Friday, November 19, 2010

India as a Global Leader in Science: Part III Encouraging and Protecting Innovations.

This blog has been written after much deliberation on whether it will serve some purpose as far as an “innovation Ecosystem” will be concerned. In any Innovation Ecosystem true innovation has to be first recognized, then encouraged and most importantly protected.

Innovation cannot be scavenged.

The blog is aimed at preventing future pitfalls and loopholes in an already fragile innoivative ecosysten. It is based on what may be construed to be true incidents. It ould have elements of a personal nature which may be only thinly veiled.

The actual scientific events are more than twenty five years old. It is not likely to make or damn anyone- Just as copyrights of things older than twenty five years can be violated without infringing on any one's rights, I guess.

The blog could have an element of whistle-blowing which is usually deemed as being unfair. On the other hand it could serves as an example to be avoided by both "junior" and "senior" scientists in an unnecessarily hierarchical society.

Whether the blog should have been posted or not is another matter.

This blog is primarily aimed at stopping the Indian madness to be recognized of being worthy by foreign agencies, be it the World Bank, or the Royal Society of England, or the American Science Academy.

It is ridiculous, as a recent example, to see the left, right and centre of Indian politics being so well-behaved in parliament in the presence of an US president, and, the very next day after the President and his enturage have left, the Indian politicians should behave in the most hooligan manner unite and stop the functioning of the Indian Parliament.

This slavery to an Alien authority drives the public behaviour of all our leaders in all fields, even as their pipers play a merry alien tune for their own gains.

It hurts when the recognition of a Foreign Academy is presumed to add authority to the status of a so-called professional "seeker of knowledge" at the expense of those who seek knowledge for the sake of understanding of their own environment that drive their own curiosities.

When a young and relatively obscure scientist is suddenly given an FRS in England and he becomes chairman of several scientific/planning commissions one may be accused of being very naïve to not to see ulterior motives akin to colonization through science.

Should it not be suggestive of an indirect influence of a foreign kind?

Can we not be kaamyaab (worthy) by ourselves?

Indian Science is not Indian if it is not derived from Indian roots and Indian experiences for understanding the essence of Indian living.
To be a global leader we need much more than affixing a foreign medal, of whatever kind.
It is another matter if Indian Science could and/or should add to a world vision for the benefit of ordinary honest men.

Whistle Blowing to protect Innovators

In an innovation ecosystem the highest place should be given to people who come up with new ideas … people who innovate.

Most time they are dismissed as mavericks --- an independent thinker who sees some reason for not conforming to the accepted views on a subject or being branded with a prevailing school of thought.

Somewhere in the internet it has been written that “It is a well known fact that employees are the biggest perpetrators of fraud and globally most high profile frauds have been unearthed through whistle-blowing practices. Despite this, the practice … is … mandatory for whistle-blowing incidents to be reported and monitored by the audit committee of the board."

Under the amendment to SEBI Clause 49 a whistle blower policy has been introduced "So as to detect frauds, irregularities and encouraging employees to come forward to Audit Committee ... " What is good for the stock exchange must also be good for a healthy system. So one assumes.

The perpetration of fraud charge is equally true for employers and bosses when they steal credit from those they deem to be their juniors/subordinates/slaves simply because they are funding their work/work-space. Whistle blowing on the boss/guide/employer is especially important in the field of research since the ill-effects of the fraud is to curb/subdue the enthusiasm of an young inventor.

One may say that theft of scientific credit happens and has happened throughout history. In modern life it is equivalent to the stealing of credit cards, that's all!

Scientific fraud could have happened even with Newton. An entry in Wikipedia for the Royal Society reads “During his time as President, Newton arguably abused his authority; in a dispute between himself and Gottfried Leibniz over the invention of Infinitesimal calculus, he used his position to appoint an "impartial" committee to decide it, eventually publishing a report written by himself in the committee's name.

The lesson to be learnt is that the work on calculus was be done by men with established authority in different subjects: competition between two schools refined the process to higher levels.
It is another matter altogether that there seemed to have been our own Kerala school (composed mainly of Nambudri Brahmins) which did all this a couple of centuries earlier (at least).

It is also another matter matter that men who are genius in some field may turn out to be quite ordinary in others, especially when they are not privy to some information and may not always be depended upon to give important opinions when they have little knowledge on them.
Both Newton and Leibnitz, sure as they were of their calculus and their physics, were mystified by as simple a thing as water. Newton, Boyle and Leibnitz seemed to agree that rock crystal was simple crystallized water. Newton seems to have said “I know no Body less apt to shine than Water; and yet Water by frequent distillation changes into fixed Earth…” (Now, in hindsight, why did Newton say that? I suppose it was not known at that time about the depression of melting point by adding salt.)

Still, the first criterion to talk about innovation ecosystems is to be an innovator. One cannot expect non innovators to recognize or throw new light on innovation.

It is easy to be an important personality in Indian Science if one consistently works on subjects in a new and refreshing manner. There are now several scientists who do so. They usually keep out of the administrative framework having little time to do so when they are being scholarly-innovative.

For some others, it is sometimes required to give the impression (to other so-called members of a "science" fraternity) that one is associated with the practice of good science. In such cases, the scientists imagine that they are gauged by how quickly they can cite the latest piece of scientific information, or, more importantly, how many zillions of dollars is being spent on research by the industry on a given topic.

On the whole, research guides rarely follow a theme of their own; they usually flit from one “hot” topic to another. They do not seem to have a talent for recognizing or creating true original work; nor have they the potential of recognizing the potential value of the seed of a new idea in an emerging piece of scientific work.

It is therefore not at all clear that standard research guide they should head innovation systems, not matter how many standard Ph. D.s they may have produced.

These research guides become especially insufferable when they use their position to usurp the work of their junior colleagues to obtain momentary gain in terms of a few papers without realizing the true potentials or the generic ideas that could have been exploited.

In such cases it is important that there is some system that allows tattling or whistle/blowing that has protective/corrective measures.

Flourishing innovative ecosystems can only come from a swift recognition-rewards system.

Indian ecosystems, which are usually hierarchy-based, do not encourage whistle blowing.

Moreover, the ingrained value systems of a deceived (usually junior) innovator make him/her averse to whistle blowing. They are silent because they forgive and, really, compared to other matters --- poetry, literature, love in the life of the living and the lived --- these things are trivial.

It need not be always trivial, however.

As the baul (bard) has said (in Othello, The Moore of Venice)
... Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands:
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.

One need not remain poor in this case.

A truish story

Let me take, say, a case which may be deemed to be fictional except to those in the know.
The tale is in some detail and could be long, mainly because it is easier this way, but also because it gives an idea of opportunities missed if whistle blowing was allowed. Such situations may not have happened if science was first practiced as a philosophy instead of a career opportunity.

The story evolves around a true compound, La2CuO4. This compound gave the world its first experience of mass science hysteria that led to a quarter million pages of scientifically published literature, even if it did not provide a theoretical understanding nor a true application.

La2CuO4 changed the way science was to be practiced.

There are many who are in the know; they prefer to keep quiet for their own convenient reasons, extracting some mileage for their silence.

Nearly forty years ago, a motivated man wanting to do good science, got his Ph. D. in gas-phase heterogeneous catalysis from a small college in Madras (now Chennai). This young man, whom we will call KK, was deeply unsatisfied with the scholarship/learning that was involved in completing his Ph. D.

There was no philosophy in it.
He went on to an IITK because of a solid-state scientist R* (* for sending correspondence). R* had just then obtained a prestigious Royal society medal.

KK worked with R* as a post-doctoral fellow with a specific purpose of improving his understanding of two-dimensional surfaces of solids so as to understand aspects of heterogeneous catalysis better.

It soon became apparent that R* had no original contribution in the field.

R* had exceptional talents in several other areas.
R* was extremely charming and intelligent, with a voice that could carry across a crowded room.
R* has a fabulous memory which is well admired.
He has a great sense of humor for any occasion.
He has tremendous energy for multitasking.
He follows with great success the cut and paste tradition of writing books and reviews on other people’s work (without providing new insights).

At the KK joined R*, R*'s group followed a JBG who was (and continues) making waves with new insights and ideas.

JBG is the one who started systematizing work on three-dimensional perovskite oxides ABO3 and had some predictive notions. R* continued JBG's work apparently because of the large permutation combinations it gave; for instance, A could be one of 14 rare-earth elements and 3 alkaline earth elements and B could be one of thirty d-block elements.

(Chemical formulae have not been written in the usual way, because of typographical in conveniences)

On looking up the literature KK found that there are A2BO4 compounds which has alternating layers of ABO3 and AO and are thence regarded as two-dimensional perovskites. KK thought he could work on these compounds because of his interest in the chemistry of surfaces.

KK prepared/measured the electrical property of some of the known compounds at that time: La2NiO4, La2CuO4, Sm2CuO4 and Nd2CuO4 upto high temperatures (1000 C) making his own measurement cell. There was little original or exciting in the work. After the measurements KK wrote a report for R*. It was sent to JBG. JBG added his comments which were incorporated by R* almost verbatim and then sent to a journal (MRB) where it was published (1973) with JBG’s recommendation for publication (cited 101 times as per Google).

There was an accompanying paper by JBG in MRB interpreting the results (57 citations) and pointing out some possible directions for new physics in his own way.

KK thought that was a strange way for R* to do science especially since R* was an important medal-winning scientist. By the time the paper was published KK became more aware of the mechanics of science and lost interest in R*’s science. There were no jobs in the market.

When KK finally got hold of the whole 1973 volume of MRB he saw an article by P. W. Anderson (PWA) on resonating valence bond (RVB) in low-dimensional spin-half systems. KK noted that as La2CuO4 was such a system. The article by PWA ended with a line which went something like “…whether RVB systems will lead to ODLRO is not clear”… .

Some years later in early 1979-1980 KK was in closer contact with G44 the fourth name in alphabetical order of a seminal paper (~2500 citations) by four authors (referred to as G4 after the then counter revolutionary Chinese “gang of four”) on a scaling theory for electron localization. KK asked G44 what ODLRO meant and G44 said it really meant whether there will be superconductivity or not.
This started KK’s interest in superconductivity in La2CuO4 although he had no idea about other consequences of superconductivity.

There was no system available to KK at that time to measure magnetic properties to temperatures below 77 K where superconductivity was to be expected. KK thought he would instead measure magnetic properties temperatures greater than 77 K. He wanted to know whether La2CuO4 would show magnetic properties consistent with a RVB state or whether it would be typical of two-dimensional antiferromagnet. KK did the experiments on his own for his own interest although the results would be used for one of R*’s students.

KK had a classical antique balance which he used as a Guoy balance for measuring magnetic properties. A tube filled with the substance under investigation was hung from one of its arms and dipped into a long Dewar. There was no temperature controller. One simply poured liquid nitrogen little by little to cool the system and measured the magnetic susceptibility when the temperature had stabilized. One reached liquid nitrogen temperature this way. One then waited for the liquid nitrogen to evaporate of and the temperature to rise to make the measurements on the heating cycle. For the kind of accuracy KK was looking for this was sufficient.

KK was not a pioneer in the field but he certainly worked under outdated pioneering conditions. Funding was very low and practically non-existent. KK would not ask.

In these balances one moves a mechanical lever to release the balance and then wait for the oscillations of the balance arm to settle down. One then adjusts a vernier to bring the balance to the zero position. This balance could measure at best to an accuracy of 10 microgram.

The balance was in a higher position than what was convenient. One had to climb a stool to make the final adjustments.

When KK had to make the magnetic susceptibility measurements on La2CuO4 the accuracy of the measurement was still not good enough. Because of the Dewar the magnetic pole pieces had to be moved apart and the maximum magnetic field was not much more than 3000G. The oscillations in the balance were much more than the changes in the weight on the application of a magnetic field. So, the balance lever was let loose, KK would close his eyes, count in his head till 20; open his eyes and a reading would be taken and recorded without any bias. Five such readings would be taken for each temperature and each field. The measurements were carried out between 77K and 450 with 10 K intervals at four different magnetic fields. This meant there were 5x4x40 measurements to be made, each time climbing up the stool to make a reading. That means roughly 800 measurments for each arm of the temperature cycle. One would spend easily 30-45 minutes for each temperature to equilibrate and make measurements. Nearly 80 - 120 hrs non-stop measurements were required to complete the experiment. KK had to walk or cycle back in the night for my sleep. It took KK close to seven days to finish the experiments.

KK saw the maximum he was looking for when he plotted the results. There was also a weak magnetic field dependence which indicated a weak ferromagnetism. This indicated more complications such as a canting of spins in an antiferromagnet and other physic-chemical consequences regarding crystal of La2CuO4. More measurements were repeated to confirm the trend.

After the chat with G44, KK’s interpretation of PWA’s 1973 RVB was that un-doped La2CuO4 would be superconducting. This was strengthened later chiefly by Chakraverty’s phase diagram in a 1979 paper on the insulator/superconductor transition which was based on a bipolaron model. The electrical resistivty of La2CuO4 was around 0.1 - 1 ohm cm which was above Mott’s minimum metallic conductivity at the composition induced insulator-metal transition in ABO3 systems

KK made what he thought was a good stoichiometric sample of La2CuO4 by heating it in oxygen (since it could be oxygen-deficient) and R* sent it to one S---y K--n for measurement of magnetic susceptibility ostensibly to see whether it behaved like a 2D antiferromagnet of the type discussed in 1974 by de Jongh and Miedema. KK didn’t know what happened to the measurement. In answer to queries to R*, KK would be told that there was some difficulty in the measurements.
A paper by Saez-Puche and others on the magnetic properties of La2CuO4 in 1982 in which no evidence for diamagnetism was detected made KK postpone the examination of superconductivity in La2CuO4.

It was apparent that the insulator-superconductor transition in La2CuO4 was not likely
It would transpire much later that oxygen-doped La2CuO4 would be metallic and superconducting.

KK would continue to pursue, when he could, the area of oxides with K2NiF4 structure. By this time there were two other important insights that KK had. One of these was that there was no ABO3 ferromagnet that had its ferromagnetic counterpart in 2D. The second of these is that at that time there were no A2BO4 compounds which were metallic.
The latter was consistent with the G4 scaling theory.
Increased coherence in 2D rendered the systems non-metallic.
The obvious question then was could they be superconducting? Maybe a little bit of coupling in the third dimension would help were KK’s thoughts.

His first full student, KKS, joined him around 1980. He thought KKS should work on oxides with K2NiF4 structure. KK had asked his student KKS (around 1981) to prepare Sr-doped La2CuO4 for the specific purpose of looking for superconductivity (hoping it could be as high as 12K -15K as in Sleight’s compounds). His idea then was one required a third-dimensional coupling between layers.

R* advised KKS to work instead on Nd-substituted La2CuO4 and KKS spent too much time on that. There is no chemistry in superconductivity, R* argued.
KKS was from rural Bihar where full implications of a hierarchical caste system was experienced and practiced daily as a part of life. I tried to persuade him. But he had his own career in his career of science to worry about. He stuck to his hierarchy.

KK wrote a long note on the structure-property relationship in A2BO4 oxides along with some of the results he had already published on them. In 1983 KK left for a sabbatical in Bordeaux France and came back in 1984. The note was meant as an introduction and as a guidance for KKS’s further thesis work. KK would have liked to have published papers from KKS’s thesis only after the thesis was completed.

In Bordeaux itself KK did two things.
The first thing was that KK had to write a D. Sc. thesis. For some reason, he became involved on oxides containing trivalent nickel. He found that the properties could be explained if one considers a “hole on oxygen”. This idea he had taken from JBG’s idea about holes in the sulphur band to account for the instability of Fe2S3 to disproportionation to FeS and FeS2.

The second thing was that he wanted to make one-dimensional oxides of copper metallic and see if there was high temperatures superconductivity trying to learn from the experience on A15 superconductors. For this he had chosen Bi2CuO4, Sr2CuO3 and the green Y2Cu2O5. Among the compounds he had tried were compounds in the Bi-Sr-Cu-O systems and some in the Y-Ba-Cu-O systems. The compounds he had obtained were good conductors. They were not single phase. In those days one did not measure any property until the phase-purity was established. .

When KK came back he learnt that the note he had prepared as an introduction for KKS’s thesis had been sent to the Journal of Solid State Chemistry with KKS, KK and R* as author. There was little change in the manuscript. The only change that I had incorporated was to note that none of the metallic compounds derived from ABO3 compounds were metallic in the layered A2BO4 compounds. After the publication, KK learnt that. KKS’s name was removed shamelessly without KK’s knowledge from the authorship. The contents of this paper still formed the first chapter of KKS’s thesis.

This manuscript became well cited when high-temperature superconductivity broke out like a scourge on the world scene. When R* got a million dollar “dhan-dhana-dhan” award much later from Israel, La2CuO4 would be the only specific compound to be mentioned. KK did not get a mention any time from any of his colleagues (forget R*), for this.

Between 1984 and 1985 KK would give talks on resonating valence bond and metallicity as well as the prospect of superconductivity at high temperatures (in those days high-temperatures mean something like 12/15 K( in La2CuO4 using Chakravorty’s bipolaron mechanism The latter talk was attended by G44 and R* among others.
KK and the others went for our lunch after the talk.
R* took the trouble of getting out of the car and warned/advised KK to give up on such crazy ideas and settle down. That hurt KK a lot that day.

KK had prepared in Bordeaux in the years 1983-1984 a compound in the Bi-Sr-Cu-O system which was conducting. He had a suspicion that it could be superconducting. When KK came back to India he gave it for measurement to the physics department which had measurement possibilities at liquid He temperature. The liquid helium plant happened to break down at that time. When they eventually measured it after a year or so they did not find superconductivity even if it turned out later that this sample gave gave X-ray- and electron-diffraction patterns almost identical to the so-called 2214 phase with a superconducting transition temperature of 10 K. That was lower than the temperature he could have gone down to in his closed-cycle refrigeration plant.

On the first day KK got the news about High Tc in LaBaCuO systems. It was evident that it was an oxide with the K2NiF4 structure. KK went back to his lab immediately trying several routes to increase the superconducting transition temperature. He spent nearly two weeks in the laboratory. R* wouldn’t assign anyone to help KK. KK guessed later that R* did this so that others would not know about KK’s ideas. This proved fatally slow.

In the meanwhile KK had asked another of his student KKS to work on the Y-Ba-Cu-O system. Within a few trials KKS informed me that he had superconductivity between 85-90 K. This was on the day that 90 K superconductivity was reported in the Y-Ba-Cu-O system referring to the presence of a green phase. KK and KS knew that the green phase was Y2Cu2O5. KK and KS had to wait to find a single phase. KK had a smattering knowledge of crystal structure determination thanks to his stay in Bordeaux. He indexed the phase as orthorhombic. The superconducting transition temperature was 90 K.

Word had gone round to the Raman Research Institute through KK’s family friend RN. The director of RRI had invited KK to give a talk on KK’s findings. For some vicarious reason KK refused.

When R* was informed about KK/KS’s findings his first question was about the green phase. R* showed discomfort on hearing our news perhaps because the green phase was not present. After all R* loved to be confidently second It took a phone call from an Indian (SAS) in IBM giving inside information on the orthorhombic crystal structure of the 90 K superconductor. R* pleaded with the editorial board of Nature and got a paper in Nature claiming to be the first but really being a distant second.

If only R* was not afraid of being first!

Once the 123 composition was know R* became the “first” to be second with nobody caring. Tons of papers were published doing minor chemical substitutions without looking at a new philosophy. KK had little interest in these studies.

That was not the only way that KK was denied success in areas of high temperature superconductivity.

There was a young man RAM-R who had taken over all aspects of KKS’s thesis before 87 and benefited from the thesis by publishing most of the work as a co-author with R*’s active participation.

Access to low-temperature measurements were being made extremely difficult. RAMR virtually took over all the low-temperature equipments. The search for an above room temperature superconducting transition was on. KK could not find it. His stock was low. RAMR got a 300 K transition for R*.

KK thought he had a new philosophy. KK wanted to follow the Bi-Sr-Cu-O system and the thallium series Tl-Pb-Ba-Sr-Cu-O system. KK chose Tl and Bi and Pb with inert 6s2 pair of electrons because of KK’s interest in double valence fluctuation in these systems and the possibility that double valence fluctuation could increase superconducting transition temperature through, what would be now called, a proximity effect.

KKs student KS, who made the 90 K superconductor on almost his first attempt, was to do the BiSrCu system. KS couldn’t get access to the measurement machines. KS is a sensitive boy and did not like the coarse dadagiri attitudes of RAMR. He refused to work on BiSrCu system as he was feeling insulted and humiliated by being denied access to furnaces and cryostats. He worked instead on the insulator-superconductor-metal transition in the La-Sr-Cu-O system.

The Tl-Pb-Ba-Sr-Cu-O system was being done by a new student of mine, Manohar Pandian (MP), a very happy tall young man. MP would come late in the night (around 2 am) as that was the only time MP had access to measurements. He was making progress. There was evidence for a 120 K transition. MP was run over by a truck late in the night on his way on his motorbike from the hostel to the lab and lost his life. There was no RTI at that time. That ended KK’s efforts in HiTc.

At no point in this scenario did KK think he was worthy of the Nobel prize.
He only regretted that he did not have more confidence in himself.

If you would like to know, just as a laugh, KK is working on something which he thinks is a new approach and which has the potential for many good things if only he can fight his way through.

Encouraging and Protecting Innovators

The story of R* is not atypical. It is probably more common in countries where the GDP per capita is low.

Typical R* behaviour is found in laboratories which would like to claim leadership in a short time.

The first US conference on the High-Temperature Superconductivity (HiTc) phenomenon in early 1987 as the Woodstock of American Science. Why? I don't know.

These HiTc conferences raised such hysteria that the sale of low-temperature measuring equipments for obtaining high-temperature superconductors must have reached such high levels that every other science company was hoping to promote a similar hysteria in other discoveries.

It generated standard frauds in science, throwing to the powerful propaganda/advertising winds of front page of newspapers. There began claims of higher and higher temperatures for superconducting transition temperatures. It also began the avoidance of using standard peer-review procedures.

Peer review journals of highest standards added to this hysteria. Nature magazine of London, for example, gave respectability to an Indian claim for superconductivity above room temperature.

Such peer journals saw their global power rise. That began the process of getting alost divine rights to control what is good and bad science. It probably restored on them the ability to decide in some cases what science had the greatest money-genreating possibility for the science industry.

One such case must be the way John Maddox, the editor of Nature, personally oversaw the appearance and destruction of a paper in Nature that would have supported some of the conclusions of homeopathy. This led to the execution by slow death of French Scientist Jaques Benveniste. Maddox's execution team which judged Benveniste's work included an illusionist as well as a fraud expert.


This act of scientific witch hunting should have been a disgrace. It was not, because the pharmacy industry must have wished it.

The science industry began requiring other money-spinning discoveries. Cold fusion was the first attempt in this direction, then bucky balls, then colossal magnetoresistance, supercapacitors, genome sequencing, GMO foods.

In the meanwhile honourable/respectable scientists JBG continued with his quiet and determined science in the good old way, giving away alternative Nobel prizes to charities and probably not getting the real Nobel prize because other Nobel contenders were trying to tag onto his work.

A highly callous and extremely successful example of peer-review-journal-encouraged scientifc fraud is the Schon case.
He claimed to have made the world's first organic electrical laser!
He also claimed the smallest ever transistor!
"In this case, the private sector and individual investigators came though for integrity where big media journals did not. In May 2002, Bell Labs/Lucent began an investigation but, surprise, Schön said he kept no laboratory notebooks and his raw-data files had been deleted from his computer because his hard drive just wasn't big enough. Bell Labs fired him, Science withdrew eight papers written by him and the University of Konstanz later revoked his PhD (can they do that? The fraud was after the PhD). Physical Review Journals also withdrew his papers in 2002 as well and finally in 2003 Nature withdrew seven peer-reviewed papers he had written as well."(

Gary Taubes, who is an author of works based on scientific "frauds" would state the obvious "I used to joke with my friends in the physics community that if you want to cleanse your discipline of the worst scientists in it, every three or four years, you should have someone publish a bogus paper claiming to make some remarkable new discovery — infinite free energy or ESP, or something suitably cosmic like that. Then you have it published in a legitimate journal ; it shows up on the front page of the New York Times, and within two months, every bad scientist in the field will be working on it."

At least one person in the SAC would score high on this.

The high-tech science hysteria was sought to be propagated by various ways. It involved highly sophisticated methods of fraud which opened whole new avenues for research funding of the very expensive kind. A typical example is the Schon case emerging from a highly prestigious laboratory. Not coincidentally, this laboratory was in the forefront of the glory days of HiTc.

The worrying aspect of the Schon case was the absence of whistle blowing. In her book 'The rise and fall of a physics fraudster', (Physics World, May 1, 2009) Eugenie Samuel Reich, seems to have written "Science was corrected in the Schön case; but not by itself – only because individual scientists made corrections. From would-be replicators in dozens of labs to many sceptics, only a couple of researchers were transformed into whistle-blowers by the unlikely pattern of [duplicated] evidence. ... to turn review processes at journals into opportunities for additional fabrication. Other scientists' support of the fraud was unwitting, but the decision to place so much trust in a colleague was a conscious rationalisation that continues to be defended in science to this day."

In the war of science that takes place in the science industry any kind of war strategies become allowed. When in Japan, I learnt that they reveal in their patents only what they would like their competitors to waste their research time and money on. For the best strategies they would have to higher the best lawyers as well as scientific imagination not only to protect by not revealing what is their true interest but by protecting what they would only pretend to protect.

Science Vision Documents set up by Scientists should protect itself from Innovative Fraud systems that has been apparently put in place firmly by the science war industry of the high GDP/capita world. As a counterpoise the low GDP/capita nation may have spontaneously given the world a Non-innovative reverse-engineering out-sourcing industry.

So, how will genuine innovation be protected and improved in a low GDP/capita nation when all is fair in science and war?

Very little it would seem when there is no protection.

One could start with giving credit to innovators.
This would require a different scientocracy (autocratic scientific bureaucracy).

A whistle-blowing system should also take the role of an internal auditor and the program itself should be open for scrutiny and examination (much like the right-to-information act).

Such open-ness could hardly be useful per se in the profit-making side of the science industry.

However, it should be very important in the "Honge Kamyaab" part of a science vision for a country which is proud of itself.

For such a country, it need not be commercially important in becoming a global leader in the "Science of Small Things".

No comments: