There can be no better investment for a society than in its people: their health, education and well-being.  But one other investment that comes close for potential returns is in scientific research.

All successful economies recognise that scientific innovation is an essential component of any major economic activity.  Experience in the USA, Japan and Germany has shown that expenditures on R&D pay for themselves many times over through higher efficiencies, better productivity and improved resource conservation.  Moreover, national competitiveness is closely correlated with expenditures on science and innovation. 

For almost any sector of the economy in these countries – construction, transportation, communication, industry, agriculture, etc.-the normal expenditure on R&D comes to between 1% and 4% of the total turnover of that sector.  In special, science-intensive areas like space, electronics, computer software, defence, these R&D expenditures can quite easily get above 10%. 

Since the 1950’s the Government of India has itself made a major commitment to R&D with close to 1% of its GNP going into science.  This is a larger budget for science than in any other developing country, and indeed than in many developed countries – a remarkable affirmation of the nation’s expectations from scientific research and of its commitment to science. 

Most of this money has been spent, however, on supporting science which can only benefit a small minority in our country.  It goes to space research, atomic energy, agriculture and medicine.  Almost none goes to support science that could help the lives of the vast majority, most of whom live in poverty, outside the margins of attention either of a small fraction of the research in agriculture and medicine, very little can be shown to have a direct or even indirect impact on the lives of the poorer two-thirds of our people.  For some reason, policy makers either feel that the issues of rural living and livelihoods cannot benefit form science or that they are of too low a priority to deserve a higher allocation. 

In the 8^th five year plan, the total amount of money allocated for “science and society” programmes of the Department of Science & Technology was about Rs. 20 crores.  Much of this went into activities other than research, like training, pilot projects, and demonstrations.  Assuming, generously, that all other research supported by ICAR, ICMR, CAPART and other agencies that has any relevance to the poor adds up to another Rs 20 crore (probably an exaggeration), the total expenditure on scientific research on poverty related issues for the 5 years of the 8^th plan is well under Rs 40 crore.  Per year, this works out to an average of Rs 8 crore. 

The budget of the Ministry of Rural Development alone is Rs 7,000 crore per year.  Conservatively assuming that the government budget for rural development accounts for 30% of the total rural economy, the money flowing through this sector is easily Rs 20,000 crore per year. 

Thus, the R&D budget on rural development is well under 0.05% of the sectoral turn over-a figure that needs to be multiplied by a factor of at least 20 to be meaningful. 

Another interesting calculation is the relative funding available from government for “science and society” as a percentage of total allocations to scientific research.  Total scientifical allocations today are approximately Rs 4,000 crore per year.  Allocations for science relevant to the problems of the poor amount, as shown above, to less than Rs 8 crore.  Thus, again, it would appear that, in the eyes of our decision-makers, research to solve the problems of 70% of the people of India appears to merit less than 0.2% of the allocation made for the remaining 30%.

Under these circumstances, the rich will inevitably get richer and the poor can only get poorer.  Our science policy serves, therefore, directly to accentuate the disparities in our country and runs completely counter in our national goals of equity and social justice. 

This is clearly ridiculous.  Arguments are often given against raising the allocation of funds for scientific research on the problems of sustainable development.  These usually relate to issues such as “the lack of absorptive capacity”, “the limited funds available”, the need for urgent action rather than research”.  None of these arguments has any substance.  When, as a nation we have wanted to spend money on research in glamorous areas, it has been forthcoming in huge floods – witness the atomic energy programme, the space programme, the electronic programme, the super conductivity programme, the green revolution programme and many others. 

We now need the same commitment and investment in research aimed at poverty eradication and livelihood generation. As in the other areas, absorptive capacity will automatically get built up.  And only thus can our scientific effort begin to address nation’s priorities

Back to Contents