Dear Editor,
It is with a great degree of reluctance that I write regarding the protracted pronouncements of Drs Anand Daljeet and Seelochan Beharry on my role in Guyana and their expectations thereof. Both of these gentlemen, it would seem, are or have been academics. My usual interaction with colleagues in academia has been through scholarly and collegial exchanges of ideas and opinions, and not through the media. I have always found dialogue under such circumstances to be constructive and effective. As an academic who is entrusted with the development of young minds, I am careful to avoid pronouncement on any issue, particularly to the public, without first ascertaining the facts and relevance of my statements.
Drs Beharry and Daljeet have written several letters, spanning a period of two years, about my involvement in Guyana, without once attempting to contact me directly, or without once verifying the veracity of their statements. I would hope that these gentlemen do not employ the same methods of deduction that they have demonstrated in these cases to their scientific research. My contact details are easy to procure, both at the University of Alberta and at the IAST in Guyana, and I would have been happy to inform them about the details of my involvement at the IAST. I am still baffled by their resort to the media, without even trying to address the issues that they have ventilated, first with me.
These gentlemen have variously attacked me in the media, referring to me as a “poster boy for the PPP” and in an article published on the internet, Dr Beharry has referred to myself, Mr Prakash Gossai and Dr Ramcharan as “the President’s Lackeys.” I am not aware of ever having met either of these gentlemen before, nor of having ever been the cause of any insult or impediment to them. It would therefore seem that their angst related to my involvement in Guyana originates from their declared stance of opposition to the current administration’s policies with regards to science and technology. What is strange, is that these learned gentlemen claim to seek my assistance and alliance in addressing various issues they have adumbrated, but solicit this assistance by attacking me. It is therefore difficult not to view their motives with suspicion and regret. Regret because in my humble opinion Guyana needs more doers, we need more constructive action, and less political grandstanding. As it is, it is difficult not to take significant umbrage at these attacks against my person in the media, for I can see no reason for this denigration to vilify someone’s character without an attempt to engage in dialogue.
These gentlemen were apparently once Professors/Lecturers at the University of Guyana; it is my humble and sincere recommendation that should they ever again find themselves in the classroom, that they remember in the pursuit of science, advancement of scientific policy, and articulation of the pivotal role science and technology play in the development of a society, an environment of respect and open dialogue which is free from petty personal attacks is imperative. I am involved at some of the highest levels of scientific decision making and decision-influencing within the federal administration in Canada, and whilst there is rarely initial agreement on policies and directions, the success of the Canadian scientific community in securing government funding has been due largely to our ability to respectfully arrive at compromises and to provide to the decision-makers unified recommendations for science and technology funding.
My involvement in Guyana stems from an innate concern for the welfare of my country and a sense of immense debt owed to a people who nurtured me culturally, paid collectively for my nursery, primary and secondary education, and with whom I will always identify. When President Jagdeo challenged me to repay my debt to Guyana by helping to resuscitate IAST, I found no moral or ethical impediments to agreeing to function as IAST’s director. I still do not. Maybe Messrs. Daljeet and Beharry are not aware of the practice of appointment of qualified scientists from abroad as directors of institutes in foreign countries; examples abound in Africa, Asia, Europe and Central America. The reasons are many and valid.
Despite significant improvements since July, 2005, IAST remains underfunded and understaffed. It is the plight of many such national institutes in the developing world, and whilst this is not an excuse, it is a deplorable function of the affluence or lack thereof of such countries. It is a political fact, regardless of the country (this is particularly true in Canada and the United States) that investment in science and technology is done on the basis of reasonable returns on that investment. It is difficult to ever imagine that Guyana will be in a position to fund fundamental, original research for the sake of advancing knowledge to the extent that it is done in the developed world. At this juncture in our development, it is more important to invest in training, technology transfer and effective mechanisms to mine the fundamental science done in other parts of the world for application at home to the benefit of our society. As a scientist who participates significantly in lobbying for science and technology funding in Canada, I have come to recognize and value the need for articulation of a value proposition and return on investment in order to secure government’s financial support of science and technology.
I am not a politician – I am a scientist. Therefore, when I began my tenure at IAST, finding a severe lack of funding, I decided to focus on a few projects which had the capacity of demonstrating the value of such an institute to the nation’s growth and viability. I believe that we succeeded resoundingly in the development of locally-adapted biodiesel technology in Guyana, which has not only spawned a U.S.$4M investment and resulted in an operating facility supplying the diesel needs in Region 1 and employment of nearly 80 people, but have also initiated a series of strategies and activities in Guyana related to bio-fuels in general. IAST went from an unproven institute representing a drain on government’s resources without the spectre of a return on this investment, to a household name associated with positive change and progress. And, predictably, our funding from government increased almost 100%. Whilst this is still not sufficient, it is progress. Incidentally, Messrs. Daljeet and Beharry, as supposedly concerned scientists worried about the scientific fabric of this nation, have never seen fit to comment on this positive development. Yet the media is replete with their vitriolic denouncements of various other science-related issues. Hardly a balanced, scientific and constructive approach. And hardly an approach that changes attitudes and mindsets and engenders compromise.
On the current controversy regarding the University of Guyana, I am baffled about the exhortations from these two gentlemen for me to become embroiled in this issue. I am not in any away affiliated with the University of Guyana. Indeed, being on sabbatical leave this year, I wrote to various officials within the University offering my teaching and mentoring services absolutely free of charge, and am yet to receive a response. The University has respected faculty members who are much better placed to comment on its internal affairs than I am, and in the deadening silence from these ranks, safe for Professor Frederick Kissoon, Messrs. Daljeet and Beharry to clamor for my involvement? I do believe that the University is dreadfully under-funded and I am aware that its laboratories are in a state of disrepair, however, had I been a professor at the University, my strategy would not be to leave in despair and then resort to political grandstanding – but this is a personal approach which I do not expect others to share. I do believe it would be presumptuous of me to pronounce on the University of Guyana without first fully understanding the intricacies of the si
tuation at this institution.
In closing, I would like to extend an invitation to Messrs. Daljeet and Beharry to engage me in constructive dialogue if they actually are interested in soliciting my participation in science-related improvements in Guyana. I am patently not interested in a running argument in the media; I have neither the time nor the inclination. Furthermore, I would also like to challenge them both to actually do something about helping with science and technology advancement in Guyana. As the Director of IAST, I will be most delighted to have either or both of these gentlemen volunteer their services to the institution. Some time ago, we advertised for the position of Deputy Director at IAST – I know with absolute certainty that neither of these gentlemen applied for this position. We are lobbying government to increase our scientific staff – if we are successful, we will be advertising to fill these positions as well and both of these gentlemen are welcome to apply. Be a part of the solution, gentlemen. I am aware first hand of the difficulties of working in Guyana, but unless you are prepared to directly contribute, you are simply engaging in an exercise in the creation of so much entropy by attacking me in the media. For me, this media exchange is over – I do not intend to provide fodder for escalating and meaningless debate in the letter columns of the dailies.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Suresh S. Narine, Ph.D.
Director of IAST
