One Among Us: Problem Solver
Problem Solver by Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti
Over the decades the research ideas have become more intricate (as expected) and consequently, more expensive. Therefore, to carry out justified research, a scientist needs to jazz it up with fancy buzzwords and high-sounding goals. Otherwise, it falls flat, and therefore, there is no funding for it. On the other hand, somewhere down the way, we (scientists and science administration) seem to have forgotten that research is mostly boring laborious repetitive jobs to reproduce and re-evaluate observations. Therefore, the first thing to be discarded along the way has been the due rigor of the work.
Announcing “One Among Us” a cartoon series by Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti
All citizens have a right to know the output of academic research funded through public money. However, the pay-walls between the research output and readers have become much more formidable barriers in recent years. Authors and/or their institutions, and readers thus have to shell out substantial money to access the published results while commercial publishers make very high profit. Do researchers and readers really need to spend the hard-to-get research funds for open access when any published paper can be available to the desiring reader through email exchanges between reader and author involving request for, and sharing of the pdf file?
This paper discusses the limitations of Good Academic Research Practices (GARP) and UGC-CARE List in engaging with the emerging scholarly open publishing platforms, specifically preprints. This paper throws some light on preprints and their role in accelerating science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. The UGC’s opaqueness towards emerging open publishing platforms in its GARP document and propagating traditional scholarly publications through UGC-CARE List has also been deliberated.
Meeting report of a webinar to discuss the Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020.
What the law has to say about sexual harassment at the workplace and the working of Internal Complaints Committees.
For a science budget in the backdrop of a pandemic, it does make big moves but leaves some crucial details to be filled in later. Finance Minister quoted Rabindranath Tagore in her budget speech – “Faith is the bird that feels the light and sings when the dawn is still dark”. Until the details come in, faith must be kept that what the big print has given, the fine print will not take away.
The protocol thus is faithful neither to the Ayurvedic classics nor to conventional diagnostic criteria. A document endorsed by the country’s Prime Minister would be expected to be clear, error-free and trustworthy. The document in question sadly has these attributes only faintly.
The single most important factor that appeared to help students is a good mentor. Sustained interaction with a mentor who provided encouraging and positive counselling, along with access to support groups (online or offline, peers or family) is what helped students overcome bias. Unfortunately, this piecemeal and highly personalized route is not sufficient if we wish to address bias at the national level, in terms of policy.
The core question I propose to discuss is “What makes the science and the scientist themselves vulnerable, en route to … discoveries in COVID times”? Everyone would agree that better funding and planning for infrastructure, along with an influx of fresh ideas, would help buffer us in times of need. Yet, the ground realities about the relationship between policy makers and stakeholders seems further than resolved. Even after seven decades of independence, why so? A large part of this discussion will focus on the qualitative learnings from history and reflect on how we can apply those in post-COVID times.
Drawing from years of experience in dealing with cases associated with sexual harassment in higher education institutes, Preeti Karmarkar examines the various challenges faced in the implementation of the existing guidelines.