This tablet is not the magic pill

The Indian government needs to open its eyes and realise that the technological utopia it envisions in the low-cost tablet is no cure for poor education, poverty or inequality

The last few days have brought the Aakash tablet back into the media limelight. Last Friday, Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister M.M. Pallam Raju said that troubles with the manufacturer could doom the project. But the next day, former HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, who started the project, denied Mr. Raju’s comments. He further added: “I want public services to be delivered through Aakash. I want Aakash to be a platform for 1.2 billion people.”

Before Mr. Sibal sets more ridiculous targets and spends taxpayers’ money on them, he needs to be stopped. His fanciful ideas are wrong. First, there is no evidence that a tablet can solve any of the problems that he claims it can. Second, it is not clear how the Indian government will ever be able to produce (or procure) a tablet that costs less than $35.

Root of the idea

The idea for the Aakash tablet and troubles that the project brings with it have both been inherited from the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project launched in 2005 by Nicholas Negroponte of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OLPC’s hope was that empowering children in the developing world with computers connected to the internet will help them learn faster, develop better skills and reach their full potential.

But there were problems with the idea right from the start. First, it hadn’t been tested on a large enough population to make a reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Second, the project claimed that scaling up production will reduce the cost of each laptop below Rs.5,400 ($100), though they weren’t sure how. Third, OLPC thought better education was the panacea to all problems irrespective of a country’s needs.

Despite these issues, OLPC received backing from the United Nations Development Programme in 2006. With this stamp of approval, its large-scale implementation began. About eight years after its launch, the results are in and OLPC hasn’t done so well.

Tested in Peru

Peru was the site of the largest experiment. More than 8,50,000 laptops were given out at a cost of Rs.1080 crore ($200 million). In treatment schools where the number of laptops per child was increased from 0.12 to 1.18, a report by the Inter-American Development Bank found that OLPC failed in its goals. Test scores in languages and maths remain dismal. Enrolment isn’t higher than what it was before.

A 2010 study in Romania, another middle-income country, found that those children who were given laptops were, not surprisingly, more proficient in its use. But they did not score anymore in exams than those who didn’t have computers. Even in a low-income country like Nepal, a small-scale study produced the same results. Furthermore, the price of each laptop, up until 2010, remained at more than Rs.10,000 ($200).

More than 20 lakh laptops have been handed out so far. Berk Ozler, senior economist at the World Bank, argues that OLPC is a mess. A report by Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames of the University of California Irvine, says: “Unlike Negroponte’s approach of simply handing computers to children and walking away, there needs to be integrated education improvement efforts.” It is not clear how governments all around the world fell for the scheme that is backed by little evidence.

OLPC’s latest victim is India, even though Aakash is not a laptop. Mr. Sibal, like Negroponte, considers Aakash to be the panacea to all problems. It’s not just that. Mr. Sibal also wants Aakash to be the cheapest tablet. This has proved to be a major hurdle. Datawind, a Canadian company, won the tender to provide tablets at a cost of less than $35. Its first version failed miserably because of poor hardware. The newer version seemed more promising, but it looks like Datawind will default on its promise to deliver 1,00,000 units by March 31.

Even if the government somehow, however difficult it may seem, is able to get access to cheap tablets, they are not going to help achieve its aims. Can a laptop overcome the negative impact of a bad teacher or poor school? Can it make children smarter despite the lack of electricity, water, toilets or playgrounds? Can it overcome the limitations of stunted growth among the malnourished? Can Aakash increase productivity of the workforce to counterbalance the money invested in it?

There is no evidence that it can do any of these things. And yet, the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology “strongly hinges around a low-cost device through which the content created can reach the learner.” This adoption of OLPC’s main idea is fraught with problems. Warschauer and Ames rightly argue that handing out laptops, or in India’s case, tablets, ignores the local context and thus avoids solving any of the targeted problems.

Right now when government officials are themselves confused over the future of Aakash, it is important to step back and analyse the reasons for pressing forward with a hopeless idea. Without concrete evidence, it would be foolish to continue.

This is a referenced version of an Op-Ed that was first published in The Hindu.
Image credit: The Hindu

HIV infection cured?

On Sunday American researchers reported that a baby girl has been effectively cured of HIV infection with the use of standard antiretroviral drugs. This is an exciting development giving hope that AIDS, which is caused by HIV, may be cured in young children, but there are many steps to be taken before that can happen.

Researchers ‘cure’ HIV infection in a babyThe Hindu’s science blog, 5 March 2013.

Image from here.

Researchers ‘cure’ HIV infection in a baby

On Sunday, U.S. researchers reported that a baby girl has been effectively cured of HIV infection with the use of standard antiretroviral drugs. This is an exciting development giving hope that AIDS, which is caused by HIV, may be cured in young children, but there are many steps to be taken before that can happen.

In 2010 a girl, whose identity has not been revealed, was infected by HIV at birth because her mother was carrying the infection. Within 30 hours of being born, the baby was treated with potent antiretroviral therapy that consists of three different drugs. The treatment was continued and in under a month the baby’s infection dropped significantly and remained so for further 18 months. Then, for reasons unknown, the mother stopped the baby’s treatment.

Usually stopping the treatment gives the infection a chance to flare up. When doctors saw the baby again after more than five months, they were expecting that HIV test would be positive. Hannah Gay, a pediatric HIV specialist who cared for the baby, told The Guardian, “All the tests came back negative, very much to my surprise.”

It is not clear why this happened. Rolando Barrios, a pharmacologist at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, says: “It is possible that an earlier intervention stopped HIV from lodging into the immune cells.” Barrios told The Hindu that sometimes there is a 48-hour window after catching the infection to stop its irreversible spread.

HIV infection takes hold in the human body by infecting long-lived white blood cells called CD4. If antiretroviral drugs are given early enough, they can block HIV from infecting CD4 cells. But if it is too late for that, these drugs can only curtail the replication of the virus. Which means that, on stopping the drug treatment, the virus becomes free to start replicating again.

In the reported case an early intervention may have stopped the spread and continued treatment reduced whatever infection was left. But very little can be said unless this can be repeated in many babies.

Doctors found out that the girl was rid of HIV, as far as can be detected, only because the drug treatment was stopped for many months. But this should not encourage others to stop their treatment, stressed the researchers. “We must be cautious about this singular result”, says Barrios.

Current treatments, if given at the appropriate time, can already stop up to 98% babies from being infected by their HIV-infected mothers. So of the 330,000 babies born with HIV annually, many can already be saved from the infection if these drugs are made available. Nonetheless, this case is remarkable because it opens a new line of investigation.

First published on

UPDATE: There are questions being raised whether the baby was infected with HIV or not. The Hindu reports that the child wasn’t carrying any HIV antibodies. These should’ve been present even if the infection had been cured. Researchers suggest that some HIV particles can disappear from the newborn within four months without causing infection.