India is not a scientific country? A few months back there were some loose comments made on the back of anecdotes and personal experiences by some prominent voices in the intellectual and industry ecosystems. India they said was no longer a scientific nation. It had gone back in time etc. etc. If one actually looks at hard data, the reality is very very different from the narrative. We are doing better than we have ever done on a number of things - IP, publications, number of researchers, funding, R&D expenditure, ventures, platforms etc. Yes, a lot of room for improvement exists (we sit still around 40 in the global innovation rankings when we really should be in the Top 10). But the fact is that we are an out performer in terms of input vs. output on innovation - doing much better than expected at our level of development. Innovation cannot be happening in isolation from science. Should we now be discussing what constitutes science? The Nobel prizes this year in physics and chemistry have gone to AI scientists. The lines are as blurred as it gets. Coming back to the point on narrative, there are perhaps some new challenges for sectors that had a free hand for many years. The kind of challenges that almost every other sector has had to face through the years. But one sector and a few experiences do not a country make at any point in time. Innovation is a lot more distributed today than it has been in the past in India. Its happening across sectors and across geographies. It's looking past the big cities, beyond the old institutions, beyond the old actors. Also tradition, myth, faith, culture etc. go hand in hand with science in India. There is often no friction between the two. The ISRO rocket men and women can be total believers in God's will and absolutely unwavering scientists at the same time. Our rockets and satellites may be powered by the latest in tech and garnished with Tilaks and Genda flowers and work just fine. Prayer is just another layer in the scientific stack of India. The man who knew infinity - Srinivasa Ramanujan - is the archetype. We don't know better than him. Who is more or less scientific should be judged by results and outcomes. One has to separate the signal from the noise. The system from the personal. Reality from narrative. The Global Innovation Index report may help build some understanding of key trends and challenges. https://lnkd.in/gnyuFAw4
Rishabh Sachdeva’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Helping Academic Leaders & Students Learn from My Mistakes | Author of Most acclaimed Book on OBE
Is Indian research credibility at risk because of self-citation? Phil Baty of Times Higher Education recently defended it, and they’re right - https://lnkd.in/eEKjUEh8 Giants like Einstein, Curie, and Hawking built on their own work. But in India, self-citation is sliding down a risky path. Some institutions, in the race for higher rankings, are using it to artificially inflate impact metrics. This may seem harmless, but, it’s eroding trust in our research community. Let’s talk about where it goes wrong... In India, we’re seeing self-citation patterns that aren’t always ethical. Some institutions and Professors use it to artificially boost impact metrics, Professors are gaming the system for a “better” ranking. Now it harms the credibility of our research community. When credibility is questioned, even deserving researchers lose trust. Self-citations aren’t the enemy. Misuse is. As Indian institutions, let’s set the right standards. Let’s make sure our research is about true discovery – not just climbing the ranks. Why? Because overuse of self-citations can distort genuine research impact, and this manipulation affects how the world sees Indian academia. Image Credit: Phil Baty
-
-
Founder, The Change Engine, ex-Aspiring Minds, Interested in AI, startups, Non-profits
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
-
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
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
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.
-
Postdoctoral Researcher | University of Hyderabad | PhD (Physics) from HBNI-IGCAR, India
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..
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
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.
-
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
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.
-
Building #Wearescience. A non-scientist with a new Philosophy and Sociology of Science. FOUNDER OF - Conversational Science Communication ( CSC) & Global Scientific Linguistics ( GSL)
Post asked - " Why India can't get a Nobel prize "? My remark 👇 " behavioral anthropology and behavioral geography. Ask questions like - why do Jewish people get disproportionate amount of Nobel. Why colder weather people, who got their white complexion because of the colder weather and thus you have a strong hypothesis that weather does effectate physiological and systemsbiology and behavioral anthropological changes like the need to evolve to combat hypothermia, find energy sources to create heat and hasten mechinary to produce clothes and food too, cover distances for trade and keep aggressively inventing and creating wealth. These reasons instigate behavioral economics oriented and entrepreneurial engineering paradigm. Why do they create institutions first and laws for justice? Again for economics- where does the strength of character comes from? Hardship and struggle. Our region creates a weather,climate,landscape, comfort oriented linguistics and customs, fertile land, sweet water fish all around! We produce food and create philosophies that may not encourage behavioralecomics oriented risk taking. Our region produced philosophies for the heart and spirit but not for the stomach! "
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
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.
-
MSc@JNCASR'26|IIT JAM CY'24-AIR 382| Selected for MSc @IIT GANDHINAGAR,IISER PUNE|Selected for MSC interview at IISER KOLKATA|Catalyst for change in the field of chemical biology!
"The #Nobel Enigma: Why Indian Scientists Are Overlooked Despite Groundbreaking #Research?" As we celebrate scientific breakthroughs and #innovations, a lingering question persists: Why don't Indian scientists receive the #NobelPrize despite their remarkable contributions? Reasons to ponder: 1. Lack of international #collaboration: Limited global partnerships and joint research initiatives might reduce visibility and recognition. 2. Inadequate promotion and #outreach: Insufficient showcasing of research and achievements to the global scientific community. 3. Nobel Committee's #bias: Potential biases in the selection process, favoring Western researchers and institutions. 4. #Funding and resource constraints: Limited access to cutting-edge facilities, funding, and resources, hindering competitiveness. 5. Brain drain and talent retention: India's best minds often migrate abroad, taking their talents and achievements with them. It's time to address these challenges and: 1. Foster global #collaborations: Encourage joint #research projects and partnerships. 2. Showcase Indian research: #Proactively promote achievements to the global scientific community. 3. #Support and #empower: Provide adequate funding, resources, and opportunities for Indian researchers. 4. Nurture talent: Encourage and retain India's best scientific minds. Let's work together to bridge this gap and bring recognition to India's deserving scientists! Share your thoughts! #NobelPrize #IndianScientists #Research #Innovation #GlobalCollaboration #Science #TalentRetention #Funding #Resources
-
-
IIM Jammu'26 | Content Creator | Coordinator - Corporate Communications Committee | 400K Post Impressions | Dr. RPCAU
🚀 Exciting Announcement! 🚀 Join the Celebration: Get ready for an inspiring journey through the world of Indian science and innovation with our upcoming series, "30 Days of Indian Scientific Pioneers." Discover Brilliance: Over the next 30 days, we'll highlight 30 remarkable Indian scientists who have left an indelible mark on the world through their groundbreaking discoveries and innovations. Daily Features: Each day, we'll share the story, major achievements, and global impact of a different scientific pioneer. Engaging Content: From the Raman Effect to medicinal breakthroughs, immerse yourself in captivating stories and insights. Follow Along: Make sure to follow our profile and turn on notifications so you don't miss any posts in this series. Be Inspired: Learn how these scientific pioneers have shaped our world and be inspired by their extraordinary contributions. Don’t miss out on this opportunity to celebrate the brilliance of Indian scientists and join us on this exciting journey of discovery! #30DaysOfScience #IndianPioneers #ScienceInnovation #GlobalImpact #STEM
-
-
NIT DGP'28 BTECH BIOTECHNOLOGY || BIOTECH ENTHUSIAST || CAREER COUNSELLOR || JEE MAINS'24 || NEST' 24 || NSEB '23
With several domains of science and technology reaching to different peak and bringing forth some interesting aspects that could have never been known to mankind , Biotechnology one such domain, an interdisciplinary branch of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer science, working on to unravel some unknown combinations of nature and life sciences on pillars of biology and computer science. Yet it has failed to receive enough attention in past. Recently with the emergence of AI editing tools in CRISPR genome and Machine learning, helping for a cutting edge research in this field amazingly in all topics , it has been a successful attempt to bring this into a recent trend. Yet a big gap lies in the Indian society as it fails to realize the recent legislative measures brought into to promote the subject by issuing several bills as BIO-E3 and BIO-RIDE, ultimately leading to a conflict of core subjects and research oriented subjects, both of which are incomparable. What's your review on this matter that what is still haltering India's development in this field despite several initiatives and whether it shall be foreseen as an increment in near future if society turns out to be supportive enough without making a parity between biotechnology and other streams as I have seen many who refrain to choose this subject although their interest aligns with this stream only because they are misguided by saying "THIS SUBJECT HAS NO SCOPE " ?
Front-end Developer | Javascipt | React.js | Redux | Immediate Joiner
2moWell articulated. Thanks Rishabh for sharing it :)