India does not suffer from a shortage of scientific institutions or scientists. But what is increasingly difficult to demonstrate is whether this infrastructure delivers value commensurate with resources invested by the taxpayer. Many of the country’s public scientific systems continue to operate with structures, priorities and evaluation mechanisms designed for yesteryears.
The deeper problem is not simply how much India spends on science. It is how the money is governed, priorities determined, leaders selected and performance judged. My experience of more than three decades at the National Centre for Earth Science Studies in Thiruvananthapuram has convinced me that what may appear to be an institutional problem is actually symptomatic of a much wider weakness in scientific governance.
Academic excellence is essential, but publications, citations or university teaching experience alone do not establish the ability to lead a multidisciplinary national research institution.
A national laboratory is not simply a collection of university departments. Its responsibility is to address problems confronting the nation, society and industry. Leadership selection must therefore assess the ability to translate science into action through technologies developed and deployed, field problems solved, programmes implemented, industry partnerships created, policy advice delivered and measurable societal impact achieved.
Research advisory committees (RACs) provide scientific direction and strategic guidance. But too often, their recommendations are ignored. RACs should have a stronger role in determining institutional research priorities and include experienced practising scientists, familiar with national problems. If a director of an institute departs substantially from RAC recommendations, the reasons should be recorded and placed before the governing body. Such accountability would make autonomy credible. Public institutions should establish limited mission-mode programmes abetting industrial growth or with societal impact.
Publications are important for scientific credibility and advancing knowledge. But they cannot be the principal currency of performance in applied-science institutions. A scientist producing numerous papers with little application should not automatically be valued above one who develops a technology, forecasting system or field solution that saves lives or resolves a national problem.
Performance evaluation should include technologies deployed, patents obtained, inventions made, advisories issued, early-warning systems devised, policies influenced, solutions delivered, partnerships, supported startups and measurable societal and economic impacts. The taxpayer should be able to perceive what public science has produced that affects quality of life and industry—not merely how many papers it has published.
Scientists should train PhD researchers when their work addresses genuine national or technological problems. But increasing doctoral numbers cannot become an institutional objective. India must distinguish between education-driven and mission-driven institutions.
A major weakness of the scientific ecosystem is inadequate connection between public laboratories and industry. Institution-industry partnerships should be promoted wherever feasible. Scientists should develop technologies capable of transfer, commercialisation and upscaling. Programmes that address issues faced by governmental agencies and industrial needs should become an important criterion for institutional funding. The objective is to create public, industrial and strategic value.
The institutions need autonomy, but autonomy cannot mean freedom from performance scrutiny. Public money demands public accountability. Every autonomous research institution should have strategic plans, measurable objectives and periodic independent evaluation involving national and international expertise. Scientific divisions and research groups in national science institutions should be reviewed for scientific excellence and national relevance. Funding should increasingly reflect demonstrated performance. Outdated or unproductive programmes should not be protected indefinitely. Scientific structures must evolve with national priorities.
The government should establish periodic independent performance audits of scientific institutions. Reviews should involve eminent scientists and experienced professionals from comparable national and international scientific institutions. They should ask whether institutions fulfil their mandates, reflect emerging priorities and produce measurable outcomes. Each review should produce a time-bound transformation plan with milestones and, where necessary, restructuring options. Review findings should influence future funding.
Don’t postpone reforms
India’s ambition to become a developed nation and global scientific and technological power cannot be achieved merely by creating laboratories, appointing scientists or increasing research expenditure. The country must reform how priorities are set, leaders selected, success measured and knowledge transferred to society, industry and government. To reduce duplication and needless expenditure on costly instruments, regional pooling of major scientific infrastructure should be implemented.
Fundamental research must not be weakened. India needs world-class basic science research institutions, while fundamental academic research and mission-oriented national research institutions should be organised, bifurcated and evaluated according to their distinct purposes. Existing centres of fundamental research should be modernised in continuum.
India needs a decisive shift from: institution-centred science to nation-centred science; from publication-driven research to mission-driven research; from academic isolation to societal and industrial engagement; and from procedural to accountable autonomy.
The country should establish research agendas under major themes. Green energy, carbon sequestration, climate action, prudential AI applications, robotics, natural disaster management studies, pharmaceutical, medical and agricultural research need to be prioritised. Such agendas can facilitate international collaboration and attract global talents.
If India is serious about achieving a Viksit Bharat by 2047, it must urgently reform its scientific institutions around national needs. India does not lack scientific talent. It lacks a system that consistently deploys such talent where the nation needs it most. Public science is funded by the people; its ultimate responsibility must therefore be to the people. The time has come for not another committee, but structural reform and a decisive national effort to make Indian science purposeful and accountable.
V Nandakumar | Retired Head, Natural Hazards Research Group and Director in charge, National Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram
(Views are personal)
