Anybody who is familiar with the pages of 'Current Science', the mouthpiece of the Indian research community, cannot escape the angst that has been troubling the nation's academic conscience for some decades. The rot in higher education, the drop in the quality of publications, the unemployabilities of university graduates, the mushrooming of teaching shops, the exodus of scientific talent towards remunerative positions in the industry, almost every topic has been featuring regularly in every issue of Current Science. Even the newspapers have been echoing the same sentiments. Despite impressive strides in technology, the rising rupee and increasing affluence of the middle classes, the horizon of Indian science has been bleak for some years. Even the Tata Nano has failed to cheer the academic's cup.
There is no gainsaying the fact that India has been going through gruelling times in creative scientific pursuit, despite rapid strides in technological advancements. There has not been a Nobel Prize in science since C V Raman and ironically, he was the product of British India. For some three odd decades, Indians scientists, working in India, have published very few path-breaking papers in leading journals such as Nature and Science. Our best scientists of today do not enjoy half the international reputation their mentors enjoyed in the sixties and the seventies. The more recent Shanghai rankings found Indian universities excluded from the top hundred, with only two making it to the top five hundred slot. We wax eloquently on our IITs but these institutions are net consumers of knowledge rather than creators of any new knowledge.
Indian pharmaceutical giants are on a shopping spree abroad, acquiring many companies. I have heard of Glenmark being dubbed as the Infosys of pharmaceutical innovation. Clinical trial revenues are mounting and our industrial productivity has touched unprecedented growth levels. Tata has bought Landrover and Jaguar, Mittal has bought Arcelor. As if to add the icing to the cake, there is the national euphoria of cricketing victories and the IPL capturing overseas players, falling head over heels to the lure of Indian rupees! Recently a newspaper reported that even the IIT graduates are settling for jobs in India. India is truly shining!
Paradoxical inverse relation between science & industrial growth
Some five years ago, Subbiah Arunachalam of the M S Swaminathan Foundation published a very significant paper in Current Science in 2002, bringing to light some startling facts and figures pertaining to Indian science. This report sent alarm bells ringing all over the country. Discussed below, in the context of the present, are some of the issues highlighted in Arunachalam's paper.
Interestingly, India held a very respectable position in science till the seventies, when we had the eighth largest output of scientific papers in the world, preceded only by USA, UK, USSR, West Germany, France, Japan, Canada. Further, India's contribution to science in the seventies accounted for nearly half of the published work from the third world. Korea was nowhere in the picture with just 175 papers in 1980 against India's count of 14, 983. Even China was not a force to reckon with, accounting for just under a thousand papers.
Ironically, this was the season of poverty, illiteracy and hunger in India. The green revolution had not yet kicked off, and the white revolution was yet to make an impact. India had the greatest population of cattle but one of the lowest per capita milk productivity.
In less than two decades, the tables were turned. With the rise of Asian Tigers, we were left out in the race. Our position steadily declined from 8th to the 13th in 1995. China published over 11, 000 papers that year and Korea had already touched 5125, but we were still ahead by a comfortable margin.
By 2000, the picture was completely different. India had slipped further down to the 15th position with Korea nominally behind and racing menacingly ahead. China was way ahead holding the 9th position with over 22, 000 papers against India's total of just over 12,000.
Ironically, these decades of consolidation in agricultural and industrial growth also witnessed a steady decline in Indian scientific productivity. From over 14, 000 papers in 1980, our share fell to 11, 222 by 1985 and plummeted to just over 10, 000 by 1990. By 2000, it was just over 12, 000.
Quite by contrast, the Chinese and Koreans forged ahead during the same period. Korea's share increased from 175 papers in 1980 to 12, 013 in 2000. China's contribution grew from a paltry 924 papers in 1980 to 22, 061 in 2000.
India had fallen to the 15th position in 2000 with Korea very close behind us and China way ahead, holding the 9th position! India's share of global scientific output fell to 2.3 per cent while China's rose to 9.5 per cent.
What we see here is an inverse correlation between our industrial consolidation and scientific output in the eighties and nineties. On the other hand, during the same period, growth in science and economic consolidation marched forward together in both China and Korea.
How do we explain this paradoxical correlation? One possible explanation comes from the fact that pursuing a career in science became a second priority with the globalisation ushered in by Narasimha Rao. The shift in governmental policies brought an end to the license raj and boosted career opportunities in the manufacturing sector. More and more opportunities were open for engineers and such other professionals. A boost in the demand for technical education witnessed a surge in private engineering colleges. Engineers, being more employable in the wake of industrial growth, found it easier to get a job than a postgraduate in science. A degree in science was no longer the first priority of the meritorious students. More and more began to opt for professional degrees. Science had to rest contented with second rate talent. Naturally science fell behind.
India has boasted of being home to the third largest number of science graduates in the world. But the figures are misleading because many of these 'science graduates' are working as bus conductors, bank clerks or travel agents. They never come close to science, because a career in science was for the very best and the luckiest. The social iniquities added to the woes of aspirants. To sum up, India had talent but no opportunity.
Silver lining in the cloud
The world has witnessed many global upheavals since 2000, more so in developing countries such as India. Globalisation has come to stay. The markets are flourishing. A consumerist population has emerged with the rise of the middle classes. Consumption has fuelled vigorous growth and productivity.
A recent article by Subbiah Arunachalam of the M S Swaminathan Foundation [Current Science, April 10, 2008, Volume 94, page 848] paints a much more encouraging picture.
According to the data presented to us through this study, Subbiah Arunachalam focuses on the meteoric rise of China, which now stands second only to USA in scientific output, having published 1,66,205 papers in the year 2006. India has bettered its rank; we now hold the tenth place with 38,140 publications. Korea is marginally behind us at the twelfth position with 34, 025 papers. Brazil is fifteenth with 25, 266. India can now draw comfort from the fact that she is ahead of Australia and Russia. However, the gap between China and India has only widened further. China presents a staggering challenge to the world's most populous democracy.
A closer examination of the figures present a much more encouraging picture. More heartening than the number of publications is the rate of progress in Indian scientific productivity. In just two years, [2004 to 2006] the growth has been over 30 per cent. This is quite remarkable for a country that had actually stagnated, even declined, during the eighties and nineties! Indian papers also enjoy a better citation index of 0.19 against 0.12 for China.
Going by numbers alone, we are apparently on our way to consolidation. The mood of the government too is conducive to growth; our prime minister announced a slew of sops for the academic community during the inauguration of the Science Congress early this year. He announced the government's plan to set up five new Indian Institutes of Science, Education and Research, eight more IITs, twenty more Indian Institutes of Information Technology, and a staggering 1600 new polytechnics. Setting up of a chain of new NIPERs have added cheer to the pharmaceutical sector.
Government cannot be credited for the recent increase in educational opportunities in India. What we see now is a belated reaction to the rapid increase in privately funded education, pioneered by what has been often described as the 'opportunistic' capitation fee system of Karnataka. Politicians are riding piggyback behind the success of the system, exploiting every opportunity to exact maximum political mileage out of it in the name of social equity. Our politicians competing with one another, have never lost an opportunity in condemning the 'mushrooming' of 'teaching shops', when actually making hay while the sun shone upon many a populist scheme bereft of vision or nobility of purpose.
Arunachalam has also highlighted a mega trend, viz. the emergence of the developing world that has changed the global landscape of science. USA no longer holds a monopolistic hold on the vast scientific enterprise; countries such as China are fast catching up. India is making its presence felt, albeit in few selected sectors such as satellite technology and software. All this progress notwithstanding, India is still far behind in creative science. We still lag behind in innovative, path breaking basic sciences, despite having truly gone ahead in applying scientific know-how to technological advantage, and market competence.
Reengineering will not sustain growth
Reengineering continues to be the Indian strategy for current growth and prosperity in the market. Basic needs are being solved through science; with a vigorous white revolution taking India to the top position in milk production. Agriculture has grown; better seeds and improved strategies of irrigation have enhanced productivity substantially, even to the point of making India an exporter of food.
The strategy of reengineering was the path followed by most developing countries during the period of industrial consolidation and it has been no different with India. But current levels of growth has made reengineering an unsound strategy, innovation alone can take us forward. If we look at China and Korea, we shall see that their academic growth ran parallel with their industrial growth.
However, India followed a different path. India already had a talent pool of scientists in the sixties and seventies, but they had no opportunity to put their talents to any practical use. Most of these talented technocrats were forced to go abroad to find a suitable job. The talent pool in India had to wait several decades for the right political climate to find an avenue for expression. When we had talent we lacked opportunity. Now, the opportunity has come aplenty, what we now lack is trained manpower. The tables have turned.
Reengineering cannot sustain current growth levels in India. What we now need is innovation at fundamental levels. We need trained manpower to sustain the growth and this is where the gap is most formidable. The per capita figures for scientific manpower in India is appallingly low. We have just 157 scientists for every million Indians. This against the much higher 633 for China and 4, 526 for USA. The gap is breathtaking.
With technology steadily growing knowledge intensive, the dearth of scientific manpower is an area that deserves utmost attention. Pharmaceutical innovation is one of the most knowledge intensive avenues today and training assumes critical importance in this context. The performance of pharmaceutical giants have been inextricably linked to their innovative output, with new chemical entities occupying the centre stage of their vision for growth.
Arunachalam has also called for aggressive revision of policies in order to compete with China. We have a more youthful population, a well trained cadre of professionals, the raw materials for success. What we need is political will and policy.
We must thank Subbiah Arunachalam and the M S Swaminathan Foundation for the two important papers that have put things in perspective. While the first paper in 2002 rang alarm bells, the second one in April 2008 has planted the seeds of hope.
(The author is additional professor in Pharmacology, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal 576 104)