Let Scientists Do Science: Unshackling India’s Research Potential

India cannot become a scientific power by funding laboratories while burdening scientists with the very bureaucracy that prevents them from using them effectively.

Indian science presents a curious paradox. We celebrate our scientists for achieving remarkably good results with limited resources. But how much more could they achieve if they did not also have to spend so much time and energy dealing with the system?

This question came to my mind while reading NITI Aayog’s recently released report, Ease of Doing Research & Development in India: Removing Obstacles, Promoting Enablers. It is an unusually candid document. It speaks about delayed funding, complicated procedures, rigid financial rules, procurement difficulties, centralized decision-making and excessive compliance. More importantly, it acknowledges something researchers have long experienced: a “trust deficit” between researchers and funding agencies.

NITI Aayog and the present Government deserve credit for putting these uncomfortable issues on the table. Governments naturally find it easier to document achievements than deficiencies. But reform begins with acknowledging a problem. Problems hidden in files cannot be solved. Problems identified and understood can be.

The report draws on a nationwide survey, eight regional consultations and discussions involving research institutions, science academies, funding agencies, government departments, universities and industry. It examines seven broad areas: funding, human resources, institutional systems, technology translation, access to knowledge, state institutions, and monitoring and science administration. Taken together, they point to a larger issue. India’s challenge is not only how much we spend on research, but also how we organize and govern it.

India’s expenditure on R&D is around 0.64 per cent of GDP, low compared with major scientific economies. The report recommends raising it to at least 2 per cent within four to five years, with greater participation from the private sector. Industry and philanthropy must become larger partners, with CSR also contributing more to research.

Obstacles to Research

But money alone will not solve the problem. Research funding has three simple tests. Is enough money available? Does it reach the researcher on time? And once it arrives, can it be used without unnecessary difficulty?

The report identifies problems at every stage. Applications can be cumbersome, decisions slow and funds delayed. Once a project begins, rigid budget heads, procurement rules and repeated approvals can make even routine work difficult. It recommends year-round funding calls, a maximum six-month processing period, greater budget flexibility, easier procurement and more realistic institutional overheads.

Anyone who has done experimental research knows why flexibility matters. Science does not always follow financial years or budget heads. Experiments fail while unexpected results can take research in a new direction.

There is a basic mismatch here. Administration understandably tries to reduce uncertainty and risk. Research exists precisely because the outcome is uncertain. If we try to eliminate every administrative risk, we may also discourage scientific risk-taking.

Public money must, of course, be accounted for. But research cannot be treated only as expenditure to be controlled. It must also be seen as an investment to be enabled.

There is another resource that rarely appears in research budgets: the scientist’s time. Money can sometimes be replaced. Lost time cannot. Every hour spent chasing signatures, following up on purchases or seeking approvals is an hour not spent thinking, experimenting, mentoring or analysing results.

This is why the report’s call for professionally managed R&D offices, trained research administrators, clearer procedures and greater delegation is important. An R&D office should help researchers do research, not become one more office from which they need permission. Responsibility without reasonable authority rarely produces excellence. Freedom must, of course, go together with transparency and accountability.

India has enormous young talent, yet researcher density remains low. Postdoctoral opportunities are inadequate, fellowships can be delayed, recruitment remains rigid and positions remain vacant. The report suggests measures such as Vigyan Nidhi, greater mobility and more flexible research careers. But young people will not choose research simply because the country needs researchers. Research must offer intellectual excitement, reasonable security, respect and the possibility of a meaningful career.

Beyond Islands of Excellence

For me, one of the report’s most important sections concerns state universities. India’s research future cannot be built around a few IITs, IISERs, IISc and national laboratories. Much of our higher education takes place in state universities and colleges, yet many struggle with outdated laboratories, equipment that cannot be maintained, faculty vacancies, temporary appointments, heavy teaching duties and weak PhD programmes.

A Viksit Bharat cannot rest on a few islands of scientific excellence surrounded by a vast sea of under-resourced universities. India cannot become a major research power unless research capability spreads across the university system where much of our young talent is located.

The report rightly recognises that this gap cannot be bridged by funding alone. State Science and Technology Councils need strengthening, faculty vacancies need filling, and central and state institutions need to work much more closely. ANRF’s PAIR programme can help in this direction. Even usable scientific equipment in central institutions could find a productive second life in state universities. The report also draws attention to institutions in remote regions and to grassroots innovators who often remain outside the formal research system.

Access to knowledge is another inequality. A capable researcher should not be unable to read an important paper, use essential software or search a database because the institution cannot afford it. ‘One Nation One Subscription’ is an important step.

India produces many papers and patents, but too many useful ideas stop inside laboratories. Weak technology-transfer systems, unclear IP rules, inadequate testing facilities and poor links between academia and industry are some of the reasons.

For years we have asked researchers, “How many papers did you publish?” Perhaps we should increasingly ask, “What new knowledge, capability or change did the research create?” This does not mean every investigation must produce a product. Fundamental research is indispensable. But when research is intended to solve a practical problem, publication need not always be the end of the journey.

The report also asks us to look at how science itself is administered. Monitoring can become more concerned with procedures than outcomes. Data remain fragmented, and we do not always learn enough from completed programs. The proposed National Institute for Science Policy and Governance could strengthen science policy, evaluation and research administration.

The report’s Ease of Doing R&D assessment framework is useful, but we should guard against irony. An exercise intended to reduce the administrative burden on researchers must not itself become another exercise in forms, scores and rankings. We should measure improvement not by how elaborate the assessment becomes, but by what researchers actually experience.

Are grant decisions faster and fellowships reaching researchers on time? Are scientists spending less time seeking approvals? Is equipment easier to purchase and maintain? Are researchers in state universities getting a fairer chance? Are promising technologies moving beyond laboratories? These questions should tell us whether Ease of Doing R&D is actually working.

Time-Bound Effort

India now needs a time-bound national effort on Ease of Doing R&D, with clear responsibility, deadlines and measurable outcomes. Some reforms require more money. Many do not.

And 2047 is not as distant as it sounds. Institutional cultures take years to change. Laboratories take years to build. Researchers take decades to nurture. Reform must begin now.

NITI Aayog deserves credit for identifying these problems with unusual candour. The present Government also deserves credit for placing such an honest diagnosis in the public domain. Recognising a problem does not solve it, but it makes a solution possible. The next step is harder, but far more important. We must convert diagnosis into reform.

Viksit Bharat@2047 will need more money for science. But it will also need a culture that trusts scientists, values their time, spreads research opportunities beyond a small group of privileged institutions, and gives researchers room to explore. Perhaps the message of this important report can ultimately be reduced to something very simple: let scientists do science.

The full NITI Aayog report is available at: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2026-05/Ease-of-Doing-Research-and-Development-in-India.pdf

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