top of page

By:

Dr. Kishore Paknikar

29 January 2025 at 8:13:00 pm

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...

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.)

Gun Violence in America

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Gun Violence in America

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.


A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.


Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.


Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.


School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.


A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.


Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.


Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.


The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.


A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.


(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page