In February 2025, Pune-based KPIT Technologies transferred its sodium-ion battery technology to Trentar Energy Solutions, which is now building a 3 GWh manufacturing facility around the platform. The chemistry promised energy density between 100 and 170 Wh/kg, alongside nearly 80% capacity retention across 3,000-6,000 cycles.
(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly education newsletter.)
The announcement of the project was significant not simply because India had produced another battery technology, but because the entire research-to-commercialisation chain had actually worked. Thus, a functional technology had shifted from laboratory-scale development to industrial deployment within roughly fourteen months.
In India’s scientific ecosystem, that is still rare. India produces growing pools of highly trained scientific talent, files thousands of patents every year, and expands research capacity through institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs), the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), and publicly funded laboratories. Yet only a small fraction of that research ultimately converts into large-scale industrial value.
The numbers behind India’s research ambitions
In the realm of research, India’s Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) remains approximately 0.64-0.66% of GDP, significantly below major scientific economies. On the other hand, China spends over 2.4% of GDP on R&D. While the United States spends around 3.5%, South Korea exceeds 4.5% and Israel spends over 5% of their GDP.
However, researchers argue that the problem is not only the size of India’s R&D spending, it is also the structure of that spending.
In India, nearly 60-64% of R&D expenditure still comes from the government sector, including central agencies, state institutions, higher education institutions, and public sector enterprises. While the private industry contributes roughly around 36%. However, in countries such as the U.S., China, Japan, and South Korea, the ratio is reversed. Business enterprises drive the majority of R&D spending and play a dominant role in commercial innovation.
This imbalance has created what many researchers describe as India’s “translation gap”, a persistent inability to move scientific discoveries from laboratory proof-of-concept to scalable industrial deployment.
T.V. Venkateswaran, Visiting Professor at IISER Mohali, argues that India’s scientific ecosystem remains structurally fragmented. As per him, Indian industrialists tend to become involved in scientific research only at a later stage when commercial feasibility comes into sight and the element of technical risk is already minimised. He said, “Industry does not generally indulge in long gestation, high risk fundamental or translational research.”
He said, “Industrial units prefer technology acquisition or in-house incremental research and development activities. Public labs and bodies like CSIR still carry out major early-stage scientific risks. The pattern is thus repeated as follows: Science is developed by public bodies; while commercial gains go to foreign or private sector.”
‘Valley of death’ in Indian science
Policy reports from NITI Aayog, The Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser and the Ministry of Science and Technology have constantly drawn attention to the issue which is internationally recognised as the “valley of death”—the challenging phase between discovery in the laboratory and commercially viable products.
During this phase, technologies need infrastructures, translational funding, manufacturing validation, regulation clarity, and patient capital. India’s ecosystem is still deficient in this middle level.
Prof. V. Ramgopal Rao, Vice-Chancellor of the BITS Pilani University Group and former Director of IIT Delhi, stated that the country tends to get stuck at the stage of “paper, patent or prototype. Commercialisation happens only when someone decides to take the tough middle phase on their shoulders,” he stated.
According to Prof. Rao, industry participation in India comes into play only when there is evident commercial value.
“An ideal situation would be one where industry comes into the picture much earlier with problem formulation, manufacturability, testing procedures, and cost targets in the very design of research,” he opined.
In his opinion, India does not have translational institutions dedicated to the process. “We need institutions which bridge the gap between university and industry having common facilities, professional management, IP services, industrial problems, funding, etc., to take the technology from TRL 3 to TRL 8,” he explained.
Without such institutional arrangements, “India risks becoming a country which produces science while letting other countries profit from it.”
Why Indian industry avoids early-stage scientific risk
Various reasons have been offered for why Indian companies are reluctant to engage in pioneering science.
1. Risk aversion and short-term returns
An expert on the condition of anonymity said, “Historically, Indian companies were structured along lines of process optimisation, efficiency gains, service provision, and technology adaptation, not cutting-edge scientific discovery. After the economic liberalisation policies of 1991, several industries embedded themselves within global supply chains via licensing, outsourcing, and contract manufacturing, and not innovation. For example, in pharmaceuticals, India became a global leader in contract manufacturing and contract research but lagged behind in drug discovery.”
“After economic liberalisation, the emphasis was on integration into the global economy and foreign collaboration, not building domestic capacity”, he said. This created what he calls “dependent learning paths,” where Indian firms often operate downstream in global innovation chains rather than leading them.
2. Weak translational infrastructure
Experts say that India has islands of excellence — IITs, IISc, IISERs, certain CSIR labs — but lacks large-scale shared translational infrastructure. Pilot plants, advanced testing facilities, technology transfer offices, manufacturing validation centres, and industry-linked translational ecosystems remain limited. Many researchers say technologies die not because the science fails, but because no institution exists to carry them through scale-up.
3. Fragmented policy architecture
India has come up with several policies – BIRAC, Atal Innovation Mission, ANRF, PLI schemes, technology clusters, semiconductor missions, and the upcoming ₹1 lakh crore Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
However, according to researches, India’s innovation system still operates in silos. As Prof. Harish Kumar, Chairperson of Research and Assistant Professor at Great Lakes Institute of Management Gurgaon, puts it, “India today has ‘pipes but no plumbing’.” He asserts that most policies have been designed to be supply side interventions aimed at research output, without adequately addressing the industrial demand for deep tech innovations. Where there needs to be movement is on the demand side. Indian corporates should start writing big R&D cheques.”
4. Minimal private sector R&D
An expert on the condition of anonymity said that major scientific nations derive 65% to 75% of their R&D from private industry. The involvement of India’s private sector in the field of R&D is quite low. Industrial conglomerates undertake selective R&D investments in industries where they can see a commercial way forward. Small & Medium Enterprises lack financial muscle to support years of research funding.
“Investments in deep-tech ventures are also hesitant. Ventures in software platforms and consumer technology tend to receive greater attention due to quicker exit options compared to scientific ventures with longer gestation period’, he said.
Producing more researchers than the system can absorb?
Aside from issues related to commercialisation, there is another issue now being discussed: Does India generate research-trained students faster than the Indian academic and industrial environments can accommodate them?
Mr. Venkateswaran disagrees with the claim that there is an overproduction of scientific manpower in India. Using the example of manufacturing exports, he suggests that scientific brain drain should not be seen as failure. “Why not think of the movement of talent as one for goods and services?” he asked.
However, on the other hand, he emphasized that India still lacks researcher density. “Today, India has about 250–300 researchers per million population. In China, there are over 2,000. Russia even has over 2,700. Even Iran’s researcher density is much higher than that of India. We have terribly low researchers per million,” he said.
Inside the student experience: Ambition, anxiety, and uncertainty
For many students, research can be a carefully thought-out decision but also an unsure career path.
According to Rashid Mushtaq, an FPM scholar of marketing at the Great Lakes Institute of Management Gurgaon, research positions within industries are still rather obscure for Ph.D. candidates. “In the Indian environment, industry-specific research roles are not always easily available to Ph.D.s,” he stated.
He explained that many researchers prefer academia since it seems like the only clear career option for someone who holds a Ph.D. degree. “There seem to be fewer industry research R&D opportunities; these are hidden, unclear, and not related to the Ph.D. path,” he continued.
Mr. Mushtaq also referred to the fact that there was an imbalance in the number of people with Ph.D. degrees and the lack of positions. “The numbers of Ph.D. scholars are way higher than the permanent faculty members and research roles available,” he added.
Another researcher and doctoral candidate, Dhanasri N.L., mentioned that research is not just an academic pursuit, but a condition brought on by uncertainty. “It’s a constant thing in my daily life, even every moment,” she confessed, talking about research anxiety. She further said, “Is this the right choice? What is my plan B? They have already published in a journal, what am I going to do? Where am I going to end up?”
For her, uncertainty extends beyond careers into broader questions of identity, stability, relationships, and long-term life planning. “Research is honestly exhausting. It is a game of endurance and persistence more than intelligence alone,” she said. Her reflections reveal how deeply career uncertainty shapes the lived experiences of young researchers.
While many students start their research journey due to intellectual curiosity or passion for studies, gradually issues of insecurity, career prospects, delayed stability, and lack of alternatives begin affecting decision making. Ms. Dhanasri states that “one of India’s biggest shortcomings is not even a lack of opportunities, but a lack of knowledge”.
“We are rigorously trained in academia but not equally aware of the rest of the ecosystem outside it,” she said.
The Ph.D. pipeline and the question of career visibility
The Indian system was perceived by several interviewed scholars as being oriented towards sending students into doctoral studies without any clear planning of what happens afterwards.
The entrance into the system takes place thanks to the UGC-NET and JRF scheme. For certain students, fellowships mean greater financial stability than jobs in an unstable market. However, according to researchers, the system may create certain aspirations without having enough research positions for its graduates.
As Mr. Mushtaq claims, many students start pursuing their doctoral degrees not because of genuine research interests, but due to the more structured academic pathway compared to other career paths.
An expert says that awareness regarding industrial R&D careers is relatively low as well. As opposed to placements and internships in business administration or engineering disciplines, most Ph.D. programs lack mechanisms through which students get exposed to industry research ecosystems. The resulting gap contributes towards reinforcing the notion that academia should be the natural destination for career planning.
According to Prof. Gokulananda Patel, Professor of Decision Sciences at BIMTECH Greater Noida, the current education system still focuses more on examination results, placements, and employment prospects than on cultivating a spirit of scientific inquiry among young scientists. “Young researchers in India often operate under the purview of the projects undertaken by their supervisors,” he commented.
On top of that, mentorship and career support for non-academic jobs have not been prioritized, according to Mr. Patel. “Most faculty members guide students towards pursuing Ph.D. degrees and research careers,” he commented.
Brain drain or global scientific mobility?
India’s long-standing migration of scientific talent remains one of the most contested dimensions of the debate. Each year, large numbers of Indian STEM graduates pursue doctoral programs, postdoctoral positions, and research careers abroad. For some policymakers, this represents a brain drain. For some, it is part of the role that India plays within a larger international scientific community.
According to Prof. Harish Kumar, India is already well on its way towards being a leading supplier of research brainpower. “We’re educating engineers in Roorkee and Madras, and we’re creating the economic value of their skills in Mountain View”, he said.
One reason for the exodus of IIT and IISc students is that they tend to move overseas in a few years after their degrees, especially in burgeoning fields like AI and machine learning. The choice is seen by the students as one that revolves more around ecosystems than it does about patriotism or migration.
Financial security, infrastructure, freedom to conduct research, prospects for career, respect within the institution are the recurring themes when discussing why researchers decide whether or not to stay in India.
Mr. Mushtaq believed that if similar prospects were available at home, most would choose to stay. Ms. Dhanasri was of the opinion that scientists these days look beyond salaries and weigh other quality-of-life issues as well.
Can IISERs balance Pure Science and industrial relevance?
Alongside the discussion of commercialisation and industry alignment, yet another critical issue is being debated: Whether institutions like IISERs should continue to stay devoted to fundamental science or align themselves with applied and industrial research?
Experts have emphasized that this must not become a binary choice. “Fundamental science was underinvested by our country for historical reasons, which resulted in creating IISERs and IISc,” Prof. Kumar asserts. Forcing them to align themselves with short-term industrial objectives, he warns, may end up diluting the scientific capacity of the system. “The right strategy will be to build parallel architecture,” he said.
His suggestion is to continue treating IISERs as institutions of fundamental science along with creating mission-oriented translational institutes, similar to the Fraunhofer Society in Germany or national laboratories in the U.S.
“Trying to build a Nobel Prize and an IPO from one institute usually ends up in failing at both,” he said. Prof. Venkateswaran, too, believes that academic productivity should remain the main criterion for institutions like IISERs. As per him, publications and development of scientific manpower continue to be key markers of research institutions. However, in his opinion, they cannot escape evaluation on parameters related to inclusiveness and social justice, among others.
The crisis inside scientific publishing
The issues in India’s research environment are also unfolding across the globe in academic publishing.
V. Ramgopal Rao notes how the global peer review system, the traditional backbone of scientific publishing, is now experiencing increasing stress. A number of journal editors have commented on their struggle to get sufficient peer reviewers. As many editors are quoted as stating, they need to approach dozens of people just to get two peer reviews done.
Meanwhile, the world of scientific publishing has seen numerous instances of peer-review fraud. Hundreds of papers have been withdrawn from journals like Wiley, Sage, Frontiers, PLOS One, among others. This includes papers involving fake reviewer networks, forged reviewer identities, and coordinated citation schemes. The situation, according to Prof. Rao, is indicative of problems in the system of scientific publications.
Given the increasing load on editorial work and reduced participation of peer reviewers, more journals have had to resort to rapid desk rejections and filter systems. But the larger outcome is that the credibility of scientific publishing is now being questioned. As Prof. Rao put it, “without reliable peer review, the credibility of the published science itself is in peril.”
In his view, academic institutions should see peer reviewing as institutional duty and not mere “good karma” activity.
Building the missing middle layer
Despite structural weaknesses, researchers say India possesses many foundational ingredients required for scientific transformation.
The country has:
• Expanding higher education capacity
• Large pools of STEM graduates
• Competitive public institutions
• Growing start-up ecosystems
• Strategic state-led missions in semiconductors, AI, quantum technologies, and clean energy
• Successful examples in vaccines, digital public infrastructure, and space technologies
The challenge lies in building institutional continuity between discovery and deployment.
Researchers repeatedly point toward the need for:
• Stronger university-industry linkages
• Professional technology transfer offices
• Shared translational infrastructure
• Industry-funded doctoral programs
• Long-term patient capital
• Regulatory predictability
• Greater private-sector R&D participation
• Better career visibility for research graduates
• Stable research employment pathways
Patel argues that India ultimately requires balance. Fundamental science drives long-term breakthroughs. Applied research converts discoveries into economic and social value. Without both, sustainable scientific leadership becomes difficult.
The larger national question
An expert on the condition of anonymity said, “For India, scientific aspirations now stand at a pivotal juncture. There is a growing research infrastructure through institutes, fellowships, innovation missions, and doctorates. However, the system to absorb, sustain, and commercialise the talent generated is far from homogeneous. The key issue is no longer whether India has the ability to produce scientists. That much is clear. Instead, it is whether India is able to create the industrial, financial, and institutional structure needed to give their work long-term direction and stability.’
He said, “As scientific communities have never developed in a vacuum. Whether in Britain’s Industrial Revolution, America’s post-War emergence as a scientific superpower, Germany’s combination of manufacturing and science, Japan’s development of industrial research, South Korea’s ecosystem for scientific innovation, and China’s government-led approach to innovation – science has always been connected to a broader industrial and economic context.’
He added, “Generating knowledge may not be enough for sustained scientific superiority. Indeed, it is only in the process of moving from discovery to product, industry, institution, and ultimately national capability that scientific ecosystems truly transform societies. This was shown in the KPIT-Trentar partnership. The real challenge will be making sure that such examples are not an exception.’
(Uttkarsha Shekhar is an independent journalist whose interests span defence, science, environment, education, entertainment and fashion.)
Remove