Author: mkukrishna

by

Position Paper On Second Wave of Covid-19 Pandemic in India

click here to read All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) Position Paper (English)

click here to read Hindi version of Position Paper 

On Second Wave of Covid-19 Pandemic in India

14 Apr 2021

click here to read the short statement (English) based on the position paper

click here to read the short statement (Hindi) based on the position paper 

Click here to read short statement in Odia

India is well and truly into a brutal second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Daily cases are skyrocketing to unprecedented heights, and are now the highest of all countries, while total cases have taken India to second place worldwide overtaking badly hit Brazil. For the sixth day, India had record numbers of daily cases over 1 lakh, reaching 1, 61,736 new cases on 13 April, far higher than the  record high of 97,894 new daily cases on 16 September 2020 during the first wave.  Going by current trends, India is likely to reach even higher daily case rates, with these new highs prevailing for a prolonged period, unless strong and effective steps are urgently taken. Mortality and hospitalization rates are on the rise dangerously in parts of the country and show a worrying trend overall.

Accept responsibility; don’t blame the people and States

A very belated high-level meeting at the PMO a week ago “emphasized that the reasons for the sharper rise in cases could be mainly attributed to the severe decline in compliance of Covid-appropriate behavior primarily in terms of use of masks and maintaining ‘2 Gaj ki Doori’ [two yards distance], pandemic fatigue and lack of effective implementation of containment measures at the field level.” This analysis blaming the people and the States for this crisis, and repetition of the same charge by other high officials, is disingenuous, hypocritical and even dangerous, serving only to enable the Centre to evade responsibility for the present situation and give itself an excuse for future inaction or failure. It is evident even to a casual observer that broad sections of the people all over the country have become extremely lax as regards masking, maintaining physical distancing and avoiding crowded spaces especially indoors. However, this begs the question: what was the Government doing to tackle this and prevent the inevitable consequences of a second wave, and did not the Government itself encourage this laxity?

As public health experts have pointed out, the period when cases were sharply declining reaching a trough or low point of 9,121 on 15 February, provided the best opportunity to attack the virus through vigorous containment and mitigation actions including expanded vaccinations, but the Government lowered its guard and missed this chance. Meanwhile, encouraged by signals  from the Centre, authorities everywhere relaxed all restrictions, with offices, cinemas, restaurants, malls, passenger airlines and public transport all functioning at full capacity virtually in a pre-pandemic “life as usual” mode. Learning from the first wave, it is important that measures are taken through a partnership between the Centre and States, with the Centre providing evidence-based guidelines and financial as well as other assistance, with the Centre not making efforts to shift blame to States while withholding essential supplies and co-operation on many fronts.

Experience of different countries has repeatedly underlined the importance of continued vigilance and ensuring Covid-appropriate behavior during periods of declining cases. However, the Government itself suggested, through its National Covid Supermodel, that cases in India had peaked by October 2020 and would be under control by February 2021, and led to widespread lowering of guard. Even today, in the midst of this dangerous second wave, huge crowds are attending potentially super-spreader events such as the massive gatherings at the Mahakumbh Mela, and packed rallies and road shows during the State elections frequently addressed by the topmost Government leaders who are themselves responsible for Covid-19 control measures. No guidelines have been issued, no efforts at enforcement of Covid norms are being made, and the few mild public appeals seem like a mere a formality. It would appear there is no pandemic in India!

Additional epidemiological data and further analysis is required to arrive at any firm conclusions as to reasons behind this second wave, and precautions required to be taken in the future.

Understand role of variants, expand gene sequencing

There is considerable discussion, albeit so far without adequate evidence or data, about one particular reason that may be contributing to this second wave, namely Sars Cov2 virus variants which may be more infectious, or deadlier, or even provide a “vaccine escape” i.e. being resistant to vaccine-induced immunity. It is well known that viruses mutate to combat increasing immunity in the host population due either to widespread prior infections or vaccination. The major internationally known variant strains or lineages are the so-called UK variant (B.1.1.7), which ravaged Britain and has now emerged as a dominant strain in the US and may even lead to more deaths, the South African variant (B.1.351) and the Brazilian variant (P.1.). All these variants have been observed in India. Of around 10,787 samples from 18 Indian states analyzed by labs involved with the Indian SARS-CoV-2 Consortium on Genomics (INSACOG), 771 variant cases were detected comprising 736 UK (336 in Punjab alone), 34 South African and 1 Brazilian variant. Maharashtra has shown a worryingly large number of cases (202 of the above sample) with a “double mutation” (E484Q and L452R), now assigned a distinct lineage B.1.617.

However, insufficient information is available as of now to draw any firm conclusions about the impact of these variants. Also, not enough is known about the efficacy of different vaccines in protecting against these variants, although some available information suggests that the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Covishield vaccine provides good protection from the UK variant but not from the South African variant. INSACOG has been beset with difficulties and only 7,664 samples – less than 1% of the total positive samples since January 2021 through March 18, 2021 – have been sequenced. It is important that India significantly expands genetic testing across the country and correlates findings with epidemiological data in order to obtain a better understanding of the dangers posed by these variants. There is therefore need for more laboratory and field studies regarding the efficacy of Covishield, Covaxin and other vaccines likely to be used with respect to these variants.

Increase testing, tracing and surveillance

It is important to note that the main public health response to the present second wave, irrespective of these variants and other factors, remains broadly the same as was advocated earlier, but learning from missteps and experience during the first wave.  India needs to vigorously test, trace, isolate and treat infected persons, besides putting in place decentralized, locally relevant and evidence-based surveillance and containment strategies. Test positivity rate in the first wave was highest at around 12.7% on 20 July 2020, about 8.7% at the case load peak around 20 September 2020 and was at its lowest at 1.6% on 15 February 2021. Today all-India average test positivity rate is high at 11.4% on 12 April 2021 showing inadequate testing, and rising continuously. Testing needs to be ramped up significantly, with emphasis on RT-PCR tests, so as to uncover infections more quickly. At the same time, testing needs to be strategic, targeting contacts of positive cases and symptomatic cases in clusters identified through community surveillance and contact tracing.

Contact tracing was the weakest aspect of the response by governments at the Centre and most States during the first wave, with the Aarogya Setu App proving to be ineffective, and badly needs to be strengthened now. Tracing all contacts quickly, testing and then isolating them if infected, is essential for quick containment of the spread of the disease, along with community-level surveillance measures to identify potential hot spots. Decentralized evidence-based approaches with community participation would be most effective. All available human resources need to be mobilized for this, going beyond health workers and the police who may have enough on their hands, and tapping NDRF, home guards, educated youth and other volunteers, and civil society organizations, all with proper training for the purpose. Data relating to contacts traced, tested and isolated should also be included in daily reporting dashboards of State governments along with cases, tests, deaths etc, since this would act as a monitoring mechanism as well as motivation to perform better.

Address Vaccine shortage & Equity

There is a seriously mistaken tendency among authorities, and also some commentators, to look to vaccines as a silver bullet to tackle the pandemic and bring this second wave to an end. India is currently vaccinating an average of 3-4 million persons per day and has so far administered around 85 million doses. While this may look good in absolute numbers, especially for a developing country, India’s vaccinations per capita rank well below the global average. Many States are also complaining of shortages in vaccine supply from the Centre.

It also needs to be emphasized that India will take at least another 55 days at present rates to administer at least one dose to the original target of 300 million persons for this phase, not counting the additional recipients due to inclusion of all above the age of 45 years in the eligible group. That still leaves a huge gap of several hundreds of millions of doses requiring to be administered even if those under 18 years are not counted. Clearly, India cannot just wait for vaccinations to be completed and must press on urgently and effectively now with the public health measures discussed above.

There is much information available, albeit scattered and mostly anecdotal at present that a class divide is emerging in India’s vaccination drive, in cities as well as in many rural areas in the country. Those missing out on vaccinations say they do not know where vaccines are being administered, how to get vaccinated, how to enroll for vaccinations, that they do not have smart phones etc. These deficiencies need to be urgently rectified by suitable modifications in the vaccination strategy, especially by taking the vaccines to eligible populations at community level and conducting widespread communication campaigns on the vaccination drive. Continuing vaccine hesitancy also needs to be overcome.

The weakness in vaccinating health workers and frontline workers, the first in the eligibility queue, also needs to be overcome urgently. Reports suggest that around one-third of health workers have not been vaccinated, for whatever reason. Having noticed some misuse of the priority facility for health workers, the Government has recently closed the enrollment of health workers for vaccination. Instead of taking punitive action against health workers by closing their enrollment for vaccination, Government should rectify the enrollment system and block loopholes, while actively persuading health workers to get vaccinated.

Scale-up Vaccine production and availability

These vaccine numbers show that, quite apart from complaints by several States about vaccine shortages and lack of timely supplies from the Centre, requirement for vaccines is currently greater than supply and likely to remain so over the next few months. According to reports, Serum Institute of India (SII) is producing around 21.6 lakh doses of Covishield daily or 648 lakh (64.8 million) doses per month. Bharat Biotech is manufacturing around 1.6 lakh doses of Covaxin daily (4.8 million doses per month). The total production is therefore enough only for 23 lakh doses daily, much below even current vaccination rates, leave alone an expanded vaccination drive. Therefore the Government needs to urgently take steps to boost manufacturing capacity. For instance, both the above manufacturers have requested the Government to finance expansion of production significantly and quickly. SII has said it could ramp up production of Covishield to 200 million doses per month if such financing is made available, and. Bharat Biotech says they could scale up production of Covaxin to around 7 times current levels or to about 33.6 million doses per month.

All those who are clamoring for on-demand vaccinations for the entire adult population should keep these supply chain constraints in mind. At the same time, the suggestion from several hospitals and doctors that those between 18 and 45 with serious co-morbidities should also be brought within the eligibility criteria for vaccinations need consideration.

At the same time, the Government should also take several other steps to ramp up availability of vaccines. At the time of writing, the Russian Sputnik-V vaccine, which has a proven high efficacy against the SARS Cov2 virus and has also undergone bridging trials in India, has been given emergency use approval by DCGI after a prolonged wait while being repeatedly asked for additional data. This contrasts sharply with the rapid pace with which Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin was approved, without even waiting for efficacy data. This is not to argue for similarly cutting of corners for Sputnik-V or other vaccines, but Government should help to expedite the process. Sputnik-V is not prohibitively expensive, unlike the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators in powder form, and can therefore form an important part of India’s vaccination programme. Russia Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) has also tied up with 6 Indian vaccine manufacturing companies to together produce around 650 million doses. However, since this production in India will take time, Sputnik V will initially be fully imported from Russia. Again, at the time of writing, Government has decided to invite those vaccines approved by WHO and by regulators in the US, Europe and Japan to apply for approval in India without having to undergo bridging trials, stating that close watch would initially be kept on safety aspects before large-scale roll out.

Care should be taken to ensure that modalities of import, pricing and distribution are designed in such a manner as to not accentuate the present class divide in vaccine access, and that a dual-access does not emerge where the well-off have ready access to a wide variety of vaccines through private facilities by virtue of their ability to pay higher prices, while the poor struggle to access vaccines due to lack of paying ability and poor access to information.

Address Licensing/ IP issues

It is unfortunate that despite this good track record of assisting the global vaccination effort despite high , India has not pushed back on high-income countries such as in the US and in EU countries who have hoarded vaccines at the cost of other especially poorer countries.

India recently participated in a Meeting of the Indo-Pacific Quad grouping comprising the US, Australia, Japan and India. Among other things, the Meeting discussed a major Quad role in enhancing vaccine supplies for the Indo-Pacific region through an agreement under which the US would provide vaccine know-how and share financing with Japan, India would take responsibility for manufacture and Australia would handle logistics for supply of 1000 million doses to the region by end of 2022. Unfortunately, India did not use the occasion to raise the issue forcefully with the US, merely stating afterwards that the matter is sensitive and is being discussed with the US bilaterally. India must push the US strenuously in this regard; otherwise the “strategic partnership” would mean little.

India and South Africa also moved a proposal to the WTO in October 2020 calling for suspension of intellectual property rules and other obstructions to sharing of know-how especially to developing countries to enable the latter to manufacture vaccines, medicines and other medical products and hence to more rapidly bring the Covid-19 pandemic under control at least cost to their people. Regrettably, but true to form of the global North, the high-income countries notably the US, UK and EU blocked the proposal. In this case too, India did not actively pursue this proposal, which had the backing of the developing countries, either bilaterally with the US and other developed countries or in multi-lateral fora, revealing a possible lack of courage and determination to take on the leaders of global capitalism.

However, this demand by India points to another measure the Government could take in India so as to ramp up production of vaccines in India. The Covaxin vaccine was developed by the National Institute of Virology in Pune, a laboratory under the Indian Council of Medical Research, and productionized by the Hyderabad-based Bharat Biotech who put it into production.  It is suggested that the Government take the initiative to work out arrangements for licensing other Indian manufacturers to produce Covaxin so as to augment total supply of this vaccine. Established public sector enterprises such as the Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited, Maharashtra should also be included in this endeavor, putting aside the blind ideological opposition of the ruling dispensation to PSUs.

There is no compulsion to allow Bharat Biotech to retain a monopoly over the know-how for this vaccine, especially during this dangerous second wave of the pandemic, just as India had joined South Africa to demand that vaccine developers and manufacturers in the developed countries give up their monopoly rights.

Oppose misguided vaccine nationalism

In this connection, there is a wholly misconceived campaign being mounted, including by some political parties and sections of the media, that India should stop commercial and aid-based exports of vaccines so as to prioritize domestic needs. Even before this, the Government had imposed some restrictions on exports potentially undoing the goodwill earned earlier by free supply of vaccine to friendly developing countries and by its substantial contribution to the international Covax facility to supply vaccines to lower income countries. India has exported around 64.5 million vaccine doses, mostly of Covishield, since January 2021. Of this, 10.5 million were free supplies to developing countries and UN peace-keeping forces, 18.2 million to Covax, and 35.8 million were commercial exports, again including under contractual agreements with AstraZeneca which has licensed the manufacture of Covishield in India. Notably, India has hugely benefited from the transfer of technology from Oxford AstraZeneca to SII of a vaccine whose price has been deliberately kept low so as to benefit other developing countries. Supplies to Covax too are contracted and manufacturers like SII have received substantial advance funding under the Covax programme, so these actually should not be stopped or delayed, although reports are that India has slowed down supplies to Covax and also under its aid programme, causing anxiety among these recipients.

It should also be noted that India has received back around one-third of its supplies to Covax, since India too is a beneficiary country, and largest recipient, under Covax! The free vaccine supplies amounts to just 3 days of vaccination in India at present rates, and even the commercial exports are equivalent to only about 10 days’ supply for vaccination in India. Therefore, stopping exports will not provide much relief from the demand-supply gap India is facing. Further, China and India are almost the only countries that are working to assist the global vaccination effort especially in developing and low-income countries, and it would be cruel and immoral to weaken or close down this endeavor in an extremely selfish display of vaccine nationalism, and that too for very little benefit. This is a record to be proud of not condemned. The point again is that what India needs to do now is to ramp up vaccine production by existing manufacturers, and by quickly approving the production and deployment of several other vaccines that are in the pipeline.

It is precisely this kind of vaccine nationalism and related crass commercialism practiced by the US which is one of the major factors preventing SII, Biological-E (licensed to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in India) and other vaccine manufacturers in India to scale up production. These manufacturers depend on various raw materials and intermediates such as specialized bags, filters, cell culture media, single-use tubing and special chemicals from the US, which has imposed an export ban on all vaccine-related materials under its Defence Production Act. If India were to similarly restrict exports, it would have no moral authority to demand opening up of exports by the US or others.

 

For clarifications contact:

D.Raghunandan 9810098621; T. Sundararaman 9987438253; S. Krishnaswamy 9442158638

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

On Covaxin Interim Results from Phase 3 trials  

click here to read the English pdf of AIPSNStatement-on-CovaxinPhase3InterimResults-7Mar

On Covaxin Interim Results from Phase 3 trials

7 Mar 2021

All India Peoples Science Network welcomes the first interim efficacy data from Phase-3 clinical trials as released by M/S Bharat Biotech for the indigenously developed Covid-19 vaccine “Covaxin”. Based on the initial 43 cases of Covid-19 of which 39 were in the placebo arm and 7 were in the vaccinated arm of the phase 3 trial involving 25800 participants with 1:1 random allocation of vaccine and placebo, Bharat Biotech announced a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 80.56% with two doses four weeks apart. The trial also showed protection from infection and severe disease across different segments of the population. Bharat Biotech has planned to release a second interim analysis at 87 cases, and a final analysis when 130 cases are reached in the near future. AIPSN looks forward to peer review and publication of all the data at the earliest.

Peer reviewed Phase-3 trial data should be submitted by Bharat Biotech to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) at the earliest so that the regulator may issue revised emergency use approval for Covaxin, doing away with the various conditions attached to it, notably the requirement of administering the vaccine in clinical trial, which were considered necessary by DCGI and its Subject Expert Committee because of the absence of Phase-3 trial data at that time. These steps would overcome the objections of a large section of the scientific community and civil society in India, who had raised their voice against premature approval to Covaxin without Phase-3 trial data.

Once approval is granted by DCGI to Covaxin on par with Covishield, Covaxin can justifiably join the global set of approved vaccines against the Covid-19 disease, enabling it to cater to the huge international demand for vaccines especially among developing countries. An indigenous Covid-19 vaccine, developed by the National Institute of Virology (NIV) under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and manufactured by Bharat Biotech, legitimately gaining such acceptance internationally, would indeed be a matter of pride for Indian science and industry.

Statements by Government spokespersons claiming vindication of their support for the premature approval for Covaxin and its inclusion in the vaccination rollout, are entirely misplaced. As anticipated by those who strongly opposed both moves, including the AIPSN, the premature approval for Covaxin without Phase-3 data, clearly under Government pressure, has avoidably caused immense embarrassment at home and abroad, damaged the reputation of Indian science and regulatory institutions, and added to vaccine hesitancy in India. Little would have been lost if DCGI had waited for Phase-3 data now available. According to publicly available data, only about 10% of the approximately 16 million vaccination doses administered so far have been of Covaxin, a gap that could have easily been made up with Covishield.

AIPSN hopes that the nearly 81% efficacy shown by the first interim analysis of Covaxin phase 3 trials will now help dispel the earlier vaccine hesitancy due to hasty approval without data. AIPSN appeals to all eligible people to get vaccinated in order to protect themselves and prevent others who cannot be vaccinated from getting Covid-19. It is hoped that Bharat Biotech will now ramp up production to required levels and join the international battle against Covid-19 with full confidence. It is time the Government realizes that promotion of true self-reliance is not well-served by artificial support or false claims, but by promotion of quality R&D and products that can match the best in the world and compete globally on its own merits.

 

 

For clarifications contact:

D. Raghunandan 9810098621 S.Krishnaswamy 9442158638

P. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

AIPSN Position Paper on Uttarakhand Disaster

click here to read the English pdf of the AIPSN-PositionPaper17Feb2021-Ukhand-Disaster

AIPSN Position Paper on Uttarakhand Disaster

17 Feb 2021

 

The disaster in Chamoli District, Uttarakhand on 7 February 2021 morning, in the region around the Nandadevi Biosphere Reserve, saw a large volume of fast moving flood waters carrying ice and snow, rocks, debris and mud come rushing down from high-altitude mountains. At the time of writing on 14 February 2021, over 58 persons have tragically lost their lives and 148 persons are still missing. Most were workers in different projects in the area, along with some local villagers, and another 150 or so remain missing. Many workers are feared trapped inside the tunnel of the badly damaged under-construction ADB-funded 520 MW NTPC Tapovan hydro-electric project on the Dhauliganga river. The small Rishiganga 13.2MW hydel project on the Rishiganga river, about 4km upstream near the village of Raini where the famous Chipko movement started, was completely destroyed. At its peak, the flow was reportedly  around 30,000 cumec (cubic metres per second) with a 10-15 metre wave in narrow parts of the river. The deluge continued downstream past Joshimath where monitoring stations apparently showed the waters at more than 3 metres above the previous Highest Flood Line recorded during the infamous 2013 disaster in Uttarakhand resulting from extreme rainfall over several days and flash floods.  Several other hydel Projects nearby, such as the World Bank-funded 444 MW Pipalkoti dam still being built and the 400 MW Vishnuprayag dam, were also threatened but damage assessment is awaited.

The exact cause and circumstances of the disaster are yet to be fully determined. Based on what is currently known, the earlier speculation about a glacial lake burst is probably incorrect. It now seems, based on satellite imagery in India and abroad, and preliminary observations by specialist Indian teams from the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIHG), Dehradun, that a large weakened section of a rocky section of the Raunthi mountain-top fell over on an over-hanging portion of a glacier, and carried along an avalanche of large  quantities of recently accumulated snow, rocks and debris. This massive avalanche-cum-landslide seems to have settled in the Raunthi river on the valley floor, blocking it for several days, and then bursting through in the deluge witnessed on the 7 February. Recent reports suggest formation of another large pool behind large amounts of accumulated rocks and debris, threatening another high river flow event.

It is indeed tragic that most of the dead so far seem to be workers in different infrastructure and hydro-electric power projects. According to both Central and State governments, these and other infrastructure projects were supposed to benefit the region. However, this has long been questioned by environmentalists, local residents as well as by many experts and civil society organizations that remain of the opinion that such projects should be scaled down and assessed carefully before being launched. Decisions need to be taken keeping in mind the precautionary principle in view of the fragile mountains, low carrying capacity of towns and other settlements in the area, and high risks posed by floods, landslides etc. At present, it is not known if there is any evidence pointing to these infrastructure projects having any role in triggering the rock and glacier break-off rock and related avalanche and landslide. But, as discussed below, they certainly contribute to the magnitude and impact of such disasters, which therefore can never be termed as purely “natural” disasters or “acts of god.”

Ironically though, in the present case, these very projects and those working on them, including local villagers, have themselves become victims of a disaster.

 

Role of Climate Change & Infrastructure Projects

Regardless of the issue of causation, this disaster is nevertheless a grim reminder of the potential impact and dangers of mindless so-called “development” projects, ignoring all warnings and expert opinion, brushing aside environmental assessments, and implemented badly, all without thought about consequences.

Two major aspects stand out which cause, or contribute to, similar disasters in mountain areas in India especially in the Western Himalayas, namely climate change and thoughtless infrastructure and other construction projects in the region.

Man-made global warming has resulted in rapid melting and shrinking of glaciers along with melting of polar ice caps. The Himalayas are often called “the third pole” since they are the third largest reservoir of fresh water in the form of ice and snow. More recent studies, both internationally and in India, have shown that melt rates are much higher at present than in earlier decades and, in India, more rapidly in the Western Himalayas than in the East. Glacier melt often leads to formation of glacial lakes or large pools of water. Sometimes under pressure or due to external forces or impacts, the barriers of these glacial lakes break, releasing large volumes of water leading to flash flooding downstream, as was earlier speculated in the present case. Rapid melting of glaciers in India therefore lead to large-scale instability in the Himalayan region with increasing probability of increase in river water flows and flash flooding, posing a serious but as yet poorly predictable threat and imminent danger to downstream settlements and infrastructure, besides medium-term hydrological impacts on the whole Indo-Gangetic basin.

On top of this, there has been, especially in recent times, an irresponsible rush to build numerous roads, power plants and other infrastructure in the region without adequately assessing the potential environmental and societal impact, addressing the geological and tectonic instability of the region, and the carrying capacity of settlements and the hills. The Himalayas are a young and unstable mountain range, located in the most earthquake prone seismological Zones IV and V, subject to frequent landslides, with cloudbursts and flash floods carrying tons of rocks and other debris, causing havoc even normally. Even the on-going unplanned expansion of towns and settlements, beyond their carrying capacity, is already adding pressure on the regional environment through larger populations, new buildings outside the town limits, new hotels, new road construction or widening, depletion or even disappearance of water sources, and tree felling leading to loosening of soil and rocks which increases landslips and rainwater run-off leading to floods in local streams and rivers.

 

Rash of construction projects

The current rash of construction projects, expedited and pushed through under the present government, has taken such destruction to new and dangerous levels. A massive number of hydro-electric projects are now under construction in the region. At present there are around 100 dams in the State with many more under construction. According to some estimates, over 450 hydel projects are planned, meaning there could be one project every few dozen kilometers! Several of these are supposed to be run-of-the-river projects but, in practice, also involve at least some impounding of water and/or much construction  activity. The construction of these dams and hydel projects involve tree-felling with lackadaisical compensatory afforestation, and a lot of construction, often using dynamite and other questionable techniques triggering further instability in already unstable hill regions. Construction debris are often simply dumped into the river in violation of procedure, or along the roadside in so-called “designated spots,” but frequently end up in rivers below, further blocking the river flow and raising the river bed, thus increasingly the potential for flooding.

Over the years, these projects have led to large-scale protests by villagers, environmentalists and experts. In the wake of the 2013 Uttarakhand disaster, a Supreme Court appointed expert committee recommended cancellation of most of the proposed projects, which a second Committee appointed also endorsed. A third hand-picked committee thereafter appointed overturned these recommendations, but many projects thus approved continue to be under disputation. A leading expert, and Chairman of the SC-appointed committee, has opined  that no dam or hydel project should be taken up in the para-glacial zone of 2,200 metres altitude or above on safety grounds.

Massive road construction is also underway, notably under the Rs.14,000 Crores Char Dham Project started in 2016 linking the four major pilgrimage sites in Uttarakhand with over 900 km of roads including the Char Dham Mahamarg highway, hotels and other infrastructure. Environmental clearance for the project was obtained in 2018 through aggressive push from the highest levels of the central government, who also amended the EIA Notification 2006 to exempt road projects under 100km in length from EIA. Using this subterfuge, the Char Dham Highway project was divided into 53 projects of under 100km length and given clearance without any environmental appraisal using the kind of norm-twisting modifications proposed in the Draft EIA 2020 Notification!

A majority of members of the packed High Powered Committee to review the project recommended keeping the road width to 10 metres, involving cutting of the hill upto 24 metres, as earlier approved by the Supreme Court which, however, had later ordered restricting road width to 5.5 metres but work had meanwhile speedily covered a substantial length of the highway at the larger width. Road cutting and scooping of hillsides have been done in a non-standard and dangerous manner including through dynamiting, often with almost vertical slopes against all protocol and sharply increasing prospects of landslides, and without stabilization and fresh plantation to help bind the slopes. Debris is also very often dumped carelessly and ends up in the river below. Speed, greater profits for the companies involved, and the headlong rush to build infrastructure, not safety, is clearly the priority.

Besides the direct damage caused in the already unstable region, all this only worsens impacts of future flooding events. Debris raises the river bed, increasing chances of flooding and submergence of riverside infrastructure and townships as happened in the 2013 disaster. Debris also enters dams and power plant races reducing dam life and damaging generating equipment.

 

Way forward

With the rationale of boosting tourism in the region, regardless of carrying capacity and fragility of the mountain ecosystem, Kedarnath town, which suffered extensive damage in 2013, is being rebuilt with little thought to the impact on the surrounding environment and the vulnerability of the town to further flooding and other events like in 2013. Alternative suggestions such as building residential infrastructure at lower altitudes with regulated pilgrim traffic to the temple have been brushed aside.

Monitoring and observation of this region for extreme weather events, landslides and slope instability, and glacial observation, is also almost non-existent.

While there is some indication that there is some slowing down of dam-building and hydel projects in the region, in so many other ways various highly risky and environmentally damaging infrastructure projects continue to be undertaken in this eco-sensitive area. It is essential that this disastrous course be reversed without delay; otherwise we will be left only with post-disaster analyses in future.

 

In light of the tragedies of the 2013 and 2021 disasters in the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand, a safety and environmental review should be urgently conducted of all hydro-electric, road building and infrastructure currently underway and planned, based on which these should be suitably modified or cancelled.

 

 

For clarifications contact:

D. Raghunandan 9810098621

P. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

AIPSN Statement on Enforcement Directorate Raids on Newsclick

click here to read press release of AIPSN-Statement-EDraidsNC-10Feb2021-LrHdsd

AIPSN Statement on Enforcement Directorate Raids on Newsclick

10 Feb 2021

 

Reports of raids by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the offices of web-based news and current affairs portal Newsclick and the residences of its editors and director have shocked many in the media, civil society and all those working to strengthen critical thinking and scrutiny of government policies in the public interest. Newsclick’s coverage of various issues in science and technology (S&T), and public policies related to S&T, have provided an alternative and informed perspective from that of the government as well as from much of the mainstream media especially in TV.  The All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) is deeply appreciative of the insightful, useful and evidence-based coverage of the governmental policies and responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, including an interactive dashboard on Covid-19 data both in India and worldwide. In recent times, Newsclick has also provided valuable coverage of the farmers’ struggle and informative articles by experts on issues related to the struggle.

AIPSN is deeply disturbed by these ED raids on Newsclick. Newsclick has stated that it is confident of proving its innocence on all charges alleged by ED. These raids, in timing and circumstance, can only be viewed  as part of a pattern of governmental suppression of critical voices in civil society and the media  in general through a variety of coercive means. ED and similar agencies are now seen to be regularly used as partisan tools of intimidation and vindictiveness. Strangely, such actions always are targeted only against voices critical of government policies.

AIPSN has been active nationwide in making the public aware of these dangerous trends, especially targeting Universities, the media, civil society and public intellectuals. These trends have serious implications for the Constitutional obligation to develop critical thinking and a scientific temper among the people. As a network of people centred science movements, AIPSN is acutely aware that science itself cannot thrive if critical thinking is suppressed in any and all spheres.  AIPSN has been annually observing 20th August as National Scientific Temper Day, the date of the murder of well-known campaigner for scientific temper and against superstition, Dr.Narendra Dabholkar, followed soon after by the similar murders of Govind Pansare, M.M.Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh, all probably by the same extremist hindutva group determined to silence voices of rationality, critical thinking and scientific temper.

At this crucial crossroads of our nation’s history as a vibrant, diverse, secular and democratic society, AIPSN expresses its solidarity with Newsclick and other independent media outlets and journalists and urges the Government to not strangle voices of democracy so essential for Science.

 

For clarifications contact:

 P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

Response to Draft ABC of UGC: Establishment and Operationalisation of Academic Bank Credit Scheme in Higher Education Regulations

Click here to see the email submitting AIPSN response to UGC

Click here to see the pdf of the AIPSN response to UGC

5th Feb 2021

AIPSN Response to Draft UGC (Establishment and Operationalisation of Academic Bank Credit (ABC) Scheme in Higher Education) Regulations 2021

The UGC during the pandemic period has brought out the draft regulations to establish and operationalise the Academic Bank Credit Scheme on 21 Jan 2021 and has asked for feedback from stakeholders by 5th Feb 2021 via the gmail id abcregulations2021@gmail.com

The response from AIPSN is given in two parts: a) Procedural inconsistencies and b) Long term deleterious impacts

A. Procedural inconsistencies

  1. A democratic exercise has once again been hijacked and made a mockery of in a process that has become familiar. Force a bill, act, ordinance, directive without any discussion to plead that it is good for the nation, farmer, academic, student, teacher worker. The farm laws have met unprecedented resistance. But that has also given the backdrop to take attention away from matters related to other issues. It is for this reason that the government released the Science, Technology, Innovation Policy document on 31st Dec 2020 with only 3 weeks to respond- the date being extended by eleven more days under demand. The same has now happened with this UGC ABC draft regulations being put up on 21st January on the UGC website with the last date to respond is 5th February, 2021 with not even a press announcement for such an important document!”
  2. The question naturally arises what is the urgency? There has to be more time given especially as colleges and universities are not fully functioning due to the pandemic. As it is a scheme that is meant for students, the students need to be involved in the discussion. The time could be given till 30th April 2021 and then the responses can be made public before a new draft is circulated.
  3. There is no postal address and contact person. The online access and internet access in India is not uniform across the country and in different social strata. A postal address and contact person must be specified for students and others to respond offline also.
  4. It is surprising that UGC has chosen a gmail id for soliciting responses rather than use an official government email id or website for the responses. If UGC does not have this capability even, how is it going to operationalise the online Academic Bank Credit? Or is it an indication that ABC will be outsourced to a private party?                                                                                                                                 B. Long term deleterious impacts
  5. The Academic Credits are a way to standardize and make education like an assembly line process borrowed from the predominantly commercial education system. The major limitation of the credit system is that it fragments knowledge as has been acknowledged in the World Bank report on American Credit System in Higher Education brought out in 1992. What we really need is a discussion on the need and the modification needed in the functioning of the credit system.
  6. In India the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) is poorly functioning at most in a token manner and mostly a disaster in many Universities and colleges. It has been a failure considering that it does not motivate the student nor does it go towards enriching knowledge skills or broader understanding. Even within a University or College there is no possibility of transferring credits. Building on this to bring about an external centralized institution called the Academic Bank Credit for trying to transfer credits across institutions is clearly not based on the reality of what exists.
  7. In the US which pioneered the use of the credit system, ccompleting the first two years of a degree at one institution, usually a community college, and then moving to another, is very common. There is a National Institute for study of Transfer Student that has tried to create website to facilitate transfer. Most States of the USA have a range of approaches from informal efforts of transfer students to more formal institution-based agreements or state-mandated policies. But there is no centralised Credit Bank in the USA that is involved in the transfers.
  8. In China the credit transfer and inter institutional course selection or student exchange has been limited to smaller universities and those in geographical proximity. This was initiated as part of the Chinese National Outline for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020). The goal was mainly towards life long education as in Korea. A study of four such initiatives in China concluded “procedures and systems related to credit transfer need to be formulated taking into account China’s actual situation in regard to college entrance and school registration management, thereby ensuring the reliability and credibility of credit transfer”. The Chinese systems do not involve any Centralised Credit Bank.
  9. The most successful credit transfer system in place is the European Credit Transfer System. It is a central tool in the Bologna Process, which aims to make national education systems in Europe more comparable internationally. The ECTS grading systems do not replace the local grading systems, but they provide a supplement to local grades, for example, on a transcript of records. It simply provides equivalences and makes degree programmes and student performance more transparent and comparable across all countries that are members of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The ECTS credit system does not involve any Centralised Credit Bank.
  10. The Academic Credit Bank System (ACBS) was started in Republic of Korea in 1998 to augment a lifelong learning. It is a degree granting body. A recent review in 2019 has indicated that the system given the social stratification does not assure equality of outcomes though it theoretically provides equality of access. If this is the case in Korea, in the highly stratified Indian society full of inequities which has also been pointed out by Babasaheb Ambedkar, this current initiative of UGC Academic Bank Credit will only further exacerbate the inequalities of outcomes.
  11. The ABC of UGC is a virtual bank (see 5.1 ‘ABC shall be a digital/virtual/online store-house entity of credit data base of HEIs with students as its stakeholders’). It is not a degree granting body (see 5.4. ABC shall not be, by itself, a Degree-awarding organisation; The Statutory degree-awarding power shall continue to be vested with the eligible HEIs which have registered with ABC). This therefore does not make it suitable as a vehicle for lifelong education. Ultimately the student will be forced to run around between institutions to get the degree for which the credits are entitled as the ABC will need the HEIs to communicate the credits to the ABC (see 6.1 However, ABC shall not accept any credit course document directly from the students and shall entertain such documents as valid only when they are transmitted by the respective, registered HEI awarding the credits).
  12. A fee will be charged to the student to keep the credits in the ABC (see 8.11 ‘There would be a credit processing fee to be paid by the registering student to ABC for maintaining the student’s Academic Bank Account and related functions. It would be fixed appropriately to encourage maximal usage of the ABC scheme by students’). No mechanism has been spelt out to keep the course fees affordable for economically and socially underprivileged students. This would be a further burden on the students and would work against the utilisation by the marginalised groups further increasing the educational divide.
  13. The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which are part of the ABC system are those which have the NAAC grade of ‘A’. Only 205 out of a total of 875 Universities are eligible which is just 23% of the Universities. In the case of colleges 1844 have greater than A grade out of total 38498 colleges, that is just 5% are eligible. This scheme is elitist in concept and implementation.
  14. In theory, this UGC ABC sounds as if it is very useful and revolutionary. In reality it will not help first generation students. It will benefit 3rd or nth generation learners as they will be able to navigate the system better both conceptually and financially. City based students would fare better in using this ABC than rural students. In general, this UGC ABC will increase the educational divide in society along caste, minorities, and rural fault lines.
  15. AIPSN calls upon UGC to abandon this flawed Centralised Academic Bank Credit and instead initiate a discussion on the enabling the credit system to first function properly for even in the words of Abbott Lowell who was President of Harvard University in USA: “The real unit is the student. He is the only thing in education that is an end in itself”.

For clarifications contact:

S. Krishnaswamy 9442158638

P. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

On the draft STIP2020: Need for a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality

click here to see the Gmail submission of AIPSN Response to draft STIP2020

click here for the AIPSN-response-DraftSTIP2020-30Jan2021 in English

 

30Jan2021

All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) Response

 

On the draft STIP2020:

Need for a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality

  1. During the ongoing pandemic, the Science Policy Forum and Department of Science and Technology initiated a series of discussions in different tracks to discuss various parts for formulating a draft STIP2020. On Dec 31st a draft was released in English online and a feedback response date of 25th Jan was given. Two days before the date, the deadline was extended to 31st Jan.
  2. In the economic transformation of Japan, South Korea and China their policies relating to Science, Technology and Innovation played a significant role in these countries’ development with advanced capabilities in technologies of the second and third industrial revolutions, poised to also develop such capabilities in 4th generation technologies expected to dominate the global economy over the next two decades. Several other Asian countries such as Singapore and Taiwan have also developed advanced manufacturing capabilities and know-how. All these nations have followed what we may broadly call a self-reliant pathway in S&T, consciously investing in developing their own knowledge, industrial and human resource capabilities over the years, as against depending on “Western” MNCs or companies for this. In the Global Innovation Index China now a rank 14th for the 2nd time in a row and remains the only middle-income economy in the GII top 30. India is at the 48th position. This follows the consistent growth of Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) with respect to the GDP in the case of China that grew from 0.6 in 1996 to 2.2 now, while in contrast India has remained hovering around 0.6 since 1996. GERD of the “Asian Tiger” economies follows a similar trajectory. It is also important to highlight the fact that China has used per capita GDP as a metric to measure its progress, thereby placing emphasis on the share of its working population in growth, rather than just GDP as India and many other countries do.
  1. The biggest weakness of draft STIP 2020 is that the policy is not rooted in the economic and industrial scenario of the country, and the direction in which these are visualized to transform over the next, say ten to fifteen years. Without such a vision, draft STIP2020 is cast in a vacuum. Further, the draft STIP2020 does not take cognizance of the present state of Science, Technology and Innovation in India, and put forward a policy that starts from where we are and leads to where we want to go. Similarly, the suggestions proposed do not also reckon with the institutional and systemic weaknesses or strengths. In this context, the very feasibility and utility of the draft STIP2020 are open to question, however nice this or that proposal sounds. Incidentally, STIP 2013 envisioned positioning India among the top 5 global scientific powers by 2020. Do we then presume that India has achieved that and now moves towards the top 3?
  1. A well thought out and designed policy that is sensitive to the needs of not only the people of India but of the world can make a tremendous difference. However, for inclusive and sustainable growth, it is important to first chart the practical steps for effective implementation of S&T policies. Such an approach is needed for balanced and integrated development taking into account the social and environmental aspects. In order to do this, it is important to first ensure the penetration of basic infrastructure of roads, electricity, communications and internet, water, public health, education and skills, to all parts of the country. Just as India’s R&D expenditure has historically been miserably low, so too has India’s investment in the health and education of the majority of its population and potential work force.  No less is the importance of a federated approach to take into account the geographical and developmental diversity amongst the States and Union Territories of India. A rigid one shoe fits all approach will not be useful. There has to be inbuilt flexibility in terms of structures, funding and implementation considering the developmental and infrastructural variations in different regions.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is not an authentic national STI policy. At best, it is like a policy for the Department of Science and Technology (DST). A transformational STI policy needs to bring on board all the government departments of the union Government, the state governments and the public in a collaborative mode for the formulation of STIP 2020 draft.
  1. The vision of the policy as mentioned “to build individual and institutional excellence in STI with the aspiration to achieve the highest level of global recognitions and awards in the coming decade” is completely flawed. One cannot have a national policy based only on awards and recognitions: if India does outstanding science and develops novel advanced technologies, awards and recognitions will follow. As the Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan has said “Science flourishes when people are free to question authority”. But that cannot be built into a policy. It is an academic, research and society-wide culture and part of the scientific temper which is encouraged by our Constitution.
  1. The draft policy keeps referring to undefined Traditional Knowledge Systems and in one place links it with heritage. This along with references to undefined grassroots innovations is in dissonance with the vision to position India among the top three scientific superpowers in the decade to come. However, highlighting these in the draft STIP2020, in the context of what is currently being done in India under the rubric of these terms, does pave the way for significant funding for spurious and inefficacious efforts, often pulling in an opposite direction to the desired future-oriented STI.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is astonishingly filled with a plethora of new Institutions and Funding Schemes: the Capacity Building Authority, the STI Policy Institute, the overarching Strategic Technology Board, a Strategic Development Fund, a national STI Financing Authority, an STI Development Bank, the national STI governance mechanism, the National STI Observatory, Indian Science and Technology Archive of Research (INDSTA), Advanced Missions in Innovative Research Ecosystems (ADMIRE), a centralized database on all forms of Financial Incentives, and Inter-State Science, Technology and Innovation Council (IS-STIC). While it is necessary that funding mechanisms be centrally coordinated, the structural framework along with the control structure also needs to be decentralized in order to take into account the spirit of cooperative federalism envisaged in the Constitution of India.  These numerous new Institutions would only lead to additional bureaucratic structures in an already top-heavy science administration, draining even more funds from actual research. There is also no point creating new institutions and funding schemes without examining the problem of non-functioning or malfunctioning of existing ones.  It is ironic that these suggestions for new Institutions come at a time when the government is engaged in closing down many S&T Institutions and driving them to raise their own funds, therefore reducing the amount of research done, showing again how distanced the draft STIP2020 is from ground realities.
  1. The draft STIP2020 talks of attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in STI, reduction in corporate tax rates for foreign MNCs, fast track clearances, easing land acquisitions, adequate means for incorporating FDI etc. to be explored on a need basis. This is definitely detrimental to public  sector research in agriculture  aiming  to strive  for food  self sufficiency, security and especially nutritional security. Self-reliant STI can certainly not be built through FDI or by foreign MNCs who may manufacture in India but will not transfer technologies as experience hitherto has amply shown. Experience of Japan, S.Korea and China is exactly the same: they embarked on a self-reliant path precisely because MNCs and Western companies will never part with their technologies, since they know full well that it is knowledge and technology, which controls industry and the economy. This is yet another cardinal mistake in the draft STIP2020; following the present Governments idea that manufacturing in India by foreign companies/MNCs directly or through FDI in junior Indian partners, is also “Make in India” and also represents Atma Nirbhar Bharat. Nothing could be further from the truth. The draft STIP2020 is extremely permissive to imports, and by this route it plans to achieve ” Atmanirbhar Bharat” and India’s emergence as the third global power in STI! And for that, science is now given a new role: “S&T for diplomatic benefits” and “diplomacy for S&T development”! In this draft STIP2020, the Indian Diaspora are to serve as conduits in the mercantilist exploitation of science, in which India’s intellectual resources, like her scientists, will be the basic inputs in this Atmanirbhar Bharat’s Global Assembly Line.
  1. The long-term and continuing reluctance of the private sector in India to invest in R&D is notorious but is not meaningfully addressed in the draft STIP2020. Much of this is due to Indian corporates’ preference to take the easy route of foreign collaboration or technology imports repeatedly incentivized by industrial and taxation policies of successive governments, even further promoted by the current emphasis on FDI as the major engine of industrial and technological development. Minor policy incentives or inducements will not change this, and a thrust for genuine self-reliance is a must.
  1. The draft STIP2020 also provides an escape clause for the Central Government from the need for enhanced investments in R&D by proposing that all other stakeholders such as State governments, PSUs, SMEs, private sector, Universities, Research Institutions and so on would be required to set aside earmarked funds for R&D. This is a futile and sub-optimal exercise and would only lead to ineffectual “R&D” on paper, merely to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement. In the absence of mission-oriented R&D programmes at scale, the goal of transformative R&D to take India into a leading position in the 4th industrial revolution would remain a pipedream.
  1. There is no meaningful discussion of employment in a potentially changed capital and technology-intensive industrial scenario, and how the draft STIP2020 proposes to address this issue. There is therefore no mention of the working people, farmers, workers, migrants, unorganized workers, rural unemployed and under-employed. Nor is there any indication of how the STI is going to benefit and take them along in the process of inclusive and sustainable growth. This begs the question as to who this draft STIP2020 bell tolls for?
  1. Another big miss in the draft STIP2020 is the absence of addressing societal goals that can be targeted through S&T and by promoting scientific temper, issues that were emphasized in the Scientific Policy Resolution 1958 (SPR1958).Even in its mention of the SPR1958 document, the draft STIP2020 does not mention these aims of the SPR1958 and limits itself to stating that “S&T were seen as vehicles for the onward journey towards socio-economic transformation and nation building”. The role that S&T can play in alleviating hunger (India stands 102 among 117 countries in World Hunger Index), combating disease, ensuring health, hygiene, housing, employment and making the reach of science equitable are not addressed at all in the document.
  1. The draft STIP2020 is anything but what it says: “It is to be noted that the new STIP policy revolves around the principles of being decentralized, evidence-informed, bottom-up, experts-driven, and inclusive.” There are a lot of hollow claims of producing an evidence-driven, inclusive and bottom-up policy process steered and coordinated for the well being of the nation and its people with socio-economic and environmental considerations. The rambling draft policy makes all the right noises but lacks foundations of reality making it a catch all bucket list which without the grounding will remain wishful thinking. It is essential to cut the fluff and make it lean but meaningful.
  1. A major appreciative aspect of the draft STIP2020 is the very mention of LGBTQ+ and all that follows. But again it is dampened by the lack of specifics and arriving at how the changes can be made. The other aspect that is appealing is the talk of Open Science but the sheen is lost, due to not trying to figure out why it has not progressed, as needed, so far.
  1. The importance given to Science Communication is welcome, but it is disappointing to see the stress on scientists rather than on imbuing the lay citizen with scientific temper, critical thinking and the world view of science. It is puzzling that, rather than acknowledge and build upon the existing almost 40 year old people’s science movements in the country committed to and involved with activities towards this goal; this policy glibly seeks to “create” new science movements. Civil society organizations should be left to themselves and supported, but government-created “science movements” would be self-defeating and work against developing critical thinking which often requires looking at governmental S&T policies with a critical eye.
  1. The STIP will affect all sections of the public and, as mentioned in the draft STIP2020, it is meant to be inclusive. Moreover, it also intends to make science literature available in all languages and geographic regions. So a good starting point will be to make the draft STIP2020 available in all the Scheduled languages in the Constitution of India so that the public including researchers at all levels can meaningfully understand and discuss it to come forward with suggestions.
  1. There is no particular urgency to have the STIP brought out within the coming months especially in the time of the pandemic. It may therefore be a good idea to revise the Draft in a transparent manner taking into account comments received, and the revised STIP then placed before parliament allowing for scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on S&T.

 

AIPSN demands for transforming the draft STIP2020

into a people-centered and future-oriented STIP based on reality:

 

a) The draft STIP2020 be made available officially on the website in all the Scheduled languages and propagated through social media and TV. After that is made available at least two months period should be given for wide dissemination and involvement in discussions. 

b) There should be a provision for giving feedback through hard copies also apart from only online as online access is still limited in the country. One contact person should be mentioned to ensure that the hard copies will be received correctly. 

c) All the suggestions received, as hard copies and online, must be put into an indexed publicly available online database so that there can be cross checking about incorporation in the STIP. 

d) The draft STIP2020 has to reduce the rhetoric and make it more realistic 

e) The NEP has not been debated in the Parliament. Therefore, endorsing or linking NEP in sections of the STI is not democratic. It is important to involve the Parliament in the STI through formation of a Parliamentary Standing Committee for STI. This is also one of the recommendations by UNESCO for countries to democratise the STIP. 

f) The many structures that are envisaged in the STI need to be decentralised, not in funding but in functionality and structure, taking into account the cooperative federalism which is the spirit of the Constitution. 

g) The four decades old popular science movements and some even older science popularization organizations in the country need to be acknowledged and built upon rather than artificially “creating” new science movements to act at the behest of the government. 

h) There were only limited online attempts to involve or seek the opinions of the wide thriving S&T community in the country. There needs to be more engaged consultations with such S&T communities distributed across the country to evolve this national policy. 

30Jan2021

 

For clarifications contact:

  1. Krishnaswamy 9442158638
  2. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

 

Statement on Vaccines Roll-out
by

Statement on Vaccines Roll-out

click here to read the English pdf of the AIPSN-Statement-Vaccine-Rollout-15Jan2021

Click here to read Hindi pdf of AIPSN-Statement-Vaccine-Rollout-15Jan2021

AIPSN Statement on Vaccines Roll-out

15 Jan 2021

 

All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) is shocked that, as part of the mass vaccinations in India beginning on 16 January 2021 with inoculation of health workers, the Central Government is distributing 56 lakh doses of Bharat Biotech-ICMR’s Covaxin, along with 110 lakh doses of Serum Institute of India-Oxford Astra Zeneca’s Covishield. This is in open defiance of the conditions imposed by the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) while granting emergency approval for Covaxin. CDSCO and its Subject Expert Committee (SEC) had clearly differentiated between Covishield and Covaxin. Whereas both vaccines were approved for “restricted use in emergency situations,” Covaxin was given conditional approval, after apparent overnight arm-twisting of the SEC, only “ in clinical trial mode (emphasis added).”

56 lakh doses, i.e. inoculation of 28 lakh persons, cannot be considered a “trial” by any stretch of the imagination, especially when Phase-3 clinical trials for Covaxin are already underway involving around 26,000 volunteers. Clearly, the Government has placed Covaxin and Covishield on similar footing, other than total numbers as of now. Any “trial mode” vaccination should involve special monitoring, follow-up and institutional arrangements. The ethical and scientific quality of the ‘trials’ cannot be disregarded. There is no information yet available in the public domain if the Government has communicated any special protocols for Covaxin inoculation. Most importantly, clinical trials should require informed consent or refusal by Covaxin recipients, after being made fully aware of conditions imposed by the CDSCO and the absence of Phase-III efficacy data.

In contrast, Secretary, Union Health Ministry stated in a press conference that recipients would have no right to choose between the two vaccines, making it clear that the Central Government is intent on shoving Covaxin down the throats of State Governments and into the arms of innocent recipients, in this first round the health workers and “Covid heroes” regardless of the CDSCO conditions.

Government has only itself to blame if public suspicion about Covaxin and vaccine skepticism increases further due to its own complete opacity in rolling out  Covaxin, with no information on any of the questions raised here. Unfortunately, the CDSCO and the Union Health Ministry, have subverted the scientific criteria regarding the regulation of vaccines including their own guidelines for emergency use. This would compromise both people’s interests and the credibility of Indian pharma internationally. Bharat Biotech CEO’s unseemly attack on people who have criticized the government’s clearance on emergency use of its vaccine and attacking other vaccines does not add any credibility to its vaccine.

 

AIPSN  urges: 

  • The Union Government issue special protocols for Covaxin administration in “clinical trial mode,” including obtaining informed consent or refusal of recipients and ensuring compliance with all CDSCO/SEC approval conditions; 
  • CDSCO and ICMR to ensure that all clinical trials conform to necessary ethical, scientific and technical standards; 
  • All State Governments take a hard decision on whether to deploy Covaxin widely, or whether to strictly conform to CDSCO/SEC conditions of limited “trial mode” deployment; 

 

 

For clarifications contact:

T.Sundararaman 99874388253 D. Raghunandan 9810098621 S. Krishnaswamy 9442158638

 

by

‘Science for social revolution’: People’s Science Movements and democratizing science in India

click here for the pdf of the article   

Authors:

Venkateswaran T.V.

Abstract:

Often, new social movements engaged with science and society are characterised as contesting objectivity; the neutrality of modern science seeking to legitimise ‘lay perspectives’. It has been an article of faith among scholars to view third world movements as anti-science, anti-modernity and post-developmentalist. This commentary describes ideological framework, modes of action and organisation of the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), one of the People’s science movement (PSMs) active for more than the past four decades. They dispute the dominant development trajectory and science and technology-related policies for reinforcing the existing inequities. Nevertheless, they see ‘science’ as a powerful ally for realising their radical emancipatory vision of ‘science for social revolution’. Mobilising ‘science activists’ as unique alternate communicators, they strive for lay-expert collaboration. The canonical framing of third world social movements as postcolonial and anti-modern does not capture this unique case from India. Further studies are required to tease out such strands of social movements elsewhere.

 

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060308
by

On Hasty Regulatory Approvals in India for Covid-19 Vaccines

click here for pdf of English version AIPSNStatement-VaccineApprovals-6Jan2021

On Hasty Regulatory Approvals in India for Covid-19 Vaccines

6 Jan 2021

India’s regulatory authority for medical products, the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), gave  “restricted emergency approval” on 2nd January 2020 for two Covid-19 Vaccines, namely Serum Institute of India (SII)’s “Covishield” being manufactured in India under technology transfer from Oxford University-Astra Zeneca, and the indigenous “Covaxin” developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with ICMR/National Institute of Virology.

AIPSN salutes the efforts of Indian scientists, research institutions and vaccine manufacturers in bringing to the forefront indigenous vaccines like Covaxin in less than a year, with some other candidates just a few months behind. As and when these vaccines meet the threshold requirements for at least 50% efficacy, AIPSN will join other citizens in hailing this triumph and India’s contribution to the global battle against the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tragically, the Government and CDSCO have together seriously damaged these hopes, and also undermined confidence in Covaxin and other vaccines against Covid-19, in particular concerning Covaxin, due to lack of evidence and unsatisfactory scientific basis, non-transparency and concerns around possible political pressure.

SII’s Covishield was approved on the basis of Phase-III clinical trials data from Brazil and the UK, and the approval granted by the UK’s Medical & Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) based on 70.4% efficacy revealed by the related published data despite some remaining grey areas relating to varying dosages. CDSCO approval for SII’s Covishield could have awaited results from on-going Phase-III trials and bridge studies in India to demonstrate efficacy and bio-equivalence.  However, given the UK approval the approval by CDSCO, although not ideal, may be understandable. Questions still remain, however, about the Health Ministry’s announcement of an extended gap of up to 12 weeks between the first and second doses, whereas the SEC is understood to have recommended the original protocol of 28-days.

The approval for Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin raises more serious questions. The SEC had called for additional data from Phase-III trials, but appears to have been pressured overnight into reconsidering its decision and giving approval the next day, albeit hedged in by many conditions. CDSCO’s Statement shows that the approval is based only on Phase-I and Phase-II data on safety and immune response, but without any efficacy data from Phase-III trials. Top-ranking officials of the Government and ICMR have been strenuously defending this decision by stressing safety and arguing, without any evidence, that the design of Covaxin might make it more effective against the new UK mutation.  The opinion of ICMR, a co-developer of Covaxin, reflects possible bias and a conflict of interest, besides adding to perceptions of pressure on the regulator.

The serious doubts of the SEC on Covaxin are reflected in the CDSCO’s statement saying SII’s Covishield is approved “for restricted use in emergency situation subject to certain regulatory conditions” whereas, in contrast, approval for Bharat Biotech-ICMR’s Covaxin is given with numerous conditions such as “restricted use in emergency situation in public interest as an abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode, to have more options for vaccinations, especially in case of infection by mutant strains (emphasis added).”

True to form, the Government is steamrolling the decision, and attacking all critics, including many leading Indian scientists, as opponents of Indian science who should instead be upholding “national pride” over the indigenously developed vaccine. This achievement will indeed be hailed as a major Indian scientific achievement once efficacy data are released but, by this hasty approval without evidence, the Government has shot itself in the foot. Whatever prestige India may gain abroad for an indigenously-developed vaccine will be outweighed by the damage caused to the credibility of Covaxin in particular, and of Indian science, research and regulatory institutions.

 

In light of the above, the AIPSN calls for:

  1. Re-consideration of approval for Covaxin till efficacy data is available or, at least, strict adherence to conditions specified in the CDSCO order implying no roll-out of Covaxin for mass vaccination. 
  2. Phase-III efficacy trials for both vaccines continue without extraneous pressure and the data published at the earliest
  3. No vaccine or Covid-19 related drug be released for commercial use in the private sector until regular approval as per protocols (as distinct from emergency use authorization) are obtained.

For clarifications contact:

Sundararaman 99874388253 D. Raghunandan 9810098621 S.Krishnaswamy 9442158638

Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

Condolence- Roddam Narasimha: an exemplar for future generations

click here for pdf of RoddamNarasimha-AIPSNCondolenceResoln

Roddam Narasimha: an exemplar for future generations

                 All India Peoples Science Network expresses its condolences over the passing away of one of India’s leading scientists, researcher and teacher Professor Roddam Narasimha (hereafter RN) in Bangalore on 14 December 2020 at the age of 87.  Born and brought up in Bangalore, he went to school and pursued higher education in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree from Mysore University and Masters from the Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. At IISc he was mentored by Prof. Satish Dhawan, one of the founders of the indigenous Indian space programme and Director of IISc for over 20 years. RN went on to do his PhD under Prof. Hans Liepmann, who had also supervised Prof. Dhawan, from the prestigious California Institute of Technology (Caltech), in the USA. Like many like-minded scientists of his generation who had studied abroad, he returned to India motivated to advance self-reliant science and technology in India, and embarked on a long career undertaking world class research, mentoring several generations of students, and contributing to building several advanced research institutions in India. RN went on to become Professor at IISc in the now renamed Department of Aerospace Engineering over a near four-decade period. . He became Director of the CSIR’s National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, was closely associated with the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR) for 14 years and was also Director, National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore. Throughout he maintained his relationship with IISc.

RN made fundamental contributions to a number of areas in fluid mechanics, especially in studying turbulence, the transitions just from turbulent to laminar or normal flows as well as the reverse transition, parallel computing for fluid dynamics problems, and finally modeling of the monsoon. In a landmark paper published on the vibration of an elastic string RN derived an equation that has since been named after him. RN’s entire body of work excellently straddled the worlds of science and engineering. RN belonged to that early post-Independence generation of scientists who took on the challenging task of building scientific institutions in sovereign India, inspiring students to work on new scientific problems, and creating schools of scientific research while at the same time working on problems relevant to India’s developmental needs. RN was involved both as an engineering scientist in India’s aerospace industry and as a policymaker. At NAL he participated in a number of projects such as the development of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), and initiated work on parallel computing for a number of applications.  He also pioneered numerical modeling of the monsoons, beginning with his involvement in establishing the Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at IISc, where the now well-known Monsoon Trough Boundary Layer Experiment (MONTBLEX) was undertaken. Given the complexity of monsoon prediction, RN successfully lobbied for the formation of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. RN was deeply appreciative of the history of science and technology in India as evidenced by his classic paper on Tippu Sultan’s rockets and also took a balanced view of progressive and regressive trends within Indian society, as reflected in several writings and projects he undertook at NIAS and JNCASR. Current and future generations of scientists and engineers in India undoubtedly have an exemplary role model to look up too and emulate.

 

 

 

Contact

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101

Twitter @gsaipsn