In recent days, sections of the Indian media have carried reports (links given at the end of the essay) that insinuate so called wrongdoing by one of India’s respected nuclear scientists synonymous with integrity, institutional leadership, and national service. The reports, drawing tenuous links between a US-based thorium start-up company – Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE) - and an Indian scientist with a long public association with India’s thorium programme, suggest impropriety without producing any substantive evidence. This is deeply disturbing, not merely because of the individual involved, but because of what such reportage does to the ecosystem of science, public trust, and national interest.
I write this note not as
a distant observer, but as someone who has known and observed the concerned
scientist very closely and has experienced first-hand the intellectual rigour,
transparency, and personal modesty with which he has conducted himself over
decades. Those who know him—across governments, scientific institutions, and
political divides—will attest that his reputation for honesty is not
constructed by public relations, but earned through a lifetime of principled
work, unparalleled.
Thorium, Long-Term
Vision, and Misplaced Suspicion
India’s interest in
thorium is neither new nor accidental. It is embedded in Homi Bhabhi’s –
founding father of Indian Nuclear Programme - three-stage nuclear programme and
has been pursued patiently and persistently over seven decades by many scientists
at BARC and DAE, precisely because thorium-based energy is complex,
long-gestation, and capital intensive. That CCTE claims a technological
breakthrough in thorium utilisation does not automatically translate into
Indian failure, nor does it imply that Indian scientists have been negligent,
compromised, or deceitful.
History reveals in
abundance that any scientific progress does not follow nationalist timelines or
media cycles. It evolves through cumulative global knowledge, incremental
breakthroughs, and cross-border intellectual exchange—much of which is openly
published. Therefore, to insinuate that CCTE named their product “ANEEL” by their
founder - who has publicly expressed his admiration for an Indian scientist in
whose honour the name has been given - points to ethical lapses is to stretch
conjecture into accusation, perhaps aimed at something sinister.
Anyone who is in the
business of science will know that admiration is not appropriation. Association
is not complicity. And innovation elsewhere is not evidence of betrayal at
home.
Due Process, Not Trial by
Headline
If there exists even any evidence
that any public figure—scientist, bureaucrat, or industrialist—has compromised
national interest, then the law must take its course. No individual, howsoever
eminent, should be above scrutiny. But scrutiny must be grounded in facts, not
framed through ill-conceived insinuation.
What is troubling about
these reports is not inquiry per se, but their tone and timing—suggesting guilt
while outsourcing proof to implication. This is not investigative journalism;
it is narrative construction. Such “trial by headline” damages reputations
built over lifetimes and discourages precisely the kind of public-spirited scientific
expertise India needs in strategic sectors, more so in the current times.
It also risks chilling
effects: why would accomplished scientists advise governments, mentor start-ups,
or participate in international knowledge forums if every engagement can later
be retrofitted into suspicion?
A Pattern Worth Noticing
This episode also brings
to mind recent insinuations against Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho - another
individual who has built global excellence from Indian soil, invested deeply in
domestic capability. In his case,
personal matters and perceived political sympathies were dragged into public
discourse to cast aspersions on professional credibility.
The common thread in both
cases is not ideology, but independence. Individuals who do not neatly align
with pre conceived narratives—corporate, political, or media—often become soft
targets. When success cannot be ignored, motives are questioned. When integrity
stands firm, insinuation is deployed.
This is not healthy
dissent. It is reputational sabotage.
On Timing and National
Interest
It is also impossible to
ignore the timing of these insinuations. At a moment when India’s nuclear and
clean-energy sector is poised for significant expansion—potentially involving billions of dollars in long-term investment,
global partnerships, and strategic technology collaboration—the casual
sensationalisation of unproven accusations risks doing collateral damage to
national credibility. Reckless narratives in sensitive sectors do not merely
tarnish reputations; they can deter investment, adversely impact collaboration,
and inadvertently undermine the very national interests they claim to defend.
Who Benefits from these
Narratives?
It is legitimate to ask:
who gains when India’s most credible scientific voices are undermined? Who
benefits when long-term, strategic technologies like thorium are portrayed as
national “failures” just as global interest in them accelerates? And why do
such stories surface without parallel examination of India’s institutional
constraints, international regulatory regimes, or the deliberate choices made
to prioritise safety and sovereignty over speed?
If there are vested
interests—commercial, geopolitical, or ideological—hostile to India’s strategic
autonomy in energy and technology, then weakening public confidence in its
scientific leadership is an effective tactic. Therefore, it is necessary that,
journalism which carries power must be responsible in its writings. It is
essential to remember that power without responsibility corrodes democracy.
Freedom of the press does not necessarily include freedom from facts. India
needs fearless journalism—but also fair journalism.
Besides, it is also crucial
to remember that parallel innovations must never be misread as failure.
Science does not progress
in a vacuum. Nor does it move at the pace of headlines. Breakthroughs emerge
through decades of cumulative effort, often followed by faster applied
developments that draw upon earlier foundational research – I could see further
by standing on the shoulders of giants, a statement of Isaac Newton,
paraphrased. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand science itself.
Parallel Progress is Not
Proof of Failure
The central argument - falsely assumed conclusion - advanced in the report
of the media in subject is that ANEEL, thorium-based nuclear fuel somehow
exposes India’s decades-long thorium effort is a “flop”. This conclusion is
logically flawed and historically ignorant.
A powerful counter example
lies in the Human Genome Project (HGP). Launched in 1986 as a publicly
funded programme under the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes
of Health, the HGP was deliberately methodical, transparent, and slow by
design. Led by Francis Collins, it took nearly 17 years to sequence the human
genome, ensuring accuracy, reproducibility, and open access.
Contrarily, in the late
1990s, Celera Genomics, a private company founded by Craig Venter,
entered the field, using faster technologies (whole genome shot gun sequencing
method), advanced computation, and—crucially—the vast body of publicly
available data, and completed the genome sequencing in quick time. In April
2003, both, Human Genome Project and Celera published their results simultaneously—one
in Nature on 14 April 2003, the other in Science, 15 April 2003.
What followed is
instructive. No one accused the US, DOE HGP project of failure. No one alleged
that scientists from the HGP had secretly colluded with Celera. Instead, the
scientific community acknowledged an obvious truth: private innovation had
climbed on the shoulders of a massive public scientific foundation. The two
efforts were seen as complementary, not conspiratorial.
The story of thorium is perhaps
no different.
India’s interest in
thorium was never a short-term commercial gamble, like the HGP. It was
conceived as a strategic, sovereign, and long-horizon programme, rooted in Homi
Bhabha’s three-stage nuclear vision, tailored to India’s resource constraints
and energy security needs. Thorium fuel cycles are scientifically complex,
regulator-intensive, and unforgiving of haste.The programme prioritised safety,
non-proliferation, and indigenous capability over speed. Much of its
output—reactor physics, materials science, fuel behaviour—has been openly
published and has contributed to global knowledge. This is precisely how
foundational science is meant to function.
That a foreign start up
today claims progress in thorium-based fuel does not invalidate decades of
Indian research. It validates it.
To portray ANEEL has
somehow “beaten” India’s nuclear programme is misleading. Nuclear fuel
development unfolds over decades, not funding cycles. If anything, the current
progress reflects the maturity of global thorium knowledge—much of it generated
by public programmes like India’s.
India’s nuclear decisions
are not shaped by individuals acting alone; they are an outcome of layered
oversight, regulatory scrutiny, and collective scientific judgment. Reducing
such a programme to a morality tale centred on one individual does not
illuminate truth—it distorts it.
There is nothing wrong
with asking hard questions. But there is a world of difference between inquiry
and insinuation. Science journalism demands knowledge, especially in domains
such as nuclear energy, where timelines are long, risks are real, and
trade-offs are unavoidable.
India’s thorium programme
is not a failure because others are building upon it. The scientist’s integrity
is not diminished because he is admired globally. And science does not stand
discredited because it advances through parallel paths.
The Human Genome Project
was not a failure because Celera arrived later and moved faster. Bell Labs did
not fail because the integrated circuit blossomed elsewhere. Nor did the
Digital Camera fail because the company which invented it could not to
recognise its potential. Similarly, India’s thorium journey does not collapse
because applied innovation has entered a new phase.
What fails, instead, is
journalism when it mistakes the rhythm of science for scandal.
Links to the two media reports cited in the article:
Image : Courtesy Wikicommons
(https://www.businessworld.in/
and
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment