 |
| This 2005/2007 Report strongly urges US to look to STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) for tackling global challenges, within and outside its boundary...when India will learn from these kind of reports? |
India today unveiled a new science policy that lays greater thrust on
innovation, establishing research institutes and encourage women
scientists with an aim to position itself among the top five scientific
powers in the world by 2020.
The Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy, 2013 also
speaks of modifying the intellectual property regime to provide for
marching rights for social good when supported by public funds and
co-sharing of patents generated in the public private partnership mode.
Unveiling the STI policy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it
aspires to position India among the top five global scientific powers by
2020.
"It is an ambitious goal," he said, adding the policy also aims
at producing and nurturing talent in science, to stimulate research in
universities, to develop young leaders in the field of science and to
reward performance.
It also seeks to create a policy environment for greater private
sector participation in research and innovation and to forge
international alliances and collaborations to meet the national agenda,
he said.
The policy also talks of raising gross expenditure in R&D to
two per cent of GDP from the current one per cent in this decade by
encouraging enhanced private sector contribution.
"The policy is truly aspirational and seeks to accelerate the
pace of discovery and delivery of science-led solutions for faster,
sustainable and inclusive growth," Science and Technology Minister S
Jaipal Reddy said.
He dubbed the policy as a "rare and resounding expression of
collective will and wisdom of the Indian scientific community that is at
once a product of and a clarion call of the scientific community".
The document is a revision of the 2003 policy which sought to
bring science and technology together and emphasised on the need for
higher investment into R&D to address national problems.
The (STI) policy also seeks to trigger an ecosystem for
innovative abilities to flourish by leveraging partnerships among
diverse stakeholders and by encouraging and facilitating enterprises to
invest in innovations.
The aim of the policy is to accelerate the pace of discovery,
diffusion and delivery of science-led solutions for serving the
aspirational goals of India for faster, sustainable and inclusive
growth.
The key features of the STI Policy 2013 include making careers in
science, research and innovation attractive, establishing world-class
infrastructure for R&D for gaining global leadership in some select
frontier areas of science.
The policy also includes linking contributions of science,
research and innovation system with the inclusive economic growth agenda
and combining priorities of excellence and relevance.
It also stresses on creating an environment for enhanced private
sector participation in R&D, enabling conversion of R&D outputs
into societal and commercial applications by replicating successful
models as well as establishing of new public-private partnership
structures.
India first unveiled its Scientific Policy Resolution in 1958
which resolved to "foster, promote and sustain" the cultivation of
science and scientific research in all its aspects.
The Technology Policy Statement of 1983 focused on the need to attain technological competence and self reliance.
Officials said in today's world, innovation was no longer a mere
appendage to S&T but has assumed centre stage in its own right in
the development of countries around the world.
Inculcate rational thinking among people: PM to scientists
In a first, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today chaired a panel
discussion of eminent scientists where he asked them to collectively
ensure that science-led innovation would pave the way for the rise of
India.
Initiating the discussion on 'Science for Shaping the Future of
India', he also asked scientists to take up the task of inculcating
rational thinking among the ordinary people.
"The scientific community will also need to introspect whether
our society is geared to making full use of the offerings of science,"
he told the panel comprising Principal Scientific Adviser R Chidambaram,
eminent agriculture scientist M S Swaminathan and Britain's Chief
Scientific Adviser John Beddington.
Observing that every generation of scientists in every country
has fought existing prejudices and convictions, Singh said, "Inculcating
rational thinking among the ordinary people is a task that scientists,
from their vantage point, should take upon themselves as a sacred
mission."
He said the accretion of knowledge had accelerated in recent times throwing up exciting possibilities.
"This has also opened up the question of whether our existing
scientific paradigms are adequate to meet the challenges of future or
whether we need new paradigms."
Singh said scientists need to be visionaries and offer tomorrow's solution to tomorrow's challenges.
"How do we manage the resource needs of the projected population
of the world in 2035? How do we meet the needs of food and nutrition,
energy and environment, water and sanitation and affordable healthcare?
These are among the big questions that the scientists should apply
themselves to," Singh said.
Participating in the discussion, Swaminathan said there was a
growing degree of divergence between public perception and science.
He citied the recent controversies over genetically-modified
organisms and the agitation over safety aspects of nuclear power,
particularly in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident.
"It is very important to bridge the growing gap of perception between science and the society," he said.
Swaminathan referred to a committee on public understanding of
science of the Royal Society of London that encourages scientists to
take up public outreach activities about their research.
Beddington cautioned that the future, unlike the past, would pose
enormous problems for fuel and water security, agriculture production
as farmers would not be able to rely solely on weather patterns.
"We have to be thinking about meeting these challenges," he said.
Chidambaram made a strong pitch for participation of Indian
scientists in mega-science projects and called for greater investments
in establishing research facilities.
He also wanted a stronger interface between the academic institutions and the industry.
Chidambaram, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission,
also reiterated the need for nuclear power to meet the growing energy
needs of the country.
Science and Technology Minister S Jaipal Reddy wanted the
scientists to develop solutions to the problems faced by the poor of the
country.
He said innovation should focus on cheap and practical solutions which were appropriate for India's needs.
Not every attempt, however serious it may be, can result in a
success. But that cannot be a reason not to make the attempt or to help
someone in making that attempt. Not that the science and technology
establishment in the government did not realise this earlier, but it is
only now that it has decided to take the risks and back those who need
help in taking these risks. The decision to establish a ‘Risky Idea
Fund’ and promote a mechanism like ‘Small Idea Small Money’ are healthy
and refreshing initiatives outlined in the new science policy — Science,
Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy — unveiled by the government
last week.
Policy documents are never short on pious declarations or new
ideas. It is their translation into action that is generally lacking.
Still the STI policy is promising because it takes a new leap of faith.
Apart from the near-complete emphasis on promoting innovation —
especially innovation that will lead to making life easier for the
disadvantaged and disabled — the policy realises new ground realities
and indicates that the government is ready to grapple with them.
Treating research and development activity in the private sector
at par with public institutions as far as availing of public funds is
concerned is again an idea that shows a change in mindset. And here the
intent is not to fund big companies and organisations but the little
start-ups or individuals who require small seed money to try to
translate their innovative ideas into successful business. The fabled
stories of garage-stores growing into awe-inspiring MNCs might still be
some distance away from being replicated, but at least the government
would not be faulted for not trying.
By announcing its intent, the government has completed the easier
part. The more difficult part would be to fulfil the promises made in
the policy document. As some scientists point out, a change in mindset
need not wait for a policy to be unveiled. The painstakingly compiled
database of grassroots innovations at the National Innovation Foundation
or the database of traditional knowledge, both efforts of government
agencies themselves, have thousands of ideas that have the potential of
commercial success, if only some support is provided. An overwhelming
number of them are innovations which are also socially “inclusive”, a
stated objective of the policy. The waiting game should be over.
(Amitabh is a Senior Assistant Editor based in Delhi)
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?
STI argues that
innovation is the key
to national advancement in the present era but has not been
accorded due importance
as an instrument of policy, a lacuna which STI specifically
addresses. With
India having declared 2010-2020 as the Decade of Innovation,
and having
established a National Innovation Council, STI seeks to
provide the necessary
policy framework to position STI as “central to national
development” and puts
forward a new perspective towards this end, namely that
whereas science,
technology and innovation could always be promoted
separately, only the integrated
approach of STI will provide the desired multiplication
effect to meet national
challenges and inclusive growth, and enable harnessing of
the country’s
resources, strengths and capabilities.
No one will have
any major complaints
with any of this. The role of innovation in the contemporary
technology
intensive, dynamic and globalised economy is well-known, and
the need for foregrounding
innovation and integrating it with other developmental
policy is also widely
accepted. The significance of the STI policy for India
will not, however, lie in the
novelty of the idea, but in how the desired outcomes are
proposed to be
achieved. And here the STI Policy document (www.dst.gov.in/sti-policy-eng.pdf)
falls
woefully short. In the absence of an analytical account of
past achievements
and current gaps, strengths and weaknesses, and
implementation strategies and
mechanisms, we are left with a policy that is high on
rhetoric and intentions
but weak in terms of ground realities and addressing
implementation and
monitoring issues. Regrettably therefore, as has so often
been the case in India with so
many policies, and particularly so in S&T, chances are
that once again
there will be a wide gap between targets and performance.
NO REVIEW OR ANALYSIS
The most serious
weakness of the STI
Policy is that it does not present at least a synoptic
assessment or review of
the achievements and shortfalls with respect to the three
previous S&T
Policies, and the reasons for the same. This is not finding
fault for the sake
of it, but points to a major flaw: if one does not know why
certain goals were
or were not achieved earlier, how are goals for the future
to be set and
strategies delineated in a manner so as to overcome
weaknesses and build on
strengths? Several new policy documents especially in recent
decades have
followed a trend of quite intensive self-critical analysis
even if the new
policies enunciated may not fully address the problems
identified. But STI has
not even ventured that far.
In the case of
S&T Policy in
India, many scholarly studies over the years have
highlighted structural
weaknesses in mostly State run research institutions, the
university system and
in industry which have stood in the way of quality research
and innovation, or
even the necessary enhancement of capabilities and the
building of an
environment that would encourage and support them. Shortage
and low motivation
of human resources in basic research expected to be
conducted in a few academic
and specialist research institutions, exacerbated by
long-term dwindling of funding
and support, is by now well recognised, as is the impact
that low performance
in basic research will have on applied science, technology
and innovation.
Separation of research streams and corresponding support
systems into
industrial research in national laboratories and basic or
some applied research
in universities and select centres of S&T excellence is
also known to have
contributed to this problem, while research in universities
including the
prestigious IITs has dwindled substantially to the extent
they are largely
confined to teaching.
STI sets targets
to improve the
caliber of Indian science publications and of papers
published by Indian
scientists, tacitly acknowledging their current low levels
but putting a spin
on this by saying performance has risen in the recent past
and will be raised
under STI. India’s
share in global science publications may well have risen
from 1.8 per cent in
2001 to 3.5 per cent in 2011 but, as STI admits, only 2.5
per cent of Indian
publications figure in the top 1 per cent of impact-making
journals in the
world. The target of doubling the former and quadrupling the
latter share may
be laudable, but the bigger question is, will this truly
signify a qualitative
improvement in Indian science and a major shift? While the
STI document
enumerates the usual platitudes about fostering excellence
and relevance in
Indian science research, and encouraging collaborative
research and
participation in international “big science” projects, there
is no indication
of how future practices will differ from current ones.
Unfortunately what
the STI document
does not mention, analyse or confront is that large segments
of the scientific
research and university system in India
today verge on the moribund.
Exhortations and carrot-and-stick reward systems, as
evidenced by rising
numbers of papers published or patents filed, will only go
so far. Most
commentators would agree that, unless there are fundamental
changes in both
what is done and how it is done, rising numbers might only
mean that the system
is being gamed better, and that higher quantities of
research output might not
translate into higher quality of S&T research in India.
A culture of innovation is a
far cry, and would call for completely different
institutional structures and
autonomy, organisational systems and behaviour, scale and
manner of research
funding, and human resource development and management, than
either what is
prevalent or what the STI document suggests. To understand
and correct the
malaise of today, and open up to new horizons tomorrow, it
will be necessary to
examine structural problems facing Indian science, research
institutions, universities
and industry. STI has only kicked this can of worms down the
road.
MISTAKEN
RELIANCE ON PRIVATE
SECTOR
Perhaps due to the
lack of an
introspective and analytical appraisal, there is a tendency
in STI to prescribe
ab initio
solutions, and also
considerable confusion as to goals and what kinds of
policies are required for
them.
The most glaring
of such disconnects is
regarding funding. Accepting that India’s expenditure of
1per cent of its GDP
on R&D, much lower than other developing countries and
less than 2.5 per
cent of global R&D expenditure, is highly inadequate,
STI proposes to
increase this to 2 per cent which STI itself admits is a
very old dream! It
seems destined to remain one! Because STI recommends that
this increase in
R&D expenditure come from the private sector! This would
be laughable were
it not so filled with dangerous consequences.
Again, many
studies have shown that the
track record of the Indian private sector in R&D and
research expenditure has
been very poor with a very few notable exceptions. All
manner of government
incentives, including 135 per cent tax relief, have not
nudged corporates to invest
in research. Reasons are not far to seek. Even large Indian
corporations find
it easier to enter into collaborations, or import or buy
technologies, or even
to take over foreign firms, all of which liberalisation has
made simpler, than
to be innovative and develop new products and technologies.
Even the much
acclaimed IT sector can boast of very few software products
even while it
performs vast quantities of back-office tasks for
international corporations or
coding for globally branded software developers. Indian
corporations are
content to be quite low down in the international division
of labour even in
manufacturing, leave alone in technology development and
science research.
Indian industry needs major re-orientation to develop
self-reliant capabilities
and master technologies, to leapfrog stages of technology
development through
scientific research, and to reach for global competitiveness
by drawing on the
strengths of the domestic market which must be expanded
radically by reducing
poverty and boosting mass purchasing power as China
has done. But all this will
call for a different vision of development, of Indian
industry, and of
political economy.
Saying that the
additional R&D
investment required will be generated through the private
sector is tantamount
to STI declaring that the State will not raise its R&D
expenditure. The
government of the day may be enamoured of the private sector
and PPP may be the
flavour of the month. But history tells us that no country,
no matter how
devoted to the capitalist path, has developed without
massive State investment
in R&D. If India
has to
depend on private sector funding of R&D to catapult the
country into the 5th
rank in global science as the STI document proclaims, the
nation is in for
sharp disappointment and S&T in India
will continue to languish.
CONFLICTING
GOALS
AND POLICIES
The policy
document repeatedly
emphasises that both economic growth and social good will be
pursued through
STI, and even speaks of the need to address the “pressing
problems of energy
and environment, food and nutrition, water and sanitation,
habitat, affordable
health care and skill building and unemployment”. Indeed,
perhaps carried away
with its own rhetoric, the policy document goes so far as to
claim that
“science, technology and innovation for the people is the
new paradigm of the
Indian STI enterprise.”
There are two sets
of problems here,
firstly whether one can or should at all expect “big
science” and especially private
sector funded R&D to directly deliver social good, and
secondly the role of
science, technology and innovation in tackling social sector
problems. STI
appears to be riding two horses at once in terms of goals,
global
competitiveness and the developmental deficit within India,
without recognising and addressing
the quite different approaches and instrumentalities
required for each.
Given the
reluctance of Indian
corporates to invest in R&D even in their own evident
long-term
self-interest, it is clearly unrealistic to expect private
sector funded
R&D to tackle problems of societal development. And even
if they did, to
believe that creation of economic wealth through STI will
also result in
generation of social good is only another form of the
trickle-down theory. Also,
to hold that a generalised strengthening
or revitalisation of Indian science oriented to climbing
higher up the global
innovation chain and economic order will somehow also result
in improved
technologies for societal development is a misunderstanding
of how science
works and how innovation takes place.
Indeed it is
incorrect to put the
burden of solution to societal problems on the shoulders of
science and
technology when, in fact, these issues fall squarely under
the ambit of State
social policy. Half the population of India suffers on all
these counts not
because of shortage of investment in R&D, or because of
lack of S&T based
solutions. If that were so, why does India lag behind other
South Asian or even
many Sub-Saharan countries on all these counts? S&T can
undoubtedly make a
significant contribution to these issues but only within a
larger framework of
social policy and distributive justice. The STI document
correctly points to
“the gaps between the STI system and the socio-economic
sectors,” but to bridge
these gaps will require far more than “developing a
symbiotic relationship with
economic and other policies.” It will need transforming
these policies and a
total overhaul of how innovation is supported and done in
both governmental and
non-governmental research institutions and universities, and
how developmental
delivery systems are restructured within a reoriented policy
frame. This
requires a separate dialogue and the STI
document does not even begin to discuss the complex issues
involved.
START OF A
DIALOGUE
It would be
churlish not to
acknowledge that the STI document contains several good
ideas. Its central
point about the need to emphasise innovation, and therefore
the need to revamp
Indian S&T so as to develop a creative culture and
research eco-system, is
a good one. The goals of raising the quality of Indian
S&T, enhancing
global competitiveness and generating innovative means to
help tackle the
gigantic developmental deficit of half the population, are
laudable.
Identifying select frontier areas of science to which extra
attention could be
paid, seeding high-risk S&T based innovations, enhanced
Indian
participation in global science projects, are all worth
pursuing. But the STI
policy does not come together as a whole, and the pathway to
achieving the
goals is unclear.
Perhaps the most
disappointing aspect
of STI which promises a “new paradigm” is that it follows
the traditional
paradigm of top-down policy formulation by a few wise men
with everybody
expected to pay biblical respect to each pronouncement. In
fact, this very
feature underscores much that is wrong with the S&T
establishment in the
country today, a paternalistic top-heavy bureaucratic
structure in which
creative thinking and contributions from peers are
undervalued, dismissed or
simply not encouraged. Any simple how-to book would tell you
that this is
precisely how innovation does NOT take place.
A beginning of new
ways of working in
Indian S&T could have been made with this policy by
formulating it through
a wide-ranging consultative process involving all
stakeholders and taking on
board the genuine concerns and the thoughtful suggestions
that are sure to
emerge. The STI document rightly points to the need for
incentives in research
and academic institutions to stimulate innovation, but in
the past this has always
been taken to mean more money. Better pay and benefits are
undoubtedly welcome
but a conducive and encouraging atmosphere, respect of
peers, freedom to
explore, and guidance rather than dictates of seniors are
major constituents of
a research and innovation eco-system.
---------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment