Scientists seek transparency in Vigyan Puraskar selection process

CategoryAwards

Last Updated18/09/2024

All former recipients of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar (SSB) Awards, have written to the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) for clarification on whether the selection process employed to select winners of the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar (RVP) was “fully fair, transparent

A group of distinguished scientists, all former recipients of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar (SSB) Awards, have written to the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) seeking clarification on the selection process of the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar (RVP).
They raised concerns about whether the selection was “fully fair, transparent, and free of extraneous considerations.”

The RVP replaced the SSB Awards, traditionally conferred upon scientists under 45 for their outstanding contributions. The first RVPs were awarded to 33 scientists on August 23, 2024, by the President of India.
The SSB awards were administered by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), with panels of subject experts across seven advisory committees reviewing nominations and recommending scientists for the award.

The RVP selection follows a different procedure than the SSB. The apex Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar Committee (RVPC), chaired by the PSA and comprising the Secretaries of six science ministries, academy presidents, and distinguished scientists, forms subject advisory committees.
These committees recommend nominated scientists to the RVPC, which then submits a final list for approval by the Science Minister. Unlike the SSB awards, the RVP is administered by the government, not CSIR.

A media report alleged that some scientists from the RVPC-vetted list were removed because of their criticism of government policies.
This allegation spurred the August 30 letter to the PSA, where the scientists asked whether the RVPC recommendations were accepted entirely or revised by other committees. The letter emphasized the need for procedural transparency to maintain the integrity of the award.

The letter, signed by 26 prominent scientists from leading research institutions, expressed concerns about potential "non-scientific considerations" influencing the final selection of awardees.
They stressed that transparency in the process is essential to dispel doubts and protect the credibility of the award.

A senior scientist mentioned that while the SSB awards did not involve science department Secretaries, the CSIR chief and the Science Minister signed off on the final list. Although rare, there were instances in the past where recommendations were sent back for reconsideration. Since this is the first year of the RVP, some confusion regarding the process may be expected.