Edu-leaders

Since Euclid’s time, mathematicians have been trying to figure out a simple way method to differentiate between prime and non-prime numbers. Two thousand years later, an Indian professor of computer science, and his two students, have developed out an algorithm that solves this dilemma. The elegant solution—only 13 lines long and with a proof of correctness running less than three pages—is expected to change computational number theory.

Professor Manindra Agrawal, a professor at IIT Kanpur, has indeed raised the research bar. It’s not surprising that an Indian has solved the prime number conundrum. The land of Ramanujan has the brains, but research in India is a strange animal. On one hand, there is brilliant work going on. On the other, this “brilliant” work is rarely rewarded and mostly conducted away from the limelight in standalone research laboratories. Needless to add, only a few academics know of the 44-year-old Agrawal’s ground-breaking research.

There are over 700 MNCs that have set up R&D labs in India, eager to pick the “clever Indian’s brain”. In 2009, when MIT’s Technology Review started its Indian edition, editor Jason Pontin said, “They didn’t want to miss out on the action.” But, this “action” has been elusive. A 2009 report by FICCI-E&Y, “Making Indian Higher Education Future Ready”, shows that less than one percent of students enrolled in higher education in India are pursuing PhDs. With just 130,000 researchers, India has barely had 100 researchers per million people, a mere two percent of the number of researchers (per million people) that most developed countries have. More alarming—the number has fallen by 18 percent between 2001 and 2006. The FICCI-E&Y survey also showed that 60 percent of higher educational institutions surveyed complained of grant difficulties. Though funds were available in principle, exclusion clauses (age limits and such) ensured that many deserving candidates did not make the cut. An University Grants Commission survey also revealed that about a quarter of faculty in Indian institutions spends less than five hours per week on research. Five percent spends more than 20 hours a week on it.

Even while there are so few people conducting research in India, the education system’s ancient rule books make things difficult. Vinita Mathur, an associate professor of geography at Delhi University, points out how despite her 27 years teaching experience, she cannot supervise a PhD—because associate professors are rarely allowed to. “I known only two associate professors who have guided a PhD,” she says.

So, which is the real world of research in India—the optimistic projections of international companies, or the gloomy prognosis of our consultants, policy makers and teachers? “Passion for research, what’s that?” asks Mathur, adding, “In the past decade, students have pursued PhDs to grab a teaching post, to avail library and hostel facilities while preparing for other professions, or for building CVs that would help them to apply abroad.” If professors are cynical, students are equally irked.

They crib about the lack of faculty, guidance, poor infrastructure, inflexible system and inadequate exposure. Take Vinay Eapen, 22, for instance. Eapen began his doctoral programme at Brandeis University, Boston, in August 2009. “Back home, I could not enroll for a PhD unless I had some sort of postgraduate degree. Here I could.” Bureaucracy and red tape also makes the process tedious. Chennai-based Pavithra Shivakumar, a gold medalist and a doctorate from Taramani campus of Dr AL Mudaliar Postgraduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Madras, emphasises that opportunities exist mainly on paper. “There may be UGC or DST grants, but they are not easily accessible. Especially for Indians living in the south. When it comes to telephone conversations, all answers are in Hindi. I could never understand what was being said. If one has to make trips to New Delhi to secure fellowship approvals, when does the research happen?” she asks. A doctoral student usually receives a stipend of Rs 8,000 a month. And then he or she has to share computer and lab facilities.

Not surprisingly, India’s research output is alarming. If we take the number of patents as a yardstick, then the top 10 institutes (IITs and IISc included) filed 236 patents between 1999 and 2002. During that time, University of California (alone) filed 431 patents. As for Nobel Laureates, there has been no homegrown one in recent years. Amartya Sen and Venkat Ramakrishnan lived and worked abroad. Interestingly, Ramakrishnan could not clear the entrance exams for CMC Vellore, and had to go abroad for further studies. Two decades ago, India managed to ride the IT services wave that helped the economy leapfrog to an eight percent growth. The next wave hitting the shores is the demand for R&D services—potentially a high revenue earner. The question is where will the talent come from?

Two Box Disease
At the root of the problem lies a segregation—educational institutions and research bodies function independently of each other. The country’s academic sector contribute only 14 percent of the total research manpower. A comparatively larger part is housed in scientific agencies (31 percent) or in the private sector. “The focus on funding independent research institutions at the cost of enhancing universities has contributed to the downfall of research in higher educational institutes,” believes Vijayalakshmi Ravindranath, the chairperson of the Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. As an example she points to the centre that she recently founded—National Brain Research Centre (NBRC), Gurgaon. “Isolation is never good. If we had been with a university or college, our growth would have been faster,” she rues.

India suffers from the two-box disease—there is no pressure on research agency staff (from CSIR, ICMR and ICAR) to teach at universities. Likewise, no professor in any leading university is pressurised to conduct research at the expense of his “teaching”. The problem does not end here. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the former minister of science, technology and education, points out, before Independence the focus was on small science requiring small investments. Now, in this era of “bigger” science, funds, state-of-the-art labs and cutting-edge equipment are required, along with a team comprising diverse fields. “Traditional borders between disciplines have disappeared. This is an era of convergence. Our system, however, does not recognise teamwork across diverse fields, but only individual players,” stresses Ravindranath. At the MIT lab (Cambridge, US) there are no silos. So, a neuroscience laboratory will not only have doctors, but software developers, biologists and physicists working in tandem. In the social sciences, too, silos are breaking. India is also plagued by a top-down approach to research—so at the undergraduate level there is absolutely no exposure to research, and students go through the motions of getting a degree. Whereas overseas, even undergraduates get to interact with researchers Professor Mihir Deb, a senior scientist at Indian National Science Academy’s department of geology (University of Delhi), deplores the lack of leadership and vision among senior people. “Insecurity, jealousy and mediocrity are main reasons for our poor performance in science,” he says.

Mind The Mindset
Alexius Collette, the outgoing CEO of Philips Innovation’s Bangalore campus, admits that the Dutch major only hires doctorates from IITs and IISc—but at least they are homegrown students. There are Indian MNCs that have a policy of hiring students who have studied at universities abroad. Collette explains, that most students produced by the Indian system need to be taught to think out of the box. “A cultural change needs to happen,” he says. “You have to be critical for good science to emerge. A scientist has to be selfcritical. And be open to criticism as well, to undo and redo what has been done.” “A lot of people who could be leaders in research are going in directions that are different—into entrepreneurship and business. Today, we don’t have an equivalent of a Homi Bhabha or J.C. Bose,” rues professor Menon.

Reinventing Research
A wake-up call has been sounded by the National Knowledge Commission and UGC, both of which have come up with plans to reinvent research. Except that some of the plans are 60 years too late—experts say. NKC’s quick fix is the plan for 14 “innovation universities”. But as Ravindranath points out, “There are things that cannot be jump started. Education institutes need time.” For Professor Menon, the problem lies elsewhere. “Is it a good idea to instill an environment of research only at an innovation university. Anyone who studies should be curious and innovate wherever he or she may be,” he adds.

Every one agrees that there are no easy routes and the re-engineering process needs to be slow and steady.

Break Silos: At government universities, departments rarely interact for research purposes. However, private universities are breaking this silos. Dr Abhijit Mukherjee, director, Thapar University, says that the barriers of traditional departments have been broken at his university.

NIIT University also promotes interdisciplinary research. “Faculties need to talk to each other across departments,” says Mukherjee. “When I was an engineering student I missed the chance of studying finance and micro-economics. Now, I am making sure that if there are more students like me, they get to do what they want.”

Facilitate industry-academia collaboration: NIIT’s Vice Chancellor Rajiv Shorey believes that the academic caste system needs to be broken. “We have theoreticians sitting at universities, the so-called Brahmins. Admit it, the finest minds are in the industry and R&D labs, it’s time to tap them, get them to teach,” he says.

NIIT plans to get experts from industries to co-supervise a PhD. “Why does the guide have to be only a professor or a head of a department. Why can’t industry experts be involved?” he asks. There are instances of industry-academia collaboration—involving undergrads and postgrads, and not just doctoral students. Collette describes the collaboration between Manipal University and Phillips—how the company involves masters students for their operational project. At NIIT, a large part of the campus has been set aside as an incubation centre.

Reward Research: Instead of saying “Agrawal who?”, a research academic should be celebrated and be given financial aid. “It’s frustrating for a researcher to be dependent on the family even after completing postgraduate studies. There should be more rewards for an academic trying to pursue research,” says Rajiv Shorey. As Shorey points out, in the NIIT model, the university encourages a system of rewards for academics who have journal publications to his or her credit.

Reform the admissions process: “Getting a 90 percent in any examination does not guarantee a research base. Applications to US universities are different. Though you still have exams such as the GRE, colleges are more keen to see the statement of purpose. Recommendations from qualified people in the field is also closely examined. Add to that the exhaustive interviews..all these show the overall aptitude of a student,” says Eapen. Agrees Ravindranath. Admission criteria should be made less tough— remember Ramakrishnan? The Nobel Laureate was denied admission in India, which compelled him to go overseas for his higher studies.

Transparency in grants: Research can flourish only if there is enough facility. In India, total extramural grant for research projects was Rs 11.63 billion during 2006 to 2007, with the science and technology department providing almost 50 percent of the funds. Though DST, CSIR and ICMR offer positive programmes (Inspire and Kishore Vaigyanik Schemes), they also entail clauses that are restrictive.

“The process of granting fellowships and grants should be made online and transparent. Everything should be merit-based and not quota-based,” urges Shivakumar. Also, more private initiatives (such as the Wellcome Trust International Senior Research scheme) are needed.

Create integrated programmes: More integrated programmes covering masters and doctoral studies are needed. The system in which a student enrolls for a undergraduate programme at a college, moves to a postgraduate in a university, and finally a doctoral elsewhere, needs to be streamlined. If the three processes are tied together, it would encourage more students to stay in the system. Also, it would improve quality.

Seek foreign help: Alexius Collette describes how the city of Singapore involved foreigners to boost its research. Today, the place is a destination for bio-scientists. “I know that Dutch universities are keen to collaborate with India. And, if India opens up, it could lead to an absorbing exchange of ideas,” he says.

Research parks: United States-based education specialist Rahul Choudaha believes that research may be fostered by creating an ecosystem of innovation, entrepreneurship and development where government, corporate and institutions collaborate. He points how the concept of research parks has been implemented in the US for past decades.

Numbers game: “For 20 to 25 years we did not worry about the scarcity of researchers—now we are trying to plug the gap fast, too fast,” said Ravindranath. She feels that increased speed is leading to a lowering of benchmark.

“The minute you lower your benchmarks, you cannot produce good students. I don’t mind less number of degree-holders, but those who graduate should be our best,” she says.

Finally, the point is that if Agrawal can survive and thrive in India with all its R&D drawbacks, why can’t others?