S&T as drivers of economic growth

The official website of the Commonwealth Knowledge Network states that the stock of science and technology (S&T) manpower in India is 6.3 million. It estimates that scientists and engineers engaged in R&D in 1994 numbered 1,36,503 and expenditure on that year was US$ 2,172.4. This works out to 0.81% of that year's GNP. While in several respects this figure is not adequate for a country that plans to develop as a knowledge society and achieve high rates of growth based on scientific and technological achievements, it does indicate, nevertheless, a sizeable commitment of resources to S&T. It is true that there are not many developing countries that have such a vast S&T programme. However, as India plans for a high economic growth future, there is need to evaluate whether S&T will support the vision and aspirations of the Indian people and the plans of our leadership to reach rates of growth of 8 per cent or more. Today, the threat of competition in the global market requires that India and its productive machinery acquire an edge in S&T to ensure that Indian industry and enterprise are not hit by global competition. The editorial in the March 22, 1993 issue of Business Today stated:"Writing a requiem for Indian technology is easy. After all, just what has the country?s vast pool of scientific manpower ? estimated at over five million in 1992 ? managed to achieve in the 46 years after independence? Leave out the (arguably) successful nuclear power, space and defense research programmes and is there anything else which captures the imagination? Sadly, the answer is popularly believed to be 'no'. And in a sense, it is because the scientific establishment has failed to deliver the goods that with the liberalization and globalization of the Indian economy has become unavoidable". The question raised in the editorial can be repeated with greater seriousness today. India?s scientific establishments are over a half-century old. While the CSIR website refers to the organization as a 55 years young autonomous body, it could also be interpreted that the CSIR is a 55-year aging establishment which requires major renewal of its human resources and overall vision. This, indeed, is true of the entire R&D establishment within the country that is supported by the government. While a refreshing departure from this aging characteristic is certainly found in several institutions, particularly those established by the Department of Biotechnology and a few others, it is true that the most serious challenge facing India?s S&T establishments is that of human resources. In the absence of a dynamic workforce of scientists and technologists, it is unlikely that these massive structures and organizations will achieve anything substantial in the coming years. A symptom of the overall problem emerges from a news item which appeared in the print media of June 19, 2001 raising the question of Dr R S Paroda?s replacement as Director General, ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research) in the coming weeks. In a business enterprise of even a modest size succession planning ensures that the Chief Executive who is retiring or leaving an organization has a successor decided well in advance, so that the transition process is smooth and effective. It is seldom that the large scientific bodies such as the CSIR, ICAR or ICMR are favoured with a clear and transparent succession plan for the Chief Executive?s position. Naturally the story lower down in the system is even worse. This only indicates that even as the Indian economy moves towards liberalization in fits and starts, the Indian scientific establishment remains by and large static. The role of S&T in economic growth has not acquired enough importance today. Economists have studied the subject and estimated empirically the contribution of technology to economic growth in different parts of the world. In the US, for instance, several economists including Denison and the Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, among others, have pioneered studies of economic growth and the impact of technological change in quantitative terms. The unmistakable conclusion from these studies is that while growth has been a function of capital investments and the employment of human resources, technology is the key in bringing about rapid advancement in the economy of every developed country in the world. Agriculture has been a favourite area for research by economists in estimating the contributions of technological change to growth in output and productivity, because there is generally enough correct data available on the various inputs used. Why have similar contributions from technology not been evident in the industrial sector? First, the Indian agriculture and research extension system, which was launched under the visionary leadership of Dr B P Pal, the first Director-General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, had a pronounced field orientation which ensured that scientific innovation spread directly from lab to land. Second, the traditional ownership of farming assets being in the hands of individuals, the spirit of enterprise has been widespread as evident in decisions by the farmer to accept and employ technological innovation. In contrast, industry in India has generally been protected by government policy, particularly after the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, which brought in a strict system of permit and license raj. It was far easier for industrialists to purchase technology off the shelf from overseas and leave it unchanged within a sheltered market. This situation has changed in recent times, and will change faster in the coming years. Global developments will dictate the role of science in industrial enterprises in India far more extensively in future. Evidence of this is already available in the pharmaceuticals and drugs industry. The international prices of drugs are substantially higher than those in India. The reason for this difference lies in the fact that the international drugs industry spends substantial amounts on R&D, and the cost of this has to be borne by consumers. WTO regulations and a new definition of International Property Rights would make it difficult for the Indian drugs industry to survive unless they are able to invest in the development of new products for the Indian market, and for export overseas. Hence, investments in R&D in India?s pharmaceuticals and drugs industry is growing rapidly, with results that are indeed heartening and in sharp contrast with the situation in other industries. Reform of the S&T sector in India does not in any way eliminate the role of government in S&T. To the contrary, in fact, government?s expenditure on S&T must go up if India is to develop as an economic power. However, the delivery system through which scientific innovation is delivered must change substantially. The experience of government establishments in this country clearly shows that in sectors like space and atomic energy, a mission based approach even in government establishments has led to very satisfactory results. This has been the case in the US as well. The US, for instance, has set up a large number of government funded laboratories working in areas such as space, atomic energy, renewable energy and defense. However, as far as industrial research is concerned, government has no direct role other than funding research projects in institutions of higher learning. One major impact of continued R&D support in government establishments has been a starvation of research funds for universities and institutions of higher learning. A facile belief that scientific advancement and innovation will be delivered by the government run scientific establishments has led to a neglect of R&D in our university system. The result is that the quality of higher education has also been badly affected. This situation requires urgent reversal, but this will happen only if funds that are currently been sucked up by institutions in the government can be diverted for university research. There is, therefore, need not merely to put pressure on government institutions to generate their own resources, but actually think in terms of their acquisition by industrial establishments. Such a move, undoubted will bring the scientific community up in arms against the government, but unless such a change is brought about, Indian science will continue to remain peripheral to growth and development. It is clear that public sector institutions do not necessarily perform on a uniform basis. Some have been uniquely successful while others are absolute failures. The success of space and nuclear establishments, perhaps, stems from traditions and management systems which combined with a mission based approach have created much greater result orientation than in other establishments. But even in the space and nuclear research organizations there is need for some major improvements. For instance, in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the average age of senior staff is more than 55. As for the intake of new scientists and engineers, BARC hardly gets any graduate from any IIT at the entry levels. The quality of new entrants will obviously determine the quality of the organization in the future. There is, therefore, need for introspection, change in human resource policies and the very fossilized system of rewards and recognition. The organization cannot be dynamic if a 40 or 45 year old cannot look forward to reaching a leadership position in a scientific establishment. In the ICAR system too, there is now need for substantial change. The Green Revolution spurred by the ICAR system has brought great benefit to this country. However, today there is need for carefully managing research in modern biotechnology and ensuring that its fruits reach the farming community effectively. The emphasis on agricultural research has now to be on the sustainability of agriculture. This means that the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and excessive use of water must be carefully reduced through scientific innovation. The preservation of soil quality becomes paramount. The scientific establishments have, therefore, to incorporate societal goals far more closely. This, in fact, is an issue that the leaders of Indian science must carefully understand. Gone are the days when scientific endeavours would be applauded irrespective of their social implications. Today, society is far more demanding and far more dubious about the benefits of S&T. Scientists must, therefore, read the writing on the wall and ensure that scientific vision extends beyond the laboratory to include economic and social considerations effectively. India cannot emerge as a major economic power unless science and technology in the country undergoes a major metamorphosis.