Sir

As head of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan in 2003–08, I would like to add some points to those made in the Opinion article by Athar Osama and others on Pakistan's reform experiment in higher education (Nature 461, 38–39; 2009).

We awarded research grants to qualified faculty to develop a high-quality indigenous PhD programme — not to produce “5,000 new PhDs ... over 5 years”, as the authors suggest. Measures were introduced to ensure the quality of local PhDs, including mandatory evaluation of theses by at least two professors from technologically advanced countries. Because there were not enough suitable PhD supervisors in the universities, we sent some 3,800 students abroad, mainly to the United States and Europe, to study for a PhD, at a total cost of about US$1 billion.

The work carried out was overseen by an 18-member board that included federal secretaries of science and technology and education, representatives of the four provincial ministries of education, representatives of the senate and eminent private citizens. This board was empowered to change the budgetary allocations as well as the overall directions of the programme.

There followed a huge increase in international scientific research publications, from 600 or so in 2001 to more than 4,200 in 2008. About 50 new universities and degree-awarding institutes were established during this period, and enrolment in higher education almost tripled to about 400,000 by the end of 2008, having been just 135,000 in 2003.

A digital library was established to provide free access to 25,000 international journals and 45,000 textbooks for all public-sector university students. In the 2008 Times Higher Education rankings, four Pakistani universities are among the top 600 in the world — an unattainable position before 2003.

Our accounts were audited by government auditors and by an international private auditing company (we were the only government organization to employ one) to ensure transparency in expenditure.

We do not agree with the authors' view that we acted in too much of a hurry. We did implement the programmes with a certain sense of urgency, but that had nothing to do with the transient nature of the Musharraf government. It was due to our eagerness to get on with things and to avoid bureaucratic hurdles. They were a breathless six years, but all rules were strictly observed and no shortcuts were taken in achieving the huge positive changes that took place.