NRF a good step, but needs scrutiny

Although the idea of establishing the National Research Foundation (NRF) as the central funding agency for research across the country was spelt out in the National Education Policy (NEP) document in 2020, it took nearly three years for the Union government to approve its incorporation as a Bill to be initiated in and passed by Parliament. However, it is still better late than never, considering the bureaucratic maze with regard to the replacement of the UGC by the four vertical bodies envisaged in the NEP. The NEP and the NRF are to be seen as part of the government’s vision to guide the country’s educational sector in the 21st century and compete with advanced nations in the world.

To understand the NRF better, it is imperative to take a look at the broader activities of the foundation, as outlined by the NEP.

These activities include: (1) identifying competitive, peer-reviewed grant proposals across all disciplines, (2) facilitating research in academic institutions, particularly universities and colleges, where research is currently in a nascent stage, by mentoring to these institutions, (3) acting as a liaison between researchers and relevant branches of government and industry, ensuring researchers are aware of the most urgent national research areas that require attention for policy formulation and implementation, and (4) recognising outstanding research and progress (p.46 of the NEP document). These activities provide a comprehensive framework for the NRF, covering all stakeholders — students, faculty, industry, and the government — something which was lacking in the system of funding research involved in the higher education ecosystem.

The NRF will, thus, serve as an apex body to provide a centralised direction to scientific research across India. Once approved by Parliament, the existing Science and Engineering Board will either get merged with the NRF or cease to exist, something which has not been clarified yet.

Examining the functioning of the NRF is crucial and requires close scrutiny. While it is stated that the foundation will be an autonomous body, the provision that the prime minister will serve as the chairman of its governing board, and the ministers for science and technology and higher education will act as vice presidents, raises concerns that the Union government may remote-control the functioning of the body. The inclusion of eminent scientists from various disciplines is a positive aspect, but it is equally important to ensure that nationally recognised social scientists also have representation on the governing board. Hopefully, a clear and transparent criteria for the selection of eminent scientists as members would be laid down to prevent the inclusion of yes-men/loyalists. Ideally, the foundation’s governing body should exclude the prime minister and the two ministers, though the government can indicate its thrust areas for research and funding from time to time. Additionally, the provision for the NRF to have an executive council headed by the principal scientific adviser to the central government as its chairperson to oversee its functioning has both advantages and disadvantages.

The funding aspect of the NRF deserves attention. Currently, the institutions that predominantly fund research include DST, DBT, ICAR, ICMR, UGC, and ICHR. The NEP states that these institutions will continue to fund research, while the mandate of the NRF is towards centralised funding of  research in universities and colleges. An amount of Rs 50,000 crore has been earmarked for priority areas in research over 2023-2028. It is stated that out of this total amount, Rs 37,000 crore (approximately 70%) will be raised from the private sector, which means the government will only fund marginally. This is disappointing. The government should increase its GDP spending on research from the existing 0.7% to around 1.5%. In comparison, China spends 2% and the US spends 2.8%, with the global average hovering around 1.8%.

It is not clear whether the government has already held negotiations with industries regarding funding, especially considering that industries usually fund research in areas beneficial to them. Fortunately, some philanthropists fund research in areas related to health and inclusive education.

Care should be taken to ensure that funding covers both Pure Sciences and Social Sciences, and not just research in semiconductors and space science, although these areas are vital for national progress. Priority should be given to research in state universities and colleges, while IITs should be encouraged to seek funding from their alumni and other sources for their research activities.

All in all, the establishment of the NRF is a welcome development, but its functioning will require careful scrutiny.

(The writer is former dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)