Click to play videoIndian origin American scientist Venkataraman Ramakrishnan won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the year 2009 for his contributions to ribosome research. He shares the $1.4-million prize with two other scientists. He was educated in Tamil Nadu and Baroda but he still had to go to the United States to do the research that brought him the Nobel Prize just like India's other Nobel laureates, S Chandrashekhar, Hargobind Khorana and Amartya Sen.
In an exclusive interview with CNN-IBN Dr Ramakrishnan said India still couldn’t afford cutting-edge scientific research.
With many academicians saying that India cannot support or afford the kind of research and facilities required to produce a Nobel laureate, CNN-IBN's Face The Nation debated: Can Indian universities throw up a Nobel laureate?
On the panel of experts to try and answer the question were IIT alumnus and best-selling author Chetan Bhagat; sociologist Ashis Nandy and Director of Centre for Philosophy and Foundations of Science Ranjit Nair.
At the beginning of the debate, 51 per cent agreed that Indian universities could throw up a Nobel laureate, while 49 per cent disagreed.
India less Nobel than others?
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said while congratulating Dr Ramakrishnan that it is a matter of pride for India that a brilliant scientist who has gained the highest international recognition should have done most of his education in India. He also said it's a tribute to the education system of the country and the dedication of the teaching community in India.
Nandy kick-started the debate by clarifying that Dr Ramakrishnan had in fact not done most of his education in India. He also said that India is far behind even in disciplines, which do not require too much funding.
"India hasn't done well even in disciplines in which Nobel prize is given and which does not require expensive material or laboratory facilities," he said.
Nair said he didn't think there was anything intrinsically wrong with Indian education institutions, but he said India as yet did not have the scale required to produce a Nobel laureate.
"In order to produce outstanding people, we have to have a large number of institutions," he said.
Nandy pointed out that one of the crucial features of a good university is missing in India, which is – faculty-driven and not by politicians, bureaucrats.
"I suspect that Indian universities driven by politicians and vice-chancellors appointed by state governments creates an atmosphere where certain kind of risk-taking and initiatives are not possible," he said.
Pure Science: India's stepchild?
Bhagat said when he was studying at IIT he went in thinking he will become a creative scientist, but he said the college lacked a creative culture and was more about studying and clearing exams.
"All it was, get in by studying a lot and get by, by studying a lot. Even though I love my college, we just don't have the culture of creativity and innovation, he said.
Nair said India is culturally attuned to Science and has believed in the importance of knowledge.
However, Bhagat pointed out that creativity, innovation and imagination in the field of Science is not encouraged in India. He said there were several coaching classes to help you coach for the IIT entrance but there was no entrance exam in the country, which tested creativity and imagination in the field of Science.
"The knowledge of Science is one thing but these people who have got the Nobel Prize have invented something. They have gone beyond what is existing today and not memorised things well and cleared exams," he said.
Born in India, Nobel abroad
Nair said it's not just a coincidence that Indians haven't got the Nobel Prize. There was a reason behind the ignorance and the fact that Indians abroad have won the Nobel prize.
"They send out 3,000 nomination forms but obviously no one has the time to read out 3,000 forms. It depends on the particular committee and whom they are in contact with," he said.
Bhagat highlighted that Nobel prize was a bit like the Booker prize with various people lobbying for the winners. "Whenever there is something subjective with many who have done deserving work and only one prize for it, there is going to be lobbying. Though, the merit is unquestioned, it needs a push," he said.
Nandy pointed out that even to prepare for the nomination it required a number of weeks, but India did not have the kind of people to supply the kind of nomination.
"Indian institutes are highly valued and there is a lot of talk of Indians being good at Mathematical Science. But that doesn't translate into recognition of Indian creativity. Also, Indian creative scientists who stay back in India don't really put in the effort to be creative over a long stretch of time," he said.
Bhagat agreed with Nandy. He said when it comes to hierarchy the person in charge was a manager not a scientist. "Basically if you are a professor you have to be a better manager than a discoverer or inventor because it's not going to get you anywhere," he said.
Need laboratories of change
Bhagat concluded the debate by saying India has a lot of talent and may have a problem identifying it, but the main issue was that India has a problem managing talent.
"When we do identify talent we don't know what to do with it. Should we reward it? And if we do reward it does it make the talent morally wrong as we think why is the person asking for recognition as he or she should carry out their work for the nobility of it," he said.
A brilliant scientist in India would not get the recognition and reward that he would get in the West and as a civilisation, India does not know what to do when it is confronted with talented people.
Final results of the SMS/Web poll: Can Indian universities throw up a Nobel Laureate?
Yes: 49 per cent
No: 51 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
 |
 |
 |
|
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.