Scientific dissent

Scientists around the country have done well to rise to the defence of Dr T. Jayaraman. In doing so they are protecting the whole scientific...

Scientists around the country have done well to rise to the defence of Dr T. Jayaraman. In doing so they are protecting the whole scientific community from narrow-minded bureaucrats. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and available to all citizens of India without exception.

It cannot be anyone8217;s case that an employer, even if that employer happens to be the Government of India, can curtail those rights. The Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Chennai where Jayaraman works as a theoretical physicist is funded by the Central government8217;s Department of Atomic Energy.

As such he and other IMSc scientists are bound only by the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. It was not for any breach of official secrecy that Jayaraman ran into trouble. The letter from IMSc8217;s director specifically cites other reasons for considering punitive action against him. The charges are absurd and reveal much about the mindset of those who took umbrage at his opinions.

He is faulted for conveying a8220;political message against the party in power8221; in his article on Indian science after Pokharan-II published in Seminar magazine. Does this mean he who pays the piper calls the tune? Or are scientists working for the government required to be apolitical creatures, keep their noses to the grindstone and ignore all questions about what Indian science is or is not doing?

It is hard to understand why Jayaraman should be ruled out of order for writing, 8220;Today there is the genuine possibility of an unacceptable militarisation of sectors of Indian science and a serious distortion of the priorities that science and technology must necessarily have in a developing society.8221; He is of the opinion that Pokharan-II presents the most serious moral and political challenge to Indian science and technology in the post-independence period. What is remarkable about such views is that someone within the scientific establishment has the courage to state them publicly. Such courage deserves praise not condemnation. It is noteasy at any time anywhere to swim against powerful currents.

All successful scientific work opens itself up to the challenge of being proved wrong. Science thrives in an atmosphere of dissent and peer criticism. The Rotblats and Sakharovs who question the aims of national scientific endeavour are essential in every country. India is fortunate to have a Jayaraman and a number of scientists and engineers from different institutions around the country who have questions to ask and views to express and have done so publicly.

The director of IMSc has been persuaded to drop the ridiculous charges against Jayaraman. This confirms that while there may be wrong-headed individuals and errors of judgment in scientific establishments, there is a strong possibility that correction will occur sooner or later. It will not come about with stoic silence. It takes a concerted effort to defend openness and the democratic way in science as in other areas of public life.