Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO.

3, August — September’04

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

H.R. Pal*, A. Pal** & P. Tourani***

At present, intelligence is a diffuse concept and there are multitudes of theories that attempt to
explain it. Some involve a ‘general intelligence’, some involve situational factors, and some
involve both. None of them satisfactorily deals with the scope of intelligence.

INTRODUCTION none of which agreee with each other. Every

approach to thinking comes up with it’s own
T o be labeled as being ‘‘intelligent’’
imparts positive feelings, encourages self
different perspective and assumptions, often
contradicting at least one earlier theory.
esteem and a sense of worth. Yet, what is
intelligent and smart? This has been the focus of
Faculty theory : It is the oldest theory
theories, definitions and philosophies dating as
regarding the nature of intelligence and flourished
far back as Plato (428 BC); yet most presumably,
during 18th and 19th century. According to this
dating prior to this historical figure, might be
theory, mind is made up of different faculties
due to the fact that humankind is himself
like reasoning, memory, discrimination,
intelligent. One way to seek understanding of
imagination, etc. These faculties are independent
intelligence is simply to define what it is.
of each other and can be developed by vigorous
Sternberg (1986) purports two principal
training. Faculty Theory had been under criticism
classifications of definition of intelligence—the
by experimental psychologists who disproved
operational definition and the ‘‘real’’ definition.
the existence of independent faculties in the
Operational intelligence is measurable. Real
brain.
intelligence is one that inquires the true nature
of the thing being defined. As with the plethora One factor/UNI factor theory : It reduces
of definitions of intelligence, there are numerous all abilities to a single capacity of general
theories of intelligence. From examining how intelligence or ‘common sense’. This would
smart one is to how to measure one’s smartness, imply that they are all perfectly correlated, and
how to measure how one is smart, thories have would make no allowance for the unevenness
come and gone and some have endured to be of people i.e. abilities along different lines.
pondered and proven over time. Since it goes against the common observation
that ‘‘an individual does possess different levels
THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE
of different abilities and does not shine equally
There are different theories about intelligence, in all directions’’—it has no ground to stand.
* Reader and *** Research Scholar, Institute of Education
DAVV, Indore Spearman’s two-factor theory : It was
** Asst. Prof., Holkar Science College, Indore developed in 1904 by an English Psychologist,

181
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

Charles Spearman, who proposed that intellectual from other mental operations. These mental
abilites were comprised of two factors : one operations then constitute a group. A second
general ability or common ability known as ‘G’ group of mental operation has its own unifying
factor and the other a group of specific abilities primary factor, and so on. In other words, there
known as ‘S’ factor. ‘G’ factor is universal are a number of groups of mental abilities, each
inborn ability. Greater ‘G’ in an individual leads of which has its own primary factor, giving the
to greater success in life. ‘S’ factor is acquired group a functional unity and cohesiveness.
from the environment. It varies from activity to Each of these primary factors is said to be
activity in the same individual. relatively independent of the others.

Thorndike’s multifactor theory : Thorndike Thurstone has given the following six primary
believed that there was nothing like General factors :
Ability. Each mental activity requires an (i) The Number Factor (N)—Ability to do
aggregate of different set of abilities. He Numerical Calculations rapidly and
distinguished the following four attributes of accurately.
intelligence : (ii) The Verbal Factor (V)—Found in tests
(a) Level—refers to the level of difficulty of a involving Verbal Comprehension.
task that can be solved. (iii) The Space Factor (S)—Involved in any
(b) Range—refers to a number of tasks at any task in which the subject manipulates the
given degree of difficulty. imaginary object in space.
(c) Area—means the total number of situations (iv) Memory (M)—Involving ability to memorize
at each level to which the individual is able quickly.
to respond. (v) he Word Fluency Factor (W)—Involved
(d) Speed—is the rapidity with which we can whenever the subject is asked to think of
respond to the items. isolated words at a rapid rate.
(vi) The Reasoning Factor (R)—Found in tasks
Thurstone’s theory : Primary mental that require a subject to discover a rule or
abilities/Group factor theory : States that principle involved in a series or groups of
Intelligent Activities are not an expression of letters.
innumerable highly specific factors, as Thorndike Based on these factors Thurstone constructed
claimed. Nor is it the expression primarily of a a new test of intelligence known as ‘‘Test of
general factor that pervades all mental activities. Primary Mental Abilities (PMA).’’
It is the essence of intelligence, as Spearman
held. Instead, the analysis of interpretation of GUILFORD’S MODEL OF STRUCTURE OF
Spearman and others led them to the conclusion INTELLECT
that ‘certain’ mental operations have in common Guilford (1967, 1985, 1988) proposed a
a ‘primary’ factor that gives them psychological three dimensional structure of intellect model.
and functional unity and that differentiates them According to Guilford every intellectual task

182
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

can be classified according to it’s (1) content, practical-mechanical-spatial-physical (k.m.)

(2) the mental operation ivolved and (3) the ability.
3. The next level : minor group factors are
divided from major group factors.
4. The bottom level : ‘‘s’’(specific) factor.
(Spearmen)
Beginning in 1969, Vernon became
increasingly involved in studying the
contributions of environmental and genetic
factors to intellectual development. Vernon
continued to analyze the effects of genes and
the environment on both individual and group
difference in intelligence. He concludes that
product resulting from the operation. He further
individual difference in intelligence are
classified content into five categories, namely,
approximately 60 percent attributable to genetic
Visual, Auditory, Symbolic, Semantic and
factors, and that there is some evidence
Behavioral. He classified operations into five
implicating genes in racial group differences in
categories, namely, Cognition, Memory retention,
average levels of mental ability.
Memory recording, Divergent production,
Convergent production and evaluation. He CATTELL’S FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZED
classified products into six categories, namely,
THEORY
Units, Classes, Relations, Systems,
The fluid aspect of this theory says that
Transformations and Implications.
intelligence is a basic capacity due to genetic
VERNON’S HIERARCHICAL THEORY : potentiality. While this is affected by the past
and new expriences, the crystallized theory is a
Vernon’ description of different levels of
capacity resultant of experiences, learning and
intelligence may fill the gaps between two
environment.
extreme theories, the two-factor theory of
Spearman, which did not allow for the existence
GARDENER’S THEORY OF MULTIPLE
of group factors, and the multiple-factor theory
INTELLIGENCE :
of Turstone, which did not allow a ‘‘g’’ factor.
Howard Gardner in his book ‘‘Frames of
Intelligence can be described as comprising
Mind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligence’’
abilities at varying levels of generality :
(1983), puts forth a new and different view of
1. The highest level : ‘‘g’’ (general intelligence) human intellctual competencies. He argues
factor with the largest source of variance boldly and cogently that we are all born with
between individuals. (Spearman) potential to develop a multiplicity of Intelligence,
2. The next level : major group factors such as most of which have been overlooked in our
verbal-numerical-educational (v.ed) and testing society, and all of which can be drawn

183
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

upon to make us competent individuals. The making unreasonable demands, reshaping the
potential for musical accomplishments, bodily environment (by changing the employer’s
mastery and spatial reasoning, and the capacities attitudes) or selecting an alternate enviornment
to understand ourselves as well as others are, (by finding a more suitable job) is also adaptive.
Gardner argues, ‘‘the multiple forms of
ANDERSON’S THEORY : COGNITIVE
intelligence that we must add to the
DEVELOPMENT
conventional—and typical tested—logical and
lingustic skills long called I.Q.’’. Anderson proposes that human cognitive
architectures will have adapted optimally to the
The multiple intelligence theory is that people problems posed in their environment. Therefore,
possess eight types of intelligence : linguistic, discovering the optimal solution to the problem
logical, spatial, musical, motor ability, posed by the environment, independent of the
interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic architecture, is equivalent to discovering the
intelligence. mechanism used by the architecture. A ‘Rational
Analysis’, as it is called, takes into account the
Sternberg’s triarchic theory : Psychologist
available information in the enviornment, the
Robert Sternberg (1985) has constructed a
goals of the agent, some basic assumptions
three—pronged, or triarchic theory of
about computational cost (in terms of a ‘general’
intelligence. The Three types are :
architecture mechanism), and produces the
Analytical Intelligence—is what we generally optimal behavioral function. This function then
think of as academic ability. It enables us to of course can be tested empirically and
solve problems and to acquire new knowledge. assumptions modified if it proves inaccurate. A
Problem—solving skill include encoding contrasting point of view to this is espoused by
information, combining and comparing pieces Simon, and is centered around the claim that, in
of information and generating a solution. a rational analysis, the assumptions about the
architecture actually do most of the work.
Creative Intelligence—is defined by the
abilities to cope with novel situations and to EYSENCK’S STRUCTURAL THEORY
profit from experience. The ability to quickly
Eysenck discovered the neurological
relate novel situations to familiar situations (that
correlates of intelligence. He identified three
is, to perceive similarities and differences)
correlates of intelligence i.e. reaction time,
fosters adaptation. Moreover, as a result of
inspection time and average evoked potential.
experience, we also become able to solve
First two are observed behavior. Third behavior,
problems more rapidly.
is description of mental waves. Brighter
Practical Intelligence—or ‘‘street smarts’’, individual progressively takes less time in
enable people to adapt to the demands of their responding. They show less variability in reaction
environment. For example, keeping a job by time. Their inspection time is also less as
adapting one’s behavior to the employer’s compared to less intelligent. Average evoked
requirements is adaptive. But if the employer is potential is often measured by the wavelength

184
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

in electroencephalogram and complexities of REFERENCES

waveform. He found that the waves of intelligent 1. Butcher, H. J. Human Intelligence and Its
individuals are complex. Nature & Assessment. London : Methun &
Co., 1968.
Ceci’s Biological Theory
2. Chaplin, Jamesh P & Krawiee. Systems &
Ceci (1990) proposes that there are multiple Theories of Psychology. New York : Holt
cognitive potentials. These multiple intelligence’s Rinehart & Winston, Inc, 1974.
are biologically based and place limits on
3. Ceci S. J. On Intelligence.... More or Less :
mental processes. These are closely linked to
A Bio-Ecological Treatise on Intellectual
the challenges and opportunities in the
Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ :
individual’s environment. In his view, context is
Prentice Hall, 1990
essential to the demonstration of cognitive
abilities. By context, he means domain of 4. Chauhan, S.S. Advanced Educational
knowledge and other factors such as Psychology. New Delhi : Vikas Publishing
personalities, motivation and education. Context House PVT, Ltd, 1998.
can be mental, social or physical. 5. Gardner, H. Frames of Mind : The Theory
of Multiple Intelligence. New York : Basic
THEORY OF EMOTIONAL INTELLI- Books 1983.
GENCE 6. Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. New
According to Goleman (1995), Emotional York : Bantam, 1995.
Intelligence consists of ‘‘abilities such as being 7. Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human
able to motivate oneself and persist in the face Intelligence. New York : McGrawhill Book
of frustrations; to control impulse and delay Co, 1957.
gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep
8. Rao, S. N. Educational Psychology. New
distress from swamping the ability to think : to
Delhi : Wiley Estern Ltd., 1990.
empathize, and to hope’’. The main areas are :
knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions, 9. Smith, Carolyn D. (ed.) Hilgard’s
motivating oneself, recognizing emotions in Introduction to Psychology. London :
others, and handling relationships. Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.
10. Smith, Wendell Conditioning and
CONCLUSION Instrumental Learning. McGraw Hill, 1966.

Until a clear-cut definition of intelligence can 11. Spearman, C. ‘‘General Intelligence’’

be given, theories will continue not to be able to Objectively Determined & Measured,
explain it. The likelihood of such a definition American Journal of Psychology 15, 201-
occurring is virtually zero, as there will always 293, 1904.
be alternatives given, and so theories of 12. Sprinhall. N. A. & Sprinhall R. C.
intelligence are bound to be self-defeating. Educational Psychology : A Developmental

185
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

Approach. New York : McGraw Hill Inc. 16. Stones, E. An Introduction to Educational
1990. Psychology. London Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
1974.
13. Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence Applied :
Understanding and Increasing Your 17. Terman, L. M. The Measurement of
Intellectual Skills. San Diego : Harcourt Intelligence. Boston : Houghten Miffin,
Brace, 1986. 1916.
18. Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen E. P.
14. Sternberg, Robert J. The Triarchic Mind : A
Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology
new Theory of Human Intelligence. New
and Education. New York : Wiley, 1977.
York : Penguin Books., 1989.
19. Woodworth, R. S. & Schloberg H.
15. Stoddard, G. D. The Meaning of Experimental Psychology. New Delhi :
Intelligence. New York : Macmillan, 1943. Oxford & IBH Publishing, 1971.

186
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

SHOR T COMMUNICATION

GENES THAT CONTROL FOOD PREFERENCE

(SOME LIKE IT HOT, SOME LIKE IT COLD)

D. Balasubramanian*

INTRODUCTION why many people do not like some fruits like

the jackfruit—more than the taste, it is the smell
I t is often said that there is no telling
about food preferences. One person eats
that turns them off. Indeed A F Blakeslee
described as early as in 1918 that people differ
rice to the exclusion of rotis, while his neighbour
in their sense of smell and that each individual
does the exact opposite. There is clearly an
lives in his or her own unique sensory world,
element of getting used to something here and
thus generating individual preferences and tastes.
sticking to it. All my childhood I did not touch
The phrase ‘‘one man’s meat is another man’s
rotis, but it is my preferred staple food now.
poison’’ is true in more ways than one.
Enjoying some food items appears to involve an
acquired taste. Beer is an excellent example, A puzzle in animal behaviour that has
and caviar is another. Sticky, dark, salty and stymied us since the Blakeslee discovery is the
mildly smelly, it does take some getting used to basis of this sensory diversity. It is ‘‘learned’’ or
before one can really enjoy caviar, the eggs or nurtured, or is it built-in or genetically
the roe of the fish called sturgeon. It is such a determined? In matters of this sort, it becomes
delicacy that you should know how to like it or simpler to work with lower organisms for
enjoy it, or else you cannot belong to ‘‘high several resasons. First of all, they have more
society’’! stereotyped behaviour patterns. Secondly, their
brains are not as complex and elaborate as ours.
Is all preference for food a cultural
These allow us to address the question of
determinant? How does then one account for
genetic control of food preference in a more
individual preferences ? One basic feature of
focussed manner. Then again, the time scale of
animal behaviour is individuality. This is
operation of the experiments gets to be more
determined largely by the variations in the
convenient, since the life cycles of birth,
sensory perception between individuals. People
development, growth and death of lower forms
differ in their sense of smell and their preferences
of life are in the order of weeks and months—
of perfumes—a fact exploited by the perfumeries
or even shorter if we move down to invertebrates.
and cologne makers. herein also lies the reason
Perhaps, the greatest advantage in working with
* L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Road No.2. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
500034. [email protected]. Article published earlier them is the ready availability of genetic variants,
in the Hindu. Reproduced with permision. also called allelomorphs. Alleles are several

187
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

forms of a gene that usually arise through eating gammarus and the U-preferring ones.
mutation, and are resposible for hereditary The difference could not really be cultural or
variation in organisms. With insects, invertebrates through a brain-based decision since these
and similar little life forms, it becomes easy to crustaceans do not have any brains! The
choose specific alleles of a given gene for a differences should then lie in the biochemistry
chosen protein or trait and study a number of and genetics of the animal. Pursuit of this trail
these. These can be studied in great detail, with led the scientists to establish that there are
a large number of allelic individuals and in a differences in the enzyme amylase that the
statistically significant fashion, and with none of individual gammarus have in them. Individuals
the problems of ethics that are associated with that prefer the alga E seem to have one allelic
experiments involving animals or man. variant number 52 of the enzyme amylase,
while those that prefer to eat U have the allele
Early on, scientists had studeid a variety of
55 of the enzyme. It is the variation in the
examples where allelic variations could be
enzyme molecules that correlates with the food
correlated with habitat or food habits. This is a
preference for E or U. There is thus a possible
correspondence that relates to the genotype or
connection between genotype and food
the genes themselves rather than the phenotype
preference in these amphipods.
or the behaviour at the external level, where the
gene in question may not be directly identified. How could genotype influence feeding
More recently, Dr. R. L. Borowsky and his behaviour? Could it be through difference in the
associates at the biology department of New enzyme properties of the alleles? Or could it be
York University have been concerned with the that there are components in the alga other than
question of how genotype could influence starch alone that add some special flavour,
feeding behaviour. They have chosen to aroma or taste that some gammarus like more
concentrate on a lowly crustacean, called than others? After all, there are varieties of the
Gammarus, that lives on the roots of certain same food that differ in their special flavours, as
water plants at the Jamaica Bay in New York anyone who prefers basmati rice to Nellore
city. They chose this little amphipod because of samba for pulav will tell you— or one who likes
its feeding habits—it likes to have starch as its cow’s milk more than buffalo milk can testify.
staple diet, and gets it from the algae that grows Thus, if one wishes to correlate enzyme
in the bay. But even while in engaging in such behaviour to the starch preference, the
a spartan diet, these amphipods are a little experiment needs to be done on the starch itself
finicky. Some of them prefer eating the alga rather than on the composite mixture in the
called Enteromorpha (we shall call it E), while algae. Only then will we know that it is the
others in the same colony prefer the alga called starch-enzyme connection rather than any other
Ulva (call it U). extra ingredient in the alga.

Borowsky went ahead to analyze the Thus, Borowsky along with his student M M
differences that might exist between the E- Guarna decided to isolate starch from E and

188
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

from U and to work with the E-starch and than others. The preference the gammarus with
U-starch. Similarly they isolated the amylase the enzyme allele 52 has for the alga E is
enzyme-52 from certain gammarus and the thought to be because of the product ratio
allele enzyme-55 from others. The experiment 69 : 16 : 15 that stimulates this amphipod to
now involves reacting the two starches separately feed on E, while the product distribution obtained
with each amylase enzyme and seeing whether from U stimulates the amphipod 55 to prefer
there are any differences in the way the enzyme this alga. As they eat, the amphipods spill the
digests and breaks down the starch. And the enzyme onto the food. This helps in predigesting
results should provide the clue regarding the and conditioning the food, allowing for the
preferences. stimulants to accumulate.

When starch is broken down by amylase, it If this is true, it should then be possible to
yields a series of smaller sugars such as feed the gammarus artificially prepared starch
maltose, maltotriose and maltotetraose. It was in food that contains the chosen product mix as
the ratio of the three sugars that the starch- the feeding stimulant. That would take the
enzyme reactions of the two alleles differed. experiment from the ‘‘test tube’’ (actually glass
When starch E was digested for about 15 vessels or in vitro, to the actual living organisms,
minutes with enzyme-52, it gave 69% maltose, or in vivo). To do so, Guarna and Borowsky
16% maltotriose and 15% maltotetraose. In bought maltose, maltotriose and maltotetraose
contrast, the same enzyme gave the ratio of from chemical suppliers, mixed tham in various
61 : 21 : 18 of the three sugars upon digesting proportions, spiked them with the starch and
the starch-U from the alga, ulva. Likewise, the placed them before the amphipods. True to
ratios were different for the combinations starch style, gammarus-52 preferred to eat the artificial
E : enzyme-55 and U-55. In other words, the food that contained the 69 : 16 : 15 ratio, just as
digested product distribution varies, depending if it were from the alga E. Likewise, gammarus-
on which alga the starch comes from and which 55 preferred to eat a product mix that
gammarus the enzyme comes from. corresponded to the starch-U situation!

Would this product distribution be the clue to This suggests that the perception of the
the differences in the food preference? Yes, environment (food) varies with genotype because
argue Guarna and Borowsky. They suggest that of genetically caused differences in enzymatic
the product mix of sugars actually acts as a properties.
feeding stimulant. Some mixes are more effective —conclude these New York sicentists.

189
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

KNOW THY INSTITUTIONS

GOVERNMENT EXAMINER OF QUESTIONED DOCUMENT, HYDERABAD

BACKGROUND Bureau (IB), under the then Bureau of Police

Research and Development (BPR & D), and
The Institution of Government Examiner of
presently it is being controlled by the Directorate
Questioned Document (GEQD) is one of the
of Forensic Science, New Delhi. Min. of Home
oldest in the world in the field of forensic
Affairs, Govt. of India. The main activities of
document sciences. In 1906, on the
this premier organization through R&D are
recommendation of the Police Commission, the
carried out in the following fields :
first unit of the Government Examiner of
Questioned Document (GEQD) was established 1. Conventional Document Science
at Shimla. The second unit of the GEQD started
2. Computer Forensics
functioning in 1964 at Kolkata. The third unit of
3. Cyber Forensics
the GEQD came into existence in 1968 at
Hyderabad. The administrative control of these 4. Digital Forensics
institutions was initially under the Intelligence 5. Digitized Document Frauds.

190
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

The GEQD located at Ramanthapur, distinguish forgery from genuineness; to analyze

Hyderabad has a campus comprising own inks, papers or other constituents of the
separate building along with residential quarters documents; to reveal additions and substitutions;
for its staff and access to all the necessary to decipher erased, obliterated writings or
facilities. Additional separate building for GEQD writings on a charred document etc.
is about to be completed owing to increase in
Specialization can only endorse excellence in
number of cases and laboratory requirement for
forensic document science. To remain on a par
Computer Forensic Division.
with the fast growing trend, GEQD Hyderabad
LABORATORIES DOCUMENT SCIENCE evolved the concept of establishing the
LABORATORY : It comprises state of the art specialized divisions in forensic document
equipment like VSC 2000, VSC 4, VSC 1, science. Consequently, the following specialized
Leica MZ8 High resolution microscope, RAMAN divisions have been setup, dealing with all types
Spectra, ESDA, Universal Comparator Projectina of document problem, computer frauds and
and other sophisticated instruments for the cyber crimes.
decipherment of peculiar characteristics in
establishing the facts about questioned TAMPERED DOCUMENT DIVISION : To
documents for the sake of Justice. examine tampering on the documents,
decipherment of the originals in cases of
COMPUTER FORENSIC LABORATORY : It is
obliteration, erasures, alterations, etc.
entertaining all kinds of computer frauds and
cyber crime cases throughout India from various IMPRINT DIVISION : To examine typewriting,
state and central organization. The experts in printing, computer printouts, seal impressions,
computer forensics division follow the cardinal plastic currency, spurious currency, watermarks,
rules of computer forensics as per international holograms, stamps, photographs, painting etc.
standard and IT Act 2000 of India. The lab is
well equipped with the licensed genuine software WRITING MEDIA DIVISION : To examine
for the forensic imaging and analysis of digital the chemial and physical analysis of ink, paper
evidence. or other writing surfaces, instruments and other
constituents of the document used in its
ANALYTICAL WORK : The forensic document preparation.
division of this laboratory undertake the
examination of forensic documents which can COMPUTER FORENSIC DIVISION : This
be broadly divided in two groups, one that division deals with forensic analysis of Digital
requires the comparison of unknown exhibits evidence, forensic imaging of various storage
with the known sample for establishing the media, cracking of passwords, email tracing,
authorship or otherwise, the other that requires stegano-analysis and GSM reader for mobile
a study of crime exhibit alone. Most of the forensics, etc. ‘‘GEQD Hyderabad has
documents that are referred to the expert are to established the Premier computer forensic
identify the writing, typewriting, printed matter laboratorty for takling computer frauds & cyber
and seal impression only. The rest may be to crimes.’’

191
 Everyman’s Science VOL. XXXIX NO. 3, August — September’04

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT : following subjects. Forensic Document Science,

Computer Forensics, Expert Testimony in Court
l Development of technique and software for
of Law.
signature identification.

l Development of set of software tools for the SPECIAL SERVICES OFFERED :

decipherment of erased/obliterated writings l This laboratory can help the other
in collaboration with University of organizations in establishing a Computer
Hyderabad. Forensic Division or upgrade the Cyber Crime
Unit already existing.
l Creation of internet related crime analysis
facility (Cyber Forensic Laboratory) l This laboratory can conduct exclusive training
programs separately for the benefit of any
l Creation of Computer Forensics Laboratory
particular organization like Banks, PSUs or
at Kolkata, Chandigarh and upgradation of
Central Govt. Departments.
Hyderabad Laboratory.
l In case of necessity, experts can be deputed
l Development of tagging procedure by to the scene of crime to help the IOs in
suitable taggants for forensci analysis of ink. searching and seizure of digital evidence.
TRAINING & HRD : Conducts short-term On the request of investigative agencies
training courses for the benefit of forensic ‘‘Tatkal Service’’ for quick disposal of certain
scientists of various state and central laboratories, cases was introduced in GEQD Hyderabad since
IOs of CBI and other Police Organizations, April, 2003 . For further information please
Vigilance Officers of Central Govt. contact Director; GEQD, Hyderabad. email :
Organizations, Banks, PSUs etc., on the gaurav—[email protected].

192