Ershad Khandker’s Post

India needs to break the cycle and focus more on cutting edge research and an atmosphere suitable for risk taking has to be created. Well thought out writing by Prof. Mayank Shrivastava . "Breaking the mould" written by Raghuram Rajan also talks in detail about this. Having a proper ecosystem for research and development is the only way India can move up the value chain. "India had a period before Independence when they produced world-class scientists, like C.V. Raman, J.C. Bose, Meghnad Saha, S.N. Bose and Homi Bhabha, and their work was of a certain order of excellence. After Independence, it persisted for a while, mainly because Jawaharlal Nehru (the first Prime Minister) was interested in science and funded and created institutions. But after that it stagnated for a while and thanks to people like C.N.R. Rao, they have tried to improve it,” : Venkataraman Ramakrishnan , Nobel laureate of Indian origin https://lnkd.in/gsEq9P-i I met Venki Ramakrishnan once at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Met Amartya Sen in the Bay Area in the USA, Abhijit Banerjee and Kailash Satyarthi at Kerala Literature Festival in Kozhikode Kerala. One factor which is common amongst Indian Nobel laureates in science or economics is that they were all doing research in the USA and the research atmosphere and funding really helped them to focus on their individual areas of research. #india #innovationecosystem #research #risk #researchecosystem #highereducation #nobelprize The Nobel Prize

Scientists in India, never aspire for the Nobel prize because of their "mindset" and "govt. policies". Mindset: For example, Recruiters (premier institutes) never appreciate the research work of India over research someone did in foreign institutes. So, he/she always follows and continues the existing work in foreign countries (rather own creativity). So, Indians become contributors but not creators in research. The best example of a lack of mindset is the " Nobel Prize on the discovery of graphene and quantum dots" Govt policies: Govt. never trusts early career researchers as you mentioned not risk-taking. When GoI (unlike foreign universities) tries to be with all ( chosen caste over science in asst. professor recruitment), the Nobel prize becomes a daydream in India..

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 (2/𝐍) This is my second post in this series. While it's a difficult question, I thought of writing about another major gap in our ecosystem, which I hope the stakeholders address soon.  Many of the world's most significant inventions have emerged from scientific communities actively seeking to address complex challenges, thereby extending the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Their continual advancement is largely attributed to the proactive support from their governments and industries in aspiring to be innovation leaders. In contrast, Indian industries and several government agencies/committees have shown a tendency towards caution, primarily investing in established technologies rather than exploring the uncharted territories of futuristic research. This conservative approach keeps us far from being at the forefront. Furthermore, attempting to address scientific problems initially identified and tackled by communities in more technologically advanced countries, places Indian researchers at a significant disadvantage. By the time these problem statements become apparent to Indian policymakers, academics in these advanced nations have often already made considerable progress in addressing them. This dynamic results in a perpetual state of playing catch-up, making it challenging for India to lead in pioneering new and groundbreaking innovations. Being in a constant race scenario restricts Indian researchers' ability to contribute to futuristic problems. Another pivotal aspect is the risk-taking behavior of Indian industries (and to an extent funding agencies). Industries and governments in advanced nations have a history of betting on unproven technologies and future science, a gamble that has often paid off. Indian industries and govt. agencies, on the other hand, tend to play it safe, focusing on mature, established technologies. Also, to align with the socialist principles that emphasize benefits for a broader section of society, our agencies have often prioritized the distribution of funds across a wide array of projects over a few high-risk high-reward projects. This approach may inadvertently dilute the focus on the quality and potential impact of the research being funded. High-quality, impactful research necessitates not only adequate funding but also stringent quality control. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: These problems are not insurmountable. To break this cycle, India (both the govt. and Industries) must foster a more risk-taking culture, increase investment in futuristic research, and encourage to fund academic research of futuristic nature. Additionally, building an infrastructure that supports high-level research and nurturing a policy environment conducive to innovation are crucial. Besides, a shift towards a quality-centric funding model is essential for fostering an environment where cutting-edge, impactful research can thrive and not the mediocre ones.

There is a dichotomy in Indian science. At one end, there haven't been enough visible examples of Indian science impacting the economy and lives of citizens, as there are in South Korea, China or Singapore. On the other end, science is under-invested in, we do not have critical mass of high quality scientists and the ease of doing science in India is fairly low. (Vijay) K VijayRaghavan and I suggest a way out in an oped in The Economic Times. By following a 3-axis synergistic model to science, we can get both citizen impact, research excellence and readiness for the future. The model of Missions for socio-economic impact (Atmanirbharta); leadership in frontier areas (Vishwaguru) and forward-looking capacity building (Karmayogi) can make India a science superpower. This model can be equally applied to any area of National importance, say, Health, Defence, Semiconductors, etc. The time has come! https://lnkd.in/ge32kKwH Ashish Dhawan Tarun Khanna Kris Gopalakrishnan Sheel Kapoor Naushad Forbes Rajesh Gopakumar Prof. V Ramgopal Rao Gauri Kirloskar Thomas Barlow Manish Sabharwal

Why our scientific research (in the India context / in public as well as private sectors) is lacking a "wow factor" for making an impact? Is simply pouring more funds to our "academic institutions" going to take us to a different level or we also require a "serious retrospection" of our ongoing practices. Our approach to research requires a major re-thinking; for simply going "beyond publications"! While this interview article with Professor Ajay Sood, Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India provides an accurate, transparent analysis of our current situation, which is about the need of having more funds to be poured in, one thing clearly stands out..... "we must make serious efforts in improving the partnership between academia, industry and the government to allow bringing funds to our R&D innovation". An access to having funds is the first step in the right direction which could be utilized in cementing the foundation of "making an impact to our society", standing tall in the international arena and to producing the next generation biotechs (for example, in the life sciences sector). Given the vast depth of our smart (and young) scientific talent, a healthy and lasting academia and industry partnership has the potential in taking our current R&D level to newer heights of innovation, which eventually would lead to producing the next generation, smart biotechs (with a strong IP portfolio) that could compete in the international market.  With the significant growth of private / for-profit academic Universities over the past few decades, they seem to in an excellent position (having a good revenue stream from their teaching paths) in creating several well funded, "Translational Research Centers" with a clear agenda - high quality integrated research for making an impact, creating a new culture of generating smart biotechs of our translational research, in the long run. This would foster the thinking of a "job creation culture"; at present, most of us are simply functioning as "job seekers".  At present, we are primarily known as "services providers" and most of our industrial efforts are geared to this direction. Having a strong foundation of translation research focus has the potential in placing India to a diferent path - a path of research with a purpose with clear measurbale objectives of making an impact!

💡📃From June 12-15, I attended the 11th edition of the EuroScience Open Forum (#ESOF2024), one of the most significant international conferences that impacts #science and global transformation. This event brought together scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians, journalists, and citizens (around 3 500 participants in total) to discuss the latest scientific achievements, the arts, and their societal impacts. 🔎This year, the conference featured 6️⃣ thematic sessions: #digital transformation, changes in scientific excellence, healthy society, cultural identity and societal transformation, #energy transition, and #sustainable environment. During the conference, I focused on several key topics and sessions (I will only mention a few): 🔹Session on #AI in science, particularly its ethical implications, highlighted the lack of basic AI culture and training. Representatives from the European Commission presented responsible AI guidelines for science, which are continually updated. 🔸Another interesting session discussed the #scienceforpolicy ecosystem, exploring how to make scientific advice effective for society and policy design. The session underscored the absence of a common definition of "science for policy," but there was consensus on the importance of cultural change and the role of scientific advice in policymaking. An example from the UK illustrated this: scientists are immersed in policy environments to understand the workings of policymakers and public administrators. 🔹A session on machine learning and AI in digital transition examined the practical applications of AI, such as supporting smart cities, trustworthy AI, clinical predictions, and the impact of digital transformation on society and digital platform workers (e.g., "ghost work"). 🔸On the final day, I attended sessions on energy transition and cultural identity and societal transformation. The energy transition session provided a tour of #green #hydrogen initiatives across Europe, including Ireland, Spain, and finishing with the presentation from #EIC on financial support for green hydrogen projects (currently, there are 9 projects). 🔹It was interesting to explore the relationship between humor, AI, and health, emphasizing the positive effects of humor. The discussion also focused on training more entrepreneurial scientists and integrating entrepreneurship into other subjects, such as nano-entrepreneurship, bio-entrepreneurship, and food entrepreneurship. 🔸 There were discussions about the #Ukraine 🇺🇦 and research with the Ukraine focused on exploring ways to strengthen and expand this cooperation. 👥🤝Despite the wealth of fascinating content, ESOF also offered a valuable opportunity to network with a diverse group of people. It was great to meet all of you, exchange knowledge and experiences, and make new contacts! Thank you! 🙏 Reda Cimmperman Ewa Kocinska-Lange Karolina Dutkiewicz - García Irena K. and others! (the list is long & I am out of symbols 😊)

[Today, we gather to reevaluate 'Jugaad'—traditionally seen as a hallmark of Indian resourcefulness. While enabling quick solutions, it raises questions about its adequacy for our global scientific ambitions. This discussion will scrutinize the reliance on Jugaad, its limitations, and the broader implications for India's innovation landscape. We'll explore shifting towards rigorous scientific methods and robust R&D to enhance sustainable development and balance creative improvisation with scientific innovation. Let's engage in this critical dialogue to redefine our approach to innovation] Evolving Beyond Jugaad: A Framework for Sustainable Scientific Development in India 1. Introduction   - Define "Jugaad" and its common perception as a symbol of Indian ingenuity.   - Set the stage for a critical examination of how Jugaad might be inhibiting India's potential in achieving scientific and technological leadership. 2. Critical Analysis of Jugaad   - Discuss the inherent limitations of Jugaad solutions, focusing on their temporary and often unreliable nature.   - Provide specific examples where reliance on Jugaad has led to suboptimal outcomes, especially in critical sectors like healthcare, engineering, and technology. 3. Economic and Global Implications   - Explore the economic ramifications of a Jugaad-dominant approach, including its impact on India's global image as an innovator.   - Discuss how international perceptions might be influenced by India’s quick-fix image, potentially affecting foreign investments and partnerships. 4. The Imperative for Scientific Rigor   - Argue the need for a strong scientific foundation in problem-solving methodologies.   - Stress the importance of developing a scientific temper and robust R&D infrastructure to foster sustainable innovation. 5. Policy and Educational Reforms   - Suggest specific policy changes and educational reforms aimed at promoting scientific methods over Jugaad.   - Discuss the role of government and educational institutions in cultivating an environment that prioritizes thorough, research-based approaches. 6. Phasing Out Jugaad Temporarily   - Make a case for temporarily sidelining Jugaad to allow scientific methods to become the first line of problem-solving.   - Suggest a timeline and strategy for how India can gradually reintroduce Jugaad once a scientific equilibrium is achieved. 7. Long-term Vision for Balanced Innovation   - Project into the future, envisioning a scenario where India leads with science-based innovations balanced with creative Jugaad solutions when appropriate.   - Discuss how this balanced approach could position India as a leader in sustainable and innovative solutions on the global stage. 8. Conclusion   - Summarize the arguments for reducing the reliance on Jugaad in favor of more scientific approaches to problem-solving.   - End with a call to action for leaders, policymakers, and the scientific community to initiate this transformative shift.

The article from The Hindu highlights the evolving focus areas of research publications in India, emphasizing the nation's growing contributions to global academia. Analyzing data from the Web of Science, it reveals India's key areas of expertise—engineering, technology, and the physical sciences—while fields like healthcare and social sciences are gaining momentum. The article underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and how India’s research output is aligning with global scientific challenges, from sustainable development to healthcare innovations. This shift indicates a promising trajectory for Indian academia, positioning the nation as a significant player in the global research community. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gaxE4f6G

>>This article flags an important and disturbing trend that is becoming increasingly evident with each passing year, which is of the shrinking role of public funding in research and development in India. The figures of total R&D spend as a share of GDP of India are the lowest among major economies, and not only are not growing, but actually shrinking! This is happening while the R&D spend of other countries including the G7 and China is growing, indicating the importance that these countries place on research as a means of national capacity and competitiveness. >>What the already low figure of R&D spending in India as a share of GDP at 0.6% conceals is the pathetically low share of this already small figure of the private sector. If one leaves out the private universities that appear to be doing some research, this share of the private sector will drop further. That is a disgrace and reveals the very short term and self-seeking view of the private sector, especially the corporate sector, towards the future of the country's economic capabilities. The stress seems to be on quarterly results, and on 'shareholder value' defined in the narrowest possible way, as happens in the US. In that country, thanks to the dominance of R&D spend in the pharma and technology sectors, the numbers look respectable. >>But, as economist Mariana Mazucatto has eloquently explained in her book 'The Entrepreneurial State', much of the technology innovation on which the strength of the US economy is based has happened thanks to publicly funded research, by the US Federal Govt., under the NIH funding and DARPA funding programs for universities and small businesses. The mythology of animal spirits of entrepreneurs driving the research and development leading to the innovative products that emerged in Silicon Valley, has been well explained by Mazucatto in her book and subsequent writings. >>The withdrawal of the state from funding of research in India is therefore a very bad sign, for the future capabilities of the country in science and technology, condemning India to perpetual 'followership'. We only have to look at the mission-oriented programs like the space program, atomic energy program, Delhi Metro and KONKAN Rail programs, that produced outstanding results, building Indian capability in fields where such capacity did not exist before the missions. This almost blind faith in markets and the private sector is already damaging India's ability to build its own future and bring all her people out of poverty and into a life of dignity. India's hope lies in SMEs, who should be supported by DST and NRDC through research grants on easy terms. This will also help the flagging effort to raise the share of manufacturing in India's GDP. Souvik RoyShalini WarrierDr. Tejaswini Mulay (She/Her)Dr Geemon KorahAju JacobDavinder S.B R B PuthranElizabeth PuthranC. Padmakumar