Letter sent to MHRD regarding Educational Policy

            Ref.No. Policy/Edn/MHRD/2019-001                                           Date: 25-July-2019

The Minister

Human Resource Development

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Govt. of India

E-mail: nep.edu@nic.in

Sub: comments and suggestions regarding the Draft National Education Policy

Dear Sir

We, members of the Society for Systems Biology & Translational Research (SSBTR), url: www.ssbtr.net) have gone through Draft National Education Policy in our general meeting held in our society on 14^th July 2019 and happy to respond to your call for public opinion.

We appreciate the committee’s initiative of introducing the concept of developing multi-disciplinary liberal arts education system (pg 29), amalgamation between general and professional education (pg 203, 213), giving freedom to the educational institutions in developing courses and teacher recruitment policy (pg 210), emphasis to research in higher education (pg 31) and also appreciate the outlook of giving importance to the philanthropic initiative (pg 206, 334, 405). Several of these are also indicated by our research on educational policy.

In this connection we would like to point out the following points:

1. Our observation with respect to biomedical research are as follows [Annals of Systems Biology, 2016 1(1): 1-12]:

a. India produced 90.5% of total biomedical publications generated by the SAARC countries.

b. The World share of biomedical research output is gradually growing from India along with China and Brazil.

c. As per NSF 2010 report, India’s priorities for research (on the basis of journal publication) in different disciplines are 28% in biomedical research, 67.7% in Physics and Engineering and rest in Social and Agricultural Sciences.

d. As per 2013 report, 5% of global shares of clinical trials is India’s share estimation.

These data suggest that research activities in India with respect to publication is not poor, but emphasis on biomedical research and most importantly translational aspect of research is seriously lacking in Indian context. In the draft policy research activities are encouraged but we have not seen a single word on translational research. From the practical stand-point followings are our observations –

Conglomeration of biomedical research with biology and translational research with product based laboratory research or epidemiology based field research seriously hampering future health care. Our health care sector is devoid of getting the fruits (outputs) of basic science, as in Indian education system is unable to adapt the translational aspect of research [Journal of Translational Research, 2017, 1(1): 1-4; Advances in Pharmacology and Clinical Trials, 2016, 1(1): APCT-MS-ID-00010]. It is needless to mention here that AYUSH, Yoga, Homeopathy etc. are mentioned to serve for health care for larger community (pg 305) which in turn, admits the poor health care facility at present moment. We therefore strongly suggest to emphasize the aspect of translational research in educational policy and for its proper implementation separate assessment components with concerned experts need to be included, as from our practical observation, we have seen neither mere science trained (in a single discipline) nor a single profession trained personnel have the expertise to appreciate its methods and procedures.

2. Several newly developed subjects like Operation Research, Cognitive Science, and Systems Biology are inherently multidisciplinary in nature and for those subjects mere knowledge of two or three subjects are insufficient. Hence, for those subjects major and minor concept of education may not be effective. So for the subjects which are inherently multidisciplinary in nature, broader choice of subjects and more flexibility and freedom of opting of subject papers need to be allowed.

3. We appreciate the concept of synergy between technical education with general education (pg 294) with the parallel entry of personnel with experience in hospital or industry for teaching position (pg 299). We suggest not to orient it only for professional education, but also for general education system as well, because inclusion of personnel with diversified field will foster the translational aspect in general education and may enhance the job opportunity of students from general education as well. From our practical observation we have noticed that -

a. most of teachers involved in general education do not have any exposure to real life problems and hence, real-life research experience is overlooked in Indian higher education.

b. counting of experience is based on class room teaching activities.

c. even in Master’s program undergraduate teaching experience is counted as experience and research experience is kept aside.

d. several institutional leaders and educational policy makers do not have adequate research experience in a multi-/ cross-disciplinary research experience as par publication record.

We, therefore, suggest the followings for teacher recruitment and selection of institutional leader especially in master’s program in higher education –

a. To revamp research culture in higher education, especially for master’s program research experience need to be emphasized, instead of class room teaching experience and merit should be on the basis of research potentiality.

b. To make education at par of national or international standard, priority should be imparted to the personnel who has experience of clearing different entrance examination of national or international repute.

c. To implement multidisciplinary liberal arts in Indian education system emphasis need to be imparted in selection of institutional leaders with a working research experience in a multidisciplinary areas.

SSBTR thinks that this is the most important aspect of this paradigm shift, as at present moment most of the institutional leaders do not have true multidisciplinary working research experience.

4. In the draft policy, importance of philanthropic bodies and not-for-profit (pg. 206, 334,405) is emphasized. In this connection we suggest to include the importance of different educational and scientific societies. It is needless to point out here that from pre-independence era scientific societies played an immense role in the new knowledge generation, for example, Indian Association for Cultivation of Science, Asiatic Society and Indian Statistical Society. In recent time Operation Research Society offered several educational programs/courses. Hence scientific societies need to be included in this venture. However, in contrast to corporate bodies, many of them do not have enough financial fund to start new programs like a university structure; however, ample expertise are available there; hence, they can start newer courses in miniature scales and may produce new body of knowledge. Hence without any pre-assigned financial stipulation, clause or conditions educational and scientific societal bodies need to include in this new venture.

If you need further clarification, we are eager to respond to your queries.

Thanking you.

With regards, 

 

Dibyendu Kumar Ray, M.S., M.Ch.                     Durjoy Majumder, Ph.D.

President                                                              Secretary

Ageism in academic jobs in India in Nature India Blog

Ageism is a serious problem for Indian academia.
Several issues in policy are daunting the progress of Indian academia as mentioned :
1. "Many academic institutions have no guidelines on the role, involvement and career development of academic fellows."
2. "Many academics fail to understand the role and potential of fellows like me and often consider them just as an extended postdoc — not as a long-term prospect or potential collaborator. Hence, I did not get enough of an opportunity to teach and to mentor PhD students."
3. surely some vogus and callous advices are there without judging the nature of research: "for improving my faculty application and to enhance my chances of a secure job — this was to publish my current research: i) without foreign authors; and ii) as senior or first author in more prestigious journals such as Science, Nature or PNAS. Whilst the first is possible, the second is easier said than done."
 &&& "collecting and publishing groundbreaking ecology data in top journals can take years longer than other disciplines".
4. and the most serious problem "The journals I have been publishing in are not familiar to some of the members of recruitment panels I’ve met with. I have even been asked if ‘Ibis’ and ‘Parasites & Vectors’ were proper journals."

see Subhra Priyadarshini post in Nature India Blog indigenus, dated 20-July-2017

Nature Index: over 50% of China’s high-quality research involves international co-authors

Nature Index: over 50% of China’s high-quality research involves international co-authors, 2017-May-26

The Nature Index 2017 China supplement, published today, reveals that as China’s total number of articles included in the Nature Index increased since 2012, the percentage of articles with international co-authors has continued to rise year-on-year. By 2016, papers with international co-authors comprised more than 50% of the country’s articles in the index.

In 2016, the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the National Institute for Nuclear Physics in Italy formed the strongest bilateral collaboration between a Chinese institution and an international institution, followed by Peking University and Harvard University. Out of the top 10 international bilateral collaborations in China, the Germany-based Max Planck Society participated in five.
However, the depth of collaborations between institutions domestically remains far greater than internationally. There are 56 such partnerships between Chinese institutions that are stronger than the leading global pairing.
In terms of China’s inter-city collaborations, as well as institutions in Beijing having the highest contribution to the index overall, last year they formed the largest number of partnerships across China. Beijing was followed by Shanghai and Nanjing in this respect. But beyond these metropolises, institutions in smaller cities have expertise that makes them strong collaborators in their own right.
For instance, Kunming, well-known for its unique biodiversity, is a boon for scientists interested in studying plants and ecology. Whereas Changchun in China’s northeast has a long history specialising in chemistry research. Last year institutions in Kunming formed 190 domestic research partnerships with other Chinese institutions to co-author papers included in the index, ranking 16th of the 184 Chinese cities examined by the index. More than two-thirds of Kunming’s output on the Nature Index is the field of chemistry, with many articles investigating the chemical structures and processes of plants. Changchun’s strongest partnership last year was between Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry (CIAC) and University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS) in Beijing, both part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
For the first time, the Nature Index China supplement took a look at China’s performance beyond the 68 journals tracked by the index and expanded into the larger Web of Science database, from Clarivate Analytics. “This helps our readers and index users gain a broad picture of China’s research output overall and in some specific fields. By making comparisons, they can find some interesting facts to better understand the trend,” said David Swinbanks, Founder of the Nature Index.
As indicated by the Nature Index, international papers make up a significant portion of China’s high-quality research, but this level of international co-authorship does not extend to all papers published in China. The country’s share of articles with international co-authors indexed in the Web of Science remains below 25%. “The slower growth rate in papers from international collaborations was because China’s overall research output had grown so dramatically,” said Dr. Yue Weiping, Chief Scientist of China for Clarivate Analytics. “This slower rate may be attributed to language barriers and allocation of institutional resources. Researchers in top universities have more opportunities or resources to collaborate with peers worldwide.” Yet there are signs that this overall rate of international collaboration will rise over the next decade, due to government policies – such as the national World-Class 2.0 project – aimed at making Chinese research more global, including generous funding schemes to promote collaboration.

 

Some opinion of Rolf M. Zinkernagel for those who want to venture into newer fields of biomedical branch

Some notable facts are very important as reflected in the comments by Rolf. M. Zinkernagel

Here some opinion of him is important for those who want to venture into new fields of biomedical branch.

We are given to understand that you had difficulty in getting a postdoctoral position despite applying to as many as 50 institutions. A disappointment of this magnitude could possibly annihilate even the most spirited aspirants.
That's just normal! You must realize that nobody is waiting for you. Why do we go to an institution? We do that to learn, to gain more experience and knowledge. Sure it was busy with all of the rejections because I had to keep applying without a stable position, but it was normal. Just set your goals; keep a
straight mind; and address the principal question that you are trying to answer.

How about disagreements from the scientific community about your work?
Disagreement is normal. It takes some time for hypotheses and even results to be accepted. However, getting published in journals, such as Nature, does provide reassurance. There is an entire article on comments counter arguing the opinions that I had published in an issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. However, I am never worried about the hypotheses that I publish because many of these are testable.

Do you believe that being in big institutions ( such as the Ivy League institutes) enhances the prospects of one winning the Nobel Prize as against, say, being the head of a smaller laboratory early in your life?
There is no such standard rule, provided that you have the facilities needed to carry out your research. At the end of the day, you simply need to be lucky. You can get lucky in a small institution or a big one. When Peter and I were working on solving the problems of MHC-restricted immune T-cell recognition, the Eureka moment came in Canberra, Australia. It was so unexpected, so serendipitous, that the most important thing we did was not to miss it! Had we not discovered it, somebody else would have surely done so sooner or later. Discoveries can occur anywhere.

===> Note: It was the 3rd volume of the Journal [Characteristics of the interaction in vitro between cytotoxic thymus-derived lymphocytes and target monolayers infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, Scan J Immunol, 1974, 3:287-94] and in the following year another publication in the 1st volume of Lancet, [A biological role for the major histocompatibility antigens, Lancet 1975, 1:1406-9]. Possibly at that that time, corporate culture had not pervade into the academy of science. In present scenario the journal could not have indexing status and as par UGC journal criteria that pioneering scientist would not able to pursue his further research and hence, such fundamental discoveries would not be possible in India due to existing academic policy of Indian science. Let's see what are big difference with respect to the development of bio-medical scenario in Indian context.
 
Does medical education equip one better to deal with the challenges of research?
You need both. Laboratory work teaches you to be more analytic in your approach. By studying medicine, you realize the importance of quality control, and can better apply it. If I were to advise a student, it would be better to get a basic medical background and then acquire molecular skills, for that's much easier. Also when you start off with medicine, the road ahead is wide open: There is a variety of paths that you can pursue.
===> Note: In Indian context diseases are addressed by scientists who do not have any exposure to clinical scenario. Ironically, they holds different policy making bodies. Let's see how it affect the paradigm change.

What advice would you give to students who are at the start of their scientific careers?
You have to make a choice to take big risks, or to safeguard yourself by earning good money. However, you can only make a significant discovery by taking risks, because you will have to go somewhere where no one has gone before. Everybody will give you advice, but I personally believe that once you reach the
age of 16, you don't change. You just pick the suggestions that fit your character. You learn from experience. Pick out the advice that has worked for you early on, and leave out what hasn't.
===> Note: Due to bad policy and poor economic structure Indian students avoid minimal level of risks as risks may impose them to get hand-to-mouth, good money is far away. In most of the academic jobs, there is very stringent bar and reservation system

 

that actually do not nurture for the development of a mind-set to learn from failures.

Ref. Science and Sensibility: An Interview with Rolf M. Zinkernagel published in MedGenMed 2007, 9:24
---
Durjoy Majumder, Ph.D.
Secretary, SSBTR

Ageism "as bad as racism"

Though different persons have different physical and mental and cognitive ability irrespective of biological age. Moreover different works need different maturation time frame to grow specially in scientific research. However in Indian context there is a blunt age bar that actually deny suitable person to get into the academic and scientific research. As a result nation may suffer. Interestingly, the issue is now being discussed in Nature Jobs Blog by Jack Leeming dated 27 Oct 2016.
SSBTR thinks the age bar issue has detrimental effect towards the propagation of multi-/interdisciplinary research. For details please visit Ageism "as bad as racism".
Durjoy Majumder, Ph.D.
Secretary, SSBTR

Changing Paradigm in Higher Education

This discussion looks at the role and potential of a growing class of professionals at U.S. colleges and universities today: scholar-practitioners or alternative-academics. Scholar-practitioners are products of a changing higher education landscape where core faculty lines are declining while contract and adjunct positions are growing in tandem with the proliferation of specialized campus services.  For hybrid scholar-practitioners of international higher education, opportunities exist to leverage their exposure to data and experiential knowledge in order to broaden and deepen the discussion in an enterprise increasingly attracting significant research attention. For details see ---> Bernhard Streitwieser and Anthony C. Ogden, "The Scholar-Practitioner Debate in International Higher Education", International Higher Education, 86: Summer 2016.

This article examines whether domestic or international mobility of scientists have positive effect on the productivity or impact of their work. We analyzed 100 top producing authors from 7 disciplines and found that mobility between at least two affiliations increases both output (number of publications) and impact (number of citations). However, mobility between countries does not seem to have a positive impact as domestic affiliation mobility. For detail see ---> Gali Halevi, Henk F. Moed, Judit Bar-Ilan "Does Research Mobility Have an Effect on Productivity and Impact?" International Higher Education, 86: Summer 2016.
----
Durjoy Majumder, Ph.D.