Practice of science

Lecture 5: University Education and Innovation

October 15, 2018

Science, Education and Creativity

There is often a complaint that Indian science lacks creativity. What exactly is creativity? A particular reason for lack of creativity in scientists was suggested by Gurkriwicz and Korngreen who said, “The very essence of excellent science resides in non-conformity and multi- disciplinarily thinking; rules of academic survival will greatly affect the creativity of scientists”. The majority of universally accepted geniuses in human history are from humanities, technology fields, or from performing arts. Creativity probably has nothing to do with Intelligence quotient (IQ). The last great American physicist genius was Richard Feynman who had an IQ of 122. Many run of the mill professors of physics will have higher IQs than this. Hence intelligence is not creativity. Ordinary people solve problems by recalling past experience also known as reproductive thinking. Geniuses think productively, that is, they come up with alternative ideas. If science mostly involves analytical thinking, then there is no room for creativity. If only technology elicits creativity, then creativity has no apparent role in basic science. However, this perception is not true! When a new question is raised, or when a new idea comes up, when a new profound phenomenon is observed and reported, there is creativity. A characteristic of geniuses is that they think of alternatives, blind alternative ideas and then select the best. Carolus Linnaeus was a scholarly botanist who gave us the binomial nomenclature in biology. He used similarities among organisms as a basis of grouping or classification. Charles Darwin, saw the same similarities, tested alternate ideas and provided the insight that the similarities are due to common ancestry. Darwin is a genius. Linnaeus is a scholar.

Geniuses have greater special and visual ability than verbal abilities. Da Vinci, Galileo etc. often expressed their ideas through drawings and not through verbose and scholarly written articles. Einstein remarked that words and numbers did not play a role in his thinking process. As we cannot think consciously without a language, he must be referring to subconscious thinking. Ordinarily, the majority of scientific research does not leave anything to imagination. Those who write proposals for extramural funding have to practically give the results, through anticipated outcomes, beforehand! On the other hand, technology development, design, performing arts, handicrafts etc. directly stimulate creative imagination.

Creativity is analogous to biological evolution. There must be a rich diversity of alternatives and conjectures. Ninety five percent of evolution ends in extinction! A number of strategies however have been suggested to foster creativity in the sciences. Collaboration with fellow scientists brings out better ideas than solo research. Productivity is the hallmark of creative people. Einstein published 248 papers on topics unrelated to relativity. Edison had more than one thousand patents. Still others believe that when the subconscious mind works (thinking coupled to manual work or thinking without being conscious of it), creativity arises. The thought process underlying creativity is not known. What drives imagination and creativity is ‘the desire to be original’ to begin with and a deep involvement with the subject matter. In science too, especially experimental science, creativity comes when we think while conducting the experiments. Intense conscious thinking is invariably accompanied by subconscious level thinking while we are asleep or otherwise engaged. A major reason, therefore why one does not see creativity in Indian science is simply lack of desire to be original on the one hand and not enough practical experience during undergraduate and post-graduate training on the other hand. In science education, blackboard exercises and didactic lectures cannot stimulate creative imagination.

“One clean experiment is worth thousand dirty theoretical calculations”

said Ephraim Racker, a famous biochemist specializing in mitochondrial bioenergetics. I will elaborate a little. There are two problems among many in our education system, which should draw the attention of educational philosophers. One is too much teaching and too little learning! The second is specialization at increasingly early ages. Policy makers want employability of students and hence vocationalization is emphasized. Conceptual understanding is sacrificed. However, whether it is basic science or a vocationalization stream, hands on experience is very crucial in science. Unfortunately, that is what is precisely missing in the curricular activities. One has only to look at the sorry state of Biotechnology courses in our country as an example to understand this problem. Even a basic science course has to lay emphasis more on laboratory and field experience than on didactic lectures. In western models, science and technology are taught together. In India however, these areas are still separated into basic and professional courses. At the school level a child should learn rather than being ‘taught’. Professor Yash Pal puts it succinctly in his monumental report on school education as, “empirical experience should precede theoretical construction”.

The goal of fundamental science is to understand the structure and functioning of Nature-biotic and abiotic. It is akin to problem-solving for the most part. Analytical thinking, just like the mind of a detective solving a murder mystery, is what is necessary. Arthur Koestler calls it convergent thinking. Divergent thinking is the basis of creative imagination, which is necessary in explaining a phenomenon or in developing a technology or designing a structure. A creative idea that explains a phenomenon may be disproved later and be replaced by another creative idea. The problem of the origin of life on earth is an example where man has given many a hypothesis. A creative idea in developing a technology or design would never go wrong by definition. Technology is something that works. It can be replaced by another better technology but never be disproved. Normal scientific investigation does not need imagination but intelligence. Imagination is a prelude to creativity. In rare cases of scientific problem solving, sub-conscious thinking leads to a solution in an imaginative way. Is this creativity? For example, is Kekule’s formula for Benzene, was that a product of creativity or sub-conscious analytical thinking? The same argument holds true for the famous Archimedes principle. But if we look at the statements of celebrated scientists and educationists, we are bound to be confused!

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” said Galileo Galilee.

That is because; in pure reasoning there is a path. Philosophers analyze the ‘thinking processes’ metaphorically as walking on a path17. They make statements like ‘we arrived at a solution’, ‘we were at crossroads, ‘it was illuminated by the light of his sayings’, ‘it did not lead us to anywhere’, ‘that line of thinking led to a road block’ etc.

One cannot teach creativity but one can stimulate it by bringing change in the ambience of learning, examination system. According to Thomas Kuhn in “The structure of scientific revolutions”, Science should be constructed by the learner as a system of ideas/hypotheses into which the present data fits into, new data can change the idea or a new idea can fit the data better. René Descartes said in the seventeenth century that, “Except our own thoughts there is nothing absolutely in our power”. As creativity is not a result of conscious thinking process, it is not in our power. Hence it cannot be taught. Science is thinking and hence can be taught. Students of science should be made to develop curiosity. Then, they will pursue and do good science. Albert Einstein is reported to have said, “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education”.

Nature of Biotechnology

Ever since René Descartes talked about the utility value of science applications of science including biology to human welfare, garnered attention. Biotechnology is the latest field in the chain of applied sciences. Biology for a long time was lagging behind Physics and Chemistry in providing creature comforts to human existence. Biotechnology changed all that. Spectacular progress in Reductionist Biology especially Molecular Biology gave birth to Biotechnology. Our increasing ability to handle proteins, nucleic acids, cells, tissues and whole organisms coupled with the use of tools and techniques of information science has enabled the establishment and growth of biotechnology. Great progress has been made in the ability to manipulate molecules, cells and organisms. This has led to hopes for edible vaccines, transgenic crops with disease resistance, stem cell application in regenerative medicine, cell culture derived biopharmaceuticals, bioactive principles from marine biodiversity, recombinant functional proteins with thermal stability and long shelf life etc.. However biotechnology has not shown any creativity or innovation, as expected from our analysis of creativity in science and technology. Right now Indian science and technology to a large extent is confirmatory in nature repeating what the west has already shown. A second possible reason is the absence of viable manufacturing establishments which can support Indian research in science and technology especially Biology. A third possible reason could be lack of rigor in scientific method and ethics in linking career success to research quality. Hence young people who are deciding to make a career in science and technology need advice and mentoring.

Careers in Science for the Young

The Chemistry Nobel Laureate, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan remarked that,

“People go into science out of curiosity, not to win awards”.

Notwithstanding this, young people entering science are worried about careers. Pursuing science was never a job. There are three distinct spheres where scientists can find employment. One is the ubiquitous University system set in an educational background. Universities in India emphasize good teaching and mediocre research, which is more consolidative than creative. The second is the R&D institutions set up by the various ministries including DST and DBT. These are better funded than the universities. The focus is to solve socially relevant problems and develop appropriate technologies. The truth is, Discovery Science has disappeared from both. The third is the strategic research institutions of atomic energy, space and defense ministries. Each sector has clear and distinct mandates and goals. It is when there is a mismatch between the institutional goal and the quality of the employees appointed, that trouble begins. Inefficiency, moral and material corruption gets established and even gets supported. There is a deep crisis of good and self-less leadership in educational institutions today. With frightening ‘knowledge explosion’, scholarship is conspicuous by its absence. Today India is a scientifically advanced nation but by developmental indices, it is a developing nation. Science & Technology drives economic growth. In schools and colleges, however, children are steering away from science and mathematics. Biotechnology requires sound understanding of mathematics, physical sciences and biology. Students have to be empowered with the skills of computing, microscopy, measurement, instrumentation and cell culture techniques.

To pursue a career in science and technology, one needs talent, perseverance and a bit of luck. The ambience in schools, colleges and universities is not ideal for uninterrupted pursuit of the joy of learning. Although funds and infrastructure are essential for doing good science, they are not sufficient. Many times as it has happened in our country, excessive and indiscriminate funding can be counterproductive. With the existing short-sighted policies of career advancement for teachers and scientists, one cannot hope to nurture good scientists and good teachers. Young people should come to schools, colleges and universities with a commitment to do good science and good teaching in spite of the wrong system. A system built on awards does not nurture quality. Only peers recognize true talent, scholarship and self-less service. Remember Aristotle who said, “Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them”.

Author

Prof. Kambadur Muralidhar is an Indian biologist, known for his work in biochemistry, endocrinology and reproductive biology. He taught at Delhi University for over thirty years, and was Head of its Department of Zoology. Currently, he is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad. He is a Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Sciences, India. He is also highly regarded as a teacher and educator, and has contributed to biology education at both high school and college levels.

Editors

Roopsha Sengupta, PhD and Arunima Singh, PhD edited the article.

Roopsha did her PhD in the Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna and postdoctoral research at the University of Cambridge UK, specializing in the field of Epigenetics. Besides science and words, she enjoys spending time with children, doodling, and singing.

Arunima obtained her PhD from the University of Georgia, and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the New York University. A computational structural biologist by training, she enjoys traveling, reading, and the process of mastering new cuisines in her spare time. Her motivation to move to New York was to be a part of this rich scientific, cultural, and social hub.

Artist

Ipsa designed the cover image. She is a post-doctoral fellow at Instem, Bangalore. She tries to communicate science through visual arts as a medium. Collecting graphic books, tree trash, and reading brain pickings is few of her favourites. Follow and purchase her artwork at Ipsawonders (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram). She will be happy to hear praises and non-praises at ipsajain.31@gmail.com.

Other images in the blog courtesy Pixabay.

Blog design: Arunima Singh

The contents of Club SciWri are the copyright of PhD Career Support Group for STEM PhDs (A US Non-Profit 501(c)3, PhDCSG is an initiative of the alumni of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The primary aim of this group is to build a NETWORK among scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs).

This work by Club SciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License