Why doesn't India produce the cutting-edge science its scientists are capable of producing?

 https://x.com/MakrandParanspe/status/2041313900533096692

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this take.

I can speak from my experience as someone who does both experimental and computational work in cognitive science. If your work can be done on a normal computer using existing datasets, it is possible to publish steadily. But such work is less likely to be truly groundbreaking. Usually, datasets are shared after the original authors have already addressed the most immediate and critical questions that can be answered using them.

This is why institutional support for experimental science matters so much. Setting up an ambitious experimental program takes time, space, infrastructure, administrative clarity, and patience. Early-career faculty who are trying to build something genuinely new often have to spend years bringing in grants, designing facilities, planning equipment, developing protocols, hiring and training people, and building analytical pipelines before the most exciting results begin to appear. If an institution is not willing to make such an investment, please do not hire experimentalists. Please make it clear at the outset that only certain types of work are welcome (e.g., applying ML to datasets). 

The problem is that many academic institutions still evaluate productivity as if all kinds of research have the same startup cost. A lab that analyzes existing datasets can begin producing papers almost immediately. A lab that needs to build an experimental facility may first have to solve a long chain of logistical and infrastructural problems before the science can really begin. Comparing these two trajectories purely by publication counts is misleading. Note that I say this as someone who has been able to publish using existing datasets. So I am not patting myself on the back here. I am advocating for another approach, the longer and harder one, but the one that will lead to impactful science.

Good institutions understand this. They know that supporting ambitious experimental work requires more than congratulating faculty for obtaining grants and papers. It also requires timely space allocation, smooth administrative processes, reliable procurement, and a recognition that high-quality science often has a long gestation period. When these systems work well, faculty can spend their energy on science. When they do not, enormous amounts of time and momentum are lost to avoidable delays.

Meanwhile, many researchers try to keep asking interesting questions using whatever resources are available. That work can still be meaningful and publishable, and sometimes it leads to strong papers in respected journals. But the larger problem remains: some of the most ambitious ideas in cognitive science and neuroscience cannot be tested without the right experimental infrastructure.

This is not a complaint about any one institution. It is a broader point about how institutions can either enable or constrain scientific ambition. If we want Indian science to produce more cutting-edge work, especially in experimentally demanding fields, we need to take infrastructure, space, and administrative support much more seriously. We also need to be equitable in extending support to faculty and cannot engage in favoritism.

In the long run, institutions that understand this will do better not merely in terms of the number of papers produced but in terms of the quality, originality, and impact of the science that comes out of them.

TL;DR

-India doesn't fund science as much as it should.

-Even if you get a small piece of that small pie, there are delays in issuing the sanction letter and releasing funds.

-Even if funds are released and you spend time planning an experimental facility, you face bureaucratic delays from the institution. Sometimes they are delays. Sometimes, they just stall everything (and if you see signs of that, start looking for new jobs, but even that may be hard given the few plausible options available out there).

-So eventually, you learn to "settle" for less. Some people get disillusioned completely, stop taking students, stop publishing, and stop applying for grants. Some people resort to other "jugaad" to keep up the appearance of scientific productivity, which does win awards in this country. There are formulaic approaches to publishing papers. So some people build their careers just fine. So what we end up valuing and rewarding sometimes is the antithesis of scientific temper. 

-So it's not a great time for people who wish to do science. A few people from a very small set of institutions and universities in India manage to get real impactful science done. 

PS: I'm not even saying I'm someone who is capable of doing cutting-edge science. The post refers to the many scientists I know who are capable of such science who do decent work despite all of these hurdles. Imagine how much more impactful work could be done with minimal support (by global standards). The leadership in most places in the country appears quite short-sighted in their vision to me, perhaps driven by ranking exercises, but it could be my inexperience talking. Will reevaluate in a few years.