A New Year Resolution for Indian Science

India@2047 will not be achieved by assembling borrowed technologies, but by owning the science that makes development durable.

Every New Year invites reflection, but some years demand resolution. As India steps deeper into its journey toward becoming a developed nation by the centenary of Independence, the role of science and technology becomes not just important, but decisive. Infrastructure, manufacturing, and services will matter, but none of them can advance sustainably without deep, indigenous scientific capability.

If Indian science must adopt one New Year resolution, it is this: measure success not by how fast we scale, but by how deeply we build.

Deep Capability

India’s scientific output has grown impressively over the last two decades. The country now ranks among the top three globally in terms of the number of research publications. Annual expenditure on research and development has crossed Rs. 1.25 lakh crore, and India produces one of the world’s largest cohorts of science and engineering graduates. Yet, beneath these encouraging numbers lies a structural mismatch between output and ownership. India’s gross expenditure on R&D remains around 0.65 to 0.7 percent of GDP, far below that of countries it seeks to compete with. More critically, a large fraction of high-value technologies used in strategic sectors, including advanced materials, medical devices, precision manufacturing, and electronics continue to depend on imported designs and foreign intellectual property.

A developed nation is not defined by consumption or assembly but its ability to design, validate and control core technologies. India@2047 cannot be achieved on borrowed science.

Encouragingly, this challenge is now clearly recognised at the policy level. The establishment of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation represents a meaningful shift in India’s approach to research governance. ANRF’s mandate to seed high-quality research across institutions, align science with national priorities, and meaningfully involve industry signals an attempt to correct long-standing distortions in the research ecosystem.

However, institutions alone do not create transformation. Outcomes depend on how reforms are implemented and internalised by the scientific community.

Structural Reform

One of India’s enduring weaknesses has been fragmentation. Research is often conducted in silos, disciplinary, institutional, and administrative. Problems of national importance, whether in water security, climate resilience, public health, or advanced manufacturing, do not respect such boundaries. They demand convergence, scientists working with engineers, economists with technologists, and laboratories connected to field realities. India@2047 will require a research culture where collaboration is the norm rather than the exception.

Another challenge lies in risk aversion. Too much of Indian research remains incremental, safe, and driven by short-term metrics. Globally transformative science often emerges from uncertain paths, long gestation periods, and repeated failure. Yet failure continues to be penalised in funding decisions, evaluations, and career progression. If ANRF-led reforms are to succeed, they must consciously reward depth, originality, and perseverance, not merely annual output.

Equally important is the question of where research happens and who participates in it. India’s research capacity remains concentrated in a limited number of institutions, while hundreds of universities and engineering colleges function largely as teaching spaces. This separation is neither inevitable nor desirable. Teaching-intensive institutions educate the majority of India’s youth. Embedding credible research capability within them is essential for scale, diversity, and social relevance.

Here lies a strategic opportunity. By supporting distributed research clusters, mentoring young faculty, and enabling access to shared national facilities, ANRF can democratise research without diluting quality. India@2047 will not be built by a few islands of excellence, but by a broad and resilient scientific base.

Industry participation is another crucial piece of the puzzle. Despite sustained policy encouragement, India’s private sector contribution to research and development remains modest, accounting for roughly 35 to 40 percent of total R&D expenditure, compared to more than 60 percent in most OECD economies. Countries such as South Korea invest close to five percent of GDP in R&D and rely predominantly on private sector innovation. Bridging this gap in India requires more than incentives. It demands scientists who can act as translators, individuals who understand both laboratory science and real-world constraints. Encouraging such roles, often undervalued in traditional academia, is vital if ‘Make in India’ is to evolve into ‘Design in India.’

The New Year also invites introspection on how success is measured. India has become adept at counting publications, patents, and startups. What it measures less effectively is impact. How many technologies survive field deployment? How many research outcomes reduce costs, improve reliability, or enhance access for ordinary citizens? India@2047 requires a shift from announcement-driven success to evidence-based evaluation.

Scientific capability is built by people, not policies alone. India produces a large pool of young scientists and engineers, yet many struggle with inadequate mentoring, uncertain career pathways, and administrative overload. Senior scientists have a responsibility here, not merely to lead projects, but to transfer judgment: how to choose problems, how to deal with failure, and how to uphold integrity in a high-pressure environment.

With barely two decades separating today’s laboratories from the aspirations of 2047, the choices made now will determine whether India remains a technology user or becomes a technology shaper. Structured mentorship, national chairs, and late-career engagement can therefore make a disproportionate difference. Experience, when shared generously, accelerates institutional learning. India@2047 is not only about the next generation; it is about how effectively generations work together.

Finally, a word on confidence. Nations that lead in science do so not because they are flawless, but because they trust their institutions and processes. India often underestimates its own capacity while simultaneously aspiring to global leadership. A mature scientific ecosystem acknowledges gaps, corrects course and stays the path.

As the New Year begins, Indian science does not need louder slogans. It needs a quiet, collective resolution to pursue fewer problems, but pursue them deeply; to value capability over claims; and to align daily scientific practice with the long arc of national development.

(The author is an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University, Pune; former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; and former Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay. Views personal).