The government makes an exception in the case of science because
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
PASSAGE – II
The young scientist in India is an endangered species. The threat comes from the predatory habits of a more evolved species that is the senior scientist.
An Indian university teacher in a letter to the international science journal Nature wrote plaintively. Thesis supervisors take undue credit for the work of their protégés. A young scientist needs the goodwill and support of the scientist-in-power at every step: for completion and continuation of his work, for participation in national and international meetings and research projects, for recognition and reward and for promotion. This support is available but at a price. The price often is the sharing of credit. A worthwhile research paper or a project originating from a humble scientist would often end up with the scientist-in-power as the principal author or investigator.
The power of the senior scientist over his junior stems from the fact that science is the only profession in the world which is self-assessing. Unlike in the bureaucracy or the military where the top authority vests with non- professionals, a scientist's work can be overseen and evaluated only by fellow scientists.
Fortunately for the scientists, support for science is a badge of honour for nations aspiring to modernity. That is why the government which normally would not pay the piper unless it can call the tune, happily makes an exception in the case of science. A government would set up and fund a scientific laboratory and in a spirit of self-negation recede into the background after giving the scientists the keys to the till.
It is noteworthy that science and society operate on different principles. Society values continuity, stability and security, and turns to the past for guidance and support. Science, on the other hand, aspires to instability. It aims at creating something that did not exist before. It seeks a break with the past with an eye on the future. Any modern institution of governance must incorporate a network of checks and balances. In bureaucratic administration, these checks and balances are converted into obstacles and dead-ends, and stability is obtained through stagnancy. As a reaction to it, with a view to giving science establishments dynamism, administrative checks and balances are almost entirely dispensed with, and scientists given a free hand.
It is an irony that in today's world, feudalism can be sustained only in the administration of a modern scientific research centre. One must, however, not be unfair to the feudal lords of yesteryears whose conduct had the sanction of the times. Neo-feudalism is pernicious because it is anachronistic; it can be sustained only by a subversion of the system in the hands of the people who are entrusted with the task of upholding it.
If we define professionalism as the realisation that an institution ranks higher than an individual and that the collective goal is more important than individual ego, it must be admitted that we are an unprofessional people. It is wrong in principle to give any individual a larger- than-the-institution image. This philosophy becomes all the more debilitating, because recently there has been an alarming decline in the quality of leadership in science as in other walks of life. Under these circumstances, if a chief executive is to be projected as the master of an institution rather than its servant, this can be done only by degrading the institution. If a scientific laboratory or an institute is seen as an extension of a personality, it cannot develop any tradition which can be a source of inspiration to new entrants. It is no coincidence that in India as well as abroad, the most prestigious scientific institutes and departments are those where the name of the institution is more important than that of the individuals heading or controlling it.