Information technology (IT) is a term we read,
write and hear every day, but one has to wonder whether we have truly
understood its potential. Two recent news items have got me thinking.
The first is the enormous embarrassment caused to India, when two
persons out of the ‘50 most wanted list’ submitted by us to our
neighbouring country were found to be in our own backyard. This was the
result of Indian investigating agencies not sharing information. The
consequence was a serious dent to their credibility in the eyes of the
public.
The second news item was about the judge, who permitted
the use of an iPad by an accused in the 2G scam case, to process the
85,000 pages he was expected to read, to prepare for his defence. The
learned judge was of the opinion that without the use of technology this
was impossible.
What do these two events indicate? We are ready
to accept technology which will enable the processing and disseminating
of information, but are simply not willing to share that information.
What are the reasons that compel people to withhold information and
treat it as secret? The first and the most obvious is that its
disclosure will affect or damage vested interests. Withholding
information that should rightfully be in the public domain is a crime.
This is done when the person withholding the information desires illegal
gratification or gain. To counter this, we have measures like the Right
to Information (RTI), Act. A vigilant media has already exposed a
number of scams. One hopes this will help in cleansing public life and
result in reducing, if not removing corruption.
Even more
disturbing is the mindset of bureaucrats and other public authorities.
They believe if information, however trivial, is made public, it will be
misused. This could possibly be coming from their belief, that they are
the rulers, and the public their subjects. The creators of data, the
gatherers or possessors of information, are of the view that such data
or information is their source of power, and by not sharing it they
would continue to be powerful. What they fail to realise is that by not
sharing this information, they become vulnerable to public criticism. It
is quite possible that the non-disclosure of information is not always
with the intent of making money, rather it is to do with the lack of
transparency in the system.
It is this mindset that has to
change. I am conscious that certain categories of information cannot be
shared, because they may involve national security. But such categories
would be very few. Non-disclosure of information must be an exception
and not the rule. If this is not done, information finds its way to the
public fora through unofficial channels, which can lead to
misinformation campaigns, some of them, vicious. To illustrate, one must
look at the impact of the Wikileaks cables that have been doing the
rounds in the press. Much of what is being circulated is the opinion of
the person who sent those cables. However, since those in power and in
public life have been so averse to sharing information , the public
tends to believe everything that is now appearing in the press. Thus,
non-disclosure of information at the appropriate time has caused more
damage than benefit. Those holding public office must learn to be
transparent in their dealings. It is only then that the confidence of
the public, which has been shattered by all these scams, will be
restored to some extent atleast. For this purpose the power of
technology can be harnessed.
What is true of governments is
equally true in the commercial world. In today’s world, information
which is the source of knowledge, and at times knowledge itself, will
have to be shared and placed in the public domain. This is because the
problems that face the world are of such magnitude, it will require a
global effort to solve them. In an era when corporates pay huge sums of
money to acquire intellectual property rights, and incur enormous
expenditure to protect them, readers will doubt the validity of the
statement. An illustration from the book, Macrowikinomics, by Don
Tapscott and Anthony Williams will possibly prove this point. In 2007,
after investing millions of dollars and three years to unlock the
genetic basis of type 2 diabetes, which poses one of the most costly
challenges in the industrialised world, Novartis posted its raw research
data on the internet. In the fiercely competitive world of drug
manufacturers, people wondered if the company had lost its mind. The
president of the company thought otherwise. In his words, “To translate
this study’s provocative identification of diabetes-related genes into
the invention of new medicines will require a global effort”. By placing
its data in the public domain, the company hoped to leverage the
talents of the global research community, well beyond its employees. It
should be noted that Novartis did not share everything. It did not share
its own notes or commentary, thereby retaining its lead to some extent.
It, however, felt that sharing its initial research would be more
beneficial than hoarding it behind a wall of patent protection.
There
are lessons to be learnt by our profession from the narrative in the
preceding paragraph. In times where complexities of business and
regulation are multiplying, and the expectations from the users of our
services are increasing, we need to collaborate with members from our
profession, as well as other sister professions and disciplines. With
technology being what it is, I think geography is no barrier. To use a
popular phrase, geography is now history! I find the young generation is
already using technology to communicate and interact. The growth of
networking sites is testimony to this fact. Two hurdles need to be
overcome. The first is the attitude of some who believe that protection
of their knowledge base is their ticket to prosperity. The second is the
aversion of some of the jewels in our profession, to the use of
technology to share their wisdom. If these obstacles can be overcome,
and I am sure they will, our profession has a great future!
Anil J. Sathe
Joint Editor
