Scientific research and innovation is finally finding a place, or appears to figure in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s list of priorities, after the first two terms of his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government were wasted in pandering to irrational beliefs and propagating religious myths that were even foisted on the prestigious Indian Science Congress. The Congress, an annual event held every year since 1914 that draws globally renowned scientists to its conclave, was scrapped this year by the government, which has done little to hide its disdain for scientists and their spirit of rational inquiry and discovery. It is with curiosity and hope, therefore, that the government’s attempts to restructure research goals since late last year have been watched by the community and by anyone with a keen interest in pushing the boundaries of scientific inquiry and innovation. As anyone with a passing interest in this field knows, research has become ossified in India’s vast network of public research laboratories and was desperately in need of a new direction to inject a sense dynamism into it.
In August 2023, the government notified its most ambitious attempt at reforming the scientific research framework by establishing the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) through an Act of Parliament. It repealed the Science and Engineering Research Board Act of 2008 and simultaneously dissolved the Science and Engineering Research Board that was set up under it. The idea was to recast the research landscape by outlining strategic directions and encouraging collaboration between industry, academia and government departments. It was a welcome move except for the big omissions; funding for one. ANRF comes with a promise of generous support, but the bulk of the R50,000 crore budgeted for 2023-28, that is, R36,000 crore, has to be raised from private sources, primarily industry and philanthropists.
This approach is based on the functioning of the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the US, which is the inspiration for ANRF. American industry has been a traditional funder of research and innovation. But in India, this model calls for a leap of faith since industry has been notoriously reluctant to open its purse strings for research. What works in the US and China, for that matter, is not at all a formula for success here. The statistics on this score says it all. Industry’s contribution to research and development (R&D) accounts for just 36.4 per cent of the total spend, whereas in China it is a whopping 77 per cent despite the economy being state-led. In the US, industry accounts for 75 per cent of the R&D spend.
There is also the government’s less than stellar role in promoting research in India. Its investment in promoting innovation has stagnated at a mere 0.64 per cent of GDP for over a decade now, way below China’s 2.41 per cent, US’ 3.47 per cent and Israel’s unmatchable 5.71 per cent. Similarly, the outlay on education is unconscionably low, an indication of how little the government understands the importance of a sound education policy in building an innovative society.
Ignoring the ground realities, Modi has tended to prescribe simplistic ideas—empty slogans, in fact, to cover the deficit of a proper research environment in the country. One of these is his popular exhortation to “innovate, patent, produce, prosper”, a call that he has made repeatedly even at Indian Science Congress events. The irony is that many of his policies have directly undermined the financial and operational autonomy of India’s top research institutions in the country, among these the star institutions of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Against this backdrop, does ANRF signal a further squeeze on state funds for research and innovation?
The reform hope springs from Subra Suresh, an inclusive scientist who made the US National Science Foundation a dynamic force for innovative change
One of the signal omissions in the plan to galvanise research is the absence of Indian industry on the governing board of ANRF. A Department of Science and Technology press release on the inaugural meeting of the governing board at Modi’s residence in September, revealed that not much has changed in the country’s approach to how the scientific establishment is run. The lists of participants showed a preponderance of senior babus (government secretaries to various departments) and ministers; Indian industry was not represented, and neither were state universities and research institutions that are targeted to benefit from the new setup. Is anything different at all? Well, there is a representative of US industry—Romesh Wadhwani, a former chief executive and chairperson of the Symphony Technology Group. Two others of Indian origin are reputed academics: Manjul Bhargava, a Canadian-American professor of mathematics at Princeton University, and Subra Suresh, who was director of NSF.
If there’s hope to be had from ANRF, it comes from Suresh. A distinguished scientist, he was elected to all three US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, in addition to his election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Inventors. He is an elected member of several science and engineering academies across the US, Europe and China. It is not these academic credentials alone that augur well for India. The Innovation Corps (I-Corps) programme, which he designed, created and launched in 2012 while serving as NSF chief, is supposedly “one of the most impactful initiatives in translating scientific discoveries into commercial practice”. It has been deployed by several government organisations in the US and elsewhere.
More interesting is the fact that Suresh has been hailed by the journal Nature as an inclusive scientist who has brought in the social sciences in “reformulation of the university, towards interaction between disciplines”. He is credited with creating the Global Research Council in 2012 when he was director of NSF to ensure the wider governance of science. In that sense, ANRF signals a new path in India: it includes the humanities, liberal arts and the social sciences in addition to science and technology, the environment and agriculture. It is a broad canvas, indeed.
But the Indian ethos is not as broad in its outlook and approach, as Suresh will discover. Here the weight of history and the bureaucracy falls heavily on science. ANRF is not NSF and the systems of operation are drastically different. The trailblazer from the US will have his work cut out for him in India even if he has been with the global advisory council of Reliance’s Jio Institute.
This was first published in the 1-15 November, 2024 print edition of Down To Earth