Need for reform in India's science administration system
The separation of administrators and scientists is something which most robust science establishments generally embrace.
Even the U.S., with labs being embedded in the university ecosystem and run by scientists, selects scientists for an administrative role quite early on in their careers.
Such selected science administrators, by and large, only carry out administrative tasks thereon, and are groomed for the task, with very few of them ever going back to active science.
Such a separation has obvious benefits for all stakeholders, except of course the entrenched gatekeepers.
As India remoulds its science establishment, one must really question the utility of scientists being given administrative tasks.
Whether as additional assignments or as full-time vice-chancellors or directors.
Perhaps an American middle-way arrangement, where scientists are selected and trained in an all-India pool of a science administration central service.
In such a dispensation, university vice-chancellors would have greater bargaining power vis-à-vis the bureaucracy within the university as well as that of the ministries if they belong to an all-India service having received the appropriate training.
At some point, India has to come to the same conclusion that the world of business did in 1908 when the Master of Business Administration (MBA) course was established at Harvard.
Administration is something which has to be taught and practised separately from the subject matter being administered.
The administrative setup of any complex is its central nervous system, and the same is true for science establishments.
Without addressing these core concerns, India’s science establishment will continue to do injustice to its economic and strategic aspirations.
Current issues and its reasons
Sustained economic progress which can satisfy national ambition is invariably fuelled by scientific advances translated into deployable technologies.
This has been the inevitable global experience since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
Alive to this reality, the government is overhauling India’s science establishment, which includes setting up the new National Research Foundation and restructuring the Defence Research and Development Organisation.
In this scenario, a frank assessment of the current administrative ability to simultaneously optimise Indian science’s efficiency and resilience is necessary.
India’s low overall expenditure on research and development (around 0.7% of GDP, compared to 3.5% for the United States and 2.4% for China) is but one aspect constraining its scientific outcomes.
Considering such low expenditure, it is pivotal to allocate money wisely and focus on high-impact projects.
Unfortunately, the scientific administration has failed to do justice to the task at hand.
Even the vaunted space programme is witnessing narrowing leads.
In 2022, the Indian Space Research Organisation stood a distant eighth on launch numbers, with foreign startups racing ahead on key technologies such as reusable rockets.
Likewise, the lead in nuclear energy has been frittered away, being latecomers to small
modular reactors; thorium ambitions remain unrealised.
On critical science and technology themes such as genomics, robotics, and artificial intelligence, the situation is even more alarming.
The direction and organisation of science is inconsistent, even unfit, for the vital role which science must play going ahead.
India’s science is dominated by the public sector.
Generic irritants associated with governmental bureaucracy, such as tardiness in approving crucial time-dependent funding, or equitable decision making across different funding levels, are known problems.
Added to this, what is absent is the inability to commit to long-term steady funding of critical projects when faced with the inevitable occasional failures.
This latter aspect is essential in any robust science management system.
COMMENTS