Drug development is a science, not politics

First, a disclaimer, I worked as a drug discovery scientist for more than a decade working on different projects including anti-HIV and antibacterial. I was fortunate enough to work in such a creative enterprise with some of the best talents in the world in academia as well as in the pharma industry. So, this blog post is based on my training and experience as a drug discovery scientist.

Drug development is not an easy endeavor. It is a risky, expensive, and prolonged process with absolutely no guarantee of success. Many countries in the world where protection for intellectual property for drug development is non-existent or pathetically inadequate don't even engage in this endeavor even though their population needs new drugs for almost every lethal disease that exists in this world. These countries depend entirely on developed countries for drug discovery, even for the drugs for diseases like malaria and tuberculosis that are eradicated from most developed countries but are very much a public health concern in most other countries. Drug development is a scientific endeavor, a very challenging and complex problem, it's not politics and the two should not be mixed.

There are arguments on various social media platforms in India about different types of medicines like allopathy, homeopathy, Ayurveda, home remedies, alternative medicine, or whatever. This argument is more emotional or political than a scientific argument. There is no data, no experiments, or any scientific principles that are debated, there are just accusations and counter-accusations, just like most political discussions. The debate is devoid of any scientific spirit and temper. People engaging in the debate are not even interested in knowing how a drug is developed or approved, they only want to prove the other side wrong, by hook or crook. Once politics enters any argument the first two causalities are rationality and common sense.

Either something is a medicine (drug), or it's not. Over the period of time, the scientific community and governments have developed a reliable, reproducible, and verifiable mechanism to evaluate the approval of a drug. It is called clinical trials, and the data submitted for this purpose is publicly available, almost every country has a competent body to evaluate such data, for example, the US has Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If there is no such data, it cannot be called medicine, it is that simple, it can be anything else but not medicine or an approved drug. So, there is no secret sauce to develop any drug or medicine, there is no need for a statement of an expert, you just need clinical data that can be verified by an independent body. So, anyone or any company claiming anything as a drug doesn't need any celebrity, govt backing, or opinions, just producing clinical data, proving the drug's safety and efficacy, and getting the approval. You just need one reproducible experiment with verifiable data to prove or disapprove any scientific hypothesis right or wrong, it's that simple, but it's not at all easy as collecting such data may not be easy in some cases. Drug development is science, not politics.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

I did not choose science, science chose me

For more than a decade, I enjoyed working as a research scientist in academia as well as in industry.  It was a very rewarding and educational experience. Science became an integral part of my life in 11th grade, and it will remain an integral part of the rest of my life as well. It shaped my thinking, cleared many of my doubts, taught me to be curious and not settle for vague or unverifiable answers, and many more things. But I did not choose science because I loved it or it was my dream since my childhood to become a scientist or anything like that. It was decided by my transcripts and social trends of that time. It sounds very dry and dispassionate, but in the end, it resulted in a very impassionate relationship between me and science.

In India, students have to decide which discipline they want to study very early in their student life when most of them have no clue what they want to do. I needed to make that selection after my 10th grade (even before finishing the highschool as far as the US education system goes). I needed to decide if I wanted to pursue my education in science, arts, or commerce. I decided to enroll in science, not because I loved science or I was passionate about research, there was no romanticism or love at first sight, or that I was best in science compared to other subjects, rather I scored highest in history. It was the merit list that made that decision for me. I got enough marks to be on a merit list for science discipline and that's how I began my journey towards the wonderland of science. Back then I had no clue where this journey would take me. I had no plans, no roadmap, no guide, and no mentor. My only aim was to finish college and get a decent job. I did not even know what was research and what was Ph.D. and why anyone would study beyond a B.Sc. (undergrad degree in India). But I am glad that science chose me and guided me. Initially, it was a struggle because of the language difference. I studied until my 10th grade in a Marathi medium and suddenly in 11th grade, everything was in English. For the first few months, I had no clue what was going on in class, but slowly I adjusted to this new reality and started enjoying the exciting subject matters from various disciplines of science.

One of the reasons I continued my education after my B.Sc. degree was that I really enjoyed what I was learning and it was helping me to find answers to many questions about which no one around me had any clue. It helped me to understand the source of various problems, helped me to come out of many superstitions and discriminatory rituals, trained me to ask questions, and also not to expect readymade answers but to go and find answers on my own. This all helped me personally, there were not many people who could guide me but libraries and books filled that void. Science did not inculcate the reading habit in me but it taught me not to read just for the sake of pleasure or entertainment. It made me think over what I read, analyze it, and then apply those things in my life. It made me open to new ideas, and challenge my own beliefs and prejudices. This approach has helped me tremendously in my life. Many times we face problems or situations about which we have no clue and people around us also are not able to help much, but there is a huge ocean of knowledge locked in many books, and if we know how to access that knowledge we can solve most of our problems using that knowledge. The truth is that almost every problem we face in our lives someone has faced before and they write about it, and that record can be a very useful source of information for us.

Science also taught me to live with the uncertainty in life. Science teaches you that you cannot know everything. Research is a never-ending process, there is no beginning and end to the knowledge. The process of conducting research is often more rewarding than the end result. Of course, the end result matters, but that itself is not everything. We cannot predict the future, and that is the reality, we need to live in the present and try to do our best with the hope that things will work as we plan there is nothing more in our hands. It also taught me how to deal with failures. Every scientist has to deal with failures. Negative results are an integral part of every scientist's life, but most scientists do not get discouraged by them. Yes, scientists also do get frustrated or feel sad about failed experiments, but just for that particular moment, because the next day they need to plan their next experiment with more excitement, rigor, and dedication because this is the only way to move forward. Science and scientists cannot afford to get stuck in the past, as there is always a next challenge waiting for them, something more complicated and exciting. Yesterday's success doesn't guarantee tomorrow's success and the same is true for failure. Many of the lessons which I learned from science have helped me in other aspects of my life and this is why I am glad that even though I did not choose science, science chose me.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

Chandrayaan 2 - it is the courage to continue that counts

I was not aware of the exact day of Chandrayaan-2 landing until I read that ISRO abruptly lost all communications with the craft just a few minutes before its planned landing. I saw so many posts from my Indian friends and relatives either glorifying or politicizing this event. I fail to understand how a prime minister of a country and mere party politics became a centerpiece of news related to science and technology. India's space program is several decades old and had some spectacular achievements including the recent Mangalyaan (Mars Orbiter Mission) which was also made into a Hindi movie. I think Chandrayaan-2 deserves to have its own movie even more than Mangalyaan just because it was trying to do something that was not achieved before on that part of the moon by any other country. If any country wants to progress in science and technology it needs to empower its people to take up new unsolved challenges and more importantly, learn from failures. 

In the area of research and development, it is important to learn to deal with failures. Believe me, there are many setbacks in any scientific endeavor, therefore, failure is a very important aspect of any scientist's life. I cannot even count the number of reactions that failed during more than two decades of my journey in research and development. Some failures are massive, some really hurt you and make you start from scratch, some make you doubt your strategy, some are due to your own mistakes, and some are due to unavoidable circumstances. No matter what reason, it is guaranteed that failure is going to be there, more often than we want. As a scientist, one has to be prepared for it. At the same time, I don't want to paint a picture that a scientist's life is only full of failures, there are moments of glory and spectacular achievements, and there are many moments of adrenaline rush that make you wake up and run to the lab to analyze the results of your experiments. These spectacular moments are accompanied by disproportionate amounts of failed attempts, and that's why it's important to educate people that in science failure is not something that should be discouraged or glorified. The attempt must be applauded, but at the same time, it must be analyzed sincerely, as lessons from failure are many times more important than what we learn from success. Many scientific challenges are extremely difficult and some even look practically impossible, but that shouldn't stop us from trying and failing as it's the only way to conquer the impossible.

When I watched the Apollo-13 movie, I was so impressed by it that I watched it with my kids at least a couple of times after watching it alone. It is not a movie about a successful moon landing, rather it was an unsuccessful attempt, but the resilience and composure shown by the people involved in the mission to bring back astronauts safely back to earth were impressive. Every failure teaches us something, there is always a lesson to learn, but this is true only if we are willing to learn. Only a few failures get the recognition they deserve, and there is no mechanism yet to publish the failed results. Normally people don't care about failure or they play a blame game or they feel ashamed to discuss it. Disappointment is natural after any failure, but at the same time, the efforts should be appreciated, not only by others but mainly by the people who were part of the team. The team who tried really hard but failed needs to value their efforts and understand the importance of their work. If they don't then they will only remember the end result, a failed attempt, not the rest of it, which is equally important. 

Then, why I am against glorifying failure. Because failure doesn't need it, the team or a person already knows that their attempt was not successful, and any glorification has the risk of sounding too fake or too sympathetic. Failure only needs encouragement and genuine support which can motivate a reattempt with equal enthusiasm and vigor. It's a natural instinct to play safe and become defensive after failure, but that's not always the right strategy, it all depends on the context. Yes, Chandrayaan-2 failed, but it was a brave attempt. I want to end with a quote by Henry Ford, "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently." Very well done ISRO scientists, let's try it again as there is nothing that science cannot achieve, provided, we do not stop trying.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

All scientific knowledge is uncertain, and that's why it's of a great value

Prof. Richard Feynman said that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. When I read this statement for the first time, I really didn't understand its meaning, but when I started conducting research in the field of chemistry I understood the importance of uncertainty in the field of science. Actually, uncertainty is what makes scientific knowledge different than any other field. The possibility that anyone can challenge any hypothesis, anyone can propose any rule, anyone can experimentally prove or disprove any theory, makes the field of science interesting and unpredictable. Anything, no matter who proposed by whom or how long ago can be proven wrong by anyone with enough data. This non-hierarchical aspect of science makes research a fun and exciting endeavor. Scientists are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty, otherwise, how can one dare to solve a problem which has never been solved before? How can one propose some new rule or predict some new theory? How can one try to find a cure for something untreatable before? This is why experiences with doubt and uncertainty are very important for any scientist or a science student. Science is as much about asking new questions as it is about finding answers to unanswered questions, this is an inherent feature of scientific knowledge. 

When Feynman called scientific knowledge uncertain, he did not even remotely mean that it was unreliable. Uncertain doesn't mean unreliable in this context, it just means that it is subject to change and nothing is fixed in stone. Now, this concept might be difficult to digest at first. How can something be uncertain and still be reliable at the same time? However, this can be the case, and if we look at the process of generating and evaluating the data in science we can very well understand how and why. Here, the uncertainty is not because of the content, but due to the process by which it is generated. The process has an inbuilt mechanism to challenge the status quo, encouragement to improve things and push the lines, start new frontiers, take up new challenges, and finally, try to prove things wrong, and this is what Feynman meant by calling scientific knowledge uncertain. Scientific knowledge is not static, it's in continuous flux. Once I understood this uncertainty, I really enjoyed my research and learned a lot from the many failures that I faced while conducting it. Failures, actually, many of them, are an integral part of every researcher's life, and acknowledging the inherent presence of doubt and uncertainty makes the journey more enjoyable and rewarding. Remember, this uncertainty is what stops from scientific knowledge becoming dogmatic. So, embrace the uncertainty and enjoy the journey of exciting scientific pursuit.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

None of the religions are scientific, and they don't have to be

I find it very interesting when various religions try to claim that they are the most scientific ones among all other religions. Amazingly, such an old institution like religion feels compelled to demonstrate that it also possesses some or all characteristics of a much younger academic discipline like science. I am not saying that science didn't exist when religion originated as a personal and social wellness product for human civilization, but back then science was not an organized and well-defined discipline as it is today. Scientific facts and phenomena exist whether we know about them or not. But this fight among all religions to claim how scientific they are demonstrates how science has become a more reliable discipline than religion. So reliable that even ancient institutions like organized religion feel the compulsion to demonstrate their alignment with science.

The compulsion to prove how scientific they are is not limited to any particular religion. If you look at any major religion in the world today, you can find various articles, books, blog posts, and even research papers published in some scientific journals where they claim how various scientific facts or phenomena were already explained in their religious scriptures. There seems to be competition among all religions to show who is more scientific, whereas none of them can pass the rigorous test of producing verifiable data to prove their religious claims. I always thought that most religions could stand on their own without demonstrating any association with science or claiming how scientific they are. Religion satisfies a unique need of the human mind, it puts an end to your questions about the unknown by convincing you that there is some supreme power that controls everything and hence you don't have to worry. Religion commands people to follow the path recommended by whatever scripture is prescribed by that particular religion. By putting an unverifiable and unrecognizable entity as a supreme controller it puts an end to all questions. This approach is supposed to put an end to all the anxiety about the unknown to all people who are willing to accept the existence of any such power. On the contrary, science is an endless pursuit of knowledge. It is a never-ending journey, science not only searches for solutions to existing problems, but it also searches for new problems. The quest to find answers to existing problems and new problems from existing answers is an endless voyage. No book in science can claim that it has all the answers to all human problems because that's not what science is supposed to do. Science doesn't hesitate to accept that it doesn't know answers to many questions, but hardly any religion dares to accept this. This is one of the major differences between science and religion, and as long as religions don't gather the courage to accept this simple fact they cannot claim themselves to be scientific. 

So far, I have not come across any scientific discipline claiming that they are the most religious. I don't think they ever felt the need to claim any association with any religion to demonstrate their validity and relevance. But somehow religion feels insecure because of the popularity and rapid spread of scientific knowledge. As they can't stop this, they figured it out that it is better for them to claim an association with it. It is an unnecessary tactic. As I mentioned, religion satisfies a unique need of a very large number of humans on this planet, this need is going to remain as long as people fear the unknown and don't accept the role of randomness in our lives. It is tough not to worry about the unknown because as a human we are innately curious and want definite answers to our questions. No matter how illogical that answer is, we want an answer and religion does a very good job of providing answers to these types of questions. The need for religion is going to remain no matter how much science progresses as there will be always something that we don't know. Fear of the unknown is not easy to overcome. It is also true that many of the religious scriptures do mention some scientific facts, but this is not enough to validate their claim to be scientific. Even some fiction books contain elements of scientific facts, but that doesn't mean those stories are scientific. The presence of verifiable data is one of the important requirements of any scientific experiment and religion doesn't believe in presenting any such data. None of the current religions are scientific, they don't have to be and they don't have to claim that they are, they should leave science out of their mess, the same way science leaves religion out.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Some serious flaws associated with the way science fairs are judged

Science is not just an academic discipline or a subject from the school curriculum, but it is a liberating tool available to anyone and everyone. It liberates our minds from the darkness of ignorance and enables us to question things. It encourages us to learn by observation and also teaches us that there are many things that we don't know, and it's okay not to know about things and continue to look for answers. This is why I love basic elements of science, which encourage questioning, analysis, data generation and verification, and critical thinking. All these elements are not only helpful while we study science during our school or college days, but these things are extremely useful in our day-to-day lives. This is why I love the idea of conducting a science fair for school children. The main intention of these fairs is not just to attract talented students to the discipline of science, but also to introduce school kids to all these elements of scientific analysis at a very young age so that they can use them in their day-to-day lives. This is the reason whenever possible I try to volunteer as a judge in the city and state science fairs.

While judging these fairs I observed a few things which somewhat disturbed me. I saw kids whose parents belonged to the science field taking undue advantage of resources available to them to perform science projects way beyond their grade level, whereas other kids who didn't have access to such resources lacked that sophistication and couldn't compete with this elite class of kids from families of parents from a science background. There is nothing wrong with encouraging your kid to take up challenging science projects or brainstorming with them to generate some relevant ideas for their project. I am a scientist and I do that with my kids, but my role is limited to raising questions and making sure that they try to find something on their own which suits their level of understanding of science. Neither I generate an idea for them, nor do I help them to select the topic, my role is limited to providing them with materials required for the experiment and making sure that they do it safely.

When there is no level playing field the competition becomes one-sided, heavily biased towards kids with scientific privileges, and this thing bothers me. But, the question is how to balance this imbalance of resources so that all students get a fair deal? How to make sure that all students are competing on a level playing field? There is no easy way, it is not the fault of these students that their parents are scientists and they are helping these kids in a way they shouldn't be. We can't punish these kids for the well-intended help offered to them by their parents, but then how can we watch these other kids with no scientific help apart from their teachers and schools fail regularly in front of kids from scientifically privileged backgrounds? The only way out is to make disclosures of all help received mandatory: from where you got the idea, where you conducted the experiment, who helped you, and whether any of your parents belong to the science field. The list is not exhaustive, but these questions might give us an idea of the scientific privilege of such kids, and let them compete with each other, this will be the real test for them and it will be better for them. Maybe others have better suggestions to tackle this issue, but I feel this should be discussed before many kids move away from science just because they can't compete with a few kids who come from scientifically privileged families. We need bright and creative kids to choose science as their profession, science needs creativity and imagination like any other field. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to make sure that we create a conducive environment to attract such talent.

The USA has a great tradition of scientific endeavors, and we cannot afford to lose this advantage, this is why we need to stop this field from becoming a monopoly of a few privileged families. The USA is a leader in science and technology and this is one of the main reasons for its world dominance. If the scientific community doesn't make serious efforts to increase the diversity and reachability of scientific knowledge to each and every corner of society, this country might lose this edge to others who are rapidly closing this gap. Let's start with fixing the science education and the way many of these science fairs are judged. Please remember, that prevention is always better than cure.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Science is NOT my religion

I have written quite a few posts about science and religion. I know some people who call science their religion, and whereas I do understand their intention behind saying this, I don't subscribe to that idea, for me it is very clear that science is NOT my religion. I say so because of one basic fundamental difference, religion demands total surrender and requires complete faith (blind faith), it allows questions but only to a certain limit and there are certain areas in almost all religions that are unquestionable and their authority is considered as supreme, but science has none of these things. Science is not my faith, I don't believe anything that comes from that field blindly, I need data to accept or reject anything no matter who is the scientist behind that theory or experiment. This basic difference is the key to understanding why both of these disciplines are poles apart from each other.

So, when someone says that science is their religion, they might mean that they believe in science in the same way people believe in religion. But then there is one basic problem in this argument, science does not demand any belief or faith, rather it teaches us to be skeptical about everything. One of the basic requisites for being a good scientist is the ability to question things around us and challenge well-established facts to test if they are still right or if we need to update them. There is nothing in science that demands any belief or surrender, experiments and data collected from those experiments supersede any rules or theories. Anything can be proven right or wrong by experimental evidence. Scientists don't believe in the validity of one of the most famous scientific equations, E=MC2, just because a great scientist like Albert Einstein proposed it, they accepted it because it was proven to be true by experimental data. The same is true for theories proposed by Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist of any era. Certain statements or theories might get some recognition in the beginning just because some famous or successful scientist proposed it but eventually, it has to pass the test of experimental validity. Someone needs to produce the data to prove or disprove them and this can be done by anyone without being threatened or heckled by supporters of that theory. Any such effort where a certain theory is proven right or wrong by experimental evidence is welcomed by the entire scientific community, even students of the scientist whose theory is proven wrong welcome any such effort as it improves their knowledge. This is the basic reason why there is no enmity between different branches of science. There is competition between various branches but at the same time, there is a vast amount of inter-disciplinary collaborations.

Challenging well-established theories, questioning hypotheses, and demanding data to prove any claim are some of the basic things that people learn in science but it is exactly the opposite in religion where one is taught to accept the supremacy of some entity and then asked to follow certain book (or set of books). Questioning is highly restricted and often sensitivities of followers of that religion get hurt if anyone questions their beliefs beyond a certain point. At the same time, there is tremendous tension between various religions. Human history is full of gory violent incidents because of communal conflicts between two or more religions. I do understand the need to have religion for many people, as many of us need some emotional support and religion acts as a pillar of strength for many. Maybe science partly does that job for me as it answers many questions that I get from time to time. Actually, science is a very useful tool for me to navigate through my life but nothing more than that, it can never become a religion for me just because I don't agree with the way religion is practiced in today's world. Even today religion fails to come any close to science as far as openness and tolerance are concerned. Because of this tolerance which I learned during my training as a scientist, I don't mind people questioning whatever I say or write, they have the freedom and right to do that. My sensitivities and beliefs are my problem, and people don't have to worry about them while questioning me or criticizing me. That is why I can categorically say that science is not my religion.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Science doesn't answer all the questions - because it is not supposed to

Very often I hear people criticizing science by arguing that it doesn't solve all the problems or answer all the questions. This point is regularly raised during the discussions where science and religion are discussed together and pitched against each other. Science vs. religion is a very common and popular debate topic. They are pitched against each other often and people try to evaluate both disciplines based on their own perceptions, knowledge, likes, and dislikes. I want to discuss specifically science and its impact on our society, especially the pointless accusations that science has not solved any major problems for humankind or science claims to know everything but then, doesn't answer all the questions. Some religious people say these things in a tone as if religion does solve all the problems or have all the answers. First of all, one should understand that science doesn't claim that it can answer all the questions or solve all the problems. People who think like this are either ignorant or are purposely saying this to mislead people or just saying this to malign science. First, problem-solving and knowledge generation is a continuous and never-ending process in science, so, it cannot claim to know everything or solve all the problems, it is always a work in progress. Secondly, science is not just an academic discipline or a subject of school curriculum, it is a way of thinking. It is a logical and systematic way of handling any question or problem. Any person can have a scientific aptitude, they can follow scientific methods to generate the same results that scientists generate, they don't need any formal education or degree to be called a scientist. I have seen many uneducated people making brilliant discoveries using their own logical and rational thinking, they are all scientists according to me. One can definitely become a scientist by profession by having proper training and education but this is not the only way to learn and practice science. I am a very lucky person that I came across many people from different disciplines who instilled a scientific aptitude in me.

I clearly remember one lecture from my college days where one of our chemistry professors who was also a very good poet asked question to our class, what is science? Many students tried to answer this question and finally, all of us agreed that "anything which we study systematically is science." Now what do we mean by "systematically"? It simply means using verifiable and reproducible methods. If things are not reproducible or if data is not verifiable independently, then it doesn't have any scientific significance. The evidence can be direct or indirect but it has to be there and the onus is always on the claimant to prove their claim. The biggest quality of science that attracted me to it is that it only believes in data, it doesn't care who produced that data, who proposed theories, or who carried out the experiments. The data has to be verifiable and reproducible for any scientific experiment to be successful. Even the data from unsuccessful experiments is very valuable in science as it provides important insight to others working in that field. My experiment or Einstein's experiment are judged with the same skepticism and open-mindedness by the scientific community, we both can be proven right or wrong by any person who can produce the data to prove our experiments wrong. It doesn't really matter that Einstein is a Nobel laureate, his theories are open to challenge like any other scientist's theories. This is another interesting point, there is no absolute authority who is unquestionable in science. Everything is open for debate and anyone can raise any question about anything. All one needs is verifiable and reproducible experimental data to challenge any hypothesis. This is a very reliable method to proceed forward and generate reliable knowledge, this prevents getting stuck in a particular mindset and avoids stagnation of knowledge. This is also one of the reasons why science has managed to solve so many problems and answer many questions that were considered mysteries just a few decades back. Let it be a problem related to water purification, vaccination, some disease management, related to transport, or even clothing or entertainment, scientific communities all over the world are busy tirelessly solving many problems from many diverse areas. They will continue to do so as long as they keep on asking questions. Asking questions and challenging the status quo are integral parts of scientific thinking. Please keep on questioning science and throwing new challenges towards scientists all over the world, constructive criticism will make it only better and stronger. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Mythology is not science

Birth of Karna (my favorite character from Mahabharat) was a marvel of genetic engineering in ancient India, Ganesha's head replacement was an example of plastic surgery; these are meanings that students might derive from some of the statements that India's PM Mr. Narendra Modi made recently. There are already people who believe that whatever great discoveries are made in the area of science are already described in ancient Indian scriptures, and such statements only validate such unscientific thinking. It is a different issue that such people fail to explain if those discoveries were already mentioned in those books then how come Indians failed to report it to the rest of the world and how come only when someone else reported them then only these people suddenly realize that it was already mentioned in their holy books. The only agenda these people have is to push their own ideology and religion as a superior force and claim credit for others' hard work. Anyone who really studied science and with a real scientific temperament would feel amazed by the sheer ignorance of these people. These people fail to understand the difference between mythology (which is fiction) and science (which is based on reproducible data and verifiable evidence). 

Mythology is full of very interesting and inspiring stories. Among these stories, Mahabharat is my favorite one. Many stories from this great epic are full of interesting characters and incidents. To make them entertaining authors have included many fictitious incidents like they do in all fiction books like Harry Potter. It is to the credit of the author's great imagination that these books are so entertaining and popular. Many of the incidents mentioned in fiction books are also inspired by some real-life incidents, they make use of real city names or dates just to make these stories sound real. But at the same time, we all know that no one can fly on a broomstick, people can not defy gravity without any external help, unicorns don't exist, and animals don't talk in any human spoken language, but we all love to read these stories and watch these things on the screen. However, if scientists discover some invention, for example, a touch screen or the wireless phone, already mentioned in some story or movie like Star Wars after a lot of hard work and research, we don't give credit to that book or movie for inventing it. Maybe scientists or inventors get some idea from these movies but to make these things a reality is an altogether different ball game. It requires a lot of study, planning, hard work, and many experiments (most of which fail), to make any invention work. It is not easy to bring fiction into reality but the hard work of many scientists makes some of these things possible. Flying was considered impossible just a few centuries ago but now we have so many devices which one can use to fly in group or solo. This was possible due to the hard work of many people who worked tirelessly to develop this technology. These are the people who should get the credit for this invention, not someone who might have mentioned in some story that humans can fly without any technical details about how can they defy gravity and fly.

Such statements coming from a person like Mr. Modi who is the prime minister of India are very surprising if not shocking. He can have his personal opinion about any issue but as a prominent public figure, he should know that his statements are going to have a huge impact on many impressionable minds who follow him. Mythology is not science. They are different and one should not try to mix them as none of them will get any benefit from such mixing, it will only breed ignorance and stupidity.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. PM Modi takes leaf from Batra book: Mahabharat genetics, Lord Ganesha surgery
2. Indian prime minister claims genetic science existed in ancient times

Difference of attitude in science and religion

The tussle between science and religion is not new, this is an old fight that is still going on. Even after so many years of conflict on so many different levels, both fields still exist and are very popular among the masses. The debate becomes very intense when someone questions the existence of God because the concept of God is one of the basic elements of all organized religions. They all believe that their god or gods are the creator as well as the controller of this universe and there are some books that the god delivered through authorized agents to dictate his message (also known as holy books).

 

Now is this debate about science and religion any useful? Will it lead to any conclusion, if yes, what and when? Most of the discussions related to this topic often turn into arguments where both sides try to convince each other that the other party is wrong rather than understanding each other. This doesn't produce the desired result for both the parties involved in the discussion. For me, the question about science or religion is a simple question of personal need. Many people still need religion in their lives, they are very much dependent on it, they feel their existence depends on it, and they are scared of questioning their own religion. If someone else does it, it makes them angry and worried, they become either defensive or offensive while defending their own religion. Rarely do people manage to stay neutral on this subject. No one should object to anyone following any religion as long as they keep it a private affair. Religion is a deeply personal thing, just like your underwear or your genitals, there is no need to publicly share such information. At the same time, many people don't need religion anymore, they all have moved on, and this is their personal thing. People who don't find religion of any use question it and challenge it whenever they witness it in the public domain. That's why I mentioned religion being a private affair, as long as it remains private I don't think anyone would be bothered by it. Sometimes while arguing against religion people become too aggressive which complicates the situation, it is better to show some patience while questioning these age-old personal beliefs. People who challenge or question religion are increasing day by day because of this the argument is also getting more intense. In the past, it was easy to silence the challengers but nowadays they also have fundamental wights, and this has changed everything.

So what is the major difference between science and religion? It's the attitude to evaluate things before accepting or rejecting them, this attitude is different for these two fields. Let's consider one hypothetical scenario, consider two groups of people (or societies) totally disconnected from each other but simultaneously existing (like life on two different planets). Imagine one following only science and another only religion (doesn't matter which religion, one can assume whatever religion they like). Now imagine that both of them discover something like fire for the first time. Initially, both groups will be amazed by the beauty of fire, at the same time astonished and scared by the destructive power associated with it. The religious group will consider it as a creation of their creator because some knowledgeable person said that everything is created by that creator. They may start worshiping it and consider it a divine creature. They may preserve the original source of fire as a divine fine from which everyone borrows the light to light their own fire. If someone from somewhere came with a lamp to this community, they may feel threatened by the existence of another source of fire that has not originated from their divine source. They may blame this lamp carrier as a blasphemous guy who is challenging their creator by creating the thing that they believe only their creator has the power to create. However, a few people may get attracted to the new flame and start following that new lamp guy. Now, another group that is following a different fire source as a divine source is born. Both groups hate each other because each thinks that the other group is totally insane and the rest is the history of organized religion which we all know.

Another group also goes through the same emotions in the beginning after discovering the fire (surprise, amazement, fear, etc.), but they were curious about how this fire was formed, and how can it be reproduced to be used for their own good. The fire was not sacred to them, they studied its properties and discovered that everyone could make their own fire. This opened up many more avenues for them where they could use this fire for their own good in many ways. They made many instruments and machines that could use the power of fire. Here also a new person with knowledge of different energy sources like microwave radiations arrived from somewhere. This source worked better than the fire, everyone was happy to see the new invention, and they all welcomed the new idea, some even thought of collaborating with that person to see if two ideas could be combined to form something better. Some challenged both these things and proposed something new, their viewpoint was also given due consideration. Experiments were performed to check the validity of each claim. This resulted in the formation of many more new branches which attracted many people to discover many new things. But none of this created any rift, hatred, or fight but rather increased debates, and discussions. This is a very simplified example that I chose to illustrate two different approaches, one purely religious approach, and one purely scientific approach. 

So according to me both groups react differently to similar incidents and that's the major difference between these two areas. Religion demands obedience whereas science demands systematic study. Their attitude towards looking at things is totally different. Now it's up to an individual to decide which approach (or combinations of approach) they prefer. I personally choose science because for me it sounds very logical and rational, whereas religion has become too rigid and dictatorial, everyone is free to choose what they like.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why is science considered as a force against religion?

Many people (especially orthodox religious or so-called conservatives) think that science is the "force against religion." They offer very strong arguments to support this hypothesis. One can ask what is science after all? Is it something that we humans invented or something that existed all the time we just discovered it and named it recently as science? Basically, science consists of the stuff that people have found out about things around us. People use this knowledge to figure out unknown things and also to create or design things that can make our lives more comfortable. In very simple terms science is just people finding out what the stuff is and how things around us work. This logic can be applied anywhere not just for traditional science subjects like chemistry, physics, biology, and maths. Any rational or logical analysis and reasoning is science. This is how I define it, for me science doesn't just mean to study a few subjects. 

The reason why some people think that science is bad for religion is because science has allowed people to figure out things on their own that people didn't know back when many of these religious or holy books were written. A very simple example of this is where rainbows come from? The Bible answered that it was from god; he created rainbows after the great flood to show that he wouldn't create another worldwide extermination. For people back then, it answered why there were rainbows, it was a very simple explanation and went very well with the story in the book. It satisfied their curiosity, but eventually, people who were not content with that answer looked into it and found that a rainbow is just the light reflecting from the water in clouds (this is the simplest way to describe it). We now know that rainbows have been like this since the beginning of the earth, and that's just how light works, it's the property of light we just didn't know about it back then. I am giving this particular example just to show that people took the explanation from the Bible as the truth because rainbows seemed so magical and they wanted some answer. But back then they didn't know, there was no way to understand this phenomenon because they didn't have the knowledge or techniques to study the behavior of light. Hence it was impossible to understand how rainbows were formed. When they heard stories of God and one of the stories said that the rainbows were from god, an all-powerful being, creator of the universe, it was easy for them to accept that he created everything including the rainbow. If it were me hearing this for the first time, I would have believed it, because something so beautiful and grand as a rainbow must come from something beyond this world. Back then many mystical things, for example, sunrise and sunset, solar eclipses, floods, earthquakes, and various epidemics, required some sort of explanation, and the concept of 'God' and its ultimate powers gave a very believable explanation for all these mysteries. The Bible is just one of the texts that gives such explanations there are many books from many religions that offer similar explanations and stories.   

People then believed that this person named 'God' must be real and he must be the power behind causing the things that people don't have control over or can't explain. The human mind is very curious, and these simple answers satisfied the curiosity of a lot of people but not all of them were happy with these answers. Some of these people started to look into these things. A few thousand years later, and after many experiments, they discovered that rainbows are a lot simpler than we thought, one can even create their own rainbow on any bright day or under lights with a simple water hose or fountain. So, people figured out where rainbows come from and this is what science is, a simple rational, and logical way of figuring out things. It is not a rule book or something to live by. It's not a lifestyle. It is just a way of thinking. People also figured out that the earth is not stationary but it moves around Sun and that's why we experience sunrise and sunset. Eventually, many other natural wonders were also demystified. But the problem was these discoveries contradicted the things mentioned in some scriptures which attained the status of holy scriptures revealing the absolute truth. This is how this conflict started, science vs religion.

Science doesn't claim to deliver absolute truth. Everything in science is tentative and open for debate. According to science, there is no way to prove anything absolutely, one can question everything no matter whose theory it is and how old it is. The beauty of science is if you want to disprove anything in science, you would be using science to do it and the whole scientific community will welcome any new discoveries or theories. But the current form of any religion doesn't allow this. Some questioning and probing are allowed, but religion demands faith and total surrender beyond a certain point. Many people are okay with this and feel happy about it. Nothing wrong with it as long as it works for them and helps these people with their personal problems and they coexist peacefully with others. But when they create division in society, stereotype people based on their beliefs, and preach hatred, there is a problem. It surely is a matter of concern when people start killing each other because of differences in their religious beliefs. Anyone who questions any religious belief is branded as an atheist and is subjected to a lot of criticism and hate. I already shared some of my views regarding this topic in my post about science and religion where I discussed how both these things can complement each other but unfortunately, it is not possible because of the rigid attitude of people from both fields. Science doesn't run away from any question, but sadly same can not be said about religion and that is why people think science is a force against religion. However, in reality, science is not a force against anything, it's a very simple thing that helps us to figure out the stuff. Religion would have benefited immensely from science if it had embraced many discoveries that cleared many doubts and explained many natural phenomena (the same thing that religion tried to do in the beginning). Rather than accepting these facts, it took a stand of rejecting them and insisting that whatever is written in their holy books is the absolute truth and this created a rift that is widening day by day.

I mentioned in my previous post also that I don't think science and religion are a force against each other, both can be complementary to each other if people want. However, if I have to choose only one I will definitely choose science because it's more logical, rational, and not dictatorial.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Reference:
1. http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/10q3qq/so_many_things_online_convincing_me_that_my/
2. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-and-religion.html

I am neither a theist nor atheist

Normally, people who believe in God or the ones who don't believe like to divide the whole world into two sections, one set of people who believe in God and its existence are called 'theists' and the other section who don't believe in God are called 'atheists'. There are many subgroups among both these groups, but normally people like to associate themselves with any one of these categories. Both groups are very passionate about their beliefs and have very strong points to support their hypothesis. I love to hear both sides, both have many very good points and that's why it really amazes me when I see that both sides feel that the other side doesn't have any logic or rationale behind their hypothesis. The funny thing is that both feel that the other side is totally ignorant and stupid.

Many theist people who know me think that I am an atheist who doesn't believe in God or doesn't follow any rituals of any organized religion. Because of this behavior, theists put me in the 'atheist' category. Also, some posts on my blog clearly show my views about organized religion and the traditional concept of God preached by many sects and groups. But at the same time many who see me and meet me at some poojas, festivals, and religious gatherings, see me singing bhajans or aartis (devotional songs), involved in so-called spiritual discussions and gatherings think that I am kind of religious guy who needs a little more push to become a full-fledged devotee. And because of the many questions that I ask they also think that I need some proper guidance and a Guru so that I can also become one of them, a devotee who accepts everything without questioning (or minimum questioning). They say that if this happens then I can enjoy all the benefits that come from being part of an organized religious group. Many of my atheist friends like my posts and views where I question some religious concepts and traditions that are still practiced, I target especially the ones that result in discrimination or suppression of a particular class of society or a particular gender.

I don't fit in any of these groups, maybe there are no proper labels for people like me. I am sure there are many like me with an all-inclusive philosophy who are fine with the concept of God or no God, any religion or no religion as long as it maintains peace, harmony, mutual respect, and dignity of all, and allows healthy discussion to improve knowledge. I also agree that my views about the current form of religion and the concept of God are closer to atheism rather than theism. The problem with the conventional definition of theist or atheist is that it puts too much emphasis on the presence of a deity. People who believe that at least one deity exists are called theists and those who don't believe in the existence of deities are called atheists. Both these groups don't meet eye to eye and try to score points against each other wherever they can. Both of them are becoming quite fanatic and extremist in their views. I don't like this constant tug of war and continuous attempts to insult or humiliate each other. I think both can learn a lot from each other and can peacefully co-exist but the current format of organized religion or many cult movements or fanatic atheism doesn't allow this. As far as I read about religion, I found that Hinduism (not in its current form but maybe in its early stages) was the only civilization that not only allowed but encouraged questioning as a way to gain and generate knowledge. Back then it also gave the option to reject all current theories and philosophies and find something new. Somehow that tolerant and secular thinking lost its ground as it evolved into an organized religion which we call Hinduism today. Many things changed and today it is not at all different from most other religions practiced around the world.

Theists and atheists can learn a lot of good things from each other. The best scenario will be where both can co-exist together and benefit from each other. Many don't need religion or God to live their life, they are strong enough to live their life without need of any such imaginary support. At the same time, many need religion and God desperately and can not imagine their life without these things. We all no matter which group you associate with need to be sensitive to the feelings of others. If people ridicule each other's beliefs all the time then how we can understand each other and share our ideas? I think even common people (who are not involved in research) need to adopt a scientific mindset and logical thinking. Scientists listen to new concepts and ideas from all fields of science and don't ridicule them just because they don't like it or think it's crazy. In science, any question or objection is not taken as an offense but as an opportunity to improve and learn more. What is wrong with having this type of mindset in real life? If everyone can think like this then slowly these labels even if they exist will stop having rigid meanings and stop dividing people based on their beliefs. In science chemists don't hate physicists or biologists just because they belong to different fields, rather they help each other and borrow ideas liberally from wherever they feel necessary. Isn't this a beautiful philosophy and way to live life? Isn't this thinking or approach helped us to solve some great mysteries or problems? This interdisciplinary approach leads us to invent great things that make our lives more comfortable and happy. I am not preaching any new philosophy here, rather I am saying we can use the same philosophy that is already in use. No matter which religion you follow or don't follow any religion, whether you consider yourself a theist or atheist, if you can think like a scientist, it can do wonders. Let's be happy and make others happy.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Communicating Science to the General Public

Many scientists are concerned about the lack of awareness in the general public about science, its discoveries, and its impact on human life. Many institutes, universities, scientific societies, and even scientists try their best to run various public outreach programs that can help in spreading awareness about science, its achievements, and its capabilities among the general population (who are not very well acquainted with science). All people associated with science want to do a better job of communicating science to the general public, but unfortunately, it is not an easy thing to do.

This problem of communication between scientists and the general public is very old; I think it started when scientific knowledge was labeled as complicated and limited to a few intellectuals. Scientists in the old days were considered rebels as they questioned most of the established beliefs and challenged many statements from holy books. This created an obvious rift between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge, which resulted in this apparent disconnect. Today, many people believe that most scientists are atheists and don't believe in God or religion. Science or scientist don't force their opinion or theories on the general population; everything is open for debate and discussion in science. Asking a question is a basic requirement for the progress of science and knowledge, but this attitude is not welcomed in many other sections of life. This difference in attitude widened the gap between science and other fields. People are trying by various means to bridge this gap, but there are no easy solutions available for this. There are several other reasons for this disconnect between scientists and the general public. Some scientists put partial blame on the lay public because they think that many people have very little factual knowledge of science, whereas some scientists believe that blaming the public is not very useful, and scientists should think that the problem is with us, which is why we cannot communicate with them properly.

The problem is how to engage the nonscientific audience. Science is not very entertaining, and often people think its knowledge is not necessary for their survival. But this is not true, today's life is all about science, since we get up in the morning till we sleep at night, whatever we use, or experience, science plays some role in it. From our toothpaste to our sleeping bed, everything has some science involved in it. We are surrounded by scientific wonders and don't even realize it. A major problem in engaging and informing the public through education or various other activities is that people don't always pay attention, and if they listen, they often don't remember the things that scientists want them to remember. Science has helped us to solve many mysteries of life; there was no other way to understand them without scientific methods. I don't think people have given science its due. Divided public opinion about climate change, biased views about females and certain sections of society, racism, many religious superstitions, blind faith, sectarianism, etc., are some examples of a lack of proper scientific knowledge and understanding.

Science has helped humans to achieve many impossible things, and it has created a unique world around us. Our life is totally dependent on many inventions discovered by brilliant scientists. We don't realize it because they have become part of our day-to-day life. There is no field that is not benefited because of science and its achievements. I think if we want to name one reason for all the progress, comfort, and many positive changes in human life, credit goes to science. At the same time, many scientific discoveries are also responsible for some problems in the modern world, but the entire blame for this cannot be placed on science; but is mainly the result of human greed and misuse of technology for selfish purposes. The positive and negative effects of science are clearly visible, and critics of science only try to highlight the negative aspects of science. It's the need of today to clear many misconceptions about science and spread awareness among common people about the need for basic scientific knowledge and aptitude. Every person from any background can benefit from this, it's necessary for their and society's overall health and progress. It's the responsibility of both the scientific community and the general public to develop a scientific attitude that involves logical and rational thinking.

Thanks for reading, and please share your views.

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Science and Religion

Do science and religion go together?

For me, the answer is ‘Yes, very much’ rather than they are made for or made from each other. There was no difference between science and religion when humanity started; they were one and the same. According to me, the Vedas are the first and oldest scientific journals or scientific societies formed. They used to get updated and debated, and people from all sections of society used to contribute their ideas and views during those debates and discussions.  Humans needed this process of generation of knowledge to explain and understand many things around us, which used to confuse people in those times, and science does the same thing today. But somehow this was discontinued at some stage for some reason.

Every society or culture, from time to time, benefits from the presence of very intelligent personalities who become sources of fresh, new ideas and knowledge. Their message acts like fresh air and inspires many people who then become their followers. Some of the groups of these followers decided to make their own exclusive societies (which in many cases get converted into new religions) to preach the teachings of their teacher (or guru or messenger), and they converted those teachings into a set of rigid rules, a complicated structure of dos and don’ts. I don’t think the original person delivering this knowledge even desired to have something like this (the religions that we have today). When we declare particular knowledge sacred and the ultimate truth, then there is no scope for debate. This made science and religion part their ways, and they became separate fields. Science is all-inclusive in its approach; nothing is sacred or holy there, it can’t be rigid or static, everything can be challenged, it encourages asking questions, performing new experiments, and new theories, and keeps on adding new knowledge. 

Knowledge is a continuous process, and it changes over time as new discoveries are made and it gets updated regularly. Science corrects itself; something which seems to be true today may not be true tomorrow as new technologies come and new theories also come. There is nothing wrong or insulting to prove old theories wrong or find some error in them and correct them. Those scientists who discovered old theories are still considered great scientists with phenomenal minds as they could achieve that feat with such limited technology and resources available at that time. Scientists have disagreements all the time, but scientists don't kill each other over scientific disagreements. However, the same cannot be said about religion; history shows us numerous occasions where people kill each other because of religious differences, even though all religions claim to teach love and peace. 

Followers of all religions closed doors for any new knowledge, believing that all knowledge has already been delivered and that everything to be said is already said. Eventually, they started finding it difficult to accept or cope with the new knowledge that was pouring in. Knowledge is a continuous process it won’t stop as long as the human race or living beings exist on this planet. We will keep on learning new things every day. Religion became a separate, sacred entity that then became stationary as nothing was allowed to change (even the wrong assumptions or concepts), and nothing was allowed to be added (not even clearly proven facts). At this point, science and religion started confronting each other more often. Nowadays, science is used to criticize religion and vice versa. Even after not adopting any scientific aptitude, different religious groups try to claim that their religious texts include many scientific facts, but there is no close relationship between these two fields. 

We need to understand that for the welfare of human beings, science and religion may have to go together; then only both can perform their duties; otherwise, this unnecessary confrontation will continue. We should be ready to correct many rules or concepts that are outdated in many religions, accept new ideas, and move forward. This approach won’t hurt any religion or reduce its dignity. Whenever people understand this, this whole debate of science vs religion will become meaningless. 

Thanks for reading, and please share your views on this topic.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)