Why Indian Science Fails to Produce Nobel Laureates?
(By Vivek Polshettiwar)
India hasn’t produced a Nobel laureate in science in the last few decades. It’s easy to blame the government, “India doesn’t spend enough on research.” Indeed, public investment in R&D must rise to at least 3% of GDP, as current levels remain modest. But is money really the main problem?
The Indian government has, in recent years, taken commendable steps to strengthen science — from increasing research budgets (though far more is still needed) to promoting fundamental and translational research, start-ups, and self-reliant innovation. However, systemic resistance from within academia has slowed this progress.
Take, for example, one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions, founded by one of India’s greatest visionaries. Once a cradle of fundamental science and high-quality PhD training, and even today among the most generously funded, why is it losing scientific leadership? Today, this institute cannot guarantee even one PhD student per faculty per year, despite thousands of applicants. It struggles to provide good-quality laboratory space for experimental researchers. Basic facilities are outdated; funds are often distributed based on connections rather than performance, and filing a patent filing takes several months due to bureaucratic hurdles. Faculty and students are banned from launching start-ups to translate discoveries. If this is the state of one of our top institutions, what might conditions be elsewhere? Dreaming of a Nobel in such an environment feels increasingly distant.
Leadership that prioritizes control over creativity has turned many temples of science into bureaucratic fortresses. So, is the government responsible for this stagnation or is it academia itself? The answer, unfortunately, points to a crisis of leadership and vision within the system. Even a tenfold increase in funding will not bring transformation unless institutions are led by visionary scientists in the spirit of Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai.
The First Rot: How We Hire Our Scientists
Let’s start with the foundation - recruitment.
India has a large pool of talented scientists, yet many of them are unable to secure academic positions. At the same time, our institutions are filled with faculty engaged in poor, incremental research. Doesn’t this suggest that something is fundamentally wrong with the way we hire scientists and faculty? Are we truly evaluating candidates based on quality and merit, or are connections, regional bias, and patronage shaping these decisions? Is our faculty selection process transparent, fair, and merit-based, or do we need deep reforms to bring meaningful change?
Even for those who make it through, the struggle only begins. Setting up a lab in India often requires fighting for every piece of equipment, every student, and every square foot of space. Internal politics, especially regional and disciplinary bias, consumes enormous energy. Instead of focusing on creative, high-risk science, young scientists spend their crucial early years navigating bureaucracy and internal resistance. By the time they are settled, the drive to dream big is often lost.
The Race for Publications, Awards - Not for Breakthroughs
Once the lab finally starts, the rat race begins.
In Indian academia, success is measured not by the quality or impact of your discoveries, but by how many papers you publish and awards/medals you collect. The Indian scientific ecosystem is flooded with fellowships, medals, and awards, distributed generously by national academies and countless societies every year. We celebrate quantity over quality, visibility over value. The result? Scientists chase citations, committees, and ceremonies, not ideas.
Many of us get caught in this race, willingly or not, because stepping out means being sidelined, no funding, no visibility, no support. It is a system designed to reward conformity and incremental work, not originality and risk-taking. When scientists are busy competing for recognition instead of solving hard problems, how can Nobel-level discoveries or transformative technologies emerge?
The Way Forward: Let the Gen Z Lead
The problem is not just with policies - it’s with people. Indian academia is trapped in a leadership time-warp, they talk reform, but fear change. While the wisdom and experience of senior leaders are invaluable, progress requires their partnership with younger leaders who bring fresh ideas, urgency, and a global perspective.
The so-called Gen Z of Indian academia, scientists aged 40 to 50 years, accomplished internationally yet still brimming with energy, ambition, and courage, must now be empowered to contribute to India’s scientific transformation. At least half of the leadership positions, including Directors, Vice-Chancellors, Secretaries of DST/DBT/CSIR/DAE, and the Principal Scientific Adviser’s office, should be opened to this Gen Z of Indian academia. Let them reshape the system with fresh ideas and courage, just as Bhabha and Sarabhai did in the early years of Indian science. If we fail to do this, Indian academia will remain trapped in a culture of mediocrity, busy publishing incremental papers, exchanging awards, and applauding each other’s mediocrity. There will be no real breakthroughs, and certainly no Nobel Prizes.
The Path to a Self-Reliant Scientific India
Because we have built a system that values safety over risk, hierarchy over talent, and self-congratulation over self-criticism. We have created an ecosystem that breeds awards, not ideas; networks, not innovations. Until we dismantle this system, beginning with transparent hiring, merit-based funding, and visionary leadership, India will remain a land of potential, not of discovery.
But let’s be clear - India is not short of brilliance.
India is filled with extraordinarily talented researchers, passionate teachers, and outstanding students. What holds them back is not the government, which has, in recent years, launched commendable initiatives for fundamental and translational research, start-ups, and innovation, but a system within academia that resists change and blocks visionaries. If academia reform and align with the government’s vision of a self-reliant India, our science can rise again, to produce Nobel-level discoveries and technologies that the world will one day import from us. At the same time, the government must continue to expand investment in research, aiming for 3% of GDP, and foster the inclusion of younger academic leaders who can drive this transformation with urgency and creativity.
Prof. Vivek Polshettiwar
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai
PS: These are my personal reflections after two decades inside Indian academia, from the lab bench to committee rooms. I say this not out of cynicism, but conviction: Indian science can rise again, but only if we dare to break the comfort of the “Chalta Hai” culture and reward courage over conformity.
A distilled version of this argument has been published by The Indian Express, at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-sci-tech/expert-explains-indian-science-fails-nobel-laureates-10353295/
(By Vivek Polshettiwar)
India hasn’t produced a Nobel laureate in science in the last few decades. It’s easy to blame the government, “India doesn’t spend enough on research.” Indeed, public investment in R&D must rise to at least 3% of GDP, as current levels remain modest. But is money really the main problem?
The Indian government has, in recent years, taken commendable steps to strengthen science — from increasing research budgets (though far more is still needed) to promoting fundamental and translational research, start-ups, and self-reliant innovation. However, systemic resistance from within academia has slowed this progress.
Take, for example, one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions, founded by one of India’s greatest visionaries. Once a cradle of fundamental science and high-quality PhD training, and even today among the most generously funded, why is it losing scientific leadership? Today, this institute cannot guarantee even one PhD student per faculty per year, despite thousands of applicants. It struggles to provide good-quality laboratory space for experimental researchers. Basic facilities are outdated; funds are often distributed based on connections rather than performance, and filing a patent filing takes several months due to bureaucratic hurdles. Faculty and students are banned from launching start-ups to translate discoveries. If this is the state of one of our top institutions, what might conditions be elsewhere? Dreaming of a Nobel in such an environment feels increasingly distant.
Leadership that prioritizes control over creativity has turned many temples of science into bureaucratic fortresses. So, is the government responsible for this stagnation or is it academia itself? The answer, unfortunately, points to a crisis of leadership and vision within the system. Even a tenfold increase in funding will not bring transformation unless institutions are led by visionary scientists in the spirit of Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai.
The First Rot: How We Hire Our Scientists
Let’s start with the foundation - recruitment.
India has a large pool of talented scientists, yet many of them are unable to secure academic positions. At the same time, our institutions are filled with faculty engaged in poor, incremental research. Doesn’t this suggest that something is fundamentally wrong with the way we hire scientists and faculty? Are we truly evaluating candidates based on quality and merit, or are connections, regional bias, and patronage shaping these decisions? Is our faculty selection process transparent, fair, and merit-based, or do we need deep reforms to bring meaningful change?
Even for those who make it through, the struggle only begins. Setting up a lab in India often requires fighting for every piece of equipment, every student, and every square foot of space. Internal politics, especially regional and disciplinary bias, consumes enormous energy. Instead of focusing on creative, high-risk science, young scientists spend their crucial early years navigating bureaucracy and internal resistance. By the time they are settled, the drive to dream big is often lost.
The Race for Publications, Awards - Not for Breakthroughs
Once the lab finally starts, the rat race begins.
In Indian academia, success is measured not by the quality or impact of your discoveries, but by how many papers you publish and awards/medals you collect. The Indian scientific ecosystem is flooded with fellowships, medals, and awards, distributed generously by national academies and countless societies every year. We celebrate quantity over quality, visibility over value. The result? Scientists chase citations, committees, and ceremonies, not ideas.
Many of us get caught in this race, willingly or not, because stepping out means being sidelined, no funding, no visibility, no support. It is a system designed to reward conformity and incremental work, not originality and risk-taking. When scientists are busy competing for recognition instead of solving hard problems, how can Nobel-level discoveries or transformative technologies emerge?
The Way Forward: Let the Gen Z Lead
The problem is not just with policies - it’s with people. Indian academia is trapped in a leadership time-warp, they talk reform, but fear change. While the wisdom and experience of senior leaders are invaluable, progress requires their partnership with younger leaders who bring fresh ideas, urgency, and a global perspective.
The so-called Gen Z of Indian academia, scientists aged 40 to 50 years, accomplished internationally yet still brimming with energy, ambition, and courage, must now be empowered to contribute to India’s scientific transformation. At least half of the leadership positions, including Directors, Vice-Chancellors, Secretaries of DST/DBT/CSIR/DAE, and the Principal Scientific Adviser’s office, should be opened to this Gen Z of Indian academia. Let them reshape the system with fresh ideas and courage, just as Bhabha and Sarabhai did in the early years of Indian science. If we fail to do this, Indian academia will remain trapped in a culture of mediocrity, busy publishing incremental papers, exchanging awards, and applauding each other’s mediocrity. There will be no real breakthroughs, and certainly no Nobel Prizes.
The Path to a Self-Reliant Scientific India
Because we have built a system that values safety over risk, hierarchy over talent, and self-congratulation over self-criticism. We have created an ecosystem that breeds awards, not ideas; networks, not innovations. Until we dismantle this system, beginning with transparent hiring, merit-based funding, and visionary leadership, India will remain a land of potential, not of discovery.
But let’s be clear - India is not short of brilliance.
India is filled with extraordinarily talented researchers, passionate teachers, and outstanding students. What holds them back is not the government, which has, in recent years, launched commendable initiatives for fundamental and translational research, start-ups, and innovation, but a system within academia that resists change and blocks visionaries. If academia reform and align with the government’s vision of a self-reliant India, our science can rise again, to produce Nobel-level discoveries and technologies that the world will one day import from us. At the same time, the government must continue to expand investment in research, aiming for 3% of GDP, and foster the inclusion of younger academic leaders who can drive this transformation with urgency and creativity.
Prof. Vivek Polshettiwar
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai
PS: These are my personal reflections after two decades inside Indian academia, from the lab bench to committee rooms. I say this not out of cynicism, but conviction: Indian science can rise again, but only if we dare to break the comfort of the “Chalta Hai” culture and reward courage over conformity.
A distilled version of this argument has been published by The Indian Express, at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-sci-tech/expert-explains-indian-science-fails-nobel-laureates-10353295/
