Research funding needs a clear pathway
LAST week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired the first meeting of the governing body of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), a new research funding agency. When it was announced by the Central Government in 2019, it was conceived as an umbrella organisation to ‘fund, coordinate and promote’ research in thrust areas relevant to national priorities as well as fundamental research. Now, the government has described it as “an apex body to provide high-level strategic direction of scientific research” in line with the recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP).
The national research system faces multiple challenges, such as bureaucratic delays in the release of funds and a lack of transparency in the award of grants.
Coupling the ANRF with the NEP, the governing body decided to pair universities where research is at a nascent stage with top-tier institutions for mentorship. The board directed that ANRF strategies should be aligned with the goals of Viksit Bharat 2047. The foundation will initiate strategic interventions for the global positioning of India in key sectors and launch research programmes in electric mobility, advanced materials, solar cells, smart infrastructure and sustainable agriculture.
Providing state support for scientific research to generate new knowledge and address societal problems has been the fundamental goal of science and technology policies since the adoption of the first Scientific Policy Resolution in 1958. Subsequent policies focused on developing institutional mechanisms and strategies, and aligning research with contemporary realities as well as emerging demands. Some recent examples of this evolving process are the creation of new bodies like the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) in 2008 and science universities and institutions like the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs). Besides the SERB, the research funding ecosystem includes diverse agencies like research councils for medical and agriculture research as well as the Department of Biotechnology.
The prevailing national research system faces multiple challenges — bureaucratic delays in the release of funds, a lack of transparency in the award of grants, restrictive procurement rules, taxation issues, problems in international collaboration, etc. The biggest hurdle is dwindling or stagnating levels of funding. Could the SERB and other funding agencies have been reformed before superseding them with an umbrella, centralised body? Is the ANRF a solution to all this? Ideally, a critical evaluation of the SERB in advancing scientific research in India should have preceded the creation of a body that supersedes it. The government has also not clarified how far social science research would be covered under the ANRF when dedicated research councils are functional for social science and historical research. This clarity is needed because the governing body decided to establish Centres of Excellence to support interdisciplinary research in humanities and social sciences and a representative of the Indian Council of Historical Research attended the board meeting.
The elephant in the room is the level of funding required for scientific research. The government has repeatedly been saying that the ANRF would get funding of
Rs 10,000 crore a year with the caveat that 65 per cent of it would come from the private sector. If this is so, the ANRF or the government should have a blueprint on how private sector funding would be raised. The first board meeting had hardly any industry representation and the official version of the meeting makes no mention of any discussion on the ways to make the private sector cough up
Rs 6,500 crore every year for funding research in public institutions and universities. All that the Prime Minister had to say on funding was that “the scientific community of the country should have faith that there will be no dearth of resources for their endeavours”.
Often, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) is cited as a model for research funding; the ANRF is said to be inspired by it. A former head of the NSF, Subra Suresh, has been made a member of the ANRF governing board. Incidentally, the current head of the NSF, Sethuraman Panchanathan, is also a scientist of Indian origin. While the NSF is an important source of research funding in America, it is not the sole one. Multiple government agencies fund research — the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and now there is the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). While the NSF focuses on basic research and some applied research, the NIH is dedicated to translational medical research and technologies. Other agencies fund defence and energy-related applied research. It is not a perfect research ecosystem but has adequate levels of transparency, accountability and external review.
Borrowing just the NSF model without attendant checks and balances is not a good idea. Instead, we should strive for a heterogeneous research funding system, building on our strengths. For example, India followed a diverse research council system to promote sector-specific research — agriculture, medical, industrial research etc. This system needs to be revived and nurtured to make it responsive and serve national needs, instead of replacing it with a monolithic, centralised and opaque structure.
We also need to evolve new criteria for measuring research output. For a long time, scientists have followed the dictum of ‘publish and perish’. This is so because grants, promotions and awards are linked with the number of research papers published. The same goes for another important matrix — patents. It’s no use gathering more patents if they have no economic value. Now there are ‘altmetrics’ which reflect media coverage and social media buzz around one’s research. Publications, citations and patents are important measures, but they give an incomplete picture of the quality and usability of research.
Artificial intelligence, storage technologies, solar energy, advanced materials, etc. are often cited as areas Indian funding agencies and researchers should focus on. The ANRF should cut through such generalities and identify niche areas where India needs to develop research and technological capacity in short, medium and long terms — areas that need a major leap or just incremental improvements, technologies that require substantial and sustained funding, and areas not covered by ongoing academic efforts in research institutes or industrial firms. Such clear mapping of critical areas across sectors is a prerequisite to serving the twin objectives of deploying scientific research for societal needs and attaining technological capability.
