Why isn’t India, a country full of brilliant minds and world-class institutions, pioneering transformative scientific discoveries? The global stage is full of groundbreaking technological marvels, from Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolutionizing industries to the possibilities of redefining quantum computing. But India remains an underdog in the race for Nobel prizes and advanced advancements.

The problem is not just about inadequate funding or bureaucratic inefficiencies; but these definitely don’t help. The real problem is more systemic and lies in the process of supporting scientific discovery and nurturing innovation.

Efforts by funding agencies to reform the system have largely focused on adding new programs to existing organizational structures and processes, with limited impact on underlying systemic problems. In a radical shift towards improving efficiency, the department of science and technology (DST) has introduced a highly decentralized funding model by setting up 25 Technology Innovation Centers (TIHs) in leading scientific institutions. Each TIH functions as a mini DST equipped with administrative and financial powers to drive a specific scientific theme by integrating an end-to-end chain of activities from basic research and translational work to industrial partnerships, technology development, new ventures, commercialization and more. and skills development. This decentralized funding model offers distinct advantages by providing a comprehensive view of each thematic area, increasing responsiveness to evolving scientific needs, creating opportunities for collaboration, and increasing operational efficiency. They can bypass typical bureaucratic delays and quickly establish high-impact international partnerships. This mini-DST structure goes beyond the limitations of traditional centralized systems, creating a more efficient model for driving innovation and technological advancement. But this process innovation needs to be scaled and fast.

India’s research funding model could benefit from a strategic shift. Scientists compete for grants through a peer review process in which only a limited number of projects (those with the highest and above-average scores) receive funding each cycle. This approach concentrates resources at elite institutions, as high-performing researchers and institutions are more likely to receive recurring grants, while countless promising projects and innovative scientists remain unfunded. This isn’t just a missed opportunity; it’s a constant leak of potential.

We need to democratize access to research funding. How? Allocate at least 30% of the budget to support underrepresented talent in secondary and tertiary institutions and provide grants to nurture this talent for at least three years. This funding approach would protect these institutions from the disadvantage of competing against their elite counterparts in a centralized system. Instead, it encourages competitive growth within peer groups at smaller universities and colleges by nurturing talent through alternative funding channels. Basic eligibility criteria and minimum paperwork requirements can be used to distribute funds, enabling more scientists to perform effectively and develop their ideas. This can unlock a wave of innovation by mobilizing capabilities that have long been hidden and overlooked. A more inclusive funding model, when matched with significant grants to top-performing scientists without them having to navigate the traditional grant-seeking process, could diversify India’s research ecosystem and increase its scientific output.

Even if scientists manage to secure funding, they face delays in receiving payments and must navigate bureaucratic hurdles within their institutions to use these funds effectively. Funding agencies should set aside institutional bureaucracy and enter into direct agreements with providers who can provide necessary research resources, create infrastructure, or complete other tasks required of a project. Independent auditors can verify project milestones before funds are awarded to providers with incentives. This approach, which defers payments until work is verified and allows providers to cover up-front costs, reduces dependence on government budget cycles, minimizes uncertainties and strengthens project resilience. This not only streamlines operations, but also allows scientists to focus on their real job: advancing science.

To truly revolutionize our scientific ecosystem, we need to disrupt the robust governance structures of our funding institutions. Consider that at least 40% of staff in institutions such as a science and technology department or biotechnology department are active and work with scientists for fixed periods of three years. These are people who know what it takes to innovate, unlike career technocrats who tend to get caught up in procedural and bureaucratic quagmires in funding agencies. Developing a framework for integrating these experts into the system will provide efficient and effective contributions. Pairing with this idea, also arrange to ensure that at least 10% of core staff at funding bodies always remain in academic institutions for a period of time, developing their expertise while fostering closer ties between research management and academia. . Regular infusion of new perspectives will ensure that these institutions remain dynamic and adaptable. Sunset clauses on positions and processes will further break the cycle of stagnation. At regular intervals, the system will receive a new energy source, allowing institutions to act quickly and adapt to the needs of the scientific community.

The world is progressing at a dizzying pace. India has the talent, intelligence and ambition to be at the forefront of global scientific discovery. But incremental changes won’t cut it. Adopting new approaches to supporting the discovery ecosystem and rigorously evaluating their impact on scientific productivity is vital for all funding agencies. This is often more applicable in emerging organizations such as the Anusandhan National Research Foundation, where innovative processes can be tested without the constraints of the legacy system.

The choice is simple: Disrupt the status quo or continue to watch others claim scientific breakthroughs that could be ours.

This article was written by Ashutosh Sharma, president of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), President Professor of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and former secretary of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, and Dhananjay Tiwary, senior fellow at Brown University. USA is currently on leave from advisor to the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India.