India’s Forensic Challenge

“We can all see, but can you observe?”
― A. D. Garrett, Everyone Lies

The last couple of years saw two big cases making the headlines of the Indian tabloids frequently: the Sheena Bora murder case, and Sunanda Pushkar’s (Indian National Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s wife) alleged suicide. The sudden upheaval caused by these cases was nothing short of a daily soap, with every household closely following their developments.

The progress of these cases also brought various shades of the Indian investigative system into the limelight. The case of Bora’s murder, which happened in April 2012, resurfaced only in August 2015. The three year gap between the discovery of Bora’s remains, and the investigation to gain some result, led to serious discrepancies in the forensic aspect of the case. BYL Nair Hospital, Mumbai conducted a forensic analysis on Bora’s remains, and confirmed a profile of a woman within Sheena’s age range and body frame. Additionally, another private institute matched the skull remains to Sheena Bora’s facial structure.  

New troubles arose for the seemingly smooth investigation, when the remains submitted by the police to JJ Hospital, Mumbai in 2012, and the remains returned by JJ to BYL Nair Hospital, Mumbai in 2015, for further investigation, did not match. The contradicting forensic reports with respect to causes for Indrani Mukherjea’s (the accused for Sheena Bora’s murder) collapse in her prison cell, further questions their reliability. For an investigation tying up threads for a heinous crime such as murder, unadulterated forensic evidence is of utmost importance. Inconclusive findings like these are a result of caused by neglect by police and disoriented methodology. 

Back in 2008, the Aarushi Talwar case took the nation by storm. The handling of forensics in this double murder investigation underwent considerable amount of criticism. The crime scene was heavily contaminated due to the carelessness of the police officials in charge evidence (for instance, the crime scene was contaminated with fingerprints of the people present, which made it difficult to acquire any information of a possible suspect). This kind of negligence has terrible repercussions on tying up loose ends of an investigation, consequently leading to unsatisfying evidence.

Unavailability of proper lab instruments led to several investigative delays in Sunanda Pushkar’s alleged suicide case (later revealed to be a murder). Since the equipment essential to detect a certain kind of poison was not available in India, the task had to be outsourced to a lab in the USA. The investigation faced a severe setback when the AIIMS forensic chief claimed that he was forced to produce a fake report for the case, and came under tremendous pressure when he refused to do so.

The Indian Supreme Court passed a judgement in 2011 that no test shall be conducted on a suspect without his/her permission. Further, any evidence collected through such a test cannot be used in the court. This poses as a huge hurdle in the public prosecutor’s case, unless some other influential evidence is acquired based on the test results. In more recent times, the double murder case of Hema Upadhay and her lawyer has suffered from this judgement as the court refused permission to the police to conduct a narco analysis on the victim’s husband (a potential suspect).

Digital forensics in India also seems to be lagging as compared to the rest of the world, with respect to available technology. Furthermore, there is a lack of qualified personnel in the forensic labs in our country, which poses as a serious challenge. There is no proper training in forensic methodology provided to the police officials, and the psychological aspect of the field is largely overlooked. Experience of working with cases forms a large part of their forensic know-how. Further, it has been observed that there are several clashes between the staff at forensic labs and police officials, due to the lack of knowledge of terminologies of the latter, thereby leading to further delay and negligence as mentioned in the cases above.

India needs a more established structure for handling forensic cases. The government needs to direct more funds towards improving forensic lab facilities and the technology used. Moreover, proper training needs to be provided to investigation officers with respect to handling of evidence, dealing with the crime scene, focusing on more relevant aspects of investigation, and the like. The police could also directly recruit personnel qualified in forensics under them, so that ethical handling of evidence takes place, and a person is readily available to interpret the final reports accurately. The investigative agencies need to streamline their procedures, create a basic forensic know-how within their personnel, and identify and fill the procedural gaps in handling of cases.  If this isn’t achieved soon, the system surely poses a risk to become dangerously similar to the TV serial CID!

Sampada Karandikar

Neuroscience’s evil twin: The Neuromyth

“Effective teaching might be the hardest job there is”

– William Glasser

With the advent of neuroeducation, an offspring of neuroscience and psychology that informs educational policy, educators are being bombarded with various new findings- all promising magical results and startling discoveries. It is glorious to think of scientists in lab coats using brain activations to tell layman what happens when they learn or remember, but herein lays its very danger. Much like the game of Chinese Whispers, things begin resembling the truth lesser and lesser with each passing minute. And just like that, neuroeducation switches to its ugly alter ego of neuromyths.

A neuromyth is “a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts”. Neuromyths are becoming a hindrance to the education system worldwide, and the ways in which they arise are numerous (Pasquinelli, 2012).

Scientific facts, when distorted, turn into neuromyths. For example, a popular myth states that children learn better when they are taught by their preferred learning style (which can be visual, auditory or kinaesthetic); and this myth is based on the finding that these modalities are based in different parts of the brain. This however, ignores the fact that these regions are highly interconnected and that children do not actually process information better when they depend only on one modality. Therefore, scientific facts can be oversimplified and then misinterpreted.

Neuromyths can also be the result of actual scientific facts that have later been disproven. A prime example would be that of the Mozart Effect- that listening to classical music boosted one’s IQ points. This was quickly debunked, as studies failed to replicate it.

Finally, and most commonly, neuromyths can be because of the misinterpretation of scientific results. A good look at the idea of ‘critical periods’ of learning (that certain types of learning only occurs during certain times in life, especially childhood) exemplifies this. However, it is now seen that although there are prime ages for learning (eg. Acquisition of words, distinguishing between visual stimuli), this is hardly set in stone.

Teachers, or educators are more likely to fall susceptible to neuromyths possibly because of the sheer amount of information they encounter about the brain, both correct and incorrect. It could also be a backfiring effect, as teachers who are more eager to implement these neuroscientific findings out of sheer goodwill often come across neuromyths because they look for quicker solutions. What darkens the picture is the fact that neuroscience novices are no better than laypeople at distinguishing fact from reality, it is only the experts who are able to do so!

Resolving the issue of the perpetuation of neuromyths (and the horrors of products like the Brain Gym that still exist despite having no scientific backing) would be a two-way street involving increased communication from both parties: educators as well as neuroscientists. Neuroscientists need to make sure that translations of their work in the media are not miscontrued, and developers of educational products need to hire educational consultants who have credentials in the field of neuroscience. On the other hand, initial teacher training for educators should necessitate looking at findings with a critical eye, and not judging any article with brain images as more scientific (as people are found to!).  

It’s quite often that one hears of the common saying of half-baked knowledge being a dangerous thing. This, however, is much more frightening when put in regard to people who are expected to dispense knowledge- our teachers. Being consumers of knowledge, a critical appraisal of the product we consume is therefore essential.

Sneha Mani

Looking for the Good Samaritan

Meerkats. These adorable, furry animals are well known for their role in the BBC produced animated film, The Meerkats. What’s more, meerkats are also often used as model animals for their altruistic behavior.

These animals are famously known to stand guard while other members of their gang forage for food. If they detect any threats, the sentinels call out to the rest of the meerkats, which then run to nearby hiding places. It seems that they are risking their lives to protect their groups. However, a 1999 report showed that guards are the first to flee after sounding an alarm and that sentinels, in fact, are positioned such that they have the most time to reach safety. Therefore, what does altruism really mean and do meerkats have a hidden agenda?

Altruism is defined by Daniel Batson as “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” This is differs from egoism, the ultimate goal of which is individual benefit. It seems that the meerkats who stand guard as sentinels might therefore be acting with egoistic rather than altruistic motivation. But what about humans? Can they ever be truly altruistic? Does the Good Samaritan, a person who helps others without an expectation of a reward, exist?

There are several theories that explain prosocial and altruistic behavior in humans. One such model is the Empathy-Altruism hypothesis developed by Daniel Batson. According to this theory, when a person sees another person in need, they might help the other person either to reduce their own distress or if they feel they might be rewarded for their service. There is a third possibility, however. They may feel empathetic towards the person in need, and in that state they are willing to help the other person regardless of what they might gain. Reducing the other person’s suffering becomes the most important goal, indicating that it is possible for humans to behave in a truly altruistic manner.

On the other hand, evolutionary theories on altruism suggest that humans do behave selfishly, even when helping another person. For example, according to the Kin Selection hypothesis, humans help others, especially their descendants. Although they may be reducing the chances of their own survival, they are increasing the probability of their genes being passed on to the next generation. Moreover, the degree of helping behavior increases if the concerned individuals are closely related. It is therefore also not surprising that people are more willing to help those whom they perceive to be more similar to rather than different from themselves.

However, humans have behaved altruistically and have helped complete strangers in the past. For example, Patrick Morgan risked his life by jumping down under a stationary train in Sydney, Australia to save an elderly woman who had fallen there. But he said that he was simply doing what he thought anyone else would do. Similarly, Vishnu Zende, the railway announcer at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus saved hundreds of lives by alerting commuters to leave the station during the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

I guess the Good Samaritan does exist. And in any case, helping others is always good, even if you do it to help yourself.

Kahini Shah