‘A core value in science is to challenge the arbitrary use of authority’ | Photo Credit: Getty Images
Last week, over 500 scientists and academicians wrote to the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) criticizing its administration for stalling discussion on the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. In response, the director of a separate research institute, the Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research (IISER) in Mohali, Punjab, issued show-cause notices to two faculty members of his institute who had signed the letter to IISc.
As a signatory to the letter, this author would like to explain why it is important for scientific research institutions to encourage social and political discussions, and not try to shut them down like the IISc and IISER administrations.
Scientific research institutions are part of the wider society; And therefore their members have the same constitutional right as others to participate in social discussions. In such institutes, researchers are offered leave and training to conduct critical inquiry in various disciplines. This privilege, which depends on the public support these institutions receive, means that they have an additional responsibility to educate and express themselves on matters of public interest. To fail to stand up for justice for scientific researchers, especially in times of great social upheaval, would be to abdicate this responsibility.
science has many connections
A narrow perspective might suggest that scientists should confine themselves to science and stay away from social questions. However, it is artificial to erect intellectual silos around what is considered “science” and to restrict discussion outside those boundaries. For example, an investigation of the science of climate change can flow naturally into complex geopolitical issues about colonialism and historical responsibility. This, in turn, gives rise to broader questions about inequality and justice. These issues are not peripheral to the subject but help determine which scientific questions deserve attention. As another example, research on energy policy cannot be separated from environmental concerns or questions of energy access and equitable distribution. Recently, research on artificial intelligence has raised many ethical dilemmas.
Some scientific fields, such as quantum physics, are separate from current affairs. But generous public support for research in these areas – including an investment of ₹6,000 crore in the recently announced “National Quantum Mission” – stems from the expectation that this research, either directly or through spinoffs, will lead to public benefit. will take. However, scientific and technological progress does not automatically lead to social progress; They can also promote oppression or inequality. Therefore, it is important for scientists to involve themselves in the decision of how to deploy science, and not to hand over this premise entirely to capitalists or government. Therefore, a broad political and historical perspective on scientific research is helpful even in pure science.
engagement with social issues
India has a rich and unique tradition of scientists engaged with social issues. Apart from prominent figures such as physicist Meghnad Saha, mathematician DD Kosambi and chemist Amulya Reddy, the tradition also includes people’s science movements. The Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad, whose slogan is “Science for Social Revolution”, has contributed immensely to the spread of scientific values in the state. The All India People’s Science Network has consistently advocated that science should be used for social benefit rather than personal gain.
To be clear it is possible for individual scientists to focus on narrow scientific topics and ignore the big questions. My argument is that scientific issues are often related to broader political issues, and that society has benefited from the participation of scientists in these discussions.
Pressure
Given these facts, why are some scientific administrators uncomfortable when political discussions are held in their scientific institutions? The reason for this is not difficult to find. Administrators worry that they may be seen as promoting ideas that are hostile to the government of the day and may incur its wrath. Often, they don’t even wait for instructions from the government, but actively censor discussions deemed controversial.
This attitude is even before the current government. However, it is no secret that under the current system the pressure to conform and the level of self-censorship have increased enormously.
In some cases, such as IISER (Mohali), administrators invoke the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules which prohibit “criticism of the government”. However, these rules are made for government bureaucrats and are not suitable for academic scientists. Indeed, the Allahabad High Court had said in 2015 that the CCS rules “do not apply to a central university”.
Furthermore, the Tripura High Court ruled in 2020 that even when the rules are in force, they do not deprive citizens of their “right to free speech” which is “a fundamental right”.
Unless this censorship is strongly resisted, further attacks on academic freedom in scientific institutions are likely. A core value in science is challenging the arbitrary use of authority. Now the time has come for the members of the Indian scientific community to put this value into practice in their institutions.
Suvrat Raju is Professor of Physics at the International Center for Theoretical Sciences (ICTS) of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Views expressed are personal