________________
go for invention or discovery or whether one should work for pure science or industrial research or rural development. They will go where they feel the challenge. Louis Pasteur went to help the wine makers of rural France and laid the foundation of microbiology. We commonly start with techniques invented by others and then look for a problem to apply them. There must be an equal thrill in taking up a problem from real life and then inventing a technique to tackle it. But we do not do much of this in our laboratories. Trying to solve a real life problem, a problem that is significant, could unearth new observations that could give new directions or new meaning to existing knowledge. Maybe the problems of our rural areas are like mopping up operations for an army of scientists, while the real frontiers have been pushed far beyond. There may not be much chance of radical discoveries, new observation or theories but new techniques can be developed. We are still unable to control the tiny mosquito or the pests on our crops. Finding a solution to this presents a challenge. Sophistication and creativity do not necessarily go hand in hand. A scientist working with sophisticated instruments may have more glamour but not necessarily more creativity. Not everyone in today's universities is going to end up being an award winning scientist or engineer. Many of them could get more satisfaction and seek an outlet for their creativity by solving some of the myriads of problems in the rural area. Do scientists working for rural development have to stay in the rural areas? There is no doubt that there is a relation between the site of the problem and where the work is done. To observe the problem and sense an opportunity, one has to be "immersed" in the problem. One has to be on the site. During the stage of formulation and conceptualization, we need to be a little bit away so that we can look Rural Development Through Education System 184
