Lack of motivated students in science

The lack of young and talented students in science has often been bemoaned in this column and recent editorials (Curr. Sci., 2002, 82, 241–242; 903). It is paradoxical that on one hand, good students are unavailable for filling research and faculty positions in basic and applied sciences, while on the other, a large number of science graduates and postgraduates languish among the ranks of unemployed. The various schemes like national science talent search scholarships,
etc. unfortunately may have an inherent shortcoming. The highly competitive nature and process that these selections entail, ensure that only the most ‘academically’ brilliant students
make it through. Unfortunately, science as a career offers poor rewards for those talented people, whom the greener pastures of engineering, medicine, bureaucracy or business claim at the first opportunity. But how far do these various schemes and selection procedures attract or select young, competent people who love doing science and research, but are less gifted
than their more brilliant peers? Is academic brilliance, often the result of superior memorization capability, to be the main or only yardstick for selection? Do originality in thought, innovative ability and passion for hands-on science despite meagre rewards, count for naught? The
selection processes may perhaps be discounting these very qualities, which many gifted scientists of this century possessed, while not exactly being stars of the academia. Science and research should no doubt ensure a decent standard of living for its practitioners, but in the
final analysis are better done by those for whom it is a passion, not just a profession.

M. R. RAGHUNATH
Peninsular Aquaculture Division of
Central Institute of Freshwater
Aquaculture,
Hessarghatta Lake PO,
Bangalore 560 089, India
e-mail: raghumr@vsnl.in

Research is a delicate intellectual activity which requires a sensitive human interaction between the scholar and the guide. A thorough understanding between the two individuals, one aspiring to do something creative and another inspiring the activity, is needed. But nobility has become a
rare virtue in our milieu. Irresponsibility, jealousy, arrogance and even coldvillainy have become common traits of persons even in the institutes of learning and research. It is human to err. Unless the guide takes it lightly, even a small mistake of the research student shall be deemed unpardonable. Any slight displeasure that crops up due to social, cultural or academic reasons, between the guide and the research student is surely to the disadvantage of the latter. In an
atmosphere where research guides (more so in universities) are influenced by extraneous
feelings like caste, community and group, the student is a helpless partner at the mercy of the teacher-guide. Very few guidelines exist to correct the situation, to do justice and to save the
young soul when the mutual relation goes astray. Higher academic authorities feel embarrassed to come openly to protect the weak and help the guide to guide the student with a human face. The student also can err and misbehave, but the system has a structure to punish the
guilty very easily. The problem becomes confounded if either of the two belongs to the opposite sex. The percentage fallout of students from research is around fifty in universities (slightly less in research institutes), which is more often than not due to hostile treatment meted out to the young scientists. As the cynical attitude in supervisors cannot be eroded by a simple rule or regulation, the issue has to be discussed at higher fora of scientific administration of the country to develop a self-corrective mechanism, ensuring smooth research activity with a human face.


CHANDU SUBBA RAO
Department of Geophysics,
Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam 530 003, India
e-mail: ahivisakha@hotmail.com

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 82, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2002