Beyond vocational training
RAGHURAM EKAMBARAM
|
Science and technology are severely partitioned in India and that is a pity
|
THERE IS a debate on how to promote science and technology education, but quite muted it is. The discussion straddles what appear to be two distinct fields of education — science and technology.
Those who see a definitive demarcation between the two take recourse to something attributed to the redoubtable scientist/engineer Theodore von Karman: The scientist seeks to understand what is; the engineer seeks to create what never was.
Utility function
The above sentiment makes abundantly clear — in the paradigm of technical education that sets store by the utility function, to create and efficiently at that — where lies economic growth. Understanding for the sake of understanding is economically futile.
For some time we have heard industry associations making a case for job orientation in our engineering educational curricula. The Knowledge Commission is also making similar noises.
The arguments are nothing to sneeze at; after all we have made a name for ourselves much through the efforts of our IT workforce and the earlier they really get productive the better it is for all of us.
But then there are some dissenting voices that argue for true knowledge orientation to education, especially in science. In the recently held Indian Science Congress at Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, the Israeli Nobel laureate Aaron Ciechanover said: "A scientist should not think of applied science. It's very dangerous... Policy makers should be very careful about limiting science to practicality."
There are no ifs and buts here. Eminent scientist C.N.R. Rao has also said so in many forums, especially in the context of how pure sciences are being handicapped in their fight to wean away the best minds from the more remunerative technology fields.
Should technologists listen to these words of caution from science? My immediate response is an unqualified yes. I work in an engineering consultancy firm and what the industry bodies say about the orientation of technical education has much relevance to the health of companies such as the one I work for.
Given the competitive pressures, we want our engineers to start producing from day one, really. Technical education has to focus on the end product; if not, it is a real threat that all of us would be the losers. Even so, I side with the precepts of science education on this matter.
Industry is looking at efficiency, almost exclusively. This is a focus on the product — how fast and how accurately can we do the design. There is also the question of effectiveness — are we doing the right thing? This is more of a process orientation leading to the right product, produced efficiently.
This is precisely where science and technology meld. Technology efforts are almost always empirical and have very little predictive ability beyond the well-trodden path. Science on the other hand defines itself through its predictive powers opening up thus-far unseen vistas. Science and technology are severely partitioned in India and that is a pity.
How do we nurture talents such as those of Prof. von Karman that straddle the perceived divide? Definitely not by exclusively orienting engineering education to the market. We have to allow people to pursue research on technology without putting an immediate rupee value on their efforts.
I will not be wrong to claim that in all technology fields, except pharma, research and development efforts in corporate India are next to nothing. Paraphrasing what Mr. Ciechanover said, if we do not focus on science-technology interface, we are not going to be able to even reach the cutting edge of technology, much less go beyond.
While it is good that our industry captains ask for market orientation in the engineering curriculum, they also must step over the wall and contribute to more research in engineering fields, in-house and in educational and research institutions. It has to be a two way street.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
