Talk:Subhash Mukhopadhyay (physician)

Why did the government disapprove of his activities?

This article doesn't make clear why the Indian and West Bengal governments took such a negative attitude toward Dr. Mukhopadhyay's work on in vitro fertilization. I might understand if, for example, the government had religious objections to such activity but I wouldn't expect a Marxist government (as West Bengal had) to object on such grounds. I would have thought that the national and state governments would take pride in the fact that Dr. M. had placed Indian medical science in regard to IVF ahead of the USA, France, Australia, Japan and all other countries except the UK, and only a couple of months behind the UK at that. Did the government not believe he had really achieved IVF? --Metropolitan90 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer lies in some sort of professional jealousy and abuse of power. There was a film inspired by the incident. Ek Doctor Ki Maut (Death of a Doctor) (please see this and this). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The most possible explanation is that in the seventies, India felt its backwardness so much that its people had an inferiority complex about everything Indian. The craze for "phoren" articles is still within living memory. It was impossible for the 'expert committee' to acknowledge that what had been done in UK only two months earlier with the cutting edge technology was achieved in India, by an Indian who independently thought of the same technique, with locally available equipments. They denounced his work. We must be grateful to God that C.V.Raman did his research in the University of Calcutta during the British rule. Otherwise, another 'expert' committee would have declared him insane. By the way, can anyone trace those 'experts' now, and ask their views? Who are they? Any names available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.83.119 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article reads as though it were copy/pasted

The way the article is written suggests very strongly that it was copied wholesale from another, uncited source. I don't know anything about this topic, and therefore can't clean it up myself. But someone really ought to rewrite it. Bluemonkee (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_072_07_0526_0531_0.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 13:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the end of the copyvios, though. The suspect text was placed in the article in April 2008. MER-C 13:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tone of Article is not that of a biography

It sounds more like a personal view and not a biography. This needs to be rewritten with a neutral viewpoint. 2kaibiswas (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)