Scientific curiosity and social insularity: can ( should ) the chasm be bridged

Advancing scientific frontiers can indeed be accompanied by advances in 
our responsibility towards socially marginalised communities. If this is 
not happening enough in our society, then there may be a need to change 
the parameters of scientific discourse in the country. As an example, we 
have the accuracy/affordability trade-off:  If every drug is screened at 1 
or 5 per cent level of significance, it is obvious that many leads which 
might have worked at 10 or 20 per cent level of significance would be 
thrown out. If these rejected leads also were to provide solutions at 
lesser cost, then we have implicitly made a trade off between accuracy and 
affordability (assuming that there are no life saving implications or no 
associated increase in side effects with reduction in accuracy). After 
all, people take much bigger risks in real life every day, they will/might 
prefer a drug which gives them 70 per cent chances of improvement at say 
10 rupees per dose than 95 per cent chance at Rs.1000/- per dose. Similar 
trade-offs have to be made in various disciplines.  Many farmers develop 
herbal pesticides or bio-control strategies for pest control which may 
achieve 60-75 per cent effectiveness but at a very low or practically no 
cost and adverse side effect. But the traction for such innovations by 
farmers in institutional extensions is negligible if not altogether 
absent. 

Are the poor rich in some resources? Why has Honey Bee Network contributed 
more than 90% of the 140,000 ideas, innovations and traditional knowledge 
practices in the last two decades from over 550 districts. Twenty five 
"Shodh Yatras" over the last thirteen years (lately in conflict prone 
regions like Bastar, Puruliya, Koraput, Champaran, Araku valley, Anantnag 
etc.) have demonstrated extraordinary richness in local knowledge, 
institutions, culture and resources. But they also show extreme alienation 
of state, civil society, market and science and technology institutions. 
How else can one explain millions of people using technologies developed 
thousands of years ago, with high drudgery and low efficiency. Why are 
scientific peer groups not bothered by such inertia and insularity? 

Can linking technically qualified youth with the problems and potential of 
the informal sector provide a way ahead? Is there really a trade off 
between good science and science for public good? Can "www.techpedia.in" 
developed by SRISTI hosting more than 100,000 engineering projects by 
close to 350,000 students from over 500 engineering colleges enable youth 
to question institutionalised inertia, mediocrity and insularity?