India’s Choice: Compete with China or Create Differently

China’s dramatic rise as a scientific powerhouse has sparked frequent comparisons with India, often leading to calls for increased public spending on research. The disparity is clear. China’s gross R&D expenditure crossed USD 440 billion in 2022 (about 2.55 percent of its GDP) while India’s remains around USD 17 billion, or just over 0.65 percent of GDP. China filed over 85,000 international patents in 2023, compared to approximately 2,000 from India. These figures fuel the belief that India must scale up its investment in science and technology to remain globally competitive.

However, numbers alone do not capture the deeper contrasts between the two countries. China’s scientific surge is the result of tightly coordinated, state-led planning. Mission-mode programs like ‘Made in China 2025’ and the ‘14th Five-Year Plan’ have focused on artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and clean energy. Universities and research institutions are aligned with national strategic goals, and translational research is both encouraged and incentivized through well-integrated public-private mechanisms.

India, by contrast, faces systemic fragmentation. Research institutions often function in silos, industry linkages are weak, and bureaucratic delays hamper innovation. While Technology Transfer Offices are slowly expanding, they lack the agility seen in other innovation-driven economies. Many Indian scientists remain focused on publication counts rather than solving real-world problems. The recently operational Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) holds promise in addressing these gaps, but its impact will depend on sustained engagement and reform-minded implementation.

China’s system, however, comes at a steep cost. Academic freedom is constrained by political oversight. The restructuring of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2023 and the enforcement of ideological conformity across universities are reminders that research there is tightly controlled. While scientists have access to massive funding, their intellectual autonomy is limited. In contrast, Indian researchers, despite working with fewer resources, enjoy considerably greater freedom to choose their research directions, critique policies, and explore basic science without state interference.

That said, this freedom is occasionally interpreted in ways that risk detachment from societal needs. Under the banner of “curiosity-driven research,” some scientists pursue topics with little regard for long-term societal benefit. While open-ended inquiry is vital for scientific advancement, it should not become a pretext for disengagement from pressing public challenges. Scientific freedom must be balanced with responsibility. It is also worth appreciating that the Indian government does not impose ideological or programmatic diktats - a liberty rare in many parts of the world and one that should not be taken for granted.

Research integrity is another domain where both countries face serious challenges. China leads the world in retracted research papers. According to Retraction Watch, it accounts for over 30% of all retractions globally. Many are due to plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ghost authorship. A Nature analysis from 2021 noted that nearly 500 Chinese papers are withdrawn annually. The intense pressure to publish for promotions and rewards has led to the proliferation of paper mills and academic fraud.

India is not immune. It ranks among the top 20 countries in terms of retractions, with many cases flagged on platforms like PubPeer. Concerns include plagiarized text, duplicate images, and questionable authorship. The problem is compounded by the persistence of predatory journals, some of which were once even endorsed by regulatory bodies. While India has taken steps to weed out such journals, enforcement remains inconsistent. In both countries, the “publish or perish” culture incentivizes quantity over quality, eroding public trust in scientific literature.

These concerns raise deeper questions about how science is assessed, funded, and rewarded. If India is to strengthen its global position, it must not only spend more, but spend wisely. That means building trust-based funding systems, fostering industry-academia collaboration, supporting long-term research with measurable outcomes, and creating robust checks for ethical conduct. Simultaneously, India must reform the way it evaluates scientific work—moving beyond publication counts and impact factors to reward innovation, reproducibility, and societal relevance.

Would Indian scientists prefer the Chinese model in exchange for more funding? Most would argue that true innovation requires intellectual freedom. The ability to ask inconvenient questions, challenge prevailing norms, and explore unconventional ideas has always driven breakthroughs. India’s pluralistic, democratic, and culturally diverse ecosystem, despite its imperfections, offers a more humane and open foundation for scientific progress.

That said, India cannot afford inertia. Without structural reforms, efficient governance, and accountable institutions, it risks losing talent to systems that offer better infrastructure even if they come with restrictions. India must enhance its public science ecosystem while also incentivizing private sector R&D. Ethical research conduct, transparent peer review, and data openness should become institutional norms, not afterthoughts.

Rather than comparing itself to China or any other country, India would do well to build its own scientific path rooted in autonomy, integrity, and long-term value. Learning from others is both necessary and wise, but replicating foreign models without reflection is not. India’s strength lies in its ability to create differently, not merely compete. The real choice is not between catching up and falling behind, but between replication and reinvention. India has the opportunity to choose wisely.

(Disclaimer: This article is not a criticism of China or any other country. It is a reminder to Indian scientists to make the most of the financial and institutional support available in India and to ensure that their research leads to meaningful outcomes for society)

(The author is the former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)