Latest news with #AnusandhanNationalResearchFoundation
Indian Express
29-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
It's not enough to overtake another country in GDP rankings. The challenge is to lead in ideas and innovation
India is projected to surpass Japan in nominal GDP as the fourth-largest economy. That is more than just a statistical feat. It is a moment of national pride, but also one of introspection. How do we transform this economic milestone into a sustainable, equitable future? The answer, as history and evidence suggest, lies not just in markets or manpower, but in mastering science. Historically, nations that led the world economically were also those that led in scientific endeavour. The United States' supremacy in the 20th century wasn't only due to capitalism, but its deep investments in basic and applied science — from the transistor and GPS to the Human Genome Project. China's rapid ascent has been propelled by high-tech ambitions, state-driven R&D, and long-term science planning. Sustainable leadership comes not from momentary success but from robust systems rooted in innovation and openness. India's growth so far has been powered by services, IT exports, and consumption. These have delivered gains, but do not constitute the deep, durable foundation that a science-driven economy offers. Episodic success in space or pharma isn't enough. We must build an ecosystem where success becomes systemic, not sporadic. That shift begins with public policy. India currently invests around 0.7 per cent of GDP in R&D — far below the levels of South Korea, Israel, or China. The newly established Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) could be a turning point — if backed by sustained funding, transparent governance, and the right priorities. Basic research, though less visible in the short run, yields far-reaching and longer-lasting economic dividends than applied research. It seeds future technologies, spills across sectors, and fuels cross-border knowledge flows. Second, science must be embedded in education. Beyond IITs and IISc, we need regional universities to become innovation anchors — collaborating with local industries and solving real-world problems. These institutions remain India's most underleveraged resource for scientific decentralisation. This calls for reform: Autonomy in governance, creative pedagogy, and faculty evaluation metrics that reward mentorship, problem-solving, and community engagement. Third, India must develop a confident and future-oriented scientific vision. Economic strength alone does not define national stature. It must be accompanied by purpose, planning, and pride in original thinking. Our innovation goals must be tied to our unique needs: Clean water, energy security, equitable healthcare, and sustainable agriculture. These challenges are not constraints — they are opportunities to lead in frugal, inclusive innovation. Fourth, we must upgrade our industrial strategy. In 2022, high-tech sectors accounted for less than 10 per cent of Indian manufacturing, compared to 30 per cent in South Korea. To rise further, India must foster world-class innovation by building domestic technology clusters — integrating labs, startups, manufacturers, and training institutes, and enabling them with shared infrastructure, IP support, and financing. Fifth, our research evaluation system must evolve. Patents and citations matter, but they cannot be the sole metrics. We must also assess real-world utility, interdisciplinary reach, and long-term societal impact. Scientific culture must reward risk-taking, embrace failure, and support collaboration across domains and institutions. Innovation is rarely linear — it thrives on detours. Sixth, we must address population dynamics in a scientific and sensitive manner. Though India's GDP will eventually surpass Japan's, our per capita income remains significantly lower. A stable population base is essential for translating economic growth into individual prosperity. India's total fertility rate is declining, but unevenly across states. A voluntary, rights-based approach — focusing on education for girls, reproductive health services, and awareness of economic opportunities — can help create a more balanced and empowered demographic landscape. Finally, science must be seen not just as an engine of economic growth, but as a cornerstone of democratic vitality. A society that values curiosity, evidence, and experimentation is better equipped to solve problems, question authority, and nurture a shared sense of purpose. We must build a culture where science is aspirational, inclusive, and woven into everyday life — from classrooms to boardrooms to village labs. India today stands at a crucial juncture: A rising economic power, but still finding its voice as a scientific leader. To move forward, we must make science not just a policy priority but a national ethos. It is not enough to overtake another country in GDP rankings. The true challenge is to lead in ideas, discovery, and innovation. That requires making science the backbone of India's growth story — not just for today's headlines, but for tomorrow's generations. The author is former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, and Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views are personal
Indian Express
12-05-2025
- Science
- Indian Express
India's air pollution strategy needs atmanirbharta
The Centre's Make in India initiative has boosted the morale of the country's youth. From space technologies and the Moon Mission to Covid-19 vaccines and Vande Bharat trains, the country has proved its mettle. However, when it comes to improving air quality and mitigating the health impacts of pollution, we lag behind. Every year, reports rank multiple Indian cities among the world's most polluted . These rankings are often produced by foreign entities under foreign-funded projects. Air pollution remains one of India's most pressing challenges, yet we have not fully grasped its complexities. Some experts cite a lack of funds, yet pollution control boards frequently return unspent funds . Industry collaborations with Indian R&D institutions are now being actively promoted — something that was missing in the past. A key example is the Anusandhan National Research Foundation, which signals the government's commitment to strengthening research and innovation with industrial contribution. Yet, the air quality crisis persists. We often come across headlines about ambitious air quality projects where a small country attracts international funding, ties up with well-known and well-funded Indian institutions and initiates studies on India's air pollution. This raises two related questions: Why are developed countries, with no direct stake in India's air quality, so keen on studying it? Two, why are Indian institutes not leading such research? These concerns become even more pressing in the era of climate justice, and unequal climate sanctions. Recent reports of the shutdown of climate research at key US agencies under the Trump administration have raised worldwide alarm — they expose a critical vulnerability due to the over-dependence on data generated by global agencies for climate and weather forecasting. Many of our own weather, climate and air quality prediction systems rely on these data sets. The disruption is a wake-up call. Why not launch polar-orbiting satellites and gather global data to fulfil our model requirements? India has a notable history of air quality advancements. We pioneered the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme in 1984 . Delhi's rapid transition to a CNG-based public transport fleet was another landmark. A significant scientific milestone came in 2010, when India developed its first indigenous air quality forecasting system, SAFAR (System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting and Research), despite resistance from foreign agencies. Despite its success, however, SAFAR remained limited to just four cities. Some Indian states are now taking commendable steps such as the rapid EV transition. India also has world-class agencies like the Earth System Science Organisation (ESSO) and India Meteorological Department (IMD). A stronger collaboration between ESSO-IMD and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) could set a global benchmark in air quality management and forecasting. This begs a question: Despite initiatives like Make in India, unspent funds, an abundance of talent, a young workforce, and openness to industry sponsorship, why are we still struggling to achieve true 'atmanirbharta'? Are our resources disproportionately funnelled into a select few institutions? Is there a gap in expertise? A majority of international collaborations or foreign funding is centred around elite institutions. Alarmingly, even some government-funded research institutions seem to be aligning with this foreign-dependent model. The core challenge lies in the absence of an integrated air quality resource framework. A unified platform is needed to foster a science-based information system and a knowledge hub. This would empower decision-makers and the private sector to take informed action. Under the auspices of the office of the Principal Scientific Advisor, the National Institute of Advanced Studies has undertaken a study exploring a new approach of airshed management, combined with finely gridded source emissions. This initiative aims to accelerate pollution control strategies, which could also contribute to the net-zero goal. This led to envisaging the concept of a resource framework, NARFI, designed to act as a catalyst for inter-organisational collaboration, interdisciplinary research and evidence-based decision-making. Now is the time to rethink air quality strategies by scientifically integrating broader airshed factors rather than adopting city-centric approaches. We need to prioritise health-centric measures and food security. That would mean real atmanirbharta. Beig is Chair Professor, NIAS and Founder Director, SAFAR. Nayak is Director, NIAS and Former Secretary Ministry of Earth Sciences
Hans India
05-05-2025
- Automotive
- Hans India
ANRF selects 7 projects to drive innovation in India's EV ecosystem
The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) on Monday announced the selection of seven e-nodes (high-impact projects) for support under its 'Mission for Advancement of High-impact Areas on Electric Vehicles' (MAHA-EV). The seven e-Nodes are selected under the ANRF's MAHA-EV mission are: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay; International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials Hyderabad; National Institute of Technology Surathkal; Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur; Indian Institute of Technology-BHU; CSIR- Central Electronics Engineering Research Institute, Pilani; and Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, respectively. The current programme, launched under the umbrella of ANRF's national mission, aims to address the critical challenges and drive innovation in India's electric vehicle ecosystem. According to the Ministry of Science and Technology, ANRF MAHA-EV call for proposal focused on three strategically defined Technological Verticals (TV) are Tropical EV Battery and Battery Cells (TV-I), Power Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD)- (TV-II) and EV Charging Infrastructure (TV-III). Each selected electric mobility nodes (e-nodes) will execute the project in consortia mode involving academic institutions/R&D laboratories with the mandatory industry participation, in order to contribute to and establish R&D in the EV sector of the country. The call noticed wide enthusiasm among all stakeholders and 227 proposals were received in consortia mode from academic institutions, R&D laboratories and the industrial section. Among the selected e-Nodes, two will focus on Tropical EV batteries and Cell technologies (TV-I), three will work on power electronics machines and drives (TV-II) and the remaining two e-Nodes will focus on charging infrastructure, according to the ministry. The MAHA-EV Mission leads to catalyse India's leadership in next-generation electric mobility solutions, aligned with the goals of sustainability, innovation, and self-reliance. Meanwhile, ANRF is set to launch a 'Small Business Deep Tech Innovation' programme inspired by global best practices, aimed at supporting startups and MSMEs in scaling technologies for real-world application. In a bid to maximise national research infrastructure, ANRF will also roll out a 'Cloud of Research and Innovation Infrastructure' to allow deep-tech startups and institutions to access underused equipment across the country. The foundation's 'AI-for-Science' initiative is another key highlight, focusing on using AI to model scientific equations in physics, chemistry, and biology — a leap expected to drastically shorten the time from theory to practice in core scientific domains.
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
With the pvt sector indifferent to R&D, India risks missing the deep-tech bus, or getting locked out
In the 2000s, China recognised that technological dependence was a strategic liability because it relied on US chips, Western operating systems and telecom infra. This triggered a strategy rooted in constructive paranoia, and the launch of mission-driven policies: Medium- and Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2006-20): This aimed to make China an 'innovation-oriented nation'. Made in China 2025: It targeted dominance in 10 hi-tech sectors. Thousand Talents Plan (2008): This programme was launched to reverse brain drain, and attract global researchers. It has received massive state support through guidance funds, industrial subsidies and tech-focused SOEs. China also doubled down on patenting, domestic standards and end-to-end industrial ecosystems, from semiconductors to green energy. R&D investment surged past 2.5% of GDP, with a rapidly rising share from the private sector. Today, China leads the world in AI patents, EV production, solar capacity and quantum publications. Meanwhile, India faces similar vulnerabilities China faced 25 years ago: imported chips, weak indigenous IP, low- tech exports and a fragmented research base. And the response has been uneven. GoI has launched Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), a ₹1 lakh cr R&D fund, expanded PLI schemes, and invested in semiconductors, space tech, clean energy and quantum. For the first time, the government is adopting a full-spectrum approach to funding research and innovation across all technology readiness levels (TRLs). While ANRF will focus on early-stage discovery (TRLs 1-3) and improve ease of doing science with DST, a soon-to-be-finalised ₹1 lakh cr R&D fund should drive private investment in mid-to-late-stage innovation (TRLs 4-9) through long-term, near-zero-interest loans. This fund shifts focus from grants to outcome-linked support for developing commercially viable tech. While the need for greater funding in basic research is acknowledged, GoI is laying the essential groundwork to build a self-sustaining R&D ecosystem. Yet, the private sector remains risk-averse, contributing barely a third of national R&D. India's R&D-to-GDP ratio remains stuck below 0.7%, with little traction in patenting or deep-tech commercialisation. The innovation pipeline is still thin. Ex-Intel CEO Andrew Grove made the line, 'Let's be paranoid' - with its philosophy of the importance of proactive preparedness for unexpected changes and strategic inflection points - famous. And, yet, even Intel wasn't paranoid enough. It missed the AI inflection point, and today Nvidia has overtaken it in valuation, strategic relevance and tech leadership. A similar inversion is unfolding between China and the US, driven by who innovates faster and scales deeper. Unfortunately, while GoI is paranoid, India's private sector isn't. In 2024, Foundation for Advancing Science & Technology (FAST) published a comparative study, 'State of Industry R&D in India', of 59 Indian and 60 global firms across six key sectors: pharma, software, defence, chemicals, automobiles, and energy. The study, conducted between FY16 and FY23, reveals a persistent input-output gap. Global firms, on average, reported 2.9x R&D intensity (spend as % of revenue), 3.7x share of PhD-qualified employees, and 2.9x R&D spending as share of profits than Indian firms. On output indicators, the disparity is starker. Global firms generated 13.1x patents and 1.3x scientific publications per billion dollars of revenue compared to their Indian counterparts. In software, global firms had 32x R&D intensity and 12.1x patents by revenue. In pharma, India's strongest sector, R&D intensity (5.8%) lagged far behind global peers (17.3%). The only parameter where Indian firms outperformed was in R&D disclosure, with an average disclosure score of 6.2 (out of 10) vs 3.7 for global firms. The European Commission recently released the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2024. It presents data on the top global 2,000 companies investing in R&D. They invested ₹1,257.7 bn in R&D in 2023. Indian firms accounted for ₹5.5 bn, or about 0.4%, of global industrial R&D investment, with only 15 companies featuring among the world's top 2,000 R&D spenders. This places India behind not only advanced economies like the US (₹531.8 bn, 681 firms) and China (₹215.8 bn, 524 firms), but also innovation-intensive small economies such as South Korea (₹42.5 bn, 40 firms), Taiwan (₹24.7 bn, 55 firms), and Ireland (₹10.4 bn, 24 firms). Sustained long-term economic growth is driven by investments in knowledge and innovation. India's failure to internalise this principle within its industrial ecosystem suggests presence of constraints: low absorptive capacity, weak industry-academia linkages, and limited interest from the private sector in high-risk R&D. Persistent underrepresentation of Indian firms in global innovation rankings reflects a missing industrial policy focus on Schumpeterian creative destruction, without which India risks being confined to low-value segments of GVCs. In Liu Cixin's 2008 science fiction novel, The Three-Body Problem, the world gets paralysed by the sudden collapse of scientific progress. Stagnation is the real nightmare. It's not fiction any more. For India, the risk isn't that we fail. It's that we're too comfortable even to try. Innovation can't be outsourced. If there's a gap between what scientists are doing and what businesses need, then companies must invest in R&D, collaborate with academia, and shape research. If the private sector stays disengaged, we'll keep watching others lead. We just aren't paranoid enough.
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
With the pvt sector indifferent to R&D, India risks missing the deep-tech bus, or getting locked out
In the 2000s, China recognised that technological dependence was a strategic liability because it relied on US chips, Western operating systems and telecom infra. This triggered a strategy rooted in constructive paranoia, and the launch of mission-driven policies: #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack Nuclear Power! How India and Pakistan's arsenals stack up Does America have a plan to capture Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Airspace blockade: India plots a flight path to skip Pakistan Medium- and Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2006-20): This aimed to make China an 'innovation-oriented nation'. Made in China 2025 : It targeted dominance in 10 hi-tech sectors. Thousand Talents Plan (2008): This programme was launched to reverse brain drain, and attract global researchers. It has received massive state support through guidance funds, industrial subsidies and tech-focused SOEs. China also doubled down on patenting, domestic standards and end-to-end industrial ecosystems, from semiconductors to green energy. R&D investment surged past 2.5% of GDP, with a rapidly rising share from the private sector. Today, China leads the world in AI patents, EV production, solar capacity and quantum publications. Live Events Meanwhile, India faces similar vulnerabilities China faced 25 years ago: imported chips, weak indigenous IP, low- tech exports and a fragmented research base. And the response has been uneven. GoI has launched Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), a ₹1 lakh cr R&D fund, expanded PLI schemes, and invested in semiconductors, space tech, clean energy and quantum. For the first time, the government is adopting a full-spectrum approach to funding research and innovation across all technology readiness levels (TRLs). While ANRF will focus on early-stage discovery (TRLs 1-3) and improve ease of doing science with DST, a soon-to-be-finalised ₹1 lakh cr R&D fund should drive private investment in mid-to-late-stage innovation (TRLs 4-9) through long-term, near-zero-interest loans. This fund shifts focus from grants to outcome-linked support for developing commercially viable tech. While the need for greater funding in basic research is acknowledged, GoI is laying the essential groundwork to build a self-sustaining R&D ecosystem. Yet, the private sector remains risk-averse, contributing barely a third of national R&D. India's R&D-to-GDP ratio remains stuck below 0.7%, with little traction in patenting or deep-tech commercialisation. The innovation pipeline is still thin. Ex-Intel CEO Andrew Grove made the line, 'Let's be paranoid' - with its philosophy of the importance of proactive preparedness for unexpected changes and strategic inflection points - famous. And, yet, even Intel wasn't paranoid enough. It missed the AI inflection point, and today Nvidia has overtaken it in valuation, strategic relevance and tech leadership. A similar inversion is unfolding between China and the US, driven by who innovates faster and scales deeper. Unfortunately, while GoI is paranoid, India's private sector isn't. In 2024, Foundation for Advancing Science & Technology (FAST) published a comparative study, 'State of Industry R&D in India', of 59 Indian and 60 global firms across six key sectors: pharma, software, defence, chemicals, automobiles, and energy. The study, conducted between FY16 and FY23, reveals a persistent input-output gap. Global firms, on average, reported 2.9x R&D intensity (spend as % of revenue), 3.7x share of PhD-qualified employees, and 2.9x R&D spending as share of profits than Indian firms. On output indicators, the disparity is starker. Global firms generated 13.1x patents and 1.3x scientific publications per billion dollars of revenue compared to their Indian counterparts. In software, global firms had 32x R&D intensity and 12.1x patents by revenue. In pharma, India's strongest sector, R&D intensity (5.8%) lagged far behind global peers (17.3%). The only parameter where Indian firms outperformed was in R&D disclosure, with an average disclosure score of 6.2 (out of 10) vs 3.7 for global firms. The European Commission recently released the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2024. It presents data on the top global 2,000 companies investing in R&D. They invested ₹1,257.7 bn in R&D in 2023. Indian firms accounted for ₹5.5 bn, or about 0.4%, of global industrial R&D investment, with only 15 companies featuring among the world's top 2,000 R&D spenders. This places India behind not only advanced economies like the US (₹531.8 bn, 681 firms) and China (₹215.8 bn, 524 firms), but also innovation-intensive small economies such as South Korea (₹42.5 bn, 40 firms), Taiwan (₹24.7 bn, 55 firms), and Ireland (₹10.4 bn, 24 firms). Sustained long-term economic growth is driven by investments in knowledge and innovation. India's failure to internalise this principle within its industrial ecosystem suggests presence of constraints: low absorptive capacity, weak industry-academia linkages, and limited interest from the private sector in high-risk R&D. Persistent underrepresentation of Indian firms in global innovation rankings reflects a missing industrial policy focus on Schumpeterian creative destruction, without which India risks being confined to low-value segments of GVCs. In Liu Cixin's 2008 science fiction novel, The Three-Body Problem, the world gets paralysed by the sudden collapse of scientific progress. Stagnation is the real nightmare. It's not fiction any more. For India, the risk isn't that we fail. It's that we're too comfortable even to try. Innovation can't be outsourced. If there's a gap between what scientists are doing and what businesses need, then companies must invest in R&D, collaborate with academia, and shape research. If the private sector stays disengaged, we'll keep watching others lead. We just aren't paranoid enough.
