Dr A Q Khan, yet another case of plagiarisation after "the Holland copy paste"?

Careless neglect?

Monday, August 24, 2009 This is with reference to Dr A Q Khan’s column “Science of computers — part I” which appeared in your pages on Aug 19. 1. Dr Khan writes: “The computer is an essential part of 21st century life. Computer science is a fast-moving subject that gives rise to a range of interesting and often challenging problems. The implementation of today’s complex computer systems requires the skills of a knowledgeable and versatile computer scientist. Artificial intelligence — the study of intelligent behaviour — is having an increasing reference on computer system design. Distributed systems, networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing, presenting both technical and social challenges.” Now compare this to the first paragraph of Undergraduate Prospectus 2009, University of Sussex(www.sussex.ac.uk/units/publications/ugrad2009/subjects/computing): “Computing is an essential part of 21st-century life, and is an exceptionally fast-moving subject that gives rise to a range of interesting and challenging problems. The implementation of today’s complex computing systems, networks and multimedia systems requires the skills of knowledgeable and versatile computer scientists. Computer networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing and information technology, presenting both technical and social challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI) — the study of intelligent behaviour — is having an increasing influence on computer system design.” 2. Dr Khan writes: “How do we understand, reason, plan, cooperate, converse, read and communicate? What are the roles of language and logic? What is the structure of the brain? How does vision work? These are all questions as fundamental as the sub-atomic structure of matter. These are also questions where the science of computing plays an important role in our attempts to provide answers. The computer scientist can expect to come face-to-face with problems of great depth and complexity and, together with scientists, engineers and experts in other fields, may help to solve them. Computing is not just about the big questions; it is also about engineering-making things work. Computing is unique in offering both the challenge of science and the satisfaction of engineering.” Now compare this to the first paragraph of Imperial College London website (www3.imperial.ac.uk/engineering/teaching/exploringengineering/computing): “How do we understand, reason, plan, cooperate, converse, read and communicate? What are the roles of language and logic? What is the structure of the brain? How does vision work? These are questions as fundamental, in their own way, as questions about the sub-atomic structure of matter. They are also questions where the science of computing plays an important role in our attempts to provide answers. The computer scientist can expect to come face-to-face with problems of great depth and complexity and, together with scientists, engineers and experts in other fields, may help to disentangle them. But computing is not just about the big questions it is also about engineering-making things work. Computing is unique in offering both the challenge of a science and the satisfaction of engineering.” 3. Furthermore, Dr Khan writes: “Computer science is an inter-disciplinary subject. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics, with links to linguistics, psychology and other fields. Computer science is concerned with constructing hardware and software systems, digital electronics, compiler design, programming languages, operation systems, networks and graphics. Theoretical computer science addresses fundamental issues: the motion of computable function, proving the correctness of hardware and software and the theory of communicating system. Again the University of Cambridge website (www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/compsci) contains the following text: (First paragraph) “Computer science is interdisciplinary. It is firmly rooted in engineering and mathematics, with links to linguistics, psychology and other fields. [...] (Second paragraph) Practical computer science is concerned with constructing hardware and software systems: digital electronics, compiler design, programming languages, operating systems, networks and graphics. Theoretical computer science addresses fundamental issues: the notion of computable function, proving the correctness of hardware and software, the theory of communicating systems.” 4. The second half of Dr Khan’s article (paragraph 7 onwards) can be found in ACM’s Computing Curricula 2009. Although he credits ACM but doesn’t clarify that he is directly copying sentences from a document. Also, in the beginning of his piece he does acknowledge one of his former colleagues, an Engineer Nasim Khan, for input for the article — however, it is not clear whether this input is the reason for the apparent plagiarism. Fahad Rafique Dogar PhD student, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, US (The News) THE OTHER COLUMN: 22-22 —Ejaz Haider I know it is difficult to acknowledge one green entry in a dossier full of red entries, but that is the real test of objectivity. In doing unto Khan what the rightwing has done to Salam, we join the ranks of the Right I assume most of us know about cervical dilation, including men, who are not supposed to have a cervix. Even so, let me aim for the guy in the corner who might not. Cervix, thou innocent one, is the opening to the uterus and is supposed to dilate during childbirth. It can also dilate during miscarriage or made to in an induced abortion procedure. In other words, unbeknown to you my dear, you couldn’t have been in that corner without uterine contractions and cervical dilation. Rest assured though that this is not a lesson in gynaecology. This is about Dr AQ Khan, our hero. The moment the government tries to keep him in, the nation’s uterus goes into spasms and the cervix dilates, threatening to push him out. Here’s the irony of the situation. The government doesn’t want him to pop out because the womb is not just going to push him out but also secrets that are best kept hidden. Khan, on the other hand, has threatened that if he is not allowed to slip out he shall start singing from within the womb itself. I don’t envy the government. One thing I must grant Khan, though. He is sui generis, which is a difficult Neo-Latin term for of its/his own kind; unique in characteristic. Consider. He is supposed to be the father of our bomb, or as some wits put it, “bum”. That aside, while he mayn’t have fathered anything except his children, he did make an important, basic contribution to Pakistan’s nuclear programme. He is not a physicist, though for long this misconception held in popular circles and he didn’t bother to correct it. He is not even a top metallurgist. But he did get Pakistan gas centrifuge technology without which we could not build the bomb. To say that he stole it is to look a gift horse in the mouth. And one is not supposed to do that. As for those who don’t like the bomb, the place of domicile is UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s “We Must Disarm” Twitter page. These are tweets best suited to Twitter. The other day a friend of a friend noted in a Facebook comment that Pakistan’s real hero was Dr Abdus Salam; that Khan is a fake hero. There is no doubt about the standing of Salam. It is to our eternal shame how we treated him and continue to. But there is tedium in this kind of argument, compare as it does wrong entities or persons and/or rely on total rejection of one to put the other on a pedestal. What the obnoxious Right has done to Salam, the equally misplaced English-speaking class has to Khan. Having stuck my neck out, let me explain. Khan’s contribution is not owed to his ability to create something or push the frontiers of knowledge beyond the known. He is singularly incapable to doing that as should be obvious from his petty act of plagiarism in his newspaper column. In fact, I read carefully the plagiarised paragraphs and realised that Khan needs a crash course in the language. Exhibit A: Khan begins the first sentence thus: “The computer is an essential part of 21st century life.” The Sussex website from where he picked it up talked about “computing” which is a broader concept and involves using and developing computer technology, computer hardware and software. So there are the theoretical and the practical aspects of the activity. Exhibit B: Khan’s lines: “Artificial intelligence — the study of intelligent behaviour — is having an increasing reference [sic] on computer system design. Distributed systems, networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing, presenting both technical and social challenges.” Sussex website: “Computer networks and the internet are now central to the study of computing and information technology, presenting both technical and social challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI) — the study of intelligent behaviour — is having an increasing influence on computer system design.” [For these quotes I rely on the letter by Mr Dogar, a student at Carnegie Mellon University.] So, yes, this is not a man one can compare with Salam. Yet, does the fact that we are talking mediocrity at its most mediocre, in and of itself, take away from his contribution, original or stolen? I don’t think so. I know it is difficult to acknowledge one green entry in a dossier full of red ones, but that is the real test of objectivity. In doing unto Khan what the Right has done to Salam, we join the ranks of the Right. Just to clarify, this is not to say that Khan may not be dealt with for his acts of omission and commission. He should be. In fact, much of the opprobrium he has attracted is owed to his own grandstanding. In thinking that he could use his contribution to demand eternal homage from the nation, he was and is wrong. But the challenge of getting the perspective correct always attends things, issues and peoples that are complex in some ways. Take a man who has killed someone; if he also saves someone, what would our verdict be? Fifty percent bad; fifty percent good? I can keep adding to the difficulty and the corresponding challenge of categorisation but I hope the point is obvious. It is easy to judge and praise someone like Salam. Khan offers a greater degree of difficulty. That’s the time when we generally fail the test. Tailpiece: The other day Chaudhry Qasim saw 22-22 written on the backsad of a rickshaw. He couldn’t resist asking the rickshaw driver what it signified. The driver said, Sirji, o Inglush vich kehnday naiN na baai-baai, good-baai! Now that definitely is more original than Khan’s column! Ejaz Haider is op-ed editor of Daily Times, consulting editor of The Friday Times and host of Samaa TV's programme “Siyasiyat”. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk (Daily Times)