The National Education Policy is being implemented — with a difference. The national research foundation bill augurs the fulfilment of the NEP promise of an institution that would steer and fund research under the science and technology ministry. Its aim would be to upgrade scientific research in India. That seems hopeful, because in spite of the huge pool of talent, excellent laboratories, outstanding teachers, guides, higher education institutions and specialised institutes, India cannot be said to have realised its potential in scientific research. If the NRF pushes India towards its full capability by not just evaluating and funding research proposals but also by linking research institutions with industry and state governments, inviting funds from both, it can be a good thing. That is a wider function than the present research board — the NRF will absorb it — performs under the same ministry.

The question is, though, should research depend on one primary institution? This is one of the concerns of academics and scientists who have expressed doubts about the proposed NRF. Multiple research agencies each with their core interests offer a larger scope for researchers with proposals: they have options. One agency under the government is likely to limit rather than free research. It is here that the subtle difference with the NEP matters. Instead of a rotating board of governors functioning independently of the government as it promised, the NRF will have the prime minister as president, the science and education ministers as vice-presidents and the government’s principal scientific adviser as the head of the executive committee. It is as though scientific research is being hijacked by the government, one that pushes its ideology-based beliefs about the Indian knowledge system, about stem cell research and plastic surgery in ancient India, for instance, or panch gavya. It will lean on industry for funding — of the Rs 50,000 crore promised between 2023 and 2028, the private sector will supply Rs 36,000 crore. For the natural sciences, or any study with long-term effects, this is a grave disadvantage. The authoritarian environment that disallows even discussions on laws used against dissenters, as happened recently at a reputed science institute, hobbles research in any case. To be of genuine help, the NRF should not be run by politicians, neither should it be the only, or primary, research funding agency in the country.