Recurring Decimals…..

Everything here is irrelevant

Marketing academic research in India

with 10 comments

An article by Ajit Balakrishnan (CEO of Rediff) in Business Standard has kicked up bit of a storm in the desi blog-circles. The original article talks about difficulties Mr Balakishnan encountered while attempting to start an industry-academia collaboration with a professor of computer science at the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai (IITB), Soumen Chakrabarti.

Landing the Soumen catch turned out to be the easy part. Getting to engage IIT Bombay in a commercial relationship was to be a near-impossible task. The process for such an engagement is unchartered territory for Indian academic institutions. We settled on a compromise: we hired two of his star graduate students (or more accurately he persuaded them to join us instead of doing what all their classmates did—emigrate to America). Since then, we have been happily working together; whenever we run into a really tough computer science problem, we could get to Soumen through his students.

Response to the article has been typical. At the libertarian/free market-supporting Indian Economy Blog, Karthik held this up as an example of the failure of academic bureaucracy, lack of incentives and such. In a swift rebuttal, defenders of the anti-free market bastion, Krish and Abi, strongly supported IITB’s policies on collaboration and even laid the blame squarely on Balakrishnan.

IMHO, there is much sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated statements on both sides. So herein, I try to play my usual role of finding the middle ground.

Firstly, a brief aside on academia-market relationship in the capitalist mecca of US. Even there, from my experience, the academia is usually suspicious of industry (though they usually don’t mind the money that comes from collaborating with it, or the free dinners!). There is something in the mentality of academicians that looks down heavily on business – PhD’s who have moved to the industry are said – in a jocular manner, of course – to have gone to the ‘dark side’ (perhaps the huge disparity in salaries versus educational levels has something to with it – but for now we shall avoid those murky waters). Recently, however, most US universities have setup an office or a whole department devoted to technology commercialization and intellectual property management of their academic research output. Some universities have even started to offer post-graduate courses on it (interestingly, Australia seems to have been way ahead of the game with the university I am with now having started such a unit in the early 80s). The goal of such units is to discover or even create commercialization opportunities for the research in the university laboratories. Universities have been quick to discover this as a good source of revenue at a time of funding crunches from the government. But it is also an important function for these units to ensure that the industry does not take undue advantage of a researcher’s hard work and perhaps prevent recurrence of the University of Rochester’s Cox-2 patent loss to Pfizer.

Coming back to the Indian context, while the regular university does not have much of a research output to speak of, the IITs, especially in disciplines such as Computer Science, Electrical/Electronics etc, have for some years conducted successful research collaborations with the industry. This has happened both at the individual level (ie a Professor acting as a consultant to some industry) or at an institutional levels (an industry providing support for research programs) and also both with private and public sectors (e.g see this for IIT-Delhi). Also, a quick look at the IITB website will show that there are two umbrella organizations, SINE and E-cell that serve as business incubators to foster entrepreneurship (perhaps our diplomatic ex-IITB-ian friend can further enlighten us on the practice of start-ups branching off from research at IITs). Therefore, Ajit Balakrishnan’s or Karthik’s assertion of “process for such an engagement is unchartered territory for Indian academic institutions” sounds rather extreme.

However, the devil is in the details – so even as IITB has a system in place for consultancy (e.g see these informal guidelines by Soumen Chakraborti himself), without first hand knowledge it is difficult to presume how efficient such a system is. One could speculate that for Mr Balakrishnan, going through the IIT system would have taken a few months time, which is eternity in the world of business. In that case, it was certainly a ‘near-impossible’ task for him to get his project kick-started (especially given that it relates to the cutting edge field of web search engines). It is possible too that IIT’s current system is more geared for collaborations with big companies, not for small start-ups. Given the quickly changing technology and economic landscapes, IITs (and other universities too) need to more nimble in responding to such needs. Therefore, there is certainly scope for improvement in bringing academia and industry together through offices of technology commercialization on the lines of US or Australia described above.

Finally, Krish’s childishly written ad-hominies against ‘free market fundamentalists’ merits a more detailed fisking. While I do not have the time or patience to rant in details, let me say that technology eventually needs to come out of the laboratory into the marketplace. There are academics who pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge (and certainly we need such people and government support for their research), anybody who makes a blank (not to mention extremely naive) statement like “academicians are against the patent system” is living in a fool’s paradise. Most human beings are slaves to incentives, and I cannot believe that providing an additional incentive will harm scientific or technological progress.

(Thanks to Rohit for original article H/T)

Advertisements

Written by BongoP'o'ndit

June 13, 2007 at 1:40 am

Posted in Economics, India, Rants, Science

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great post. As I’ve been saying it for a long time, in vino veritas.

    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.

    Nitin

    June 13, 2007 at 5:56 am

  2. Well, my post is not about “[defending] IITB’s policies on collaboration”. It is really about how Ajit Balakrishnan used his column to unfairly paint IIT-B as a newbie in industrial interactions. There is ample evidence to show that IIT-B has a pretty huge, thriving consultancy centre, with a large number of industrial clients — both Indian and multinational.

    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?

    Abi

    June 13, 2007 at 9:06 am

  3. Well written. I was meaning to write a ‘middle-ground’ piece on this issue myself but am glad that you wrote it instead.

    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.

    Patrix

    June 13, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  4. Dude,

    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.

    Krish

    June 13, 2007 at 12:36 pm

  5. Bongo,

    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.

    confused

    June 13, 2007 at 5:38 pm

  6. […] Bongop’o’ndit attempts to find the middle ground, […]

  7. errr. I mean things can always get better as far as academia-industry collaboration is concerned.

    confused

    June 13, 2007 at 5:39 pm

  8. @Nitin: Thanks – and a great point about ignoring the state of other institutions.

    @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 !

    BongoP'o'ndit

    June 13, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  9. On an aside, why is Krish always so angry? Probably Rohit can shed more light on this.

    Patrix

    June 14, 2007 at 12:15 am

  10. Patrix,

    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!)

    confused

    June 14, 2007 at 10:06 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: