Science in India

Ashutosh has already written an excellent post on Science in India that summarizes the original set of articles in the Chemical and Engineering News and adds a significant missing point - the need for change in the Indian mindset when it comes to science. I would highly recommend reading that before you read the following. Here, I want to mention a few additional points and also put certain issues in perspective.

Whither higher education in India?
This is a subject which is worthy of a whole slew of posts. I have seen both sides of the coin for roughly the same amount of time in India and in the US. Here, I am more of a cross-disciplinary scientist-cum-engineer. After my first month in the US, I stopped making comparisons between Pune University and the University of Michigan. They might both be universities, but the two are entirely different; almost different genera.
Why is this so? We all know the reasons - India is a developing country, with more pressing needs than 'wasting money on research that might lead to something'; the legacy of British bureaucracy permeates through all institutions and academia is more about how to deal with red-tape than about R & D; then we have the age-old caste, religious and cultural biases compounded with the politics of 'reservation', which have totally distorted the meaning of merit and fairness. So the mantra is 'pack your bags for the US, the sooner the better.' But does this apply only to us, Indians?

In the past four years, I have come across a whole lot of European students, post-docs and professors who have chosen to leave famous places like Cambridge and Oxford to pursue their careers in the US. Most have cited reasons or excuses that any Indian provides when asked to justify his presence as a scholar in the US - better funding opportunities, more career growth options, an international experience that will be valued back home in Germany, Sweden, the U.K. and elsewhere. Even friends who went to study in Europe looked or are looking for the first opportunity to hop on to the US bandwagon.
While the US school system has its own problems, the system of higher education in the US currently has no equal and I think that is the way it will be for the next few decades. The American model is being applied in other countries, notably in Asia - in China and Korea this wind of change is turning into a gale, but not surprisingly, it is still a light breeze when it comes to India. While I wish there was a more bold initiative from the government and a clear policy with regards to R & D and science, I am encouraged by recent moves.

Public Funding
I find it rather encouraging that funding from the government for Science and R&D in India has increased over the past decade and it looks like it will keep increasing. In the US, universities and professors vie for national grants and funding from governmental agencies such as the NSF, NIH. In time, I hope that such agencies are created in India, current agencies are given more autonomy and awards have the same sort of transparency and minimal interference from bureaucracy,not being scuttled by political considerations and appointments. For example: I greatly like the model of the NCSB and also its special program for attracting young scientists and providing them with generous start-up funds.

Private Funding
Another aspect of the US model is the huge private funding from large foundations such as Whitaker, Kresge and Hughes and other personal donations. Such contributions, though not in the league of governmental budgets are nevertheless very important in endowing chairs, providing funds for buildings and taking specific initiatives. In India, alumni giving is not particularly big. Apart from the few usual suspects and recent donations made by people who made it big in the late 90s in the computer industry there isn't much of a culture of alumni donations. This needs to change. Universities here try to hit alumni for cash, the moment they graduate in whatever way they can. So far, I have yet to receive any sort of demand for contribution from my college in India.
It isn't like there aren't Indians with cash to spare. Currently, there are 23 Indians in the Forbes list of billionaires, more than the combined net worth of the ones from Japan. I would like to know how much of their charity goes to education, and in that specifically to funding research. On a personal note, I see a huge waste of funds in fattening the various denominations of swamis and gurus by the general public. Why not directly build temples of learning? Or invest directly in the future of lakhs of students instead of going through these fraudulent religious intermediaries? I bet there is tons of money right there.

The traditional mindset of Indians
Quoting from Ashutosh's post,
"... the lack of respect for science and humanities in our society, and indeed almost anything that does not involve a professional career. No matter what changes, unless people's mindsets change, nothing will finally ever change. I personally find this to be the single most important lacuna in our lack of progress."
I cannot but agree. But how does one exactly change the mindset?
One definite way is to make it more remunerative and on this I would like to slightly disagree with Ashutosh. I agree with him that most of the mad scramble in India for whatever degrees, diplomas you can lay your hands on is for a better pay or job. But Mammon is the great archer. Modeling was certainly not considered very respectable a decade ago. The liberalization in the early 90s led to a rapid rise of consumerism and hence a modeling boom (don't give Ash and Sush all the credit!). Parents have quickly gotten over their sons and daughters strutting about in their underwear. There will be an automatic respect for TV producers, disc-jockeys, historians, writers and scientists when parents are reassured that their talented children will keep up with the Kapoor's next door and won't have to be doctors or engineers to do so.

While I agree with Ashutosh and the general premise that there is more freedom to choose an alternative career in America, the desire for parents wanting their children to become a doctor or an engineer is quite strong, more than one would think (and this is not just Indian parents and their American-born children!). My colleague Tim (a neuroscientist) has this theory which I formulate thus:
"A reasonably intelligent person will continue on a straight line towards being a doctor if not suitably acted on by forces that make him choose otherwise."

If the mountain does not come to science, then science ...

Can we make science attractive? I still don't think we will ever be at a point when you will see a scientists being asked to endorse toothpaste/cars/suitings on primetime television but more space needs to be devoted to science and humanities in magazines and newspapers. Most Indians can name all members of the Indian cricket teams but will be hard-pressed to name more than half-a-dozen Indian scientists who are still alive. There has to a better platform for outreach for scientists. In the US, I face constant requests from outreach programs to teach kids about the brain, judge science fairs and talk about my research. I don't once remember a chemist or a physicist (even a grad student) coming to my school and talking about what he/she did and how much fun it was. The rare opportunity was the Exploratory program run by the Center for Scientific Research(hope I got this right) that selected students on basis of a city-wide test to participate in a unique class that was taught by eminent scientists. Perhaps more of such programs would have led me to chose otherwise and earlier instead of my current circuitous path towards science.

I am rather optimistic about the future of higher education and science. Cricketeers will still make more money but at least kids will grow up with heroes other than them.

Sobering Note
I agree that are other problems of implementation, scale and feasibility. In reality for half of India's 1.1 billion who are below 25, higher education is less of a burning issue than tackling the poor and unfairly distributed primary and basic education. Much of what can be our strength is currently worth just as much as cattle.
But, that is another issue. Where do we start and where do we end?

Peeves (updated)

People talking on the cellphone while jogging on the treadmill.

People haggling over a 30c discount coupon with the cashier in the check-out lane.

Badly parked cars that make it near impossible for you to get in or out of your car.

Not enough ketchup pouches.

People talking in the movie theatre while the movie is playing.

Having to wait at restaurants when you are dying of hunger.

Powerpoint slides with lines and lines of text. Yuck!

(Thought I would add some more....)

More yuck. Powerpoint slides with unnecessary animation and color schemes that distract from the real content.

Poorly spell-checked emails without any punctuation. Spare me your stream of consciousness and spare the ellipses ....

* Emails written as long instant messages eg: gtg, brb, gr8! What does it cost to punch in a few more keys?

* Overuse and abuse of emoticons. Very :( See old post

* Hot showers that become cold midway.

Not waiting your turn at the STOP sign.

Bone-headed pizza places who can't take an order or an address without you having to repeat it a million times.

* - New

3

This blog has been up for 3 years. Anniversaries such as these are mostly meaningless (and harmless) but they certainly provide a pause for thought. I don't have much to add to my last year's anniversary post except:
This year has clearly been "the" year for the Indian blogworld. Thousands responded in one way or another to the rallying cry in response to a fraudulent management institute who could not stand up to some honest probing or face public scrutiny. Blogs have not changed the world yet, but they are now a part of media consciousness or scientific study. It is true that newsfeed aggregators and portals like Google News have been instrumental in allowing people to sample hundreds of opinions at the same time, of the same subject and have greatly reduced information inequality and have allowed people to overcome the bias of a particular viewpoint; nevertheless blogs show that there is information out there that is unreported and still interesting. Personally, blogs salvage the best of the e-junk.

As for me, I get by with a little help from my friends.
* *
Private Selection

*..and miles to go before I sleep (A work in progress)
* Inglish
* Instant Computer Gurudom
*Back Home I and II, III and IV
* China Posts I and II and III
* People: Naipaul, Dylan and Johnny Cash
* Evolution Posts: Religion and Science, Daniel Dennett and Darwin's Finches.

Oscars: No more surprises

The Academy Awards of 2006 will not go down in posterity. There were no surprises ( I don't think Crash was a surprise) and there were no moments that will show up again and again on future montages (of which there was too much of this year). No kiss scenes, or Michael Moore style rhetoric or tearful speeches. Although, Reese has a fighting chance for the Over-the-Top Acceptance Speech Award.

Yet, there were moments.

The Academy had its own agenda. It wanted to encourage its captive audience to watch movies in theaters and not on DVD. Who's listening? 2005 was the Year of BitTorrent. An Oscar for Technical Achievement? Clooney and the rest of Hollywood is a little out of touch there at least.

Was Ben Stiller trying to play a piece of snot?

It was a little sad to see Laureen Bacall stutter, slur and forgot her lines as a lovely B/W photo from the 50s looked on. When Jon Stewart quipped, "Imagine how they would have looked in color" when the noir montage folded, I thought, "If only Bacall was younger."

It seemed to me that quite a few presenters were given lines to speak and they seemed so wooden and these people are actors! Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson were not among them.

The night did not belong to Robert Altman but he managed to steal some of the limelight for the brief 5 minutes he was on stage. As expected, there was no letting up from the man and certainly no compromise even today. He subtly poked fun at the Academy for trying to award him a death sentence. I admire how he turned it around calling it "being there under false pretences" since he has the heart of 30-year woman. Then taking a crack at people who thanked everybody and their dog, he made his doctor to be a token to stand for everybody and then thanked her. Hah! Altman never fails to dazzle and amuse.

This might soon be forgotten but Larry McMurtry deserved credit for standing up there and stressing the importance of booksellers and reminding everyone that there are often books before the movies.

* *
As far as hosting goes, Jon Stewart was not a disappointment and gets an A-. He seemed quite concerned to be invited back next year. Perhaps.

Oscar Addendum

I stumbled upon this after writing this post and it was too good to leave out. For a sober look at the nominees and the Hollywood publicity machine see Morgenstern's beautiful article on his own movie experiences. He writes,
"Whichever movies and performances win Oscars Sunday night, they won't be the ones I reviewed. For better or worse -- and I do think it's worse -- you and I don't see the same stuff. What I see at advance screenings is prebuzz and prehype. I'm privileged to see movies pretty much pre-everything that's calculated to transform entertainments, or occasionally works of art, into cash cows."

He perfectly summarized my attitude regarding reading movie reviews beforehand:
"The essential point is to protect one's authentic and precious responses to a new experience from those who could or would program them in advance, and then to see with clear eyes what's there to be seen on the silver screen."

I should frame this sentence.

Oscar Night and the Oscars

Sunday is Academy Awards Night and I am looking forward to it. There are those who see the Oscars as a farce and I don't blame them. Martin Scorsese and Robert Altman have yet to win a single one after being nominated 6 and 7 times respectively. The Academy has this unkind tradition of handing out Oscars for Lifetime Achievement, which is their way of saying, "We are real idiots and we have really ****ed up all these years. Sorry!". Each year, there is a thinly veiled theme to the Oscars awarded which makes most awards rather meaningless. I wonder if this year's theme is gay rights. Capote, Brokeback and Transamerica are highly-nominated. Brokeback Mountain is an outstanding movie and deserves to win in some categories, but I would hate to see it overshadow other better nominees. Then there are mercy Oscars tossed to people for not exactly their best performances, to make amends for past wrongs or simply because they-were-due. So as far as the Oscars go, I personally like to take the comfortable neutral position. I give the Academy a lot of credit for nominating the better movies and performances of the year and for bucking box-office and film critic opinions.

Regardless of who finally wins the Oscar the ceremony itself never disappoints. As a keen observer of feminine pulchritude the red carpet is always a big treat. You can't miss that for all the popcorn in the world. It's worth watching for those moments when kisses are shamelessly planted or when people burst into reckless tears. The big question is can Jon Stewart step into Billy Crystal shoes? Steve Martin, Chris Rock and Whoopi proved they couldn't. We will all find out. Stay tuned!

* * *
As for the awards themselves here are my picks based on insufficient knowledge.

Best Motion Picture of the Year - Crash
Tough call. Good Night, and Good Luck was really impressive. Munich was not quite there. Brokeback Mountain seems to be a favorite, but Crash was a much better movie overall - it has a colorful cast of characters, situations and paradigm shifts and makes a much larger statement.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role - Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line)
I have not seen Capote and I bet even Edward R. Murrow could not have wished for a better actor to portray him than David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck), but in terms of effort and dedication Phoenix tops them all.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role - Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line)
She was fantastic as June Carter. Felicity Huffman(Transamerica) might have an outside chance.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role - Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback)
I have not seen George Clooney in Syriana, but Jake Gyllenhaal stands a good chance in Brokeback Mountain as Jack "effing" Twist.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role - Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain)
Now I wish I had seen Capote.

Best Achievement in Directing - Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
While Crash was a great movie overall and Haggis did an admirable job directing the large cast; Ang Lee quite clearly wins over him, Spielberg and Clooney for his compassionate telling of an akward, painful story shot in the most beautiful of places in America.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen - Crash (Paul Haggis)
What a lovely story!

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published - Brokeback Mountain
Munich might have an outside chance.

Best Achievement in Cinematography - Brokeback Mountain
The great blue sky and the green meadow. Each scene was like a postcard or brochure for Wyoming. The B/W in Good Night, and Good Luck was a great touch. Memoirs of a Geisha was a great movie that underperformed.

Best Achievement in Costume Design - Memoirs of a Geisha

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score - - John Williams (Memoirs of a Geisha)
John Williams created a great score and admirably marshalled the energies of Yitzshak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma. It is hard to believe that it was an American and not a Japanese composer. I also liked Gustavo Santaollala's approach in Brokeback Mtn - clean and simple riffs on acoustic guitars, twangy country music thrown in the bar scenes and for throwing in King of the Road (liked how they showed Jack Twist totally upbeat, as he sings the song to the radio as he drives, after which he learns that he cannot stay and has to return to Texas.)

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year - Tsotsi(pure guesswork!)
This has always been my favourite category. I have often found the nominees in this category to be better than the Best Movie of the Year. Tracking these movies down is rather hard at times. At least, the winner will be shown soon in the local liberal-indie type movie theater. Tsotsi sounds like a winner, doesn't it? Why? The story is set in the apartheid-era and is about a thug who has to take home a baby. Can't fail with a storyline like that.

Movies of 2005

This is Ebert's List of the Best of 2005. Over the course of the past year, I have managed to see quite a few of them. Some, after waiting patiently for my turn to check them out at the library, other after hazarding clambouring over bodies of children dressed as witches and wizards on the day the latest Harry Potter was released.
* *
The Upside of Anger was really well-written (despite reviewers upset with the trick ending). While Kevin Costner totally hammed in this one, Joan Allen was fantastic as a middle-aged alcoholic whose husband has abruptly left her. All the daughters did a great job showing different ways in which they handled the situation. There was the detached, intellectual elder daughter; the rebellious second daughter doing everything contrary to what the eldest did; the third daughter who was generally confused and became ill; while the youngest who resented being treated as a baby.
Of late, I have been well-trained (by guess who?) to appreciate and enjoy Ms. Austen's opus mirabilis - Pride and Prejudice and thus have seen most recent TV and film versions/remakes of it including the forgettable Bride and Prejudice. The latest Pride and Prejudice is a pretty decent remake with good casting choices, except for Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen) who was just too wooden. Really, Colin Firth has no modern equal in playing the restrained passion and wounded pride of Mr. Darcy. Brenda Blethyn (Secret and Lies), has delivered as always and Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennet has been unjustly overlooked. I still can't I get enough of Ms. Knightley's lovely smile and apparently the Academy cannot either. I wouldn't give her the Oscar, yet. However, the movie was completely massacred by a quite unecessary last scene with Lizzie and Darcy muttering absolute nonsense.
Another outstanding movie of the year was Millions from the director of Trainspotting - Danny Boyle and was delightful except for the soppy, syrupy 5 minutes at the end. Little Alex Ethel is irrestibly cute in a way that girls won't be able to resist and his older brother Anthony played by Lewis McGibbon is cute in a way that guys will not fail to appreciate. These were great movies with a little soppiness on part of the director that lead to sloppiness in editing at the very end. Great movies, just avoid the last five minutes.

The Man in Black

Last year, it was Jamie Foxx as Ray and this year it is Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. I have not seen Capote yet, so I cannot really compare him with 'current' Oscar favourite - Philip Seymour Hoffman. In any case, Phoenix's performance as Cash has been nothing short of heroic and the movie is one of the best biopics ever made. It is now well-known that Phoenix played and sang all the songs in the movie; at whose start, he did not know the first thing about singing or about playing the guitar. He effortlessly managed to play one of the most interesting characters ever to walk on the face of this Earth; who Bob Dylan called 'an almost Biblical character'. But Walk the Line is more than just about Johnny, it's also about the great love story of Johnny Cash and June Carter.

"Hello, I'm Johnny Cash."


Johnny Cash always opened his shows with this simple line. His music was simple and his clothes were simple - just black. Here was a man who never forgot his roots or his faith, remained true to his art, never sold out and more importantly always stood for what he believed. He championed Bob Dylan when most people thought he was just another Woody Guthrie knock-off, encouraged Merle Haggard and told him not to be ashamed of his convict past and introduced Kris Kristofferson to the world. He played in prisons before it became fashionable to do so. When he wanted to record at the San Quentin prison, Columbia Records executives asked him, "Why are you dressed in black? Whose funeral are you going for?" He answered - "Mine". It is a different issue that the album went on to be a huge hit.
When he first met June Carter, she was country-music royalty and he was just another upcoming artist. She sensed the tenderness behind the tough 'outlaw' image that he cultivated. He would propose to her numerous times, but she always refused till one day she accepted 'on-stage' in the middle of a song. The movie ends with him marrying June Carter, but things did not end happily ever after. In the tradition of great heroes, he had his strengths and his numerous flaws. He was addicted to various drugs over the years - stimulants, painkillers and alcohol. There would be more bouts of addiction and June would stand by him like a rock and try her best to save himself from him. When he recovered, he said, "If it wasn't for June, I wouldn't be alive." They were inseparable and would be married for more than 30 years. After June passed away, he completely lost his will to live and passed away four months later.
In the Rolling Stone, Bono reminisced about the time he had dinner with Johnny. When they sat at the table, Cash bowed his head and joined his hands in prayer. After the grace was said Cash remarked, "Gosh, how I miss those drugs!". Bono said, "He wasn't just pretending to be a Holy Joe". It takes a lot of courage and honesty to accept yourself and then it takes a lot of strength to confront your demons and change. Trent Reznor may have written "Hurt", but Cash's rendition of the song has more emotional depth than Trent can even imagine.
While rock-stars have always written protest songs, complained about injustices and participated in demonstrations and marches, few have really put words to action. Only Johnny Cash could have always worn black as he sang:

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
...
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
...
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black


Even now, only a few gangsta rap stars exclusively wear black.

Blog scroll update

It has long been due.
I have updated my blog links.

Species of Dogma

This Sunday there was a bold attempt at organizing an event titled Evolution and God: Complementary or Conflicting Worldviews?. What was interesting was that it was held outside the university in a space shared as a church and a Jewish temple. In the opening talk, quite tactfully, David Mindell, Professor of U-M Ecology and Evolutionary Biology stayed clear of controversy and spoke about evolution from a biologist's perspective. At the end he said that evolution is the study of history and its methods can be applied to subjects far removed from biology. He showed how even the Bible has evolved over the years and how meanings have changed and have kept changing. Contrast the famous King James version(1611) of Psalm 23 in Wycliff's(1382) rendering:

"The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing to me shal lacke; in the place of leswe where he me ful sette. Ouer watir of fulfilling he nurshide me; my soule he conuertide. He bro[z]te doun me vpon the sties of ri[z]twisnesse; for his name. For whi and if I shal go in the myddel of the shadewe of deth; I shal not dreden euelis, for thou art with me. Thi [z]erde and they staf; tho han confortid me.

This was followed by discussions in small groups. The subtle irony about the different versions of the Bible seemed to have been lost on some of the audience. I sat next to a grandfather, who was well-read and well-informed and who proudly told all of us that he has been an atheist for 45 years. (Are the two correlated?) Directly across from him sat a grandmother who takes comfort in the fact that every rock, fish, bird and human being has a place in God's scheme and evolution is just another one of his wondrous processes. Then there were people in the middle who are a little less credulous, but still seemed to harbour anthropocentric views about evolution. The discussion went back and forth quite amicably and everyone aired their thoughts. Nothing was resolved. I do not think that anyone had switched sides when the left the room, but everyone felt that such gatherings were useful. Most people, if you asked them, would consider themselves liberal, scientific and free from prejudice and dogma. I left the room thinking - "My own opinions are dogmatic? Am I a fundamentalist scientist? Am I just like them?"

Despite all my optimism, I have to admit that it's going to take a lot more outreach and education. Most people in the discussion group had read The Beak of The Finch and had attended a few lectures on evolution, yet were still not willing to examine/change their core beliefs. The Origin of Species was published in 1859 and we are still trying to explain it. Explaining evolution is hard enough, but trying to change beliefs about religion and God is hard, very hard. Evolution and God: Complementary or Conflicting Worldviews? In my opinion, it all depends on what your view of God is. Evolution and God have both stated their opinions.

Size Does Matter

Saw this interesting sign on the the Campus Diag today:

The Large Print Giveth

and the Small Print Taketh Away

A <3 2 <3 Talk

Okay, be honest, did you figure out what the title meant? If you happen to be a guy then the chances are pretty slim. A few days ago, I got mail in which the sender had separated every paragraph with a row of <3<3<3 s instead of the regular ****s or ###s. Though 3 and # share the same key, the pattern looked too regular to be a typo. However, in my postscript I suggested to the sender that they looked liked typos. The draftee (a girl) shot back almost offended that "<3" stands for a heart!!! The separators were in honour of Valentine's Day.
At the risk of sounding sexist - I have noticed that girls use emoticons more than guys. An occasional smile :) or wink ;) in an email is okay, but some girls seem to communicate exclusively using these symbols. When actual text starts looking like garnish within a soup of emoticons then clearly a line has been crossed.

The question is why do girls overuse emoticons?
It is true that we make sense of speech by not only the literal meaning but also by how it is said. The loudness, pitch is highly related to the emotional state of the speaker. Written speech strips out all that tonal content. Emoticons have provided that bridge to some tonal context. I have often found a smiley :) very useful for tempering or defusing an angry remark. A recent survey concluded that women all over the world wanted more romance and men wanted more (guess what?) - sex. It further reinforces the stereotype that men are more physical and women more emotional. Then to women more than men, tonal content might be more important and it is not hard to see why women have most eagerly jumped on the emoticon bandwagon and seem to pepper their text with more emoticons than a guy would deem strictly necessary.
So for those drafting their V-day paeans to their lady loves check out this page.

Exchange

"You are a geek!"
".. and you are a dumbass!"

What's your poison?

Bill Maher's New Rule:
"The more complicated the Starbucks order, the bigger the asshole. If you walk into a Starbucks and order a "decaf grande half-soy, half-low fat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet-n'-Low and one NutraSweet," ooh, you're a huge asshole.”

Dennett's Dangerous Idea

As a Christmas gift, I could not have asked Santa for a better gift - an Evolution Theme Semester. Trying to listen to the talks has itself been a lesson in the 'survival of the fittest'. Last week's talk by Jonathan Weiner on the Beak of the Finch (reviewed here) was at the Washtenaw Community College(WCC). I reached the venue to find out that what I thought was the WCC was the Washtenaw Juvenile Correction Center! Finally after I made it to WCC, finding the auditorium turned out to be quite a task. It's a common error made by students, but The University of Michigan is not Ann Arbor!. I should have known the local community college - talk about living in ivory towers! Since I arrived late the hall was packed and I had to kneel on the carpet.

Today's lecture was by Daniel Dennett, one the leading thinkers of our time. In contrast to the Einstein Theme semester the Evolution theme seems to be more popular and understandably so. Thanks to some over-zealous officials trying to comply with the fire-safety laws, I and another 30 people were kicked out of the hall because "you can't sit on the steps, you have to have a chair." However, that did not deter people from standing in the hallway and listening. There were two large halls below and across the street that would have accomodated all the people had the organizers been more flexible, or would have created overflow rooms or alternate locations. Dennett is such an entertaining speaker that it was worth listening to his deep voice and seeing his slides through the body parts of a dozen other people who were standing, sitting and crouching in the hallway.

It is not hard to see why more than 150 years after Darwin's short book evolution is still is contentious. Dennett is his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea explains,
"If I were to give an award for the single best idea that anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unified the realm of life, meaning, and the purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. It is not just a wonderful scientific idea. But it is a dangerous idea."

Dennett goes on to explain why. Darwinism's greatest foe has been religion. It threatens to undermine everything that religion stands for. The subject of his talk today was based on his latest book - Breaking the Spell. Dennett wants to propose that Science needs to study Religion in a neutral dispassionate way. Why is there? Why has it survived? Drawing from Richard Dawkins' concept of the 'meme', he says religion is a very sticky sort of meme. Whether you believe in it or don't you have to agree that religion does serve some purpose and has persisted because it provides serves human needs. In fact, natural selection is responsible; religion is not an accident but is a natural phenomenon. It may not be divine (if there is such a thing) but it just another ideology not much unlike democracy, communism, freedom. In some way or the other they provide:
1. Something to live or die for;
2. A great placebo;
3. An explanation for the bewildering and confusing world.

Many times, people are faced with dilemmas which can be resolved, say by a coin flip. Of course, for more serious issues flipping coins might be a little 'flippant' so religion provides a more 'serious coin flip'. So you can say, "God asked me do it!", "or scripture says it". Sure, the world is a confusing and bewildering place and our success has has much to do with the constant need for humans to try to make sense of the unknown. How convenient of an invention is religion. It provides faith-based answers, or insists "that this world is the great mystery of God, the Creator, accept it". Dennett says, that this might not have been so much of a problem, but human religion has its caretakers and they tend to introduce interference. So now there is a group that wants to safe-guard its own interest. Dennett showed a picture of a billboard outside a church. It read,
"GOOD without GOD is just zero."
Such thought Dennett says is the most dangerous, implying that to be moral you have to be religious. This spell must be broken.

Michael Ruse published a review of the book in the latest edition of Nature 439, 535 (2 February 2006). His claim is that Dennett's approach might not be very helpful because,
"A major plank in Dennett's discussion is that religion is all smoke and mirrors, so even if we cannot hope immediately to eliminate all religious belief, those of us in the know will realize that we are dealing with a delusion, rather than a rationally justified belief system. However, a naturalistic analysis of religion in itself has no direct bearing on the truth of religious claims. My eyes are the end products of a long process of natural selection. Does that make any less real the truck I see bearing down on me as I stand in the middle of the road?."

Dennett's idea is a start and his solution calling for more education and dialogue is a compelling one. The world in already in a sorry state, thanks to ethnic and religious conflict and now more than ever seem to be finding succour or even release in religion instead if questioning it. Dennett described the types of people:
1)Those who believe in God
2)Those who believe in the belief in God
3) and those who believe in the belief .... ad infinatum.

There is no harm in some religious ideas, but as long as we know what they really are. A notion like - 'there is a God and he is watching over us' might be comforting but has no real basis. However it is nice to believe that there is a Santa and he brings gifts.