Theories of Intelligence

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

181

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 someinvolve both. None of them satisfactorily deals with the scope of intelligence.

TINTRODUCTION

o be labeled as being ‘‘intelligent’’imparts positive feelings, encourages self

esteem and a sense of worth. Yet, what isintelligent and smart? This has been the focus oftheories, definitions and philosophies dating asfar back as Plato (428 BC); yet most presumably,dating prior to this historical figure, might bedue to the fact that humankind is himselfintelligent. One way to seek understanding ofintelligence is simply to define what it is.Sternberg (1986) purports two principalclassifications of definition of intelligence—theoperational definition and the ‘‘real’’ definition.Operational intelligence is measurable. Realintelligence is one that inquires the true natureof the thing being defined. As with the plethoraof definitions of intelligence, there are numeroustheories of intelligence. From examining howsmart one is to how to measure one’s smartness,how to measure how one is smart, thories havecome and gone and some have endured to bepondered and proven over time.

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

There are different theories about intelligence,

none of which agreee with each other. Everyapproach to thinking comes up with it’s owndifferent perspective and assumptions, oftencontradicting at least one earlier theory.

Faculty theory: It is the oldest theoryregarding the nature of intelligence and flourishedduring 18th and 19th century. According to thistheory, mind is made up of different facultieslike reasoning, memory, discrimination,imagination, etc. These faculties are independentof each other and can be developed by vigoroustraining. Faculty Theory had been under criticismby experimental psychologists who disprovedthe existence of independent faculties in thebrain.

One factor/UNI factor theory : It reducesall abilities to a single capacity of generalintelligence or ‘common sense’. This wouldimply that they are all perfectly correlated, andwould make no allowance for the unevennessof people i.e. abilities along different lines.Since it goes against the common observationthat ‘‘an individual does possess different levelsof different abilities and does not shine equallyin all directions’’—it has no ground to stand.

Spearman’s two-factor theory : It wasdeveloped in 1904 by an English Psychologist,

* Reader and *** Research Scholar, Institute of EducationDAVV, Indore** Asst. Prof., Holkar Science College, Indore


182

Charles Spearman, who proposed that intellectualabilites were comprised of two factors : onegeneral ability or common ability known as ‘G’factor and the other a group of specific abilitiesknown as ‘S’ factor. ‘G’ factor is universalinborn ability. Greater ‘G’ in an individual leadsto greater success in life. ‘S’ factor is acquiredfrom the environment. It varies from activity toactivity in the same individual.

Thorndike’s multifactor theory : Thorndikebelieved that there was nothing like GeneralAbility. Each mental activity requires anaggregate of different set of abilities. Hedistinguished the following four attributes ofintelligence :

(a) Level—refers to the level of difficulty of atask that can be solved.

(b) Range—refers to a number of tasks at anygiven degree of difficulty.

(c) Area—means the total number of situationsat each level to which the individual is ableto respond.

(d) Speed—is the rapidity with which we canrespond to the items.

Thurstone’s theory : Primary mentalabilities/Group factor theory : States thatIntelligent Activities are not an expression ofinnumerable highly specific factors, as Thorndikeclaimed. Nor is it the expression primarily of ageneral factor that pervades all mental activities.It is the essence of intelligence, as Spearmanheld. Instead, the analysis of interpretation ofSpearman and others led them to the conclusionthat ‘certain’ mental operations have in commona ‘primary’ factor that gives them psychologicaland functional unity and that differentiates them

from other mental operations. These mentaloperations then constitute a group. A secondgroup of mental operation has its own unifyingprimary factor, and so on. In other words, thereare a number of groups of mental abilities, eachof which has its own primary factor, giving thegroup a functional unity and cohesiveness.Each of these primary factors is said to berelatively independent of the others.

Thurstone has given the following six primaryfactors :

(i) The Number Factor (N)—Ability to doNumerical Calculations rapidly andaccurately.

(ii) The Verbal Factor (V)—Found in testsinvolving Verbal Comprehension.

(iii) The Space Factor (S)—Involved in anytask in which the subject manipulates theimaginary object in space.

(iv) Memory (M)—Involving ability to memorizequickly.

(v) he Word Fluency Factor (W)—Involvedwhenever the subject is asked to think ofisolated words at a rapid rate.

(vi) The Reasoning Factor (R)—Found in tasksthat require a subject to discover a rule orprinciple involved in a series or groups ofletters.

Based on these factors Thurstone constructeda new test of intelligence known as ‘‘Test ofPrimary Mental Abilities (PMA).’’

GUILFORD’S MODEL OF STRUCTURE OFINTELLECT

Guilford (1967, 1985, 1988) proposed athree dimensional structure of intellect model.According to Guilford every intellectual task


183

can be classified according to it’s (1) content,(2) the mental operation ivolved and (3) the

practical-mechanical-spatial-physical (k.m.)ability.

3. The next level : minor group factors aredivided from major group factors.

4. The bottom level : ‘‘s’’(specific) factor.(Spearmen)Beginning in 1969, Vernon became

increasingly involved in studying thecontributions of environmental and geneticfactors to intellectual development. Vernoncontinued to analyze the effects of genes andthe environment on both individual and groupdifference in intelligence. He concludes thatindividual difference in intelligence areapproximately 60 percent attributable to genetic

factors, and that there is some evidenceimplicating genes in racial group differences inaverage levels of mental ability.

CATTELL’S FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZEDTHEORY

The fluid aspect of this theory says thatintelligence is a basic capacity due to geneticpotentiality. While this is affected by the pastand new expriences, the crystallized theory is acapacity resultant of experiences, learning andenvironment.

GARDENER’S THEORY OF MULTIPLEINTELLIGENCE :

Howard Gardner in his book ‘‘Frames ofMind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligence’’(1983), puts forth a new and different view ofhuman intellctual competencies. He arguesboldly and cogently that we are all born withpotential to develop a multiplicity of Intelligence,most of which have been overlooked in ourtesting society, and all of which can be drawn

product resulting from the operation. He furtherclassified content into five categories, namely,Visual, Auditory, Symbolic, Semantic andBehavioral. He classified operations into fivecategories, namely, Cognition, Memory retention,Memory recording, Divergent production,Convergent production and evaluation. Heclassified products into six categories, namely,Units, Classes, Relations, Systems,Transformations and Implications.

VERNON’S HIERARCHICAL THEORY :

Vernon’ description of different levels ofintelligence may fill the gaps between twoextreme theories, the two-factor theory ofSpearman, which did not allow for the existenceof group factors, and the multiple-factor theoryof Turstone, which did not allow a ‘‘g’’ factor.Intelligence can be described as comprisingabilities at varying levels of generality :

1. The highest level : ‘‘g’’ (general intelligence)factor with the largest source of variancebetween individuals. (Spearman)

2. The next level : major group factors such asverbal-numerical-educational (v.ed) and


184

upon to make us competent individuals. Thepotential for musical accomplishments, bodilymastery and spatial reasoning, and the capacitiesto understand ourselves as well as others are,Gardner argues, ‘‘the multiple forms ofintelligence that we must add to theconventional—and typical tested—logical andlingustic skills long called I.Q.’’.

The multiple intelligence theory is that peoplepossess eight types of intelligence : linguistic,logical, spatial, musical, motor ability,interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalisticintelligence.

Sternberg’s triarchic theory: PsychologistRobert Sternberg (1985) has constructed athree—pronged, or triarchic theory ofintelligence. The Three types are :

Analytical Intelligence—is what we generallythink of as academic ability. It enables us tosolve problems and to acquire new knowledge.Problem—solving skill include encodinginformation, combining and comparing piecesof information and generating a solution.

Creative Intelligence—is defined by theabilities to cope with novel situations and toprofit from experience. The ability to quicklyrelate novel situations to familiar situations (thatis, to perceive similarities and differences)fosters adaptation. Moreover, as a result ofexperience, we also become able to solveproblems more rapidly.

Practical Intelligence—or ‘‘street smarts’’,enable people to adapt to the demands of theirenvironment. For example, keeping a job byadapting one’s behavior to the employer’srequirements is adaptive. But if the employer is

making unreasonable demands, reshaping theenvironment (by changing the employer’sattitudes) or selecting an alternate enviornment(by finding a more suitable job) is also adaptive.

ANDERSON’S THEORY : COGNITIVEDEVELOPMENT

Anderson proposes that human cognitivearchitectures will have adapted optimally to theproblems posed in their environment. Therefore,discovering the optimal solution to the problemposed by the environment, independent of thearchitecture, is equivalent to discovering themechanism used by the architecture. A ‘RationalAnalysis’, as it is called, takes into account theavailable information in the enviornment, thegoals of the agent, some basic assumptionsabout computational cost (in terms of a ‘general’architecture mechanism), and produces theoptimal behavioral function. This function thenof course can be tested empirically andassumptions modified if it proves inaccurate. Acontrasting point of view to this is espoused bySimon, and is centered around the claim that, ina rational analysis, the assumptions about thearchitecture actually do most of the work.

EYSENCK’S STRUCTURAL THEORY

Eysenck discovered the neurologicalcorrelates of intelligence. He identified threecorrelates of intelligence i.e. reaction time,inspection time and average evoked potential.First two are observed behavior. Third behavior,is description of mental waves. Brighterindividual progressively takes less time inresponding. They show less variability in reactiontime. Their inspection time is also less ascompared to less intelligent. Average evokedpotential is often measured by the wavelength


185

in electroencephalogram and complexities ofwaveform. He found that the waves of intelligentindividuals are complex.

Ceci’s Biological Theory

Ceci (1990) proposes that there are multiplecognitive potentials. These multiple intelligence’sare biologically based and place limits onmental processes. These are closely linked tothe challenges and opportunities in theindividual’s environment. In his view, context isessential to the demonstration of cognitiveabilities. By context, he means domain ofknowledge and other factors such aspersonalities, motivation and education. Contextcan be mental, social or physical.

THEORY OF EMOTIONAL INTELLI-GENCE

According to Goleman (1995), EmotionalIntelligence consists of ‘‘abilities such as beingable to motivate oneself and persist in the faceof frustrations; to control impulse and delaygratification; to regulate one’s moods and keepdistress from swamping the ability to think : toempathize, and to hope’’. The main areas are :knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions,motivating oneself, recognizing emotions inothers, and handling relationships.

CONCLUSION

Until a clear-cut definition of intelligence canbe given, theories will continue not to be able toexplain it. The likelihood of such a definitionoccurring is virtually zero, as there will alwaysbe alternatives given, and so theories ofintelligence are bound to be self-defeating.

REFERENCES

1. Butcher, H. J. Human Intelligence and ItsNature & Assessment. London : Methun &Co., 1968.

2. Chaplin, Jamesh P & Krawiee. Systems &Theories of Psychology. New York : HoltRinehart & Winston, Inc, 1974.

3. Ceci S. J. On Intelligence.... More or Less :A Bio-Ecological Treatise on IntellectualDevelopment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ :Prentice Hall, 1990

4. Chauhan, S.S. Advanced EducationalPsychology. New Delhi : Vikas PublishingHouse PVT, Ltd, 1998.

5. Gardner, H. Frames of Mind : The Theoryof Multiple Intelligence. New York : BasicBooks 1983.

6. Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. NewYork : Bantam, 1995.

7. Guilford, J. P. The Nature of HumanIntelligence. New York : McGrawhill BookCo, 1957.

8. Rao, S. N. Educational Psychology. NewDelhi : Wiley Estern Ltd., 1990.

9. Smith, Carolyn D. (ed.) Hilgard’sIntroduction to Psychology. London :Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.

10. Smith, Wendell Conditioning andInstrumental Learning. McGraw Hill, 1966.

11. Spearman, C. ‘‘General Intelligence’’Objectively Determined & Measured,American Journal of Psychology 15, 201-293, 1904.

12. Sprinhall. N. A. & Sprinhall R. C.Educational Psychology : A Developmental


186

Approach. New York : McGraw Hill Inc.1990.

13. Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence Applied :Understanding and Increasing YourIntellectual Skills. San Diego : HarcourtBrace, 1986.

14. Sternberg, Robert J. The Triarchic Mind : Anew Theory of Human Intelligence. NewYork : Penguin Books., 1989.

15. Stoddard, G. D. The Meaning ofIntelligence. New York : Macmillan, 1943.

16. Stones, E. An Introduction to EducationalPsychology. London Methuen & Co. Ltd.,1974.

17. Terman, L. M. The Measurement ofIntelligence. Boston : Houghten Miffin,1916.

18. Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen E. P.Measurement and Evaluation in Psychologyand Education. New York : Wiley, 1977.

19. Woodworth, R. S. & Schloberg H.Experimental Psychology. New Delhi :Oxford & IBH Publishing, 1971.


187

SHORT COMMUNICATION

GENES THAT CONTROL FOOD PREFERENCE

(SOME LIKE IT HOT, SOME LIKE IT COLD)

D. Balasubramanian*

IINTRODUCTION

t is often said that there is no tellingabout food preferences. One person eats

rice to the exclusion of rotis, while his neighbourdoes the exact opposite. There is clearly anelement of getting used to something here andsticking to it. All my childhood I did not touchrotis, but it is my preferred staple food now.Enjoying some food items appears to involve anacquired taste. Beer is an excellent example,and caviar is another. Sticky, dark, salty andmildly smelly, it does take some getting used tobefore one can really enjoy caviar, the eggs orthe roe of the fish called sturgeon. It is such adelicacy that you should know how to like it orenjoy it, or else you cannot belong to ‘‘highsociety’’!

Is all preference for food a culturaldeterminant? How does then one account forindividual preferences ? One basic feature ofanimal behaviour is individuality. This isdetermined largely by the variations in thesensory perception between individuals. Peoplediffer in their sense of smell and their preferencesof perfumes—a fact exploited by the perfumeriesand cologne makers. herein also lies the reason

why many people do not like some fruits likethe jackfruit—more than the taste, it is the smellthat turns them off. Indeed A F Blakesleedescribed as early as in 1918 that people differin their sense of smell and that each individuallives in his or her own unique sensory world,thus generating individual preferences and tastes.The phrase ‘‘one man’s meat is another man’spoison’’ is true in more ways than one.

A puzzle in animal behaviour that hasstymied us since the Blakeslee discovery is thebasis of this sensory diversity. It is ‘‘learned’’ ornurtured, or is it built-in or geneticallydetermined? In matters of this sort, it becomessimpler to work with lower organisms forseveral resasons. First of all, they have morestereotyped behaviour patterns. Secondly, theirbrains are not as complex and elaborate as ours.These allow us to address the question ofgenetic control of food preference in a morefocussed manner. Then again, the time scale ofoperation of the experiments gets to be moreconvenient, since the life cycles of birth,development, growth and death of lower formsof life are in the order of weeks and months—or even shorter if we move down to invertebrates.Perhaps, the greatest advantage in working withthem is the ready availability of genetic variants,also called allelomorphs. Alleles are several

* L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Road No.2. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad500034. [email protected]. Article published earlierin the Hindu. Reproduced with permision.


188

forms of a gene that usually arise throughmutation, and are resposible for hereditaryvariation in organisms. With insects, invertebratesand similar little life forms, it becomes easy tochoose specific alleles of a given gene for achosen protein or trait and study a number ofthese. These can be studied in great detail, witha large number of allelic individuals and in astatistically significant fashion, and with none ofthe problems of ethics that are associated withexperiments involving animals or man.

Early on, scientists had studeid a variety ofexamples where allelic variations could becorrelated with habitat or food habits. This is acorrespondence that relates to the genotype orthe genes themselves rather than the phenotypeor the behaviour at the external level, where thegene in question may not be directly identified.More recently, Dr. R. L. Borowsky and hisassociates at the biology department of NewYork University have been concerned with thequestion of how genotype could influencefeeding behaviour. They have chosen toconcentrate on a lowly crustacean, calledGammarus, that lives on the roots of certainwater plants at the Jamaica Bay in New Yorkcity. They chose this little amphipod because ofits feeding habits—it likes to have starch as itsstaple diet, and gets it from the algae that growsin the bay. But even while in engaging in sucha spartan diet, these amphipods are a littlefinicky. Some of them prefer eating the algacalled Enteromorpha (we shall call it E), whileothers in the same colony prefer the alga calledUlva (call it U).

Borowsky went ahead to analyze thedifferences that might exist between the E-

eating gammarus and the U-preferring ones.The difference could not really be cultural orthrough a brain-based decision since thesecrustaceans do not have any brains! Thedifferences should then lie in the biochemistryand genetics of the animal. Pursuit of this trailled the scientists to establish that there aredifferences in the enzyme amylase that theindividual gammarus have in them. Individualsthat prefer the alga E seem to have one allelicvariant number 52 of the enzyme amylase,while those that prefer to eat U have the allele55 of the enzyme. It is the variation in theenzyme molecules that correlates with the foodpreference for E or U. There is thus a possibleconnection between genotype and foodpreference in these amphipods.

How could genotype influence feedingbehaviour? Could it be through difference in theenzyme properties of the alleles? Or could it bethat there are components in the alga other thanstarch alone that add some special flavour,aroma or taste that some gammarus like morethan others? After all, there are varieties of thesame food that differ in their special flavours, asanyone who prefers basmati rice to Nelloresamba for pulav will tell you— or one who likescow’s milk more than buffalo milk can testify.Thus, if one wishes to correlate enzymebehaviour to the starch preference, theexperiment needs to be done on the starch itselfrather than on the composite mixture in thealgae. Only then will we know that it is thestarch-enzyme connection rather than any otherextra ingredient in the alga.

Thus, Borowsky along with his student M MGuarna decided to isolate starch from E and


189

from U and to work with the E-starch andU-starch. Similarly they isolated the amylaseenzyme-52 from certain gammarus and theallele enzyme-55 from others. The experimentnow involves reacting the two starches separatelywith each amylase enzyme and seeing whetherthere are any differences in the way the enzymedigests and breaks down the starch. And theresults should provide the clue regarding thepreferences.

When starch is broken down by amylase, ityields a series of smaller sugars such asmaltose, maltotriose and maltotetraose. It was inthe ratio of the three sugars that the starch-enzyme reactions of the two alleles differed.When starch E was digested for about 15minutes with enzyme-52, it gave 69% maltose,16% maltotriose and 15% maltotetraose. Incontrast, the same enzyme gave the ratio of61 : 21 : 18 of the three sugars upon digestingthe starch-U from the alga, ulva. Likewise, theratios were different for the combinations starchE : enzyme-55 and U-55. In other words, thedigested product distribution varies, dependingon which alga the starch comes from and whichgammarus the enzyme comes from.

Would this product distribution be the clue tothe differences in the food preference? Yes,argue Guarna and Borowsky. They suggest thatthe product mix of sugars actually acts as afeeding stimulant. Some mixes are more effective

than others. The preference the gammarus withthe enzyme allele 52 has for the alga E isthought to be because of the product ratio69 : 16 : 15 that stimulates this amphipod tofeed on E, while the product distribution obtainedfrom U stimulates the amphipod 55 to preferthis alga. As they eat, the amphipods spill theenzyme onto the food. This helps in predigestingand conditioning the food, allowing for thestimulants to accumulate.

If this is true, it should then be possible tofeed the gammarus artificially prepared starchfood that contains the chosen product mix asthe feeding stimulant. That would take theexperiment from the ‘‘test tube’’ (actually glassvessels or in vitro, to the actual living organisms,or in vivo). To do so, Guarna and Borowskybought maltose, maltotriose and maltotetraosefrom chemical suppliers, mixed tham in variousproportions, spiked them with the starch andplaced them before the amphipods. True tostyle, gammarus-52 preferred to eat the artificialfood that contained the 69 : 16 : 15 ratio, just asif it were from the alga E. Likewise, gammarus-55 preferred to eat a product mix thatcorresponded to the starch-U situation!

This suggests that the perception of theenvironment (food) varies with genotype becauseof genetically caused differences in enzymaticproperties.

—conclude these New York sicentists.


190

KNOW THY INSTITUTIONS

GOVERNMENT EXAMINER OF QUESTIONED DOCUMENT, HYDERABAD

BACKGROUND

The Institution of Government Examiner ofQuestioned Document (GEQD) is one of theoldest in the world in the field of forensicdocument sciences. In 1906, on therecommendation of the Police Commission, thefirst unit of the Government Examiner ofQuestioned Document (GEQD) was establishedat Shimla. The second unit of the GEQD startedfunctioning in 1964 at Kolkata. The third unit ofthe GEQD came into existence in 1968 atHyderabad. The administrative control of theseinstitutions was initially under the Intelligence

Bureau (IB), under the then Bureau of PoliceResearch and Development (BPR & D), andpresently it is being controlled by the Directorateof Forensic Science, New Delhi. Min. of HomeAffairs, Govt. of India. The main activities ofthis premier organization through R&D arecarried out in the following fields :

1. Conventional Document Science

2. Computer Forensics

3. Cyber Forensics

4. Digital Forensics

5. Digitized Document Frauds.


191

The GEQD located at Ramanthapur,Hyderabad has a campus comprising ownseparate building along with residential quartersfor its staff and access to all the necessaryfacilities. Additional separate building for GEQDis about to be completed owing to increase innumber of cases and laboratory requirement forComputer Forensic Division.

LABORATORIES DOCUMENT SCIENCELABORATORY : It comprises state of the artequipment like VSC 2000, VSC 4, VSC 1,Leica MZ8 High resolution microscope, RAMANSpectra, ESDA, Universal Comparator Projectinaand other sophisticated instruments for thedecipherment of peculiar characteristics inestablishing the facts about questioneddocuments for the sake of Justice.

COMPUTER FORENSIC LABORATORY : It isentertaining all kinds of computer frauds andcyber crime cases throughout India from variousstate and central organization. The experts incomputer forensics division follow the cardinalrules of computer forensics as per internationalstandard and IT Act 2000 of India. The lab iswell equipped with the licensed genuine softwarefor the forensic imaging and analysis of digitalevidence.

ANALYTICAL WORK : The forensic documentdivision of this laboratory undertake theexamination of forensic documents which canbe broadly divided in two groups, one thatrequires the comparison of unknown exhibitswith the known sample for establishing theauthorship or otherwise, the other that requiresa study of crime exhibit alone. Most of thedocuments that are referred to the expert are toidentify the writing, typewriting, printed matterand seal impression only. The rest may be to

distinguish forgery from genuineness; to analyzeinks, papers or other constituents of thedocuments; to reveal additions and substitutions;to decipher erased, obliterated writings orwritings on a charred document etc.

Specialization can only endorse excellence inforensic document science. To remain on a parwith the fast growing trend, GEQD Hyderabadevolved the concept of establishing thespecialized divisions in forensic documentscience. Consequently, the following specializeddivisions have been setup, dealing with all typesof document problem, computer frauds andcyber crimes.

TAMPERED DOCUMENT DIVISION : Toexamine tampering on the documents,decipherment of the originals in cases ofobliteration, erasures, alterations, etc.

IMPRINT DIVISION : To examine typewriting,printing, computer printouts, seal impressions,plastic currency, spurious currency, watermarks,holograms, stamps, photographs, painting etc.

WRITING MEDIA DIVISION : To examinethe chemial and physical analysis of ink, paperor other writing surfaces, instruments and otherconstituents of the document used in itspreparation.

COMPUTER FORENSIC DIVISION : Thisdivision deals with forensic analysis of Digitalevidence, forensic imaging of various storagemedia, cracking of passwords, email tracing,stegano-analysis and GSM reader for mobileforensics, etc. ‘‘GEQD Hyderabad hasestablished the Premier computer forensiclaboratorty for takling computer frauds & cybercrimes.’’


192

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT :

l Development of technique and software forsignature identification.

l Development of set of software tools for thedecipherment of erased/obliterated writingsin collaboration with University ofHyderabad.

l Creation of internet related crime analysisfacility (Cyber Forensic Laboratory)

l Creation of Computer Forensics Laboratoryat Kolkata, Chandigarh and upgradation ofHyderabad Laboratory.

l Development of tagging procedure bysuitable taggants for forensci analysis of ink.

TRAINING & HRD : Conducts short-termtraining courses for the benefit of forensicscientists of various state and central laboratories,IOs of CBI and other Police Organizations,Vigilance Officers of Central Govt.Organizations, Banks, PSUs etc., on the

following subjects. Forensic Document Science,Computer Forensics, Expert Testimony in Courtof Law.

SPECIAL SERVICES OFFERED :

l This laboratory can help the otherorganizations in establishing a ComputerForensic Division or upgrade the Cyber CrimeUnit already existing.

l This laboratory can conduct exclusive trainingprograms separately for the benefit of anyparticular organization like Banks, PSUs orCentral Govt. Departments.

l In case of necessity, experts can be deputedto the scene of crime to help the IOs insearching and seizure of digital evidence.

On the request of investigative agencies‘‘Tatkal Service’’ for quick disposal of certaincases was introduced in GEQD Hyderabad sinceApril, 2003 . For further information pleasecontact Director; GEQD, Hyderabad. email :gaurav—[email protected].

Documents

Theories of Intelligence