Sunday, August 9, 2020

How can Science Communication save the day

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Hardi Talwani

Article Title

How can Science Communication save the day

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 9, 2020

URL

Representative image for scientific innovation

Representative image for scientific innovation | Source: Science in HD via Unsplash

Pierre-Simon Laplace, an exemplary French Mathematician, once quoted: “It is India that gave us the ingenious method of expressing all numbers by means of ten symbols, each symbol receiving a value of position as well as an absolute value; a profound and important idea which appears so simple to us now that we ignore its true merit.

I intentionally aimed to start this article with a quote by an excellent western mathematician, because we Indians need validation from westerners. We are quite capable of making high strides in science, technology, and innovation, but there is a lack of vision; lack of confidence.

ISRO Launching a satellite: Source: ISRO

The newly Independent India of 1947 had a vision: a vision to transform into a developed country using scientific interventions. We had some great revolutionaries who worked tirelessly to shape a bright future for our country. Dr. Vikaram Sarabhai founded the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) while Dr. Homi J Bhabha, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). There was a time when Dr Sarabhai convinced a Church to give land for a rocket launch station.

When India became Independent in 1947, people just wanted to earn enough to survive in the rapidly changing, bitter conditions. Today, when we are one of the economies of the world, we are fighting over temples and mosques, trying to rename cities, and dream of resurrecting some thousands of years old notion of India, the quest for scientific temperament is lost somewhere along the way.

Over the years, India’s spending on Research and Development has increased significantly in overall value but its share in GDP has remained stagnant at 0.6-0.9%. The research being done in India is quite good if we compare it to the funding received. However if we compare it with the developed countries, the gap is phenomenal.

India’s space program, atomic energy program, development of supercomputers, or development of light combat aircraft- Tejas shows that Indian scientists have given great results at a fraction of the costs of their western counterparts. Still the allocation of funds for the scientific research is well short of what is required to catapult India into the league of developed nations.

If we deep dive into the probable causes of underfunding of Indian scientific research in spite of giving good return on investment, it boils down to the lack of awareness about the same among the larger public as well as policymakers. As we know that the best way to receive funding is to create awareness about a valuable product. We don’t lack products; we lack dialogue. Science is hardly ever reported in India. It’s rarely a point of discourse. When there is no discourse around something, it leads to a lack of interest. This is also driving away the bright students from pure sciences to the technology and management which is more remunerative.  

Another issue that sprouts up from lack of discourse is the lack of belief in science. We have seen how in India, many public figures started spreading home remedies and terrible unchecked solutions like the benefits of Cow Urine during the COVID outbreak. The news channels, instead of discussing facts, talked about conspiracy theories. These news channels sometimes invited scientists for talks, but eventually, ruined everyone’s time for their TRP by asking them about the conspiracy theories.

Science literacy can reduce these pseudoscience tactics. Indians extensively believe in spirituality which is good for personal motivation and values, however the unscrupulous elements have often used it to spread misinformation and personal gains. It's imperative that we take a stand to promote scientific thought, and this is not at all an arduous task. Instead, the solution is straightforward: We need to communicate.

We need our own Neil DeGrasse Tysons, Carl Zimmers, Carl Sagans who can communicate with the common people about scientific development, in a simple language. This will help us to kick start our journey towards the Golden Era of Science without a baggage of baseless beliefs, pseudoscience, and untested products.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More