Why in the News?

• A recent NITI Aayog report on ‘Ease of Doing R&D in India’, along with surveys covering more than 400 institutional leaders and 850 scientists, has highlighted gaps in India's research funding ecosystem.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About R&D (Definition, Purpose)
• News Summary (Key Findings of NITI Aayog Report)

Research and Development(R&D) in India

• R&D refers to systematic work undertaken to generate new knowledge, develop technologies, improve existing products and processes, and solve scientific and technological problems.
• R&D is important for economic growth because it can improve productivity, technological capabilities, innovation and competitiveness.
• Public funding is particularly important in areas where research involves high risks, long gestation periods or uncertain commercial returns.
• India's public R&D ecosystem includes multiple ministries, departments and agencies that provide grants to universities, research institutions and individual scientists.
• The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) is the country's flagship research funding body, established to promote research and innovation across universities, colleges, research institutions and laboratories.
• However, effective public funding requires not only adequate financial resources but also the ability to answer basic questions: Who received funding? Which agency provided it? For what research? How much was provided? And has similar research already received public funding elsewhere?

News Summary

• The NITI Aayog report found that close to 80% of funding under the ANRF is concentrated in the IITs.
• This is significant because the ANRF was created with a broader mandate to expand the research base beyond the traditional concentration of public research funding.
• The finding raises questions about whether public R&D funding is reaching a sufficiently broad range of universities and research institutions.
• However, concentration of funding by itself does not necessarily indicate inefficient allocation.
• High-performing institutions may receive larger amounts because of their research capacity, infrastructure and ability to undertake complex projects.
• The larger policy issue is whether capable researchers and institutions outside these established centres have adequate opportunities to access competitive research funding.

Fragmented Research Funding Data

• A major problem identified in the report is the absence of a unified system for tracking public R&D funding.
• Information about publicly funded research is currently spread across numerous government agency databases.
• These databases often use different formats and may contain information as free text rather than structured data.
• This creates difficulties in identifying researchers, institutions and projects across agencies.
• For example, the same researcher may be recorded differently in the databases of the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
• Similarly, an institution may appear as "IISc, Bangalore" in one database and "Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru" in another.

Risk of Overlapping Research Funding

• The fragmented nature of the data also creates the possibility that multiple Central agencies may fund similar or overlapping research areas.
• Without a system linking grants, researchers, institutions and research outputs, it becomes difficult for funding agencies to determine whether a particular research proposal is substantially similar to work that has already received public funding.
• This can result in inefficient use of public resources and makes it difficult to assess the overall distribution of research funding across different fields and institutions.

Persistent Digital Identifiers

• The report identifies Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) and metadata infrastructure as a possible solution.
• A PID is a permanent, unique and machine-readable identifier assigned to an entity. The report compares it with a PAN number for a taxpayer or an IMEI number for a mobile phone.
• For research funding, each grant could receive a unique identifier linked to standardised metadata, including:

• Funding agency
• Recipient institution
• Named researcher
• Amount of funding
• Duration of the grant
• Research field

• The grant identifier could then be connected with the research outputs generated from the funding, such as research papers, patents and datasets.
• This would enable funding agencies and independent researchers to analyse how public research money is distributed and what outcomes it produces.

International Models

• The international non-profit organisation Crossref operates a Grant Linking System that connects research funding information using several identifiers. These include:
  • Funder ID - identifies the funding agency
  • ROR ID - identifies the research organisation
  • ORCID - identifies individual researchers
  • Grant DOI - provides a permanent identifier for the grant itself
• According to the experts, more than 2 lakh grants have been registered through this system worldwide.
• Such a system can help answer questions about duplicate funding, concentration of research resources and allocation across research fields.

Two Broad Options for India

• A New National System
  • India could develop a completely independent sovereign national grant registry.
  • The advantage would be greater control over the system and the ability to incorporate India's specific institutional structure, including research schemes operated by State governments.
• Integration with Existing Global Infrastructure
  • The second option would be for Indian funding agencies to join and consistently contribute data to existing international infrastructure such as the Crossref ecosystem.
  • This could be implemented more quickly because technical standards and governance mechanisms already exist.

A Hybrid Approach

• Experts propose a possible middle path combining national ownership with international compatibility.
• Countries such as the United Kingdom and the European Union have developed government-owned research portals while ensuring that their identifiers remain compatible with global standards.
• For India, the proposed Unified Project Management System (UPMS) could perform a similar function. Under this approach:
  • UPMS could act as a single national portal.
  • Central and State funding agencies could use the system.
  • Grants could receive Crossref-compatible identifiers.
  • Research institutions could be linked through ROR IDs.
  • Individual researchers could be linked through ORCID.
• Such interoperability could make it easier to identify duplicate funding, examine concentration of resources and track research outcomes.

Significance

• A unified research funding database would improve transparency, coordination and evidence-based policymaking in India's R&D ecosystem.
• It could help policymakers determine whether public research funding is adequately distributed across institutions and disciplines, identify duplication, evaluate outcomes and make better decisions regarding future funding priorities.
• For researchers, standardised identifiers could also make their research and funding history easier to track across institutions and agencies.