IP: British Medical Journal--Time is IT (@)

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:56:14 +0000
From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun () indy iitm ernet in> (by way of
marsha-w () uiuc edu
To: cpsr-global () cpsr org
Subject: British Medical Journal--Time is IT (@)
Message-ID: <b160b9f4040210049850@[130.126.26.158]>


BMJ 1998;316:1111 ( 11 April )


News


The internet and the developing world


Richard Smith talked to India's premier information scientist, Subbiah
Arunachalam, about whether the internet will solve the information
problems of the developing world


Subbiah Arunachalam, India's most distinguished information scientist, is
a gentle fellow with a gift for controversy. When the New York Times
covered a speech in 1982 by India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi, it
quoted extensively from an article that Professor Arunachalam had written
entitled, "Why is Indian science mediocre?"--just at the time that Mrs
Gandhi was telling the world that India would soon catch up with the
advanced countries with the quality of its scientific research. She was of
course wrong.


Now Professor Arunachalam has been asked to go to Germany to debate with
Nicholas Negroponte, the guru of the digital age, on whether the digital
revolution will solve the information problems of the developing world.
Professor Negroponte thinks it will. Professor Arunachalam says it might
eventually, but first it will increase the gulf between the haves and the
have nots.


Professor Arunachalam, who shares his time between the Indian Institute of
Technology in Madras and the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, has also
made himself unpopular with those running research in India by pointing
out that much Indian medical research is not relevant to the needs of the
country. The major health problems faced by India are diarrhoeal diseases,
diseases of children, infectious diseases, malaria, and tuberculosis,
while Indian researchers are mainly active in general medicine,
pharmacology, tropical medicine, neurosciences, radiology, and
oncology (National Medical Journal of India 1998;11:27-34, and Current
Science  1997;72:912-22). At least two funding agencies have responded by
turning down his requests for research grants.  In particular, his request
for funds to set up an Observatory for Science and Technology in India has
been turned down. But many Indian scientists agree with him.




Professor Arunachalam became an information scientist when he switched
from being a "not so successful chemist." It was while he was a student of
the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, that he discovered that he had
a flair for finding information that others could  not find. "The tall man
in the library will help you," researchers would say. And the two years
that he worked for the Indian Academy of Sciences--1973 to 1975, as editor
of publications and secretary--gave him ample opportunities to watch men
who managed Indian science from close quarters. His new found interests
led him to science writing and scientometrics.


Researchers and doctors in India are, he says, deprived of information:
"There are some universities in the developed world that receive not less
than 50000-60000 journals. No academic or research library
in India receives more than 2100, and most receive only a few hundred. So
access to information is a major problem in India. And for individual
doctors it's even worse. Honest doctors have so many patients to treat
that they have little time to do research or read. Other doctors are more
interested in making money than reading. Many doctors are happy with the
free pamphlets that drug companies give them."


So will access to electronic information help? "Probably not yet in India
because very few doctors have access to the internet or email. And often
medically trained people are not good with communication technology and
computers. They take time to learn. Very few doctors use computers.
Plus they have not been made aware of the benefits of using computers."


Of course, there are agencies in Mumbai, Professor Arunachalam points out,
which use new technologies to provide information to doctors, but their
clients are mostly pharmaceutical companies. The internet may eventually
be a great equaliser for research scientists around the world, but in the
early
days, says Professor Arunachalam, it will widen the gap.


Many researchers in India cannot access the technology for various
reasons. "The government is not making it easily available. The telecom
regulating agency and the only internet service provider do not
get along well with each other. Cost is another factor. Telephone lines
are very poor and connections are not stable. This means that even those
who have access to the internet must spend hours downloading material that
would take only minutes for those in the developed world with the best
access."


"But," Professor Arunachalam continues, "it's not just a matter of
resources. India has enough resources to provide access in the major
cities where higher education institutions and major research
laboratories are located. But it takes time. That's what makes us third
world. The major difference between the first and the third world is the
time it takes to transfer something from the realm of possibility to
reality."


There are examples of where new technology has been introduced quickly to
India--for instance, the green revolution and the installing of telephone
lines to make long distance and international calls in
small towns and villages throughout India. "But," says Professor


Arunachalam, "they are far too few."


"The internet will grow in India, but I'm concerned that my countrymen are
taking too long to recognise its importance. Many scientific journals now
are purely electronic, and many Indian researchers simply cannot get
access to them."






------------------------------


End of CPSR-GLOBAL Digest 796
*****************************