Coordination and Governance: S&T Structure and Infrastructure
Kasturi Mandal, Avinash Kshitij & P Banerjee
Several policy documents of the Government of India including several Plan documents have suggested areas under ‘S&T’ as much broader in scope than areas ‘R&D’ could address. The Frascati Manual has suggested broader definition of R&D with greater emphases on the issues addressed by the S&T-based ‘development’ component. The Indian practice has been to broaden further the developmental aspects of sciences and technologies.
The S&T infrastructure of India has therefore embraced large number of economic sectors and large number of social dimensions. Further, since the time of First Plan three issues have been emphasised: (1) social and economic development can come through progress and applications of S&T; (2) executive management of development and allocations of developmental Plan funds must then involve S&T and hence management of S&T spills over to sectors/ministries for whom S&T is not the core function; and (3) governance of S&T and its infrastructure would therefore be of crucial importance.
The Plan allocations and the Plan programmes, however, have not defined and identified ‘S&T Infrastructure’ as an agenda. In contrast, the Chinese Plan has clearly dedicated a special major programme on S&T infrastructure. Recent documents on Plan have identified infrastructure as of core importance; however, S&T does not constitute a separate component of that economic and social infrastructure.
Over several decades of developmental investments and developmental democratic public governance India has experimented with and has evolved a very complex web of S&T infrastructure and of governance. In its federated mode of governance the S&T infrastructure remains governed by multiple central ministries, multiple ministries of the governments in the states, varieties of structures under the local governments of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI), public non-profit systems including varieties of universities and schools or the training schools, several regulators in both the centre and the states, the institutions of audit, the complex web of legal institutions, the federated structures of law-making institutions, scores of establishments in both public sector and public-private cooperated sectors, private sectors entities, foreign investments in R&D and other science-related developments, and private charities.
Modes of governance:
From another perspective of the institutions of governance or from the perspective of comparative governance – three modes namely, (1) the executive-based governance, (2) the bank-based governance and (3) the market-based governance have coexisted albeit for India the executive-based mode has retained overwhelming control. Perhaps next in importance has been the bank-based mode (especially in recent years) with market-based mode retaining little jurisdiction.
The executive based governance can be further subdivided in the Indian context into several modes, namely: (1) central government, (2) state government, (3) local government, and (4) combinations of the former along with sometimes public sector or private sector. Executive control in most cases rest ultimately upon the administrative services. Controls or governance is under line ministry. Integrative governmental structures exist primarily at the district level local government; however, S&T structures under the district governments are either non-existent or extremely weak. Only in few cases a State S&T Council would have the state chief secretary and ultimately the Chief Minister as the executive to be reported to. However, in most states most state S&T/R&D institutions are under the line ministries. In the central government too, the Prime Minister heads only one Council, the CSIR with the line minister as the immediate chief and a professional as the regular chief. The Planning Commission, as a quasi-administrative body brings together the function of coordination primarily through the processes of planning and budgetary measures. A few inter-departmental bodies also function as coordination mechanism. Regulators, when they exist, also serve as coordinator, however, they cannot / do not fund.
Bank based or fund based financing mechanisms have not operated for S&T/R&D funding especially for the S&T infrastructure including formation of laboratories. Line ministries or departments with them are in general the manager and the monitor of several special S&T funds. Such executive managed and monitored funds are few in number and are often small in size. The other mode of financing that has been operated in few other countries, notably in China, employs a small part (often about 5%) of most economic-restructuring large funds, or most disaster-funds, or most developmental or public procurement funds towards inducting new technologies or developing new technologies or for creating huge S&T infrastructure. Such set asides have often employed new technology standards for creating a demand for knowledge goods from public S&T laboratories or even from private sector by way of demanding goods based upon advanced technology standards. In fact China has created huge demand on makers of scientific instruments through the creation in the latest Plan of a large S&T infrastructure program.
The market-based mode has operated in conjunction with public modes in few countries, such as USA, Germany, France, Japan and a few others. In this case large charities/foundations, corporate philanthropy, corporate R&D and banks, and professional societies together created social coordination institutions to channel funds, manage and monitor those. Several developing countries especially from the West Asia and from China in recent time have seen creation of private charities for S&T. In India such coming together had happened historically, however, currently the social foundation of S&T undertaking is pitiably weakened.
Professional scientific societies or associations are weak in India relative to several advanced countries, notably the USA. Roles of professional control in management of S&T organisations have remained sparse, few and far between, and are often exercised in conjunction with administrative organs and under typically governmental administrative rules, budgetary practices, cash flow managements, information channel controls, organizational processes, audit requirements as prevails in respective ministries/departments controlling the concerned S&T/R&D organization. The peer controls, the gate keeping roles and peer hand-holding or reviews only naturally are very weak and do accommodate administrative rules and principles.
A related mode of facilitation of S&T infrastructure is through legal provisioning. To provide example, the digital copyrights acts of few advanced countries from Europe, or covenants regarding storage of germplasms or biological/ chemical data (as databank), animal houses, toxicity testing, food quality testing or other modes of quarantine, and similar others have in recent times spawned creation of large S&T infrastructures in several countries. In India too, at a very modest level we could observe such a trend. However, in many countries along with the passage of a law a related fund has been created or private/banks dedicated funds have spawned around the new covenants. Such approaches appear to be very promising.
Modes of funding:
The funding mechanism especially for the S&T infrastructure is thus primarily now under the management of line ministries. Instrumentation funding or experiment funding have been done in India under three broad modes: (1) as part of a sanctioned project/program; (2) as part of instrument/capacity build up; and (3) as part of a major national mission such as on space. Apart from the fund from line ministry, a proposing organization may seek fund from extramural facility of another ministry, or from the instrument/capacity build up funds from other line ministries.
A facility such created is in general a dedicated or laboratory facility, not easily accessible to outside researchers or outside private parties. Fees based laboratories do exist in India but almost always limited to testing, standardisation, certification areas and authorities such as the ISO. Private fees based laboratories do exist at higher secondary school science level and at undergraduate levels. Infrastructure level research, experimentation facilities are yet to come up.
The gains from such varied structures have definitely been very impressive, however, with one caveat. Unlike a singular mode of governance where gains are defined well and beforehand and where measurement of gains are easily computable, visible and are large – the Indian web of federated democratised stakeholders-related governances have defined multiple goals, varied types of deliverables, complex modes of negotiations and regulations and the Indian governances have therefore delivered very large number of relatively inscrutable grass-roots gains that are not easily amenable to accumulation. In fact, standard instruments of direction such as laws and audit systems have accommodated especially in the phases of implementation of S&T based developmental programs the roles of negotiation and aspirations of the local structures of governance. The distinct gains from this very distributed mode of goals and governances are that widely distributed capacity and very diverse capabilities have been sustained and generated. This is perhaps very unique to India and few nations can be proud of such great diversities. The future of Indian S&T and the developmental discourse needs to recognise this albeit weak - very diverse capacities, capabilities, gains and governances as the central feature.
Governance types:
A schematic presentation of the modes of governances of S&T structures and relative strengths of S&T infrastructure, along with numbers of goals and purposes, as well as joint modes of governances - could be presented as follows:
|
Core S&T |
Social sectors |
Public sectors |
Foundations |
Central Government Ministries |
Yes; few in number but strong infra, moderate number of goals |
Yes; large in number relatively weak infra, many goals |
Yes; few and moderately strong infra and few goals |
Yes in supporting not-for-profit and very weak infra |
State Governments Ministries |
Very few and weak infra, moderate number goals |
Few and Weak infra, many goals |
Only handful, few goals and very weak infra |
Yes to few only cases of support and very weak infra |
PRI/Local governments |
|
Yes few but widely distributed goals across line ministries and extremely weak infra |
Few instances and extremely weak infra |
Few instances, weak infra and many goals
|
Private sector |
Few Pub-Pvt joint establishments and not strong; several own and moderately strong infra, limited goals |
Several joint Pub-Pvt establishments and moderately strong infra, limited goals |
Few only jointly and moderately strong infra, limited goals |
Few with moderate support, weak infra, moderate no of goals |
Foreign Governments/private |
Few with governments and few with private, strong infra, limited goals; several own and moderately strong infra, limited goals |
|
Few jointly and modestly Strong infra, limited goals |
Several and weak infra, many goals |
Broad Map of S&T Infrastructure and comparative performance
Public Private Partnership The government promotes and encourages public-private partnerships to conduct R&D activities. In order to encourage PPP, the government proposed a grant of INR 12 billion in the 11 five-year plan for the New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative (NMITLI) the largest PPP programme in India undertaken by CSIR, which is aimed at catalysing PPP in the Indian R&D scenario. DBT has set aside 30 percent of its total budget for PPP programmes. Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIRI) is one such scheme launched by DBT to boost PPP in India. The scheme covers areas such as healthcare, agriculture, industrial process, environment biotechnology and biomedical devices. Global Innovation and Technology Alliance (GITA), promoted under PPP is partnership between DST and CII. It is dedicated to strategise, promote and execute various programmes under the S&T cooperation. GITA supports commercialisation of bilateral R&D projects and facilitating technology transfers. Currently, GITA is managing bilateral S&T projects with Canada, Israel, ASEAN countries and Taiwan. |
State-wise distribution of central-aided S&T entities: The figure below shows the distribution of Central Government aided S&T institutions across the states. This, however, does not include the state government managed as well as supported institutes of S&T.
Fig 1: Distribution of Central Government aided S&T institutions across States
Source: Directory of R&D Institutions, 2006, NSTMIS Division, Department of Science and Technology (DST), www.goidirectory.gov.in
Infrastructure Dedicated to R&D
A large number of specialized research institutes have come up over the years. The Research and Development Statistics 2007-08, from the Department of Science and Technology reports the presence of 3960 R&D institutions in the country in 2006.
The central sector core S&T ministries have few only laboratories under them; especially, the number of laboratories with the CSIR constitutes less than 01% of the total number of R&D laboratories in the country.
State-wise distribution, as per the DST Research and Development Statistics at a Glance 2007-08, is Maharashtra with 835 R&D institutions, Tamil Nadu with 402, Andhra Pradesh with 338, Delhi with 321, Karanataka with 311, Gujarat with 273, West Bengal with 260, Uttar Pradesh with 223, Kerala with 139 and the rest of the states with the other 858 R&D institutions.
A schematic of governance structure and the status in brief of most of these organizations could be:
|
S&T core |
Social sector |
Public sector |
Central government Ministries |
Several departmental laboratories under professionals; strong and often directed research basic and applied and strong infrastructure |
Large number of labs often under admin executive; often multiple goals; relatively weak research & infrastructure |
Few labs, some under joint management, ultimately under admin executive; more directed developmental research; moderately strong infrastructure |
State government Ministries |
|
Few labs, multiple goals, often under admin executive; weak research & infrastructure |
Few only labs; joint management, mostly under admin executive, and less directed developmental research |
Private sector |
Several small labs; often weak in research & infrastructure |
Few only labs; fewer goals than above & weak in research & infrastructure |
Few joint public-private; few goals & more directed but weak research & infrastructure |
The R&D system is fragmented with a large number of government structures, organizations and programmes existing in India. The figure below gives a snapshot of the existing S&T infrastructure of the country. The Indian government has been proactive in formulating a number of support programmes.
Each Central Ministry undertakes scientific research and training in five modes. They are:
Totally under the control of the respective Ministry
Autonomous Institutes under respective Boards/Councils of the Ministry
Autonomous Institutes under the respective Ministry
Public sector Enterprises
PPP mode
Fig 2: Percentage of S&T institutions under the Central Ministry of Science and Technology as well as the Independent Departments
Source: Websites of respective Departments
Fig 3: Number of public sector undertakings under respective independent departments and Ministry of Science and Technology of the Central Government Ministry undertaking R&D
Source: Websites of respective Departments
Schemes and Programmes for S&T Infrastructure development
In recent years, great concern has been expressed about lack of infrastructure facilities for imparting good quality higher education and conducting advanced research. Considering this, the new scheme "Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure in Universities and Higher Educational Institutions (FIST)" was launched in 2000-2001 by Department of Science and Technology. The state-wise distribution of the Universities & Departments identified & supported during 2000-2007 in FIST Program is available at http://www.fist-dst.org/statewise_data.pdf.
Department of Biotechnolgy has initiated a programme to augment and strengthen institutional research capacity in areas of Biotechnology through support for establishment of Centres of Excellence (COE). The objective of this programme is primarily to strengthen an institution's research infrastructure through the establishment of a thematic research centre with multi-disciplinary research effort. The Ministry of Human Resources Development has been running a few similar programmes, such as on centres of excellence, for last several years. The TIFAC has similarly a program on CORE. It is also anticipated that, in some instances, the support through this initiative will facilitate the development of new research centres or augment the capability of existing centres. Three types of COEs are planned to be supported by the DBT: (i) Basic biology emphasizing new opportunities and emerging fields (ii) Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology that would address the interphase between engineering, physical sciences, biology, medicine, agriculture or forestry, and (iii) Translational Centres directed towards innovation in the areas of medicine, agriculture, environment, animal and food biotechnology sectors. These centres are expected to engage in future growth through the promotion of collaborative interactive efforts among researchers with complementary backgrounds, skills and expertise and to compete independently for external peer-reviewed centre or programme project grant support.
Besides, there are many such schemes and programmes under various central ministries in social sector which provide support for development of S&T infrastructure in the country.
Distribution of S&T institutes
The figure below gives an idea of the various socio economic sector central government ministries with respective number of institutions involved in scientific research and training. There are, moreover, a large number of S&T/R&D institutes under central science departments, the state managed and state supported S&T/R&D institutes, and institutes with private sector or social sectors.
Fig 4: Number of S&T institutions across several Central Socio-Economic Ministries
Source: Websites of respective Ministries
The public sector undertakings engaged in commercial manufacturing activities do have several R&D/S&T institutes with them and the following figure displays the distribution.
Fig 5: Number of public sector undertakings across several Central Socio-Economic Ministries undertaking R&D
Source: Websites of respective Ministries
Differences in goals, performances & governances under core S&T
To analyse the nature of performance of public funded S&T Institutions we have taken a small sample across institutions under the Science and Technology Ministry and some socio-economic ministries of the central government. Rather often the former with fewer goals and targeted research are managed by professionals while equally rather often the latter social sector entities have more goals and managed ultimately by administrative executives.
In this study we make an attempt to explore the performance of the oceanographic and earth sciences public research institutes under three different status of management. Corresponding to differences in management and inter alias in governance, these comparable institutes perform differently. With changes in management the institutes pursue different goals and are often directed to deliver non-publication modes of outputs.
Recognizing the importance of coupled ocean atmosphere processes for understanding the variability of earth, the Government of India established the MoES (Ministry of Earth Sciences) by bringing the meteorological agencies and ocean development department under one umbrella. The research institutes under the Ministry are:
-
Polar Science & Ocean Research
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) Ocean Observation & Information Services
Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS)-
Marine Research & Technology Development
Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology (CMLRE)
Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management (ICMAM) National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT)
India Meteorological Department (IMD)
National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (NCMRWF)
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM)
Amongst this R&D institutes NCAOR, NIOT and INCOIS function autonomously under the Ministry whereas others are under the control of Ministry.
Other oceanographic and earth sciences research institutes are part of the CSIR laboratories, which function autonomously under Ministry of Science and Technology. The various laboratories under CSIR working in this field and related areas are:
-
National Chemical Laboratory (NCL)
National Institute of Oceanography (NIO)
-
National Geophysical Research Laboratory (NGRI)
National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI)
Central Electrochemical Research Institute (CECRI)
The autonomous Institutes under the Department of Science and technology in this field are:
Indian Association for cultivation of Science (IACS)
Indian Institute of Geomagnetism (IIGM)
Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany (BSIP)
Wadia Institute Of Himalayan Geology (WIHG)
Research in this area is also undertaken by the laboratories under the University System:
IITs
Other universities
The table below gives an idea of the governance structure and performance of the abovementioned laboratories.
Organizations |
Management Structure |
Revised Estimates in Crores in 2006 |
Scientific/ Professional Strength(Technical) |
Publication in last 17 years |
Patents |
Others Facts/ Remarks |
|
590.25 |
23 |
|
|
|
|
Ministry Controlled |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
Ministry Controlled |
26.75 |
52 |
8 |
|
Transferred From DST in 2006 |
|
Ministry Controlled |
5 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
Ministry Controlled |
11.91 |
157 |
283 |
|
Transferred From DST in 2006 |
|
Autonomous |
|
|
11 |
|
||
Autonomous |
47 |
|
59 |
|
||
Autonomous |
|
18 |
65 |
|
|
|
Quasi- Autonomous |
|
176(207) |
2460 |
53 |
Patent Period 2002-07 |
|
NGRI, CSIR |
|
|
146(97) |
1494 |
11 |
Patent Period 2002-04 |
Other CSIR labs |
|
|
|
2500 |
|
|
Indian Institute of Geomagnetism (IIGM) |
Autonomous under DST |
20.07 |
29(28) |
358 |
|
|
Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleobotony (BSIP) |
Autonomous under DST |
9.9 |
58(23) |
325 |
|
|
Wadia Institute Of Himalayan (WIHG) |
Autonomous under DST |
12.14 |
|
560 |
|
|
Indian Association for cultivation of Science (IACS) |
Autonomous under DST |
35.28 |
76 |
587 |
|
|
Cochin University of S&T (CUSAT) |
State Control |
|
34 |
233 |
|
|
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
All IITs |
|
|
|
3321 |
|
|
NOTE: * Scopus, # Web of Science
Source: Annual Reports and websites of respective institutes, Demand for Grants, Web of Science and Scopus.
Differences in goals, performances & governances under social sector
The table below provides clues to differences in performance and goals of some of the R&D Institutes directly or indirectly under the Ministry of Textiles.
Name of the Institute |
Publications in last 15 years |
Technologies developed and commercialized |
Staff strength (S&T/Others) |
Wool Research Assoc. (WRA) |
|
|
|
South India Textiles Research Assoc. (SITRA) |
39 |
45 |
|
Silk & Art Silk Mills Research Assoc.(SASMIRA) |
4 |
|
|
Northern India Textile Research Assoc (NITRA) |
10 |
|
51 |
Indian Jute Industries Research Assoc. (IJIRA) |
3 |
|
|
Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute (CSRTI) |
2 |
24 |
368 96/272) |
Central Sericulture Research & Training Inst. |
14 |
14 |
|
Bombay Textile Research Association (BTRA) |
90 |
50 |
|
Ahmedabad Textile Industry’s Research Assoc (ATIRA) |
44 |
|
169 125/46) |
National Centre for Textile Design (NCTD) |
|
|
|
Public Sector Unit |
|
|
|
National Textile Corp LTD.(NTCL) |
|
|
|
Differences in governance under social sector
There are several councils and boards formed by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry with the objective to build up the S&T infrastructure of the nation.
Councils |
Boards |
Associations |
Autonomous Research Institutes |
Quality Council of India (QCI) |
National Board for Quality Promoters |
Automotive Research Assoc. of India |
Central Manufacturing Technology Inst |
National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies (NABCB) |
Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments |
||
National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) |
Rubber board |
Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association |
Indian Institute of Packaging |
National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Health care providers |
Rubber Research Institute of India |
Tea Research Association |
National Institute of Design |
(8 research Stations) |
(7 research stations) |
Central Pulp & paper Research Inst |
|
National Productivity Council (NPC) |
United Planters' Association of Southern India (UPASI) |
||
Spices Board |
(7 research stations) |
||
National Council for Cement & Building Materials(NCB) |
Indian Cardamom Research Institute |
||
Centre for Cement Research and Independent Testing (CRT) |
(3 research stations) |
||
Centre for Mining Environment, Plant Engineering and Operation(CME) |
|||
Centre for Construction Development and Research (CDR) |
Tea Board |
||
National Tea Research Foundation |
|||
Darjeeling Tea research and development centre |
|||
Coffee Board |
|||
Central Coffee Research Institute |
|||
(8 research Stations) |
|||
The S&T bodies under Ministry of Commerce and Industry are involved both in research as well as other important aspects such as technical services rendered to industries, development of standards and standardization, calibration and certification or even development of prototypes, industrial designs. For example, the Automotive Research Association of India has published over 98 automotive Industry standard list which is available at http://www.araiindia.com/publications_downloads.aspx?id=Published. Such aspects of standardization, certification and calibration also add value to our S&T developments.
Institutes |
No. of papers |
Central Manufacturing Technology Inst (CMTI) |
1 |
Central Pulp & paper Research Inst (CPPRI) |
14 |
Automotive Research Assoc. of India (ARAI) |
12 |
Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IRMRA) |
8 |
National Institute of Design (NID) |
2 |
National Council for Cement & Building Materials (NCB) |
5 |
Infrastructure and governance under state governments
Besides the institutes under Central Ministries, respective state governments have been actively involved in scientific research and training. A study across select states indicates how the development of S&T infrastructure by the state government has immensely added to the national S&T infrastructure. Twenty three state councils of Science and Technology are spread across the country. There are many S&T institutes operating successfully under the aegis of or in close collaborations with the state council. The table below shows the S&T institutes under the Kerela State Council for Science, Technology and Environment.
Name of the Institute |
City |
Publications in last 15 years |
Staff strength (S&T) |
Centre for Earth Science studies (CESS) |
Trivandrum |
205# |
125 (59) |
Centre for Water Resources (CWR) Development and Management (CWRDM) |
Tiruvananthapuram |
43* |
142 (71) |
Kerela Forest research Institute (KFRI) |
Peechi |
180* |
60 |
Tropical Botanic Garden & Research Institute (TBGRI) |
Tiruvananthapuram |
191* |
233 (93) |
National transportation Planning and research Centre (NATPAC) |
Tiruvananthapuram |
||
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for biotechnology (RGCB) |
Trivandrum |
181# |
NOTE: *marked is scopus data # marked is web of science data
Source: Websites of respective Institutes
Similarly for the promotion of research activities in emerging areas of Science & Technology, the Gujarat Council of Science and Technology (GUJCOST) is assisting universities/R&D Institutions/Colleges for setting up Centre of Excellence. Presently following areas have been selected.
- Electronics and Emerging Technology
- Nano Science
- Neural Science
- Robotics
- Geriatrics
- Material Science
- Chemical Science
Five Centres of Excellence have been established:
- Centre of Excellence in Material Science and Nanopolymeric Material, M.S. University, Vadodara
- Centre of Excellence in Supermolecules : Fullerence, Nanotubes, Rotaxanes, Calixarences and ther applicability in Environment and Material Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad
- Centre of Excellence in Nanotechnology of Nanomagnetic Particles, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar
- Centre of Excellence in Nanoscience and Nanomaterial, S.P. University, Vallabh Vidyanagar
- Development of Oxide Nanomaterial Thin Films & Multimedia for Device Application,
- Department of Physics, Saurashtra University, Rajkot
S&T Infrastructure under Private sector
The private sector has R&D departments/units with respective economic enterprises and sometimes with trusts supported by such private enterprises. Moreover, there are S&T/R&D units with several social sector NGOs/NPOs. The following figure exhibits the distribution of only one type of private R&D units/departments. Based upon company Annual Reports with the stock exchanges the CMIE database provides information R&D reporting companies. The DST data, however, claims more number of companies undertaking R&D. The distribution DST dataset companies is not known. The figure below exhibits only R&D reporting companies over states, however, under the assumption that R&D units/ departments are located at corporate head office.
Fig 6: Statewise distribution of Private sector companies doing R&D in India in 2008
Source: CMIE database
Last few years have seen foreign companies investing in owned R&D establishments in India. The following figure based upon data about the year 2004 (current figure is higher) exhibits the distribution of such R&D establishments.
Fig 7: Citywise distribution of FDI companies doing R&D in India
Source: TIFAC Report
Fig 8: Presence of Private Sector Companies doing R&D over the years
S&T Infrastructure in Higher Secondary schools with science laboratories
Indian schools suffer from poor infrastructure. The S&T infrastructure of 12th stanadard school consists of three types of primary laboratories with physics, chemistry and biology. A few schools have engineering workshops, however, the data on such workshop facilities is not available. The following figure exhibits presence of three-types of the primary laboratories of 12th standard schools over a few states and over few years.
Fig 9: Distribution of Higher secondary schools with laboratory facilty across some select states in the last three years
S&T Institutional Matrix in India
Growth of S&T Institutions in India over the years |
||||||
S&T Institutes |
1996 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Higher Secondary School |
98172 |
126047 |
175588 |
137654 |
145938 |
152090 |
Universities/Deemed Universities/ Institutions of National Importance |
228 |
254 |
272 |
304 |
304 |
407 |
Research Institutions |
65 |
77 |
79 |
81 |
85 |
136 |
Degree Standard and above General Educational Institutions |
6759 |
7929 |
8737 |
9166 |
9427 |
10377 |
Degree Standard and above Professional and Technical Institutions for |
||||||
Agriculture and Forestry |
90 |
96 |
102 |
.. |
.. |
.. |
Engineering, Technology and Architecture |
418 |
680 |
838 |
978 |
1068 |
1302 |
Medicine |
655 |
709 |
725 |
759 |
783 |
817 |
Veterinary Science |
45 |
49 |
50 |
.. |
.. |
.. |
Teachers Training |
697 |
834 |
846 |
873 |
900 |
1082 |
Others |
1275 |
2657 |
2004 |
1982 |
1991 |
2431 |
Below Degree Level Professional/ Vocational and Technical Institutions |
6542 |
6855 |
6637 |
7022 |
7285 |
7750 |
Private sector companies doing R&D |
917 |
932 |
928 |
1068 |
1105 |
1073 |
Laboratory instrumentation in Indian laboratories:
The industrial sector on manufacturing of instrumentation especially manufacturing of scientific instruments including certain types of medical instruments is poor in India. The following Table exhibits data from the factory sector data (the ASI) on the NIC codes of scientific instruments and medical instruments from six industrially advanced states of India, namely, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Punjab. Much of the domestic production along with negative value adds in first two years indicate the poor level of instruments being manufactured in the country. The following Table exhibits the data; the gross value added in these groups in the year 2001-02 was in negative and was Rs. (-)4441.351906 million, no wonder factories shut down and exited a few states such as Karnataka, and new growth as well as rejuvenation of older factories happened in the subsequent years. The factories were selected from under NIC (2004) codes 33111, 33112, 33113, 33121, 33123, 33124, 33125, 33126, 33127, 33129 and 33203.
Most advanced laboratories in the country purchase value-added laboratory instruments from imported category while for the low value add category the domestic manufacturers remain the suppliers. In fact our data reveals that, a scientifically advanced state such as Karnataka, has experienced closure of large number of manufacturers of scientific instruments. The delink between domestic manufacturers of instruments and the market demand is serious and very large. The domestic production when added to the import minus export (which is close to nil) provides the data on the instruments market size of India.
The import data as shown in the section on technology balance of payments, has increased substantially over the decade 1995-2006. However, Chinese import data, as provided in that same table, has increased many more folds over this same period and import by China is several times that of India.
The import in 2006 was US$ 2.282 billions and the domestic manufacture about Rs. 1619.34 crores. Assuming that there were about 4000 R&D institutes, and the other advanced educational institutes each having per institute on average 10 laboratories and the other educational institutes and private R&D each having one laboratory there will be minimum 42,000 independent laboratory requirements of instruments. A laboratory on average and for year 2005-06 could secure about Rs. 0.624 million worth of imported and domestic instruments.
In another scenario of conservative estimate that most non-advanced institutes will not have wherewithal to buy instruments and that relatively good laboratories will depend upon import, and with the assumption that there were 3960 R&D institutes, 407 universities with 10 laboratories each, 1000 private sector and 3000 separate laboratories with technical institutes, the average per laboratory of imported instruments consumption has been shown in the next figure exhibiting growth over a decade (however, number of institutions/ laboratories in 1995 were fewer and hence the level would be higher than shown).
Status of Scientific Instruments Large Factories in India: from six industrial states
|
2004-05 |
2003-04 |
2002-03 |
2001-02 |
Number of factories |
158 |
286 |
227 |
197 |
Total output (Rs. Million) |
1619. 3422810 |
2595.8414309 |
2119.7104538 |
2164.7809034 |
Source: compiled from 5-digit ASI unit level
Fig 10: Availability of Imported Scientific Instruments in R&D Institutes in 1995 and 2006 respectively.
Source: WITS online database, (World Bank)
Thus, it is understood that although over the years growth of S&T infrastructure has taken place significantly, the achievements are yet to become very promising. The socio-economic sector laboratories which are expected to harness S&T for the developmental aspects of the society quite often suffer from mismatch and are expected to perform upto their expected targets. The key reasons behind this could be shifts in and softening of governance, poor S&T infrastructure including laboratories and workshops, multiplicity of S&T goals, changing S&T charters and research agenda, locked-up levels of skills and competencies of personnel, among others.
Goals multiplication and shifting charters/agenda often appears to have resulted from changes in governance structures and governance imperatives. This in turn results into fuzzy set of expected deliverables and locked-up skills and competencies of personnel. Almost always research institutes are run under administrative rules and structures analogous to those prevailing in and for the line ministries. The public audit system too has very significant influence on modes of functioning and the capability to deliver.
China, to learn from comparative policies, has undertaken over the last decade major overhauling of the governance structures of most of its R&D/S&T institutes including shaping up simultaneously different S&T administrative rules and new principles of S&T audit (especially under NPM of public sector undertakings). Further, in its overhauling of governances structures, China learning from the days of Great Leap Forward and the Backyard Steel, has embarked upon (1) specialisation of S&T/R&D institutes; (2) deepened and enhanced networking between such institutes at all levels of local, region/provinces, S&T disciplines, high technologies and at global; (3) hierarchisation of S&T/R&D institutes, such that bridging institutes for S&T/innovation deliveries or bridging institutes for developmental work (such as rapid prototyping, designs, etc.) stand separated from institutes of advanced R&D. The changing contours of governances and charters of the S&T/R&D institutes in India could learn more from Chinese experiences and embark upon building up hierarchies such bridging institutions stand out with appropriate structures of governance. Leaving aside a few exceptions, the existing linkages between our S&T institutes under the Ministry of Science and Technology and other S&T institutes under the socio-economic ministries and such others that does not appear to be strong and clearly differentiated might learn from the Chinese undertaking. Similarly coordination and linkages between central and state S&T institutes might gain from this learning.
Thus, we find that India has a huge S&T infrastructure in which there is wide variance in the governance structure. A separation between the functions of generation of knowledge and the bundling/adapting of such knowledge’s at multiple tiers including at local governments would transform significantly the current scenario. The S&T institutes are currently delivering multiple knowledge goods, both tangible and intangible, licensed exclusively or non-exclusively or as simple give-away, they are providing both priced and free advisory/consultancy services, and similar others. As a result when computed by number of papers published especially in international journals, patents or distinct novel products, most institutes fail to show up good output. The charters/agenda have demanded variable outputs and administrative imperatives limited transferring output/knowledge’s.
It is often believed that scientific publications in journals of repute are central to measuring output. Social sector laboratories might not show remarkable publication records, but they are working on other aspects of technology development e.g. development of standards, undertaking prototyping, problem solving, providing consultancy and training services, and similar others. Now, while measuring the output of such institutions, it is often found that their tangible performance is not uniform. Institutes often generating relatively poor research output, however, provide varieties of tangible and intangible outputs and services. It appears that the yardstick of measurement needs to accommodate non-research but developmental dimensions of R&D, and must identify bridge organizations. Outputs and goals are closely related to governance structure. Restructuring the governance has remained the most active agenda in a few comparator countries, notably in China. Diversity in capacities, capabilities and outputs of this complex web of democratised federated structures of governances are assets that could be further strengthened by learning lessons from comparative policies.
Annexure:
Selected NIC-code (2004) for Medical and Lab Instruments
33111: Manufacture of apparatus based on the use of X-rays or alpha, beta or gamma radiations, whether or not for use in human or animal medicine. Included is the manufacture of X-ray tubes, high tension generators, control panels, desks, screens and the like
33112: Manufacture of instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary practice, including electro-diagnostic apparatus such as electrocardiographs, dental drill engines, ophthalmic instruments including sight testing sets, syringes, needles used in medicine and the like
33113: Manufacture of sterilizers
33121: Manufacture of regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus except industrial process control equipment: thermostats, pressure controllers, level regulators and automatic regulators of electrical quantities
33123: Manufacture of sensitive balances and mathematical calculating instruments (e.g. measuring rodsand tapes, micrometers, callipers, gauges etc.)
33124: Manufacture of radar apparatus and radio remote control apparatus
33125: Manufacture of laboratory and scientific instruments and apparatus n.e.c.: microscopes other than optical microscopes; apparatus for measuring and checking electrical quantities (oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, instruments for checking current, voltage, resistance); for measuring and checking non-electrical quantities (radiation detectors and counters, apparatus for testing and regulating vehicle motors and instruments and apparatus specially designed for telecommunications such as cross-talk meters); for testing physical properties of the materials; for carrying out physical or chemical analysis; and for measuring or checking the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids
33126: Manufacture of navigational, meteorological, geophysical and related instruments and apparatus oceanographic or hydrological instruments; seismometers, rangefinders, automatic pilots, sextants, ultrasonic sounding instruments and special instruments for air navigation
33127: Manufacture of specialised parts and accessories for instruments and apparatus included in this group.
33129: Manufacture of other measuring, checking or testing instruments, apparatus or machines n.e.c.: hydrometers, thermometers, barometers, taximeters, pedometers, balancing machines, instruments for checking watches and watch parts and so forth
33203: Manufacture of optical instruments such as binoculars, monoculors, other optical telescopes and their mountings; optical astronomical instruments; compound optical microscopes; including those for photomicrography and micro-projection; other optical appliances and instruments
Go back to Home Page of 'India, Science & Technology:2008'