the cracking edifice of the Indian scientific establishment has taken yet another blow. A recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (
cag) has come down heavily on the functioning of government scientific departments and research organisations for their ineptitude -- whether it is poor research, inadequate monitoring and control or lack of vision. The scientific institutions in question are currently in the process of replying to observations made by
cag .
Spaced out! Experts believe that the Union government's priority to invest in atomic energy and space to protect the country seems misplaced when millions face food insecurity, malnutrition and illnesses. During 1999-2000, the expenditure on the scientific departments was Rs 10,771 crore. But 56 per cent of this was reserved for just two departments -- atomic energy (Rs 4,356 crore) and space (Rs 1,677 crore). Those departments doing research on agriculture, biotechnology, industrial technologies and oceanic sciences shared the rest. "Investment in scientific research and development has been in the wrong areas in India," says S R Kamat, physician and environmentalist,
kem Hospital, Mumbai.
Indian scientific research institutions have been developed on the lines of a bureaucratic system leading to a hierarchical structure, which is not conducive for scientific research. "Bureaucratisation of scientific institutions and hierarchical structure are an anathema for scientists," says R A Mashelkar, director-general, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (
csir). "Our scientists get caught up in rules and regulations, which kills their creativity," says John Kurien, associate fellow, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. "You end up getting thousands of scientists more concerned about promotions than doing creative research," he adds. This is one of the reasons for few research projects being completed and even lesser ones being successfully developed commercially.
For example, the Central Institute of Fisheries Education (
cife), Mumbai, under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (
icar) was able to complete just 12 projects as compared to a target of 44 in the period 1995-2000. The Indian Institute of Petroleum (
iip), Dehradun, under
csir, could complete only 45 out of 90 in-house projects between 1994-2000. Despite its existence for over 21 years, the National Institute of Oceanography (
nio), Goa, had not made any dent in developing drugs from marine resources or getting a patent sealed. According to another
cag report, barely 1-2 per cent of the allocation of funds to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (
aiims) is earmarked for research.
The Indian Veterinary Research Institute (
ivri) under
icar , fares no better. Out of about 120 in-house research projects completed during 1995-2000, 96 were declared closed by the then director in 1996-97, on the grounds that they had outlived their utility. "Unfortunately, our research institutions have followed the same pattern as our bureaucratic institutions with very little focus on actual research," laments Kurien.
Re-searching! Next comes the problem of quality of research. Whenever research actually gets completed, it remains locked up in the laboratories with little applications on the field. This is clear from the low number of patents filed and the transfer of technologies by scientific departments. Out of 133 projects completed by
ivri between 1995-2000, five technologies were developed and one was transferred. Only one provisional patent was filed in favour of
ivri . Out of 45 technologies to be developed from 1994-2000 at
iip , only 28 were developed. And only nine technologies developed between 1994-2000 could be transferred. "Our patenting activity has been very poor. Every year we should double the number of patents filed," suggests Mashelkar. "The actual impact of our scientific institutions at the field level is very poor," says Kurien. "There is no interaction between the industry and the scientists in the laboratory," says a senior scientist with department of science and technology (
dst), government of India."So how can we get the companies to adopt the technologies and products developed at our research establishments," he asks.
Blame the system Though India produces some of the best scientists in the world, the bureaucratic system forces them to go abroad. "Large investments in providing subsidised medical education for developing excellence and sufficiency have gone substantially unreturned," observes the
cag report. "I know top scientists who are unable to attend a conference abroad as they need hundreds of permissions. Their bosses, who go in their place, treat these conferences like a paid holiday," says Kurien.
"What results is a lack of will in general," says a scientist with
dst . Take for instance the case of construction of Microbial Containment Complex, a high security laboratory at the National Institute of Virology, Pune. This project was conceived in 1977 for handling hazardous viruses and protecting the workers from laboratory infections and to serve as a strong deterrent against biological warfare. But till now the project has not been completed though Rs 12.87 crore have been spent.
"We have to make science more exciting to the youngsters," says Mashelkar. From 32 per cent of higher secondary students opting for the science stream in the 1950s, the figure today has fallen to just 15 per cent. "Universities have to set up technology parks and incubators to groom the future technopreneurs," Mashelkar notes.
The dichotomy in the system has to be sorted out. "There is a mental block in the minds of our scientists," says Kurien. If the agricultural scientists are unwilling to soil their hands, talk to the farmers, go to the paddy fields, then how can they succeed in doing research for the farmers, he asks. As far as field-based sciences like the agricultural sciences are concerned, scientists have to take into account the traditional knowledge. "Only then will they be able to understand the needs of Indian agrarian classes," adds Kurien.
