India does not suffer from a shortage of scientific institutions or scientists.
But what is increasingly difficult to demonstrate is whether this infrastructure delivers value commensurate with resources invested by the taxpayer.
Many of the country’s public scientific systems continue to operate with structures, priorities and evaluation mechanisms designed for yesteryears.The deeper problem is not simply how much India spends on science.
It is how the money is governed, priorities determined, leaders selected and performance judged.
My experience of more than three decades at the National Centre for Earth Science Studies in Thiruvananthapuram has convinced me that what may appear to be an institutional problem is actually symptomatic of a much wider weakness in scientific governance.Academic excellence is essential, but publications, citations or university teaching experience alone do not establish the ability to lead a multidisciplinary national research institution.A national laboratory is not simply a collection of university departments.
Its responsibility is to address problems confronting the nation, society and industry.
Leadership selection must therefore assess the ability to translate science into action through technologies developed and deployed, field problems solved, programmes implemented, industry partnerships created, policy advice delivered and measurable societal impact achieved.Research advisory committees (RACs) provide scientific direction and strategic guidance.
But too often, their recommendations are ignored.
RACs should have a stronger role in determining institutional research priorities and include experienced practising scientists, familiar with national problems.
If a director of an institute departs substantially from RAC recommendations, the reasons should be recorded and placed before the governing body.
Such accountability would make autonomy credible.
Public institutions should establish limited mission-mode programmes abetting industrial growth or with societal impact.
Publications are important for scientific credibility and advancing knowledge.
But they cannot be the principal currency of performance in applied-science institutions.
A scientist producing numerous papers with little application should not automatically be valued above one who develops a technology, forecasting system or field solution that saves lives or resolves a national problem.
.Performance evaluation should include technologies deployed, patents obtained, inventions made, advisories issued, early-warning systems devised, policies influenced, solutions delivered, partnerships, supported startups and measurable societal and economic impacts.
The taxpayer should be able to perceive what public science has produced that affects quality of life and industry—not merely how many papers it has published.
Scientists should train PhD researchers when their work addresses genuine national or technological problems.
But increasing doctoral numbers cannot become an institutional objective.
India must distinguish between education-driven....
