The problem with India’s science management 

Continuous economic advancement that aligns with national aspirations is consistently driven by converting scientific breakthroughs into practical technologies. This has been a universal trend since the commencement of the Industrial Revolution. Recognizing this fact, the government is revamping India's scientific infrastructure, establishing the National Research Foundation (NRF), and restructuring the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Given this context, it is essential to honestly evaluate the current administrative capacity to concurrently enhance the efficiency and resilience of Indian science.

Focus on solutions

Stronger evidence and data

The underlying premise of scientists playing a dominant role in Indian science administration rests on the belief that proficiency in scientific endeavours equates to effective administration. However, the evident performance of scientific institutions suggests a flawed paradigm.

Misalignment of Skills and Roles

Administering complex organizations like national labs or universities cannot be treated as a secondary responsibility for a 'working' scientist also serving as a director or vice-chancellor. Administration demands a distinct skill set, notably in the allocation of money, resources, and time. Attributes associated with good scientists, such as individuality, constructive ego, and erudition, often diverge from the requirements of administration—tact, realism, flexibility, and firmness. An effective administrator must prioritize tasks by policy and ensure that resources assigned to one project do not deprive others. This contradicts the typical nature of a scientist, driven more by individual attribution than organizational considerations.

Lack of Comprehensive Training in Metrics

The absence of comprehensive training in selecting appropriate metrics under different circumstances leads to absurd outcomes like an entire project being derailed due to a single invoice or acquisition. Scientists, by their training, are not adept at navigating between multiple approximate solutions to human and financial problems. Administration involves translating policy into outcomes, a task scientists are not trained for, especially in terms of prioritizing between time, cost, and precision.

Pervasive Conflicts of Interest

The current structure allows for significant conflicts of interest, particularly when academics wield administrative control within the same institution. This situation is a recipe for disaster, fostering examples of science administrators engaging in red tape to hinder rivals with unnecessary strictures. The prevailing culture in Indian science has descended into a quagmire of quid pro quo and inadequate quality control, normalizing scandals such as high plagiarism rates, paid publications in disreputable journals, and covert dealings to secure government funding.

Malicious Impact on Careers and Projects

The devastation of scientific and strategically vital careers and projects has been wrought by a toxic combination of competition and egotism within the Indian science establishment. Compounding this issue is the absence of an all-India transfer system for both scientists and science administrators, intensifying institutional capture and factionalism. The absence of checks and balances allows insiders to wield disproportionate control over the system they are meant to regulate, fostering a culture where personal interests often override broader scientific objectives.

Historical Context and Monopolistic Gatekeepers

The origins of this decay can be traced back to the post-independence era, where economic constraints compelled the concentration of high-end scientific equipment in a few institutions, notably the Indian Institutes of Technology in the 1960s. This concentration created a system of gatekeepers, granting exclusive access to critical equipment. Over time, these gatekeepers capitalized on their monopoly, capturing influential positions, securing government patronage, and consolidating institutional power. Young scientists, seeking access to essential resources controlled by these gatekeepers, found themselves obligated to pay tributes, creating a system where indebtedness perpetuated the influence of these gatekeepers.

Collateral Damage to Genuine Innovation

This entrenched system has replicated itself, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where appointments, awards, foreign recognition, and overall support are contingent on further enriching the successors of these gatekeepers. As a result, conflicts with this oppressive network have led to the ruin of many promising scientists' careers and lives. In this environment, genuine scientific outcomes have become apparent collateral casualties, as the focus shifts from merit-based advancements to perpetuating the interests of the gatekeepers' lineage.

4. Effective Model in the U.S.

In contrast to India's system, robust science establishments, including the United States, widely adopt the separation of administrators and scientists. In the U.S., laboratories embedded in university ecosystems are typically led by scientists who transition into administrative roles early in their careers. Once selected for administrative roles, these science administrators primarily focus on administrative tasks, receiving specialized training for their responsibilities. This separation brings evident benefits for all stakeholders, except for entrenched gatekeepers.

Potential for Reform in India

As India transforms its science establishment, there is a need to critically evaluate the practice of assigning administrative tasks to scientists, whether as additional assignments or as full-time vice-chancellors or directors. A middle-ground solution inspired by the U.S. model may involve selecting and training scientists through an all-India pool for a science administration central service. This arrangement would empower university vice-chancellors with greater negotiating leverage within the university bureaucracy and government ministries, given their training in an all-India service.

Teaching Administration

Drawing parallels with the business world in 1908, when the Master of Business Administration (MBA) course was established at Harvard, India needs to recognize that administration is a distinct skill that requires separate education and practice. Administration, akin to the central nervous system of any complex organization, plays a pivotal role in science establishments as well. Without addressing these fundamental concerns and embracing a more nuanced approach to science administration, India's science establishment will likely continue to fall short of its economic and strategic aspirations.

5. Conclusion

India's scientific potential remains untapped due to a flawed administrative model. Shifting towards a dedicated science administration service, adopting a US-inspired approach, and investing in specialized training are crucial steps to unlock this potential. Only by addressing these core concerns can India break free from the clutches of the existing system, foster a culture of meritocratic excellence, and finally fulfil its economic and strategic aspirations through transformative scientific progress.