Why is the distribution of the population of scientists so skewed?

[hallenrm]

Why the maximum number of Nobel Laureates in Science are American citizens?

 

Does it reflect on the average intelligence of people from various continents? Or it reflects on the nature of science today? (It requires expensive infrastructure that only very rich - like most Americans, can afford)

 

I have been reflecting on this issue especially in the context of India lately. Here is a brief of my thoughts

 

To answer this question we must first seek answers to the following related questions.

 

1. Who really is a scientist?

2. What are the prerequisites that a society must fulfill to promote scientific temperament of its constituents?

3. Did science find a place in ancient Indian culture?

4. Where does a scientist stand in the ancient caste system of India?

 

Here is my attempt to answer these questions.

 

1. A scientist is a person who is aware of the many phenomena that occur in nature. S/he also understands the various concepts that are used to explain natural phenomena. S/he is engaged to make observations and is trying to find if the existing concepts are adequate to explain them, and if they cannot be tries to find new ways to explain them. Many people believe that any body with a university degree in science can be called a scientist. But that is strictly not true. Strictly speaking a scientist is a person who is curious to know the answers to questions, knows what answer are fit to be called scientific; for doing so s/he may need to carry out experiments, the results of experiments may warrant him to put forward a hypothesis, which may require discussions with other scientists or publishing papers in science journals.

A person who has earned a university degree in science can be expected to have a fair amount of knowledge about the existing concepts, laws, hypothesis or theories that have been put forward by scientists past and present. For example, a science teacher, but such people cannot be really called scientists. Similarly every person employed by a science establishment like CSIR , DST, ISRO, DBT or DAE does not become a scientist by default, most often s/he is merely like a clerk in an office. A true scientist is one who tries to add to this knowledge and not just earn a living using this knowledge.

2. A society that really encourages its constituents to engage in science must be forward looking rather than relying on its glorious past. The most obvious example is no doubt the American society. USA was and perhaps still is a country of immigrants, you joined and built up the American society in the hope of making a successful society and they indeed succeeded, in contrast is the Indian society that has always basked its glorious past. The reason for my this belief is rather simple, only if people believe that there is something to discover and invent, that they will really devote their otherwise useful time to these activities. Americans in the past several scientist believed in this idol much more than the citizens of any other country, and their belief led them to become pioneers in almost every field of science.

3. Contemplative science did indeed find a place in ancient Indian culture. The so called rishi’s and muni’s can indeed be called theoretical scientists. They contemplated on several natural phenomena and reached certain conclusions after careful thought. But, that was really long long ago, once the Varna system became firmly established in the ancient Indian society there was little room left for rishi’s and muni’s. There place was taken by the Brahmins, whose primary function was to learn the thoughts of the rishi’s and muni’s and interpret their meaning to the ruling class. They excelled in remembering and reciting not in original thought.

4. There is really no place for scientists in the Indian caste system; there are castes for the learned (brahmins), the warriors (kshatriyas), the traders (vaishyas) and the menial workers (shudras), may be even the bureaucrats (the kayasths) but tell me where is the place for a people who discover new knowledge or invent new devices based on the recently discovered knowledge. No, wonder Indians never learnt to value science, occasionally someone belonging to a well to do family during the time we were ruled by the Britishers, a Bose or a Raman would be inspired to pursue science and succeed but most often we were handicapped by our caste system.

 

Let me now attempt to answer the main question. The reason that we have so few successful scientists is partly historical and partly social. The historical part I have already explained in the above paragraphs; now let me attempt the contemporary social aspect. The cult of scientists is developed from the school upwards to scientific establishments. Only, if there are inspired school teachers, there will be inspired students who would like to take science as a career option. In the present day India where a school teacher most often belongs to the lowest strata of educated citizens there is little chance that a child would learn the art of asking questions and seeking their answers. Let us assume that .001% of our large population some how learns that art, what happens next, in the colleges or universities?

 

Any comments from my old friends and new too!:)

[jackson33]

IMO; your giving a little top much credit to Nobel system, in picking who are the best in any field, the reason for and the times in which are chosen. it has always seemed to me some motive is implied by these selections.

 

1-no doubt much of whats accepted as scientific knowledge has come from a sense of visioning phenomenon. however the community of those involved are protective of themselves no less than a private club or any business enterprise. education, the effort to become part of this unit then of importance and the foundations for what your calling certain understandings.

2-certainly i agree here, if i understand you correctly. there is a tendency to further explanations, rather than questioning, even when i question would seem in order. keep in mind however, science is as mankind, reasonable new to the concepts which we call science.

3-ancient Greek, Chinese or Indian cultures were all good understandings for there period, in science and social understandings for the times. however they are based as much on philosophy (theology or not) as anything else.

mankind or his gods, were the center and reason for all things. although this still exits, IMO far to influential in the science fields, the fact remains compatibility of the supernatural and scientific thought is not possible.

4 and post script- my knowledge of India is limited and what little i have is based on economic principles or from a historical value. i will say, most older cultures, have been influenced by others over time. India has been, since man first migrated from Africa and probably one of the the longest history's going well back before written history.

 

before you try to excuse Indian advancements, you might want to consider all from that country, that do live in the US, have been educated in the US and live here now as residents. there may be many more than you realize....