'...hesitate to support the risk-taking it requires.'
'Researchers are frequently asked questions like, "What's the guarantee this will work?" or "Has this been demonstrated before?" -- as though research should be free of risk or unpredictability.'
'But by its very nature, research is exploratory. It's about entering the unknown, often with nothing more than a well-founded hypothesis and a vision.'
'Requiring a guarantee before funding a project can disincentivise precisely the kind of bold, high-impact ideas that we want to encourage.'
Countries like the United States, China, and Germany built their national strength by first investing in science.
In contrast, India often appears to be pursuing prosperity without first laying the scientific foundation.
The result? We celebrate the IPL but import deep tech.
We idolise Bollywood yet lag in innovations.
We support services and delivery startups, while R&D remains underfunded.
These lines are part of a viral LinkedIn post by Mayank Shrivastava, a professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, and co-founder of a deep-tech startup.
"Genuine research begins where certainty ends -- it's about exploring questions no one has answered yet," Professor Shrivastava tells Rediff's Shobha Warrier.
The first of a two-part interview:
In India, only 0.65% of the GDP is allotted for research and development while it is 5.21% in South Korea, 3.70% of the GDP in Japan and 3% in the US.
Of course, it is going to change in the US under the Trump administration.
Do you feel India does not have a culture on research and that is the reason why R&D is a neglected area here?
The issue is indeed multi-fold and cannot be attributed to a single factor such as the absence of a research culture.
It's important to understand that the entire research and innovation ecosystem -- comprising researchers, the government, industry, and society -- needs to evolve together.
Each has a critical role to play, and meaningful change will come only when improvements happen in a coordinated manner.
From the researcher's side, we need to strengthen our ability to plan proactively, articulate ideas compellingly, and deliver consistently.
This includes writing high-quality proposals, managing projects efficiently, and translating research into outcomes -- be it publications, technologies, or societal impact.
My own journey -- having delivered around 40 projects and written over 60 to 65 proposals in the past 12-13 years -- was possible only because of detailed foresight and sustained effort.
Not everyone has the same experience or support structure, and that's something we need to collectively address through better training, mentorship, and institutional support.
From the government's side, while the intent to fund research exists, the funding ecosystem needs structural upgrades.
For example, periodic calls for proposals often receive thousands of submissions, making it difficult to evaluate and prioritize the truly transformative ideas.
Additionally, funding amounts have remained largely unchanged for over a decade, even as research costs -- due to inflation, forex changes, equipment imports, and GST -- have increased three to fourfold.
This gap puts researchers under immense pressure and limits the ability to pursue ambitious projects.
Industry also has a role to play. In most developed research ecosystems, industry co-invests in research, especially when the problems are application-driven.
In India, industry participation in research is still modest.
Increasing their engagement -- not just as funders but as collaborative problem-solvers --can significantly expand the scope and relevance of our research output.
And finally, society at large must become more accepting of risk and uncertainty.
Today, societal appreciation often skews toward visible, immediate success -- celebrating professions or achievements that translate quickly into fame or income.
Research, however, is a slow and uncertain process. When society begins to value the role of researchers -- when young minds see science as a worthy pursuit and families support those who choose it -- that shift will trigger a positive feedback loop.
That's really what we need: A positive chain reaction.
If researchers deliver impactful outcomes, the government will feel encouraged to invest more.
When the government invests more, researchers are empowered to take bolder risks.
As industry sees value in collaboration, they begin to fund and adopt academic innovations.
And when society starts to celebrate researchers as builders of the nation, more young people will choose to walk that path.
We need to spark this virtuous cycle -- where one component uplifts the others -- and that's how India can build a thriving, globally competitive research ecosystem.
You mean priorities are elsewhere?
Not quite. I wouldn't say that priorities are elsewhere, nor would I imply that the government lacks intent to support research.
In fact, based on years of engagement with funding agencies and government stakeholders, I can say with confidence that there is genuine interest -- across multiple levels -- to strengthen India's research ecosystem.
The core issue lies not in intent, but in execution -- particularly in the administrative and procedural processes that govern how research funding is evaluated and disbursed.
One of the key challenges is the prevalent expectation of certainty in outcomes.
Researchers are frequently asked questions like, "What's the guarantee this will work?" or "Has this been demonstrated before?" -- as though research should be free of risk or unpredictability.
But by its very nature, research is exploratory. It's about entering the unknown, often with nothing more than a well-founded hypothesis and a vision.
Requiring a guarantee before funding a project can disincentivise precisely the kind of bold, high-impact ideas that we want to encourage.
This creates a paradox: We want world-class innovation, but hesitate to support the risk-taking it requires.
To truly strengthen the system, we need to shift our approach to proposal evaluation -- from risk-averse filtering to calibrated trust-building.
This doesn't mean funding everything indiscriminately, but rather developing nuanced assessment mechanisms that can identify potential and promise, even in unproven areas.
Ultimately, this is about creating a climate of mutual confidence.
When researchers demonstrate consistent delivery, government agencies gain the trust to fund bolder ideas.
When funding mechanisms become more enabling, researchers are encouraged to think bigger.
The result is a system that rewards effort, embraces thoughtful risk, and produces long-term value.
Just like start-ups. It is said that only 1 out of 10 start-ups succeed...
Exactly. Research, much like entrepreneurship, is inherently a high-risk, high-reward endeavour.
Out of ten well-founded ideas, perhaps only one or two may lead to truly transformative outcomes. But that doesn't mean the others are failures.
They contribute in vital ways -- by advancing our scientific understanding, refining methodologies, identifying limitations, or even laying the groundwork for future breakthroughs.
The key is to understand that every serious research effort adds value to the system.
Some produce immediate results, while others generate long-term insights or data that may be picked up by others down the line.
This is how science moves forward -- through layers of exploration, some of which yield direct impact, while others quietly build the foundation.
That's why evaluation and funding ecosystems must be designed with this in mind.
Expecting certainty or demanding proof of outcome at the proposal stage is like expecting a startup to guarantee its IPO.
What matters more is clarity of vision, soundness of methodology, and the capability of the team.
The rest -- by definition -- is part of the journey.
If we can collectively internaliSe this across the ecosystem -- whether in government, academia, industry, or society -- it will lead to smarter funding decisions, more meaningful research, and eventually a more resilient and innovative nation.
Recognising the role of uncertainty in discovery is the first step to nurturing breakthrough science.
That is why I asked in the beginning whether India lacks research culture..
Yes, in that context, I would agree -- we do have a research culture gap, but it's important to unpack what that really means.
It's not simply about lack of funding or intent. Rather, it's about how risk, ambition, and scientific excellence are perceived and supported across the ecosystem -- including researchers, institutions, policy frameworks, and society at large.
To begin with, we often see hesitation -- not just from funding agencies, but also from researchers themselves -- when it comes to proposing bold, high-risk ideas.
This isn't due to lack of capability, but because the broader system isn't always structured to embrace uncertainty.
Researchers worry about rejection, and funders worry about accountability.
This mutual caution creates a culture that favours predictability over discovery.
There's also a question of aspiration. How many research groups truly strive to redefine their fields or pursue moonshot goals?
In many cases, we see proposals shaped more by the language of funding calls than by genuine scientific curiosity.
Incrementalism becomes the default -- not necessarily out of complacency, but out of a sense that disruptive thinking may not be accepted or supported.
Then there's the matter of how resources are allocated.
We often adopt a distribution model that aims to be equitable -- ensuring participation across states, regions, and institutions.
The intent behind this is entirely valid and rooted in inclusivity. But if not balanced with an equal emphasis on excellence and readiness, this approach can unintentionally dilute outcomes.
The goal should be to uplift capacity everywhere, but also to empower excellence where it already exists -- so that strong institutions can serve as hubs that elevate the rest of the system.
In short, building a strong, self-sustaining research culture will require more than policy or funding reform.
It requires a broader shift in mindset -- where risk-taking is encouraged, ambition is rewarded, and outcomes are judged not just by immediate results but by long-term potential.
This is how we begin to move from a system that cautiously manages research to one that confidently invests in discovery.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff