Sunday, December 6, 2009

Nature India Publishes Great Article: "Innovation Demands Freedom"

On December 1, 2009, Nature India published a Commentary article entitled "Innovation Demands Freedom" .
This Commentary focused on the need for Freedom (e.g. right to dissent and disagree) as the basis for Innovation in India.

The article asks questions concerning "innovations" such as Soleckshaw, OSDD, CSIR University. The article also offers an open invitation to CSIR Leadership to a roundtable-like discussion, with media, tv, etc. present, to review any and all documentation concerning the basis of Dr. Ayyadurai's hiring, his Gag Order, etc.

We at Freedom for Science, believe that such an open invitation, shows courage on Dr. Ayyadurai's part to be transparent in finding the Truth, the basis of scientific inquiry.

We request your support in encouraging CSIR leadership to such an open roundtable discussion. It can only help Indian science and innovation.

Interestingly enough, as of today, CSIR Leadership has moved in the exact opposite direction. Threatened by Dr. Ayyadurai's request, they have resorted to their usual tactics of cover up's denials, disinformation, false allegations to deflect the real issues.

Some of the comments in response to the Nature India article are given below, numbered 1 to 11.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sampling of Comments from BLOG that Disappeared on Nature India

Anonymous
03 December 2009 | 18:35
Thanks Patel for posting the thread.
Those who still remain typical Indians and accept the way life and research in India, despite of staying abroad for few years, can survive and flourish in Indian science. If you try to oppose that, then you will surely run into trouble.
There is and will be thousands of Indians who will come back and settle successfully in India (mostly, after being failed in their utmost effort to get a job abroad). Majority of that lot feel obliged to support and upheld the dignity of Indian system, whatever does that mean. If someone is a bit more ambitious to achieve “success” in Indian research hierarchy, then s/he will shout the loudest against any attempt to criticize or change the system. Sycophancy and nepotism has penetrated deep into the system.
Our policy makers need to understand that such brainless and backboneless Indians do NOT matter to increase the scientific quality and accountability. Few people, who dare to go against the tide, dare to ask questions and demand accountability and transparency do matter.
Here is interesting article in Times of India regarding the same issue:
But a study by Wadhwa and other academics found that 34 percent of repats found it difficult to return to India – compared to just 13 percent of Indian immigrants who found it difficult to settle in the United States.


Anonymous
03 December 2009 | 21:55
I think this issue need to be examined on individual basis rather than making generalised comments.
First of all, it is recognized that India is a corrupt country. Evry Indian citizen know or have experienced at least once the corrupt politician/beaucrat/intellectual/academician/scientist/doctor/engineer/————-, the list is endless. Corruption has engulfed the entire nation, every walk of life and everyone is suffering from it, be it national security, economy, research, education etc.
CSIR is no different, even if somebody try to be different, he would be victimized. Dishonesty carries a premium.
Who is Ayyadurai? We have no idea why he was fired by CSIR, but it looks like he tried to play a larger than-thou attitude which may have created friction between CSIR and him. In the end, CSIR reserves the right to fire any employee. Look at the western system, people are hired and fired left and right, yesterday the GM CEO was fired (yea, he resigned). Is GM corrupt or not? Are other organizations (Acedemic, industrial etc.) are corrupt when they fire high profile employees?
Give some answer and we will discuss further.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
03 December 2009 | 23:23
[ Permalink ]
The ISSUE here is of corruption, bad management practices, lack of accountability and lying to public of India… these are SERIOUS concerns. We must not trivialize it by making it a NRI issue. What happened to Dr. Ayyadurai could have happened to YOU or any honest scientist who is an Indian citizen.
The other author, Dr Deepak Sardana, has also left CSIR. I know this because of my friends in CSIR HQ. Things were not conducive for both the authors.


Anonymous
03 December 2009 | 23:36
[ Permalink ]
Any organization reserves the right to fire anybody if they are non-performing. First the process of recruitment itself should be robust. Secondly, before firing anyone it should be established that the person is a non-performer. Is this not a good management principle? You are citing examples of GM… Do you consider that company to be a great organization to work for? Or will you rather work for Toyota?
You are also absolutely right in stating that an institute or an organization does not become corrupt simply because it fired someone. I AGREE with you 100%. However, point to be noted is that Dr. Ayyadurai has in the Nature article asked for an “open-forum discussion” on his issue and other issues.
If CSIR leadership is so very clean then why are they shying away from this “open forum discussion” and “an independent judicial inquiry”. BOTH the things will establish the truth.


Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 02:16
[ Permalink ]
The main problem with Dr Ayyadurai was- he was never part of CSIR before joining as a staff there. Anyone who worked under CSIR knows how it operates and how “challenging” it would be to go against the tide there. My concern is not firing as such but:
1. On what basis DG CSIR “immediately” recruited Dr Ayyadurai flaunting all the established norms for recruiting new faculty?
2. CSIR, as an organization, though that he is an “extraordinary” scientist and within 5 months they thought that he should be fired for “non-competency” in an organization like CSIR (where hundreds of non performs and liars are thriving)!
3. There was a non standing demand that CSIR should follow specific (quantifiable) parameters for recruitment. But CSIR never implement any such measure, obviously, to accommodate preferred candidates by its powerful Godfathers and politicians.
4. The most disturbing part is: Indian prime minister’s silence over the issue. He is the official head of the organization and could not take any stand. The same is true for many such cases of corruption against CSIR.
After more than a year, PM has not taken any decision regarding another CSIR institute, NBRI (Lucknow) director R K Tuli’s alleged CV fudging case and Tuli’s alleged appointment as director of a proposed CSIR Institute near Delhi/Gurgaon.
Such silence by our PM (and head of CSIR) only strengthen widely believed notion that Dr MM Singh never attain any position of power by his own. Due to some political compulsions and relatively clean image among public, he was given the position of PM. He has no administrative power to run either the country or any organization being part of a political party which does not believe in intra-party democracy. In fact none of the major political parties in India believe in democracy. We all will face the consequence as a country.

Anonymous said...

More comments from Nature India Forum blog:

Devesh Bhardwaj
04 December 2009 | 10:35
[ Permalink ]
Why are we so surprised over this? This has gone on for a long time. The science in India has always been regarded as jagir of some jagirdars who include such persons as Directors, DGs etc. as well as the so called ‘experts’ sitting on funding agency committees. They have always had a monopoly over their decisions with no one to question them – because all are alike. And this rot is visible in all aspects of Indian research – appointments, project funding, postings etc. Look at the Universities and Institutes of India. If they are to ranked on the basis of citation index in comparison with US/UK/EU Universities, one is sure that we will be in the bottom 10 %.
For the sake of discussion can any one enlighten me about the ‘scientific achievments of our current CSIR-DG except for the fact that he has been ’well-connected’ with the ‘right’ people at the ‘right’ places. Any one who is even remotely linked with the CSIR would like to make a comment.
Nevertheless, in my opinion the issues to ponder over for us are –
1. Why HG Khorana or Venky Ramakrishnan could not work in India and still win Nobel Prize?
2. Why Indian Universities and Institutions put together have not been able to give a real breakthrough?
3. Why US-trained Post-docs are preferred for faculty position appointments? Why can’t we provide equivalent training to researchers?
4. How many of these foreign returned faculties do the research that is relevant for the country and our local society?


Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 14:15
[ Permalink ]
Profile of SK Brahmachari is available at http://www.igib.res.in/dg.html , IGIB growth in his leadership is available at http://www.igib.res.in/igib.growth.pdf . As per scopus his H-index is 19, total paper 125, total citations 1574 . Scopus only provide information after 1995.


Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 15:14
[ Permalink ]
I am posting my comments in this forum which I post in another thread. I agree with devesh, it is probable due to fact that we were under british raj for long. Though we became independent, mentally we are still “Gulam”. We have accepted that western countries or their citizens are superior, if we got chance to work abroad we feel we are superior to other indians, as well as society also have same feeling. This is the reason even simple PDF who is working abroad start to feel that he is superior than indian scientists. I feel amazing that most of NRI or foreign returns start to reviewing or analyzing whole indian science. Most of these have not even better record than indian PhD students, good example is this forum. If you see publication record, most of persons on this forum have very poor publication record and they are talking as they know every thing. For them anybody working in indian system is useless.
Here, They are talking about performance, transparency, curroptions and wastage of tax money by indian scientist. They are keeping silent on their own science, what grate they have achieve so far which indian scientist can not achieve. They have no excuse as they are working in western country which is corruption free according to these NRIs. Money is not problem they are getting good salary, in return what they have contribute to science.

Anonymous said...

More Comments.... :

B. B. Goel
04 December 2009 | 16:25
[ Permalink ]
It’s nice to get so many comments.
It’s so convenient to blame British rule for almost any evil in Indian society today. The fact is, India got independence long ago, more than 62 years. Many countries who were completely destroyed during World War 1 and 2 have successfully re-built their countries and now among developed countries. Indian science is no exception.
There are ample reasons why people blame Indian system and Indian scientists, as whole. There are so many reasons why almost everyone likes to go abroad after finishing his/her PhD. Talk to any faculty here in US or EU and you will know how many applications they get from India, every week. There are so many reasons why Indian Postdocs abroad feel more confident and “superior” (as someone in the forum described) compared to Indian scientists and Postdocs.
I can accept that only handful of Indian faculties in US or EU went back to India despite the fact that they were successful abroad. But majority, I repeat MAJORITY, of those shouting against Indian Postdoc or faculties abroad NEVER managed ANY position and were forced to go back. Now they pretend and advertise that they wanted to make India great, to improve Indian science.. blah.. blah. That is utter nonsense.
Yes, few Indian faculties in India are doing great, even in International standard, but they are very few and far between, restricted in few labs. Moreover, their successes are only at personal level, NOT institutional or systemic. Majority are just average or below average who could not get anything in the west and do not have the confidence to compete here n US/EU and just wanted a competition free life in Indian science. The difference will be evident of you ask any Indian postdoc or faculty, who spent few years abroad, regarding his/her level of technical and scientific confidence and competence before and after their foreign stay.
One need to understand why so many very successful Indian scientists and academicians abroad (some are Noble laureates) never like to go back to India. One can read what our new Indian origin Noble laureate scientist (now in UK) talks about India and Indian science. We all know how faculties are recruited there in India, how promotions are decided, how awards are given. If they were so great in doing novel research, Indian position in research would not have been so pathetic as of now (127 out of 176 countries as per scopius database, as per average citation per publication).
Lastly, those who are batting for CSIR or CSIR DG, can ask the question why CSIR recruited an “extraordinary scientist” from abroad, not from India? Does CSIR and its DG believe the same “myth” that everything “foreign” is better?

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 16:52
[ Permalink ]
In fact, the number of decent PhD students in India would be much less if the application fee for GRE, TOFEL is reduced (or free for Indian students), if the number of fully paid scholarships/fellowships in EU and US is increased and if more Indian students (mainly in smaller towns and villages) have internet access. Probably no sane Indian student will remain in India for a PhD.
A good number of successful Indian postdocs and faculties left their PhD in many famous Indian institutes (some under CSIR) and went to US-EU. Any idea why?

Anonymous said...

More Comments...:

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 18:30
[ Permalink ]
Like all the other posts on this blog, there is clearly two groups: the Indian science bashers and the Indian science criticizers. Both the groups are right from their own perspective. The faults listed for India/Indian science have no geographical boundaries.It is present all over the world. It becomes an eye sore because we want to develop and then we realize that there are some inherent problems.We want to fix it but don’t want anyone to point at it. So the clash.
Well, I am sure everyone on this forum involved in discussion is airing their views not to insult anyone or India or Indian science.Each side is highlighting the pros and cons.So, there is not need to be personal. Otherwise people like Dr.Raghav will keep deserting forums.We need to be grownups and listen to each side carefully and divert the discussion.
I would like to request people reading this thread to read the document prepared by Ayyadurai. I don’t know anyone (ayyadurai or DG CSIR)personally but am amazed by the fact that Dr.Ayyadurai has given day by day details about the developments for the job he was hired for. This is something which is rarely seen by people/scientists in India. The things he had talked about are “SO TRUE” about Indian scientists. One simple example is non-responsiveness to emails or correspondence but later bragging about it (how great they are, how busy they are, how important they are etc) or worse mentioning about it in a very distorted manner to malign/insult the writer. A fear psychosis is created.
If Dr.Ayyadurai has asked for one to one debate at any open platform, the CSIR should accept the challenge and come out clean.This will boost the morale of the “supporters” and the “bashers” would have nothing to say again.
Hope we can know the truth.


Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 18:36
[ Permalink ]
Some in the forum take sit personally and attach others personally, like personal publications, H-index etc. They forget that we are discussing a system, not judging a person. Such people need to mature a bit to take part any public forum, objective discussion.
Anno #14.
NO, It is NOT money. Not for many people who went back to India. When anyone goes back and join a job there, s/he has VERY clear idea how much money s/he will get. There are many scientists and other professionals who have enough money to have a great life in India. Yet they do not go.
Hankering for money is for average people and average or below average scientists. Anyone with a decent brain and energy has n number of ways to earn money. And any brilliant person knows that very well. In fact if money is the concern, India is THE place to be, to earn money, a lot of it without bothering about law and ethics.
In fact huge increase in salary and other monetary benefits are attracting many useless technicians (I hate to describe them as “scientist”) into the Indian research system.

Anonymous said...

More comments....:

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 19:27
[ Permalink ]
I feel that CSIR should not have hired a Indian with foreign education and academic upbringing. There are so many Indians who could have done the job easily. CSIR made a wrong decision to hire him.
Also, it is worth to mention that Dr. Ayyadurai himself is interested in commercializing traditional medicine and knowledge. Is there a conflict of interest? Was he transgressing areas? It is easy to criticize CSIR leadership, but you have to give them the benefit of doubt. Even in USA nobody is gven a free hand, not even CEOs. Conflict is part of leadership, power struggle is part of the process. In this sense, I do not see anything wrong in firing Dr. Ayyadurai.
BTW, I am not against Dr. Ayyadurai. He is an excellent academician/enterprenuer. But, many NRIs feel that Indians are incapable of doing business and in fact poke fun of them and look down upon them. I myself is an NRI and talk vocally against any such genralizations. I understand the underlying problem of the Indian system, it is the POLITICAL CORRUPTION. If this stops or diminishes, everything else will fall in place.

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 20:38
[ Permalink ]
Yes, you are right. It all started with Indira Gandhi’s era. Politics became criminalized and Education and research became politicized. Today recruitment of VCs, directors, DGs all are more political than anything else. Top level corruption at every stage of governance has penetrated deep into the system. Common people feel helpless to oppose corruption. So they join either them, some enthusiastically and some reluctantly or leave the system altogether. When you start asking question, the ultimately it will go to the top decision making body and they do not like the word “accountability”. This issue of Dr Shiva became so much advertised simply because he is fighting and knows ways to make others involved, not like majority of Indians who surrender without any fight. Eventually it will die down and it will be business as usual. If we really like to change the system, we need to join politics. India need better politicians than anything else at this point of time. And when I am joining politics, I very well know and prepared to face everything including crime and corruption. And I know that from the very beginning. But in science we preach and/or pretend that the profession is a noble and honest one, but in reality it is more polluted and we are not prepared to face it. Young students get shocked after experiencing the reality in later part of his/her career. Then it’s too late and crossed the point of no return.
Yes, there are few good scientists in Indian system, many great students but all ultimately succumb to the pressure and break down. But as a system, we do not encourage them to become scientist. It’s not so surprising that sons and daughters of majority of scientists do not like to join science (unlike doctors and lawyers). If I like to earn more and more money then there are so many others ways to do that. If I join research and not allowed to pursue my quest for knowledge and truth behind natural phenomenon or technology, then there is no need to take research, as career, in the first place. And If I am forced to do it (for some other reason like unemployment, family-social pressure etc) then one should not expect great research ethics or novel ideas from me. Self advertisement and aggressively defending the current system is the only way that the ruling class can do to sustain it.

Anonymous said...

More Comments...:

B. B. Goel
04 December 2009 | 20:48
[ Permalink ]
Anno #17, you said, “Conflict is part of leadership, power struggle is part of the process”. I think it is not conflict but conflict-resolution is the signature of able and confident leadership. When deserving candidates attain higher positions there is not much descent among junior staff in the long run. But if an undeserving candidate routinely gets promotion and awards, it gives rise to long term frustration and serious conflict in the long run.
Suffocating any opposing opinion is the first sign weakness for the leadership. DG CSIR could have gladly accepted the review and discuss with all other relevant scientists what they think about it and how to address the issue. Instead he immediately fired him indicates his guilt feeling and also signifies his lack of commitment towards the organization.

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 20:57
[ Permalink ]
I agree with Annony#16 that this debate is not about personal citations and personal accomplishments; it is rather about good governance and systemic inabilities.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to answer to Annony#10. He has done a service to everyone by pointing to accomplishment of DG, CSIR. When I do a search in ‘scholar google’ I find that the maximum citation for any paper of Prof. S K Brahmachari is 178. It is also interesting to note that Prof. Brahmachari is not the first author in any of his top 5 publications that show up in scholar google (as per number of citations).
The people he seek to recruit from abroad seem to be more qualified than him. For example, do a similar ‘scholar google’ search for Ramanan Laxminarayan.
Anyhow, coming back to the point. Good governance and administration cannot be judged by number of citations. Given the incidents in CSIR and questions raised, DG CSIR seem to completely fail in managing CSIR; on contrary he is seen to be pursuing his own agendas. If there are no personal agendas then he should come out clean and accept an ‘independent inquiry’ into everything. Let truth come out.

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 22:18
[ Permalink ]
Once I happened to be in ICGEB, another high profile Indian institute. That time many scandals rocked ICGEB including firing of a brilliant scientist (also from abroad), Dr Vaishnav. There was one similar article in Nature by the same journalist (K.S Jayaraman). Within few days of its publication, there was a correspondence from ICGEB senior faculties denying all the charges and allegations.
I know at least part of the story behind the scene. A memorandum was circulated among the ICGEB senior faculties by the Director of ICGEB stating that they all stand behind the director and they deny any wrong doing by him or by ICGEB authority.
Does any sane person believe that any faculty denying signing the memorandum will be allowed to stay in ICGEB after that? Naturally the director had no problem to coerce all other faculties to sign the memorandum and get it published in Nature. Now ICGEB authority is tactful and matured enough to keep all such dissident voices under control (mainly by selecting new faculties accordingly). That’s how Indian system operates!
It’s hard to convince such incidents to a person who believes in a system where a Nobel laureate scientist like Jim Watson had to resign for a loose comment (on intellect of African origin people).

Anonymous said...

More Comments...:

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 22:53
[ Permalink ]
THANK YOU Annony#10 for letting us know the greatness achieved by IGIB. it is with great interest I went through the growth document of IGIB. It took me about 15 mts to come to following conclusion:
Up to 31st July 2007, 77 articles get published in various journals. Total impact factor is 282.91. Of the 77 articles, two articles (published in New Eng. J Medicine and Nature Genetics) together carry the impact factor of 69.82. This means that rest 75 articles together carry the impact factor of 213.09. This brings to average impact factor of rest 75 articles to 2.84.
Now let us talk about the 2 STAR articles.
The one that came out in Nature Genetics is titled “Recommendations of the 2006 Human Variome Project meeting”. IGIB was one of the participatory organizations of this meeting!! – Does mention of this not sound like a joke?
The other article star came out in New Eng. J Medicine. Who is the FIRST author? I believe that first author is not from IGIB. How can then IGIB claim FULL accolades for this article?
If IGIB wants to be seen as the best lab in genomics within India, it should have the benchmark comparable to international standards.
I leave up on YOU to do more analysis on the growth of IGIB.

Anonymous
05 December 2009 | 01:48
[ Permalink ]
This new DG of CSIR announced a utopian project named, “open source drug discovery” (OSDD) with an initial allocation of $38 million, with much fanfare as soon as he got appointment as DG CSIR. He and his henchmen had no clue about the complexity and ingenuity to discover a drug. They were suffocated with “closed source” approach by everyone else. So they decided to make the CSIR system more closed and discovery source open!
According to many sources the last drug developed in India by an Indian scientist is against kala Azar by another Brambhachari, not Samir but Upendra Nath during 1921-22. That hype about OSDD is now dying. CSIR DG and his cronies have now realized that nothing to going to happen to discover any novel drug in-silico. It seems that DG is now shifting gear to safer bait to generate lots of data (and publication, naturally); sequencing all possible organisms (micro and macro) to “catalogue Indian biodiversity". A nice approach that can give him and his next few successors sufficient time to become “successful” to get few more national awards. They already have Bhatnagar, so now they need Padma Bhusan or Bibhusan or (bharat) ratna style something.

Anonymous said...

More Comments...:

V Patel
05 December 2009 | 17:53
[ Permalink ]

Relative to Mr. Vinod’s comments on another BLOG:

I know Mr. Vinod, an employee IGIB and protege of Mr. Brahamachari is one of the key architects of OSDD and its beneficiary he prides himself on the number of registrants, the basis for justifying the nearly $40 Million OSDD has received. Deflecting the real issues by making allegations on Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is something he has learned well from Brahmachari.
How are we going to believe YOUR story?
This too will come out in an inquiry. Your posturing of your “coming out of silence” seemingly to give us facts is hollow another Brahmachari standard of faking sincerity.
As I understand, it is known that you and your cohort Mr. Sridhar at IGIB were starting your OWN company for DNA annotation and wanted to convince Dr. Ayyadurai to support it? Is there not a message that you received in which Dr. Ayyadurai told you that the Joint Secretary of CSIR would have to review the legality of your approach? Let us bring that out in the Public Inquiry that Dr. Ayyadurai has requested.
In fact, is it not true that a few others at IGIB, including VERY sr. personnel, decided to go do their own companies without CSIR involvement, in spite of Dr. Ayyadurai’s request for opennes and transparency to make it aware to CSIR. In fact, I’ve seen e-mail’s between Dr. Ayyadurai and others on this matter if you want to pursue this, it will expose SR. Level personnel at IGIB.
The reality is that CSIR-TECH would have forced compliance and people like you and others didn’t want that you would rather simply steal government property and start your own firms.
The important issue here is let us review all the evidence, papers, etc. in the light of day with TV, cameras, web, etc. Nearly all of us know the tactics of Brahamahari in making allegations Dr. Ayyadurai’s predecessor Yogeshwar Rao was demolished by stating that he was out of integrity and wanted to get a Board seat on a Company the reality was that Yogeshwar opposed Brahmachari’s model to start CSIR-TECH. Is there not an E-Mail by Yogsherwar Rao which cleary shows evidence of this?
CSIR-TECH document posted on website has provided evidence in full view of the day.
I checked link provided by you that directs me to Dr. Ayyadurai’s resume. What is wrong if he has said that he has written a Commentary? Indeed he has written a Commentary that came out in Nature (and YOU have read it). A Commentary is a PUBLISHED ARTICLE that ONLY NATURE can request and approve——it is NOT A BLOG, do you know what a BLOG is?
The ONLY Blog you are referring in the Nature Forum, is the ONE I STARTED.
Yes, you have managed to PUBLICIZE OSDD very well. You have also got that in Technology Review. And so have DG managed to get good media coverage for his other projects like Soleckshaw, CSIR University, etc. No body is denying this great PR skills of DG!! In fact this is exactly what the article by Dr. Ayyadurai says, that is these things are outcome of good publicity — not any innovation or real engineering. And if there is any tangible and promised outcome to these then an “independent inquiry” will bring that out in public.
WHY SHY AWAY FROM THE OPEN FORUM MODEL that Dr. Ayyadurai has been asking for? Why can DG not accept it and stop using his protege’s like you to cover up his tracks with distractions?

Anonymous said...

More Comments...:

Anonymous
05 December 2009 | 18:00
[ Permalink ]
Clearly, Brahmachari and his coterie, like Mr. Scaria, love to deflect issues. Let us have the open forum with TV, internet, etc. and review the data from both parties. Dr. Ayyadurai is willing to do this.
As VPatel asks, Why is Brahmachari not?
Clearly the Commentary in Nature is an article that has been published, not a BLOG! Does Scaria not know what a BLOG is for somoene who is the Chief Architect of OSDD?!

Anonymous said...

Last Saved Comment from the Nature Blog:

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 22:00
[ Permalink ]
I am following this news the day it was published in Nature. Here is what I believe and I am well aware of the fact that it will not change anything.
1. Whenever something about India is published, we see 100’s of comments and even on Nature news item look at the number of comments.
2. Same goes for other news sources, they are full of comments as if it will change anything. Why am I commenting is again a big question, after all I am also an Indian and like to comment on everything related to India.
Mr Ayyadurai was hired by CSIR (read Samir Brahmachari) to work as a STIO. His duties included but not limited to the consultations. He managed to write a report and sent it to scientists working in CSIR (The content of this report should be publicized either by CSIR or by Mr Ayyadurai). The approach he took misfired and resulted in termination of his contract and snatching of official accommodation.
Dr Brahmachari should make it public on what criteria Dr Ayyadurai was hired. He did his PhD only in 2007 eventhough he was working before that it is not sufficient to hire a person at STIO. I assumed you need lots of experience post PhD. PIL should be filed to know the criteria used and comments of selection committee (if any exist) for Dr Ayyadurai. Was it a personnel decision of Dr Brahmachari or decision of a panel to hire him?
CSIR is run by tax payers money and is not a property of anyone including DG. The report should be made public and let public or scientific community debate on it.
Dr Ayyadurai should have continued for some more time to closely understand the system. No one including in western world would appreciate the direct criticism. You cannot walk up to the Professor at MIT and tell that you are wrong. You always put your idea and convince them that your idea is much more feasible/practical or real.
We cannot criticize India science or scientists while sitting in air-conditioned labs or offices. There are excellent institutes in India where scientists are publishing regularly in Science, Nature, Cell or PNAS. In order to improve the scientific situation in India it is better to hire people who are publishing in Science/ Nature and Cell from India. They have advantage of working in India as well as performing excellent science. Scientists started companies like Avesthagen etc, and CSIR should hire them. It is better to have a mix of excellent inbred and external scientists....

CSIR is a big failure as they have failed to sustain good labs or institutes. IMTECH is working on average level but that doesn’t mean it is free of corruption (as evident from recent posts here). They keep non-performers till they retire or die off. Even after retirement these non-performers are paid pensions. All these non-performers are given excellent housing (new institutes have special elaborative plans for Professor level housing while junior Asst profs will be stacked in one bedroom flats!!). Why a critical performer like Dr Ayyadurai was sacked and after sacking his house was snatched? Atleast as a respect to human kind he should be given 30 days notice to resign and surrender his house. This is fishy and not something people in the scientific community will buy.
Hand written note was given by Brahmachari as an appoinment letter to Dr Ayyadurai. Is he an owner of CSIR that he can give salary to anyone on just a hand written note!! Sorry to say but this is an attitude problem of Mr Brahmachari. Authorities should question him for illegally dispersing salaries to some one who was not even appointed officially. The way he warned reporters (if it is true) of NY Times was bad enough to portray him guilty of some wrong doing. He was thinking that NY times reporter will get scared and will not publish the report. It can work in India for him but his influence is limited within Delhi or India....

Anonymous said...

The LAST COMMENT saved from the Nature Blog:

Anonymous
04 December 2009 | 22:00
[ Permalink ]
I am following this news the day it was published in Nature. Here is what I believe and I am well aware of the fact that it will not change anything.
1. Whenever something about India is published, we see 100’s of comments and even on Nature news item look at the number of comments.
2. Same goes for other news sources, they are full of comments as if it will change anything. Why am I commenting is again a big question, after all I am also an Indian and like to comment on everything related to India.
Mr Ayyadurai was hired by CSIR (read Samir Brahmachari) to work as a STIO. His duties included but not limited to the consultations. He managed to write a report and sent it to scientists working in CSIR (The content of this report should be publicized either by CSIR or by Mr Ayyadurai). The approach he took misfired and resulted in termination of his contract and snatching of official accommodation.
Dr Brahmachari should make it public on what criteria Dr Ayyadurai was hired. He did his PhD only in 2007 eventhough he was working before that it is not sufficient to hire a person at STIO. I assumed you need lots of experience post PhD. PIL should be filed to know the criteria used and comments of selection committee (if any exist) for Dr Ayyadurai. Was it a personnel decision of Dr Brahmachari or decision of a panel to hire him?
CSIR is run by tax payers money and is not a property of anyone including DG. The report should be made public and let public or scientific community debate on it.
Dr Ayyadurai should have continued for some more time to closely understand the system. No one including in western world would appreciate the direct criticism. You cannot walk up to the Professor at MIT and tell that you are wrong. You always put your idea and convince them that your idea is much more feasible/practical or real.
We cannot criticize India science or scientists while sitting in air-conditioned labs or offices. There are excellent institutes in India where scientists are publishing regularly in Science, Nature, Cell or PNAS. In order to improve the scientific situation in India it is better to hire people who are publishing in Science/ Nature and Cell from India. They have advantage of working in India as well as performing excellent science. Scientists started companies like Avesthagen etc, and CSIR should hire them. It is better to have a mix of excellent inbred and external scientists....


CSIR is a big failure as they have failed to sustain good labs or institutes. IMTECH is working on average level but that doesn’t mean it is free of corruption (as evident from recent posts here). They keep non-performers till they retire or die off. Even after retirement these non-performers are paid pensions. All these non-performers are given excellent housing (new institutes have special elaborative plans for Professor level housing while junior Asst profs will be stacked in one bedroom flats!!). Why a critical performer like Dr Ayyadurai was sacked and after sacking his house was snatched? Atleast as a respect to human kind he should be given 30 days notice to resign and surrender his house. This is fishy and not something people in the scientific community will buy.
Hand written note was given by Brahmachari as an appoinment letter to Dr Ayyadurai. Is he an owner of CSIR that he can give salary to anyone on just a hand written note!! Sorry to say but this is an attitude problem of Mr Brahmachari. Authorities should question him for illegally dispersing salaries to some one who was not even appointed officially. The way he warned reporters (if it is true) of NY Times was bad enough to portray him guilty of some wrong doing. He was thinking that NY times reporter will get scared and will not publish the report. It can work in India for him but his influence is limited within Delhi or India....

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not, there are doctorates with more than 20 years as scientist position, did not reach even to Sc-F positions.
But with out a single foreign publication, few are made as Sc-F in 18 years. This is possible in CSIR only.
Our system is wrong. We need not cry for justice.

Anonymous said...

All the doctorates in CSIR with 20 years of experience, should be made Sc-F grade with immediate effect. Then some science will come. In a disparate situation, i donot know how one can do science. It is urge, needs cool in mind.

Anonymous said...

When a Vice-chancellor has a term of 3 years, why an Director of CSIR lab should be 6 years and extending ................. till his retirement/ death. There lies the fault.

Scientist said...

We always pretend that we do not know anything! How many of the CSIR scientists got job without "reco" of their powerful godfathers? It hurts only when comes to them, right?
The problem is not DG, it's we. We (scientists) forget our dignity when we go to our bosses, always in begging mode (we have no option also, because he knew how we got the job!). Obviously although we are vertebrates genotypically, we become phenotypically invertebrates! For our own small interests, we keep mum and that's the way it is.
We can only blames to our fates, like many of our "scientist" friends do, and may be go to Tirupati to offer some puja!
Tell me honestly, how many of us have real scientific mind set? You got the answer!
CSIR Scientist

Anonymous said...

1. “Believe it or not, there are doctorates with more than 20 years as scientist position, did not reach even to Sc-F positions…. few are made as Sc-F in 18 years. Dec. 6, 09”
-- Once Ex-DG proclaimed himself as Emperor & Directors his courtiers - almighty to do what they like, and to expel eye-sores in directors meeting. CSIR is a mughalia sultanate, and will face the same.

2. “All the doctorates in CSIR with 20 years of experience, should be made Sc-F grade with immediate effect. Dec. 6, 09”
-- Pray to DG, bow down to Director and you will be Sc. H within 13 years of Ph.D., even if you are not a CSIR employee (Adv. outstanding Sc-H web-site). Many Sc. E1 & E2 with >15 yrs of Ph.D., excellent credentials, awards, but declared UNFIT for promotion to E-II and F. A Sc-EII had a Nature paper, another had credentials on par with director of a lab in assessment period of 5 year, but declared UNFIT by RAB. Who cares what is your credential, but how are U with Mughals.

3.“When a Vice-chancellor has a term of 3 years, why Director of lab should be 6 years retirement/ death. Dec. 6, 09"
-- Director is political post. Politicians rule till their death. DG & Directors with 2 terms and few extensions are not new. A Director (total service 26 yrs) is seeking extension by using his strings he used in his basic appointment, bhatnagar, fellowships to academies.

4.“The most disturbing part is: Indian prime minister’s silence over the issue...of corruption against CSIR- 04 Dec 09”
-- India, once a country of kings & nawabs, is still the same. PM heading CSIR, and MOS (vice) are NEROs playing music while Rome was burning, as they do not bother CSIR’s autonomous affair.

5.“A nice approach that can give him and his next... few more national awards…. – Dec. 6, 09, 6:25 AM”
-- Like appointments, promotions in RAB, Bhatnagar Awards are all decided by the selection committees not following any rules/norms, but fight for their co-authors, collaborators, without looking at other nominations, however it merit. For example, a nominee with papers in Nature, Science, and 3 top journals was denied Bhatnagar which went to a collaborator/co-author of SSBA selection committee member. No one knows manipulations in committees, proceedings are secret and their decision can not be challenged, but CSIR boasts for transparency and accountability. DG was informed by an FNA that the SSBs to be awarded, have 3 to 20 co-authored papers with sitting SSBA selection committee member. Once Bhatnagar awarded by hook/crook, IAS fellowship is often gratis, because few lobby member are common in both committees, and they scratch each others back justifying their misdeeds.
A planned long term looting of public fund is going on. CSIR-GB granted yearly incentive of Rs. 200,000 + special honorarium of Rs. 15,000/month to all Bhatnagar awardees till 65 years age. It is Rs. 3.8 lakh/year to each new Bhatnagar (aged 45 yrs) amounting to Rs. 78 lakhs till he attains 65 yrs. SSBA selection committee members literally fight for their co-authors, collaborators being awarded Bhatnagar for vested interest. Once their co-author gets SSBA, he will protect their interest installing them as committee members (RAB, Project review, RAC) and support in Emeritus ship, as CSIR has an un-written rule that Bhatnagar awardees will be director of a lab. Once a Bhatnagar, always a bhatnagar, and they scratch and shield each other’s folly for their vested interests, in selection committees for fellowships of academies, honors, Awards, promotions, selection committees of Directors, project reviews. Worst is to victimize complainants (IIM math professor in 1997, and several others who complained against SSBA manipulation). It is ALI-BABA-40-Bandit story.
-- Who will bell these wild, mad, monstrous cats on killing spree of innocent performing scientists, without any fear of being scrutinized, criticized, and penalized. May GOD save CSIR and Indian Science from the monsters on looting and killing spree.

Anonymous said...

1. “Believe it or not, there are doctorates with more than 20 years as scientist position, did not reach even to Sc-F positions…. few are made as Sc-F in 18 years. Dec. 6, 09”
-- Once Ex-DG proclaimed himself as Emperor & Directors his courtiers - almighty to do what they like, and to expel eye-sores in directors meeting. CSIR is a mughalia sultanate, and will face the same.

2. “All the doctorates in CSIR with 20 years of experience, should be made Sc-F grade with immediate effect. Dec. 6, 09”
-- Pray to DG, bow down to Director and you will be Sc. H within 13 years of Ph.D., even if you are not a CSIR employee (Adv. outstanding Sc-H web-site). Many Sc. E1 & E2 with >15 yrs of Ph.D., excellent credentials, awards, but declared UNFIT for promotion to E-II and F. A Sc-EII had a Nature paper, another had credentials on par with director of a lab in assessment period of 5 year, but declared UNFIT by RAB. Who cares what is your credential, but how are U with Mughals.

3.“When a Vice-chancellor has a term of 3 years, why Director of lab should be 6 years retirement/ death. Dec. 6, 09"
-- Director is political post. Politicians rule till their death. DG & Directors with 2 terms and few extensions are not new. A Director (total service 26 yrs) is seeking extension by using his strings he used in his basic appointment, bhatnagar, fellowships to academies.

4.“The most disturbing part is: Indian prime minister’s silence over the issue...of corruption against CSIR- 04 Dec 09”
-- India, once a country of kings & nawabs, is still the same. PM heading CSIR, and MOS (vice) are NEROs playing music while Rome was burning, as they do not bother CSIR’s autonomous affair.

5.“A nice approach that can give him and his next... few more national awards…. – Dec. 6, 09, 6:25 AM”
-- Like appointments, promotions in RAB, Bhatnagar Awards are all decided by the selection committees not following any rules/norms, but fight for their co-authors, collaborators, without looking at other nominations, however it merit. For example, a nominee with papers in Nature, Science, and 3 top journals was denied Bhatnagar which went to a collaborator/co-author of SSBA selection committee member. No one knows manipulations in committees, proceedings are secret and their decision can not be challenged, but CSIR boasts for transparency and accountability. DG was informed by an FNA that the SSBs to be awarded, have 3 to 20 co-authored papers with sitting SSBA selection committee member. Once Bhatnagar awarded by hook/crook, IAS fellowship is often gratis, because few lobby member are common in both committees, and they scratch each others back justifying their misdeeds.
A planned long term looting of public fund is going on. CSIR-GB granted yearly incentive of Rs. 200,000 + special honorarium of Rs. 15,000/month to all Bhatnagar awardees till 65 years age. It is Rs. 3.8 lakh/year to each new Bhatnagar (aged 45 yrs) amounting to Rs. 78 lakhs till he attains 65 yrs. SSBA selection committee members literally fight for their co-authors, collaborators being awarded Bhatnagar for vested interest. Once their co-author gets SSBA, he will protect their interest installing them as committee members (RAB, Project review, RAC) and support in Emeritus ship, as CSIR has an un-written rule that Bhatnagar awardees will be director of a lab. Once a Bhatnagar, always a bhatnagar, and they scratch and shield each other’s folly for their vested interests, in selection committees for fellowships of academies, honors, Awards, promotions, selection committees of Directors, project reviews. Worst is to victimize complainants (IIM math professor in 1997, and several others who complained against SSBA manipulation). It is ALI-BABA-40-Bandit story.
-- Who will bell these wild, mad, monstrous cats on killing spree of innocent performing scientists, without any fear of being scrutinized, criticized, and penalized. May GOD save CSIR and Indian Science from the monsters on looting and killing spree.

annamalaiar said...

It become a world of sycophants. They will not allow the men in power to think and act. Why should we bother for shiva ayyaduarai or sardana ?. But we have to bother for CSIR, a premier R&D org whic is in doll drums, the system followed there should be corrected for well being of science and the country. Sycophants do not interfere. Samir need not fight with gun on others shoulders. He is clever man and need not depend upon on these selfish sycophants. They may collect all their replies/comments brought by them in blogs and submit before Samir and may get all the benefits they wanted when they are not deserving for it. Samir has to be independent. beware sycophants.

-reproduced from ABI's Nanopolitan

Anonymous said...

You can see mashelkar's CSIR in the link:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7gzkdw_0fqzbh2
Embracing situation for CSIR feudal system.