I will begin by describing the issues I have encountered, the reasons that I believe these issues exist, and how they should be dealt with based on how other scientific communities deal with the same. Ideally, in order to critique the scientific community I would have liked that I already have some peer reviewed primary research articles in international journals. But as science works there is a time lag between research and publication. I would also have liked to conduct a comprehensive survey of research published by Indian researchers, theses (Master and PhD), and the issue of author inflation. Each of these issues are being examined, albeit slowly.

My first dealings with the Indian academia began in the December of 1999. Subsequently, I moved on to research in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands before coming to the USA for a Masters/PhD. This was after I completed a Masters degree in India. A degree that I do not respect nor do I respect that school. At every stage I hit a wall during my early career. Walls of definition, convention, and tradition, not of culture but of babudom and bureaucracy. Whether it was to get a project sanctioned, a thesis signed, a passing grade instead of a failing, or permits, every where I have encountered the inertia of the Indian mind. And this was (is) academia in India. Thus I broke the chain of connection that bound me to Indian academia and left to get trained in a modern, open thinking of science.

My allegation of the way natural sciences in India are done is that they are still natural history. Thus, its not modern science but natural history a little better (may be) than what was considered good a century ago and earlier. ‘Ecology of mammal x’ or ‘Ecology of habitat y’, to me such studies are no better than studies that we may ridicule in some of the sciences in some schools where a new thesis is done by simply changing the taxon or the treatment.

The wildlife and biodiversity laws in India are fantastic, makes me wonder how the lawmakers beat that verbose text so well into a shape that will actually promote excellence. But they did it and it’s a laudable document. The bureaucracy that oversees implementation of these laws are the custodians of the law. In that they do justice to their jobs. They too are people and in most cases they are no different from the layperson that makes their opinion based on the politicized and publicized debates that cover pages and minutes of our media. These opinions are unfortunately ultimately not based on research or knowledge through education, thus they remain inflexible though easily influenced by media. Have you noticed many Indian bureaucrats shudder at the mention of the terms genetics, or DNA? Have you also noticed that many Indian biologists or bureaucrats loath any attribution of some superiority in science to foreigners (white people; sorry Indians are very racist)?

Why is it that obtaining research permits for manipulative research (involving habitat or organism) is difficult? I believe this is because the officials overseeing the legal implementations are old-school in that they haven't the knowledge and as importantly time to review research proposals. It is in this regard that a scientific review committee has been recommended by the Biodiversity Act (2002). In my experience in studying the biodiversity of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, proposals for collections permits have been progressively delayed to not granted. The arguments have ranged from "why can't you describe a species from photographs", "biodiversity studies around the world are almost complete, why do you collect specimens every year", "conservation means that even research manipulations and collections should not be permitted". When I apply for research permits I am careful to never mention 'DNA' or 'genetics' as this will most certainly mean delays or cancellation of permits. During permits negotiations I have been asked for assurance that specimens collected will not be examined destructively (dissections and other preparations). Finally, the lack of understanding of the scientific method by permit granting authorities results in ridiculous permits such as 'only one specimen per island may be collected'. To this last argument I responded to the authority with a detailed yet simple explanation of the statistical and scientific basis of the requested number of specimens. Justifiably the authority requested a validation of my explanation from someone with a PhD. I could not respond to this request as an earlier discussion with a more senior official resulted in upset when I suggested that no Indian specialists exist in studies of systematics (the studies I have been pursuing; at least based on publication record).

In the last few years I have also realized that petty territoriality may be a growing concern for research in the life sciences. Slanderous rumors were spread over the last few months regarding my research activities, that some 'friends' spurned research collaboration. And soon later we heard similar stories with the discovery of the purple pig nosed frog in the Western Ghats.

Some years ago when I was just stepping into the sciences I heard a senior colleague mention that he was pleased that restrictions existed preventing foreign researchers from working in India. Some months later I had a discussion with an entomologist on the Galathea in the Nicobars and he asked if I subscribe to this view, which happened to be our discussion that day. It set me thinking, and over my next years of research in and out of India I made my opinion. Indian science is suffering inbreeding of ideas. The problem is exacerbated by lack of funds, forced collaborations, artificial author inflation (through forced collaborations and laboratory PIs), inaccessibility to latest research and journals and most importantly by preventing foreign researchers from bringing their ideas to us in India.

The last issue of prevention of foreign researchers is institutionalized as the first provision of the Biodiversity Act (2002), with non-Indians and NRIs having to pay an application fee (a legal bribe) of about $400. What one has to realize is that the laws were made to prevent the abuse of biological resources for profit, material gain, or fame; these laws were not made to prevent research. Unfortunately while the regulation of research activities is to be overseen by a National Biodiversity Authority, I am worried that it will be the same bureaucratic individuals (wildlife administrators or biologist/scientist) who will implement the laws. I must however note that bureaucrats across different countries usually implement their laws on legitimate, research activities.

The wildlife biologists in India are bureaucratic and sometimes to a greater extent than the bureaucrats themselves. When I first left India to practice in the biological sciences, I observed a world difference in attitude. Here in the USA, researchers help each other regardless of age, sex, color or scientific leaning. The only limitation I have observed in scientific cooperation is the obvious overlap of research goals leading to competitive non-cooperation. Competitive non-cooperation is a healthy aspect of science and as important as friendly cooperation in science. Both exist to influence barriers to the flow of ideas and thus add thrust to the direction of science. In India as I have experienced, biologists are bureaucratic and use the laws as excuses to non-cooperation or to extract disproportionate benefits from cooperation. Even at the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust where I have been associated for some time, we cooperate by sharing resources, equipment and permits.

A sad reality may be that a sizeable number of Indian biologists are perhaps quite egotistical toward their non-biologists, in addition to having inbred ideas and misdirected nationalism toward pure science.