Decontrol Indian Science : Fix What Ails!

What ails Indian Science? This question is being repeatedly asked and analysed.  

The latest in the series is this piece in Nature, aptly titled, ‘Free Indian Science’ by Mathai Joseph and Andrew Robinson. This was immediately followed up by the Hindu with an article by R Prasad titled, What Ails Indian Science? Earlier, this February, there was another article in The Hindu, by Krishna V V with a lamenting title ‘Paralysis in Science Policies’.   

For those who are interested, there are two other Nature articles covering this topic: ‘Bold Strategies for Indian Science’ by G R Desiraju (unfortunately not OA); and, one by K S jayaraman, titled Indian Science in Need of Overhaul, discussing recommendations of the PMs advisory Council on Science for ‘war like’ effort to boost research.

There are common views among all. They are unanimous that it is not availability of funds that is the constraint. This may seem rather counterintuitive. “Money is neither the cause nor the solution to our problems”, says G R Desiraju. Joseph and Robinson points out that ‘research in the leading institutions is well funded — with more money available than requested in credible grant applications, a striking contrast to the situation in many nations’.

The problem is fundamental and structural. Bereft of the frills, these articles identify structural limitations that create bureaucratic controls as the primary challenge facing Indian science. Jayaraman quotes Prof M Vijayan, former President of Indian Science Congress lamenting that ‘the existing structure of Indian science is “the single most important hurdle obstructing the flowering of Indian science” ’.

The structural limitations are partly internal. The Indian cultural milieu with its feudal mindset demands unquestioned obedience to the superiors, according to Desiraju. This mindset and structure limit the ability to question and dissent which are fundamental to scientific enquiry. This is reflected in science administration. In the national laboratories power is concentrated in the Director.  The following words of Desiraju are striking:

“Corruption need not take a monetary form; in a national laboratory it can mean acquiescing to the notion that one’s administrative head is also one’s scientific superior.”

Corruption is a crime. If the above proposition is accepted, the current structure of lab administration makes a large number of scientists within the current hierarchical system open to this charge. It is the system and they have no choice. If that is the case, those who have the responsibility of changing the system, to make the labs less hierarchical, but have not done so far, are guilty of aiding and abetting the corruption.   

A linked structural issue according to Joseph and Robinson is the bureaucratic mentality that values administrative power over scientific achievement. The seniors are made heads of departments and directors. These positions possess administrative controls that command obedience.

Science needs public funding. The above Nature articles point out that the funding is subject to unsuitable restrictions applicable to the entire government bureaucracy. R Prasad, the intuitive science editor of The Hindu advocates decoupling of funding and government control.

Aren’t these problem known?

These are not isolated concerns. The Prime Minister of India himself expressed concern that India is falling behind in the race to become a global leader in science.

Look at this. Way back in 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, stated, addressing the 96^th Indian science congress in 2009:

“The best science is done by young people. Our institutions, therefore, must be receptive to the needs of young people. They must promote younger talent and allow the youth to lead. Seniority and age may be relevant in bureaucratic systems, but scientific institutions must be led by creative intellectual leaders, irrespective of their age. “

Prime Minister repeated his concern, in the 97^th Science Congress in 2010 where he said what is needed is “to liberate Indian science from the shackles and deadweight of bureaucratism and in-house favouritism. Only then we can unleash the latent talent and creative energies of our vast scientists and engineers too”.

Yet, despite the Prime Minister repeatedly pointing this out, nothing has changed in 2014, prompting Nature to write about it, again.

The government announced a new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 or STIP. STIP envisages “positioning India among the top five global scientific powers by 2020”. We are already in the financial year 2014-15, in middle of the second decade of 21^st century. No pathbreaking change is visible in the horizon. If STIP vision has to materialise, we should pay heed to what these articles say and address structural issues.

Bureaucratization of Science Departments

Science departments are headed by Science Secretaries. This must have been started with the realization that science administration is different than general administration. These departments started a cadre of science administrators. But over time, governmental bureaucracy started invading into the science department’s decision-making processes. Most science departments now function like government departments.

Structural flaws in the financial administration of science is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.In government departments, generalist bureaucrats, posted as Financial Advisors (FA), handle financial administration. This is followed in science departments. Some of them have not even studied science even at the pre-university level. How will they ever understand the challenges in dong science? So they take the easy recourse, provide maximum restrictions to make sure that no one blames them (on the imaginary fear of something going wrong at some time). Most of the time the FAs who do not have any technical knowledge but decide even the number of technical manpower to be deployed in a project, what equipment has to be purchased, etc,  leaving the scientist with little choice.

Structural Flaws in Financial Administration

The first challenge to address is the structural flaws in financial administration of science.

Let us look at the procedural regulations on release of funds. There are no guidelines specifically meant for funding of scientific research. Science departments releasing funds to government’s own autonomous bodies are bound by the same regulations as is followed in generalist departments in releasing funds to non governmental agencies.

                                                

Most of the governmental expenditure guidelines are suited to engineering departments. Engineering cost estimates are more predictable than science. Science is the exploration of the unknown. There are limitations on accurate projection of the budgets. New technologies emerge which was unknown at the time of the grant. This necessitates giving an element of financial autonomy the Principal Investigator (PI) leading the programme.  This requires trust.

A PI is bound by all the governmental rules and procedures in the same way a generalist bureaucrat. Trust the Principal Investigator to know what he wants. Trust is not just absent, but the mindset is one which puts the PI as an adversary, not one that facilitates PI to arrive at the right estimates. This has to change.

Needed - Structural Changes in Funding Mechanism:

There should be a set of rules governing science funding, distinctly different from the normal government grant mechanisms. It is evident that the current model of disbursing funds from the government departments is riddled with problems. So there has to be institutional mechanisms to remove bureaucratic control over funds.

The solution suggested by Joseph and Robinson is creation of an empowered funding agency, staffed by working scientists on the lines of the European Research Council. The suggestion is really good. Such agencies exist in other countries outside the main government structures, such as the United Kingdom's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the European Research Council, the US National Science Foundation and Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research. Do we have the will to implement?

Government need to free science from the clutches of bureaucracy or should make the bureaucrats accountable for performance of science. If the financial system of generalist bureaucrats advising science is to continue, the FA should be made responsible for the deliverables of the project along with the scientist. Currently we have the situation where FA could change any figure, put any constraint, without any responsibility of the consequences. If this situation has to change, we need to:

i.            make FA as a part of the implementing team and assess her/his performance based on the outcome of the project;

ii.           alternatively, provide a 360 degree approach to the annual performance appraisal of FAs where scientists, not just superiors, will have a chance to opine on the grade of FA during the performance review.

iii.        make scientist administrators who have actually done science in the laboratories as FAs in science departments. In any case we will not be worse of than the current situation where those who read history in college are FAs.

Remove Hierarchical Structures

It is imperative that we remove the hierarchical structures that brings in bureaucracy from our science departments. The laboratory should not be revolving around a Director, it should revolve around science which people do. Joseph and Robinson has suggested planned rotation of administrative roles and responsibilities. This occurs in most university departments in the Western world. The Director’s post, which is mostly administrative should be given to relatively young scientists who should have a fixed tenure after which they should continue doing science in the same laboratory. This will help to remove encroaching institutional bureaucracies and feudal tendencies.

Create Small Centers of Excellences

The recommendation of the Science Advisory Committee to Prime Minister (SAC-PM), to create “a large number of small centres of excellence” around outstanding individuals is an excellent one. Despite being a suggestion of SAC-PM this is not implemented. Small size itself should reduce the chance of bureaucracy creeping in. This suggestion should extend to creating small Autonomous Functional Units within the national laboratories.   

A Question of Will

These problems of Indian science are known, even the Prime Minister speaks about them. The solutions are also known. What is lacking is the will to address them, such is the hold of the bureaucracy. The current systems that shackle us, strangle our imagination limiting our willingness and the ability to change. This has to be overcome. Otherwise we will continue to have the situation where science and scientists get bureaucratized.

As Malayalam Poet Kumaran Asan said: Change those structures, lest will change you.