Modern Science in Kerala

Dr M.S. Valiathan


I will touch briefly on certain aspects of science and technology development in Kerala especially in the last 30 years. We must remember that science and technology did not begin in Kerala 30 years ago. We have a very long history of science and technology especially in the field of medicine and mathematics. There are some interesting aspects to it- we did not do pioneering work in either of them.

Old Traditions in medicine, mathematics

In the field of medicine, all the great contributions were made in North India. All the samhitas –Susruta, Charaka, ashtanga hridaya, everything was written in the North in the earlier part of Christian Era,some even earlier. What Kerala did was take them, adapt them and expand them. In Ayurveda, we have made our stamp. We have made a number of contributions and a general flavor to ayurveda. Many innovations were made, eg; Sahasrayoga. We were innovators building on something someone else had developed.

You would find the same pattern in mathematics. You have heard of Aryabhatta who lived in the 4th Century in Bihar. His great work Aryabhatiya in a matter of two or three centuries was virtually forgotten in the North mainly because it came under very severe opposition from astronomers like Varahamihira. In fact, they contradicted Arya Bhatta- if earth was spinning we would all be falling down. They ridiculed Aryabhatta’s views, with the result Aryabhatiyam was virtually forgotten in the North but strange to say by 7th century Aryabhatiyam has surfaced in Kerala.

Extraordinarily, out of the 17 commentaries in Aryabhatiya, 12 were composed in Kerala. In fact I used to think not long ago that Aryabhatta was a Keralite but actually he was born in Bihar. So you will find that we have laid the foundation for Kerala School of Mathematics. These were in the 15th, 16th, 17th centuries-we have a series of beautiful mathematicians making very great contribution, all based on Aryabhatta’s work. So you will find in both the branches of science—medicine and mathematics, the Kerala genius lay in building up something on which foundations has been laid elsewhere. So we do have a tradition but not in science as we know today but the pre-modern. Modern science began in the 19th century. There are some interesting features here also.

Marked Difference between the response in Bengal and Kerala

In the second half of nineteenth century, modern science came to India especially in Calcutta. Presidency College and its founder made tremendous contributions to the earlier scientific inventions. Mahindra Sarka who found the Indian Association for Culitivation of Science where C.V.Raman worked later was much inspired by the founder of Presidency College. One of the students there was the renowned J.C.Bose.

Teaching; little creative research

Modern science came to Travancore also at the same time. I am not very much aware of the Cochin history. And teachers of University College here had English, Science and other teachers coming from Scotland. They were teaching science here as well as in Calcutta. But I have found a very strange difference between here and Calcutta. There J.C.Bose, a student did experiments in radio waves that he discovered in 1890. P.C.Ray did experimental work in chemistry. They were doing investigative science which was some how not done in Kerala. Here we have great teachers teaching science, sharing the excitement of science but did not succeed in making original contributions. That is why in the first half of the 20th century the same trend continued and you will not see the equivalent of Ramanujam here. Ramanujam was a class by himself. We did not have an equivalent of Ray in Chemistry. We did not have a Sahni in Botany, we did not have a Raman or J.C.Bose in Physics. We could not produce a Vishweswaraya in Engineering. So we find we had very distinguished people, scholarly and bright but doing science was not a strong point in Kerala.

S&T Council: a landmark of 1970s

In 1970, therefore I consider it a great land mark historically that for the first time the National Council for Science and Technology, Government of India had produced a great report, authored by CNR Rao that recommended the setting up of a Department of Science and Technology in India. C.Subramaniam took up the initiative and set it up. And it was recommended that all states follow it up by setting up their own departments of science and technology.

Kerala sets up pioneering development institutions

Kerala was one among the first to set up a department of science and technology attached to Planning. Achutha Menon was the Chief Minister, a far sighted leader and Dr. P.K.Gopalakrishnan, he was the secretary, Planning and he was the engine for much of the progress made by the State. And they set up a chain of institutions—the first was Centre for Development Studies, the next was Keltron followed by Srichitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Science and Technology, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, NATPAC, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute among others. Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology that came later, not during the Achutha Menon era was the last in the series.

If you look at all these institutions, they were not set up haphazardly—it had a certain pattern and vision within. If you look at developmental economics—the Centre for Development Studies in 1975 produce a great report which later on came to be known as the Kerala Model of Development. That was a contribution CDS made to economics which the whole world has taken note of. In infrastructure we have NATPAC, CESS is part of bio-resources along with KFRI and RGCB. For medium and small industry, we had Keltron and Srichitra Institute.

You can very will see the grand vision in all these instituitions which was set up and they were all supposed to do specific functions. They were all expected to address certain areas of HRD and instituitional development and overall development of the Kerala economy. This is what they were supposed to do and they were all designed in that fashion. Kerala’s research instituitions had a role different from that of universities. They had a different role compared to CSIR labs because the State resources are smaller. When science and technology is taken up at the state level it must have local relevance and a local flavor. That was understood even at that time.

S &T Evaluation :Difficult

How do you evaluate the performance of these instituitions? This brings us to the question of science and technology evaluation. It is an extremely difficult thing to do. Infact, at Indian National Science Academy, we have been fighting this issue—how to evaluate impact of science on Indian economy, Indian society, and we found that there was no; universally agreed indicators for this. There are countries doing this, United States of America in particular. The US National Science Foundation which produces a report every two years, is sent to the US President. It is prepared on the lines of the World Science Report. The report is prepared by economists, econometricians, statisticians and so on.These are the people who actually produce the report and it is considered so important because it has a direct impact on the US science policy. If they found that mathematics education is week, the government would immediately invest more on mathematics education. So it is a direct correlation and input for policy making.

In India, the National Science Board was very keen on producing a similar report. I talked to a number of people including Dr K.N.Raj and statisticians in 2002. But no progress was achieved even after six months. Finally, I spoke to Dr Manmohan Singh, who was not Prime Minister at that point of time. I approached him because he was a very wise person. He also felt it is very important but but at the same time a difficult task. He advised me to contact the National Council for Applied Economic Research. And they have taken up this task. It has taken 2.5 years to complete the task-by December 2004, the report should be ready and Rs 2.5 cr was spent on it. We got primary data for evaluation because much of the data published by UGC, Department of Science and Technology was not of a good quality and not suited for statistical analysis. If you look at the PhDs produced in numbers-they do not match. If you look at DST and DBT figures they do not add up. They told us that quality of data is poor and therefore, naturally the analysis would be worthless. We say, interest in science is declining and enrolment in science is dropping. What is it due to? We say it is because of information technology and biotechnology which are pulling students away. But on what data, what basis have you reached this conclusion?

This can be properly understood only if we talk to the students, teachers, parents and go to the grass roots to collect data. It is an expensive proposition because of its all-India nature. Similarly, is it always the case that S&T progress in India was possible because of investments made in research and development? It is not. We have not made any conscious investments in poultry research. But India is a world leader in this industry without any conscious thrust area research undertaken by DST or DBT. These are things that need to be studied. NCAER is doing that study. Ofcourse, we have not done a similar study for Kerala. In the absence of such studies, the criteria we use for measuring are conventional ones. If it is basic science, we estimate it on the basis of number of papers published in high impact journals-at least two.
If you are working in applied science, the we have to look at patents, technology transfer to industry or socially important low technology advancement like poultry, blood bag—not high technology but socially very important. Blood bags sustain the blood transfusion service in the country. Therefore, it is very important.

Kerala’s S&T —unimpressive performance

In adopting these criteria we have certain problems. We do not have done something in Kerala as NCAER is doing. Those indicators need to be developed because what is relevant at the national level may have to be altered if they are to be relevant in Kerala. Here if you look at the major impact on development, infrastructure, bio-resources, industrial development—the results are unimpressive. Publications in high impact journals in the field of basic sciences—here again the contributions are minimal.
This is what I have found on the basis of my analysis of the last 30 years. For example, take infrastructure- in biotechnology we do not have as in Tamilnadu or Andhra Pradesh a cluster of industries. Technology developed here whether it is diagnostic kits, plant biotechnology or agriculture biotechnology, the results of applied research done at the institutes have not led to evolvement of a vibrant biotechnology industry. We have a biotech park hunting for industry to come here.

Contributions to basic science: minimal

We have water problems, three months we have monsoon. But not even one district has demonstrated a water conservation project. We have not been successful in that. If we take transportation—100 years ago we had the canal system stretching from north of Kerala to South. Have we been able to develop a modern canal system? Canal system has today become highly scientific. They look at the whole water resources in the region, the environmental impact –there are European norms on building canals. Have we been able to build a canal which had a great impact on tourism, transport and so on? We have not been able to do that.

In the case of Keltron and Srichitra Institute what was hoped at the time of establishment was that a series of small and medium scale industries would come. Medical devices industry is not large, in Europe and USA they are small and employ 30-40 people. Some thing has happened, everyone has worked but the results are sub-optimal.

The 1975 report of Centre for Development Studies illustrated how with a low percapita income the people of Kerala could enjoy a very high quality of life. That is a paradox which later came to be known as Kerala Model of Development. We have another paradox now. In Eastern Asian countries and Europe, it is felt that if there is investment in education and health then economic progress will follow. This is the orthodox doctrine. But here we have invested in education and health, but nothing else is happening. No industrial progress is happening in the State. There has been no further study on why this is happening and how to reverse this. You can lower your index and so you have done very well.
For example in research papers, if you take away the impact factor of two, then we have published thousands of papers. That doesn’t take us forward. The rest of the science and technology picture in Kerala is less than encouraging.
Some years back there was a UGC scheme to identify universities with potential for excellence. I was in that committee. Seventy universities submitted their applications and all of them were called to make presentations. None of our universities entered in the first list, they could not make it into the short list. Subsequently, they changed the criteria and said departments could be taken up for excellence and only a few departments qualified from Kerala universities.

Another criteria is the research grants awarded to young scientists. I was in the program advisory committee in Department of Science and Technology for three years. That was in the area of health sciences, immunology, medical biology, neurosciences etc. Every year we used to get 110-120 research proposals—we just got seven research proposals from Kerala in three years. What does this tell you? I am saying there is a strong misconception that there is a prejudice against Kerala at the national level. That is not a fact. For the three years I was in DST committee, I knew this is not true.

UGC brings out a quarterly report on the success rate of students who have appeared for all India examinations and there again Kerala students are faring poorly. Those Keralites who have done well had their training outside the State.

Science academies are the most prestigious bodies in India and many people would like to get fellowships from these places. Here again nominations are very few from Kerala whether it is in Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore or National Academcy of Sciences, Delhi, National Academy of Engineering and other academies. Similarly, Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore and Raman Academy selects associates for young investigators award. Every year they receive 150 applications and the shortlisted are invited to make presentations before a distinguished committee. It is a very rigorous in all disciplines and I am yet to see anyone from Kerala making it there.

Nobody has got the Bhatnagar Award, another highly sought after award by young scientists. It is not that Keralites are not intelligent but they are indifferent. These are very serious portends for the future.

Causes of Failure

This is my viewpoint, you may agree or disagree and even add to what I have concluded..

1) Failure to identify one or two vital objectives and commit institutional resources towards them in a mission mode. Here institutes work more or less like universities. In a university every person can do whatever he likes—including professors, assistant professors , lecturers, scholars. Any wild idea should be encouraged. That is how a university flourishes. That has no place in an institute committed to research. It is a great mistake for CSIR labs to become manufacturing place for PhDs. That danger has already happened as pointed out by Dr Mashelkar, CSIR Director General by making them into deemed universities. This is a complete distortion of the original objective of setting up th e labs. The objective for TBGRI for example is we should have a complete picture of the biodiversity here and how to sustain it which includes exporting the produce or horticulture or whatever. This is something vital for us. And that is where resources should go.
Every institute should have a theme. Main focus should be on this for a period of five years. That kind of sharpening of objective has not taken place in our institutes and it functions like a university.

2) Funding: Areas taken up for research do not get adequate funding. They are started without any idea of the funds required to complete it. Like in cardiac surgery, if you do not have adequate funding to buy a heart lung machine, obviously nothing can be done. If the objectives are cleared , the project should be adequately funded.

3) Failure in managing funds and personnel—it is a serious matter. Many of us scientists or technologists are not professional managers. There is no professionalism in managing funds.

4) Failure in monitoring the quality of scientific output. There should be a criteria to monitor the quality of output on a yearly basis. There should be a monitoring committee to monitor the activities regularly, atleast twice a year as in CSIR institutes are doing. That monitoring is absent in our institutions.

5) Failure to look beyond the Council’s own instituitions: The Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment has failed to look beyond the council’s own instituitions. You cannot have these isolated pockets of excellence and ignore the rest of the stakeholders in science. If you ignore the schools, colleges, universities and industry you cannot sustain these isolated pockets of excellence.

Kerala State Science Policy 1997 had made a reference to this but some how our attention was confined to our own instituitions. And with that you cannot have a proper link with the society and you cannot have a hospital where these research institutions can prosper.

S & T Today, after 30 years

There has been a dramatic change in S&T scene not only in India but all over the world. Over the past 30 years since 1970’s. IT –computers were there in those days. Nobody could have foreseen how IT has invaded every branch of not only science but our day to day life, every aspect of the economy including e-governance. All these nobody could have foreseen the impact that IT had. Similarly, biotechnology, double helix was there but nobody could have perceived that BT would have such an impact on medicine, diagnosis, treatment, on the management of environment, BT in agriculture. All these could not be foreseen 30 years ago.

Then we have materials technology, nano-technology for example. It has completely changed the aerospace industry at the global level and in 10 years time it will be growing in importance as BT and IT. These three technologies have revolutionized the scene.
TRIPS, R &D and outsourcing of research by MNCs; public/private partnerships. TRIPS had a great impact on S&T. India is a WTO signatory. Today GE has a R&D lab in Bangalore with 1000 PhDs, Philips has employed 700 PhDs. Very large coming from outside India have established large research institutions. Their agenda is made somewhere else, the research is done here. Outsourcing is completely new and not anticipated 30 years ago.
Both industry and government is eager to enter into public-private partnerships and it has been accepted as government policy. This again could not be foreseen 30 years ago.
Government of India raising allocation to S&T to 2 percent of GDP at the end of current plan. It has been talked about, but it is happening. This is a huge increase from 1.1 percent. If that happens then a lot of funds will flow into the sector. We should know how to use that money.
It is not easy. I remember a discussion last year where Jeffrey Sachs from Harvard University was in Delhi. There was a WHO sponsored study on macroeconomics and health. Sachs was the Chairman of that Commission and Manmohan Singh, Member. The aim of that commission was to demonstrate that poverty alleviation alone will not lead to economic progress. You have to look after the health of people. That is also necessary. In that study India was given a subcontract and the study was done in India by the Health Secretary at that time. It was an excellent report something akin to World Development Report. It should be read by all of us interested in public health in India. That report was released and Sachs made a very impressive speech. This report is an excellent report, he said. Even if you have a very fine report, excellent managers, India is only spending 0.9 percent of its GDP on health. In that case you can forget it. It cannot be done , you need funds. He made a challenge there, if India can raise the allocation to two percent in the next three years, then using his influence with the developed world he could get $4 bn as grant not loan to India.

Approach for the future

• #S &T promotion not to be confined to a few research institutions; should cover schools, colleges, universities, institutions in the private sector.
• #Research institutions to identify projects every five years; deploy 90 percent of resources for their completion.
• #Professionalise management of finances and personnel
• #Regularly rate performance against those of national labs

Infirmities to be rid of

• .Smugness verging on conceit
• Careerism overwhelming science
• Confrontationism in the society casting shadows on science
• Celebration of mediocrity