Scientifically Speaking
Why is it that we refuse to indulge or invest in media discourse on pure science?
“Einstein was wrong when he said, ‘God does not play dice.’ God does play dice, but he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen”.
– Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988)
The hiding holes though, need not always be black. As chances of getting close to one hidden “God particle” (a scientific misnomer) brightened at CERN, the Indian media crawled out of the woodwork and was suddenly talking science. That too – pure science. Not one of those doses of gadget-gazing consumerism that goes in the technology section of news channels and newspapers. That’s “not for a change”, but for a shock, a part of shock therapy that the dilettante media gives you at rare “universal” occasions. But what defines such rarity of the Indian media’s engagement with pure science? Perhaps the pure science is about everything that corporate media is not about. How? Sample this.
Just 27 rupees, pure intellect, scientific rigour and insatiable quest for knowledge – that’s what pure science is made of. One of the enduring anecdotes about Sir C V Raman’s Nobel Prize winning (1930) ‘scattering of light” experiments (which led to the discovery of the “Raman effect”) is that the experiments did cost only 27 rupees. The anecdote is now a part of Nobel lore perhaps because the great scientist achieved something that Indians are most obsessed with – recognition on the world stage (for that, nothing gets bigger than Nobel Prize). But the fact remains that pure science can be as solitary as that, simply complex – for you and the whole universe to observe and curiously engage with.
However, for the dissemination of science, building a scientific temper (a phrase which Pandit Nehru was in love with) and stimulating curiosity for knowledge, society has to deal with the worldly and not-so-cerebral issues. Communication and scientific discourse through mass media could be one of them. The veritable absence of pure science from public discourse in general, and media discourse in particular, should concern us. It should concern us because it is a sign of a society which is showing reluctance to pursue knowledge for knowledge’s sake. And how long could we be in denial mode about this? It only breeds a kind of hypocrisy that was evident in Amit Chaudhuri’s piece in The Guardian (The God of the Particles, July 3, 2012) in which he lambasted the West for being indifferent to the scientific contributions of the Indian mind.
Why delude ourselves? Why not ask how Indian public space and mainstream media have addressed the terms of engagement with pure science and scientists? Given the highly esoteric and cerebral nature of their work, nobody expects scientists to hog the limelight. But what about the media informing us and unlocking for us the contemporary explorations of science in the unending realms of knowledge and discoveries? Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, mainstream Indian media and the English media in particular, cuts a dismal figure on this count too.
The stark facts are: none of the news channels has a “science correspondent” (let alone “science” beats), and except The Hindu none of the major English newspapers have a regular page for “science” (even a weekly one, The Indian Express has it quite erratically). And except Frontline, none of the mainstream English newsmagazines has a “science” column. This is in sharp contrast to mainstream international media. Despite being a mainstream newsmagazine primarily concerned with international politics, economy and trends, The Economist has very in-depth reports on science, as have Time and Newsweek (though a tad less). The science supplements of The New York Times and The Guardian, and science shows on BBC and CNN can serve as windows for viewing of human scientific endeavours. In mainstream accessibility in India (not in academic journals), the only general science publication of any consequence, Science Reporter (in Hindi published as Vigyan Pragati), has to be credited to the government (CSIR), and the only science show worth mentioning, Turning Point, was also the contribution of the public broadcaster Doordarshan.
Dilettantism rules news channels in their rare encounters with pure science. You see clueless anchors trying to pluck something from the talking heads of some media-savvy members of the scientific community. Then, with all oversimplified charts/ graphs/ tables and some assorted data, the veil of your ignorance about CERN experiments/ human genome/ INSAT/ genetic engineering/ asteroids, earthquakes is thickened. However, the regular diet is something which carries a misnomer. Science is confused with technology and technology with consumerism – the segment is called “science and technology”. And the miscarriage is called referred to as Tech Guru/Cell Guru/Auto Guru shows – a euphemism for branded gizmo window shopping. There is another industry that is thriving on newspaper pages – the industry of pseudo-scientific studies churning out instant data for consumption. I have addressed this phenomenon in another piece which can be accessed through the following link,
The absence of pure science and its horizons of pristine intellectual inquiry are a serious gap in reportage and discourse in mainstream Indian media. It’s a painfully ugly sight to see ill-informed news anchors trying to host these rare shows on matters of science. Print also provides no solace. The science-apathy has infected its reams as well. So isn’t the media also giving you a hint about the paradox of India producing thousands of techies every year but struggling to produce even one work of quality research in pure science in a year? The signs are becoming clear. Purposefulness has its limits and doesn’t gel with some of the purest pursuits of the human mind. Pure science has no place for it. And you know what the innocence of curiosity and pristine pursuit of knowledge can do with 27 rupees.
