Scientists pen letter to Principal Scientific Adviser demanding ‘transparency’ on Vigyan Puraskar

Ajay Sood, Principal Scientific Adviser.

A group of eminent scientists, all former recipients of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar (SSB) Awards, have written to the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) for clarification on whether the selection process employed to select winners of the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar (RVP) was “fully fair, transparent and free of extraneous considerations.”

The RVP replaced the SSB awards – traditionally given to outstanding scientists younger than 45 – this year and, in its new avatar, was conferred on 33 scientists on August 23 by the President of India.

Traditionally, the SSB awards were administered by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) where a panel of scientists who are subject experts in a range of fields, are part of seven advisory committees to represent various scientific fields. They review the profiles of the nominated scientists and these advisory committees recommend final lists of scientists to the CSIR, which then awards the scientists.

The RVP follows a different procedure. There is an apex Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar Commitee (RVPC) which constitutes subject advisory committees, which give their recommendation of nominated scientists, and returns it to the RVPC. The RVPC is chaired by the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) to the Government of India and is made up of the Secretaries of the six Science Ministries/Departments (DST, DBT, DSIR / CSIR, MoES, DoS and DAE); up to four presidents of the science and engineering academies and six “distinguished scientists and technologists”.

The RVPC gives their final pruned list to the Science Minister for approval, the website says. Unlike the SSB awards, the RVP awards are administered by the government and not by the CSIR.

A media report alleged that some of the scientists who were part of the RVPC-vetted list were dropped at the last moment because they were critical of certain government policies, and were not awarded. It is this report that prompted the August 30 letter to the PSA. “We are writing to ask whether the recommendations of the RVPC were accepted in entirety, or were revised by further committees or authorities. In the latter case, we request that details of the nature of these committees and the criteria employed in arriving at their decisions be made public, as we could not find any mention of this on the government website,” said the letter.

There are 26 signatories to this letter, some of whom have earlier been part of SSB expert committees, and include senior scientists from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the National Centre for Biological Sciences, the Harish-Chandra Research Institute and the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, among others. “Our queries are prompted by disquieting media reports which suggest that unfair non-scientific considerations may have influenced the final list of this year’s awardees overriding the recommendations of the experts committee. We very much hope that these fears are unfounded, and feel that complete and detailed procedural transparency is the best way to set all doubts to rest, and to preserve the integrity of this prestigious award,” their letter underlined.

A senior scientist who has previously been associated with the SSB award format said that while the SSBs didn’t have Secretaries of science departments in the committees, it was the CSIR chief and the Science Minister of the time who signed off on the final list of awardees. The SSB awards involved prize money unlike the RVP. “Though very rare, there have been instances in the past when recommendations by the scientific committee have been returned by Ministers for re-consideration, though we don’t know if names were actually dropped. This is only the first year of the RVP so it’s possible that the process isn’t entirely clear to everyone.”