A game of thrones, or picking bare bones

Every time I check one of my trusted sources of information about my mother land, scandalous updates flash out like one of those dumb characters in 'Jersey shore'. Sadly, and believe me, I say this with great regret, it feels that somehow Indian political space has been morphed into a shady version of the Mahabharata since I shifted base. This is not to shunt out any objections that Indian politics was never sane in the first place - there is a reason why young men and women don't want to enter politics despite the steady flow of popularity and property it offers. It has undergone more than a cosmetic change in the last 3 months, ever since Anna and his activist troupe managed to make the hapless UPA II government eat crow and accede control of parliamentary traditions. The murmurs have turned into scowls, the game of one-upmanship has become so crafty that some of the contenders we have might want to try and turn it into a legitimate sport. In other words, we are entering an era of 10 Caesars and 100 Brutus'. 

Politics has long been an art of pretense, where you are expected to belie expectations, and abetted by such shameless pandering of your minions, have to show that you exemplify the core of all human ethos. The agenda is therefore narrow, and more often than not, opaque to popular aspirations of the electoral college. Our leaders seem to be holding strong to the adage. In circumstances where the economy is stagnating, the rupee is sinking to a fresh low everyday (much to the joy of desis desiring to make a killing when they exchange dollars back home), and reform is stuck at the gate, all eyes have turned to a general election which is still 3 years away. I watch the madness unfold everyday in America, where politicians out-compete each other to who can be more mundane, and spout rhetoric like a vending machine at Starbucks. To be fair to them, the presidential election is an year away and show(wo)manship helps. But 3 years!

Chdamabram and Mukherjee have been so detrimental to each other's cause that one of them might as well join the opposition benches in the parliament. While there skirmishes over appointments to secretary posts and the handling of home affairs has been well documented in the past, fresh muck has been unearthed. Turns out that Pranabda wants to give Dr. Subramaniam Swamy a shot in the arm by suggesting that Shri Chidambaram should've seen the 2G scam coming when he was the finance minister in the erstwhile UPA I government. Not to start a debate here, but apparently even Mrs. Gandhi didn't see it coming, and we all know that if anybody knows anything in our country, she does. With Rahul baba failing to work his magic in the recently concluded assembly elections, and his series of gaffes which have turned him in to a fodder for the 24x7 media (remember the parliamentary speech on the Jan Lokpal bill?), the congress might score a self-goal if he were to contest for the post of PM in 2014. So journeymen like Mr. Mukherjee and a certain Mr. Digvijay Singh can sniff their chance. On the other side of the fence, Advaniji is set to unleash another of his dreaded Rath yatras upon us. Considering how the NDA suffered an embarrassing defeat in 2009 when he was the prime ministerial candidate, he should've taken his cue and retired to the background. But old habits die hard, more so if they involve traveling across the country in a motorized vehicle and comparing it to a chariot marshaled by Lord Krishna himself. It's time for Gen-next to take over, not Gen-ex to still parade shamelessly. 

But why should I care? 3 years is a long time, and I have full faith in our media that by then, the character assassinations would be as complete as India's whitewash at the hands of the English.

PS: I posted a REM video last week, and today they announced the end of their glorious 31 years together as a band. I hope the same fate doesn't bequeath this group.

The learning of science or the science of learning?

How would you define learning? I know, probably not the best idea to ask a question right off the bat, but I want you to think along, because the question is open-ended. If the orthodox definition is to be considered, development of new memory fits the paradigm of learning. So when people use words like 'learning from your mistakes', it basically means that you have developed an imprint of that fallacious happening in your mind. However, if you gravitate towards science, the idea of learning cannot be limited just to development of new memory. Sure, one of the objectives behind teaching and learning of science is development of memory, based on the give-and-take between the teacher and the student. But memory is not related to intuition or thinking. That would be like saying that I watch a Nat Geo video of Mt. Everest expedition, learn every single step and hike, and then set out on my own to conquer it. Learning therefore goes beyond the simple idea of memory development.

So how can you define learning in a more pragmatic sense? A reasonable assertion can be that uncoupling learning from fact-checking ought to be able to satisfy the question behind creativity. And surely we can agree that creativity is a benchmark for learning, as a well-learnt concept leads to a more creative output. Also, in terms of science education, sufficient challenge to redundant concepts and hypotheses, which are taken for granted more often than not, is a must in order to develop independent thinking, or as the jargon goes, a critical bend. Therefore, as you proceed on the educational ladder, questions should get tougher and hypothesis should become bullet-proof. 

Personally, the initiation into grad school has been a pretty exciting experience so far, because as grad students, we are supposed to challenge any idea, no matter how big or small, prominent or subtle, irrespective of its publishing pedigree. So scientific education has suddenly being molded from taking copious notes and reading material a day before the exam, which I was doing as late as 5 months ago (I officially stopped studying for endsems like most of us did, except for THAT one course!). Now, we go in well prepared to discuss publications, formulate ideas, and gain concepts from linking disparate ideas in class. And this I believe is learning in true sense, because intuition and creativity are both integral parts of this process. If we were able to merge this system into our school and undergraduate level coursework, students would be more primed for taking up higher studies, or at least they won't have the fear of the unknown. This modicum of reform can truly lead to a shake-up, or at least do some good in satisfying the innate creative urge, so essential to our existence as humans.

PS: If you are a Max Payne fan (the video game, not the movie, which I still believe does not exist), brace yourself for Max Payne 3. If not, it is never too late to start, for this game is more than just fancy guns in 3rd person style. It is about a man and his search of vengeance!

And the obligatory music video. How about some REM?

Think like a scientist, feel like a diplomat

'Publish or Perish' seems to be the general code of law as far as the scientific community goes. The idea, while being a relatively trite manifestation of knowledge for all, has come to be known as the single most dreaded facet of building a career in research. As you go up, the impact factor of the journals you publish in is expected to show a concordant rise. The instrument of knowledge is bypassed by the instrument of conformity. Is the evil of globalization to blame, or the competitive edge that has overtaken research the main reason? A bit of both in my opinion.


Scientific literature has seen a reversal of fortunes with advancements in information technology, and it suffices to say that it has been one of the cornerstones of the knowledge economy in the last 20 years. The digitization has resuscitated the field where journals would otherwise be forever lost in a library shelf of a university. The very fact that articles are now accessible in any corner of the earth at any time (of course, internet connectivity is mandatory, but e-journals can make up for the lack of it). The positives are there for all to see. A scientist working in a remote lab in Africa now has access to research coming out of the hallowed portals of MIT. It has provided scope for constant feedback on research, and erratum are more poignantly highlighted than a letter to the editor would have done in recent times. But somehow, some journals, either by sheer luck or careful selectivity, have risen to prominence as having more venerable research compared to another. 


This has led to an era of competition, where scientists are vying for limited print space in journals. Therefore, some research is considered more publishable than the other. And it is considered fashionable to print only in the big 4 because they seem to matter more. Sadly, a lot of researchers face a dilemma of prolonging their work or conducting more experiments in order to accentuate their chances of conquering the holy grail, or publish it instantly when the results are novel and exciting. The element of curiosity is being pushed to the back-burner, as post-college career is highly dependent on the publications on one's resume rather than the importance of the work. Now, this does not imply that the exclusivity of some journals is necessarily a bad thing. They are considered the cornerstone of cutting-edge research, a sort of a benchmark. Not just in science, but also in disciplines of engineering. It is more important to change the perception, to be able to differentiate between the quality of research and the impact of the journal. Especially in countries where publication record takes a backseat to everything else- the candidate's proficiency as a team player, extra-curricular pursuits, and basic qualities like presentation skills. 


Admit it, people go to graduate school because they love science. That's how it should remain throughout their career. More and more scientists are coming out and collaborating in order to better than chances of enhancing their quality of work. More such ideas are certainly worth probing. 


A must watch show coming this fall:



And if you haven't heard of Arcade Fire, here you go: