A Scene From a Dining Table
Priya is eleven years old. She sits at the dinner table, her phone face-down — because her mother has insisted. But her eyes keep moving to it, the way eyes move toward a light in a dark room without being asked to.
Her father, a software engineer, checks his own phone twice during the meal. Her mother, who has asked everyone to put their devices away, glances at a WhatsApp notification on her wrist.
Her brother, fifteen, has left the table early — he said he was studying, but the blue light under his door tells a different story.
This is not a story of a family failing. This is a story of a family doing what almost every family is doing right now, in almost every home, in every city and town across India and the world. Navigating a technology that arrived faster than our ability to understand it, faster than our schools could adapt to it, faster than parents could set boundaries they themselves could keep.
I do not tell this story to judge them. I tell it because I have heard versions of it many times in my clinic — from worried parents, from tired teenagers, from students who know they are distracted but cannot explain why they cannot stop.
The honest answer is: we are all figuring this out.
Is Technology Good or Bad?
This is the wrong question.
A stethoscope is not good or bad. A knife is not good or bad. Fire is not good or bad. What determines the outcome is context, purpose, and the wisdom of the person using it.
Digital technology is the same — except it is far more sophisticated than any previous tool, because it has been deliberately designed to be compelling. To hold attention. To reward engagement. To make putting it down feel slightly uncomfortable.
Understanding that distinction matters. We are not dealing with a neutral instrument. We are dealing with a tool that has human psychology built into its architecture — and that requires us to use it consciously rather than passively.
At the same time, the evidence is clear that technology, used well, genuinely improves children's lives. It has connected isolated rural students to quality teaching. It has given non-verbal children a voice. It has democratised access to science, literature, music and art in ways previous generations could not have imagined. A child in a small town in Andhra Pradesh today, with a decent internet connection and the right guidance, has access to learning resources that would have been unavailable even to students at elite universities thirty years ago.
The question worth asking is never: should my child use technology? The question is: how, when, why, and with what boundaries?
📌 Key Point: The harms of digital technology are real, documented and worth taking seriously. So are the benefits. A good digital childhood is not a screen-free childhood. It is a thoughtful one.
What Screens Do to Attention
The human brain's attention system did not evolve for a world of infinite scroll and instant notification. It evolved for an environment where novelty often meant danger or opportunity — something worth interrupting what you were doing for.
Every ping, every notification, every new video thumbnail activates that same ancient system. Not because the content is actually important, but because novelty is the trigger.
The result, over time, is a pattern that researchers describe as attentional fragmentation — the gradual reduction in the capacity to sustain focus on a single task for extended periods. A growing body of work, including studies by psychologist Gloria Mark at the University of California, suggests that after an interruption, it can take over twenty minutes to fully return to deep focus. In a school day punctuated by notifications, this is a significant problem.
This does not mean screens permanently damage attention. The brain retains plasticity throughout childhood and adolescence. But it does mean that sustained, uninterrupted attention — the kind required to understand a complex mathematical concept, read a long passage carefully, or listen deeply to another person — needs to be actively protected and practised. Like a muscle, it strengthens with use and weakens with neglect.
The analogy I use with students is this: the ability to focus deeply is like the ability to hold your breath underwater. You can train it. You can extend it significantly with practice. But if you never practise — if every moment of mild discomfort sends you reaching for distraction — the capacity stays shallow.
Dopamine and Reward: A Simple Explanation
Dopamine is often described as the brain's pleasure chemical. That description is not quite accurate, and the inaccuracy matters.
Dopamine is primarily a chemical of anticipation and motivation — not pleasure itself. It surges not when we receive a reward, but when we expect one, or when a reward is uncertain. The slot machine works not because winning feels good, but because the next pull might bring a win. Uncertainty is the fuel.
Social media is engineered around exactly this mechanism. How many likes will this post get? Who has replied? What is new in the feed? Each check is a small pull of a slot machine. Each notification is a variable-reward signal.
This does not mean that children who use social media are addicted in the clinical sense — most are not. But it does explain why devices feel compelling in a way that books or physical games often do not. The reward structure is different, and it has been deliberately designed by engineers whose professional measure of success is the time you spend on their platform.
Understanding this helps parents and children think about screens more clearly — not as a moral failing, but as an engineering challenge that requires conscious management.
💡 Key Insight: Dopamine is not the enemy. Without it, we would not learn, seek, or pursue anything. The question is what we train our brains to seek — and whether we are making that choice consciously.
Sleep and Nighttime Screen Use
Of all the harms associated with screen use in children, the disruption of sleep has the most consistent evidence base and the most significant downstream consequences.
Sleep is not passive rest. During sleep — particularly during deep slow-wave sleep and REM sleep — the brain consolidates memory, processes emotional experiences, clears metabolic waste products, and regulates the hormones that govern growth, appetite, immunity and mood.
Screens disrupt sleep through two distinct mechanisms.
The first is light-mediated. Short-wavelength blue light emitted by screens suppresses melatonin, the hormone that signals the brain to prepare for sleep. The effect is real, though its magnitude varies between individuals. Using a bright screen in a dark room for thirty to sixty minutes before bed measurably delays sleep onset for many people.
The second is content-mediated. A thrilling game, an emotionally loaded social media feed, or an engaging video increases physiological arousal — raising heart rate, increasing alertness, making the transition to sleep harder regardless of light exposure.
The combination of both, in a teenager lying in bed with their phone, is significant. Studies from multiple countries, including large-scale surveys in India, consistently show that adolescents who use devices in the bedroom after 10 PM sleep fewer hours, report lower sleep quality, and score lower on measures of emotional regulation, academic concentration and physical energy the following day.
The recommendation that I find most practical, and that is supported by the strongest evidence, is structural: charge phones outside the bedroom overnight. Not screen time limits. Not content filters. Simply removing the device from the sleeping environment. This single change, consistently applied, produces measurable improvements in sleep quality within one to two weeks.
Gaming: Benefits and Risks
Gaming occupies an interesting and complicated position in conversations about children and technology, because it provokes strong reactions in both directions — parents who see only the risks, and teenagers who see only the pleasures — and both groups are partially right.
The benefits of gaming are genuinely documented. Action video games have been shown to improve spatial reasoning, hand-eye coordination, rapid decision-making, and the ability to track multiple objects simultaneously. Strategy games build planning and resource-management skills. Narrative games can develop empathy and emotional intelligence. Multiplayer games teach communication, coordination and collaborative problem-solving. These are not small or trivial capabilities.
The risks are also real. A small but significant proportion of young people develop patterns of gaming that meet clinical criteria for problematic use — where gaming displaces sleep, physical activity, schoolwork, face-to-face relationships, and generates distress when it is limited. The World Health Organization recognised Gaming Disorder in 2019, though it noted that this applies to a minority of gamers and should not be used to pathologise ordinary gaming enthusiasm.
The distinction that matters clinically is not how many hours are spent gaming, but what gaming displaces and whether the young person can step away when other life demands require it. A teenager who games for three hours on a Saturday afternoon, completes their homework, sleeps well, and maintains their friendships is not in difficulty. A teenager who games until 2 AM every night, refuses to engage with family, and becomes agitated and aggressive when access is restricted presents a different picture.
As with all aspects of digital life, the question is not the activity itself but its relationship to the rest of a child's life.
Social Media and the Comparison Problem
There is a particular quality to social media that has no direct equivalent in previous media: it places a child's social life under permanent, public, quantified evaluation. Every post can be liked or ignored. Every image can attract comment. Every number of followers is visible.
Human beings are social creatures with a deep sensitivity to social comparison — this is evolutionary, not a weakness. But social comparison, in the ancestral environment, was bounded. You compared yourself to the people you could see. Social media removes those boundaries entirely. A fourteen-year-old girl in Visakhapatnam is now in implicit comparison with influencers in Mumbai, celebrities in Los Angeles, and thousands of carefully curated images of lives that look smoother, thinner, more exciting, and more loved than her own.
The evidence on social media and mental health is more nuanced than popular accounts suggest. The relationship between social media use and outcomes like depression and anxiety is real but moderate, varies significantly by age and gender, and is not straightforwardly causal — adolescents who are already struggling may use social media more intensively, rather than social media causing the struggle.
What the evidence does support more consistently is that passive social media use — scrolling and observing without meaningful interaction — is more reliably associated with negative mood than active use — creating, commenting, connecting. And that heavy social media use in the evening is associated with poorer sleep and greater next-day emotional fragility.
The practical implication is not to eliminate social media but to help young people use it more actively and intentionally — making rather than just consuming, connecting rather than comparing.
Cyberbullying and Online Safety
Cyberbullying is not simply the online version of school bullying. It has distinct features that make it qualitatively different and often harder to recover from.
Physical bullying ends when the child comes home. Cyberbullying follows them. It occurs in the same space where they speak to their friends, receive news, and try to relax. There is no safe place to retreat to — the device that sits on their bedside table carries both their relationships and their tormentors.
It also carries a permanence and potential audience that playground bullying does not. A cruel comment posted publicly can be seen by hundreds. It can be screenshotted and shared beyond any possibility of retrieval. The child who is targeted experiences not only the hurt of the original act but the ongoing anxiety of not knowing who has seen it, who is laughing, and whether it will ever disappear.
Signs that a child may be experiencing cyberbullying include: becoming distressed after using a device, withdrawing from friends and activities they previously enjoyed, reluctance to discuss their online life, unexplained avoidance of school, changes in sleep, appetite or mood, or becoming secretive about devices in ways that feel different from ordinary teenage privacy.
If you suspect a child is being cyberbullied: take it seriously, do not minimise it, do not immediately remove the device (this can feel like punishment to the child), preserve evidence by screenshotting, involve the school, and if distress is significant, seek professional support. Most importantly: ensure the child knows that they are not at fault, and that you are firmly on their side.
AI in Education: Teacher, Tool or Shortcut?
The conversation about AI in education is happening in staff rooms, WhatsApp groups and cabinet ministries simultaneously, and it deserves more nuance than it typically receives.
AI tools — particularly large language models — are genuinely remarkable and genuinely limited. They can explain complex concepts in multiple ways, provide instant feedback on writing, suggest further reading, answer questions at any hour, and adapt to a learner's level. For students who lack access to good tutoring, they democratise some of what private coaching provides. Used well, they can accelerate learning significantly.
They can also be used as shortcut generators — producing essays that a student submits as their own work, solving problems without generating understanding, and doing the cognitive work that the student's own brain should be doing for their development. The student who uses AI to produce rather than to learn is, in a real sense, outsourcing the struggle — and the struggle is where learning actually happens.
The principle I suggest to medical students and PG residents is straightforward: use AI as a conversation partner, not as an answer machine. Ask it to explain something you do not understand. Ask it to argue the other side of a clinical question. Ask it to test you. Use it to deepen your thinking, not to bypass it.
The students who will benefit most from AI are those who already know enough to evaluate what it tells them, identify its errors, and use its outputs as raw material rather than finished products. Building that foundation requires the hard, unassisted, sometimes uncomfortable work of learning — which AI cannot do on your behalf.
📌 On AI and academic integrity: Using AI to submit work that is not your own is not simply a rule violation — it is a practical harm to yourself. The assignment exists to build your capability. Bypassing it builds nothing. The world you graduate into will require you to think, not just to produce text.
Digital Multitasking and the Myth of Doing Many Things at Once
There is a widespread belief, particularly among teenagers, that they can study while watching YouTube, texting, and monitoring Instagram simultaneously, and that this multitasking is a skill of their generation.
The neuroscience is clear: what we call multitasking is almost always rapid task-switching — the brain moving between tasks in quick succession rather than truly processing multiple streams of information simultaneously. Each switch incurs a cognitive cost. Attention takes time to fully engage with a new context, and each interruption leaves a residue of the previous task.
Research by psychologist David Meyer at the University of Michigan found that even brief interruptions — as short as 2.8 seconds — doubled the error rate on the interrupted task. The implication for a student studying while intermittently checking their phone is significant: the quality of both the studying and the checking suffers, while the student feels productively busy.
The analogy I find useful is a river. Water flowing in one channel cuts deep, carves stone, has force. Water spread across a flat plain barely moves, covers a wide area, goes nowhere significant. Sustained, focused study is the river. Multitasking is the flood plain.
What Healthy Screen Use Actually Means
Healthy screen use is not a fixed number of hours. It is a set of relationships between screen time and the rest of a child's life.
The questions worth asking are:
- Is the child sleeping enough — genuinely enough, not just in bed with a phone?
- Are they physically active every day?
- Do they have face-to-face friendships that matter to them?
- Can they be away from a device for an hour or two without significant distress?
- Are they able to engage in sustained, focused activity — reading, homework, conversation — without constant interruption?
- Is their screen time enriching something, or mainly filling emptiness?
If the answers to these questions are broadly yes, the number of hours matters much less. If the answers are broadly no, reducing screen time alone will not solve the problem — it will simply surface the underlying needs that the device has been meeting.
Advice for Young Children (Under 6)
The developing brain of a child under three years old learns primarily through interaction with the physical world and with caregivers — through touch, movement, conversation, facial expression, and play that involves the body. Screen-based interaction, even high-quality educational content, does not provide the same richness of developmental input.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, WHO, and most major paediatric bodies recommend avoiding screen use other than video calls with family for children under 18 to 24 months. For children aged 2 to 5, they suggest limiting to one hour per day of high-quality content, watched with a caregiver who discusses and extends what is seen. These are not absolute prohibitions but useful practical guidelines whose underlying rationale — that unstructured play, physical exploration and face-to-face interaction are developmentally irreplaceable at this age — is well supported.
For young children, the most important screen-time decision parents make is about their own device use. A parent absorbed in their phone during a meal, a walk, or a moment of play communicates something about attention and presence that shapes children's relationship with devices long before the child holds one themselves.
Advice for Teenagers
Adolescence is the developmental period during which identity is being formed, social belonging is of paramount importance, and the brain's reward system is at its most sensitively calibrated to social feedback. This makes teenagers particularly responsive to social media's reward structures — not because they are weak, but because their brains are developmentally engaged with exactly the territory that social media has colonised.
On Sleep
The single most effective change most teenagers can make is charging their phone outside their bedroom overnight. This is not about distrust — it is about biology. The device is a sleep disruptor, and removing it from the sleeping environment is the most reliable solution. Frame it as a health decision, not a punishment.
On Social Media
Help teenagers distinguish between passive scrolling — which consistently produces lower mood over time — and active connection — which is associated with maintained wellbeing. A conversation with a friend on a platform is not equivalent to thirty minutes of comparing their life to strangers'.
On Study
Study sessions of 45 to 60 minutes of genuine focused work, with a brief structured break before resuming, are more productive than two hours of intermittent work punctuated by phone-checking. The phone out of reach — not just face-down — produces measurably better study outcomes.
On AI
AI tools can accelerate learning when used as a partner rather than a substitute. Explain your thinking to it. Argue with its answers. Use it to go deeper, not to avoid going anywhere.
Advice for Parents
The most common question parents ask me is how many hours their child should be allowed on screens. I find the question less useful than it seems.
A child who spends four hours on a Saturday building a detailed model of their city in a game, then goes out with friends and sleeps well, has had a reasonable day. A child who spends ninety minutes scrolling through social media before bed in a state of low-grade anxiety has had a more difficult one. The hours are similar in magnitude. The outcomes are not.
More useful than time limits:
Be a model, not only a rule-maker. Children absorb their relationship with technology largely from watching the adults around them. If you check your phone at meals, in conversations, and last thing at night, they will interpret this as the normal thing to do. If you put your phone away during meals and are genuinely present in conversations, you are teaching something without a single word.
Make device-free spaces, not device-free battles. The dining table and the bedroom are the two most evidence-based places to make device-free. Not as punishment, but as family architecture — this is how we eat, this is how we sleep.
Stay curious rather than alarmed. Ask your teenager what they are watching, who they are talking to, what they are playing — with genuine curiosity, not interrogation. A parent who knows their child's digital world can offer relevant guidance. A parent who simply restricts and disapproves will be kept out of it.
Know the warning signs. Significant changes in sleep, mood, appetite, school performance, withdrawal from friends, increasing secrecy, or distress when devices are removed all warrant a closer, warmer conversation — and if concerns persist, professional support.
Advice for Teachers
Teaching in an environment where every student has a small computer in their pocket — capable of answering any factual question in seconds and generating plausible-sounding text on almost any topic — requires a thoughtful reconsideration of what classroom learning is actually for.
Factual recall matters less in a world where facts are instantly retrievable. Understanding, analysis, synthesis, the ability to evaluate evidence, the capacity for sustained argument — these matter more. Teaching that builds these capacities is teaching that technology cannot easily substitute.
On device use in class: clear, consistent and explained policies work better than vague or harshly enforced ones. Students who understand why a rule exists are more likely to keep it. Students who understand that sustained attention is a trainable skill that their future depends on are more likely to value its development.
On AI-produced assignments: detection tools are imperfect and produce an adversarial dynamic. A more durable response is to design assessments that value process over product — oral discussions, in-class writing, iterative work with visible stages, presentations that require explanation rather than just recitation.
Advice for Medical and College Students
Medical students occupy a particularly interesting position in this conversation: they are being trained to use evidence to guide practice, and the evidence on screen time and cognitive function applies to them as much as to any child.
On reading screens versus paper: Several studies suggest that reading on paper produces somewhat better recall than reading the same content on screen, possibly due to better spatial encoding — where on the page something appears. For material that needs to be remembered, paper or printed notes may be worth the inconvenience.
On notifications during study: Each notification received during study produces a measurable increase in error rate on the study task, even if the notification is not opened. The phone on the desk is a distractor, not only the phone in the hand. Switching it to airplane mode or leaving it in another room during focused study sessions is not a sacrifice — it is a technique.
On screen fatigue and clinical training: Clinical medicine requires sustained attention, careful observation, and the ability to hold uncertainty without reaching for premature closure. These are attentional skills. They are built by practice and undermined by fragmented attention. The habits of mind you build as a medical student shape the clinician you will become.
A Practical Family Digital Plan
No single plan works for every family. But the following principles are broadly supported by evidence and practical experience:
| Area | Recommended Approach | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Mealtimes | All devices away — for everyone, including adults | Family conversation builds language, emotional intelligence and connection |
| Bedrooms at night | Phones charged outside the bedroom from an agreed time | The single most effective sleep intervention for adolescents |
| Study time | Phone in another room or on airplane mode; structured 45-min focus blocks | Notifications on desk measurably reduce performance even if unopened |
| Social media | Agree on timing (not before school, not after 9 PM); review privacy settings together | Timing and context matter as much as content |
| Physical activity | At least one hour of moderate physical activity daily, non-negotiable | Physical activity is the most reliably beneficial intervention for children's mental health |
| Family screen time | Some shared viewing is fine; discuss what you watch together | Co-viewing with conversation is qualitatively different from parallel individual use |
| Under-5 children | Limit screen exposure; prioritise unstructured play and face-to-face interaction | These years are foundational for language, attachment and physical development |
| Parental modelling | Follow the same rules you set for your children | Children observe and absorb. Rules without modelling breed resentment, not change |
Common Myths About Screens and Children
🚫 Myth 1: Screens permanently damage the developing brain.
The evidence does not support this claim. The brain retains plasticity throughout childhood and adolescence. Excessive screen use is associated with measurable effects on attention, sleep and mood — most of which are reversible when use patterns change. Permanent structural damage has not been demonstrated in the way this claim implies.
🚫 Myth 2: All social media causes depression.
False. The relationship between social media and mental health is real but moderate, context-dependent and not straightforwardly causal. The type of use — passive versus active — the time of day, and individual vulnerability all matter significantly. Many young people have positive experiences on social platforms: connection, creativity, community and support.
🚫 Myth 3: Gaming is always harmful and addictive.
False. Most young people who game do so without developing problematic patterns. Gaming has documented cognitive and social benefits. The minority who develop concerning patterns are often managing underlying difficulties that gaming is temporarily soothing — the gaming is a symptom, not the primary problem.
🚫 Myth 4: Older generations managed without screens, so children should too.
This comparison misunderstands the situation. Older generations navigated different challenges. More importantly, the world your child will work in, communicate in, and contribute to is a digital world. The goal is not avoidance but informed, capable navigation.
🚫 Myth 5: Strict screen-time limits are always the answer.
Rigid time limits without context often produce conflict without improvement. A child who has met all their physical, social, academic and sleep needs and then wants to game for two hours has a different situation from a child using screens to avoid anxiety, homework and sleep. The same rule applied to both misses what matters.
🚫 Myth 6: AI will make students unintelligent.
AI is a tool. Writing instruments did not make people less intelligent — they freed cognitive resources for higher-order thinking. The risk is not that AI reduces intelligence, but that students who use it as a substitute for learning will fail to build the foundational knowledge and thinking skills that AI itself cannot replace.
Key Takeaways
- Technology is a powerful tool whose effects depend on how, when and why it is used — not on the fact of use itself
- The harms of excessive or unmanaged screen use are real: reduced sustained attention, sleep disruption, social comparison, and in a minority of cases, problematic gaming or social media dependence
- The benefits of technology, used thoughtfully, are also real: learning, creativity, connection, accessibility and skill development
- Charging phones outside the bedroom overnight is the single most evidence-supported sleep intervention for adolescents
- Device-free meals and device-free study blocks improve family connection and academic performance respectively
- Parental modelling matters at least as much as parental rules
- Social media is most reliably associated with negative outcomes when used passively and late at night — active use and earlier timing are associated with better outcomes
- AI in education is valuable when used as a learning partner and harmful when used as a substitute for learning
- Physical activity every day is the most robustly beneficial thing a child can do for their mental and physical health — and it is being displaced by screen time in many families
- Seek professional support if you observe significant changes in a child's mood, sleep, school engagement, appetite or social relationships that persist over weeks
Frequently Asked Questions
At what age should a child get their first smartphone?
There is no universal right answer, and organisations differ in their guidance. What matters more than a specific age is the child's maturity, the presence of agreed family rules, parental accessibility for guidance, and whether the child genuinely needs connectivity for safety or logistics. Many families find that a basic phone for communication is appropriate before a full smartphone with social media access. Delaying the latter to fourteen or fifteen years, where possible, is a reasonable and evidence-informed approach for many children.
How much screen time is acceptable for my twelve-year-old?
Current guidance from paediatric organisations focuses more on quality and context than on fixed hour limits for children over five or six. The practical framework: are sleep, physical activity, homework and face-to-face relationships all being met? If yes, the remaining screen time is less concerning. If any of these are being significantly displaced, the screen time figure is less important than restoring what has been displaced.
My teenager says everyone else is on social media all night. What do I do?
This is one of the most common conversations in families with teenagers. Some of what teenagers report about their peers is accurate; some is social mythology. More importantly, your child's sleep is your responsibility, not a peer-group election. Frame the rule — phone charged outside the bedroom — as a health decision that applies to everyone in the home, including adults. Make it a family norm, not a targeted restriction.
My child is gaming for five or six hours on weekends. Should I be worried?
Extended gaming on weekends, by itself, is not necessarily concerning. The relevant questions: Are they sleeping well? Are they maintaining friendships? Is schoolwork completed? Can they step away without significant distress? If the answers are yes, a long gaming session on a Saturday is unlikely to be harmful. If gaming is displacing sleep, school, exercise and relationships, or if the child becomes very distressed when access is limited, a closer conversation — and possibly professional support — is warranted.
When should I seek professional help?
Consult a paediatrician, child psychiatrist or clinical psychologist if you observe: persistent difficulty sleeping for more than two to three weeks; significant and unexplained changes in mood, appetite or energy; withdrawal from previously enjoyed activities and friendships; declining school performance accompanied by distress; signs of cyberbullying with significant emotional impact; or if your child expresses hopelessness or self-harming thoughts in any context. These may or may not be related to screens, but they always deserve professional attention.
Is it hypocritical to set screen rules if I use my phone a lot?
Honestly, yes — if you set rules you do not follow yourself, children notice immediately and trust the rules less. The better approach is to make the rules shared family norms, explain why they matter, and visibly hold yourself to them. You do not have to be perfect. But you do have to be trying.
A Final Reflection
The children growing up today are the first generation to have been born into a fully networked world. They did not choose this — they arrived into it, the way every generation arrives into the world it finds. The technology that surrounds them will define significant parts of their working lives, their social lives, and their inner lives.
We do them no service by treating every screen as a danger or every digital experience as a loss. We also do them no service by treating technology as inherently progressive — as if newer always means better, and more connected always means more alive.
What they need from us — from parents, teachers, physicians, and society — is the same thing every generation has needed: adults who pay attention, set reasonable limits, explain their reasoning, model what they preach, stay curious about the young person's actual experience, and remain available when things go wrong.
The dinner table story I began with does not have a villainous ending. Priya's family is doing what families have always done — trying to figure out how to live well together in a world that is more complicated than it used to be.
The technology will keep changing. The need for wisdom, attention and connection will not.
There is no app for that. There probably never will be.
Knowledge becomes wisdom only when it changes the way we live.
— Dr. B. S. Chakravarthy
Professor & Head, Department of Pediatrics
Andhra Medical College & King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam