India losing ground on global research front
INDIA is facing its worst-ever crisis in higher education. Admission tests for entry into medical colleges and research institutions have been affected by serious questions about the credibility of the process. Among the tests hit because of the leak of question papers is the qualifying test for research fellowships in national laboratories and lectureship in sciences in Indian universities. Top institutions like the Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) depend on the National Eligibility Test (NET) for their intake of entry-level research students. Qualifying in NET is a prerequisite for PhD admissions and teaching jobs in universities. The timely conduct of the examination and its integrity have a direct bearing on the future of higher education and research in India.
While the Central Government and its agencies grapple with the unprecedented situation, the global research landscape is changing fast, and India is lagging badly behind its neighbour China. Two prestigious publications — the scientific journal Nature and the international weekly The Economist — have declared the emergence of China as a global research leader and a science superpower. India has long taken pride in possessing the world’s third-largest pool of science and technology manpower and claimed success in sectors like atomic energy, space and vaccine development. This is changing. China has surged ahead of not just India but also the US and Europe as well in several key sectors and on important parameters like the publication of scientific papers.
The science and technology prowess of any nation is determined by the expanse of its higher education and research infrastructure and its ability to produce high-quality research. The output can be measured in many ways — the publication of scientific papers, the number of patents, international awards like the Nobel Prize, technology transfer to industry and contribution to society. The annual listing of research leaders, published by Nature, uses research publication as its main criterion. It ranks 500 institutions based on counts of high-quality research outputs in the last calendar year (January 1 to December 31, 2023). It is an indication of research performance at the institutional level. The list is based on the publication output in 145 natural science and health science journals selected by an independent panel of scientists.
In the research output of countries, China is at the top and ahead of America, Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada and South Korea. India is at the ninth position on the list. It’s good news that India figures among the top 10 countries in terms of high-quality research output, and its change in share from last year is marginally higher than that of China. However, the picture gets dismal for India if we look at the institutional-level output. Of the top 10 scientific institutions globally, seven are from China. The only non-China institutions in the top 10 are Harvard (at No. 2), the Max Planck Society (ranked third) and the French National Centre for Scientific Research (seventh). The MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Stanford University are at 14th and 15th positions, respectively. The Chinese Academy of Sciences tops the chart.
Among the top 500 institutions, Indian research universities are ranked much lower — Indian Institute of Science (174), IIT-Bombay (247), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as a whole (275), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (283), Homi Bhabha National Institute (296), Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Kolkata (321), IIT Guwahati (355), Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (363), IISER-Bhopal (379), IIT-Kanpur (405), IIT-Madras (407), IIT-Delhi (428), IISER Pune (439), Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (450) and the Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (487).
Among the research subjects in which China leads the world are physical science, chemistry and earth and environment sciences, while America and Europe retain their lead in general biology and medical research. China dominates in research papers relating to applied sciences. China has invested hugely in some big science projects as well, like the world’s largest filled-aperture radio telescope and a massive underground dark-matter detector. Several Chinese laboratories have dedicated groups working on quantum computing. In space, China is at least 10 years ahead of India, having sent its first manned spaceflight in 2003. It is already building a space station. Recently, it executed a robotic sample-return mission from the Moon.
How should India react to China being named the science superpower or a global leader in research? An easier option, which the government has exercised in the past 10 years with such indices, is to reject the research index or point holes in its methodology. But this is not going to change the situation on the ground or alter the global perception of Indian science.
A saner approach would be to welcome the fact that India figures in the top 10 countries and seek ways to improve that position further. We also need to see what China has done right and where it has faltered. In recent years, the Dragon has invested heavily in initiatives like the China Nine League or Project 211 to develop its universities and government labs into world-class research institutions. The Indian initiative to develop IISERs as research universities has paid rich dividends, but we need to do much more to nurture research in middle-ranking universities. China has gone wrong with the initiative to provide cash incentives for the publication of research papers, which led to unethical practices. India should refrain from doing so.
The general stagnation on several fronts — research funding as a percentage of the GDP, funding mechanisms, creation of new research institutions, promotion of research in universities, and so on — is worrying. The institutions that are supposed to generate new ideas and public discourse — national science academies, the office of the Principal Scientific Adviser, the technology forecasting agency and others — appear to be in deep slumber or busy conducting celebratory events of the government by setting up selfie points. The reports on China’s leadership in science should serve as a wake-up call.
