Neglect of research in higher education has led to very low research intensity. Ninety per cent of our universities end up as teaching institutes where research is given a low priority for lack of funds
In the last few years, the government has announced a number of policies in science and technology which include bills on patents, specialised innovation universities and regulatory measures. These are supposed to power India’s growth engine via science and technology and, at the same time, enable the country to keep pace with the comity of nations. Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh government’s policy paralysis is not just confined to the social and economic sectors, but also manifests itself quite prominently across various segments of science and technology institutions including research in universities. The failure of the government in this area stems from poor governance mechanisms, as from low priority accorded to science and technology in the overall budget.
Falling behind R&D
Ever since the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power, Dr. Singh has promised to increase the gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD). He committed two per cent of GDP and reiterated it every year since 2007 at the annual session of the Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA). In the last nine years, Indian GERD to GDP either stagnated at 0.9 per cent or even relatively declined adjusted to inflation; 58 per cent of GERD is consumed by the strategic sectors (atomic energy, defence and space research) and about 29 per cent is met by the private sector. So, what is left for civilian R&D, spanning a dozen or so science agencies, is rather pathetic. Look at what is happening in Asia! The Chinese GERD witnessed a dramatic increase from one per cent to 1.84 per cent of GDP in the last decade. In 2012, Japan spent 3.26 per cent, South Korea 3.74 per cent, and Singapore 2.8 per cent. After a decade, the government announced a new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 or STIP 2013. The scientific community and the nation were left disappointed as the government had failed to fulfil its earlier commitment. There has been no commitment to increase public R&D. The government will only match the private R&D investment to bring it to the level of two per cent of GDP. When is this going to happen?
Realistic goals?
The new policy envisages “positioning India among the top five global scientific powers by 2020,” increasing the number of full-time research and development personnel by two-thirds within five years, and increasing publications from the current 3.5 per cent of global share to around seven per cent by 2020. Not only this, the policy aims at increasing the publication record in the world’s top one per cent of journals fourfold. India has already fallen behind China and emerging economies on these indicators. For instance, India produced three times the science output of China in the 1990s with a comparable GERD. Today, China has overtaken India by more than three times. It is the same in the case of patents. Why have we fallen behind so much? This is not unrelated to massive R&D investments by China in the last decade. The continuing policy paralysis in science and technology is visible across various segments of S&T. Even after the Fukushima disaster, Dr. Singh has been relentlessly batting for new nuclear plants costing several billions of dollars in the coming decade. The newly inaugurated plant complex at Gorakhpur, Haryana, is estimated at Rs.23,502 crore. According to research studies, just 25 per cent of the future nuclear budget for renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass etc) will generate almost double the energy planned in a more sustainable manner. Ninety per cent of water in India is consumed by agriculture, yet we have no inclusive energy-water policy. The list runs across several sub-sectors. Let us look at two of them.
R&D in higher education has been the prime victim of policy paralysis. There are over 600 universities and 30,000 colleges with a GERD of around 18. Though universities contributed 52 per cent of the total national research publication output in the last decade, they were allocated a dismal 4.1 per cent of GERD. In fact, this has been the case for six decades since independence. Universities in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 25 countries accounted for 20 per cent and Japanese universities accounted for around 15 per cent of GERD in the last decade. Even Chinese universities increased their share of GERD from five per cent in the 1990s to 12 per cent currently. The neglect of research in higher education has led to very low research intensity; 90 per cent of our universities end up as teaching institutes where research is given a low priority for lack of funds. Policy measures to increase research intensity in universities and nurture them to attain world-class standards in China, South Korea, Singapore and Japan were a part of their respective national innovation strategies since the 1990s. Such policies enabled two to six universities in these countries to be listed in the World’s Top 100 University Rankings in recent years. India could not register even one. Just four to five universities figure in the list of 400 or 500. STIP 2013 is silent on strengthening research in higher education. Ninety per cent of the National Knowledge Commission’s recommendations remain unimplemented as much as the proposal to create 14 innovation universities. Until the higher education sector is given its due importance in the national innovation system and allocated at least 10 per cent of GERD, it will continue to remain sub-critical at the national level and we will fall behind our Asian neighbours.
Innovation
After the President of India declared 2010–2020 the “Decade of Innovation,” STIP 2013 proposed new schemes such as the “Risky Idea Fund” and “Small Idea Small Money.” The government launched the India Inclusive Innovation Fund (IIIF) under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, with the government chipping in with just two per cent of the budget. But private partners have hardly evinced any enthusiasm to invest in this scheme. Is the government serious? The policy paralysis in science and technology innovation can be seen from the dismal amount of money allocated to a dozen innovation schemes under the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Out of the total budget of Rs.2,998 crore given to the DSIR in 2011, only Rs.155 crore went to innovation schemes. And, of the Rs.2,349 crore given to the DST in 2012, only Rs.57 crore went to innovation schemes.
With 90 per cent of Indian labour in the informal sector and faced with dwindling fortunes of rural agricultural activity, millions will migrate from the rural to urban areas in the coming decade. The UPA government launched a number of schemes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme; Bharat Nirman; Indira Awaas Yojna; Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission; Health Mission, among others. Besides problems underlying their governance and implementation, which are well known, they lack an institutional framework to infuse employment potential with skills, training and grass-root innovation. There is hardly any serious policy perspective or thinking to create institutional avenues for vocational training to infuse skills to labour in the informal sector. There are about 7,500 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) with the overall intake capacity of 75,000. With the growing demand for technicians and an expanding informal sector, one can imagine the task ahead. Long-term solutions to problems here are so complex and are becoming even more interconnected. We have so far failed to evolve any strategy to connect with these schemes at the “bottom of the pyramid.” IIIF is a good scheme if it gets off the ground with a full budget. In any case, such schemes managed by corporate fund managers are relevant more at the “middle of the pyramid” and not the “bottom.” We urgently need to build and strengthen intermediary institutions to forge linkages between formal and informal institutional structures. It is time the government wakes up to addressing the impending S&T policy paralysis before it is too late.
(V.V. Krishna is professor in science policy, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, School of Social Sciences, JNU, Delhi.)
- The Hindu
Scientists deliberate on new science policy
Top minds from science and research institutes across Bangalore met here on Friday to brainstorm on and discuss the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013, which was released by the Prime Minister earlier this year.
Scientists from fields ranging from life sciences to theoretical physics spoke about the new policy, flagging issues and sectors that they thought deserved more attention in the policy document. They called for increased focus on science education, innovation that can improve the quality of life of the vast Indian population and reforms to improve the quality of research. The workshop is a first in the series of workshops being organised by the Department of Science and Technology and the Indian Academy of Sciences.
Getting it together
Taking a sharp look at the state of science institutes, and the research culture therein, K. VijayRaghavan, Director of the National Centre for Biological Studies, said that the problem ahead was not that of inadequate policy articulation, but that of “getting everyone together to implement” what is laid down.
The “vortex of limiting resources, processes and regulation” all present a pessimistic picture, he noted. In a sharp criticism of the “fragility” of science institutions, he said that while “the agencies of modern science are far from India, Indian science continues to suffers from a “frog-in-the-well” syndrome.
“Our international connectivity is rather poor; we are lazy and seem to be reluctant to either identify large problems that need to be solved or engage in real problem solving. Our science is insulated, but the world is changing; so can we take advantage of the opportunities presented in this changing world?” Indian science needs to get out of its well, he said, emphasising on the need to evolve an institutional mechanism to reward collaboration in research.
Roddam Narasimha, chairman of Engineering Mechanics Unit at Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, said that the policy failed to mention venture capital, a crucial component in promoting innovation.
“In the early 20th Century, the growth of science was largely funded by private wealth — princes, zamindars and industrialists. This changed drastically in the latter half,” he said.
D. Balasubramanian, director of research at the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad, said that the policy must live up to its stated purpose of promoting science that is accessible and affordable. “Innovation, unlike invention, focuses on existing knowledges, tweaks it and coalesces to create a product that can be accessed by the masses. That is the kind of innovation we need,” he said. He emphasised on the need for innovative solutions in health and sanitation. K.N. Ganesh, director of the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, emphasised on the need for reforms in the PHD and post-doctoral programmes.
-The Hindu
Inventions and innovations
Innovation is a cleverly assembled Kadambam, Khichri or Ragamala
The Government of India has announced its new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 (STI 2013), at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress. What is striking about this new policy is its explicit inclusion of innovation as a component. The two earlier policies confined themselves to S and T; innovation did not find a place in those two declared policies of nation building.
Why is the present one different? Because it is more democratic and more inclusive; it sends a signal to the S&T community in the private and public domain and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which work with the aam admi. It states that STI should hitherto focus on faster, sustainable and inclusive development of the people of India. And among the “main aspirational elements” of the STI policy are “increasing accessibility, availability and affordability of innovations, especially for women, differently-abled and disadvantaged sections of society”, and “triggering ecosystem changes in attitudes, mindset values and governance system of publicly funded institutions engaged in STI activities to recognize, respect and reward performances which create wealth from S&T derived knowledge”.
What is innovation?
Stripped of all high-faluting jargon, what does it mean? In order to appreciate it, we need to go back and understand what innovation is and how it benefits daily life. Science looks at the cause of things, comes out with laws and principles, and thus generates knowledge in a concise and comprehensive fashion.
Technology applies this knowledge, uses these laws and generates products, processes and leads to inventions. An invention is a new creation that comes out of the application of science and technology. An invention is usually the “intellectual property” of the individual or group which thought about and brought about the novel product. It is thus patentable and produces wealth. Classic examples are the light bulb (invented by Edison) or the telephone (invention of Bell).
An invention is usually the result of the dogged application of the underlying science and technology, and more often than not is made by a professionally trained person or group. But innovation is different. It builds on existing inventions and products; it tweaks them, coalesces them and incrementally adds on personal ideas and applies them to find new ways to solve an existing everyday problem.
It is thus, by its very nature, a cleverly assembled Kadambam, Khichri or Ragamala. More often than not it is made by the aam admi, who has found existing solution or product wanting, and goes ahead to find a solution. He may not have a PhD, M Tech, or MD- might not even have gone to college, yet produces a product!
Steve Jobs of iPhone is the poster-boy of innovations, and of course even he needed the laptop/palmtop computer invented by someone else for his product.
The classic example of an innovation is the “missed call” on the cell phone. A more elaborate example is the domestic cooler that substitutes for an air conditioner in many homes. It uses existing invented products- exhaust fan (turned inwards towards the room), submersible water pump, and tubes with spaced holes through which water drips, and a box enclosing them.
The motorcycle- based ploughing machine, developed and patented by Mr. Mansukhbai Jagani is another such innovation. In the social sector, Mohammed Yunus’s Grameen Bank or the microfinance scheme is an innovation. Professor Anil Gupta of IIM Ahmedabad has meticulously collected and compiled such innovations, and runs the “Honeybee Network” which has almost 1000 innovations, most of them created and used by rural folk. Please access http://www.sristi.org/hbnew/ and see what all innovative products ordinary people have developed, each just as useful, yet specific for a set of given needs. Innovations come about when an ordinary person uses his mind to come out with useful products, just as a technologist does. Dr Abdul Kalam says: “Innovation opens up new vistas of knowledge and new dimensions to our imagination to make everyday life more meaningful and richer in depth and content”. It is thanks to this evangelical spirit to push the recognition of such creative innovations, and the support this has received from the National Innovation Council that the government has realized the importance of innovation.
Innovation does not always have to involve nuts and bolts, machines and materials. It could make use of, and even affect the mind and attitudes of people. Grameen Bank or the Amul Dairy Project are two outstanding examples. These projects use soft science- economics, sociology and behavioural psychology for their success.
They turn the minds of people towards the common good. In other words, the major S&T component here is as much ‘soft science’ as hard science or technology. Along these lines, can we, in the proposed STI policy take up the enormous task of providing public toilets and sanitary facilities across the country, plus change the mindsets of people so that they do not dirty the environment?
The health and welfare benefits are clear; if we do not provide then, the future consequences are dreadful to even think of (see the article by Dean Spears in the March 14th issue of The Hindu, and his article http://google/PFy43).
The technology is available, innovations are published, and the government commitment is there as well. A country with where only 47% have toilets, and the disgusting habit of urinating in public by even those who have toilets at home is unacceptable. What is needed here are innovative methods to change the mindsets of people, and that needs not science but sociology, behavioral, psychology.
The task is enormous but I believe it can be done. Our parents and grandparents went Swadeshi, discarded western clothes for Khadi, marched against salt tax, and let Harijans enter temples.
These were enormous shifts on mindsets, where the dreary desert sands of dead habit were won over by the clear stream of reason. Can we use our new STI policy to do a similar thing, using methods of sociology and psychology, and bring about a cleaner, safe and healthy India?
-The Hindu
Scientific innovations — India has a long way to go
The chronology is as follows — Science policy (1956), Technology Policy (1983), Science & Technology Policy (2003) and Science,
Technology & Innovation Policy (2013) and a few Policy Resolutions in between. The order seems to be very logical. A sound science base begets applied science which is generally equated with technology.
Armed with such prowess, indigenous technological innovations play the role of real game changers. The obvious conclusion that follows is that a country’s own science base is the sine qua non for her to be proud of the innovations.
The definition of innovation given in the STI-2013 lends full support to the above chain of thoughts –‘it implies an S&T-led solution that is successfully deployed in the economy or society’.
Shameful but true — we still bask under the glory of 1930s Nobel Prize of C.V. Raman. According to National Institute of Science, Technology And Development Studies (NISTADS) publication “India- S&T 2008’, culled from Scopus (the world`s largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature) data base, reports that there has been a whopping growth rate of 85.24 per cent of Indian science publications between 1997 and 2007.
But only 0.32 per cent of Indian output was published in high impact journals (IF10 to 47.4 citations per journal). The statistical figures apart, in an effort to obtain a real-time snapshot of Indian basic science, 166 scientists of repute in India were contacted using various modes of communication. Each was requested to identify in-country basic ‘notable’ research achievements since independence which could elicit international salutation. The word ‘notable’ was amply explained to them. Even with a low rate of response and with a high probability of bias and controversy five such works could be identified. These are i) Creation of child using in-vitro fertilization by Subhas Mukhopadhyay ii) Ramachandran Plot for understanding peptide structure/ Collagen Triple Helical model for collagen structure By G.N. Ramachandra iii) Cholera toxin/determination of precise mechanism how cholera is caused by Sambhunath Dey iv) Pancharatnam/ Geometric Phase for polarized beams passing through crystals by S. Pancharatnam v) String theory by Ashok Sen.
The World Bank Knowledge for Development (K4D -KAM2012) report puts India at 120th position among 145 countries in Knowledge Index (KI) ranking. In the above backdrop of Indian science, it would be extremely difficult for anyone who accepts the definition of innovation as propounded in STI-2013 to be hopeful about the excellence of Indian innovations sans imported science and technology. A vivisection of the recent various award winning innovations and the know-how developed would reveal that at the root of these innovations science or technologies are of foreign origin and mainly from the west. The authors of this article have themselves carried out such an exercise on 570 Indian innovations.
Two points are important in this discussion – i) we failed to pay heed to the advice of some of the doyens of Indian science of yester years of not to declutch research from university system. ii) With the progress of science, it is now extremely expensive to make arrangement to observe any natural phenomenon. After 65 years, the first point is being addressed in a wrong way (by putting the horse behind the cart) as some large government R&D organizations are opening universities of their own. The second point cannot be addressed unless government expenditure on R&D is increased many fold. Notwithstanding these steps, it is well nigh impossible to achieve any perceptible results unless Indian industries take the lead to share at least 80 per cent of total R&D expenditure of the country which moves around 15-25 per cent since independence.
(Dr. GHOSH is former Senior Scientist, and Dr. PATRA is Senior Technical officer at Central Glass & Ceramic Research Institute, Kolkata).
-The Hindu
Getting serious about science
Releasing the "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013" at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that it was intended to "position India among the top five global scientific powers by the year 2020."
India has a new science policy. Releasing the “Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013” at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that it was intended to “position India among the top five global scientific powers by the year 2020.” It bears recalling that in 1958 both Houses of Parliament adopted a “Scientific Policy Resolution” which, in elegant prose, underscored the importance of science and technology for a developing nation. The government would, the resolution said, “foster, promote, and sustain, by all appropriate means, the cultivation of science and scientific research in all its aspects — pure, applied, and educational.” Subsequent science policies announced by later governments have essentially tweaked the 1958 resolution. Indira Gandhi’s 1983 policy emphasised self-reliance while the 2003 policy announced by Atal Bihari Vajpayee sought to meet the challenges posed by globalisation.
There has been a growing sense of India falling behind in the race to use its scientific capabilities and of China powering ahead. “We produce more science than before, but several more ambitious countries like China and South Korea have outpaced us,” lamented the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister in a 2010 report titled “India as a global leader in science.” China’s investment in research and development has been shooting up at 20 per cent annually over the past 10 years. As a result, that country is currently spending about 1.7 per cent of its GDP on R&D and, in absolute terms, is being outspent only by the U.S. India’s R&D spending, on the other hand, has yet to rise above one per cent of its GDP. As in the 2003 policy, the new science policy too wants to boost the country’s research spending to two per cent of GDP with greater private sector R&D investment. With greater R&D inputs, the country’s share of global trade in high technology products is to be doubled from the current level of around eight per cent. Having a new policy makes sense only if it spurs change; otherwise it is just an exercise in mouthing platitudes. Well-focused government initiatives are needed in a number of areas, rather than just some piecemeal measures, to flesh out the laudable objectives laid out in the science policy. The domestic market must, for instance, be leveraged, such as through appropriate government procurement policies, to allow indigenous technology to flourish and compete internationally. That’s something China has done with remarkable success. Will the Indian government be able to match its words with action?
-The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment