SubscriberWrites: India's science runs on grants, not guts

  subscriberwrites-india-s-science-runs-on-grants-not-guts.html
  Science and Technology on Mon, Sep 08th, 2025 by ThePrint

India’s Scientific Engine: Fueled by Grants, Not Guts

India’s research landscape is a paradox. On one side, a robust cadre of scientists, a network of world‑class institutions, and a steady stream of grant money. On the other, a pervasive lack of entrepreneurial spirit, limited private investment, and a research culture that prioritises paperwork over progress. In a recently published piece for ThePrint, a subscriber‑writer—an experienced Indian researcher—takes a hard look at why India’s science “runs on grants, not guts,” and what it will take to shift that balance.

The Anatomy of India’s Grant‑Based System

India’s research funding is largely a product of public policy. The Department of Science and Technology (DST), through its Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), is the principal conduit for grants. SERB awards Project Grants (for longer‑term, high‑impact research) and Individual Fellowships (to nurture senior scientists). Meanwhile, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) channels funds for biomedical projects, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) administers a network of laboratories across the country.

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2022, India’s total R&D expenditure reached ₹1.12 trillion, about 0.65 % of GDP—still far below the 2 % benchmark set by the UNESCO Science and Technology Indicator. Of that, roughly 30 % comes from the private sector, with the bulk (≈70 %) supplied by the state. The public sector’s share is distributed across ministries and autonomous bodies, each with its own application and review processes.

Because funding is so tightly coupled to government programmes, researchers are forced to align their projects with policy priorities. The National Science Policy (2015), for instance, earmarks funds for areas like “clean energy,” “data science,” and “biodiversity.” While these priorities are important, they often come with rigid criteria and long review timelines, leaving little room for exploratory or risk‑laden research.

Bureaucracy, Lag, and the “Grant‑Minded” Culture

One of the most recurring complaints from Indian scientists is the time lag between proposal submission and fund disbursement. A typical grant cycle can stretch 12–18 months, during which researchers must produce interim reports and meet compliance audits. By the time the money arrives, the field may have moved on.

This delay has two consequences. First, it forces scientists to write proposals that cater to the current political climate rather than their own intellectual curiosity. Second, the administrative burden reduces the time that could be spent in the lab or at the bench. The subscriber‑writer argues that the culture of “grant‑mindfulness” has seeped into every corner of academia, making grant writing a full‑time job in itself.

Another problem is the “one‑size‑fits‑all” funding model. Projects that fall outside the mainstream policy agenda—like fundamental physics, deep‑sea biology, or certain aspects of social science—receive scant attention, even if they have the potential for breakthrough discoveries. The writer highlights the CRISPR‑India initiative, which initially struggled for funds because it was considered a niche, high‑risk area at the time.

The Missing “Guts”: Entrepreneurial Inertia

While grants provide a lifeline, they do not nurture the innovation ecosystem that transforms ideas into products. Private venture capital remains stubbornly low in India, with only about ₹50 billion invested in life‑science startups in 2021. The reasons are manifold: a scarcity of experienced tech‑entrepreneurs, a cultural emphasis on stable public employment, and a regulatory environment that still requires Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) caps for many biotech ventures.

The article draws a comparison with countries like the United States and Israel, where seed funding and angel networks are woven into the research culture. In India, even successful projects often languish in laboratories or are handed over to the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) for later commercialisation—only to be delayed by another layer of bureaucracy.

A key point raised is the lack of a clear intellectual property (IP) framework that protects researchers’ inventions while also making them attractive to investors. The Patent Office of India has streamlined procedures recently, but many researchers still fear that the process is opaque and that their IP could be co‑appropriated by large institutions.

A Road Map to “Guts”

To change the narrative, the writer proposes a multi‑pronged strategy:

1. Fast‑Track Grant Mechanisms
   Create a “rapid‑response” fund for high‑risk, high‑reward projects, similar to the NITI Aayog’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. Funding would be disbursed within 90 days and require minimal interim reporting.

2. Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs)
   Institutionalise PPPs in sectors like biotechnology and renewable energy. Government grants would cover the first 40 % of costs, while private firms would supply the remaining 60 %. This would shift risk away from scientists and toward industry.

3. Venture Capital Incentives
   The Ministry could introduce tax credits for investors in life‑science and clean‑tech startups, and expand the Seed Fund of India to include more biotech sectors.

4. Entrepreneurial Training for Scientists
   Universities should integrate entrepreneurship courses into PhD curricula. Collaborations with incubators such as T-Hub and BioInnovation Hub could help scientists transition from bench to boardroom.

5. Strengthening IP Protection
   Simplify the filing process and provide researchers with free IP advisory through institutions like CSIR and the National Institute of Design.

A Call for Collective Action

The subscriber‑writer’s piece ends with a poignant reminder: science is not just about funding; it’s about risk, vision, and the audacity to fail. The current grant‑centric model keeps India safe but stifles its potential. By integrating private capital, entrepreneurial culture, and policy flexibility, India can shift from being a “grant‑dependent” science hub to a “gut‑driven” innovation powerhouse.

In the words of the writer, “India’s scientific future depends not merely on the size of the grant pot, but on the strength of the entrepreneurial spark that can transform those grants into real‑world solutions.” If policymakers, institutions, and investors take that cue, the next generation of Indian scientists could finally break free from the shackles of paperwork and unleash the full creative potential of the country’s brilliant minds.