I am writing following the editorial entitled ?Un pacte avec les lauréats? by Raj Meetarbhan which was published in Monday's edition of ?l'express?. I read with great interest what you had to say about the attitude of Mauritian laureates with regards to their sponsors, and I fully understand the concerns you and Mauritian taxpayers might have with the so-called ?brain-drain?. I would like to share my humble thoughts with you. First of all, putting the problem in its global context, I do not think that ?brain-drain? is the appropriate term to be employed in this debate. I would rather go for ?brain circulation?, because ultimately, Mauritius benefits from its expatriates working in Australia, England or the USA. Many of these expats tend to return to Mauritius after a number of years spent working abroad. They come back with rich experience and ideas resulting from their exposure to the advanced technological, mathematical and scientific methods they used abroad. They come back with an outlook on the world which is different, though not necessarily better, than that of people who live and work in Mauritius. A Mauritian working in a top investment bank in London or New York is an asset to our country, not a traitor. Rather than focusing on ways to make these Mauritians come back, the government should try to benefit from their skills. Mauritius should try to emulate what other countries like Brasil or India have done - tap the potential of their citizens abroad, build information networks and encourage them to bring investment and scientific knowledge to their native countries. As you must have realised, I am myself a laureate, and if ever I decide not to come back to Mauritius, it will not simply be because of the salaries proposed by top firms in Europe or the US. Money is definitely an issue. However, one should realise, even though I genuinely do not want to portray laureates as ?semi-gods?, that laureates are in general highly motivated individuals with big aspirations. Mauritius does not have a vibrant research environment, and in many instances, some of the fields in which laureates specialise are inexistent. How can one possibly expect a nuclear physicist to work in Mauritius and derive any personal satisfaction from his or her job? I would like to omit the usually mentioned points of lack of meritocracy or political involvement in top jobs because this problem also affects those who fund their studies themselves. These concerns are perfectly legitimate, but it is time one should consider the long-term benefit of having qualified Mauritian laureates working abroad. The ?moral certificate? you proposed is a great idea, but it should not be one which requires that laureates return to Mauritius after their studies. Let us not forget, a laureate abroad may contribute way more than a laureate at home.

Vij DHAYAN Imperial College London