Despite repeated calls to significantly increase public and private investment in R&D beyond the current 0.7 per cent of GDP, and some policy reforms, the ease of doing science and innovation in India’s institutions, especially in universities, has not improved. Why?
Improving science practice requires understanding how funds flow from government funding agencies to individual scientists. Scientific research depends on specialised chemicals, instruments, computers, and skilled manpower. The process starts with an individual or a group of scientists submitting grant proposals outlining aims, methods, deliverables, and budgets. Panels of experts evaluate these proposals and recommend whether they should be funded or not. Once approved, funds are released to institutions under specific budget heads after the required documentation is submitted.
However, the transition from funds being received to research being executed and innovation achieved is where significant delays occur.
The scientific ecosystem requires deep structural reforms at both funding agency and institutional levels to achieve speed and efficiency. At the government level, reforms should include transparent review processes for grant proposals with detailed feedback, reduced timelines (within six months) from submission to fund disbursement, online submission of all documents, including fund utilisation reports, and direct integration of institutional and funding agency finance systems. However, these measures address only part of the problem; the rest lies within institutions.
Also Read: Indian scholars love theory, policymakers want quick fixes. Both forget who they’re serving
The struggle to use research funds
While government agency-level reforms are necessary, the most persistent hurdles are internal to institutions. Most funds are now managed through the Zero-Balance Subsidiary Account (ZBSA) and the Public Financial Management System (PFMS). While intended to enhance accountability and real-time visibility, these systems, combined with the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), often hinder research.
Funds received in February, for example, must be spent and accounted for before the end of March of the same financial year, as unutilised funds have to be returned to the government agency at the end of the financial year under the ZBSA system. Although well-intentioned and aimed at improving financial management, this adds layers of complexity and takes additional time. The government has also indicated that this system will eventually be integrated into a unified government banking framework, the Treasury Single Account (TSA) system, aimed to centralise resources, improve financial management, enhance spending efficiency, provide real-time visibility of cash flows, and strengthen accountability.
Most scientists are unaware of these processes in detail, as they are handled by finance departments. Delays become evident during procurement. For example, scientists must first check the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal and are required to purchase listed items through it. While intended to streamline procurement, GeM often limits access to high-quality equipment and chemicals due to vendor practices and cost-based selection. All purchases must also comply with the General Financial Rules (GFR), which are often unclear despite recent relaxations.
The approval process itself is highly bureaucratic, typically requiring paperwork to go through between seven and ten individuals of various ranks multiple times. Often, there are requests for additional documentation before the necessary approvals are obtained.
For purchases between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 25 lakh, multiple steps are required, including the formation of a purchase committee, vendor selection, and approvals across several administrative levels up to the institute head, followed by a financial approval process. Repeated file movements lead to delays. Once approvals are finally obtained, procurement, documentation, and payment processing through PFMS can take two to three months if everything is in place. Larger purchases require even more complex tendering processes, which can take up to six months to a year.
Also Read: Ashoka & ISB model now in Bihar. Philanthropy, premium faculty to power Pravaha University
Cutting red tape for better research
To foster a conducive environment for research and innovation, certain structural changes at the institutional level are essential.
Foremost among these is the establishment of a simple, single-window and time-bound online system to handle administrative and financial clearances for all purchases and tendering processes.
Decentralisation is key: scientists must be granted financial autonomy without excessive bureaucratic or administrative oversight, and without the need for repeated approvals from the head of the institution. This can only be achieved through a clear, step-by-step written institutional framework that standardises procurement procedures for all goods and services required for scientific work.
Administrative and finance department staff should be trained to understand how the flow of funds enables scientific progress and societal advancement. They should also be retained in their roles without frequent intra-departmental transfers.
Linking institutional finance departments with funding agencies would streamline the submission of expenditure-related documentation, making the process faster, simpler, and more efficient.
Finally, all of this will be truly effective only if scientists are permitted to bypass the GeM portal when quality requirements are not met, without the burden of obtaining non-availability certificates. A simpler and more practical General Financial Rules (GFR) framework tailored for scientific research is needed as well.
The current system for utilising research and development funds in our institutions, especially universities, is cumbersome and excessively bureaucratic. It diverts scientists’ focus from teaching and research by forcing them to navigate administrative workflows and spend excessive time on people management.
Without measurable structural changes that prioritise researchers’ time and autonomy, increasing R&D budgets will fail to yield the desired scientific advancements in our institutions. Accountability on the part of researchers must be balanced with the freedom to execute ideas efficiently.
Binay Panda is a Professor at the School of Biotechnology, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)