P.M. Bhargava and the scientific temper police

When I started this blog, I had decided to strictly restrict the discussions to science, scientists and academic affairs and to completely keep politics out. But extraordinary times require rules for normal times be suspended. And what we are witnessing in India now is indeed an extraordinary time. The left-liberals who have for all these years since independence in 1947 had enjoyed a monopoly over government policy to decide how India should think and where she should go, are increasingly being challenged and sidelined. Having failed to influence the electorate during the 2014 general elections despite their best efforts and numerous open letters, they have now resorted to spreading canards about a democratically elected government. Latest in these shenanigans is a statement issued by a group of scientists. I was alerted to this statement by a news in Nature India. Third paragraph in this statement begins thus:

"The Indian Constitution in Article 51 A (h) demands, as a part of the fundamental duties of the citizens, that we '...develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform' "

Reading this reminded me of an op-ed that the leader of this group, P.M.Bhargava, had written few months ago. You can find it here. There he narrates why, how and, most importantly, when he got this article inserted into the constitution of India.

"The conclusion that our very own scientists — who would be expected to be leaders in the development of scientific temper — did not possess scientific temper themselves and were just as superstitious as any other group was supported by another incident in 1964. Following a statement by Satish Dhawan (who later became Secretary, Department of Space), Abdur Rahman (a distinguished historian of science) and I, set up an organisation called The Society for Scientific Temper, in January 1964, the founding members of which included distinguished scientists like Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner. For membership to the society, the following statement had to be signed: “I believe that knowledge can be acquired only through human endeavour and not through revelation, and that all problems can and must be faced in terms of man’s moral and intellectual resources without invoking supernatural powers.”

We were disillusioned when we approached scientist after scientist and all of them refused to sign the statement. Clearly they were devoid of scientific temper. Following this disillusionment, I persuaded Professor Nurul Hasan, then Education Minister, to have the following clause included in Article 51A in the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of Indian “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of enquiry and reform.” 

Hopefully, I don't have to draw your attention to the fact that 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India was enacted during the Emergency that India Gandhi had imposed. It was a time when democratic rights were suspended in India. It was the only time in history when something close to authoritarian dictatorship was actually imposed in India (forced sterilization of people, carried out by Ms. Gandhi's son Sanjay, is often cited as an example). The 42nd Amendment was therefore not enacted through a democratic process. It is also an amendment that has constitutionally imposed a political ideology, Socialism, on all citizens of India irrespective of whether they agree with it or even understand it (as an aside, I remember reading somewhere that the Swarajya Party of C. Rajagopalachari could not be revived in post-emergency India because they did not subscribe to socialism and hence were not in agreement with the constitution. So much for democracy and freedom of political association in India). 

So, here we have a group of people who see no problem in imposing their world-view, their way of thinking, their ideology on rest of the citizenry. They feel no compunction in actively collaborating with authoritarian dictators in the process. They see no problem in passing judgments on the scientific temper of a person just because they did not sign up to their "statement" and subscribe to their "society". The very concept of freedom and individual liberty seems alien to this group. Ramanujan ascribed all his math genius to visions from his family goddess. Newton spent a lot of time searching through Bible for secret messages from God. Now, imagine if the careers of these scientific geniuses were to be left at the mercy of Bhargava and his fellow scientific temper police. Well, you don't actually have to imagine. That is what has happened to Indian science for all these years since Independence. All life has been sucked out of it by this scientific temper police. 

Now, if only this "deeply concerned with the climate of intolerance" gang who have no qualms about collaborating with dictators to impose their ideology on rest of the nation, had looked up the word "IRONY" in a dictionary before churning out their statement. One only hopes they will finally be called out for what they really are, a bunch of hypocrites throwing a tantrum because they no longer have control over other's lives. 

On Indian Universities

Note: A version of this blog was posted on my Tumblr.

Today, I had an interesting discussion with a fellow Indian post-doc here at UBC. Since both of us are at a stage where we are about to start looking for academic jobs, the discussion moved towards the university system in India. Both of us were in agreement that the way universities are currently administered actually does grave injustice to the young Indians that they are supposed to serve. I argued that as things stand today, there is just no quality control mechanism that can force these universities to reform or aspire for excellence. There are so many Indians aspiring for a university degree in the hope that it will help improve their social and financial status, that even the worst among the private universities, with barely any physical or intellectual infrastructure, manage to get many times more applicants for each available seat in every course. The situation in the public universities that charge almost nothing for a fee, the demand is unimaginable. Given this, the government is obligated not only to let these institutions survive despite their low standards but also to actively support their existence to manage the ever increasing demand and avoid riots on the streets. However, the government does have the power, both financial and administrative, to push the universities towards better quality. Problem is that they just don’t seem to think of it as a priority issue. And in a democracy nothing becomes a priority unless the voting public asks to make it one. If past experience is anything to go by, politicians in India do nothing to address an issue unless they are forced to by public pressure. And when they do want to make things happen, they do; the success of pulse polio campaign is a proof to that. In my opinion, one possible way to force this to happen is by imposing a penalty on the public for tolerating sub-standards in the institutions where they get degrees from. Let’s say the recruiting agencies do not consider the degrees from all the universities as equal. They could, for example, apply a normalizing factor that would put the degree issued by a good quality university at a higher level and pushes the one issued by a poor quality institution to a lower level. Such a normalizing factor could be developed by an accreditation agency like the NAAC. In fact, the entire function of UGC can be limited to assessing the different universities in the country to determine this normalizing factor for each university at regular intervals, instead of going around micromanaging universities. The union government can make it mandatory for all its departments, to begin with, to apply this normalization while assessing the applicants before any appointment. Government can also suggest the private sector employers to do the same. If people realize that the degree issued by a particular university is of no use to them in getting a job, they’ll hopefully pressure their local government to initiate the much needed reforms process. And eventually, probably in a couple of decades or so, our institutions might be in the same vicinity as the best in the world.

What do you think of this suggestion? Do you think it can work? Do you have any ideas that you think can help improve our universities’ standards? Do share. I would love to hear from you.

Campus and Politics?

That was the subject line of an email I received a couple of weeks ago from a shocked Canadian lab-mate with the following attachment. 

 

As you can see the image is a paper clip from a Malayalam language paper. For those who can't read Malayalam, here and here are some links to the news in English. While my colleague was shocked that an academic campus could become the playground for the mainstream political organizations to the extent that it could even result in bloodshed, the news didn't even surprise me. So much that, I didn't even bother reading beyond the headline (and I searched for the English news stories just for this blog). And my guess is that even in the printed papers, this news was probably in some interior nook amongst the matrimonial and obituary sections. That's how common such incidents are in school, college and university campuses of Kerala. I do not know much about student politics in many other parts of India but I have studied in two other neighbouring states of Kerala, in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. In both these states, though there are student organizations affiliated to mainstream political parties just like in Kerala, their activities are pretty mellow and very rarely lead to violence, if ever at all. 

There are two major students' organizations in Kerala. SFI is affiliated to CPI(M) (and the now opposition LDF) and the KSU is affiliated to Indian National Congress (I) (and the now ruling UDF). Of these, SFI generally tends to invoke violence at the slightest provocation (here is an example). There are students' organizations affiliated to other political parties such as the BJP and IUML but are not as strong as these two which mainly derive their strength from the support of the consecutive LDF and UDF governments that change every 5 years. As the report in the above link points out, these organizations tend to function in consonance with the unions of teaching and non-teaching staff which themselves have political affiliations. Students are often forced to donate money and participate in their activities such as strikes and processions/marches which often turn violent resulting non-activist students getting injured and sometimes, even worse, getting killed. Since both the major political formations in the state have a vested interest in ensuring that these student orgs so that they can have a constant supply of fresh man power, no state government has ever tried to regulate their activities. 

The influence of vested political interests is not, however, limited only to the student bodies. It extends all the way through the teacher and staff unions up to the Vice-Chancellors (VCs). Most VCs are appointed not because of their academic or administrative accomplishment but due to their political and social affiliations. And these VCs don't even remain coy about their political links and often openly show off their political patronage even after assuming office. I know a person who is currently working as a Reader at the Calicut University (which, incidentally, is shut down due to competitive strikes by the SFI and KSU, one opposing the VC and the other supporting). This person had returned to India after two post-doctoral assignment, one in the US and the other in Germany. He had joined the Calicut University despite attractive offers from other private higher ed institutions. A few days after his appointment, he was approached with a membership by the staff union affiliated to the then ruling LDF. Since he was mostly bothered about doing research and teaching and wasn't even inclined towards a leftist ideology, he turned down the offer of membership. This set in motion a series of steps to harass him ultimately ending with termination of his appointment. The poor man had to go for a lengthy and costly legal battle with the University to get his job back, that too only after a change of government following state elections. This example is to demonstrate how the political-staff-student union nexus works in our academic campuses. They break anyone who is not ready to bend to their wishes, sometimes literally. 

All this is not that difficult to fix. As I said, there are states adjacent to Kerala where the politics of student and staff bodies is conducted without resorting to violence. It is also time to rethink if our academic campuses really require political activity at all. I am one of those who believes the primary purpose of universities and other academic establishments is to generate and disseminate knowledge. And the primary duty of the students is to learn as much as they can. Development of politically aware citizens can be restricted to the activities and organizations outside the campus. We can certainly design some other means to ensure student participation in the running of our institutions but that certainly should not be in anyway influenced by the vested interests of the political parties. Elimination of political interference is one basic and simple step that can have a cascading effect on the quality of our universities. Instead of ensuring that, our government keeps spending thousands of crores of taxpayer money to start more higher ed institutions that will all be plagued by the same problems and will ultimately fail to provide quality education to our students. It just saddening and infuriating at the same time. 

Teaching Style

On September 5th India will celebrate Teachers' day in honour of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, former President of India and former vice-chancellor of my alma mater, Andhra University. This blog is about the teaching styles that I have noticed as a student at various levels. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I am approaching the last leg if my postdoc stint, I have started to think about the next stage of my academic life. I will soon be entering the job market. A part of my future plan will involve teaching; I do not as yet know if it is going to be only a handful of lab colleagues or a class full of undergrads. So, I have started thinking about what kind of a teacher I would be. What approach should I adopt? According to Indian tradition, there are two ways to describe the relationship between God and the devotee - "marjala-niti" (the cat principle) and "markata-niti" (the monkey principle). If you have ever seen a cat carry its kitten around, you would have noticed how the kitten is held securely by the mother's teeth. All the work in this relationship is done by the mother; she is responsible for the kitten's safety as well as for transporting it around the town while the kitten only need to hang around there. On the other hand, consider a monkey transporting its infants. While the mother takes care of the transportation part, the baby has to hold on securely and is responsible for its own safety. In this second relationship, there is a division of responsibilities. These descriptions, that are based on parenting styles of two different animals, can as well be extended to describe the relationship between a teacher and a student.

In my opinion, both the models have their virtues and are suitable at different stages of a supervisor-research scholar relationship. The cat-model is relevant during the initial stages when a student is just starting his/her research. They may not know too much about what to do and where to look for information. It would be useful for the supervisor to hold his hand at this stage and lead through the maze. As the student starts to find his feet, it might be a good idea to let him be and figure things out on his own. Let him figure out how to clear the roadblocks in the project, understand what the data is trying to tell and decide the best format (and place) to present (and publish) the data. Trickiest part of this scheme is to identify the right time to transition from a cat to a monkey. I do not, yet, know how good teachers figure that out. With time, I probably will, just like I did at the beginning of my PhD. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your opinion on the different teaching styles? Do you prefer any one of them or a composite? What is your style? Do let me know in your comments. 

Talking about Talks

In popular culture, the stereotype of a scientist is that of an introvert and a recluse. I do not know if this is based on the observation of real life lab-rats or its the product of a writer's imagination. Either way, it has come to be accepted by the larger populace outside the academic world. But, from looking at my own colleagues and the wider research fraternity, this stereotype is as bad as every New York cab driver being an Indian. The fact is that the reclusive, loner scientist is probably an endangered species being driven to the brink of extinction by a growing culture of academic cliques and the increasing prominence of collaborative research. It is now important that you network with the right people, employ the appropriate jargon and attend the popular conferences. The funding agencies and grants' review committees tend to be more sympathetic towards projects with an inter-disciplinary character which might require that you need to have at least a working relation with folks who have an entirely different way of looking at a problem. Then there are the hiring committees that ensure that you humour and stay in touch with every supervisor and every committee member that you had ever worked with, so that you can furnish some 10 or 15 reference letters with your application. So, in this new and improved (?) world of academic research, being good at communication is as important (if not more) as knowing science. And one of the most important means of scientific communication is to talk about your work. You give talks at lab meeting, at departmental seminars, at student/post-doc association meetings, at conferences, at job interviews, etc etc etc. Considering that giving talks is such an important, and frequent, part of an academic's life, its a real surprise that many researchers are not good at it. 
As a graduate student, I worked at an isolated, multi-disciplinary research centre and had very few opportunities to listen to talks from external researchers. But when I started my first postdoc position at a medical college in the Tri-Institution area of New York, it was like going from being starved to being obese; there was at least one (but usually more) talk every week. I have attended talks by some of the best researchers, working on almost every possible problem in life sciences, sitting in the same room with Nobel laureates, sometimes more than one (as a grad student, I remember going to a seminar by Sydney Brenner and being so overwhelmed at seeing a Nobel laureate that I didn't hear anything he spoke). Now, as a postdoc at a conventional university with all the different faculties ranging from humanities to engineering, I get to attend talks on such variety of topics from the effects of Indian residential schools to monitoring bike traffic to develop a better signalling system. Of the hundreds of  talks that I might have attended, there are only a handful that really had my attention throughout. But this is in no way a comment on the quality or novelty of the work discussed but on the style of presentation. Recently, there was a "job seminar" in the department (I really look forward to attending those as an opportunity to collect tips for my own performance when the time comes). I was a little extra interested since the candidate had an Indian name, was from Harvard and had done some excellent work. But during the seminar, she looked nervous and overwhelmed by the occasion and overall the performance was a let down. On another occasion, the candidate's talk was so monotonous and understated that it was really hard to feel the excitement of the work. Recently, there was another seminar by a very senior scientist. Again the work was excellent but for some reason, the presenter tried hard to avoid eye contact with the audience; most of the time he looked at some empty space towards the end of the seminar hall. Good writing or talking may not make up for bad work, but bad writing or talking can certainly let down some really good work. That was the lesson I learnt from that experience. Whenever I myself give a seminar on my work, I try to keep the presentation the way I like to hear; informal, without too much jargon, assuming no one knows anything about my work and overall having the feel of a conversation rather than a sermon. My first real research presentation was during the first meeting of my doctoral committee. I had made what I thought was a bunch of good powerpoint slides, reviewing a lot of literature on the Gap Junctions (a lot of which I only barely understood then) and describing the plans for my PhD project. In my mind, I had a clear picture of how I was going to talk and explain my project. But I was so nervous that as soon as I was asked to talk, I could not recognize anything from the presentation I myself had prepared.  At the end of that disastrous presentation, my supervisor gave me an advice that I still use while preparing for a seminar to this day. Preparing for a talk is not about making powerpoint slides. Its about planning what you are going to say about each figure on each slide. A good way to do that is to write down or type down exactly what you are going to speak about each slide. This helps to keep the talk compact by staying focussed and to stay away from rambling about aimlessly. The one mantra that has served me well through the many academic talks all these years is that "good talks are well practiced talks". 

Update (5:10PM 16 June 2014):

Wanted to add a quick note. Whether the science in your talk is good or not, whether your presentation is good or not, it is always important to watch your manners. I had once attended a workshop at IISc, Bangalore. Most of us  participating were grad students. One of the workshop speakers was a young professor from JNCASR, Bangalore. During the seminar, while he was still talking, raised his leg onto a desk, placed his foot facing the audience and started tying his shoe lace. I do not know if he was in some unbearable discomfort that he needed to retie his shoe laces then and there. But I thought that was improper and extremely arrogant behavior from someone who at least at that time was like a teacher for us. 

"THAT" moment

I have read this somewhere but don't really remember where. That the greatest motivation for a scientist and the reward they work for is the experience of that one night when he (or she) alone knows a particular secret hidden in the nature's treasure trove before they reveal it to the rest of the world next morning. It is to experience that feeling of discovery that we slog day and night. I have heard people talk of it in research pep talks. I've wanted to experience it and have been waiting for it ever since I started doing research. Through years of being a grad student and a postdoc; and I started my PhD in 2004. I call it the eureka moment. That moment when you see something in your experiments that you hadn't expected when you started. A pleasant surprise. I think that moment for me has come now. 

I am sure you've noticed that I said "think". You see, the way academic research works these days, you can't just jump out of your bathtub and start celebrating butt-naked. And it's never a moment. There is a long gestation period before you can be sure that you have got something good with you. A period when you have to repeat the experiment a number of times, so the observation is reproducible. You also have to think if you have got all the controls right and haven't missed anything. You have to do a number of supporting experiments that can explain the unexpected. Your work then has to be reviewed and approved by your "peers", who you hope don't have a conflict of interest in approving your observation. After all this, you have to be approved by a copy editor somewhere who wants to make sure that you have got your fonts right, the spacing right, the size of images right, their color right, the spellings and grammar right, etc., etc., etc. Only then will your work be published for consumption by the tax paying public that has funded the entire process. By then you would have lost all the enthusiasm to open the cork and it will be time to be back at the bench so you can continue with your efforts to save the humanity (from itself?). And wait for the next eureka moment. 

Minor efforts, Major effects

Towards the end of this blog post, the blogger describes how her employer, IISER-Pune, has taken steps to address a few minor, but non-trivial, issues that could worry a prospective employee, especially the ones that are not natives of the town/state. This is a particularly important, and probably a peculiar, issue relevant to India considering the multitude of languages and cultures in our country that change dramatically from state to state and sometimes even within a state. An outsider might have to deal with not only a bit of a culture shock but also subtle discrimination. This reminds me of my own experience as a PhD student that was diametrically opposite of what folks at IISER-Pune experienced. And the issues at hand were pretty much the same. 

I grew up in Visakhapatnam, a coastal town in Andhra Pradesh. When I got a PhD position in Chennai, it was my first big move away from my native town. Also included in the "move to a new place" package were the issues pertaining to a new culture, language and life in a metro. The institute where I did my PhD was a center affiliated to Anna University and established on a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) model with pretty ambitious goals for research excellence. In tune with its stated objectives, the center has a very cosmopolitan composition, both in personnel and the research pursued. People of non-Chennai and/or non-Tamil background composed a good chunk of the staff and student population. One of the unintended (and certainly unwanted for someone in my situation) side story of this PPP experiment was that the PhD students did not have access to the University's hostel facilities.  And unlike the Pune folks, people entrusted with the job of running our center did not deem it an important enough issue to pay attention to. Consequently, the students were left to fend for themselves with their broken Tamil and shallow pockets. The challenge was not finding a decent place that was close enough to the campus. There were plenty of such places. The problem though was with the people who owned these places and insisted on renting them out only to "vegetarians" and "families". Luckily for me, both my roommates belonged to this "vegetarian" category. So, we were only half disqualified to be tenants on account of our failure to get married. In the almost 5 years that I spent there, we rented 4 different places. Each time we had to spend considerable time and energy in the process of finding each one of those and in trying to convince the landlords that we did not intend to burn the place down. It is important for me to clarify that I do not blame the landlords of that locality for thinking the way they do. I am sure they have valid reasons derived from their past experiences for imposing those conditions on their future tenants and every property owner has a right to decide who to rent their place out to or not to. But the point I am trying to make is that knowing how things were in the community, the administrators could have done things differently to ease the life a little for the students rather than leave them to their fate. It could have earned them a life time's goodwill for sure.

Another such example of administrative apathy was with regard to our stipends. Some of us had fellowships directly from CSIR. The way these fellowships were administered was something like this. At the beginning of the fellowship year (sometime around June, I think) we had to submit a claim form telling them how much to pay us (as if they didn't know that already) along with a progress report and a certificate from the supervisor confirming our continuation in the program and recommending the release of stipend. These forms are submitted to a particular office in the university. Once this office receives the forms from all the fellows in the university, they forward them to the CSIR in New Delhi who process them and release the funds to the university which then pays us every month. It usually took about 6 months before this entire process was completed and some money showed up in our bank accounts during which time we were without a pay. This could have been fine for someone living in university accommodation and eating in university mess. As mentioned above, we did not have half of this luxury. So, the system forced us to develop a grasshopper like personality to escape an ant like fate during the dry months. Again, things could have been done differently. Since, the CSIR was going to transfer funds to the university, our stipend could have been payed by the university in the interim. As it turns out this mile was too long for them to walk. 

In none of the above instances, were the authorities concerned breaking any rules. They can't even be accused of dereliction of duty. They were just not prepared to walk the extra few centimeters to make our lives a little bit easier. And this is not something limited only to our university. From what I know, this is what happens in most universities in India. In some places, things are even worse. I have heard from people who had to spend money from their pockets to buy chemicals and plastics or to get their samples analysed on specialized instruments. I probably had a relatively better Indian PhD experience. Mostly because I was part of the above mentioned PPP experiment. Though I was part of the university system, I was also detached from it. I was also fortunate to have done my PhD with supervisors who, above everything else, were great human beings. Working from within the system they did their best to protect me and tried to minimize the influence of  the negative experiences. Most importantly, they did not let any of this compromise the quality of my research. Not every researcher in Indian university system is that fortunate. Often one hears the leaders of Indian science lament the decline of research in Indian universities. For all their eminence and experience, one doesn't get a feeling that  they are looking at the right problems and suggesting the right solutions.  Maybe because, like most of our politicians, they too haven't gone through the systems and hence haven't experienced the problems first hand. Hopefully India will soon have leaders, both in politics and in science, who have grown through the system and have experienced the problems to provide real solutions. 
Were you a researcher associated  with a state university in India? Do you have similar experiences to share? 

Communicating research

The big cola companies Pepsi and Coca-Cola are constantly at war with each other for dominance of the un-healthy foods market. And the weapons of choice employed in this battle to capture the public mindscape are the TV and print commercials. Sometimes these ads are witty and interesting to watch, but most times they down right nasty where one company takes potshots at the other’s products (here’s an example). This was what I was reminded of while reading a recent report in Science which the journal claimed were the results of an year-long “sting” operation carried out to expose the ugly underbelly of Open Access research publishing (here is the link; but I am not sure if the full text can be accessed without a subscription to Science). In my opinion, this was not an honest “sting” Operation and Science was taking a cheap-shot at the Open Access movement that is starting to threaten the subscription access model that journals like Science have been employing to exploit (I’m tempted to say extort) the research community. If the study was objective, the fake paper should have also been submitted to the traditional subscription-access journals from the stables of Nature, Springer, Wiley and Science itself. The sample selection for the study is clearly biased and was done to fit into a pre-determined outcome. In fact, it could be a textbook case of how not to design a research study. Anyway, the point of this post is not to criticize the Science report (there is plenty of that already in the blogosphere, like this for example), but to present my views on communicating research findings.

Just like religious books had once served a  useful purpose in setting order in society before the advent of Democratic governments and constitutions, the subscription-driven, peer review backed research journals too had played a very important role in furthering the cause of research communities in a pre-internet world. The basic idea behind the origin of journals was the need to communicate latest research findings to the widest possible academic audience. So, a system developed where by the research from all over the world will be collected, published in the form of a book and distributed to everyone that wanted to read. Since printing and distributing these research records involved considerable expense, a fee was collected from those who wanted to read them. But evolution of the world wide web has made the hard copy journals irrelevant. Now almost everyone discovers and keeps to date with the latest developments in the research world on the internet. The open access journals that publish online and provide access to their content to everyone free of charge are fast overtaking the traditional publications. But even the open access journals, though an improvement, have not been able to shake off all the deficiencies. Specifically, the reliance on the age old practice of peer-review to judge the quality of research to be published still continues. My biggest problem with the anonymous peer-review practice is the conflict of interest that arises due to the fact that these reviewers are by rule competitors. The entire process is built on the foundation of abstract ideas like honesty and trust.

Also, though there is no charge to read the articles published in open access journals, they do charge the authors to publish their findings. I basically think even this is unnecessary expense of scarce research funds that could be expended on doing the research. Since the very idea of research publications is to communicate one’s work to the wider community, there are many alternate ways available today to accomplish that. And most of them come at almost no expense to either the author or the reader. For example, I plan on using this blog space to regularly publish my research findings and then publicize/communicate them to my peers using social media avenues like Twitter, ResearchGate, Mendeley etc. Since the content on blogs and other social media sites are indexed by search engines such as Google, it won't be difficult for those interested to find and access the information on the internet, just the way they do now. Of course, I will have to wait to establish myself as a principal investigator before implementing this plan and taking the liberty to challenge the established tradition of research communication. But I have a very strong feeling that something similar or a variation of this approach will be embraced by the wider research community in the very near future. And we can all spend more energy on doing, rather than writing and presenting, novel science.