finally, I have to say that in addition to being surprised by your petulance in your comment, I am afraid I find even the brief extract of your Frontline article to be replete with moralizing platitudes.

I would welcome further debate on this, if you are so inclined.

[Ruchira]

Leaving aside "shrillness & petulance," and perhaps the underlying cause, aren't VP's and Nanda's assessment of the end result more or less the same?

[Namit]

Ms. Nanda,

Thanks for stopping by. I'm traveling in Southeast Asia so I'll have to keep this brief. I will have more time in the third week of May and can then engage more if you wish. One thing I will acknowledge upfront is that my critique of your work was based on limited familiarity with it—a couple of articles, and two chapters of a book. It is possible that I might refine my views after reading more.

Having said that, I find implicit in your comment above an idea that I have to disagree with: that condemning the "deadwood of falsified ideas" is a better use of one's time than condemning how it is often done by so many self-avowed rationalists. Seems to me that you underestimate the harm that can come from the latter. Those who do the how well, I believe, are alert to at least the following:

-- Many falsified ideas have no obvious moral disadvantages and may be best left alone
-- We often do not know what to replace "falsified ideas" with, how, and to what justifiable end
-- Talk is cheap and it is easy to lash out against the "deadwood" on a blog or book with no further costs of engagement
-- The few falsified ideas we react against are driven by our highly subjective concerns, assumptions, and experiences
-- There is a lot other than "falsified ideas" that one ought to resist in moral, political, and economic life

And so on. How one criticizes the "deadwood of falsified ideas" has parallels in politics too: for e.g., the wise political philosopher knows when, on what grounds, how, and to what extent is it prudent to push democracy on them others. You surely get the drift.