Not another 50 years
No similar meeting of leading national minds in science, has ever occurred
The writer is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute professor of Biomedical Engineering, International Health and Medicine at Boston University. He tweets @mhzaman
Fifty-one years ago, this month, a group of 38 scientists got together at Hotel Swat in Saidu Sharif. The meeting, from August 23-27, 1965, was the first of its kind in the Republic. The who’s who of Pakistani science were there. Abdus Salam, Salimuzzaman Siddiqi, Raziuddin Siddiqi, I H Usmani were all there. And on August 26, so was the president of the Republic. The agenda was simple and straightforward: to take stock of national progress in science and plan for the future.
While scientific meetings in Pakistan were not unusual and had occurred somewhat routinely, there was a growing frustration among scientists at the disconnect between science and development. Until then, there had never been a forum to discuss how science and technology could aid in national development, and how scientific and technological advancement would impact society in a meaningful way. The voices and recommendations of scientists were drowned in all the other noises of society, at large. This was going to change in August 1965.
Inviting leading thinkers from both the eastern and the western wings of the country, the scientists wanted to look at major issues concerning Pakistan and also create a strategy for improving capacity, reform education in the sciences and develop a robust relationship between universities and the research council. Despite the disparate areas of researchers, the sense of commitment and a strong vision was palpable.
The report of the meeting, published recently by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Professor Anwar Nasim, is a unique and rich window into our past. The report not only tells how some of the greatest minds in science Pakistan ever produced thought about the present and the future, it also tells us what our destiny could have been, had we listened to their advice. In many ways, the report seems to indicate the country of 2016 and not of 1965.
Professor Salam, for example, talks at length about the need for standardisation and quality control in his report on the “Tasks for Science”. Far from his own area of theoretical physics, Salam shows the breadth of his vision by emphasising the need to create legal structures, research units and capacity to ensure quality control in product development in agricultural, pharmaceutical and health sectors. That advice was just as needed in 1965 as it is today.
Dr Nazir Ahmad in his report on the importance of research among university personnel laid out bold ideas, including providing salary support of up to 50 per cent to research-active faculty. Had we paid even the slightest attention to his ideas about creating a research-friendly culture at universities, our national research would be at a very different place today.
The summary recommendations list ideas on higher education, research infrastructure and a climate of intellectual pursuit that are profound, specific and cognisant of Pakistan’s social and economic realities.
The proceedings of the meeting are a delight to read, and the re-publication of these proceedings by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences is an important step in the right direction. That said, the report also provides rich fodder for reflection and demands that we ask ourselves some tough questions including why was it that the ideas, which were not the least bit controversial and relatively easy to implement, were ignored? Was there any debate about these ideas? What calculations led to the sacrifice of science at the altar of political expediency, over and over again? Perhaps, the most troubling aspect is the realisation that no other similar meeting of leading national minds in science, attended and supported by the head of the state, has ever occurred.
We should acknowledge that we have suffered a lot in the last 50 years, and had we listened to the great minds of the time things may have turned out differently. It is time to call on the leading minds again and with a commitment that this time we will listen to them, so that our next half-century may be better than the last one.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2016.
While scientific meetings in Pakistan were not unusual and had occurred somewhat routinely, there was a growing frustration among scientists at the disconnect between science and development. Until then, there had never been a forum to discuss how science and technology could aid in national development, and how scientific and technological advancement would impact society in a meaningful way. The voices and recommendations of scientists were drowned in all the other noises of society, at large. This was going to change in August 1965.
Inviting leading thinkers from both the eastern and the western wings of the country, the scientists wanted to look at major issues concerning Pakistan and also create a strategy for improving capacity, reform education in the sciences and develop a robust relationship between universities and the research council. Despite the disparate areas of researchers, the sense of commitment and a strong vision was palpable.
The report of the meeting, published recently by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Professor Anwar Nasim, is a unique and rich window into our past. The report not only tells how some of the greatest minds in science Pakistan ever produced thought about the present and the future, it also tells us what our destiny could have been, had we listened to their advice. In many ways, the report seems to indicate the country of 2016 and not of 1965.
Professor Salam, for example, talks at length about the need for standardisation and quality control in his report on the “Tasks for Science”. Far from his own area of theoretical physics, Salam shows the breadth of his vision by emphasising the need to create legal structures, research units and capacity to ensure quality control in product development in agricultural, pharmaceutical and health sectors. That advice was just as needed in 1965 as it is today.
Dr Nazir Ahmad in his report on the importance of research among university personnel laid out bold ideas, including providing salary support of up to 50 per cent to research-active faculty. Had we paid even the slightest attention to his ideas about creating a research-friendly culture at universities, our national research would be at a very different place today.
The summary recommendations list ideas on higher education, research infrastructure and a climate of intellectual pursuit that are profound, specific and cognisant of Pakistan’s social and economic realities.
The proceedings of the meeting are a delight to read, and the re-publication of these proceedings by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences is an important step in the right direction. That said, the report also provides rich fodder for reflection and demands that we ask ourselves some tough questions including why was it that the ideas, which were not the least bit controversial and relatively easy to implement, were ignored? Was there any debate about these ideas? What calculations led to the sacrifice of science at the altar of political expediency, over and over again? Perhaps, the most troubling aspect is the realisation that no other similar meeting of leading national minds in science, attended and supported by the head of the state, has ever occurred.
We should acknowledge that we have suffered a lot in the last 50 years, and had we listened to the great minds of the time things may have turned out differently. It is time to call on the leading minds again and with a commitment that this time we will listen to them, so that our next half-century may be better than the last one.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2016.