Pick and choose

Commentary on science in India often highlights the low level of spending. The statistic commonly cited is R&D spending relative to GDP. For India, this figure is 0.64%, while for China, it is 2.7%, and for the U.S., it is 3.4%. Since all countries face similar opportunities in science, it is more relevant to compare absolute spending. India’s R&D expenditure is $24 billion, compared to $476 billion in China and $950 billion in the U.S.

Not necessarily. India has options, but none are easy. Even in basic research, discoveries get quickly connected by scientists to potential applications. Universities eager to monetise their research protect discoveries with an array of patents, making it difficult for others to follow. In this context, it's not enough to be on par with others; the endeavour must be to be better than the best in research. Given the significant investment gaps compared to China and the U.S, how can this be achieved? The football analogy is helpful here: what if there isn't just one football field but many, each representing a distinct area of research? No single nation can maintain a critical mass of players in all these areas. India can strategically choose research fields where it has strengths and sufficient critical mass to compete globally. Focusing intensely on these selected areas may yield better outcomes than spreading efforts thinly across the entire scientific spectrum. This approach, however, would limit the fields of research in which India could excel.

What else can be done? Can India conduct research in a way that amplifies its limited investment? Research, even in developed countries, often follows bureaucratic processes established a century ago. Research bureaucracies are often criticised for being slow and unresponsive. This sluggishness creates an opportunity for India. It may currently lag behind even the less-than-perfect systems of developed nations, but what if it could revamp its structure to implement governance models that maximise efficiency and quality in research?

The only barrier to such a breakthrough is mindset. High-quality governance that emphasises both the speed and efficiency of research, along with a commitment to quality, can lead to transformative changes, amplifying investments in research. Rather than responding piecemeal to the need for a robust research ecosystem, India must comprehensively strengthen the foundation for both research quality and efficiency. For example, delays in research funding, which are common, are a significant waste of intellectual potential and should never happen.

If these suggestions sound impractical for a country as large, diverse and complex as India, it's okay to start small. Even with five or seven world-beating research institutions, India can expect a significant impact. There are much smaller countries, like Israel, which make a huge impact on innovation with limited numbers of scientists and institutions. A single Broad Institute, in Boston, has produced 15 Nobel Laureates. India's scale-chasing mindset has to yield to a mindset that enshrines quality and efficiency. A part of this is ensuring that its best minds enter research and are sufficiently incentivised to stay. In football terms, India needs scientists who can bend it like Beckham! A focused emphasis on quality and efficiency rather than quantity in research is the competitive edge that India needs to succeed. There is no other option if India is to escape the low-innovation trap.