The Lost Art of Repair in an Age of Disposable Technology

As disposable technology replaces a culture of repair, we risk losing not only valuable resources but also the practical skills, scientific independence and engineering ingenuity that underpin genuine innovation

There was a time when a broken radio was taken to a repair shop, not a scrap dealer. The television repairman was a familiar visitor to many homes. Watches, fans, mixers and bicycles were repaired repeatedly, sometimes surviving for generations. Today, when an appliance stops working, we are often told that replacing it would be cheaper than repairing it. Sometimes, the manufacturer no longer supplies the required component. At other times, an entire assembly must be replaced because one small part has failed. Our products have become increasingly sophisticated, but have we lost something important along the way?

This change is particularly striking to someone who has spent a lifetime working in scientific laboratories. I remember a time when repairing equipment was almost a routine part of research. Even relatively sophisticated instruments, such as atomic absorption spectrophotometers, were sometimes brought back into service through the ingenuity and technical expertise available locally. Components of centrifuges were replaced, and damaged laboratory glassware was repaired wherever it was safe to do so. These were not merely makeshift arrangements. Successful repairs required an understanding of the equipment, careful diagnosis and confidence that its performance could be restored. Replacement was generally considered only after attempts at repair had failed.

Large national laboratories had dedicated instrumentation sections, engineering workshops and even glass-blowing facilities. These were not merely maintenance departments. They were places where scientific understanding, engineering skills and craftsmanship came together. A glassblower could fabricate an apparatus that was unavailable commercially. An instrumentation technician could diagnose an electronic fault. An engineering workshop could manufacture a component or modify an experimental setup to meet a researcher's requirements. Many experiments became possible because someone could design, fabricate or repair something that could not simply be purchased.

The people working in these facilities rarely appeared as authors of scientific publications, but their contributions were invaluable. They possessed a kind of practical knowledge that cannot be acquired from textbooks alone. Scientists learned from them, and they learned from scientists. Repairing an instrument often became an opportunity to understand it better.

There was another practice that now seems remarkable. While purchasing scientific equipment, we sometimes insisted on obtaining original engineering drawings, circuit diagrams and, where applicable, software source code. Such requirements were included in purchase orders because we wanted to understand and maintain the equipment ourselves. We were purchasing not merely a machine, but also access to the knowledge needed to keep it functioning.

Today, research institutions may own instruments costing crores of rupees without access to their detailed technical documentation. A relatively minor malfunction can require an authorised service engineer, sometimes from another country. Proprietary software, restricted diagnostic tools and unavailable spare parts can make independent repairs difficult. An expensive instrument may remain idle for months, interrupting experiments and delaying the work of research students.

Of course, modern scientific instruments are far more complex than their predecessors. Their precision, sensitivity and automation have improved enormously. Many repairs require specialised expertise, and an improperly repaired instrument can compromise safety or measurement accuracy. The argument is not that every instrument should be opened and repaired locally. It is that the ability to maintain equipment should not disappear simply because technology has advanced.

Economic Reasons

The transformation is equally visible in our homes. Miniaturisation, integrated electronics and compact assemblies have made products smaller, lighter and more capable. These are genuine engineering achievements. But some design choices also make repair unnecessarily difficult. Batteries are glued inside devices, spare parts are unavailable, and perfectly functional products sometimes become unusable because their software is no longer supported. Replacing a minor defective component may require changing an expensive electronic board.

There are economic reasons for this shift. Mass production has made many products remarkably affordable, while skilled repair work remains labour-intensive. When replacement costs only slightly more than repair, consumers understandably choose the former. But the price of a new product rarely reflects its full environmental cost. Every discarded appliance represents minerals, energy, water and human effort invested in its manufacture. Recycling recovers some materials, but extending a product's useful life can often conserve more resources.

Something less visible is also being lost. Repairing an object requires observation, diagnosis, experimentation and an understanding of how systems work. One must identify symptoms, consider possible causes, test assumptions and arrive at a solution. This is remarkably similar to scientific investigation. Repair is not merely a mechanical skill. It is a form of practical intelligence.

Engineering education offers an interesting perspective. Students today have access to sophisticated simulation software, automated instruments and digital design tools. These capabilities are indispensable, but they should complement the experience of dismantling, examining, assembling and troubleshooting physical systems. Understanding a machine through a computer model and understanding it through its components are different, equally valuable forms of learning. We should encourage both.

India has a long tradition of practical engineering skills and resourcefulness in repair and maintenance. From neighbourhood mechanics to skilled laboratory technicians, considerable technical knowledge exists outside formal academic institutions. This capability deserves recognition, systematic training and access to modern diagnostic tools. The objective should not be to perpetuate temporary fixes, but to develop reliable repair practices supported by sound engineering, appropriate standards and quality assurance.

Growing Discussion

The growing discussion around the right to repair is therefore significant. It raises questions about access to spare parts, technical manuals, diagnostic software and independent repair services. For publicly funded laboratories, serviceability, availability of spares, maintenance costs and access to technical documentation should influence procurement decisions alongside purchase price and performance specifications.

The issue also has implications for India's ambitions to become a technologically self-reliant nation. Self-reliance cannot be measured solely by our ability to manufacture or assemble sophisticated products; it must also include the capacity to maintain, repair, modify and improve them. Encouraging manufacturers to design for longevity, provide spare parts and make technical information accessible would help build a stronger ecosystem of skilled technicians, independent repair enterprises and research institutions. Such an approach could reduce electronic waste, lower maintenance costs and create employment while ensuring that technological progress does not make users increasingly dependent on the companies that supply their equipment. Ultimately, a culture that values repair also nurtures curiosity, resourcefulness and the confidence to solve problems independently.

Perhaps we should also reconsider the place of instrumentation workshops, engineering sections and technical support facilities in our research institutions. Their contribution extends far beyond maintaining equipment. They help researchers develop prototypes, adapt instruments and explore unconventional ideas. In our enthusiasm to acquire increasingly sophisticated equipment, we should not neglect the people and skills that allow us to understand and improve it.

Repair is not the opposite of progress, nor should nostalgia prevent us from appreciating modern technology. The real question is whether technological sophistication must necessarily come at the cost of maintainability and independence.

We take pride in becoming a nation capable of manufacturing increasingly sophisticated technologies. But technological self-reliance also means knowing how those technologies work, how to keep them working and how to improve them. Somewhere along the way, repair became a poor cousin of innovation. Perhaps it is time to recognise that the two were never really separate.

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