INDIA WILL be a developed country by 2020. No speech of the President or Prime Minister in the recent past has ended without this proclamation. The repeated proclamation has raised expectations that will be difficult to sell. This is because there hardly exists any blueprint of how this gargantuan task of raising per capita income from $400 to $ 2,000 in 16 years can be achieved without worsening the equity aspect. Even if a blueprint exists, it has never been articulated openly.

One of the ways the dream can be actualised is to focus on science and technology. Historically, S&T has remained the single most important contributor to the growth of all developed countries irrespective of the level from which they started. The emphasis on S&T in those countries is evidenced by rising investments. This is followed by focussing on sectors such as software, communications, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, which have the largest spillover effect on growth and development. Given the high capabilities of some Indian firms in these sectors such as Infosys, Midas Communication, Natco Pharma, Ranbaxy and Shantha Biotechnics, any increase in research investment in these sectors is sure to facilitate manufacturing sectors on competing globally.

Another important aspect of this S&T led growth is realising the true potential of industry-university/science linkage. The importance of this linkage stems from the fact that science without industry (technology) will not create wealth or improve the quality of life, nor will industry prosper without continuous research.

This article briefly delves into the present state of this linkage in the Indian context. It gives an outline of what should be done to strengthen the links that would facilitate realising the dream.

Current status of R&D

Two important indicators reflecting the state of R&D in any country are the per capita R&D investment (or R&D to GDP ratio) and the per capita pool of scientists. So far investments in S&T in India have been highly inadequate. Against a global annual expenditure on R&D of $500-600 billion, India spends a mere $2.5 billion, which is slightly above what Merck, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical firm, spent ($2.1 billion) in1999. Compared to this the U.S. Federal outlay on S&T was $85 billion.

The objective of raising investment in S&T to 2 per cent of GDP by 2007 as declared in the New Science Policy is a step in the right direction. From an all-time low R&D intensity of 0.71 per cent in 1995-96, the increase to 0.87 per cent in 1999-00 is an indication of the growing importance accorded to R&D. However, the real fruits of this investment will come only if R&D in India becomes close-ended, that is, it should have more linkages to the end-user. This can be done if the untapped potential of industry-university linkage is more actively harnessed.

Another characteristic of Indian R&D institutions militating against vigorous R&D capabilities is the outnumbering of technical manpower by the support staff. Against an average 149 research scientists and engineers in India for every million population, the three largest spenders on S&T — the U.S., Japan and Germany — have, on an average, 3,805 research scientists and engineers.

The recent past has witnessed a sea-change in the ways business is being conducted in India. As a consequence, any S&T strategy must involve all the three legs of the tripod — the academia (universities), the government and industry.

As of now, because of mutual exclusiveness of their interests, the three players are working without any coordination. Government interest in research is mainly of the strategic or directed type, influenced by defence requirements, public health, environmental issues and similar concerns. Industry's interests are mainly applied in nature whereas universities or academic institutions channel their efforts and resources in fundamental and unidirectional research.

Still, history is replete with examples where academia through constant interaction with industry played a prominent role in fostering its growth and competitiveness. Silicon Valley is one such example where the Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, not only created an industry but played an active role in its growth.

Yawning gap

Barring a few exceptions like the IITs and private institutions (such as the Shriram Institute in Delhi) most of the research in universities has no link with the needs of industry. A number of reasons can be cited for this.

The more important ones are lack of any industrial experience; choice of research topics based mainly on the interest of the supervisor; publication-oriented research with an eye on quick promotion; and outdated research labs and equipment which make research look `virtual' in nature.

Part of the problem lies in interpreting the definition of R (Research) & D (Development). R&D has rarely been considered a single word. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Research and Development have been considered the flip sides of the coin. Research always implied `pure' research aimed at finding out how nature works and was considered the monopoly of universities, whereas development entailed the improvement of existing technologies and was considered the domain of industry.

The outcome of all these is that either there is a complete mismatch between industry's needs and academic research or sometimes industry is unaware of the research going on in the institutions. There is no denial of the fact that universities and research centres also lack skills to market their products. Some of these gaps can easily be bridged if there is a proper interface between industry and academics.

Developed countries such as the U.S., the U.K. and France understood the dynamics of this gap and created institutions/agencies leading to an effective interface.

For instance, CNRS in France, SERC (Scientific and Engineering Research Council) in the U.K. and federal agencies in the U.S. such as NASA have acted in the past and continue to act as an effective interface between industry and academia. A similar interface organisation in India can easily bring out the best of the available resources and investment.

Both government and industry can submit their problems and research needs to this agency which can identify the most suitable place _ a research centre or university or a group of them _ where the research can be undertaken.

Incidentally, this gap is not specific to India or developing countries. Most developed countries had this gap in the not- too- distant past. However, these countries realised that if this gap was not bridged, the end-result would be detrimental to growth.

As a result, the past 2-3 decades have witnessed the U.S., followed by the U.K. and other OECD countries embarking on an action plan to reduce this gap.

How to reduce the gap

The following initiatives from industry will go a long way to reduce the gap between it and academia:

Carrying out an inventorisation of the need, that is, what kind of human resources and skills it would need in future;

Providing support for student projects;

Sponsoring long-term research;

Holding periodic seminars in collaboration with universities;

Sharing equipment and facilities with universities.

It is not that these initiatives are not present in India, only thing is they are still at the surface. For example, the use of electronics in machine tools since the early Seventies has resulted in a new branch of engineering called `mechatronics.' Some engineering colleges in India are already churning out engineers in this field. Similarly, a recent spurt in demand for bio-informatics has led some universities to offer this course. Still one can learn from the experiences of developed countries like Japan, the U.S. and Sweden. For instance, the Kochi University of Technology, Japan, has set up special curricula to cater to the need of merging engineering and business management. Likewise, the Chalmers University, Gothenburg, receives nearly half of its funding from industry through different collaborative projects.

On the other hand, some initiatives are needed from the university side also. These include recognising the fact that in today's scenario the needs of industry are totally different. Not only the person needed by industry should have formal engineering skills, but he should also have good communication skills and an understanding of how technology links up to economics and the commercial world. A more rewarding initiative from the university would be inviting industry to participate in periodic review of syllabi and course content at undergraduate and graduate levels.

Despite these initiatives, the linkage between the two may not come out very strong initially. This is due to the present style of functioning of each, called the `cultural-mismatch.'

Zaky and El-Faham give a number of factors hampering synergies between the two. The accompanying Table summarises these.

Besides these, lack of effective communication deprives both parties of vital information regarding their respective priorities and capabilities. However, it is to be noted that most of these differences are not insurmountable. The recent trend of curtailing financial support to university and other research labs has made them pro-active in carrying out applied research. Not only are CSIR labs such as NCL, CBRI and CCMB doing applied research having direct relevance for the end-user, the projects are also funded and supported by the industry.

Once the ball starts rolling, the interactions will provide multiple benefits to both parties having a multiplier effect on growth. Besides securing financial support, universities can reap many benefits that include making use of sophisticated and expensive industrial equipment and facilities; gaining first hand industrial experience; identifying problems leading to sponsored research projects or consulting opportunities; and attracting students from industry for a continuing education or professional advancement programme.

Despite the aspirations of developing countries to leapfrog, their `science policies' often miss a most obvious link, namely, the industry-university linkage. The neglect looks all the more appalling given the fact that industry is the single most direct beneficiary of university's engineering programmes. On an average, more than 90 per cent of graduates are employed by industry, government or private utilities. This dependence and the direct role of industry in the growth of a nation warrants strengthening of ties with universities.

The amazing rate of advances in both science and technology has resulted in research becoming not only more detailed and specialised but also more expensive. To some, it has led to `pulverisation' of research, that is, knowing more and more about less and less. However, when science becomes useful for practical purposes it metamorphoses to technology and then requires development. Thus, it becomes imperative that scientific research and technological development coalesce to help achieve the aspirations of high growth, wealth creation and improvement in quality of life.