Science policy and research funding

India's research system is largely public: universities, Indian Institutes of Technology, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, and mission agencies for space, atomic energy and defence. The Department of Science and Technology, created in 1971, funds research across disciplines, while the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research play specialist roles. Private research spending, though growing, remains a smaller share than in the leading research economies, which makes public funding decisions unusually important.

The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act was passed in 2023 to create a foundation that funds research across universities and institutions, with an emphasis on raising the quality and spread of research beyond a few elite centres. Alongside it, the government announced a large Research, Development and Innovation fund to provide long-term, low-cost finance for high-risk, high-impact projects and to draw in private capital. The stated logic is that frontier research and deep technology need patient money that ordinary bank lending or short project grants cannot supply.

Funding design raises three questions that recur in every science policy debate. First, who decides: peer review by scientists, mission direction by agencies, or a mix of both. Second, where the money goes: a few excellent institutions, or a broader base that builds capacity in state universities. Third, how success is measured: papers and patents, products and start-ups, or trained people who carry expertise into industry and teaching.

India's research output has grown, but translation into products remains weaker than publication. The gap is often called the valley of death: a laboratory result that works at small scale still needs engineering, testing, certification and capital before it becomes a product. Incubators, technology transfer offices and mission programmes are attempts to bridge that valley, with mixed results that depend heavily on whether industry is involved early.

A useful way to judge science policy is therefore to follow the money and the people. Does funding reach new institutions and young researchers, or only established groups? Do researchers move between laboratories, universities and firms? And do flagship missions build lasting capability, such as instruments, standards and trained teams, that survives after the mission ends?