NEP 2020 and research

At last the NEP 2020 has realised the importance of research in a country’s economic growth. We don’t need to read a policy brief released by the European Union to realize this as stated in the policy document.. It’s common sense. Research, for that matter education, was not a priority in India over the last several decades. Goverments after governments only spoke rural education and research climate in the country but there was never a concrete policy and focus on this subject. At least now we are able to see light at the end of this research tunnel.

With all the education, degrees, innovations of our neighbouring countries taught in their own language, these countries are able to innovate several things and able to penetrate the market! From toys to electronic goods its all from one country. Research and innovation are so embedded in these countries that they are able to make Ganesh deity” and penetrate the market during the 10 days Indian festival. The decorative lights flood the market during the festival times is a strong reminder that we have a long way to go even to make a small toy.

Even if it is made cost wise it cannot compete neighbouring country. Why is this happening? To quote from the report …..”according to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), China made as many as 13,38,503 patent applications, with just 10% being made by non-resident Chinese, the USA made 605,571 patent applications, while India made a mere 45,057, of which over 70% were by non-resident Indians”””””. We are only good at providing service to any one. This is embedded in our blood. Now it is time to change it.

Perhaps NRF (National Research Foundation) could bring some hope to the younger generation who are keen in excelling in research field. One of the goals of NRF is to recognise outstanding research and progress achieved via NRF funding/mentoring across subjects, through prizes and special seminars recognising the work of the researchers. For some time we should do away with these laurels. The proposed NRF in NEP is good if the principles are strictly followed. In all the committees in the past the funding agencies engaged members with biased opinion, low knowledge base related to the proposals submitted and as permanent members. India has excellent talented faculty and researchers who never had the opportunity to get inducted into these committees The reason all of us know. In the new NEP these committees should be liaison committees and all the proposals should be sent to other top scientists/universities/agencies/foundations of the world for review. This process will have an unbiased review process and a strong review input.

The NEP as usual created several committees right from governing board, divisional council, sub-committees etc etc, There is nothing new here and the old system is being renamed. “The National Research Foundation will fund competitive peer – reviewed grant proposals of all types, across all disciplines”….states the NEP. Let there be peer review within the country but there could be an unbiased review from outside the country too. Those confidential projects need not be sent out (they are never discussed in public domain) but all other proposals from HEI (Higher Education Institutes) can be sent out for review. Now that USA being the top country in research and innovation, proposals can be sent to National Science Foundation, the top research body in USA for review. I know that the moment this idea is suggested, there will be more than thousand voices in the country who shout that we are capable of doing this review. If that is the strong sentiment it is good, but then why our research patent count is so low compared to other countries. If the process of patenting is pain in India, then this aspect has to be eased and set right before research takes off. As of now only IITs and IISc are deeply involved in research and the so called CSIR national laboratories failed (except for a handful of labs) to rise to the level that is expected from them over the last few decades.

“Assessment and accountability” of the new NEP perhaps will be a game changer for research and innovation in the country. Another encouraging policy change here is permitting the researchers to retain IPR (intellectual property right). This is a good incentive and will motivate the researcher to do cutting edge research. Perhaps NEP could have made all faculty position in HEI as non-tenure track position so that accountability will automatically will fall in line and research output will goup. Then along with non-tenure track policy there should be a strong funding and research support ( good research laboratory facility) policy should be in place. Other wise it will be like flogging a non-performing horse with out giving good food!! Research should go hand in hand with entrepreneurship. This will happen only when along with the basic degree course formulated under NEP 2020, a strong skill development component is included as a part of the academic programme.

Now that this new NEP is focussing on making strong HEI institutes like IITs in rural India, all the degree programmes may be (bachelor) left to the colleges and HEI like IITs should concentrate only on research. Till recently IITs were churning out strong B Tech graduates and producing good service providers, by delinking undergraduate programme with HEI will strengthen research in India. As I said in my first blog age should not be a criteria for research and academics as long as a person is active in academic and research output. The new NEP 2020 fortunately realized this and states ….. “”There will be no age limit for Mentors; they will be permitted to serve as Mentors and apply for funding for as long as they are active and add value to their institutions. The expertise of outstanding retired faculty in the country is currently severely underutilised. This will be an invaluable opportunity to utilise their expertise to expand research culture across the country”. One of the IITs have already implemented this policy. In fact the third generation IITs should realize this. Keeping an experienced faculty active in research among the young faculty in HEIs is a great advantage to the institute for capacity building and to get large international funds under cross country collaboration. Funds should not come in the way of retaining such senior active faculty. NEP is encouraging international collaboration and here the retired faculty’s role will help immensely in getting the project funding and to mentor the younger generation.

Although NEP has set these guidelines, it all depends on the leadership of the HEI. If the leaders of the HEI have myopic view then it will be in a disadvantageous position over other HEI that have the support of senior faculty. In fact few of the second generation IITs were mentored completely by active experienced retired faculty. Now these second generation IITs are competing with older IITs!!!!. Once strong HEI emerge in rural India pressure on IITs will reduce and the students will get benefited.

The NEP talks about strong academia-industry interaction. It is a good move though it was there already with a weak linkage with IITs. Academia-Industry link is a tricky job……hope this will be solved in the new NEP. Why I said tricky is, any new development of a product, prototype, formula etc will take some time. This will be achieved through an industry sponsored project connected to a degree programme. Industry does like this long wait!!!

Because it business and are on make profit mode. These industries want the results in couple of days so that its profit margin and share price stays high. So the best way is import the idea, product, prototype or formula and implement in the country. This attitude should be discouraged. The current “make in India” policy should be able to solve this issue if strictly implemented by the govt. We need the cooperation of the industry as well. Encouraging entrepreneurship should solve this issue but then as one of the IITB alumnus while commenting on the new NEP said that there are several hurdles in “angle” funding for entrepreneurs due to bureaucracy. “Ease of doing business” policy should come in handy in such cases. If not collaboration or cooperation at least the industries, as envisaged in the new NEP should contribute to NRF. Govt should amend CSR funding norms and permit large profit making industries to contribute lavishly to NRF. The reason why bright students are not joining research is job opportunities. These graduates after PhD can find jobs only in teaching/research institutes. The HEI are not well equipped to absorb these graduates because there is greater supply than demand. Perhaps once HEI in rural India are established, these graduate may join the institutes. A large percent of graduates go for post doctoral work after PhD but then after PDF what we do is the question many students ask. Justified.

The HEI besides absorbing Ph D scholars, should also play a big brother role in training and mentoring teachers in schools ……in the form of conducting short term course for the teacher, seminar etc. This will certainly boost the confidence level of the teachers and this interaction exposes the teachers to a different academic/research environment.

At higher research levels, all sciences (including medical) and engineering disciplines merge and interaction between these groups is a healthy practice and will help in developing new ideas that may lead to a start-ups. NEP 2020 as already included in the policy creating HEI will all disciplines. Currently only one of the older IITs has inducted several programmes like medicine, economics, management etc. Like in undergraduate programme graduates in Ph D programme should be allowed to transfer credits from one institute to another. In fact at research levels there should be international interaction that will be help the student to use laboratory facilities in universities abroad (of course reputed universities). In order to achieve this mentors should have collaboration with foreign universities with good laboratory facilities. Best way to achieve this is to have bilateral academies as established by a few IITs.

But then to establish a good rapport with good/reputed foreign universities the HEI should prove themselves with proven faculty with good publication record and good laboratory facilities. Since I said at higher research levels science-engineering and medical sciences merge, let us examine what NEP’s policy on health education in the next blog.