Science and Technology

Needed a new science and technology policy
Dr M.R. Srinivasan

Labourers clearing up the landscape for yet another IT building in New Hyderabad, 2004. —
In the field of science and technology, India presents two completely contradictory faces. On the one hand, foreign observers look upon India as a bottomless container of S&T talent which in due course of time will, along with China, dominate the global scene in the second half of the 21st century. This perception is based on the success India has registered in the field of information technology in India and the achievement of Indian Americans in the United States. The opposite face is registered at India’s inability to solve problems of infrastructure, namely roads, water supply and sanitation and at the poor state of its schools and colleges.
Many multinational companies such as Texas Instruments, General Electric, Motorola, Siemens, Microsoft and others have set up research centres in Bangalore, Pune, Bombay, Delhi and elsewhere to carry out R&D related to their global activities. This situation has come about because these MNCs are able to recruit highly qualified manpower at wage levels substantially lower than what they would have to pay in their own countries. Such R&D, however, has little applicability to solving problems of India or serving to upgrade Indian industry to become more competitive or produce new marketable goods or services.
It is rather strange that our leading institution in advanced science, the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore was started by Jamshetji Tata about one hundred years ago. It is only now, under the leadership of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that three institutes of similar aspirations were launched under the name "Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research". During Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, the five I.I.T.s at Kharagpur, Kanpur, Bombay, Madras and Delhi were set up. Some 10 or 15 years ago, I.I.T.s were set up at Gauhati and Roorkee (the former university was upgraded). Some new IITs are proposed to be set up now. The investment India is making in R&D is one of the lowest in the world. In 2005-2006, R&D outlay was 0.77 per cent of our GDP. The comparable figures for U.S. (and even South Korea) are 2.6 per cent and for China 1.3 per cent. Of the total expenditure on R&D, government funding was 31 per cent in U.S., 30 per cent in China, 25 per cent in South Korea and 75 per cent in India.
The dynamism Indian industry has shown in the past few years in mergers and acquisitions and in capacity growth has yet to be reflected in supporting R&D. The extremely unsatisfactory position of R&D in India is borne out by a look at the number of publications. In 2006, S&T publications were about 450,000 in the U.S., 78,000 in China and only 27,000 in India. It is interesting to see the change from 1997 to 2006 in the three countries - namely 18 per cent in the U.S., 350 per cent in China and 60 per cent in India. China is therefore trying to catch up at a rapid rate whereas India is proceeding at a leisurely pace.
After India gained independence, it set up a series of laboratories under the CSIR and also the Atomic Energy Commission. The AEC has built up a strong base of S&T capabilities in the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially power, and for strategic purposes. This has been done in spite of the denial of interaction or cooperation with the advanced countries. The space programme, which was an offshoot of the atomic energy programme, has found a place among a small number of countries that can build satellites and launch them. Success in the field of indigenous development of defence systems by the DRDO has been more modest. The laboratories of the CSIR have had limited success in underpinning our industries.
The IARI and agricultural universities did much to make the first green revolution a success but new dynamism needs to be imparted in the lab-to-land programmes. Among industries, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries have done much better than others in financing R&D.
The most distressing feature of the Indian scene is that the academia is in a sad state of neglect. The infrastructure for R&D is either non-existent or outmoded. Faculty members are not infrequently recruited on non-academic considerations and most of them are burdened with teaching to the exclusion of research. The Prime Minister recently announced a decision to establish some 30 new central universities. It is to be hoped that India will have at least four or five world class universities in the next 15 years or so.
While S&T personnel in MNCs are well paid, the large number of them in government agencies and academia are at a serious disadvantage. It is essential to raise the emoluments of the S&T personnel and they should be in a category of their own, not linked to IAS, IPS etc.
S&T leaders who wish to be entrepreneurs, should be actively encouraged to set up businesses as they will generate jobs. Indian industry must set as its goal producing articles designed in India and not be content to buy designs from overseas. India consultancy organisations must be engaged in all large infrastructure projects so that this experience is retained in India and built upon. A time has come to set up a National Commission for Science and Technology which can prepare long-term plans across the many disciplines and coordinate the activities spread over many institutions, both in the public and private sectors.
The NCST could identify gap areas and locate institutions to take up work in them. Funding for programmes of long-term relevance could be arranged by the NCST. If we allow the present ad hoc arrangements to continue, India may miss the opportunity of becoming a global leader in S&T in the 21st century.
The writer is member of the National Security Advisory Board and a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission

source: The Tribune