Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan says science is international in nature, not ‘nationalistic’

It was a hot topic - “Scientific temper a prerequisite for knowledge-based society”. Vice President Hamid Ansari delivered his prefatory remarks in his suave manner at the event organised by Rajya Sabha Television in collaboration with the National Institute of Scientific Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR) and Gyan Prasar at the Vigyan Bhavan on Sunday evening.

The men who sat down to talk about it were Anil Kakodkar, former Atomic Energy Commission chairman; Raghavendra Gadagkar, president of Indian National Science Academy (INSA); Indira Nath, an immunologist; and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, winner of Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009.

Gauhar Raza, chief scientist at NISCAIR set the ball rolling by recalling that India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Scientific Policy Resolution, and he insisted on reading the whole of the resolution. He said that the opposition did not criticise, either the whole of it or some parts of it. Instead, members of the opposition upbraided the government for not bringing in the motion earlier. Raza wondered whether it would be possible to move such a resolution in parliament today.

Lamenting the fact that scientific temper was lacking in the scientists’ community, Anil Kakodkar said that when the story went around that Ganesh idols drank milk, 85% to 95% of the scientists at his institute believed it. 

Raghavendra Gadagkar in his intervention said that students are burdened with scientific information and they are not taught the scientific method. He implied that it is not necessary to be a scientist wearing a white coat, in order to acquire a scientific temperament. He argued that scientists too do not exhibit scientific temper always. He said that scientific temper is not involved if he enjoys Hindustani classical music more than Carnatic.

Indira Nath showed circumspection when she argued that each subject had its own rationality, and that it is not right or true that the same scientific method useful in the sciences is of any value in the study of humanities. She said that most Indians have functional literacy, and that they manage with jugaad, which has now become globally famous as the Indian way. She felt that the jugaad should be used to innovate.

But it was Venkatraman Ramakrishnan who ruffled many feathers when he made his now trademark candid remarks. He said that “it was an accident of history that scientific method came from history”.  He emphasised that “science is international in nature” and that “it is the very opposite to nationalistic”. He said that Germany in the 1930s made science a nationalistic enterprise, talking about “Aryan science being superior to Jewish science”.  He said this destroyed German science, and it could only recover long after the Second World War ended. He said another instance of how science was distorted was when the communist regime in the Soviet Union under Lysenko rejected Darwinism and genetics.
He said that Latin was the lingua franca of science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and that Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematical was written in Latin. He said that today “the language of science” is English, with even the prestigious Pasteur Institute in France conducting the scientific symposia in English. He however conceded that basic concepts of science are best grasped when taught in the mother-tongue, and that this was the case in Japan and Germany. The scientists in these countries acquired knowledge of English much later and use it to do their scientific work and in order to write their research papers to reach out to an international readership of fellow scientists.
 
He also made the controversial observation that Western countries progressed through scientific breakthroughs and that the argument stating Western countries became rich because they looted wealth from their colonies was “nonsense”. Reinforcing his argument that it was the scientific breakthroughs that helped Western countries forge ahead others and attain prosperity, he said “rational societies perform better” as against those steeped in corruption. 

He also distinguished between belief and superstition. He said superstition is when you hold on to something after it has been disproved by evidence. On the other hand, belief could relate to matters of taste and to matters where there is no evidence either way.

Responding to a question from a journalist as to how is one to choose between corporate scientists and NGO scientists on an issue like the GM crops, he said one must examine the evidence presented by both sides and take a call.