Science and Our Needs

From Our Archives: A Glimpse into 1960

By Dr Philippe Forget

Professor Meade, whose report on economic development should be published fairly soon, described briefly the necessary prerequisites to economic advance in Mauritius at the memorable lecture he gave at the Plaza. These prerequisites were three in number. First, a bigger savings pile was needed — which could only be achieved if population pressure was realistically stemmed. Next, a considerable increase in technical know-how was essential. Finally, wage restraint must be conceded, for cheap labor would be vital in the early stages of competitive production.

“Professor Meade” most commonly refers to Nobel laureate James Meade, a renowned 20th-century economist known for his foundational work on international trade and national accounting. He taught at LSE and Cambridge, helped develop Keynesian economics, and famously (though perhaps inaccurately) predicted Mauritius’s poor economic future before its success. Pic – Wikipedia

The least pessimistic among his audience can hardly have scanned those prerequisites with equanimity. But few could have assessed, then, the actual viscosity of conformity to conventional values in Mauritius. In April last, confronted by birth control as the sole means of population control, the forces of conformity cringed away — and left the problem unsolved. Sociologists and psychologists would find interesting material in a study of that episode. But it will remain for History to record the long-term effects — not only in economic terms but, also, in physical misery and its concomitant jeopardy of higher aspirations. Such was round number one and the fate of Professor Meade’s first prerequisite.

Fundamental Capacity

It would be contrary to the fundamental capacity of the human race to profit by experience if one envisaged the desired increase in technical know-how (Professor Meade’s second prerequisite) as a smooth development to be achieved by rational cooperative effort. That a number of blind and therefore unpredictable forces will emerge to impede progress is only too likely. To forestall this opposition is a pressing duty. Again, previous experience suggests that measures aimed at technical progress must not be sprung as a surprise, but that the necessary awareness and slow psychological reorientation must be encouraged first. General resistance to change, the antagonism of older age groups to new techniques in the hands of younger men, the traditions of achievement by seniority, and undue focusing on salary, the standard of professional achievement as a measure of all achievement in life, are some of the foes to be encountered sooner or later in pressing forward a plan for technical progress.

Technical progress, taken in the broadest sense, is a crying need of Mauritian society now at a turning point of its history. It is no visionary scheme which ascribes to science this earnest and important role; world experience thrusts towards us the glaring truth that survival today — let alone improvement in standards of life — is inseparably linked with investment in science: natural science, applied science, and social science. In return for the bounty of technical ideas, science demands a favorable climate for its unhampered expansion. Already, a hundred years ago, Pasteur could write: “Les laboratoires sont les temples de l’avenir, de la richesse et du bien-être” — nor was he concerned only with material “bien-être,” for he added: “C’est là que l’humanité grandit, se fortifie, devient meilleure.” Pasteur, one in the long line of men of science, benefactors of humanity, was showing the way one hundred years ago.

Application And Research

The two main avenues of technical progress are application and research. Application depends in the first place on availability of technical know-how, on the men who know the technique and will apply it if given the suitable conditions of work. It depends also on public receptivity and attitude, itself a by-product of inspired educational methods. One has a feeling that nonetheless the avenue of application may well be the easier one, and that the concept of research as a vital parallel activity is probably further from attaining recognition. Research conveys a picture of costly institutions and apparatus, of a few men devoting large sums and tireless energy to smaller and smaller problems, the relationship of which to consumer goods is remote and uncertain. To some extent a version of this picture, freed from exaggeration and the prejudice which sticks to the unfamiliar, is not altogether untrue. But it would be untrue to say that this was the whole of research.

Research is concerned also to an always great extent with fact-finding. Fact-finding about social problems awakens social consciousness and “in so far as a society fails to identify by fact and not by inference its contemporary and changing social problems, it must expect its social conscience and its democratic values to languish.” (1) Fact-finding about local nature cannot fail to foster national feelings and a sense of belonging here that are far from negligible. Such fact-finding we need most. Whether it be about the rate of procured abortion, or the economic wastage due to asthma; whether it be concerned with the extent to which “greater democratization of public life intensifies the conflict over the individual’s personal identity” (2) or the extent to which a close season of net fishing in summer preserves a steady fish population in our lagoons; fact-finding about superstition and paramagical practices, their relevance to the health of the community; research in social ideas or small crafts; fact-finding as opposed to fancy, to wishful thinking, to hypocritical camouflage or to static conformity of public opinion.

Recently, scientists of Western Europe estimated that 0.2% of the gross national product is about the right amount to invest in research. One cannot avoid the thought that underdeveloped countries would have much to gain in devoting similar or even larger percentages to research. On the basis of a gross national product of 666m. in 1958, research in Mauritius has a right to 1 1/3m. in our budget. Research is not only an investment; it is a formative discipline. Its method, the scientific method, is unrivalled in the quest for truth. Then, research, inasmuch as it rejects absolutism, thrives on humility and receptivity, and is content to oppose irrational beliefs by the inexorable principle of “limited but increasing certitude,” has a vital role to play in clearing some of the fog that shrouds us. Provided, of course, that research should be encouraged as an inner activity of the community, a facet of its life, not as a monkeying of facts imported from elsewhere.

A number of measures must be designed to achieve this integration of research and the scientific method (as an attitude) in the community. No foreign scientist should be brought here on contract before and unless a suitable Mauritian candidate has been selected and sent abroad to acquire the equivalent knowledge. A greatly expanded programme of scholarships must be pushed forward and candidates selected strictly on merit. The closed-shop attitude which restricts the selection of candidates to privileged groups — whether these be social groups or the civil service — must be mercilessly tracked and eradicated. Within all technical departments, the arrogance of seniority must be stigmatized and combated. Not only must merit be given its due, but the country must exploit merit to the full — the kind of national suicide which consists in holding back enthusiasm and skill until it succumbs into tepid conformity must not be tolerated.

Research facilities, the proper freedom of scientific thought, must provide the desirable environment. We must be constantly on our guard lest we accept scientists who in their country would be third-rate, and should not watch complacently technicians in one field becoming experts in other fields — a metamorphosis catalyzed by bigger and bigger emoluments. Specialists must not abandon their special field for administrative duties, for this represents a misapplication of the public funds devoted to their acquiring specialist training. We must undoubtedly forgo the luxury of overseas leave and invest the corresponding savings in study leaves, more scholarships and refresher courses. These and many more things we must do quickly to provide a substantial increase in technical know-how.

Scientific Advance

It is apparent however that the impetus, control and safeguarding of this scientific advance programme, at least in its technical aspects, cannot come entirely or even primarily from the Legislative Council, Ministers or ministry advisers. Nor could the P.S.C. be entrusted with the selection of candidates for specialist training or the appointment of the most suitable technician to a specific job. In the specialists’ fields, laymen, however shrewd and willing, are apt to sink into deep waters, and this too often allows for favoritism, prejudicial practices like give-and-take policies or unconscious submission to the wiles of unscrupulous advisers. It would seem that the body most likely to safeguard the interests of science would be a Council of all science graduates, freed from political or employer loyalties, not excluding departmental ones.

In addition to having a say in selection, the council would scrutinize and advise on the differential importance of the technical branches, priorities, anomalies, scientific planning etc. That the freely expressed opinion of this corporate competent body could be a superior safeguard than present in camera proceedings is certain. The actual modalities of its machinery can be worked out to provide a harmonious integration with present departmental machinery. The council would also fulfill a number of other duties. It could be the foundation of a research institute; it could be a forum for discussion and the reading of papers; it could constitute the kernel of a future Faculty of Science.

It would draw public attention with regards to opinion on relevant matters and thus obviate to individual opinions being exploited as representative professional opinion. It would re-establish a proper balance in favor of many branches of science at present obscured in the public eye by the relative predominance of medical graduates. It could play an important role in linking its didactic efforts with those of the Ministry of Education. Existing organizations like the Mauritius Institute and the R. C. of Arts and Sciences, founded a century ago, are totally inefficient in the present age. The opportunity arises to realign them to conditions which have altered since their foundation, and provide Mauritius with institutions more suited to present needs.

Pressure Group State

Present needs. But whose needs? This question must be answered by conceding: the needs of science. Not necessarily the needs of the country, however much the country depends on science and technical know-how for further advance. This theoretical paradox arises from the anti-democratic trend of professional associations — “the shift from open social rights to concealed professional syndicalism.” (3) Although this trend is incidental to the main theme of his essay, Professor Richard Titmuss has given an illuminating analysis of its dangers in “The Irresponsible Society” 1960. He warns that “the growth of a ‘Pressure Group State’ generated by more massive concentrations of interlocking economic, managerial and self-regarding professional power points… towards more inequality.”

He remarks that in view of the “growing conservatism of professionalism,” to substitute “professional protest for the social protest” is no answer. It is acknowledged that in the U.K., the B.M.A. “has become an indispensable provider of political services to the medical profession, and that, one may suppose, is the chief secret behind its success.” (4) There is some ground for believing that lately, in Mauritius, professional associations have begun to move in a parallel direction. If this tendency should become consolidated, there is no doubt that the substitution of democratically chosen representatives of the country (who are relatively unfamiliar to the needs of science) by a professional body of competent scientists (who may be relatively insensible to the needs of the country) would be no more than a partially satisfactory answer.

References

(1) and (3)  —  Richard M. Titmuss; “The Irresponsible Society”
(2)  —  Marie Jahoda; “Race Relations & Mental Health” UNESCO 1960
(4)  —  Harry Eckstein; “Pressure Group Politics”

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 16 January 2026