Girls and women represent half of the population of India. Yet, their participation in scientific education and the workforce is insufficient and beset with challenges.
India produces over 25 lakh graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) each year, a number that, despite being among the highest in the world, is insufficient for the country’s science and technology-related aspirations. Building a large scientific workforce and scientifically literate population is critical for India to harness its full potential. In line with this, the recent National Education Policy (2020) and Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act (2023) aim to transform science education and research in the country. Unleashing the intellectual and innovative potential of our entire population is of national relevance.
In this background of reality and aspirations, informing and igniting the next generation of citizens, including girls and women, about the scope, potential, and value of science—while inspiring them to consider it as an education and career—assumes significance.
As a physician, clinical microbiologist, scientist, wife, and mother, I have worn multiple hats across my life and career. After my MBBS, I pursued an MD in microbiology. A research project during this period led me to my quest for a PhD and becoming a ‘physician-scientist’. Around this time, I also got married and moved, aspirations and all, to the United States. It was difficult breaking into a new academic system but ultimately, I did a PhD from an interdisciplinary biophysics group in a US university. In one of the most rewarding yet challenging phases of my life, I also became a mother. A few years after my PhD, donning the hat of the homeland-bound, I chose to return to India on a Government of India fellowship. It was a decision driven by a deep commitment to plough my experience and education back into my country. Several career trajectories later, some of which found me storing laboratory materials in the back of my car, and some, on the cover of a UNESCO book, I was leading a national science programme in the life-science ecosystem in the country.
All in all, my career has spanned medicine and science(s!) with experiences across more than two decades, many countries, and contributions to scientific research, education, innovation, policy, and outreach. There have been many lessons and stories on the journey. My ambitions brought forth accomplishments, as much as they did realities about doing science in different parts of the world. It made me reflect on what being a woman in science meant for me, and what it means for other women in the world. Several of these learnings are those that one would expect as one navigates a career in science. Many of them were unexpected, disappointing, and even unfair. All of them are shared in this book.
Part memoir and part reportage, The Real Deal provides aspiring girl scientists an insider’s view into the experiences of a contemporary woman scientist in India.
The memoir consists of real-life stories from a life and career in science with anecdotes from student life to leadership, all with a generous dose of humour and hindsight. The reportage is intended to provide aspiring scientists a closer look into the broader aspects of a scientific career. Using research-backed information and case-in-point scenarios from different STEM fields, the chapters cover general information topics such as education and careers in science, as well as less discussed topics, such as the role of mentors and allies, stereotypes and imposter phenomenon, and work–life balance and mental health—essentially, other factors which influence science careers! A significant part of the book delves into what it means to be a woman in science, with a clear and critical view of how gender, marriage, motherhood, the leaky pipeline, and position-gap impact the careers of women in STEM. It also discusses the realities of bias and discrimination in the scientific ecosystem, including what that means for women and other marginalized groups. Across different points, the book includes solutions to some of these challenges, with evidence-based and real-life examples of ways in which these can and have been navigated. Finally, at the end of the book, aspiring scientists get an insight into how broader societal discourse shapes science. Through themes such as open science and scientific reproducibility, as well as how science intersects with beliefs, ethics and the state, this book will prime future scientists on what they can and should expect as they forge their careers amid ongoing conversations.
This book is intended for a wide range of readers, and particularly for girls and boys who are twelve years and older, including those studying science at undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels. The book is also aimed to be a suitable guide for parents and teachers, who can support young people aspiring to study science as well as spark conversations with them around a life and career in STEM. Given the unique challenges around girls’ education and professional advancement in our country, this book, written from the lens of an Indian woman scientist, will also serve as an advocate for better institutional and social systems to support women in science.
While there are notable books that chronicle the stories of women in science from India and across the world, a large segment of them are biographical sketches of women scientists from previous generations. As a result, very few of these accounts profile current women scientists, living and working in our midst, and even fewer are first-person narratives. Biographical accounts also risk falling prey to ‘survivorship bias’, a type of selection bias that results from profiling women scientists who have the privilege of looking back on a successful career (aka ‘those who made it’), as opposed to those currently navigating the opportunities and challenges of a modern-day scientific career, and doing so while balancing and enjoying multiple roles in their lives (aka ‘someone who is making it happen’).
Think of this book as a conversation between a grown-up girl scientist (me) and the many aspiring girl scientists across India and the globe; an authentic account of the ‘real deal’ of a life and career in science, filled with failed experiments, difficult decisions, and the realities of being a woman in science, as well as the thrills of scientific discovery, the joys of work–life balance as a scientist-mother, and the fulfilment of being a part of work that could change the lives of millions.
I am lucky because writing this book could not have come at a better time in my life and career. I hope reading it leaves you with the same feeling.
Science represents a rigorous and systematic pursuit of knowledge that encompasses the observation, analysis, and comprehension of the natural world. Its ultimate goal is to apply the insights gained through this process to exert some control over the physical universe, enhancing our understanding and improving our daily lives. Unlike many disciplines, in which personal biases or societal pressures may be present, science operates independently of social and economic factors that often shape the experiences of researchers and practitioners.
Through its methodical approach, science works to unveil the layers of hypocrisy, cant, and prejudice that can cloud human judgment and decision-making. It seeks to eliminate obscurantism—the deliberate withholding of knowledge or facts—and emotion-driven responses, and to promote a framework built on logical reasoning and objective analysis. This emphasis on rationality enables us to navigate complex questions and challenges by prioritising evidence and peer-reviewed findings over personal beliefs or societal constructs.
Moreover, the impact of science extends far beyond the laboratory and academic institutions; it fundamentally transforms the world as we know it. Advancements in medicine, technology, environmental science, and countless other domains are directly linked to scientific inquiry. As a cornerstone of organised, civilised society, the scientific method has paved the way for innovations that improve health, promote sustainability, and foster human understanding. In fact, without the foundational principles of science guiding our progress, the intricate world we inhabit today would be radically different and far less recognisable.
Politics, fundamentally, is the intricate process through which groups of individuals come together to make collective decisions and establish governing rules that shape their communities. This process is deeply rooted in the exercise of power—defined as the capacity to influence others’ behaviour and beliefs. At its heart, politics seeks to resolve conflicts that arise over the distribution of essential resources, social status, and authority within a society.
Politics is a universal human activity that grapples with pivotal questions about equity and access: who gets what resources, when they receive them, and how these distributions are made. These dynamics manifest through various institutions—such as governments, legal systems, and other formal organisations—as well as through informal mechanisms such as negotiation and contestation.
Politics is not a static phenomenon; the historical and cultural contexts of different eras and regimes shape it. Whether in democracies, autocracies, or any other form of governance, the essence of political activity remains consistent: it is a collective endeavour that reflects the complexities of human interactions and social organisation. As societies evolve, so too do the methods and frameworks of political engagement, but the underlying principles of power and resource allocation persist as core elements of the political landscape.
The intersection of science and politics is essential, as political structures serve as the primary engine for power distribution and resource allocation, fundamentally shaping modern societal activities and determining global standing. In today’s world, scientific and technological supremacy—especially in transformative fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing—has emerged as a critical instrument of national power. This evolution means that advancements in these areas have significant implications for a nation’s economic dominance and military advantage, positioning them as pivotal factors in the contemporary geopolitical landscape where major nations vie for influence and supremacy.
Throughout history, it has become evident that a nation’s scientific prowess plays a crucial role in shaping its quest for hegemonic status on the global stage. Take, for example, Germany’s groundbreaking synthesis of indigo, which not only revolutionised the dye industry but also paved the way for a burgeoning chemical sector. Similarly, the United States made strides with the invention of saccharin, a synthetic sweetener that gained immense popularity and transformed food production. Meanwhile, Britain’s pioneering development of mauve, the first synthetic dye, laid the groundwork for significant advancements in color chemistry and textile manufacturing. Equally noteworthy is Britain’s serendipitous discovery of penicillin, which marked the dawn of modern medicine by offering a powerful weapon against bacterial infections. In the United States, the creation of innovative polymers such as Nylon and Teflon liberated industries from traditional materials, leading to new products that changed everyday life.
This era also heralded the silicon revolution, ignited by the invention of the silicon chip. This tiny piece of technology became the backbone of the semiconductor industry, leading to the proliferation of electronic devices that transformed communication and computation. Around this time, IBM emerged as a key player by introducing some of the first digital computers, forever altering the landscape of information technology. Furthermore, the discovery of nuclear fission had monumental consequences, giving rise to both the fearsome potential of atomic weaponry and the promise of nuclear energy for peaceful applications, such as powering homes and businesses.
In more recent times, China’s dominance in the rare earth elements (REE) sector has changed geopolitics at least in the medium term. Undoubtedly, the remarkable scientific advancements achieved in these nations—characterised by pivotal discoveries and inventions—have had a profound and lasting impact on how they exert their political influence and power worldwide.
Politics serves as the mechanism for determining “who gets what,” thereby placing increasing importance on evidence-based decision-making guided by scientific insights and data. The multifaceted challenges of our time—including climate change, public health crises, and pandemics—demand that political actions are rooted in the logical consistency of scientific consensus. By doing so, policymakers can ensure that limited resources are allocated toward viable and practical solutions rather than being diverted by preconceived notions, biases, or dogmatic beliefs.
Moreover, the allocation of public funding for research and development is fundamentally a political choice, with direct repercussions on a nation’s capacity to innovate and maintain competitiveness on the global stage. When governments prioritise investment in scientific research, they not only foster an environment conducive to discovery and invention but also secure their position in the global marketplace of ideas and technologies.
Finally, science plays a crucial role in diplomacy, helping countries collaboratively manage shared resources, such as global supply chains, and address collective risks. In this context, international scientific collaborations can serve as invaluable tools for soft power and trust-building among nations. By fostering scientific partnerships, countries can transcend political tensions and work together toward common goals. This collaborative spirit becomes increasingly vital in navigating the complexities of an interconnected and contested world order, where the interdependence between nations makes scientific cooperation a cornerstone of diplomatic relations.
Gautam R. Desiraju is an eminent structural chemist and an emeritus professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. He is known for his pioneering work on crystal engineering and weak hydrogen bonds.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
The second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine was held in New Delhi a few days back. It is timely to remind stakeholders of how Pandit Nehru – India’s first Prime Minister, known for his spirited advocacy of scientific temper – approached policymaking vis-a-vis Ayurveda. The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, now available online, have some interesting material on this topic.
In 1962, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, conceived an Ayurvedic research institute as a memorial to her late husband. Pandit Nehru, who was invited to inaugurate it, gladly accepted and opened the Bandaranaike Memorial Ayurvedic Research Institute at Maharagama, Sri Lanka, on 14 October 1962. The letters exchanged between the two Prime Ministers in 1961–62 reveal Nehru’s considered approach to Ayurveda.
On 17 May 1961, Nehru wrote to Bandaranaike: “Our broad approach has been that the Ayurvedic and like systems of medicine made great progress in the past, more especially in the treatment of some diseases, but, for some reason which is difficult to explain, this progress came to a standstill many hundred years ago.
“And so, while they have very valuable material with them which we should study and profit by, their broad approach is out of date. We can only profit by what Ayurveda can teach us if we examine it in the light of modern scientific developments. This is an age of science and we can hardly go back to the pre-scientific age in considering any matter. But, I repeat, we believe that there is much in Ayurveda which is of importance to us and, therefore, should be studied.”
This is, in fact, a reiteration of the view he had stated in a note dated 22 July 1950: “There is no doubt that there are very effective remedies in Ayurvedic and the Unani systems, and, scientifically utilised, they can be of the greatest use. But it is important that the method of science be applied to them. In surgery, which is so important, there is no alternative to modern methods.”
These excerpts clearly reflect Nehru’s philosophy of critical conservatism toward India’s traditional medical systems. Traditional medicine is valuable, but only when refined by evidence-based scrutiny.
Nehru consistently warned against blind conservatism. When traditional astrologers predicted widespread natural calamities due to the rare planetary alignment known as Ashtagraha in early February 1962, he openly ridiculed the forecast. In a speech he declared: “When I speak of dangerous events, I do not want you to be under any illusion that I am talking about the Ashtagraha. I have no belief in all that.” Incidentally, the speech was delivered in Varanasi on 12 January 1962 – the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, another great figure who had cautioned Indians against superstition and astrology.
Despite Nehru’s balanced and reasonable approach to Ayurveda, the fact remains that this traditional medical system has stayed stagnant. Its theoretical framework – a significant portion of which is clearly outdated – has undergone no serious revision. Ayurvedic colleges even today teach students ancient physiological and pathological conjectures that became obsolete centuries ago, while confusingly treating modern scientific facts and these antiquated ideas as possessing equal veracity.
What accounts for this persistent intellectual ineptitude on the part of the Ayurvedic academia? Nehru himself noted in another context, writing to Bertrand Russell: “Logic and common sense do not take one very far when people’s fears and passions are aroused.” The Ayurvedic academia, by and large, passionately clings to the belief that its knowledge base is a perfected product divined in deep yogic states by ancient sages. It fears that revising ancient texts would lead to the loss of wisdom derived from higher epistemic realms! When an ancient reason-based discipline (yukti-vyāpāśraya) is thus misconstrued as an esoteric and authority-based one, it is only natural that logic and common sense can play little or no role.
The Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025-2034, adopted by the 78th World Health Assembly, sets guiding principles and four objectives: strengthen evidence, ensure safety and regulation, integrate traditional medicine into health systems, and optimize its cross-sectoral value. At least in the Ayurvedic context, it must be clearly realised that the foremost objective of strengthening evidence cannot be accomplished until its ancient classics – especially their portions containing biological information – first undergo evidence-informed revisions. Valuable insights must be retained, but the overall biology explicated in ancient treatises must be plainly acknowledged to be obsolete. The mansion of evidence-based Ayurveda cannot be built on the dilapidated foundations of its primitive, unevidenced biology.
G L Krishna is an Ayurvedic physician and researcher. He is currently associated with the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, India.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
To observe the National Scientific Temper day on August 20, 2025, Confluence, the online discussion forum supported by the Indian Academy of Sciences, hosted a panel discussion on the origins, the background and the debates around the idea of the scientific temper. Conceptualised by Shubashree Desikan and Gita Chadha, the panel discussion contextualises the idea of the Scientific Temper in history and as it shaped the modern Indian nation state, it critically examines the role of scientific communities and cultures in promoting (or not) the idea of scientific temper, it makes an attempt to retrieve and reimagine principles of scientific temper itself to make science more inclusive and to bring it closer to the moral project of building a just society.
In the discussion, Ram Ramasway draws upon Kosambi’s vision of science as does Archishman Raju. Raju further integrates this vision with the Nehruvian-Gandhian perspective on modern science. Prajval Shastri brings in perspectives from the people’s science movement and draws upon her experience of scientific institutions and their apolitical cultures to strongly urge for a scientific worldview. Gita Chadha frames the debate within the discipline of sociology and speaks of a need to integrate liberal, socialist and post-colonial perspectives to science. The discussion ends with the need to integrate philosophy, science and politics in the process of reimagining scientific temper.
Video edited by: G. V. Pavan Kumar
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
A society that does not have trust and respect as two-way streets is inherently unjust. It would also be unstable, if it becomes institutionalized and people on the wrong side accept it for fear or favor. While it is difficult to know how our nation, society and families were in ancient times, the time in which I grew up, both trust and respect were one-way streets. One can see the fallout of this all around us today. I decided to write about this, more for everyone to think and discuss than for pointing fingers at anyone or a group.
Hierarchy is important and perhaps essential for an institution to be functional. By nature, it must be a one-way street. We do need leaders at every level, from a Family to an Institution to a State and Nation! They are needed to make the final decision, when there are diverse views. If not, there will be anarchy! An ideal leader would discuss with all concerned and make a decision that is good for the system, without any personal bias. Listening to all and ensuring that everyone is allowed to have a say are both important. I am doubtful about leaders who believe they know what is good for everyone. I do realise that there could be times when the leader needs to decide based on his/her conviction, that a majority does not like. In a democracy, such decisions are validated in the next election and the people would approve if they saw the benefits of such a decision. Leaders do need some privilege and protection to avoid frivolous complaints which could hamper their functioning. However, such privileges and protection should not be misused to bully any individual or group being led.
Our tradition encourages students to fall at the feet of their teachers. Addressing teachers as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ continues everywhere. I remember reading somewhere that ‘Sir’ stands for ‘Slave I remain’. Our society trains everyone to be either a master or a slave. Standing as equals and talking to each other seems alien. As fellow humans today, I do not see any reason for anyone to fall on another person’s feet. On 29th September 2010 our past Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was handing out the first Adhaar card to a person from a tribal area. On live TV, the tribal person fell on the PM’s feet. The Prime Minister was not doing a favour by giving the Aadhaar to a citizen. This should not have been allowed and yet it was happening live.
Academic bullying is real and is discussed regularly. A sponsored feature article in Science says 8 out of 10 scientists face hostile behaviour during their careers (source link). Prof. Sherry Moss, co-author from Wake Forest University is quoted as saying “those who had been bullied or abused were unlikely to report the abuse due to fear of retaliation”. This article mentions about the foundation of ‘Academic Parity Movement’ founded by nanotechnologist Morteza Mahmoudi and activist Saya Ameli Hajebi, to help end “academic discrimination, violence, and bullying”. Moss and Mahmoudi have published an article titled “STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science” in 2021. (source link) American Society for Cell Biology hosts an article by M. Perillo titled “Bullying in Science: Let us face the problem” (source link). It appears that Springer has introduced a Journal to discuss this: “International Journal of Bullying Prevention”. Publishers would not lose an opportunity to start one more Journal.
Several Academic Institutions in India, including the Indian Institute of Science have recognized this and have formed Committees to investigate this. They organize talks, workshops and interactive sessions to address and reduce academic bullying. In addition to sexual harassment, a general workplace harassment is being discussed. We had a talk by Sasha group organized on 19th March 2025 at the Inorganic and Physical Chemistry Department. I learned about a comprehensive study carried out by Indian National Bar Association resulting in a report titled “Sexual Harassment at Work Place” written by Garima (Prabhat Books, 2017). The report has 47 pages. Let me quote two alarming statistics. Nearly 88 % of the respondents have said sexual harassment happens and about 69 % did not raise a complaint to the internal committee. In the informal survey conducted by the speaker in our Department, 30 respondents mentioned that they are either victims or aware of sexual harassment to someone else. I do hope our Institute and every organization finds a way to reduce and eliminate this. Beyond rules and regulations, raising awareness and preventive measures would yield better results.
A faculty-student relation has a hierarchy that is needed. Typically, the teacher has experience in a field and the student is a beginner. A student needs to follow the suggestions in carrying out research. A faculty member can only decide when some work can be written for publication and which Journal is more appropriate or when a student could submit his/her Thesis. I have heard from some students disagreeing with such decisions by their mentors and my response has always been, faculty members know better to make these decisions. This hierarchy is indeed needed. However, it should not lead to bullying for personal benefits. Some years ago, a faculty member of Indian origin at the University of Missouri, Kansas City was accused of exploiting his students. The news report mentions the following: “the professor compelled his students to act as his personal servants. They hauled equipment and bused tables at his social events. They were expected to tend his lawn, look after his dog and water the house plants, sometimes for weeks at a time when he and his wife were away.” (source link) I suspect such bullying happening in our midst goes unreported largely.
Let me focus now on bullying by some members who sit in the committee to decide funding, promotion, appointment and so on. As a new investigator submitting a project to DST, my presentation was stopped after a few minutes and irrelevant comments were made which silenced me. When I was presenting my first research project for funding, Chair of the committee stopped and asked me: “How many papers have you published after returning to India?”. After an energetic and enthusiastic presentation for the first 10 minutes, I became dumb staring at the committee, listening to comments that had no relevance to the project for another 10 minutes. Thankfully, some members who remained silent during the presentation understood the significance of the project. I was asked to submit again adding a co-investigator with Engineering background. I eventually got the funds to build the pulsed nozzle Fourier transform microwave spectrometer. We built the first one in India, which remains the only one as of today.
I became a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Department of Science and Technology for Physical Chemistry and had the opportunity to see the other side. In the very first meeting we had, a senior member in my committee was treating a principal investigator in a patronizing and condescending way. I did not like this. As a new and young member of the committee, I kept quiet during this first interaction. When it was over and the principal investigator left the room, I complained to the Chair of the committee about the behaviour of the senior member. Thankfully again, all other members of the committee agreed with my observation and the senior member was asked not to talk like this to any investigator seeking funds. Approving or rejecting a proposal is the prerogative of the committee. However, no member of the committee has any right to talk rudely to an investigator.
I have heard horror stories from young faculty about bullying by a senior colleague / committee member / chair / anyone who considers him/her superior. Several such comments are difficult to believe. Why do some experts behave this way? It is clear that no one had told them it is inappropriate. A young assistant professor, incidentally an accomplished woman, was making a presentation about her progress. One old expert stops her and shouts: Your advisor never did anything, and you will not do anything either! The young faculty had tears in her eyes. The Director should have stopped this abuse, and it did not happen. This same expert was invited to give an Institute Colloquium in an IISER. He finds a young faculty member doing research in an area which he thought was useless. We do have experts with very little breadth in science coming to such illogical conclusions. At the beginning of this Institute colloquium, with all students and faculty members from all disciplines attending, the expert starts by saying: “I cannot believe you guys hired this guy!” This was not only insulting the young faculty member, but also the collective wisdom of the Institute. A proverb in Tamil says the following: Any speaker should be mindful of what to speak based on the place, circumstance, context, and audience. Several of our leaders in Science have not been mindful of this. When I started my career about 30 years ago, I was hoping such inappropriate comments by senior faculty would stop with that generation. My own experience and experience from several young colleagues indicate that it is worsening, if anything.
Academic researchers who make it to any committee that can decide the fate of a young researcher should treat this as an important and enabling duty. It is not for wielding power to put down people and stop research by some youngsters who may appear to be a threat. While this is expected of anyone joining a committee, it is important that funding agencies ensure that no expert resorts to such bullying. It is also important for the Chairs of committees to stop an erring member and assure the presenters. Presenters should be given opportunities to bring any such act by a member in a confidential manner to higher authorities. I do hope people coming to the highest level do not resort to such activities. It is not easy for any system to handle a king who does wrong. I am aware of a Latin legal maxim, which means ‘king can do no wrong’. This is taken care of in a democracy by ensuring that no one is given indefinite power. Let us find a way to stop bullying at home, workplace, our streets, city and country.
Prof. E. Arunan is a renowned experimental physical chemist focusing on spectroscopy and dynamics of molecules and clusters. He is a Professor in the Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
“So, what do you teach in Srishti?” This has been the most commonly asked question in the last two and half years of my association as a teaching faculty member at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology (henceforth SMI). As a person trained in ecological sciences, ending up as an art and design school facilitator was perhaps beyond my intellectual prospect.
My academic journey began with a postgraduate degree in Wildlife Sciences at the Wildlife Institute of India followed by a PhD at ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment). Both these spaces and the interspersed work stints prior to joining SMI, involved field ecology, a rigour of research-based methods and a three years’ experience in research administration. The closest I approached art and creativity was through my personal interest in creating art from trash or the occasional doodles I did to unwind. Needless to say, the course of my professional engagements and personal interests allowed me to embrace this space with excitement and trepidation.
My quickest answer to the question posed above is “I bring in the ecological lens for students in this space” and while this statement may seem simple, it is layered with the challenges, anxiousness and a sense of feeling a misfit in a space like SMI. While the sense of being an oddball has not subsided; I have learnt to understand that the structure of SMI itself accepts each of us like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to create a complete picture for the students who come to study.
Over the course of two and half years at SMI, I have facilitated curriculum spaces in the form of unit-based studios for both UG and PG students, electives and a pre-thesis project for the UG students. Each of these spaces has been challenging but rewarding in many ways. A lot of the time, I am surrounded by students across cohorts, who have had sparse experience in seeing the natural world around them. Thus, engaging them through observations, reflection and journaling comes with an even bigger challenge of having to sustain their patience in a world dominated by 15 sec reels! However, what is astonishing are the ways in which students make sense of the natural world through their creative mediums.
As a means of initial ice breaking, I usually engage the students in a nature walk/day field trip in the beginning of my course. Field immersions become an important space to observe, document the natural world and the linkages around us. Students are encouraged to journal and map these through visual tools (this could be both digital/a hand-made one!) helping them to understand how connected we are to the ecological realm. Documenting surroundings through nature journaling is a wonderful way to crystallize our observations and thoughts. It also becomes an important tool to remember and integrate new information alongside the existing knowledge.
Field visit to the nearby Gantiganahalli Lake as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities“Nature journal of a first-year student after a campus walk as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities”Personal excerpt of journaling during a field trip with students for the 7th Semester Project
As a facilitator each space has been a learning experience. As a person trained in ecological research, breaking the ecological components down for students who mostly do not come with a background in biology, can be both gruelling and thought provoking. For example, while introducing the socio-zoological scale (coined by Arluke and Sanders1) as a context within my Animals and Society elective course, I played a game where students were asked to ranked images of different animals that they liked based on a scale of 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). At the end of the exercise, what stood out was the human perception of species and how the perceived cognitive ability matters in terms of our receptivity and how we feel for them.
Finding innovative mediums (such as films, images, animations, newspaper text reading analysis) have been a go-to resource for contextualizing a range of connections that we make with the environment (human-animal interactions, policy, dilemmas in conservation, ecological linkages etc). These mediums have also helped challenge the moral and ethical boundaries while delving into the narratives. Early 2024, I facilitated a five-week studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making” through which I introduced human-animal interaction and understanding the various dilemmas and decision-making processes associated with the context. The final output of this studio was designing a game (as a group endeavour) that demonstrated the dilemmas in human-animal interactions, which also meant pushing my own boundaries as a facilitator. The students were instructed to build these games with recyclable material and not purchase any new stationery to build the game prototype.
The studio resulted in two games titled “Beeyond” and “Tidal Trails”. Beeyond was inspired by the human-rock bee interaction on campus to bring in an awareness about their role as ecosystem service providers while Tidal Trails was inspired by “Hungry Tide” bringing in the dilemmas of human tiger interaction in the Sundarbans. Both these games were able to bring out the interaction between people and animals through their game mechanics i.e. in the form of action or dilemma cards (Beeyond) or paths interacting between players (Tidal trails). This studio piqued my interest in exploring games to facilitate a greater awareness of environmental issues and mitigate the disconnect with the natural world.
The board game “Beeyond” explored human-bee conflict on campus as a part of a studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making”The board game “Tidal Trails” explored the dilemma of the tiger while navigating the Sundarbans as it encountered the researcher, the hunter and the forest guard. Note: All the game pawns were made as Origami forms by the student.
The studio gave me an impetus to facilitate a four month pre-thesis project space for the UG students in the discipline of Information Arts and Information Design Program. Perhaps, the sheer excitement of how students perceive an ecological brief through creative mediums spurred me to engage in this capacity. The project was titled “The Disentangled Bank” (inspired by Carl Zimmer’s famous evolutionary ecology book titled “Tangled Bank”2) to highlight the loss of ecological connections that we are increasingly seeing in the Anthropocene. In the larger context of the brief, the students were encouraged to pursue a specific enquiry resulting in an art and design output. The nature of the output was kept largely open-ended with a list of potential creatives that could be explored. These included educational aids, graphic novels/illustrations/comics, multimedia/digital art, film/documentary/animation or a research paper. Students immersed themselves in the project space through field immersions, reading resources, discussions on how to probe for questions, and masterclasses that helped them orient to the larger context of ecological loss. They were encouraged to come up with their own line of enquiry situated in India, justify their context and delve deeper for a meaningful design output.
A four-month long project space with three assessment criteria mandated the students to document their design process and iterations. Eighteen students over a course of four months consumed me and while the one-on-one mentorship seemed exhausting in the beginning, over time as they settled in with their ideas, it opened a window to how each of them interpreted the context of loss. At the end of four months, the project space culminated in an exhibition displaying various design outputs that brought out the context of ecological connections and subsequent loss. These included games, animations, tapestry, paintings, data exploration and a range of books and zines.
Some of the outputs of noteworthy mention included:
A board game on ants where players navigated ant colonies focusing on ecological functions, survival and invasion by other colonies.
An illustrated book of poems on vulture decline.
An online interactive narrative game that uses the context of human-leopard interactions to talk about its representation in media.
An illustrated book on the context of self, identity and community using waterbirds and wetlands which are diminishing habitats in urban ecosystems.
Three oil-on-canvas paintings depicting the role of communication in forest ecosystems and the anthropogenic impacts on communication breakdown.
Two animations; one on firefly decline and one questioning the role of decay and decaying matter supporting life in forests.
The context of umwelt in Olive Ridley turtles and the role of sensory pollution and heat on their ecology depicted in a zine.
Drawing narrative parallels to tigers and tiger widows in Sundarbans through an illustrated graphic zine.
An activity book for children about gharials and their importance within riverine ecosystems.
A coffee table book on the river Cauvery and the changes in landscapes.
The artistic impression of how trees are connected with mycorrhizal networks underground and crown shyness near canopies. Painting by Shreya Ann Mathew.“The Wonder Bone”, an illustrated anthology of poems on vulture decline by Aditi PuttigeIllustrated Zine on Umwelt and Olive Ridleys by Parveen IsmailCoffee table book on Cauvery as a shifting sacred landscape by Nayana HR
As I reminisce the last two and half years of teaching, it has been a blend of different mediums and methods to connect the students to the context. Needless to say, it has been a learning experience for me especially when trying to understand design processes and iterations. Specifically, teaching at SMI has challenged me to think in more ways than one to engage with students. In my courses, I engage with the students through a range of pedagogical tools that goes beyond classroom lectures. These include field visits, movies, artwork, mind maps and visual thinking tools, role plays, and project-based learning methods. Resources such as Project Zero, Nature Classroom, HHMI, Ted talks and DW Documentaries on YouTube have aided in making my classes more engaging and interactive. Simultaneously, it has also been a tussle to navigate the newly emerged AI landscape while devising curriculum assessments.
Despite the challenges, the only thing that reinforces the sense of accomplishment is when I am able to pass on the euphoria of being captivated by our environment and understand the nuances of living with non-human lives around us. In an ever changing world where human innovation has been shaping processes, we often tend to ignore how nature is the greatest inspiration. As art and design students, understanding how nature moulds each element through eons of change and adaptation should perhaps be central to the concept of design. This perhaps provides me some solace and motivation to my existence in a design school!
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Soundarya Iyer and Dr. Alok Bang for their comments that helped improve the flow and content of the article.
Zimmer, Carl. The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. Roberts and Company Publication, 2010.
The author, Dr. Chandrima Home, is an Assistant Professor at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
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.
