On the occasion of National Science Day 2025, we present a collection of articles which discuss major issues that are relevant to the community of scientists, as well as society. Our constitution highlights the need to develop scientific temper among the people of the nation, but how far have we come towards attaining that goal, 75 years since? Where do we stand in terms of scientific progress and promise? What ails scientific practice in the country? These are poignant questions that have been discussed in the articles in this collection.
Predatory publishing is a growing crisis in academia, exploiting researchers and undermining the credibility of scholarly work. It involves unethical and deceptive practices by certain journals, publishers, and conferences that prioritize financial gain over academic quality and integrity. This issue poses a significant threat to academia, leading to a widespread loss of trust in scholarly publishing. By facilitating the dissemination of poor-quality research and misinformation, predatory journals weaken the credibility of genuine scientific advancements. Furthermore, they contribute to the loss of valuable funding and resources, diverting support away from legitimate research efforts. The proliferation of fraudulent scientific work, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, further highlights the dangers of predatory publishing and underscores the need for stricter regulations and increased awareness within the academic community.
Predatory publishing has witnessed an alarming surge over the past decade, with the number of predatory articles rising from 53,000 in 2010 to a staggering 787,000 in 2022. This exponential increase reflects the expanding influence of deceptive publishing practices, which not only compromise research integrity but also exploit unsuspecting authors. The financial scale of this issue is equally concerning, as predatory journals have amassed an estimated USD 393 million in revenue by preying on researchers eager to publish their work. Among the most affected nations, India stands out as both a major contributor and a significant host of predatory publishers, highlighting systemic challenges in academic publishing. Addressing this crisis requires urgent intervention through policy reforms, researcher awareness, and institutional accountability.
Despite growing awareness, many researchers—particularly early-career scholars—continue to fall victim to predatory publishing due to several key factors. A significant challenge is the lack of awareness, as many researchers struggle to differentiate between legitimate and predatory journals. Additionally, pressure to publish plays a crucial role, with institutions and funding agencies often valuing publication quantity over quality for career progression. High article processing charges (APCs) in reputable journals further push researchers toward predatory alternatives, which offer seemingly lower costs but lack proper peer review and credibility. Moreover, false indexing claims by predatory journals, including deceptive listings in reputable databases like Scopus, mislead authors into believing they are publishing in legitimate venues. These challenges underscore the necessity of enhanced awareness and training programs to equip researchers with the knowledge needed to make informed publishing decisions and safeguard the integrity of academic research.
Leading publication houses are actively combating unethical practices by implementing AI-driven fraud detection systems to identify and reject fraudulent submissions, reinforcing peer review processes to uphold high research standards, and providing free training resources—such as Nature Masterclasses—to educate researchers on ethical publishing. In an online panel discussion organized by the Indian National Young Academy of Science on March 22, 2024, Dr. Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity at Springer Nature, revealed that in October 2023, Springer Nature rejected 11,000 manuscripts due to concerns over research integrity, underscoring their proactive stance against predatory publishing. On the same occasion, Sarah Jenkins, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Elsevier, emphasized that Elsevier has implemented several strategic measures, including the use of technology-driven solutions to detect unethical submissions before publication, regular updates to editorial policies and ethical guidelines to prevent manipulation, and the organization of training workshops and awareness programs to educate researchers and journal editors on maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing. Similarly, Dr. Deeksha Gupta, Director of Global Strategy for Society Programs at the American Chemical Society, highlighted several initiatives, including the ACS Author Lab, a free training platform that educates researchers on ethical publishing practices. Dr. Gupta also stressed the importance of institutional support in funding legitimate Open Access (OA) publishing, which can deter researchers from resorting to predatory journals. Another potential solution to address the issue of predatory publishing is the promotion of Open Access (OA), which aims to make research widely accessible. However, limited awareness among researchers restricts its practical usability.
The above discussion emphasizes the need for policy reforms, as academic evaluation systems should prioritize research quality over sheer publication volume, thereby alleviating the pressure that often drives researchers toward unethical publishing practices. Slow policy changes remain a major hurdle, as academic appraisal systems still prioritize the quantity of publications over their quality, incentivizing researchers to seek rapid and often questionable publication avenues. Additionally, the temptation of fast peer review lures authors toward predatory journals, which promise quick acceptance and publication without the rigorous scrutiny that legitimate journals require. The expanding market for fraudulent research, fueled by paper mills and fake journals, persists because many researchers, under immense pressure to publish, resort to these unethical avenues. Stronger collaboration between publishers and academia is essential, with universities integrating publisher-led training programs into their research curriculum to educate young researchers on ethical publishing practices. By fostering a culture of integrity and quality-driven publishing, the academic community can work toward eliminating predatory practices and ensuring a more reliable, ethical scholarly landscape.
Acknowledgement
Dr. Kutubuddin Molla, ICAR-CRRI, Cuttack and Dr. Moumita Koley, DST-CPR, Bengaluru and Dr. Rajendra Singh Dhaka, IIT Delhi
Dr. Sriparna Chatterjee is a Materials Chemist in the Materials Chemistry & Interfacial Engineering Department, CSIR-Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar. She is a member of Indian National Young Academy of Science (INYAS), Indian National Science Academy (INSA).
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
When do we know we have gained an objective understanding of a phenomenon? Is it based on an individual’s knowledge because that person claims to have followed an unbiased approach, or when the majority come to the same understanding or all of humanity conclude the same? None of these will help us to achieve objectivity, given the limitations of our perception and cognitive processes. We sense the world with the help of our sensory organs, all of which have limitations. We perceive the world with the help of evolutionarily evolved cognitive skills, which include memorising all our experiences and comparing new sensory information with those experiences. This makes all our perceptions inherently biased.
Scientific methods have evolved over millennia to overcome our limited ability to be objective in our pursuit of knowledge, enabling us to understand the natural and human worlds across the scale of size, complexity, and time. Scientific methods involve framing specific hypotheses based on an observation/experience comparing the same against the prior knowledge or by a logical extension of what is known. Next, systematically test/validate the hypothesis by generating evidence both in its favour and against it. Since all humans are biased, scientific methods include three critical steps to generate unbiased knowledge. One, by designing the efforts of generating new evidence by focusing on disproving a hypothesis rather than proving it. Second, all new information generated is subjected to peer review. Third, even after peer review, all information is continuously evaluated against newly generated ones using the latest methods. This is how scientists can perceive the world beyond “human perception”. A telltale example of what scientific methods can achieve: even if all living humans see the sun moving around us, science has shown that reality is just the opposite.
A major misconception of scientific methods, specifically among Indians, is that they represent Western science. Scientific methods have been used for millennia to make hypotheses and validate the same. Methods of validation were mostly dialogue, argumentation, and deductive logic. Modern methods of experimental validation using technology such as microscopes, telescopes, spectroscopy, etc., were first developed in Europe and spread elsewhere. This helped scientists see the world in a way normal eyes can’t see. As science progressed, a larger community was involved, and they shared their work; this expansion of the scientific community and rapid methods of communication (printing press, faster modes for human mobility, etc.) helped Europe dominate science. This dominance does not make them own science and scientific methods. They existed and exist across all human societies; perhaps their origin goes back to when humans evolved with the ability to express their thoughts through syntactic languages.
What does this mean for the practice of science? (i) Absolute honesty in how we design our studies, how we report, and how flexible we should be in accepting alternate views. (ii) Scientists must understand that they should strictly adhere to scientific methods and they can’t speculate beyond what logic and rationality allow. They should subject all their speculations to scientific scrutiny. (iii) Since scientists are humans with one or the other inherent form of bias, subjecting everything they conceive needs to be validated as rigorously as anyone else’s opinion. This also indicates that if scientists belong to one gender, one socio-economic group, one geographical location or one community, science will progress only in specific directions. The more diversity and inclusivity in the scientific community, the more hypothesis diversity. As all are subject to the same scientific evaluation, ultimately, science would be enriched with more objectivity and the validated knowledge would be further expanded. It also helps to scientifically validate a large body of knowledge generated by trial-and-error methods or intuitive methods.
What does this mean for the general public and society at large –(i) given that often, the entire human population’s perception can be on the wrong side of reality, people should realise that the majoritarian view cannot be construed as the correct interpretation of any phenomenon. (ii) they should not take any information that comes to them through various modes as factual unless it comes from sources known to communicate only validated information.
The summary of all this is that people should be inquisitive, question authority and demand evidence; they should be tolerant of diverse views and practices. Differences in opinions must be discussed rationally and adjudicated using scientific methods such as seeking evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, etc. Even when no objective conclusion can be drawn, or universal truth can be established, someone’s views should still be respected if they are personal and do not influence others or vitiate social harmony. If they harm individuals, such beliefs are to be eliminated through a process of science and not by coercion. We need to espouse and practice this essence of scientific temper.
Thus, Scientific temper involves not submitting to dogmas, beliefs, irrational thoughts/views/opinions, authority, etc., without critically thinking and evaluating the available evidence. Often, deductive logic alone helps us to achieve some of these goals. For example, can we interpret a historical event with our perspective of today’s society? Scientific temper ultimately helps us understand ourselves better, our identity in our societies, the entire humanity, the living world and the universe at large. More importantly, it allows us to understand our fellow human beings better, thereby achieving true harmony and non-violence in society without losing freedom of our thoughts, opinions, and views.
Prof. L S Shashidhara is a renowned developmental biologist currently serving as the Director of National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bengaluru, India.
Note: This article were written in response to Prof. Gita Chadha’s talk on Re-envisioning Scientific Temper, delivered on 18th March 2024 during her tenure as Obaid Siddiqi Chair (2023–24).
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
With the rise of the knowledge economy and the need for a learning society, highly qualified human capital is essential, necessitating the advancement of higher education, science, and technology. As pointed out in the NITI Aayog’s India Innovation Index-2021 report, numerous studies have shown a positive association between per capita R&D expenditure and per capita GDP, with nations with high per capita R&D expenditure also having higher per capita GDP. Kaur and Singh (2016) examined 23 emerging economies (including India) from 1991 to 2010, finding that even a 1% increase in R&D expenditure results in 0.30% economic growth. Evenson and Singh (1997) found that a country’s R&D expenditure positively influences its output after reviewing data for 11 Asian countries from 1970 to 1993.
The founding leaders of newly independent India saw the importance of science and technology in addressing their challenges, which included public health, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment. The Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 stated that “the dominating feature of the contemporary world is the intense cultivation of science on a large scale, and its application to meet a country’s requirements”. It argued that “it is only through the scientific approach and method and the use of scientific knowledge that reasonable material and cultural amenities and services can be provided for every member.”
The edifice of the Indian scientific ecosystem was created modestly, brick by brick. The policy’s implementation was marked by the establishment of key organisations such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), laying the foundation for research and development in various sectors, with a focus on building scientific infrastructure and human resources.
If we look at our achievements, such as being the preferred destination for ‘health tourism’ or the high number of H-1B visas issued to Indian nationals, we can see the potential for further growth. The seeds we have planted are bearing fruit now, and there is still more to be harvested.
The old public health concerns, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment have been augmented by emerging ones, such as global warming, the energy crisis, and environmental degradation. We must become ‘friends with science’ now more than ever.
However, recent trends are worrying and raise the question of whether the fruit-bearing plants will continue to be nurtured and cared for and whether the grove will be sown with fresh seeds to meet future demands. This is the key question facing us.
Where are we?
If we go by the policy pronouncements, nothing is lacking. The Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy of 2013 said that it has long been a national aim to boost gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) to 2% of GDP, as well as to “increase the number of R&D personnel by 66% in the next five years.” The most recent draft of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020 proposes “to double the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers, gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), and private sector contribution to the GERD every five years.” If this was true, the future is bright. We would be not only sustaining our old gains but also breaking new ground. There would have been adequate human and financial resources for science, technology and innovation. Nevertheless, sadly, there is a significant gap between policy and practice.
Human resources are critical for science and innovation. Unfortunately, India has far fewer researchers per million inhabitants, at 262, than many other countries. It is superfluous to argue that without an appropriate number of researchers, India’s goal to catch up with the industrialised world and become an economic superpower will be a pipe dream. We will not even be able to provide basic necessities to all our fellow citizens. Figure 1 depicts India’s “researchers per million” compared to other selected countries. Forget China and the other BRICS+ nations; it is a pity that we not only fall significantly below the global average but also lag behind our closest neighbour. The numbers are not growing fast enough; they are lingering, causing despondency.
Figure 1: Researchers Per Million Inhabitants (FTE) for Select Countries, 2020 (data compiled from ‘S&T Indicators Tables Research and Development Statistics 2022-23’, DST)
Trends in higher education
The key to boosting the number of researchers in our country lies in the active participation of our youth in higher education and research. Each individual’s contribution is crucial, and by expanding higher education and attracting students from all backgrounds, we can build a stronger, more inclusive research community. Without increased funding for higher education and science, providing adequate instruction and job facilities will be difficult.
What are the recent trends in higher education and funding for research and innovation? PRS Legislative Research is an Indian non-profit organisation founded as an independent research institute to enhance the Indian legislative process. They have frequently analysed budgets and provided insightful analysis. They prepared two reports: “Demand for Grants 2024-25 Analysis: Science and Technology” and “Demand for Grants 2025-26 Analysis: Education.” This short note is essentially a review of these two reports.
NEP (2020) ambitiously aims to increase the gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education to 50% by 2035. The gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education is the percentage of students enrolled relative to the total population aged 18 to 23. This is a measure of youth participation in education. Indeed, expanding higher education is critical to producing a competent, skilled workforce. One would anticipate that some of these youngsters would be drawn to research, strengthening the scientific and innovation workforce. However, the outlook for higher education in the country is dark and grey. Some states, like Tamil Nadu (47%) and Kerala (41%), are on track to meet this aim. Nonetheless, the GERs of states such as Bihar (17%), Jharkhand (19%), and Uttar Pradesh (24%) lag behind, raising the question of whether they would be able to sprint to fulfil the NEP objective. Given the reality, the target of 50% GER by 2035 looks like a faraway dream.
If wishes were horses, we could ride our way to educating our country’s youngsters with wannabe, grandiose educational policy pledges. However, significant public expenditure is required to draw more young people to higher education. Unfortunately, governmental investment in the sector of higher education does not meet our aspirations.
With governmental funding in higher education declining, aspiring students are forced to attend more expensive private institutions. But this is not an option for everyone.
In 2021-22, 78% of all colleges are privately owned, with 66% of college enrolment in privately run institutions. According to the NSS (2017-18), the cost of studying at a private, unaided higher educational institution (HEI) was about twice that of a government university (see Figure 2). A detailed report of the NSS 2002 survey is yet to be released. Nonetheless, after examining the trends, a recent paper by Motkuri, V. and E. Revathi (2020) states that the growth in public expenditure on education was higher than that of private during the first four decades, from the 1950s through the 1980s, but thereafter, from 1990s through the present decade, it is the reverse. The ratio of public to private expenditure in education has increased from 0.7 in 1951-52 to whooping 1.6 in 2019-20. Such a trend reflects the increasing privatisation of education in India and has far-reaching policy implications.
Given that the poorest members of society have yet to enter higher education, expensive private institutions will discourage youth from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds from enrolling in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs). As a result, the GER will not grow.
Figure 2: The cost of higher education as compared to private institutions
To add insult to injury, the PRS study reveals that the Union Government’s investment in scholarships and interest subsidies is dropping, imperilling the participation among females and socially and economically disadvantaged groups, making the ideal of 50% GER even more distant (see Figure 3).
The government covers nearly 34% of the cost of education in private HEIs in OECD countries through scholarships and loans. Even in the United States, where universities are administered mainly by private interest, endowments bear 33% of the expense. With shrinking scholarships and rising higher education costs, achieving 50% GER is becoming an increasingly distant goal.
Figure 3: The scholarships and subsidies available to students are decreasing, dissuading youngsters from higher education
Unfilled teaching positions
Academic positions in educational institutions help to increase the pool of researchers, improve training, and give jobs, consequently creating a promising employment ecosystem to attract talented young people to science and innovation. As of March 2023, more than one-third of positions at centrally funded institutions were vacant, resulting in a negative environment (see Figure 4). According to reports, the empty posts are still unfilled due to a lack of funding. However, we can observe that the money allocated for higher education is not adequately used. For example, the revised projections for 2024-25 of Rs 46,482 crore are lower than the budget estimate of Rs 47,620 crore for higher education. In 2024-25, more than 1200 crore will be spent, less than the planned amount. This money may have boosted teacher appointments at higher education institutions.
Figure 4: One-third of posts in centrally funded universities were vacant as of March 2023
Dwindling investment in science
In the scientific and technology area, public announcements and remarks are pleasant. According to media sources, the union budget for 2025-26 includes a significant investment in research and innovation. The Hindu newspaper stated, “Union Budget 2025: Science Ministry gets a hefty hike powered by corpus to finance private R&D” and continued: “Budget allocation of 20,000 is almost triple the usual amount; will be used to fund the private sector and startups in sunrise sectors, says DST Secy; currently, less than 1% of GDP spent on R&D due to low private participation”. Indeed, the main four scientific and technology ministry/departments’ budget projections for 2025-26 (DST -28508.90, DBT 3446.64, DSIR/CSIR 6657.78, and MOES 3649.81) are much higher than the previous year.
However, the devil is in the details. Budget forecasts have recently lost their sanctity; they are now viewed mostly as a wish list with pomp. The reality lies in the specifics, or what is known as ‘actuals’; that is, the amount ‘actually’ issued and spent on the budget item. First, the budget forecasts are ‘ revised’ based on ‘actual’ cost spent in mid-course, around November. The ‘actuals’ represent the actual spending released. As a result, actuals are often lower than revised projections, which are significantly lower than budget estimates.
Let us look at the track record for 2024-25 in Table 1. The actuals for 2024-25 have yet to be determined. We just have the budget estimate and a revised estimate.
Table 1: The 2024 budget of the Science and Technology Ministry at a glance
Organisation
Budget Estimate( in crores)
Revised Estimate( in crores)
Difference in percentage
DST
8029.01
5661.45
70.51
DBT
2275.00
2460.13
108.14
DSIR/CSIR
6323.41
6350.54
100.43
MOES
3064.80
3632.78
118.53
The rise in MOES RE is attributed to increased capital outlay, whereas the variances in DST, DBT, and DSIR RE are related to revenue. Now, let us delve further. DST is one of the primary financing agencies for science and technology initiatives. The money was initially allocated through SERB and later NRF. The TDB is also an important agency that grants research funding.
Table 2: The 2024 budget of key funding agencies of DST at a glance
Budget Estimate( in crores)
Revised Estimate( in crores)
Difference in percentage
SERB
803
766
95.39
TDB
100
6
6
NRF
2000
200
10
Interestingly, the budget estimates for SERB for 2025-26 are only 693.25, TDB 7, and NRF 2000.
The stark contrast between what is announced in the budget and what is actually released for spending is clear. Table 3 shows the budget estimate and actual expenditures. Real spending has significantly declined recently, resulting in a severe drop in research support.
Table 3: Budget estimate and the actual investment of DST
Budget Estimates
Revised Estimates
Actual
Percentage of actuals over budget estimates
2019-20
5600
5501
5453
97.38
2020-21
6313
5012
4913
77.82
2021-22
6071
5244
5146
84.76
2022-23
6002
4907
4436
73.90
2023-24
7932
4892
61.67*
* based on RE
This has been the pattern over the previous few years, as seen in Figure 5. What was once a 3 to 5% disparity has slowly expanded, and by 2023-24, it was a whopping 38-40%! Despite apparent budget increases, the research community’s fear that financing has become increasingly limited in recent years appears correct.
Figure 5: Actual spending has been lower than the budget estimates
However, these four core institutions are not the only agencies that support research. Business enterprises, higher education institutions, governments, and private non-profit groups all fund research, often in tiny ways. Investment in science and technology research, including all entities’ expenditures, is quantified in terms of gross research and development expenditure (GERD). Since 2009-10, the GERD as a proportion of GDP has been steadily declining (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: GERD falling since 2009-10 (figures in % of GDP)
Glory and Gore
India’s spectacular successes in the space sector, such as landing on the Moon and developing cryogenic engines, are supplemented by considerable effort in other fields of science, technology, and innovation that are mostly unnoticed by the public. However, these are equally important to our economy’s growth and our citizens’ well-being. These are just the rewards of previous generations’ efforts. Failure to supply consistent nutrition will cause withering and stunted development.
Unfortunately, few new institutions have been founded in the recent two decades, except for name changes or ‘mergers’. Most legacy institutions were formed at least two to three decades ago. Unfortunately, when demand exceeds supply, many institutions and research units close. Of course, one must update and reposition in response to changes in technology and emphasis, but if closures are not accompanied by adequate new seeding, the research ecosystem will inevitably decline. All central funding is proposed to be routed through ANRF. Such centralisation will seriously hamper the timely evaluation and dispersal of funds. Also, the line departments will be hampered in seeking research in areas of their immediate interest.
In key technological areas, we seem to be happy with imports and reliance on others, compromising self-reliance, admanirbar, make-in-India, and security. Take the case of 6G; we are rushing head-on for its implementation without any basic R&D in relevant areas. The same is the case for AI. The allocation of Rs 2,000 crore for the IndiaAI Mission for 2025-26, which is nearly a fifth of the scheme’s total outlay of Rs 10,370 crore, is made in this budget. The outlay itself is suboptimal; billions are required to develop LLMs. If we do not gear up and mobilise the resources, we will miss this bus, too.
Science and technology are swiftly evolving, and as the Red Queen once said, one must run faster to merely stay in the same location. The patterns observed over the last two decades are not promising or inspiring. Will this budget alter the path of higher education, science, technology, and innovation? We have no option but to keep hoping.
References
Evenson, R. E., & Singh, L., (1997). Economic Growth, International Technological Spillovers and Public Policy: Theory and Empirical Evidence from Asia. Centre Discussion Paper, No. 777, Yale University, Economic Growth Centre, New Haven, CT.
India Innovation Index 2021, Niti Ayog (Source Link)
Kaur, M. & Singh, L. (2016). R&D Expenditure and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 15(3), 195-213
Motkuri, V. and E. Revathi (18 September 2020). Private and Public Expenditure on Education in India: Trend over last Seven Decades, CESS-RSEPPG Research Brief #2, Research Cell on Education (RSEPPG), Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad
PRSIndia Demand for Grants 2024-25 Analysis: Science and Technology (Source Link)
PRSIndia Demand for Grants 2025-26 Analysis: Education (Source Link)
S&T Indicators Tables Research and Development Statistics 2022-23, Department of Science and Technology (Source Link)
Dr. T. V. Venkateswaran is a science writer, science communication trainer, and visiting professor at IISER Mohali.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
ONOS (One nation, one subscription) for India, a scheme by which the government centrally subscribes to journals to make them accessible to all, was announced on 25 November 2024. This idea was first proposed in a report by India’s three science academies in 2019, but it did not go into details beyond suggesting a centralised system to minimise costs. Also in 2019, the office of the Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) to the Government of India organised a meeting (which I attended) to discuss a “National framework for open access of scientific literature”, where it was recommended that a team of negotiators negotiate with publishers for national subscription packages starting January 2021 “for universal access of scientific literature to Indian citizens” (from the minutes of the meeting).
The COVID pandemic intervened, but work on this pressed ahead. The then PSA, K VijayRaghavan (a developmental biologist), emphasised the importance of all citizens, including school students and teachers, journalists, independent researchers, and the general public, being able to access the scientific literature without paywalls. Another thorny question was of article processing charges (APCs) increasingly levied by journals for making publications “open access”, running to several thousand dollars/euros per paper. Most Indian researchers don’t have resources in terms of grants to foot these expenses, and journals increasingly decline waivers to Indian authors. I and others argued for ONOS to include APC waivers for Indian authors.
Negotiations continued, with some publishers more receptive than others. Prof VijayRaghavan retired as PSA, and Ajay Sood, a condensed-matter physicist, took over. After over two years of presumed committee meetings, a version of ONOS was finally announced on 25 November. This is an agreement with 30 publishers of academic journals to enable access via a common platform to about 13,000 journals from these publishers for users in 6,300 government-run higher educational institutions (HEIs).
While this falls short of the access to all Indians that was envisioned, it is nevertheless a one-of-its-kind agreement globally: a welcome first step but hopefully not the end of the story. In a press conference on 10 December, the PSA clarified that extensions, to non-government HEIs and to cover APCs, are being worked on and will be implemented in later phases. These extensions are important.
Even in 2019, author-pays APCs (which were invented in 1999 by open access advocates) were getting co-opted by large publishers, including Elsevier and Springer-Nature. This trend has accelerated to the point that most biomedical research is now APC-based open access, rendering ONOS moot in several fields of science, at least for contemporary research (archives are still paywalled). APC-based open access publishing is a double-edged sword. It increases public access to research, which is beneficial for knowledge dissemination and societal progress. But it disproportionately disadvantages researchers from lower-income countries, who often struggle to afford APCs, limiting their ability to contribute to the global scientific discourse. It has exchanged inequity at the consumption level for inequity at the production level. The Indian government and other developing countries must address this, ideally as part of an expanded ONOS package that includes APC waivers for authors from their countries, and must conclude agreements with the more receptive publishers as and when they can.
Moreover, the original justification for country-wide access remains valid. ONOS as announced this week is a budgetary and logistical optimisation that enables expanded access to thousands of government colleges, universities and institutions, but still excludes the rest of the country. In the short term, all public HEIs should open their libraries to the general public (as many already do) to be able to access this research; in the long term a truly inclusive ONOS is needed. In the December 10 press conference, it was mentioned that access to the public in phase 3 will be provided via access points in public libraries. This should not be the end goal: everyone geographically in India, as identified by their IP address, should have access. Contrary arguments from the Publishers about VPN users from other countries can be countered with numbers.
There are reports that universities have been asked to stop individual subscriptions to journals and route them via INFLIBNET, the ONOS implementing agency. But only 30 publishers and 13000 journals are covered; there is a legitimate worry that researchers that require highly specialized journal titles will be forgotten, and this fear should be dispelled or addressed.
The outlay for ONOS is ₹2,000 crore (₹20 billion, or about US$ 250 million) every year for three years. This may seem enormous but, according to the 2019 academies’ report, India was already spending ₹1,500 crore a year on subscriptions that failed to benefit most HEIs. So ONOS has indeed expanded access at a not much greater cost; nevertheless it would not be surprising if publishers see it as a locked-in windfall, especially given the move towards open access (another reason to include APCs in the ambit of ONOS).
Madhan Muthu, Director of Global Library at O. P. Jindal Global University and a visiting scholar at the DST Centre for Policy Research at IISc, Bengaluru, argues that the deal is “too big to fail”, and that increased access at the same or slightly higher cost is not worth the price, pointing out that in most institutions researchers read only a handful of the journals that they subscribed to. He also argues that a pay-per-view system would be more economical than mass subscriptions. Both points are true, but in an ideal world we should be able to access literature without jumping through hoops. For example, a couple of years ago I needed to access two papers published in the 1990s in a journal called Growth, Development and Aging. The journal no longer exists and has no online archives; I wrote to the library of the (deceased) lead author, at the University of Missouri, and they declined to share a copy with me for copyright reasons! Luckily I eventually found it on archive.org – but this should not be necessary. A pay-per-view model may save money, but largely, I suspect, by most people not bothering at all. That said, the current ONOS model should be aggressively renegotiated every few years.
In the press conference of 10 December, it was mentioned that a fund is being set up to cover APCs for Indian authors in “selected good quality journals” and that APC discounts would be negotiated “as far as possible”. This is a good start, but the devil is in the details. The government should move quickly to set up payment mechanisms for the selected journals such that the authors do not have to worry about this at the time of submission. It should not happen that the author submits a paper, which is accepted, and then the author has to beg the government for coverage! Anyway, this scheme is described as a “pilot”, and hopefully the government prioritises it.
Just as the author-pays OA movement arose as a backlash against the exorbitant subscription costs of journal publishers, there is increasingly a backlash against APCs and an argument for a “diamond OA” world, where journals are funded by governments, societies and philanthropies (as repositories like arXiv and bioRxiv already are), free to read and free to publish in. In such a world, journals would be overlays of reviews on publicly-accessible preprints. The old system is broken and India and other developing countries should lead in creating a new system. It could be argued that ONOS is, instead, entrenching the old system for another few years. However, scientists have to work in the publishing landscape as it exists now, even while working to change it. ONOS is an incremental change, and in many ways a welcome one. Much more is required, globally, and maybe India can contribute more fresh ideas.
One concrete idea to change things is for India to set up a high-quality, APC-free open-access journal family. This is not for nationalistic reasons but because the world needs it. Prof Sood (PSA) said on December 10 that in a democracy Indian scientists cannot be asked to publish only in Indian journals, and science is a global enterprise. Quite so. One solution could be for India to set up a truly global family of journals, with global editorial boards, that scientists around the world will want to publish in. We certainly have the technical and scientific expertise and the resources.
All in all, though ONOS should be seen as a first step and not the end, I am optimistic about the noises being made. Here’s hoping.
Rahul Siddharthan is a professor at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai. This piece first appeared in his blog at horadecubitus.wordpress.com, and is reproduced here with permission.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti is a faculty member at IIITB, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
For the other cartoons in this series, please click here.
Why do we walk on two legs? Why are antibiotics becoming increasingly ineffective? Why do we need vitamin B in our diet? Why do people with serious disabilities continue to be born? Why are people in the tropics darker-skinned than those in temperate zones? Why do bats fly only at night? Why are flowers brightly coloured and patterned? Why do people get covid even after they are vaccinated? The detailed answers to those questions vary from case to case, but there is also a common answer: because of evolution. Evolution is the central organising principle behind living matter. That means all of us – viruses, microbes, fungi, plants and animals.
It is rightly said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just as physical laws account for fire, rain, earthquakes, motor cars, aeroplanes, artificial satellites and mobile phones, evolution accounts for the makeup and functioning of living organisms. Evolution explains how the huge variety of living creatures came into being. It is a history of life on earth, and not merely a descriptive history. It explains why particular features are characteristic of different forms of life. The explanations fall into three broad groups: those that depend on accidents of chance alone, those that depend on chance combined with reproductive advantage, and those that depend on chance combined with mutual advantage. Let me give examples of each. They are chosen deliberately to illustrate how an understanding of evolution clarifies aspects of human life.
Among the roughly 300 year-old Amish sect in the US, a significantly higher proportion have more fingers or toes than the usual five. Why? It so happened that very early, some Amish had a genetic condition which leads to extra digits. The number of Amish has always been small, and they largely married within themselves. Therefore, purely on account of chance (to which the small population size also contributed), extra digits occur in the Amish more frequently than in others. Next, consider the evolution of resistance to an antibiotic. It originates from a chance event, a mutation, in a single bacterium. In someone who is taking the antibiotic (and also in environmental waste that contains the antibiotic), resistance gives that bacterium and its descendants an advantage. They survive and reproduce more effectively than bacteria that are sensitive to the antibiotic. Eventually, resistant bacteria become widespread. In this case evolution has taken place because of chance and reproductive advantage. Finally, consider vitamin B. It is an essential nutrient, but our body cannot produce it. We depend on the bacteria which live in our gut to make vitamin B for us. In return, our metabolism provides the bacteria with the food that they need. The original association between the two species must have occurred by chance. Once it did, mutual benefit ensured its persistence.
As these examples show, evolution can take place in several ways. Among them, the second in our list has become famous. In it, evolution is the result of cumulative changes, each spreading within a population following a chance event that results in a slightly improved ability to reproduce. That way of evolving is known as natural selection. It was proposed simultaneously by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. Popularly, it goes by the name ‘survival of the fittest’ – an expression that has given rise to so much confusion that biologists hardly ever use it. Sometimes natural selection is also called Darwinian evolution (most unfairly to Wallace). It remains the dominant explanation for evolution, especially when the outcome appears to be an adaptation. Adaptation is an evolutionary outcome which makes the members of a species respond optimally to the challenges posed by their surroundings, which include other living creatures too. Optimality is judged as an engineer would, and roughly means ‘as efficiently as possible’. Adaptive evolution leads to better swimmers, fliers, runners, or an improved ability to digest food, see, hear or smell, resist infections, and so on. Molecular biology illustrates the first evolutionary mechanism in our list – chance alone – dramatically. Chance is behind a large number of evolutionary changes in DNA and protein sequences that persist even though they are neither beneficial nor harmful. The third mechanism, in which chance and cooperation combine, makes us look at evolution in a new way. We now see that living creatures (including ourselves) are not isolated individuals. Rather, they are communities that include a huge number of microbial species that live on and within them in an arrangement that helps both sides – or one should say all sides. The emphasis on cooperation reflects a shift in perspective from simple-minded Darwinian evolution, which stresses competition.
Unexpected facets of evolution are emerging. The role of the external environment as a stimulus for evolutionary change is one. The role played by the mechanics of cells and tissues in guiding the development of form is another. Thanks to technical advances in molecular biology and computer analysis, the study of evolution is passing through an exciting phase today. We are learning with whom we share our roots and how long ago that was. The deep history of our own species, Homo sapiens, is acquiring shape. We know that our forefathers originated in Africa and, as hopeful migrants, went out from there to populate other continents. There are tantalising glimpses of the people whose descendants we present-day Indians are. They include the earliest humans to reach here from Africa as well as immigrants who arrived in diverse streams from the north-west, north-east, and south Asia. Two statements sum up what evolution tells us so far. First, life on earth is a spectacular example of unity and diversity, both of them based on common ancestry. Second, the diversity has come about through a combination of accidental events, the laws of physics, and natural selection. In the memorable words Darwin used at the end of The Origin of Species (a book that repays reading even today), there is grandeur in this view of life. The study of evolution is endlessly fascinating. Its goal is to explain the most striking aspects of living creatures, the sorts of things that attract a child’s wonder. At the same time, it throws light on the deepest doubts that have engaged humans. Who are we? Where did we come from?
However, there is a question that evolution seems ill-equipped to answer. Why on earth would anyone want to deny young Indians such richness, when it costs nothing? NCERT appears to have done just that by omitting the topic of evolution from its X standard text book. The reasons given for the removal that I have come across (it is too difficult, Darwin is a controversial figure) make no sense. It used to be thought that evolutionary biology was not utilitarian in the sense that mathematics, chemistry, computer science or engineering are. In this age of organ transplants across species and strategies to counter the impact of climate change, even that is not true. But there is a far more important point behind the teaching of evolution to children at several levels and in progressively increasing detail. An appreciation of evolution enriches the mind. To delete it from the syllabus is as foolish as not teaching a language, or poetry, or history (though I seem to recall an entrepreneur saying that teaching language was a waste of time). Being exposed to evolutionary thinking should be considered an essential element of human culture, on a par with being told about the planets, stars and galaxies and where they come from. One does not have to know about evolution to make a living. Also, cutting down on its teaching will not matter to those who study in private institutions that use their own curricula. They will find, or be directed to, sources of knowledge other than officially prescribed texts. On the other hand, the move will hit precisely those children whose needs should be addressed by a progressive educational policy, those who come from deprived backgrounds, are compelled to study in publicly funded schools, and retain the hope that education is liberating.
Vidyanand Nanjundiah used to be at the Indian Institute of Science and is now at the Centre for Human Genetics. He studies evolution, especially the evolution of social behaviour in microorganisms. He can be contacted at vidyan@alumni.iisc.ac.in. The views expressed in this piece are personal.
While it is true that evolution is very briefly introduced in earlier classes (Std. VII), and will still – for the time being?. – remain part of the Std. XII curriculum, its removal from the Std. X curriculum is a matter of grave concern for at least four major reasons outlined below. We also note that what is often colloquially termed ‘Darwinism’ is really the ‘Theory of Evolution’, for which Darwin provided the first detailed scientific framework and also compiled ample evidence consistent with that framework. The ‘Theory of Evolution’ was later further developed and refined by innumerable scientists from across the world, combining Darwin’s original insights with later discoveries in Mendelian genetics and many other fields including ecology, behaviour, developmental biology, and mathematical and statistical genetics. It is not a branch of biology, but rather is a logical framework and perspective with which to make sense of the diverse facts we continue to learn about the living world (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7pJ9w5oswg).
The importance of evolution to understand life
Any science calling itself ‘biology’ must address how living things are “living” (rather than non-living), and also the diversity, relatedness and adaptedness of life forms. The first question is addressed by functional biology, often at a molecular or cellular level, the other three are addressed by evolution. The very existence of life in diverse forms, ecological interactions within and between groups, or the inter-relationships between living organisms and their immediate surroundings cannot be explained without invoking the ‘Theory of Evolution’. This means that one cannot understand any aspect of natural science without invoking the concepts of the ‘Theory of evolution’. Evolution is not a mere sub-discipline of biology; rather, it is an overarching perspective from which we make sense of all the factual information gleaned from research in diverse branches of biology. It is evolutionary theory that provides the logical framework for understanding biological diversity and dynamics, and elevates it beyond just being a collection of interesting facts about this or that species. As the great Nobel Prize winning immunologist Sir Peter Medawar said, “For a biologist, the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all”! An equally profound statement, which is as relevant today as it was 75 years ago, was Theodosius Dobzhansky’s assertion that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.
Centrality of evolutionary biology to our survival and healthy living
It is often thought that evolution does not have applied significance and is just of academic interest. That could not be further than the truth, as recently highlighted by the covid pandemic where evolutionary concepts were needed to develop effective models and plan vaccination and other public health strategies. Whether it be the origin and spread of multi-drug resistant bacteria, new zoonotic outbreaks and pandemics, epidemiology and public health, impact of loss of biodiversity, effects of environmental degradation and climate change, cancer, ageing, crop and domesticated animal improvement, use of DNA in forensics, genome wide association studies to identify genetic variants underlying complex diseases, assessing the potential risks of genetically modified organisms, understanding human diversity and pre-civilization migrations, or a diverse set of social pathologies (including sexual violence), an evolutionary perspective and the application of evolutionary theory are crucially important to how we understand and, therefore, tackle or manage these important societal challenges. Concepts from evolution are also used in diverse areas of computer science, like artificial intelligence and machine learning (for more detail on the centrality of evolution for both biology and for solving diverse societal challenges, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fut6NtPc7_0).
The importance of evolution in our intellectual history
The concept of evolution is something that all citizens should be aware of because it speaks directly to who we are, as humans, and our position within the living world. Following the Copernican and Newtonian intellectual revolutions in Europe, living organisms were the last bastion of “religious” or “supernatural” explanations in nature. The Darwinian intellectual revolution showed, that just as in the case for movement of celestial bodies after Newton, there was no need to invoke supernatural explanations to understand the living world, the diversity, relatedness and adaptedness of life forms, or of human origins (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xppn7ITteZw&pp=ygUeQW1pdGFiaCBKb3NoaSBFdm9sdXRpb24gUG9ldHJ5). Thus, evolution is also a central concept in our modern rational world-view, as opposed to a superstitious or mythological one, and as such a basic understanding of the tenets of Darwinian evolutionary theory is important to the cultivation of a scientific temper, something our Constitution exhorts us to strive towards. If the vast majority of students (those who do not go on to take biology in Std XI-XII) are to be deprived of any exposure to the concept so important to a scientific world-view, it is a travesty of the notion of a well-rounded secondary education.
The importance of evolution to cultivating the ‘scientific temper’
As is clear from the point above, evolutionary thinking is immensely important for developing a scientific temperament. Evolution provides scientific thinking in the form of knowledge-driven and evidence-based explanations of our very existence, our diseases and other life-style maladies, our relationship with other human societies, and with our living and non-living environment. It helps us to understand our position in the biosphere, our relationship with other human groups and other species, and the importance of diversity in humans and all other life forms. It helps us to understand the unity underlying our ethnic and other diversity, diseases, ways to conserve biodiversity and also helps us to design strategies to keep out planet liveable. And, above all, it is one of the pillars of a rational view of the living world, as opposed to a mythological, superstitious or religious one.
Concluding Remarks
As we have briefly seen above, evolution is a foundational concept for both the study of biology and for cultivating a rational view of humans and their interrelationships with one another, and with the living and non-living environment. It is also important for how we choose, as a society, to address diverse challenges in public health and societal well-being, especially in rapidly altering times characterized by environmental degradation and climate change.
As of now, what we know is that evolution has been removed from the Std X curriculum. We do not know the reason why. It is still there in Std XII curriculum. So, the concern is not so much that “evolution is removed” from curricula, inasmuch as students taking biology in Std XI-XII will get exposure to evolutionary biology. The concern specifically is that, other than basics of how the human body functions, evolution is perhaps the most important part of biology that all educated citizens should be aware of and, therefore, it should remain in the Std X curriculum which all students study before they choose different specializations in Std XI. In the absence of rational and scientific understanding of life, as children grow up they would become more likely to succumb to superstitions and irrational explanations and practices. How will they explain why the mighty dinosaurs, which they all are fond of, are no longer around? How will they explain similarities between human and other mammals to an extent that we can take a pig organ and transplant it into a human? How will they innovate any new products without the understanding of common chemical basis of life across all organisms, from tiny bacteria to large banyan trees to humans to elephants to whales? As the vast majority of students do not take biology after class X, they will be deprived of any exposure to a concept so important to both biology and a scientific world-view. For the past 50 years, India is reaping the benefits of globalisation by providing S&T services to the whole world, especially IT services. With the advent of artificial intelligence and machine learning, this is in danger unless we reinvent our education, which is what NEP2020 is attempting. However, no student will be able to master high levels of creativity and innovation to develop AI-driven modules without a deeper understanding of the fundamental concept of natural selection. Concepts of evolution are today finding a role in areas from computer science, artificial intelligence and machine learning, to economics and manufacturing.
At this point we do not know if this removal education from Std X is part of a broader government policy or not. There is trepidation that it might be so, given that in 2018, there was a statement by the then Minister-of-State for Human Resource Development that evolution was discredited and should not be taught, prompting a strong response from the academic community (see http://confluence.ias.ac.in/joint-statement-by-the-three-science-academies-of-india/, http://confluence.ias.ac.in/defying-both-logic-and-biology/). On the other hand, it may well be that this move is just a reflection of a general view among many in Indian biology that evolution is somehow unimportant, compared to molecular biology (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fut6NtPc7_0), or perhaps just sheer intellectual laziness or incompetence by the concerned committee members. There have been some suggestions by defenders of the NCERT policy that the concerns expressed are politically motivated, that basic ideas of evolution are “too heavy” for Std. X teachers and students, and that Darwinian evolutionary theory has long been superseded by the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution which is too technical to be taught in Std. X (see https://www.ndtv.com/video/shows/ndtv-special-ndtv-24×7/the-darwin-debate-theory-of-omission-evolution-of-a-controversy-696075). These arguments are disingenuous and appear to be meant to deflect and obfuscate the issue. All the points we have made above are technical points in the science and academics domain; we would have made the same points if any other government had removed evolution from the Std. X curriculum. The basic concepts of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ can easily be introduced to Std. X students, or indeed the general public (see for example, this public lecture explaining very nuanced and up-to-date aspects of natural selection, without any technicalities or mathematical details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPtRvj7wYc). Moreover, the conceptual core of evolutionary theory has not really changed much since Darwin: some details have been added and more recently discovered phenomena have been incorporated (see https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/3688/).
What is also distressing is that none of the internationally known Indian evolutionary biologists were consulted on this matter. India has a small but very strong evolutionary biology community and Indian research was the only non-western research to make it into a compendium of 65 major conceptual breakthroughs in evolutionary ecology since Darwin, according to a recent book (https://dst.gov.in/indian-study-finds-place-among-major-breakthroughs-ecology-and-evolution-counted-origin-species). Indian scientists have contributed a lot to evolutionary biology in the last 30-35 years, and are among world-leaders in areas of social evolution, behavioural ecology in plants, evolution of competitive ability, evolution of population stability, sexual selection and sexual conflict, and core concepts in evolution and our understanding of its history (https://dst.gov.in/indian-biologists-put-forward-novel-refinements-fundamental-conceptual-principles-evolutionary). There is also a professional society, the Indian Society of Evolutionary Biologists (https://home.evolutionindia.org/), that could have been consulted but was not.
Especially given the recent covid pandemic underscoring the importance of evolutionary theory to solving real-life problems, we find it inexplicable why NCERT would want to drop topics on evolution from Std X, even if the aim was to ‘reduce the academic load’: in that case, some chapters with factual detail could have been dropped instead of the chapter dealing with the logical foundations of the discipline of biology. We note also that this move is against the spirit of the NEP of 2020 in that the policy emphasized the importance of concepts and rational thinking over mere absorption of factual material. We would like to believe that this is a genuine, though huge, mistake by the concerned committee, and we are hopeful that the responses from the Academic community will help initiate a rethink and possible reversal of this decision.
L. S. Shashidhara is a developmental geneticist and evolutionary biologist and is presently Director of the TIFR-National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru
Amitabh Joshi is an evolutionary biologist and population ecologist and is presently Chair of the Evolutionary and Organismal Biology Unit, of the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bengaluru.
Both authors are also founding members, fellows and executive committee members of the Indian Society of Evolutionary Biologists (https://home.evolutionindia.org/). The views expressed in this piece are personal.
Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti is a faculty member at IIITB, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
For the other cartoons in this series, please click here.
Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti is a faculty member at IIITB, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
For the other cartoons in this series, please click here.
