Protect autonomy of science research bodies

Dinesh C. Sharma

Science Commentator

The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) prepared by experts at Yale University has ranked India at the lowest position in the ranking given to 180 countries. The index is based on the performance of countries on 40 indicators across 11 categories, such as climate change, environmental health and ecosystem vitality. As it happens with such global rankings where India does poorly, the Central government has found fault with the methodology, choice of parameters etc.

Some experts have tried to amplify the government version, saying that the parameters used to judge India’s performance on climate change are faulty. The set of parameters on biodiversity includes protected area coverage, wildlife species protection and biodiversity habitat. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has argued that ‘data-intensive parameters might not be suitable or effective in capturing the performance of a country towards biodiversity and habitat protection.’

Close on the heels of the EPI report have emerged news reports that the MoEFCC has issued an order to the Dehradun-based Wildlife Institute of India (WII), asking it to get its scientific reports vetted by bureaucrats sitting in Paryavaran Bhawan, Delhi, before publishing them. On the one hand, the MoEFCC is telling Yale its report is based on unfounded assumptions and on the other, it is trying to stifle the very system that generates scientific data on key ecological issues.

This is not the first time that a ‘parent ministry’ is meddling with the functioning of an academic institution it funds. Like the WII, which is an autonomous body under the MoEFCC, Central ministries have research institutions affiliated with them or funded by them. During the pandemic, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Department of Health Research effectively censored scientific data which would have confirmed the occurrence of community transmission of the virus as early as May 2020. If these findings had been published, it would have gone against the then political rhetoric that India was doing exceedingly well in controlling the virus. As the following months proved, the situation had not been so.

Government departments try to pressure scientists even when they are not under them. During the expose about the superbug NDM-1 in India by British scientists in 2009, the Health Ministry and ICMR threatened experts working in private institutions against giving their opinion on the extent of the NDM-1 and drug resistance. This was to control adverse publicity which might have hurt medical tourism. It is a different matter that the Health Ministry was forced to acknowledge the problem of drug resistance only a few months later and form a task force. In 2018, ISRO reprimanded researchers from a private engineering college for reporting a major flaw in its NavIC positioning system — interference with WiFi signals.

The role of research institutes like the WII and the Nagpur-based National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) is very critical because they are not just engaged in academic research but they also conduct studies vital for environmental governance and policymaking. These institutes conduct studies on environment and wildlife impact assessment for large projects seeking the green clearance from the MoEFCC.

In the mid-1990s, WII scientists caused a flutter by reporting in a scientific journal that the status of Olive Ridley sea turtles — an endangered species — on the eastern coast would further deteriorate due to large projects in the region as well as mechanised trawling. The sea turtle is well known for mass nesting when thousands of them migrate to the breeding ground to mate and nest simultaneously in Gahirmatha. The large project in question was the missile testing range developed by APJ Abdul Kalam on the island adjacent to Gahirmatha. “The bright lights from the DRDO island have been extremely hazardous to turtles,” WII scientists wrote. Later, defence scientists agreed to use ‘controlled lighting’ during their missile campaigns. It is such independent scientific opinion that the present dispensation fears.

Research institutes are often called upon by courts to provide ‘independent’ and expert opinion in important environmental cases — from smart cities to Char Dham Highway Development projects. For instance, while giving the Char Dham project the go-ahead on grounds of national security, the Supreme Court constituted an ‘oversight committee’ to ensure that environmental concerns were addressed. The technical assistance for this committee will be provided by experts from NEERI and the Forest Research Institute in Dehradun.

In a case relating to the violation of environmental norms by Mangaluru Smart City Limited, the state government agreed to seek the help of NEERI. Reports by exports from IIT-Roorkee have often helped in the process of green clearance given to large hydroelectric projects.

However, several NEERI reports in the past have come under severe criticism for being biased in favour of project proponents. The most infamous was its report on the Taj Trapezium case in which the contribution of the Mathura refinery to air pollution was downplayed and small industries were blamed for the pollution. In recent times, the services of the institute’s director were cut short amidst charges of corruption and the appointment of a new one took an unusually long time.

All this does not augur well for the smooth functioning of national laboratories engaged in critical areas of research.

A direct or indirect say in the working of our research and academic institutions from the political leadership or bureaucracy has serious implications for scientific research. In the past few years, we have seen such interference growing at all levels. The scientific rigour of research, irrespective of the end purpose, should be maintained at all costs. The results of the research must be put in the public domain, unless it is a classified project. The scientists should be free to discuss their work and defend it publicly, if needed, in scientific journals and media.

Unfortunately, our top policy-making bodies, like the Department of Science and Technology and the office of the Principal Scientific Adviser, or ‘independent’ bodies like the Indian National Science Academy prefer to keep mum on the need to protect the autonomy and freedom in the national scientific institutions. They must act before it is too late.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.