This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299– 308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Indian science, technology, and society: The changing landscape

R.A. Mashelkar Ã

National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411 008, India article info abstract

Keywords: Over the centuries, India’s scientific and technological position among developed and India developing countries has shifted. Several centuries ago, it was characterized by scientific Science Technology thought, capabilities, and techniques more advanced than many countries. However, Knowledge when the scientific and industrial revolutions took place in the West, India was in a Education stagnant period. This paper looks at knowledge production in different countries vis-a`-vis Economics their economic strength, and then positions India within this landscape. Pillars Science and technology in India rest on four pillars: (1) techno-nationalism, (2) inclusive growth, (3) techno-globalism, and (4) global leadership. Each of these pillars is discussed in some detail, followed by concluding recommendations for steps India should take if it wishes to assume a leadership role among the world’s developed nations. & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Setting the context

In a knowledge society, the generation, acquisition, absorption, and communication and dissemination of knowledge assume considerable importance. Generating knowledge requires an ab initio approach and creativity. Acquiring knowledge involves indigenous development of knowledge as well as acquiring it from elsewhere in the world through licensing agreements, foreign investment, and so on. Absorbing knowledge involves ensuring universal basic education, creating opportunities for lifelong learning, and supporting tertiary education in science and technology (S&T). Communication and dissemination of knowledge through print and electronic media take diverse and innovative forms. This paper looks at knowledge production in different countries vis-a`-vis their economic strength, and speciﬁcally positions the developing world within this landscape. The countries, displayed in a single diagram (see Fig. 1) in terms of their relative economic strength and indigenous scientiﬁc and technological capacities, were presented by Mashelkar during his Zuckerman lecture [1]. In the top right corner are nations such as the US and Japan, and several European countries, all of which are developed. They have a very high indigenous S&T capacity and a very high economic strength. In contrast, in the lower left quadrant are the least-developed countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa, where both indigenous S&T capacity and economic strength are very low. In the top left quadrant are countries that, by virtue of considerable natural resources, have attained high economic strength (e.g., the oil-rich Middle East countries). But at present they have little indigenous S&T capacity. The lower right quadrant includes nations with high indigenous S&T capacity but relatively low economic strength, such as India, China, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, and Egypt. These countries are called Innovative Developing Countries [2,3].

Ã Tel.: +9120 25902197; fax: +9120 25902607. E-mail address: [email protected]

0160-791X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.04.017 Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

300 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308

Fig. 1. Indigenous S&T capacity. Source: [1].

The positions of the developing nations in this diagram are not static. At different times in history, countries have occupied different positions. For instance, not long ago, Korea was in the lower left quadrant, but today it has attained the status enjoyed by OECD countries, thanks to indigenous companies like LG and Samsung, which dominate global markets and compete with the best in the world—something that had not yet happened 30 years ago. Over time, India’s position on this matrix also has shifted. Several centuries ago, Indian civilization was characterized by scientific thought, capabilities, and techniques at levels a more advanced than in many countries. However, when the scientific and industrial revolutions took place in the West a few hundred years ago, there was a period of stagnation in India. A highly feudalistic structure developed. Lack of development over this period was the result of a hierarchical approach, irrational subjective thinking, and a build-up of superstitions and ritualism. Its society was in this state when India came under colonial domination. During the British colonial period, scientific developments happened because of the efforts of a number of outstanding Indians who worked during the 75 years prior to Indian independence. They include names such as C.V. Raman, J.C. Bose, S.N. Bose, P. Mahalanobis—a spectacular array of thinkers. They were the products of the ferment in Indian society, which motivated the struggle for freedom. Remarkable changes in S&T took place after India acquired its independence in 1947, with a strong foundation laid by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. To Nehru, science was not just a tool for economic development but also a means of truly emancipating India by bringing about a qualitative transformation in its stagnant society. The policy resolution of 1958, which dealt with science, clearly reflected these beliefs: It is an inherent obligation of a great country like India, with its tradition of scholarship and original thinking and its great cultural heritage, to participate fully in the march of science, which is probably mankind’s greatest enterprise today [4]. This vision provided a vital impetus to Indian scientists in the early post-independence years. The momentum has been maintained for the last few decades, and it is fair to say that Indian S&T in post-independence India can be viewed as a true source of national pride.

2. Four pillars of Indian S&T

S&T in India rest on four pillars:

1. Techno-nationalism. In some ﬁelds, despite making every effort, India could not obtain certain technologies, and the country had to make do with export control regimes. In addition, it was denied so-called ‘‘dual-use’’ technology. In response, India developed its own technologies in space, defence, nuclear energy, and supercomputers, among others. All were institutionally led, mission-based technology delivery systems. 2. Inclusive growth. In S&T, where consideration of the population had been excluded, it is now included in the development and growth process. This means making S&T work on behalf of the poor of India, combining equity and excellence, creating products within the price-performance envelope that are suited to those at the bottom of the pyramid and to the needs of India’s lower-middle class. Discovery, development, and delivery of drugs and therapeutics vaccines that are available, affordable, and accessible to the poor is one example. The recent launch of the Nano automobile by Tatas, a low-cost (US$2500) vehicle for the lower-middle class, is another example. The green revolution, which made India self-sufﬁcient in food belongs to this category too, since its effect was to include a vast majority of rural farmers who were otherwise excluded. 3. Techno-globalism. This refers to the strong interactions between the internationalization of technology and the globalization of the economy, a widening cross-border interdependence between individual-based sciences and economic sectors, and the location of knowledge production centres in countries that offer the required skill base Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 301

at low cost. In India, this led to multiple offshore R&D services utilizing India’s low-cost scientiﬁc manpower. This resulted in Indian S&T talent being used within the country, rather than outside the country, to create technology for global players [5]. For example, GE set up its R&D in India because India offered the highest intellectual capital per dollar spent. Taking advantage of this, more than 300 multinational companies have set up their R&D centres in India, including GE, IBM, Microsoft, Dupont, Dow, Shell, and General Motors. Indian scientists and researchers have created intellectual property (IP) for numerous foreign ﬁrms. This trend towards globalizing R&D is expanding into other activities, including diverse types of knowledge process outsourcing, other IT-based services, and clinical trials and testing, all at similar cost advantages. 4. Global leadership. Such leadership demands substantial improvements in the quality of basic research, creating ‘‘innovation ecosystems’’ comprised of forward-looking IP laws, venture capital, and so forth. The aim is to see that tomorrow’s Silicon Valley and Genome Valley are created in India. This also means that Indian IQ will not be used just to create IP for multinational companies (as is implicit in S&T techno-globalism), but Indian IQ will generate IP for Indian companies as they step up their R&D spending by several orders of magnitude. This leadership will also coincide with stronger participation among globally dispersed Indians and their eventual return to India, as is already beginning to happen. It also means that the ‘‘brain drain’’ phenomenon will be reversed.

In the following, I review the development of each pillar: the way it was built and strengthened, and the way it has changed the Indian S&T and innovation landscapes.

3. The ﬁrst pillar: S&T driven by techno-nationalism

India is among the few countries of the world with a comprehensive defence and research infrastructure that builds sophisticated weapons and weapons systems, including numerous missiles and rocket systems. It has also developed low- level tracking radar, high-vision devices, and sophisticated sonar systems, and a light-combat aircraft and remotely piloted vehicle are in the advanced stages of development. India’s capability in nuclear S&T, including nuclear fast-breeder reactors, is the result of indigenous effort. The entire range of technologies, from the prospecting of raw materials to the design and construction of large nuclear reactors is now available on a self-reliant basis.

3.1. Space

India ranks among the few nations of the world that have a credible capability in space S&T, including the design and construction of satellites and launch vehicle technology. The Indian space programme, for example, designed and sent into space a series of satellites that comprise the largest domestic communication system in the Asia–Paciﬁc region. It also developed a variety of launch vehicles, the most recent being a geo-synchronous version. These developments helped with the application of space technology to national needs in communication, meteorology, broadcasting, and remote sensing. All of this has been achieved in a relatively cost-effective manner. In the mid-1980s, the US decision to deny the transfer of supercomputer technology became the impetus for India’s entry into this difﬁcult technology domain on its own. In addition, there have been path-breaking developments in parallel computing.

3.2. Supercomputers

The launch of the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) in 1987 marked the start of India’s foray into supercomputing, and in 1991, India developed its first supercomputer PARAM 8000 based on a parallel processing architecture using transputers. PARAM 8000 was built at a cost less than that of a CRAY YMP system, in a span of less than 3 years—what was required at the time to import and install large computer systems in India. The entire technology covering hardware, low-latency high-bandwidth system area network, operating system kernel, compilers, and integrated parallel processing environment were all developed from scratch. Several applications covering weather forecasting, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), FEM, seismic data processing, oil reservoir modelling, satellite image processing, and launch vehicle simulation were developed. Development of indigenous supercomputers, such as PARAM by C-DAC, Flowsolver by National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), ANUPAM by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), and ANURAG by Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), have established India as one of the world’s key players in this field. India chose the cluster architecture as early as 1994 for building its teraflop supercomputers, when it was not clear as to which architecture would eventually win the race. Indeed, PARAM 10000, announced in 1998, was built with a cluster of Ultrasparc workstations. PARAM Padma, built in 2002, reached a performance peak of a teraflop, which put it into the Top 500 list. The focus then shifted to connecting the facilities as a grid. C-DAC proposed the creation of Garuda Grid with a nationwide WAN. The long voyage in high-performance computing was not a smooth sail by any reckoning. It was plagued by several difficulties, including embargoes on critical components, architectural debates, make-versus-buy dilemmas, Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

302 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 loss of key talent to multinationals, and bureaucratic hurdles. Nevertheless, by 2005 India had firmly established its ability to design and develop terascale supercomputers. It is interesting to reflect on this long journey. With their ever-widening use, supercomputers are increasingly regarded as a strategic resource. When supercomputers were denied to India in the early 1980s, even though they were to be used only for weather forecasting, India decided to enter this field via the alternative route of parallel processing. India’s journey from 1986s onward shows how indigenous innovation changes the control regime and vice versa [6]. NAL, of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) at Bangalore developed the FLOSOLVER Mk 1, the parallel computing product for, which demonstrated its feasibility in 1986. This led Cray Research in the US to negotiate with India’s Meteorological Department on its safety requirements. The same firm was reluctant to have a dialogue with India earlier. In 1987, the major initiatives to create the C-DAC in Pune were launched to develop an Indian supercomputer based on massively parallel processing-based architecture. The US, which was unwilling to give a supercomputer to India earlier, in 1988 responded by approving the export of the Cray XMP 14 to India, under certain restrictions. There were conditions on its non-nuclear use as well as in situ surveillance by US government officials. In 1989, the combined efforts of C-DAC, DRDO, BARC, and NAL to develop parallel processing supercomputers gained ground and signs of success were visible. Later, C-DAC successfully demonstrated the PARAM-8000, a supercomputer with a peak computing power of 1000 M-Flops. In 1990, the Los Alamos (Worlton) report concluded that supercomputers were not necessary to design nuclear weapons. In 1991–1992, C-DAC exported its PARAM supercomputers to Canada, Germany, and Russia, while others, such as NAL’s FLOSOLVER Mk III, and DRDOs’ PACE, matched the capabilities of US-made, mid-range workstations. In December 1992, the US Office of Naval Research sent an official to Bangalore to assess Indian capabilities in supercomputing. In 1993, the US authorized the licensed conditional export of high-performance computers to several Indian institutions. In November 1994, C-DAC’s PARAM 8000 was displayed at the Super Computing ‘94 Exposition in Washington. It was announced that a more advanced supercomputer machine with 10 giga-flops would be achievable by the end of 1995, and that export of such supercomputers from India to developing countries was possible. In response, the US diluted even further its export requirements on high- performance computers. In April 1995, India placed parallel processing supercomputing on its list of items requiring an Indian export license. In July 1995, the US began to review its supercomputers export controls and in October 1995, further relaxed the export of computers to India. In 1998, C-DAC launched PARAM 10,000, which demonstrated India’s capacity to build 100-gigaflop machines, which are further scalable to teraflops, which enabled India to reach levels reached by other advanced nations. In response, the US further relaxed its export controls. During the same year, CRAY established a subsidiary in India; the same company had denied CRAY supercomputers in 1980s. Then on May 11, 1998, came Pokhran II. In response, the US put a complete ban on several components, including chips. A new saga began. What is apparent in this chain of innovations is that India’s innovations in supercomputers forced changes in the export control regimes. India’s ability to receive the technology embedded in supercomputers simply depended on its own technological preparedness. There are some interesting lessons in this supercomputer saga. When the idea of building supercomputers through parallel processing gained ground in 1985, Germany launched a DM100 million project called ‘‘Suprenum’’, and gave its scientists 5 years to build parallel processing-based supercomputers. However, the project was abandoned mid-way for several reasons, including management issues between the university and industry, due to the fact that there was no driving force, since Germany had other options. India went ahead because it had no other options. The other interesting note is that in 1988 the Russians offered a supercomputer to India. However, the Indian team that visited Russia was not impressed with it and in the end, India did not buy any supercomputers from Russia, nor did it become dependent on Russian technology. Indeed, the Russians have been importing Indian supercomputers since the early 1990s; the PARAM 10000 supercomputer was installed a few years ago.

4. The second pillar: S&T for inclusive growth

A sizable portion of the population of India falls below the poverty line. Therefore, technological priorities for the poor in rural areas of the developing world include, among others, modern seed varieties and other inputs for growing food; solar- powered motors to run pumps, farm machinery, and vehicles that transport produce to market (where animal traction or human leg power are no longer the main means); electricity; vaccines, antibiotics, and other medicines; radio, TV, and now, of course, Internet connectivity. Some of these are rather mundane technologies in use for many generations in the developed world. Others were developed to address technical problems in speciﬁc developing countries and might be classed as ‘‘intermediate/ appropriate technologies.’’ They represent economically important technologies that have the potential to increase the productivity of a given resource or give greater human satisfaction within a limited cost. Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 303

In broad terms, three types of technologies have helped reduce poverty and/or improved the quality of life of the poor:

Process technologies, which result in increased efficiency and/or improved quality of resources that give a country its comparative advantage, such as agriculture, animal husbandry (including leather), mining, etc. Product technologies, that is, new products with direct benefits to consumers (e.g., medicines, mechanical devices such as an artificial foot, low-cost sanitary napkins, nutrients, etc.). Enabling technologies, which facilitate coordination, information sharing, and exchanges between buyers and sellers or other sets of economic agents, thereby reducing transaction costs.

4.1. State-funded support

The question is, who will provide such S&T for inclusive growth? To address this and other issues, at the state level, several R&D institutes were created to focus on technology problems at the state or regional level. The CSIR, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) not only have their own research institutes but they also financially support research at universities as well as network projects involving scientists from each other’s institutes and from industrial research centres. An example from the CSIR system illustrates the way such delivery systems work. About 15 years ago, the bulk of menthol-rich essential oil for international use came from Brazil and China; later China and India became the major exporters. In the last few years, India moved into the top position in the trade of essential oil and its products. In turn, this generated strong employment at the bottom of the pyramid and greatly enhanced the earnings of the rural poor. This achievement was the outgrowth of sustained effort by CSIR’s Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP) during the 1990s. It developed and produced new varieties and combinations of traits, such as higher yields of oil as well as oil rich in menthol, improved regeneration potential, tolerance to rust, vigorous growth, and high biomass. A new menthol- producing plant Saksham (US Patent No. PP13,279) developed by CIMAP, was created through innovative metabolic engineering. Another example is the leather industry, which creates millions of jobs throughout the pyramid, with the bottom-most part of the pyramid a strong beneficiary. The Leather Technology Mission (LTM), aimed at creating a technology-driven development grid that integrates the needs of the decentralized as well as organized sectors, was launched in 1995 with CSIR as the implementing institution. The approach for project implementation included identifying areas of technology support (choosing technologies relevant to the social context); modes and mechanisms for technology delivery and implementation; establishing linkages and networks with agencies (NGOs, industry/industry association, academia, user ministries, Village Industries Commission, state government agencies) to ensure sustainability of outputs delivered; and monitoring outputs through peer review and third-party audit. For example, a technology interaction that benefited the bottom of the pyramid is the manufacture of Kolhapuri chappals (Indian ethnic footwear) from bag-tanned leather. This is a traditional occupation of artisans in the Athani–Miraj–Nippani belt of Maharashtra and Karnataka states. It has high socioeconomic value, as hundreds of families are involved in this cottage industry. CLRI demonstrated an improved bag-tanning process to the artisans, specifically highlighting the reduced process time (from 35 days to 15 days), uniform product, improved quality, and approximately 30% higher yield. A standardized stamping process and computer-aided designs produced subtle changes, and as a result, exports of this footwear zoomed, leading to improved economic well-being.

4.2. Private-sector support

Although it is primarily the government-funded S&T institutions, such as CSIR, ICMR, or ICAR, that have led the inclusive-growth effort, the private sector has also created technologies that beneﬁt the bottom of the pyramid. The following example illustrates how the IT sector provides support. India has about 200 million adults who cannot read or write. Illiteracy is declining slowly, at the rate of about 1.5% per year. India needs more trained teachers. Current conventional methods of learning, from alphabets to words, require approximately 200 h of instruction, which means India will need 20 years to attain a literacy level of 95%. The challenge—and the need—is to do it in less than 5 years. The great doyen of the Indian IT industry, F.C. Kohli, while at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), led a team that developed a computer-based functional literacy (CBFL) method that focuses on reading ability and is based on theories of cognition, language, and communication. In this method, scripted graphic patterns, icons, and images are recognized through a combination of auditory and visual experiences using computers. The method emphasizes learning words rather than alphabetical letters. While the focus is on reading, it also triggers the desire to learn to write. Using this method, Kohli’s team developed innovative methodologies using IT and computers to build reading capability. Their experiment was ﬁrst conducted in Medak, a village near Hyderabad. Without a trained teacher, the women Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

304 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 of the village were able to read newspapers in 8–10 weeks. Thereafter, Kohli’s team carried out additional experiments covering six states, and the results were spectacular. Kohli’s team developed these lessons to run on Intel 486s and early versions of Pentium personal computers (PCs) that were modiﬁed to display multimedia. There are perhaps 200 million of these PCs in the world, most of which have been discarded as obsolete. By using these PCs, the cost of making one person literate would be less than Rs. 100 (about US$2.50). Using CBFL, literacy could be increased to 90–95% within 3–5 years, instead of 20 years. However, this will require a national mission to remove illiteracy by using the CBFL approach.

4.3. Public– private partnerships

It is not just the public or private sectors acting alone, but well-designed and executed public–private partnerships that have been beneﬁcial in delivering affordable products to the poor. An excellent example is a public–private partnership that resulted in access to cost-effective anti-AIDS therapeutics. When multinational corporations offered anti-retroviral (ARV) compounds for HIV-AIDS at a price of $10,000 for a year’s treatment, an Indian company that had utilized the know-how obtained from a CSIR laboratory was able to offer the same compound for $300. This not only lowered the cost of such medicines, but also raised a debate on IP rights versus public health. Ultimately it led to the Doha Declaration, which afﬁrms certain concessions regarding access to affordable medicines by the poor of the world.

4.4. Educational institutions

Some institutions of higher education also have been active in working on problems that affect the poor. For instance, the Telecommunication and Networking (TelNet) group at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chennai has developed ICT solutions that deliver a menu of services, uch as health care by telemedicine, agricultural consulting via Internet, education, communication, banking, entertainment, and E-governance. Early experiments showed that ICT can be a critical tool for empowering rural India, and people are willing to pay for improvements in their quality of life. This makes it a sustainable option and generates employment. This was an initiative taken by an academic group and put into operation by start-up ventures rather than supported by any research councils. But it is not only S&T delivered by the public or private sector that leads to inclusive growth. The problems of the poor are identified by the poor themselves, and it is the subsequent intervention by formal S&T systems that makes the huge difference. For example, when drawing water from wells, women become tired and sometimes need to rest and catch their breath. But during that period of rest, she must continue to hold the rope with a water-filled bucket tied to it. A momentary loosening of her grip will likely result in the bucket falling into the well. Although communities have devised ways of retrieving the fallen bucket from the well (e.g., using hooks tied to another rope), this did not prevent the bucket from falling into the well. Then an artisan solved the problem by attaching a small lever on the pulley. The lever did not get in the way while pulling on the rope, but the moment the tension on the rope slackened, the lever pressed against it and arrested the downward movement, thus keeping the water-filled bucket in its position. With the new system, even an older lady or a weaker person could take a rest, chat, and then resume the filling operation. Thousands of such pulleys are now being installed all across Gujarat villages, and the design will undoubtedly spread to the rest of India. Can you imagine the relief this will bring to millions of poor women who draw water from wells in India everyday? Thousands of such innovations are occurring throughout India. The question is: how do we capture, improve, scale, and spread them? To this end, the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) was established by the Government of India to perform several core functions [7]:

Scout and document nationwide grass-root innovations so that a National Register of Innovation can be created. Complete the value chain for green grass-root innovators by supporting the improvement of innovative products through R&D linkages with formal institutions, such as CSIR, ICMR, ICAR, IITs, etc. Provide added value, business development, IP management and dissemination, and IT management support.

To date, NIF has registered thousands of innovations by grass-root innovators, and has done a remarkable job of performing the above functions with meager resources. Currently, the Indian government is trying to ramp up this activity so it will have a broad impact nationwide.

5. S&T driven by techno-globalism

India is rapidly becoming a global R&D hub in terms of its talented human resources who are used to provide R&D services to companies around the world. Around 300 companies have set up R&D centres in India during the last 10 years alone as part of a grand plan by many leading enterprises to build an innovation platform through multiple sources of innovations. Why has multi-sourcing gained such prominence? There is an increasing pressure to shorten international market penetration time for new products, to shorten R&D times, and to decrease the market lifetime for new products. Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 305

Innovations are beginning to have multiple geographic and organizational sources of technology with increasingly differentiated and innovation-specific patterns of diffusion. R&D in high-technology industries such as biotechnology, microelectronics, pharmaceuticals, IT, and new materials has become highly science based. The costs of doing R&D are also increasing exponentially. At the same time, there has been a progressive weakening of the importance of central corporate laboratories in large firms. Firms worldwide are becoming highly selective, with internal developments focused on critical products and processes. These internal efforts are complemented by external technology acquisitions on a global basis, with some companies spending as much as half of their R&D budget on ‘‘open innovation networks.’’ Creation of seamless laboratories around the world is also being helped by the evolution of global information networks that allow real-time management and operation of laboratories in any part of the world. Companies gain a competitive advantage by using global knowledge resources and working with a global time clock. The trend is also fuelled by a shortage of R&D personnel in some emerging high-tech areas in industrialized countries. Companies must bridge that demand–supply gap by external outsourcing. Obtaining access to high-quality scientists, engineers, and designers is now at the top of the agenda for many major companies. Another issue is the demographic shift taking place in the US, Europe, and Japan, as its population and workforce become older. This means that a country like India, with a demographic profile that includes a large proportion of working and talented young people, can become a global innovation hub. Not only will outsourcing of innovation be done, but R&D- based innovation centres will be set up by these enterprises. India’s advantages will be both cost and competence, considering its huge talent pool of world-class technical manpower. India has over 250 universities, 1500 R&D units, and several IITs and engineering colleges. It has the world’s largest chain of publicly funded R&D institutions. This is an extraordinarily rich resource that has been underutilized even within India’s own R&D sector. The National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) at CSIR was a pioneer in recognizing and benefitting from techno-globalism. The process of R&D globalization began in NCL in 1989, 2 years before the winds of liberalization started blowing. Today it has an impressive list of international customers, including Dupont, Dow, Eastman, ICI, GE, Cargil, and UoP. NCL recognized then that the competitive advantage in a high-technology business is increasingly dependent on the technical skills of the organization rather than on particular products. As product life cycles become shorter, skill life cycles become longer. In such a situation, products become intermediaries between organization’s skills and the market they serve. Rather than being the focus of corporate activity, products will actually be transient mechanisms by which the market derives value from an organization’s skill base, while the organization derives value from the market. NCL continually asks: ‘‘What skills, capabilities and technologies should we build up?’’, rather than the stereotypical question: ‘‘Which products or processes should we develop and for which market?’’ This shift in strategy has paid handsomely. While inaugurating GE’s Jack Welch R&D Centre in Bangalore a decade ago, Welch noted that India was generally perceived to be a developing country, but he thought it was a developed country as far its intellectual infrastructure was concerned. How does one measure intellectual capital per dollar? Is it based on scientific publications in top peer-reviewed journals per dollar invested? Is it citations received by these publications per dollar? Is it patents produced per dollar? Mashelkar [2] calculated these numbers by looking at them based on GDP per capita per year. King [8] also provided data (see Tables 1 and 2) that show India occupying the top slot. The reasons for India being a favoured destination are clear. However, these relative rankings are likely to shift as China surges ahead of India as a result of China’s massive investment in S&T. Techno-globalism in India will have major social, economic, political, and strategic significance, with a corresponding impact on the current ‘‘brain drain.’’ As India becomes a great R&D centre, the world’s best companies will undertake their most challenging R&D in India. and these challenges are even now drawing young Indian scientists and engineers back to their home country. The demand on science will increase enormously, which will lead to demand for the creation of new human resources and the growth of new institutions. This is already beginning to occur. Another implication is the enhanced competition among institutions and firms to seek the best human resources to work for them. This mean that institutions will have to create an intellectually stimulating, rewarding, and ‘‘hassle-free’’

Table 1 Scientiﬁc (SCI) publications

Country SCI publications (1997– 2001) GDP per capita SCI publications per GDP per capita/per year

India 77,201 487 32 China 115,339 989 23 United States 1,265,808 36,006 7 Germany 3,182,86 24,051 3 United Kingdom 342,535 26,445 3 Japan 336,858 31,407 2 Canada 166,216 22,777 1 Italy 147,023 20,528 1 Korea, Rep. 55,739 10,006 1 France 232,058 240,461 2

Source: [8]. Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

306 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308

Table 2 Citations (SCI)

Country SCI citations (1997– 2001) GDP per capita SCI citations per GDP, per capita, per year

India 188,481 487 77 China 341,519 989 69 United States 10,850,549 36,006 60 United Kingdom 2,500,035 26,445 19 Germany 2,199,617 24,051 18 Japan 1,852,271 31,407 12 Canada 1,164,450 22,777 10 Italy 964,164 20,528 10 South Korea 192,346 10,006 4 France 1,513,090 240,461 1

Source: [8]. environment in order to retain such researchers. In the long run, however, the Indian industry itself will beneﬁt. The researchers who will work in these non-Indian innovation enterprises will acquire insights and skills that would be impossible to acquire otherwise. At present most of these skilled Indians reside abroad, but no more so. In the coming years, they will prefer to reside and work in India. Indian industry will reap enormous beneﬁts from this supply of superior R&D leadership as the ‘‘brain drain’’ becomes ‘‘brain gain’’ and then moves on to ‘‘brain circulation.’’

6. S&T for global leadership

India’s first freedom came in 1947, as a political freedom. India’s second freedom, however, came only in 1991 when the Indian economy was liberated and opened up. Prior to that time, huge tariff barriers protected Indian industry. There was no incentive for innovation since there was no competition in the marketplace. It was not a buyer’s market; it was a seller’s market. After 1991, however, the situation changed dramatically. Competition moved in and is now here to stay. Its influence is dramatic and can be illustrated by the breakthrough of India’s leading industrial enterprise. In 1978, J.R.D. Tata, head of Tata Group, said ‘‘If I was allowed to make a car, I would have been as good at it as TELCO (a Tata company) was in trucks.’’ But he was not allowed to make a car. It was not until post-liberalized India (1993) that Tata was allowed to make cars. The first was Indica, a totally indigenous Indian car, which created its own niche in the world market. On 10 January 2008, Tata launched what they call ‘‘the people’s car,’’ which they named Nano. If the confidence inspired by the success of Indica had not occurred, Tata would not have followed with Nano. It is supposed to be a game-changing technology in the auto industry since it represents a paradigm shift in low-cost transport at a purchase price of only $2500. It has excellent fuel efficiency (25 km/l), offers Euro IV standards on emissions, and has unique styling and engineering. The Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry has gone through a similar process. Indian IP laws were designed in such a way that only process patents were accepted, but product patents were not. In response, the Indian industry created a strong base by copying new molecules introduced in the Western world. This was perfectly legitimate, but it also meant that there was no drive to create new molecules. On 1 January 2005, in fulfillment of its TRIPS obligation, Indian IP laws were changed, and product patents became acceptable. In anticipation of the change, the drug/pharmaceutical industry began investing heavily in innovation. Research portfolios changed from innovative process chemistry to innovative product development, including developing new molecules and new drug delivery systems. Investment in R&D, which had hovered around 1–3% of sales turnover, began to climb, in some cases reaching 10–15%. The demand for research scientists, such as structural biologists, systems biologists, and medicinal chemists, began to rise. In addition, the government devised several funding strategies to stimulate risk taking in Indian industry. One such initiative is the New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative (NMITLI). In the pre-1991 era, Indian industry focused only on areas where markets were certain (because there were imported products in that marketplace) and technologies were certain (because all they had to do was copy these products by reverse engineering). However, NMITLI positioned itself in a matrix quadrant where technologies were uncertain and markets were uncertain. This meant taking risks, and NMITLI was the first programme not only to encourage risk taking but to tolerate failure. This resulted in a paradigm shift in the culture of innovation. Today over 80 private-sector companies and more than 200 research institutions are working together on several risky programmes, and breakthroughs are beginning to appear. For instance, after 1963, when Rifampycin was discovered, there was no new drug for tuberculosis. It was a programme supported by NMITLI that led to the discovery and development of Sudoterb, a completely new chemical entity that clears up tuberculosis in 2 months rather than 6–8 months. This was the breakthrough that the world had been looking for! In another example, NMITLI has created world-class products in bio-informatics, such as ‘‘Bio-suite,’’ by linking an IT leader like TCS with 19 top institutions. In a third example, many organizations were looking for a PC in the US$100 price range. A programme supported by NMITLI created Mobilis, an innovative mobile PC with the potential to meet that price if a large Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308 307 enough scale of production is achieved. Clearly, breakthroughs are in the pipeline. NMITLI has created a new spirit of adventure, which Indian industry and Indian institutions had never experienced before. Just as India was not known for discovering new molecules but then it came out with the tuberculosis breakthrough, so India had never been in the top 10 of the world’s fastest 500 supercomputers. This has now changed. In the prestigious SC007 conference held in 2007, the EKA supercomputer developed by Tata’s Computer Research Laboratory (CRL) was judged to be the fastest in Asia and fourth fastest in the world. CRL has already integrated a supercomputer using the Hewlett-Packard cluster platform 3000DL460C with its own innovative routing and packaging technology that achieves 117.9 teraflops. What is significant is that the development of supercomputers was driven by government laboratories in the spirit of techno-nationalism, whereas a private-sector player has now entered the race. Second, the entire CRL facility was set up for the relatively small cost of $30 million. An Indian enterprise took advantage of India’s high intellectual capital per dollar and gained a competitive advantage. This success has given rise to India’s ambition to enter the petaflops competition. Twenty years ago, in 1987, the question was: ‘‘Can India develop a supercomputer?’’ The answer given then was an emphatic yes! Now the question is: ‘‘Can India build a petaflop supercomputer along with US and Japan?’’ The current positive mood augurs well for India taking a leadership position. India’s largest private-sector company, Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), had grown in scale, scope, and cost. Now it has declared its intention to expand its innovation with major investments in R&D. Other enterprises are also boosting their investment in R&D. This will create a major demand for Indian talent. There is also increasing demand on science in India. In response, there is renewed investment in science education and research. The government of India announced the creation of 30 new central universities, five new Indian institutes of science education and research, eight new IITs, and 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology. There are new national missions in nanotechnology and biotechnology, and new institutions in these fields as well. To meet the ever-increasing demand for scientific manpower, more school children are being encouraged to enter science. To enlarge the pool of scientific manpower and foster research in science, a programme titled ‘‘Innovation in Science Pursuing High Inspired Research’’ (INSPIRE), has been launched, which will cover one million students and provide attractive science innovation scholarships. Specific education programmes are being launched in strategic sectors, such as nuclear and space sciences at the school level. Several other initiatives are in the offing. All of these initiatives support India’s S&T leadership ambitions.

7. Concluding comments

With the twentieth century just concluded, India now faces the challenges of S&T in the twenty-ﬁrst century. So, what is India’s scorecard for the twentieth century? One of the country’s foremost scientists, Jayant Narlikar, in his book Scientiﬁc Edge, lists the top 10 achievements of Indian S&T [9]. They are:

1. Mathematics (1920s) (S. Ramanujam) 2. Ionization equation (1920s) (Meghnad Saha) 3. Particle statistics (1922) (S.N. Bose) 4. Raman Effect (1928) (C.V. Raman) 5. Molecular Biophysics (mid-1950s) (G.N. Ramachandran) 6. Atomic Energy Commission/Nuclear Power (1950s) 7. Green Revolution (1970s) 8. Space Programme (late 1970s) 9. Superconductivity (late 1980s) 10. CSIR Transformation (late 1990s)

One could say that none of the achievements by Indian scientists in the latter half of the twentieth century (as listed by Prof. Narlikar) are path breaking in comparison to the work done by earlier scientists such as Ramanujam and Raman. Clearly, this judgment is subjective, but it still raises legitimate concerns. India must focus on basic science, which is an endless frontier, a uniquely human activity without limits. This pursuit is guided by the spirit of discovering the truth, and its outlook is universal. The decline of Indian contributions to this endeavour, both qualitatively and quantitatively, is a matter of deep concern. To build a strong structure for basic research, new mechanisms and funding will have to be established. The Indian government’s recent initiative to set up the National Science and Engineering Research Foundation, including a quantum jump in funding of basic research, is a welcome step. In the coming years, India should aim for world leadership in at least some areas. Future Indian science should be based on daring and creativity, and it should try to be a leader, not a follower. Promoting curiosity-based basic research with a new sense of adventure should be the Indian endeavour. Realizing science as a social movement, and developing a scientiﬁc temper, demands not merely governmental programmes but actions undertaken by leaders in various sectors, people’s groups, and non-governmental organizations. Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS

308 R.A. Mashelkar / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 299–308

In the characteristically integrative Indian tradition, equity, environment, ecology, and economics must be viewed, not in isolation, but in tandem. The environment will have to be viewed as a unique national asset. The study of the relationship between land use and soil processes, mechanisms of global environmental change, industry–environment interactions, and predictions of our environment—particularly with respect to the human impact—will require innovative tools of S&T. One of the hallmarks of Indian civilization, even from the very ancient times, was to develop harmony with life and nature and to establish the infinite potential of human development. As a long-term vision, India should strive to lead the world in establishing and demonstrating harmony in the sciences as well as in the development and application of science with ethics as its core. India’s dream of finding a place in the comity of nations will be fulfilled by two conditions. The first is the universal recognition of India’s undeniable progress; the second is the inclusion of the scientific temperament as an essential part of the intellectual, emotional, social, and cultural life of all our masses, not just a select few. For this, the power of S&T will need to be harnessed in order to uplift the poor and downtrodden. If this happens, then India will become a model for other countries to emulate.

References

[1] Mashelkar RA. Innovation strategy today. 10th Zuckermann Lecture. Available at: /http://www.biodevelopments.org/innovation/index.htmS. [2] Mashelkar RA. Education for innovation: implications for India, China and America. In: DeHaan RL, Venkatnarayan KJ, editors. Atlanta: Sense Publications; 2007. [3] Morel CM, et al. Health Innovation networks to help developing countries address neglected diseases. Science 2005;309:401–4. [4] Government of India. Scientific policy resolution. New Delhi. March 4, 1958. Available at: /http://nrdms.gov.in/sci_policy.aspS. [5] Mashelkar RA. India’s R&D: reaching for the top. Science 2005;307:1415–7. [6] Mashelkar RA. Resurgence of innovative India: the challenge and the strategy. Available at: /http://www.nifindia.orgS. [7] National Innovation Foundation website. Available at: /http://www.nifindia.orgS. [8] King D. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004;430:311. [9] Narlikar JV. Scientific edge. New Delhi: Penguin Books; 2003.

R.A. Mashelkar, CSIR Bhatnagar Fellow, is also the current President of Global Research Alliance, a network of publicly funded R&D institutes from Asia–Pacific, Europe, and the US. He served as the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for more than 11 years. He was also President of the Indian National Science Academy from 2005 to 2007. Mashelkar is only the third Indian engineer to be elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in the twentieth century. He was elected Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Science (US) in 2005, a Foreign Fellow of the US National Academy of Engineering in 2003, a Fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences (US) in 2000, and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering (UK) in 1996. Twenty-six universities have honoured him with honorary doctorates. In August 1997, Business India named Mashelkar among the top 50 path breakers in the post-independent India. In 1998, Dr. Mashelkar won the J.R.D. Tata Corporate Leadership Award, the first scientist to win it. In June 1999, Business India did a cover story on Mashelkar as CEO of CSIR. In November 2005, he received the Business Week (US) award as a ‘‘Star of Asia’’ from George H.W. Bush, former President of the US. In post-liberalized India, Mashelkar played a key role in shaping India’s S&T policies. He was a member of the Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister and also of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet set up by successive governments. He has chaired 12 committees established to consider issues of higher education, national auto fuel policies, overhauling the Indian drug regulatory system and dealing with the menace of spurious drugs, and reforming India’s agriculture research system. He is a consultant for restructuring publicly funded R&D institutions worldwide. Mashelkar has more than 50 awards and medals, including the S.S. Bhatnagar Prize (1982), Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Technology Award (1991), G.D. Birla Scientific Research Award (1993), Material Scientist of Year Award (2000), IMC Juran Quality Medal (2002), HRD Excellence Award (2002), Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award for Excellence in Public Administration and Management Sciences (2002), World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) Medal of Engineering Excellence by WFEO, Paris (2003), Lifetime Achievement Award by Indian Science Congress (2004), the Science medal by the Academy of Science for the Developing World (2005), Ashutosh Mookherjee Memorial Award by Indian Science Congress (2005), etc. The President of India honoured Mashelkar with Padmashri (1991) and with Padmabhushan (2000), two of India’s highest civilian honours, in recognition of his contribution to building the nation.