This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299– 308 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technology in Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc Indian science, technology, and society: The changing landscape R.A. Mashelkar à National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411 008, India article info abstract Keywords: Over the centuries, India’s scientific and technological position among developed and India developing countries has shifted. Several centuries ago, it was characterized by scientific Science Technology thought, capabilities, and techniques more advanced than many countries. However, Knowledge when the scientific and industrial revolutions took place in the West, India was in a Education stagnant period. This paper looks at knowledge production in different countries vis-a`-vis Economics their economic strength, and then positions India within this landscape. Pillars Science and technology in India rest on four pillars: (1) techno-nationalism, (2) inclusive growth, (3) techno-globalism, and (4) global leadership. Each of these pillars is discussed in some detail, followed by concluding recommendations for steps India should take if it wishes to assume a leadership role among the world’s developed nations. & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Setting the context In a knowledge society, the generation, acquisition, absorption, and communication and dissemination of knowledge assume considerable importance. Generating knowledge requires an ab initio approach and creativity. Acquiring knowledge involves indigenous development of knowledge as well as acquiring it from elsewhere in the world through licensing agreements, foreign investment, and so on. Absorbing knowledge involves ensuring universal basic education, creating opportunities for lifelong learning, and supporting tertiary education in science and technology (S&T). Communication and dissemination of knowledge through print and electronic media take diverse and innovative forms. This paper looks at knowledge production in different countries vis-a`-vis their economic strength, and specifically positions the developing world within this landscape. The countries, displayed in a single diagram (see Fig. 1) in terms of their relative economic strength and indigenous scientific and technological capacities, were presented by Mashelkar during his Zuckerman lecture [1]. In the top right corner are nations such as the US and Japan, and several European countries, all of which are developed. They have a very high indigenous S&T capacity and a very high economic strength. In contrast, in the lower left quadrant are the least-developed countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa, where both indigenous S&T capacity and economic strength are very low. In the top left quadrant are countries that, by virtue of considerable natural resources, have attained high economic strength (e.g., the oil-rich Middle East countries). But at present they have little indigenous S&T capacity. The lower right quadrant includes nations with high indigenous S&T capacity but relatively low economic strength, such as India, China, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, and Egypt. These countries are called Innovative Developing Countries [2,3]. à Tel.: +9120 25902197; fax: +9120 25902607. E-mail address: [email protected] 0160-791X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.04.017 Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS 300 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 Fig. 1. Indigenous S&T capacity. Source: [1]. The positions of the developing nations in this diagram are not static. At different times in history, countries have occupied different positions. For instance, not long ago, Korea was in the lower left quadrant, but today it has attained the status enjoyed by OECD countries, thanks to indigenous companies like LG and Samsung, which dominate global markets and compete with the best in the world—something that had not yet happened 30 years ago. Over time, India’s position on this matrix also has shifted. Several centuries ago, Indian civilization was characterized by scientific thought, capabilities, and techniques at levels a more advanced than in many countries. However, when the scientific and industrial revolutions took place in the West a few hundred years ago, there was a period of stagnation in India. A highly feudalistic structure developed. Lack of development over this period was the result of a hierarchical approach, irrational subjective thinking, and a build-up of superstitions and ritualism. Its society was in this state when India came under colonial domination. During the British colonial period, scientific developments happened because of the efforts of a number of outstanding Indians who worked during the 75 years prior to Indian independence. They include names such as C.V. Raman, J.C. Bose, S.N. Bose, P. Mahalanobis—a spectacular array of thinkers. They were the products of the ferment in Indian society, which motivated the struggle for freedom. Remarkable changes in S&T took place after India acquired its independence in 1947, with a strong foundation laid by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. To Nehru, science was not just a tool for economic development but also a means of truly emancipating India by bringing about a qualitative transformation in its stagnant society. The policy resolution of 1958, which dealt with science, clearly reflected these beliefs: It is an inherent obligation of a great country like India, with its tradition of scholarship and original thinking and its great cultural heritage, to participate fully in the march of science, which is probably mankind’s greatest enterprise today [4]. This vision provided a vital impetus to Indian scientists in the early post-independence years. The momentum has been maintained for the last few decades, and it is fair to say that Indian S&T in post-independence India can be viewed as a true source of national pride. 2. Four pillars of Indian S&T S&T in India rest on four pillars: 1. Techno-nationalism. In some fields, despite making every effort, India could not obtain certain technologies, and the country had to make do with export control regimes. In addition, it was denied so-called ‘‘dual-use’’ technology. In response, India developed its own technologies in space, defence, nuclear energy, and supercomputers, among others. All were institutionally led, mission-based technology delivery systems. 2. Inclusive growth. In S&T, where consideration of the population had been excluded, it is now included in the development and growth process. This means making S&T work on behalf of the poor of India, combining equity and excellence, creating products within the price-performance envelope that are suited to those at the bottom of the pyramid and to the needs of India’s lower-middle class. Discovery, development, and delivery of drugs and therapeutics vaccines that are available, affordable, and accessible to the poor is one example. The recent launch of the Nano automobile by Tatas, a low-cost (US$2500) vehicle for the lower-middle class, is another example. The green revolution, which made India self-sufficient in food belongs to this category too, since its effect was to include a vast majority of rural farmers who were otherwise excluded. 3. Techno-globalism. This refers to the strong interactions between the internationalization of technology and the globalization of the economy, a widening cross-border interdependence between individual-based sciences and economic sectors, and the location of knowledge production centres in countries that offer the required skill base Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 301 at low cost. In India, this led to multiple offshore R&D services utilizing India’s low-cost scientific manpower. This resulted in Indian S&T talent being used within the country, rather than outside the country, to create technology for global players [5]. For example, GE set up its R&D in India because India offered the highest intellectual capital per dollar spent. Taking advantage of this, more than 300 multinational companies have set up their R&D centres in India, including GE, IBM, Microsoft, Dupont, Dow, Shell, and General Motors. Indian scientists and researchers have created intellectual property (IP) for numerous foreign firms. This trend towards globalizing R&D is expanding into other activities, including diverse types of knowledge process outsourcing, other IT-based services, and clinical trials and testing, all at similar cost advantages. 4. Global leadership. Such leadership demands substantial improvements in the quality of basic research, creating ‘‘innovation ecosystems’’ comprised of forward-looking IP laws, venture capital, and so