Why me? Am I supposed to be always angry too?

I deny it! Ask Bongo who has to constantly suffer me on chat.

(Bongo, dare you tell the truth!)

@Abi: I agree that IITs have an established industry collaboration procedure – I linked to some of the relevant pages. And I did mention that Ajit B. and Karthik’s reactions are extreme. But that does not absolve IIT or any other institutions of trying harder.

@Patrix: Good point about Vannervar Bush’s vision – but I have to say that the Bayh-Doyle Act has on the whole done more good than harm to the universities. I will try a more detailed post on the general topic of tech transfer later.

@Krish: Contrary to your assumption, I have visited your blog (check your sitemeter stats!) and read the linked post as well as others many times. It interesting that someone who had a banner saying ‘right is always wrong’ is lecturing on balance
Still, there is a difference between balance and following the ‘middle ground’ – I chose the latter. Never in my post do I call the post a ‘balanced’ opinion. Nitin brought that up – and in a different context. And for your assertion on insights – I will leave it to your sound judgment.

@Confused: One can only hope !

Well written as usual. I think we simply don’t have enough information to make a judgment but anyway things can always get better.

Krish,

You forgot to call him racist.

I never said that laboratory research shouldn’t translate into product or free marketers should play no role in the academia. It is your own myopic imagination. First, you never visited my blog. Then you pick on one article and interpret in your own way and make stupid statements like “people defending anti-free market statements” (is this what you call balanced statements. Grow up). Anyone who follows my blog will know that I have a clear distinction between people who support free market and free market fundamentalists. Without knowing anything, you can make statements and then call yours balanced. Tell me how your post is balanced compared to Karthik’s. As far as I am concerned, it is just a toned down version of Karthik’s post. Just because you call it balanced doesn’t mean that it is a balanced one. Atleast Karthik offered some insight from his perspective. Your post lacks even this. Just read your post again and you will know who is talking like a kid.

There was much anecdotal evidence, as Nitin suggests thrown around by both side but apparently one important issue was just skimmed over. Abi mentioned it in passing but it would be a worthy exercise to examine the growing influence of industry on research. It is certainly not as independent as Vannevar Bush had envisioned when he helped set up the NSF.

In my post, I also said stuff about how money from industry is being seen as a positive, welcome thing in academia, and how IITs have mechanisms to facilitate interactions with industry. Thus, Balakrishnan’s allegation is just plain false.

Instead of saying that his negotiations with IIT-B broke down over this or that issue [if Balakrishnan had said that, I wouldn't have had any problem], he just chose the low road of misrepresenting — even dissing — IIT-B. That deserves a strong smack-down, no?

But I will not call this a ‘balanced’ opinion, if by that one means balancing between Karthik’s piece on IEB and the other two posts that you linked.

I think what’s being missed in this debate is the use of anecdotal evidence to pass judgement over weighty matters. One swallow does not a summer make, whether that swallow is the Rediff CEO, a IISc academic or the son of a scientist.

In any case, the indicator of how well India’s university system works with business is not the handful of IITs or the one IISc, but the vast number of universities across the country. I don’t have the data, and since I’m cautioning against generalisation, I won’t do some guessing.