Connect with us

Features

Prof. Tissa Vitarana: A scientist–statesman who changed the course of Sri Lanka’s innovation journey

Published

on

Prof. Tissa Vitarana

Sri Lanka awoke on the morning of 13 February, 2026, to the quiet passing of Professor Tissa Vitarana at his home in Nawala. With him departs not only a towering figure in science and public life, but also a rare national conscience—one that insisted, often against prevailing currents, that science, technology, and innovation must serve the people, the nation, and the future.

I had known Professor Vitarana from my early childhood and vividly recall his visits to our home in the 1970s and 1980s to meet my father, the late Mr. G. V. S. de Silva. At the time, I could not have imagined that he would later become one of the most pivotal teachers and mentors in my life. My first professional engagement with him came in 1986, when I was assigned to the Medical Research Institute (MRI) by the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine (PGIM) for my postgraduate training in microbiology. That encounter marked the beginning of a professional journey shaped profoundly by his guidance.

To me, he was first a teacher, then a mentor, later a colleague and a friend—and always a source of intellectual provocation and moral steadiness. My own professional life—its direction, ambitions, and even its internal debates—was deeply influenced by my association with him. I was privileged to work closely with Prof. Vitarana during what can only be described as the most consequential period in the evolution of Sri Lanka’s science and innovation ecosystem since independence.

Teacher and reformer of medical education

Before Prof. Vitarana became a national figure in science policy, he was, at heart, a scientist and an academic institution builder. In 1995, shortly after his retirement from the MRI, he was appointed Founder Professor of Microbiology at the newly established Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura. The faculty was young, resources were limited, and expectations were high—but he saw in it an opportunity not to replicate inherited models, but to rethink them.

In 1996, I joined the faculty as Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, beginning a long and formative professional partnership. Working closely together, we shared a conviction that medical microbiology education in Sri Lanka needed to move decisively beyond the traditional organism-centred—often disparagingly termed “bug-based”—approach. We believed instead in a disease-oriented curriculum, integrating pathogens with clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, and public-health relevance.

Implementing this shift was far from easy. It challenged entrenched academic traditions and demanded both pedagogical courage and strong institutional backing. Prof. Vitarana provided both. With his guidance and support, the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Jayewardenepura became the first in Sri Lanka to introduce a fully comprehensive disease-oriented microbiology curriculum—an approach that subsequently influenced teaching practices across other medical faculties. In retrospect, this episode foreshadowed the principles that would later define his national work: clarity of vision, patience in execution, and the willingness to question inherited structures.

A scientist who entered politics—without abandoning science

A Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka, Prof. Vitarana was, unequivocally, a scientist. Trained in medicine, bacteriology, and virology, he built an international reputation through his work at the MRI, which he later led as Director. His scientific credentials were never in doubt. Yet history will remember him most distinctly as a politician who refused to abandon science, even when politics would have made that the easier choice.

When he entered Parliament and later assumed office as Minister of Science and Technology, Sri Lanka’s science system was fragmented, underfunded, and largely disconnected from national development. Research institutions operated in silos; universities engaged minimally with industry; and innovation was barely part of the national vocabulary. Public investment in R&D was low, private-sector participation negligible, and science was often viewed as a luxury rather than a necessity.

Prof. Vitarana recognised this reality clearly—and refused to accept it as inevitable.

The courage to think systemically

One of his most enduring contributions was his insistence that science could not advance in isolation. It required strategy, coordination, institutions, and—above all—political will. This conviction shaped every major initiative he championed.

Under his leadership and encouragement, Sri Lanka embarked on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)—a bold and, at the time, audacious decision, taken amidst civil war and severe fiscal constraints. The idea was simple yet transformative: instead of dispersing scarce scientific resources across multiple institutions, Sri Lanka would converge them into a single, high-end strategic platform, built through a public–private partnership and aligned with industry needs.

This vision led to the establishment of the Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (SLINTEC)—an institution that has since become a symbol of what Sri Lankan science can achieve when provided autonomy, infrastructure, and purpose. SLINTEC’s early successes—US patents, technology licensing, international recognition, and growing private-sector confidence—did more than validate a model; they reshaped mindsets. Policymakers began to believe. Industry began to invest. Young scientists began to stay.

That catalytic impact is now embedded in Sri Lanka’s institutional memory.

Strategy before slogans

Prof. Vitarana was never content with isolated success stories. He understood that without a national framework, innovation would remain episodic and fragile. This belief culminated in the formulation of Sri Lanka’s first National Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Strategy, approved by Cabinet in 2010 and subsequently presented to Parliament.

The strategy was pragmatic, time-bound, and unflinchingly honest about national weaknesses. It set measurable targets, linked science to economic transformation, and recognised that innovation must serve not only growth, but also equity and sustainability.

To translate strategy into action, Prof. Vitarana supported the establishment of the Coordinating Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation (COSTI)—designed to break institutional silos, align ministries, and ensure that public investment in research translated into tangible societal benefit. Despite bureaucratic resistance and political turbulence, COSTI endured and eventually evolved into the National Innovation Agency (NIA), formalised through an Act of Parliament. Few initiatives better illustrate his patience, persistence, and long-term vision.

From nanotechnology to biotechnology: extending the vision

Prof. Vitarana’s system-level thinking did not stop with nanotechnology. As our work through COSTI matured, he urged us to look further—to biotechnology as a strategic national capability, capable of leveraging Sri Lanka’s rich biological resources and scientific talent. In this context, he conceptualised the Sri Lanka Institute of Biotechnology (SLIBTEC) as a complementary pillar to SLINTEC, anchoring advanced biotechnology research, translation, and commercialisation within a coherent national framework.

Technology to the village: the moral core of his politics

Among his many achievements, Prof. Vitarana often spoke most passionately about the Vidatha programme. This was not about advanced laboratories or international patents; it was about taking technology to the village, empowering micro- and small-scale enterprises, and ensuring that innovation did not remain an urban or elite privilege.

Although I was not directly involved in its implementation, we had many discussions on Vidatha. He welcomed critical feedback and remained unwavering in his belief that science must touch everyday life. Vidatha was, in many ways, the moral anchor of his science policy—an expression of his deep commitment to social justice and inclusive development.

Quality, credibility, and trust in science

What distinguished Prof. Vitarana was not only his appetite for innovation, but his insistence on quality and credibility. He believed deeply that science must earn public trust. I clearly recall his firm insistence on introducing accreditation for medical and testing laboratories, long before quality assurance became fashionable policy language. I was privileged to be part of those early efforts.

This conviction culminated in the establishment of the Sri Lanka Accreditation Board (SLAB), strengthening the integrity of scientific and technical services across the country. For Prof. Vitarana, accreditation was not bureaucracy—it was the backbone of trust.

The unfinished dreams

Not all our shared visions came to fruition. We collectively envisioned the establishment of a National Science Centre cum explaratorium —a space where science would meet society, curiosity would be nurtured, and scientific literacy cultivated across generations. Plans were drawn, concepts refined, and momentum built. Yet political shifts, bureaucratic inertia, and changing priorities meant the project never materialised.

Prof. Vitarana accepted these disappointments with remarkable equanimity. He understood that nation-building is rarely linear and that progress often outlives its original champions.

A mentor who trusted, not micromanaged

On a personal level, Prof. Vitarana gave me something invaluable: intellectual freedom. He trusted people, delegated responsibility, and never micromanaged. When obstacles arose—often from the bureaucracy or the Treasury—he stood as a buffer, absorbing pressure so others could continue their work.

There were moments of frustration. He loved politics—perhaps more than science—and that occasionally irritated me. Our philosophical disagreements were real and sometimes sharp, shaped by his political ideology and my own Buddhist-influenced thinking. Yet they were always respectful, often enriching, and never diminished the mutual regard we shared.

A legacy that endures

Today, institutions such as SLINTEC, COSTI/NIA, SLIBTEC, and SLAB stand not merely as organisations, but as embodied ideas—proof that Sri Lanka can think strategically, act boldly, and build sustainably.

Prof. Tissa Vitarana’s greatest legacy may well be this: he convinced a generation that Sri Lankan scientists, technologists, and entrepreneurs are capable of excellence—provided they are trusted, supported, and allowed to work within a conducive ecosystem. He shifted national conversations, altered institutional trajectories, and left an imprint that will outlast political cycles.

I shall miss him deeply—not only for his guidance and steadfast support, but also for the arguments, the laughter, the impatience, and the shared hope that Sri Lanka could do better, think bigger, and act wiser.

May his journey through sansara be short!
And may the nation he served with such conviction remember, protect, and build upon the foundations he laid!

by Sirimali Fernando

Former Science Advisor to the Minister of Science and Technology
Former Chairperson, National Science Foundation
Former CEO, COSTI
Founder Board Member – SLINTEC
Founder Board Member – SLAB
Current Board Member – SLIBTEC
Former Senior Professor of Microbiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, USJP



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending