Impossible Performance on the Part of the Grass (bits from the archives)

Grass

In 1892, British electrical engineers of the Department of Telegraphs in Calcutta, as part of an exercise, buried a piece of india-rubber cable core treated to withstand attacks by termites. After six months, when the cable was dug up, engineers found grass growing through the cable. On 1 February 1893, P. V. Luke, a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, wrote the following in his letter to the secretary of the institution:

What at first sight appears to be an impossible performance on the part of the grass seems less so when you come to examine the hard, sharp, needle-like points which characterise the roots of this species of grass.*

*P. V. Luke, ‘A new danger to which underground wires in India are exposed’, Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 22:104 (1893), pp. 146-147 (pp. 146-147)

The state of history of science in India (part 1)

Esplanade_in_Calcutta_1800s

As Ernest Renan said a century ago: ‘Getting history wrong is an essential part of being a nation.’ It is the professional business of historians to dismantle such mythologies, unless they are content – and I am afraid national historians have often been – to be the servants of ideologists.

Eric Hobsbawm, On History, p.35

Several contemporary interpretations of the history of science in India are close to being questionable, to put it mildly. These accounts of the history of science in India are replete with specifically Hindu renditions, which present India’s past contributions to science as dazzlingly glorious and modern, only to be ruined later by Islamic and British rulers. The past, according to these accounts, has been so glorious that the Defence Minister claims scientists in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) must learn the ancient hindu metallurgical practices of turning human and animal bones into indestructible metals. There has also been a recent push to distance the history of India from the ‘external’ imagery of the Christian and Islamic West and create a Hindu historical vision of ‘our modernity’ as opposed, and much superior, to ‘their modernity’. This has led to people making claims, amongst many others, of manned flights existing in ‘Hindu’ India almost 3000 years before the Wright brothers’ construction of the aeroplane.

Such focus on India’s ‘Hindu’ specialness neglects crucial aspects of the history of science in India – the exchange of knowledge with the West and the East; and Indian intellectual traditions that influenced, and were influenced by, Western, Islamic and Eastern knowledge. While it is not wrong to write revisionist histories, historical claims should nevertheless be supported with extensive archival and historical research. This isn’t the case with most recent claims made regarding India’s history of science. It cannot be said that scholars in India are not producing definitive research, but the growing number of dubious research and researchers is just one of many reasons why the history of science must make its presence felt as an academic discipline in India.

The problem though is not just the absence of history of science as an academic discipline, but also the status of humanities studies in general within the Indian education system. In a 2014 interview for the Wall Street Journal, the cultural and literary theorist Homi K Bhabha said what almost all humanities academics in India agree with: “The prestige of humanities is at an all-time ebb, partly because there is a public sense that the most profitable way of making a livelihood in the global era is through technology or finance.” This has resulted in what Eric Hobsbawm states to be one of the reasons why  the importance of history and its lessons have diminished: “the a-historical, engineering, problem-solving approach by means of mechanical models and devices.” Such an approach, although successful in producing marvellous results in several fields, does not allow for science and engineering students to discuss the historical, social, political and cultural dynamics of the field they study, and to understand how the roles and values of inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural research that the humanities strives for are crucial to the creation of better technologies and societies.

I worked (and hope to continue working in the future) in this direction in 2014-15 through my involvement in the Science Park in Pune, India. I not only worked to help the Science Park develop its outreach and education programmes, but also drew heavily on my experience as a student undergoing the conversion from being an engineer to an aspiring historian in helping science and engineering students and trainees engage with historical, social and cultural issues outside their curriculum. Thinking about the historical and social aspects of the subjects they study forces students to think critically about the world around us, and their place in society as future scientists and engineers. However, exposing engineering and science students all over India to historical approached and methods would require bringing together more research-active historians, philosophers and sociologists of science and technology, with their participation facilitated by universities and institutions such as the History of Science Society, the British Society for the History of Science, the Society for the History of Technology and many more.

One of the many ways in which institutions such as the HSS can contribute to these efforts is by not only reaching out to academics and researchers studying the history/philosophy of science in India (either in India or abroad), but by also facilitating dissemination of their research in public forums in India. Science museums and centres in India provide the most lucrative platforms for such endeavours, since these would only add to a centre’s reputation, thereby increasing footfall and funding. The HSS could also look into training academics and researcher, who would then train staff and curators in science museums and centres in India , since almost all such institutions suffer from a lack of trained staff and funding for training. Such endeavours would not only help the HSS reach out to historians of science (and other historians) in India, and improve its presence in India, but also help academics and researchers be involved in curriculum reform in, beginning with science centres, schools and universities.

There are several other advantages to institutions such the HSS reaching out to academics and researchers working on the history of science and technology in India, and helping them collaborate with formal (colleges, schools, policy authorities, research institutions, companies) and non-formal institutions (science centres, museums):

  1. working with companies and research institutions can help such organisations enhance public understanding of complex and controversial scientific and technological issues.
  2. increasing access to historical and archival collections, thereby enhancing educational innovation.
  3. creating networks and stimulating dialogue.
  4. providing improvements to public space and urban quarters through an increased public understanding of the history of buildings and cities, also enabling constructive engagement for those sections of society generally excluded from a range of conventional public debates and decisions.

… Continued

Money Isn’t Everything

Most discussion of Indian R&D and scientific and technological competitiveness concentrates on the lack of government funding of R&D, and the neglect of the higher education sector. Mr. V.V. Krishna’s Paralysis in science policies (The Hindu, Lead Opinion, 7 February 2014) follows a long tradition of arguing that the failure of science policies “stems from poor governance mechanisms” and from “low priority accorded to science and technology in the overall budget.” Discussion on the failure or “paralysis” of science and technology policies in India is relatively straightforward: (i) “There has been no commitment to increase public R&D;” (ii) Research in universities is “given low priority for lack of funds.” Practically every comment on Indian science policies refers to the lack of funds for higher education and innovation projects. Typically, analysts also compete to compare India’s R&D figures with those of other countries such as China, South Korea and Japan. However, the best analysis of relationships between R&D expenditure and competitiveness is by studying not the lack of government funding, but rather the lack of realistic goal-setting through comparative appraisal of previous science policies.

While everyone accepts that India’s science and technology policies have failed, it does not mean that lack of funds is a major determinant of such failure. We need to understand, however, that policies, in addition to being a plan for the future, must also look back. Policies and analysts must take into account the successes and failures of previous policies, which would eventually result in realistic goal-setting in future policies. The 2013 Science Technology and Innovation policy does not mention any of the reasons as to why the 2003 Science and Technology policy failed to meet one of its primary objectives, especially when the 2013 policy reiterates the same objective – to increase India’s GERD (Gross Expenditure on Research and Development) to 2% of GDP. In such cases, an appraisal of the reasons for underperformance of past policies becomes crucial to proper framing of the present policy and opens avenues for discussions on why targets could/cannot be achieved, what the structural impediments were/are, and what were/are the challenges and implementation issues.

Primarily, the 2003 policy did not mention any specific measures that the government intended to take in order to improve R&D funding. The policy concentrated solely on increasing private sector investment in R&D without due consideration to the institutional, legal and tax bottlenecks facing private sector organisations. The 2010 OECD report, India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth, expresses concerns over the various hinderances that private sector organisations face in India:

India’s framework conditions for entrepreneurship remain weak. Trade and FDI restrictions, along with administrative red tape and restrictive product market regulations, hinder investment and productivity. The financial sector is also insufficiently developed to meet capital needs in a fast-growing economy, let alone the need for financing business innovation. [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth (Paris: OECD, October 2010), p. 14].

Although vacuous in the specifics, the 2013 STI policy does acknowledge the problems in institutional structures in science in India, and highlights a number of areas in innovation in which the government plays a crucial role. Perhaps most importantly, the 2013 policy document acknowledges the role of the government in creating an environment conducive “for enhancing private sector investments in R&D.” In later pages, the document also briefly highlights the government’s plans to adopt a flexible approach to investment, which would allow modifications in the Five Year Plans in accordance with changes in the S&T scenario. However, such plans of the future seem ambitious and ambiguous unless the government acknowledges the failures of previous policy and, in addition to increasing R&D investments, also includes detailed plans of how the S&T system would be reformed in order to utilise these funds meaningfully. Gautam R. Desiraju, a professor of chemistry in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, wrote in 2012:

Although there was, curiously, no increased allocation to science in this year’s Indian budget, there is hope that, as the prime minister has declared, things would improve if government support were increased to 2% of gross domestic product. But it is a haphazard plan, with no hint of new strategies. The assumption is that the answer to our problems lies simply in more money. [Gautam R. Desiraju, ‘Bold Strategies for Indian Science’, Nature, Vol. 484 (12 April 2012), p.159].

Of equal significance is the criticism that research in higher education in India has been ignored due to lack of government funding. Analysts argue that “until the higher education sector is given its due importance in the national innovation system and allocated at least 10 per cent of GERD, it will continue to remain sub-critical at the national level and we will fall behind our Asian neighbours.” The argument that research in the Indian higher education will decline relatively because of lack of government funding is a bit too pessimistic. Thus, the stylised image of a declining research intensity due to lack of funds should be replaced with another: the major problem lies in the separation of education and research; while Indian universities only teach and look to provide skilled personnel for employment, government laboratories do research.

This is not to say, however, that lack of funding is not a problem. Government and private sector funding is just one input, of many, into the higher education sector. It should be noted that R&D funding is not a measure of the quality of research and teaching in higher education. Challenges and shortcomings, in addition to lack of funding, continue to affect the higher education system.The education system has failed to keep pace with the huge demands for skilled labour in the rapidly expanding Indian economy and industry. The lack of quality in higher education is of great importance to the gap between demand and supply of technically trained personnel, which is indirectly related to the lack of meaningful research in Indian universities. Also, a major number of faculty positions in colleges and universities across India, despite being funded by the government, remain vacant due to lack of suitably qualified personnel or even due to lack of proper hiring procedures. We should therefore not assume that increasing R&D funding in higher education to match those of China and the USA is the only means to strengthen research.

In conclusion, policies, especially those relating to scientific and technological research and development, should be developed and analysed on the basis of an understanding of current circumstances and existing historical deficiencies. For India to pursue a policy of increasing R&D expenditure to Chinese or American levels would probably be foolhardy. India must set its own standards and must try to meet them before trying to achieve standards set by other nations. Although increasing R&D funding is seen as a means to make India more competitive in the global market, looking inwards can solve most of India’s problems. Desiraju writes that India, as “a large country with a well developing economy can afford this long-term strategy and vision. China need not be a comparison point – India is endowed enough to seek its own solutions for its problems.”

Quantity vs. Quality in Science and Technology Education

This blog post is a continuation of the previous post “Why Policies Must Also Look Back“. This post is a modified and shortened version of a section of an essay submitted for the London Centre’s options course Science, Governance and the Public, tutored by Dr. Jon Agar (UCL STS). The original essay was titled “A Critical Analysis of India’s Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013”, and was submitted on 12 June 2013.

A second important goal of the Science, Technology and Innovation policy is increasing India’s global share of publications from 3.5% in 2011 to 7% by 2020. The policy also aims at achieving a four-fold increase in Indian publications in the top 1% journals. The policy states:

India ranks ninth globally in the number of scientific publications and 12th in the number of patents filed. The Composite Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of Indian publications is around 12+1% and India’s global share has increased from 1.8% in 2001 to 3.5% in 2011. But the percentage of Indian publications in the top 1% impact making journals is only 2.5%. By 2020, the global share of publications must double and the number of papers in the top 1% journals must quadruple from the current levels. The citation impact of Indian publications must improve and match at least the world average.

The policy also recognises the human resources required to improve India’s R&D situation and states that the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of R&D personnel must increase by at least 66% every year. All these objectives are fuelled by the desire to position India amongst the top five global scientific nations by the year 2020. These objectives seem very positive, and the government intends to achieve these objectives through the measures mentioned in the policy.

However, the aims to increase manpower and publication in the S&T sector seem focused only on achieving quantity over quality. The government and the policy fail to recognise the many shortcomings of the higher education system, especially in science and technology education, which the government would have to depend on to increase both the FTE and publication figures. The policy briefly mentions the need to foster excellence by measuring basic research against global benchmarks, and by focusing on research relevant to national concerns. Still, the government must focus on improving the standards of science and technology education within the system before trying to meet global standards.

Higher education, especially in science and technology, consumes a respectable portion of the GERD (Gross Expenditure on Research and Development). 5% of the GERD funds the eight Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institute of Science, and many other government universities. Yet, the higher education system only provides skilled personnel for employment and very little research. Universities and higher education institutions also collaborate with the private sector, but only on the levels of basic research, with minimal direct contribution to industry and industrial outputs. A 2007 Demos report states:

In developed economies, universities are vital sources of science, training the researchers who then work in industry, and forming hubs for clusters such as Silicon Valley. Yet India’s universities do not play this role because education and research are separated. Universities teach and government laboratories do research.

The 2013 STI policy suggests a few measures to overcome the complex problems in the education system in India. First, the policy concentrates on improving the standards of science education in schools. It aims to do so by reforming curricula, teaching methods, and by attracting students to learn science. The policy also states the government’s incentives to stimulate research in universities. The government also intends to set up inter-university centres to enable researchers to collaborate and share research facilities. However, these objectives do not suggest any measures to fill in the large gaps present in the higher education system, namely the lack of skilled personnel and researchers.

In 2012, the University Grants Commission of India released a report on the reforms needed in the higher education system in India. According to the report, India has one of the largest and fast-growing higher education systems, primarily caused by large-scale expansion, growing number of students and institutions, and a rise in public funding. According to the figures in 2009-2010, India had more than 600 universities and more than 30,000 colleges, of which almost 12,000 colleges were set up in the five years from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. The number of students enrolled in science and technology courses (including pure sciences, engineering, medicine, agriculture and veterinary sciences) in 2009-2010 was close to half a million. Yet, challenges and shortcomings continue to affect the higher education system. The higher education system has failed to keep pace with the huge demands for skilled labour in the rapidly expanding Indian economy and industry. A lack of quality higher education is central to the gap between demand and supply of technically trained personnel. The lack of quality in higher education can be majorly attributed to the lack of competent faculty. A major number of faculty positions in colleges and universities across India remain vacant due to lack of suitably qualified personnel, restrictions in funding or even due to lack of proper hiring procedures. Thus, although colleges and universities enrol a large number of students every year, the number of teaching personnel does not grow at the required rate, resulting in high student-teacher ratios.

The lack of teaching and research personnel also affects research in the universities. While student enrolment in science and technology (at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels) grew rapidly, the number of PhDs awarded remained really low; the number of PhDs awarded in 2008-2009 (in pure sciences, computer applications, computer science, engineering, medicine, agriculture and veterinary sciences) was only around 5,500. Another major issue that has a major impact on the potential supply of researchers and technicians for science and technology education and businesses is the migration of highly skilled personnel to the developed countries, since foreign institutions and organisations offer better incentives and facilities than the educational institutions and businesses in India.

The government, instead of focusing on increasing research publications in order to improve India’s global rankings in R&D, must look to tackle the lack of faculty and research facilities within the science and technology education system. Both science and education policies must look to attract and retain the best faculty resources by making teaching and research a lucrative career option. Although the policy does briefly mention the need to make “careers in science, research and innovation attractive enough for talented and bright minds”, it does not, however, outline any details of how it aims to do so. Instead, the policy focuses on increasing research publications and outputs in order to place India amongst the top five global scientific nations. Desiraju writes:

The true measures of a country’s scientific strength are found in the numbers of competent teachers and lively students in schools and undergraduate colleges, because these translate into real gains in the future. Fluffy factors, such as the numbers of articles in Nature and Science, do not tell the real story.

__________

REFERENCES

Albright Stonebridge Group. Science Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013. 21 March 2013. Available from: http://www.albrightstonebridge.com/science_03-21-2013/

Bound, Kirsten. India: The Uneven Innovator. London: Demos, 2007

Deloitte. Research & Development Expenditure: A Concept Paper. Deloitte, July 2011. Available from: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomIndia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Whitepaper_on_RD_expenditure.pdf

Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Research and Development Statistics at a Glance, 2007-08. New Delhi, October 2008. Available from: http://www.nstmis-dst.org/PDF/rdeng.pdf

Desiraju, Gautam R. “Bold Strategies for Indian Science”. Nature, Vol. 484 (12 April 2012), 159-160

FICCI, Planning Commission, and Ernst & Young. Higher Education in India: Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012 – 2017) and Beyond. New Delhi: Ernst & Young, 2012

Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology. Science and Technology Policy 2003. New Delhi: Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology, 2003

Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology. Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013. New Delhi: Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology, 2013

National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS). Measures of Progress of Science in India: An Analysis of the Publication Output in Science and Technology. New Delhi: NISTADS, 2006

OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. OECD Publishing, 2012. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth. Paris: OECD, October 2010

Planning Commission (Government of India). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017): Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2013

Planning Commission (Government of India). Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan. New Delhi: Planning Commission, October 2011

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). UNESCO Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO, 2010

University Grants Commission (UGC). Inclusive and Qualitative Expansion of Higher Education. New Delhi: UGC, 2011

Wilkie, Tom. British Science and Politics since 1945. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991

 

Why Policies Must Also Look Back

This blog post is a modified and shortened version of an essay submitted for the London Centre’s options course Science, Governance and the Public, tutored by Dr. Jon Agar (UCL STS). The original essay was titled “A Critical Analysis of India’s Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013”, and was submitted on 12 June 2013.

In January 2013, the Government of India announced the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy, with a view to “drive both investment in science and investment of science-led technology and innovation in select areas of socio-economic importance.” This policy is the fourth national policy in science and technology since the Scientific Policy Resolution (SPR) of 1958, the Technology Policy Statement (TPS) of 1983, and the Science and Technology (S&T) Policy of 2003. While the previous policies focused on promoting science and scientific research, emphasised the need for technological self-reliance, and aimed to promote investment in R&D, respectively, the 2013 STI policy aims to embrace and promote science and technology-led innovation as a means for social and economic development.

The chief aim of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 is to increase India’s GERD from the present under 1% of GDP to 2% of GDP in the next five years. The Indian government plans to achieve this target by raising private sector investments in research and development to levels almost equal to that of public sector investment. The STI policy states:

Increasing Gross Expenditure in Research and Development (GERD) to 2% of the GDP has been a national goal for some time. Achieving this in the next five years is realisable if the private sector raises its R&D investment to at least match the public sector R&D investment from the current ratio of around 1:3.

The policy also briefly mentions the government’s plans of attracting private sector investment in R&D. The government’s chief focus is on establishing R&D facilities through a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) initiative. The government also intends to allow private sector organisations equal access to public funds as public sector institutions, and develop systems to help science-led entrepreneurship.

On close comparison, it can be seen that similar claims were outlined in the 2003 S&T policy, announced by the Government of India in January 2003. The policy proposed an increase in India’s GERD from 0.8% of GDP in 2003 to 2% of GDP by 2007, or the end of the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002 – 2007). The government also indicated measures to help increase R&D investments by the private sector. The policy stated:

There has to be increased investments by industry in R&D in its own interest to achieve global competitiveness to be efficient and relevant. Efforts by industry to carry out R&D, either in-house or through outsourcing, will be supported by fiscal and other measures. To increase their investments in R&D, innovative mechanisms will be evolved.

The 2003 policy, however, failed to achieve its main objective. According to UNESCO World Science Report 2010, India’s overall GERD stood at only around 0.88% of GDP at the end of the Tenth Five Year Plan in 2007, against the government’s expectations of 2% of GDP.

The 2013 STI policy does not mention any of the reasons as to why the 2003 S&T policy failed to meet one of its primary objectives, especially when the 2013 policy reiterates the same objective. In such cases, an appraisal of the reasons for underperformance of past policies becomes crucial to proper framing of the present policy and opens avenues for discussions on why targets could/can not be achieved, what the structural impediments were/are, and what were/are the challenges and implementation issues.

Primarily, the 2003 policy did not mention any specific measures that the government intended to take in order to improve private sector involvement in R&D funding. The policy concentrated solely on increasing private sector investment in R&D without due consideration to the institutional, legal and tax bottlenecks facing private sector organisations. The 2010 OECD report, India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth, expresses concerns over the various hindrances that private sector organisations face in India:

India’s framework conditions for entrepreneurship remain weak. Trade and FDI restrictions, along with administrative red tape and restrictive product market regulations, hinder investment and productivity. The financial sector is also insufficiently developed to meet capital needs in a fast-growing economy, let alone the need for financing business innovation.

While the government of India does provide the private sector with tax deductions for in-house R&D expenditures, payments to research institutions, and the expenses of employees’ salaries and materials used in R&D, there are, however, several hurdles that private sector organisations must overcome before obtaining any of these benefits. First, the tax deduction is mainly limited to organisations involved in biotechnology or manufacturing and producing goods. In addition, only organisations that perform R&D activities and incur costs in India are eligible for these benefits. As a result, many Indian private sector organisations that intend to fund, perform or collaborate with R&D activities abroad, and bring the results of these R&D activities back to India, have almost negligible government support.

Another aspect in which the 2003 S&T policy failed is the recognition of the growing private sector investment in R&D in India. Since the liberalisation of the Indian economy in 1991, the average GERD/GDP ratio has been constant at 0.78%, within which the contributions of the private sector in R&D have increased from 19% of GERD in 2002 – 2003 to almost a third of GERD in 2007. This upward trend is generally considered “necessary for translating R&D outputs into commercial outcomes.” According to the UNESCO World Science Report 2010, the very minute but important growth of the GERD/GDP ratio from 0.8% in 2003 to 0.88% in 2007 can be attributed only to the contributions of the private sector, especially to the investments of fast-growing sectors such as pharmaceuticals and automobile. On the other hand, public sector contribution to this percentage growth can be considered negligible because although the government contributes almost two-thirds of the total investments in research and development, government-funded research is rarely directly used for civilian benefits. Public sector investment is concentrated mainly on defence, space and nuclear physics.

Although vacuous in the specifics, the 2013 STI policy does acknowledge the growing rates of industrial R&D and the problems in institutional structures in science in India, and highlights a number of areas in innovation in which the government plays a crucial role. Perhaps most importantly, the 2013 policy document acknowledges the role of the government in creating an environment conducive “for enhancing private sector investment in R&D.” In later pages, the document also briefly highlights the government’s plans to adopt a flexible approach to investment, which would allow modifications in the Five Year Plans in accordance with changes in the S&T scenario. However, such plans of the future do not seem adequate unless the government acknowledges the failures of the previous policy and, in addition to looking to increase R&D investments, also includes detailed plans of how the S&T system would be reformed in order to utilise these funds meaningfully. Gautam R. Desiraju, a professor of chemistry in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, wrote in 2012:

Although there was, curiously, no increased allocation to science in this year’s Indian budget, there is hope that, as the prime minister has declared, things would improve if government support were increased to 2% of the gross domestic product. But it is a haphazard plan, with no hint of new strategies. The assumption is that the answer to our problems lies simply in more money.

Despite containing progressive plans and initiatives, the STI policy seems ambitious and ambiguous. The STI policy oversimplifies the complex structures of public-private partnerships and investments in R&D in India, and also does not take into account the successes and failures of previous policies, especially the S&T policy of 2003. An appraisal of previous policies is imperative to understanding their levels of performance and identifying the causes of underperformance. A lack of such appraisal in the STI policy means that the policy fails to recognise the structural impediments, institutional bottlenecks and other challenges that affected the implementation of the previous policy, and which could also affect the implementation of the aims of the present policy.

__________

REFERENCES

Albright Stonebridge Group. Science Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013. 21 March 2013. Available from: http://www.albrightstonebridge.com/science_03-21-2013/

Bound, Kirsten. India: The Uneven Innovator. London: Demos, 2007

Deloitte. Research & Development Expenditure: A Concept Paper. Deloitte, July 2011. Available from: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomIndia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Whitepaper_on_RD_expenditure.pdf

Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Research and Development Statistics at a Glance, 2007-08. New Delhi, October 2008. Available from: http://www.nstmis-dst.org/PDF/rdeng.pdf

Desiraju, Gautam R. “Bold Strategies for Indian Science”. Nature, Vol. 484 (12 April 2012), 159-160

Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology. Science and Technology Policy 2003. New Delhi: Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology, 2003

Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology. Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013. New Delhi: Government of India – Ministry of Science and Technology, 2013

OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. OECD Publishing, 2012. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). India: Sustaining High and Inclusive Growth. Paris: OECD, October 2010

Planning Commission (Government of India). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017): Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2013

Planning Commission (Government of India). Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan. New Delhi: Planning Commission, October 2011

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). UNESCO Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO, 2010

Wilkie, Tom. British Science and Politics since 1945. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991