Private universities with foreign students ...

... right here in India!

It does sound wonderful, but it also sounds impossible, no? In today's Business Standard, T.C.A. Srinivasa-Raghavan has a column, in which he explores the topic of the large number of Indians who go to the US to study. He covers a lot of ground, and I covered some of it here. But we seem to have similar ideas (on this issue, at least!). He says:

... if only the government here would let go and let private universities find their own level via the market, India can become a leading exporter not of undergraduates but of undergraduate teaching.

And, this is what I said:

When such a university is set up, who knows, it may even attract lots of foreign students (and some foreign faculty too!), offering everyone an international flavour and experience right here in India.

So, I am in broad agreement with what he says. What's the point?

There is nothing, really. Except to point out an important error in the article by Srinivasa-Raghavan: he quotes a figure of "nearly 75,000" for the number of Indian students who went to the US last year. He is wrong on this.

That figure is for the total number of students who were in US universities last year. The number of students who leave for the US every year is obtained by dividing that figure (nearly 75,000) by the weighted average number of years that a student spends in the universities there.

On feeling down, and springing back up

There have been reports about a couple of students taking their own lives in IIT-B and IIT-K. Among many blog reactions, Mridula's post presents some analysis and also contains an important message: Life is too big to let some bad events take your life over.

My comment there just became too long, so I am posting it here. Let me try to get across a whole bunch of thoughts in some coherent fashion. Suicides are not easy to deal with: they produce so many strong emotions. It is difficult to wade through such strong currents and yet have coherent thoughts. Here we go:

The 'immediate cause' or 'trigger' for a suicide varies quite a bit. It could be grades, it could be one's love life, it could be problems at home, whatever. But, as Mridula rightly pointed out, none of it -- absolutely none -- is worth taking one's own life.

But the long term cause, naturally, is the mismatch between expectations and results. Such a mismatch is bound to be there -- after all, nobody enters this world with a guarantee card stapled to one's body, saying one will always get what one wants. When a mishap is not handled in a (psychologically) healthy way, one gets into problems, including depression. Psychologists will tell you that a large fraction of the population has felt depressed at sometime or the other -- after all, Sachin does score a duck every once in a while. And, most such depressions are minor. But, the happy news is that even the big versions of depression can be mitigated, and even cured.

There are at least two forces that prevent you from keeping depression at bay. The first is one's mindset, that places a large premium on success in everything. A great urge to succeed is probably desirable -- I am not even sure about it, but I am willing to concede it exists. But the trick is to realize that it is possible to live, quite happily in fact, with success in just a few things. Or, even one thing! Having many different types of interests seems to be one good way of ensuring a few successes.

The second force is a chemical or hormonal imbalance in our bodies. When certain hormones don't get secreted in just the right amounts, even small setbacks, like a mishit in a street cricket match, may cause a lot of distress. Everybody has such an imbalance occasionally. Some of it is triggered by external causes, such as binge drinking. But some of it is also due to the way your body is sculpted. A good psychiatrist (of the clinical kind) will be able to figure out if you need medication to bring your juices back on track. It is just like antacid -- this one cures your hormonal acidity.

With my limited knowledge, I have outlined two common problems, and both are easily solvable. The first one can be solved with the help of someone to drill some sense into you, and the other, with the help of someone to drill some medicines into you. It is really that simple.

But you don't have to trust me -- one of the millions of bloggers. But, you can take advice from people who have given it a lot of thought and attention, and have gained valuable experience in treating people with depression, the academic and clinical psychologists.

Some of them have online presence, too! One of the major ones with lots of academically validated information (presented in a friendly way, though ;-) is the website of the American Psychological Association. It has all kinds of information addressed to the public; see, for example, the pages on depression and its opposite, the emotional well being.

Let me end with what a great philosopher said in the late eighties: "Don't worry, be happy". ;-)

Wikipediaaah

I like it for a lot of my routine work; I even link to articles on common things. But, once you consider people and things that are not quite in the limelight, and are just a little obscure and out of the way, it is not as reliable as it is for common things. Reason: there are just not enough people to ensure that what is written about them are fair and balanced.

As the interested contributors and readers dwindle in number, problems mount. If you have any doubt, just ask John Seigenthaler [via slashdot]. Did I just hear you go 'John who?'. I rest my case.

A promising cure for paralysis?

Yesterday's Guardian reported about the first surgeries to be performed on people with a certain kind of paralysis -- caused by injuries in motorbike accidents in which "the nerves in the arm are pulled out of the spinal cord". Sarah Boseley, the reporter, says, "until now, such injuries have been inoperable."

The surgery will implant the cells lining the nose [which have the capacity to regenerate] at the site of damage in the spinal cord in the hope that "they would build a bridge across the break, allowing the nerve fibres to knit back together". However, this procedure is still controversial.

Although things were going well, it had not always been easy, [Prof. Geoffrey Raisman] said. "We have been mavericks in this research all my research life. I have never been on the side of the majority view.

"This is not the most popular way of attempting to heal spinal injuries. That would be to produce patented chemicals, which drug companies can make and sell. What we're proposing could be carried out by any very modestly equipped hospital with neurosurgery. There are no patents. It makes it a very unpopular form of research.

Changes in the way science is done (Part 2)

We just saw how science changed from an individual enterprise to a group -- make that a large group -- enterprise.

Now, through Pharyngula, we have a link to the blog of Declan Butler, a senior reporter at Nature. He also wrote an interesting article in Nature in which he covers many different ways in which scientists interact with each other and with the public. In particular, blogs (and wikis too).

In other words, blogs have officially entered the consciousness of Big People in Nature. It also means assured salvation for all academic bloggers!

But, it is more than just blogs and such. Butler's article is a part of a larger series in which Nature explores 'new developments in science communication on the web'. What may he these other kind of communications'?

Here is an example, provided by the editorial in the latest issue of the magazine, which carries all the articles [look up Butler's post for links] in this series :

[the new web technologies] will in turn expose many fields of research to changes that are already sweeping disciplines such as bioinformatics and high-energy physics. A decade ago, for example, astronomy was still largely about groups keeping observational data proprietary and publishing individual results. Now it is organized around large data sets, with data being shared, coded and made accessible to the whole community. Organized sharing of data within and among smaller and more diverse research communities is more challenging, owing to the plethora of data types and formats.

In other words, a small part of the group does the experiment to get mountains of data, which are then made available to all the members of the group residing all over the world. Different people then 'tease out' different kinds of information from the same data-set to study further whatever they want to study. Optimization at its best!

This trend hasn't hit people like us -- the so called small scientists, who pursue our work in small groups, using facilities which don't cost too much. But, it has certainly hit the Big Scientists, such as those who work in experimental particle (collider?) physics and experimental astronomy. They require highly expensive equipment costing over hundred million dollars to pursue their dreams.

I am sure the Big Science people have a great appreciation of the work of one of their own: Tim Berners-Lee, who discovered the Web while working in CERN, a Big Science lab.

Changes in the way science is done (Part 1)

D. Balasubramanian, an ex-Director of CCMB and currently with L.V. Prasad Eye Institute (both in Hyderabad), has a regular, long-running and interesting column called 'Speaking of Science' in the Hindu.

His latest column -- which appeared yesterday -- asks the question: when did science go from an individual enterprise (Galileo peering into his telescope directed at the moon) to a group enterprise (small research groups in academia and large ones in particle physics and astronomy). And of course, the related question: why did this happen?

Curiously, he attributes it to the advent of national research labs. I say curiously, because it is not the national labs, per se, that caused this change. One can have a national lab full of loners, pursuing their own little niches.

Clearly, the answer to that question must lie in the type of problems that began to be attacked. Some problems simply needed a group to solve. Large observatories, for example, require groups of people to run, manage, choose specific parts of the sky to explore, decode the fuzzy pictures that emerge from their viewing, analyze the results and so on. As the problems got bigger, the groups got bigger too.

In his argument, he also cites, unnecessarily, the war effort in the US in the 1930s and 40s as one of the reasons for the shift from individuals to groups. But the war effort has nothing to do with the shift, which would have happened anyway -- even in the absence of war.

However, the birth of large national labs institutionalized the large group research, which is also expensive. And, the war effort made it necessary to hasten the birth of national labs. Balasubramanian does mention them all, but my only quibble is that his causal chain is all badly mixed up.

Having said that, I have to commend him for two things. First, for pointing us to some interesting sociological studies on how the national lab culture treats a scientist as just another brick in the wall, and what this trend might mean. This is perhaps worth exploring.

More importantly, I commend him for pointing out some of the sorry results the culture of national labs has produced in India -- not for the labs themselves, but for the universities. Let me just hand over the mike to Balasubramanian here. Please listen to a man who has been there, done that, and seen it all:

The few prominent heroes had given way to an army of anonymous workers. In India, this came to be felt in an unforeseen, and unfortunate, way. The government invested money in large projects, missions and new research labs that a single department or researcher could not acquire. Resources available to individual scientists in universities were far less and university research could not keep pace. They produced quality students but these had to often learn sophisticated research methods and approaches elsewhere, outside their university. It is only now that this asymmetry is being addressed in some manner. However, it is clear -- to me, at least -- that this depends on the type of problems tackled by scientists. A group enterprise is made essential by the nature of research in experimental particle physics, in which experiments have very different facets, and hence very different expertise.

[...]

All of these [new technologies and products] are possible only through ideas — ideas that need to be thought of, that need to be tested, found working and then applied to achieve the ends. And ideas come from individuals; this cannot change. Therefore the individual scientist cannot be replaced. It is him that we need to make more and more of.

And a sure way to do so is through schools, colleges and universities. It is these that we need to sow, nourish and multiply.

Supreme Court says 'no' to TN ...

... on the issue of caste based reservation of 'seats' in privately funded professional colleges that take no aid or help from the government. The reports in both the Hindu and the Economic Times cover the background of this case quite adequately.

Interestingly, the private colleges wouldn't mind some form of reservation, if two conditions are met: (a) students joining under the 'reserved quota' don't demand any concessions in tuition fees, and (b) the government does not keep to itself the power to decide who, among the beneficiaries, will go to which college.

In particular, I have a feeling that it is the latter that they fear the most; once the government keeps to itself some avenues for interfering in their affairs, the private college managers fear that it will keep up the tempo of the chant "yeh dil maange more'.

This might yet happen, and I believe that the private colleges are on a losing wicket here. After all, on this issue, the public opinion is against them by a huge majority. Is it any wonder, then, that politicians of pretty much every stripe have been threatening to bring reservation back into private colleges through a central legislation?

To my knowledge, this Bill has not been tabled as of yesterday [correct me if I am wrong here]. This judgement may provide the trigger for fast-tracking it in the ongoing Winter Session of the Parliament.

Orangutan cultures and monkey accents

Two years ago, there was quite a bit of excitement when primate research revealed that orangutans have 'culture' using a very interesting set of observations and argument. You can read about it in the stories in CNN ,   Science Daily, and Scientific American.

Scientific American:

How do we know that such feats [tool making and some evidence of conscious planning] represent culture? The argument is complex, but in brief, orangutans' use of tools on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo varies geographically in ways that cannot be explained by ecological or genetic differences between populations. Instead these differences are best explained by variation in sociability, as well as by the locations of geographic barriers preventing cultural diffusion between populations.

CNN:

So how do chimp and orangutan cultures differ from humans? Human culture is cumulative; great ape culture is not. Knowledge and behavior are not passed on from one generation to the next.

"I use a phone and a computer every day, taking advantage of what humans before me created," said van Schaik. "I could not have created those tools on my own," he said.

Now comes interesting news from Japanese researchers that Monkeys also have accents.

An academic says thanks ...

Americans celebrated Thanksgiving Day a week ago, and combined it with the weekend to have a long weekend of family gettogethers, food and fun.

I read, via Cosmic Variance, a short, and truly wonerful essay by the philosopher and academic John Perry. Among other things, there is this gem hidden in there, which can be taken as a perfect thanksgiving message, not just by an academic philosopher, but also by many other kinds of academics.

Here is the key extract:

... how wonderful, and lucky, [it is] that the world has managed to find a niche for us. Even if philosophy had no real intellectual content at all — was as silly as astrology or numerology certainly are, or as I suspect, in dark moments, that certain other parts of the university are— it would still be wonderful that it existed, simply to keep these people occupied. Especially me. What would I be doing without this wonderful institution? Helping people in some small town in Nebraska with their taxes and small legal problems, I suppose, and probably not doing it very well.

Amazing, isn't it? And quite humbling.

If an academic philosopher living in the US felt so lucky about the world providing a niche for him and his peers, I wondered what I should feel. I mean, as an academic living and working in a country that also has so many poor people.

Just consider the kind of support that this society has given me, in spite of all its tremendously more pressing obligations to its poor.

Not just support, but also freedom. Freedom to do what I wish to do. Freedom to pursue my own little niche in science and enginering. Freedom, in fact, to do pretty much anything, irrespective of whether it is useful -- now or in the future. Freedom to even throw tantrums every once in a while!

It is my own little Thanksgiving Day today.

Einstein ...

... and his theory of general relativity, which he published in the year 1915, some 10 years after his publication of his paper on special relativity theory. The latter is one of the five -- three of which are highly celebrated -- that he published in the year 1905; the centenary of these papers are being celebrated this year -- 2005 -- as the World Year of Physics.

All that is fairly well known -- particularly the latter part about his five papers of 1905. I won't claim to understand even a single one of them, so I won't bother to comment on them here. This post has a different purpose.

Some of you may have read James Watson's The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (if you haven't, I would strongly recommend it). In this book, Watson gives a frank account of the journey that Francis Crick and he undertook towards unravelling the structure of the 'molecule of life', the DNA. The best thing that this book is remembered for -- aside from the science -- is its ability to convey how science is done. In fits and starts, entering dark alleys that lead to a dead end -- and starting over, many times over. [There is also a strong emphasis on the highly competitive environment in which this research took place; this is not common to many areas of research, so I won't go into it]

It appears that Einstein too went through a similar process between 1905 and 1915. Over at Cosmic Variance, Clifford Johnson has a wonderful post about the tortuous path taken by Einstein before he finally hit the final version of his theory of general relativity. Do read it, even if you don't understand the science. Concentrate on the process; Johnson describes it in the middle part of the post.

The next Freakonomics

Early this year, Freakonomics was published [that link is to the blog-cum-website of the authors]. Tim Harford has a follow-up act in his recently published The Undercover Economist.

Now, via Marginal Revolution, we have a link to an interesting interview of Tim Harford by Patri Friedman over at Cattalarchy. In this post, Friedman has included several links to reviews of the book as well.

In the interview, Tim Harford is asked to compare himself, the undercover economist, with Steve Levitt, the freakonomist:

In a cage match against Steve Levitt, would your undercover spy talents or his sumo-wrestling win the day? Bonus: would adding mud or oil change the result?

Steve Levitt will tell you if sumo-wrestlers are cheating. My ‘Dear Economist’ advice can tell you if your partner is cheating. Place your bets.

Now, if this line doesn't want to make you go buy the book, what will?

I have read Freakonomics, and I really liked it for its ability to explain all kinds of interesting nuggets that can be teased out from vast mountains of data. Tim Harford's book also sounds interesting. I will have to wait, though, for its price to fall to my range -- under 500 rupees.

Tim Harford's writings, including his 'Dear Economist' column in the Financial Times, are here. He also has a blog called the Private Sector Development Blog. And yes, these links were stolen shamelessly from Friedman's post, though I have to also admit that I had looked at his blog sometime earlier.

Teen repellent!

Read this. [Via slashdot].   It's hilarious, alright. But is it true? Are there sound waves that the younger people -- under 20 -- hear and detest, but the people older than 30 don't?

I particularly enjoyed the 'plan' to blast classical music into the parking lot to repel the rowdy teenagers who were loitering around ...

100 dollar laptops will be sold ...

... at 200 dollars!, says this report. [Scroll down to the update].

Now we have a free market evaluation of the utility of this machine. This was a concern that I had for a while; it is good to know that Negroponte and his colleagues at OLPC initiative are planning to sell it in open market, too. This is good news.

I reiterate my earlier view that it is still a bad idea for our government to spend money to buy this stuff in bulk for our school children. That money is better spent elsewhere. Further, this news implies that we can afford to wait for a year or so after the laptop hits the markets to evaluate if it is a good idea even for philanthropic organizations to buy this stuff to be distributed to kids.

Et tu, Hindu?

Plagiarism in the main (newspaper and magazine) pages of the Hindu? I would have laughed at any such suggestion. Nina presents a strong case, backed by solid evidence, it is impossible to laugh it off [link via Desi Pundit]. Hindu has a problem on its hands.

Great work, Nina!

Science news of the day

Quite a few things appeared today. Since I don't have the time, I will just list them here:

• A nice article in the New York Times by Denise Grady about the kind of illusions that can be created using apparently simple means -- simple only for an experienced researcher, not us! Do you want to feel slimmer or feel that your nose is growing, find someone who can give you that illusory experience!
• In NYTimes, again, there is an interview of Kristi Anseth by Claudia Dreyfus. Dr. Anseth is a tissue engineer. Here is a definition given by her:

  We are the people interested in building living systems in humans and animals called the tissue. We start with the basic building blocks of these systems, which are cells or different proteins or molecules, and then we reassemble them into something that becomes living tissues within a body.
  
  The promises of tissue engineering are many. In trying to regenerate cartilage, we're very far along. In terms of progress, things related to our cartilage, bones, skin, we're likely to see products within 5 to 10 years. The really big impact areas - treatments for Parkinson's disease and diabetes - those will happen later, within my lifetime.

• This one is for my wife, who is an ophthalmologist: Retina for different people have been found to be quite different, says Sara Goudarzi in this report in MSNBC. Among all that description of the innards of the eye, I managed to find something that I can relate to:

  "Adaptive optics is a technique borrowed from astronomy, where it is used to obtain sharp images of stars from telescopes on the ground," said David Williams, director of the Center for Visual Science. "All such telescopes suffer from blur due to the effects of turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere. In our case, optical defects in the cornea and lens of the eye blur images of the retina."

• This ToI editorial talks about some new science policy. Does anyone know about it? If you have links to any report or government website that may have additional information, I would greatly appreciate it if you leave a comment or send an e-mail to me. Many thanks in advance.