The proposal has met criticism on these accounts: 1) Will there be enough women qualifying to fill up one IIT-type school if there aren't enough in the existing ones? 2) WIll the standard of students not suffer if the target is to fill the school up somehow? 3) Is it prudent to make technical education gender-specific?
What are your views?
]]>The four-year course is expected to be introduced in major Indian institutes -- the Indian Institute of Science, the Indian Institutes of Technology -- and then some universities across the country next year onwards. In the four-year course, students will be exposed to the core science streams in the first year and will be expected to choose their area of specialisation from the second year. The idea is to replace drab, single track science with an interesting, inter-disciplinary approach.
The idea was mooted by the Indian Academy of Sciences (IAS) which urged the other two science education bodies National Academy of Sciences and the Indian National Science Academy to look at the merits of the US model.
It would be interesting to hear from students and academics on what they think of this. Especially in times when the number of students seeking admission to science streams is not so flattering. Will this mean more students coming in to do science or will an extra year be a dampener?
]]>Coincidentally, in a study by World Bank economists (the results of which would certainly have won Ramakrishnan's approval), India has been warned to bridge the gap in mathematical knowledge among its school goers or face a huge rich-poor divide based on math skills! The researchers tested 14 year old students in Rajasthan and Orissa to find that they were either very good or very bad in the subject. The performance was judged against benchmarks set in 51 other countries. Close to 17 million Indian students did not meet the lowest international benchmark of basic mathematical knowledge. This puts average Indian students among the worst scorers in mathematics. However, those who score well actually score exceptionally well -- close to one lakh such students.
What are the reasons behind this sharp divide? Where are we failing? What can be done bridge this gap?
]]>1. Weather: Droughts in Australia and Eastern Europe and poor weather in Canada, Western Europe and Ukraine resulting in reduced supplies of grain. Global stocks of corn, wheat and soybeans are at historically low levels.
2. Export restrictions: Grain export restrictions by some countries to augment domestic supplies and hopefully contain the effects of high prices on their own consumers. India has imposed tight restrictions on non-basmati rice exports, and Vietnam banned exports of rice. Thailand, the world's biggest rice exporter, is expected to export a record amount this year as prices rise to unprecedented levels. The price of Thai rice has tripled since January and now stands above $1,000 a ton.
3. Rising oil and energy prices: This has affected all levels of the food production and marketing chain, from fertilizer costs to harvesting, transporting and processing food.
4. Higher incomes: In emerging markets like China and India, this has resulted in strong demand for food commodities, meat and processed foods and higher prices in world markets. Both these countries are increasing their consumption of meat, and they need corn and other feed grains. It takes 7 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of meat. China, once a major grain exporter, has become an importer of grain.
5. Increased demand for biofuels: This has reduced the availability of agricultural products for food and feed use.
Do you think there are more reasons, globally and specific to India or Asia, that are triggering this trend?
The country's clinical trials market in 2006 was US$ 140m and is growing at a compounded annual rate of 40%. It is estimated to touch US$ 600m by 2010.
What's your take on the clinical trials scenario in the country? Do you think India has overcome the initial setback of lack of experienced investigators and clinical research professionals? Is there better awareness of good clinical practice (GCP) compliance? Are ethics always in place?
]]>Pune's High Energy Materials Research Laboratory that makes explosives for many strategically important missile programmes got the prestigious Titanium Trophy. The Aeronautical Defence Agency of Bangalore was feted for defense research. So were Raju Venkata Narayana and his team from the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment, Bangalore and R B Subramanyam and his team from Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad.
A befitting to salute the men shaping the strategic technology of this country!
]]>With this, the consortium has succeeded in covering the genomic variation in India in terms of population and genomic coverage. The study included 32 large populations, with 10 million or more people in each, and 23 isolated tribal populations, representing a vast ethnic, linguistic and geographical diversity.
The data that the consortium has gathered provides interesting insights into disease susceptibility of these populations and their response to drugs. This will now allow researchers to understand the genetic predisposition of ethnic groups to diseases.
The genetic map will also give pharma companies a headway in predictive medicine and targeted drugs. A great step ahead in Indian genomic studies, indeed!
To follow conventions, scientific publications have to pull out these initials from south Indian authors' names and expand them to make up for the lack of a surname. As such, the merit of all their hard work is actually either credited to their father or ancestral village! I have been thinking what could be a reasonably good way to go around this problem. Any suggestions?
The Asian author name conundrum does seem a real concern and the sooner publications devise a way to address it, the better.
Wonder what future students and teachers have to say to the proposed hike.
]]>What's more, 12 per cent of all scientists in the US of A are Indians. Research is on the upswing with the number of PhDs from India going up from 17,898 two years back to 18,730. The Union minister of state for HRD D. Purandeshwari merrily announced plans of creating 1,000 more positions for research scientists in this country.
More happy figures: Micrososft has 36% Indian staff, IBM 28%, Intel 17% and Xerox 13%.
Very optimistic statistics. What do we make out of this?
]]>Does the future of doing science in this country look brighter?
]]>I have no hesitation in letting out this little secret: topmost on the wish-list of our survey subjects was job information! We know exactly where the buck stops, don’t we?
Here’s your chance to have a say. What do you want to see on the pages of this portal?