The Union Budget 2026-27 presented science as an instrument of growth, with large numbers on biopharma, semiconductors, carbon capture, and research-linked industrial finance on paper. However, expert reactions to this budget point to a more fragile reality.
As the state attempts to move from adopting technologies to creating them, by building mission-linked platforms in biopharma, semiconductors, critical materials, and climate, it seems that the limiting factor isn’t the ambition of schemes but what the government actually delivers — including reliable and timely funds, autonomy for research institutions, and the transparency and performance of large finance vehicles for innovation.
In 2023-24, allocation for the Department of Biotechnology was revised down from ₹2,683.86 crore (BE) to ₹1,607.32 crore (RE), and actual spending fell further to ₹1,467.34 crore. Likewise for the Department of Science and Technology, from ₹7,931.05 crore (BE) to ₹4,891.78 crore (RE) and actuals of ₹4,002.67 crore. Even in 2024-25, when the Depart of Biotechnology’s RE of ₹2,460.13 crore exceeded its BE, the Department of Science and Technology experienced a sizeable cut from ₹8,029.01 crore (BE) to ₹5,661.45 crore (RE).
Biopharma SHAKTI
Against this backdrop, L.S. Shahisdhara, director of the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru, framed the biopharma outlay as welcome but incomplete. He pointed to “significant funding shortfalls following major changes introduced in 2024-25 to the fund-flow system” and to delays in the transition from the Science and Engineering Research Board to the Anusandhan National Research Foundation.
According to him, some of the under-spending in recent years may have been less about lack of intent and more about administrative disruption. The budget, he said, has at least avoided “punishing” science departments for that disruption by cutting overall allocations.
The biggest allocation this year was for a new programme called ‘Biopharma SHAKTI’, of ₹10,000 crore over five years. Department of Biotechnology secretary Rajesh Gokhale said it will address non-communicable diseases and scale indigenous development and manufacturing of biologics and biosimilars. He linked it explicitly to the earlier DBT-National Biopharma Mission.
Dr. Gokhale also said the next set of ambitions would include cell and gene therapy missions, biomanufacturing hubs and biofoundries, and “Moolankur” hubs that integrate AI with biology.
Big-ticket infra
The technical case for such a push is obvious. India has real competencies in vaccines, diagnostics, and bioengineering. The issue is whether the outlay will broaden the base or only thicken the top layer of applied programmes. Dr. Shahisdhara expressed caution related to this: if Biopharma SHAKTI is administered primarily through the Department of Pharmaceuticals, as planned, it could privilege downstream manufacturing goals while neglecting the upstream life-science ecosystem that produces the tools and ideas.
So he asked that the Department of Pharmaceuticals “actively engage the broader life sciences community” in design and implementation. He also said longstanding prevention programmes and the routine issuance of small- and medium-sized grants could deliver high social returns — but only if agencies and the Finance Ministry’s Expenditure Division fix the problem of “smooth and timely fund flow”.
A similar tension appears in the budget’s embrace of big-ticket infrastructure linked to ‘missions’. N. Kalaiselvi, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) director-general N. Kalaiselvi read the budget as “a strong and reassuring affirmation” of science as an engine of growth and self-reliance.
She highlighted sustained support to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the CSIR and welcomed mission-mode initiatives such as Biopharma SHAKTI, India Semiconductor Mission 2.0, the new carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) mission, and expanded support for electronic components manufacturing, and critical minerals.
Gap in astronomy
IIT-Madras Institute Professor T. Pradeep also welcomed the way the budget embedded research “across multiple mission-mode initiatives” and said platforms and infrastructure that span multiple sectors, such as clinical trial networks and industry-linked training centres, could improve India’s translational capacity and “full-stack” capabilities. His proviso, however, was that the budget “largely presents policy perspectives”. He also said he expected “various missions/ministries to allocate sector-specific funding” in the coming years.
This has in fact been a recurring problem in India’s research ecosystem: the government often proclaims science as a foundation for missions but often defers the stable, long-term financing required for that foundation to future plans.
Raman Research Institute director Tarun Souradeep remarked favourably on the budget’s support for major national observational facilities and recalled the various spin-off technologies these facilities have produced, including CCD imaging and instruments for high-frequency communications.
‘Globally fashionable script’
However, National Institute of Advanced Studies adjunct professor C.P. Rajendran articulated a counterpoint: that while the Finance Ministry’s proposal to upgrade four astronomy facilities, including the National Large Solar Telescope and the National Large Optical Infrared Telescope, at ₹3,500 crore could strengthen the field, the support for the Indian Institute of Astrophysics has stagnated while a set of autonomous institutes including the Institute has received only ₹1,623 crore.
More broadly, Dr. Rajendran said the budget followed a “globally fashionable script” that privileges applied sectors such as space applications and semiconductors while continuing to underfund basic research. He added that India’s gross expenditure on R&D has hovered around 0.64-0.7% of GDP for years, which when adjusted for inflation amounts to cuts in real terms. He also said the state’s hope that private capital will carry domestic R&D hasn’t materialised at the required scale.
While Dr. Shahisdhara welcomed the ₹20,000 crore for the Research, Development and Innovation Fund, Dr. Rajendran recalled that a promise in the 2024-25 budget to deploy ₹1 lakh crore over seven years has been followed by only ₹3,000 crore disbursed so far.
Likewise, Panjab University vice-chancellor Renu Vig lauded the budget’s emphasis on “university townships” as a move towards integrated industry in education but she also argued that the Centre shouldn’t bypass legacy State universities in favour of new enclaves. Instead, she suggested a “thematic cluster” where “a legacy State university leads in the basic sciences, humanities, and regional innovation, while technical institutes provide the necessary toolsets.
“This kind of multi-disciplinarity is the core of the National Education Policy 2020 and it is already in the DNA of legacy institutions. These universities educate more than 80% of our students and have built the nation’s intellectual foundation over decades; they are a national asset that must be nurtured to ensure the success of India’s new educational map,” Dr. Vig added.
T.V. Padma is a science journalist based in New Delhi. Vasudevan Mukunth is science editor, The Hindu.
Published – February 11, 2026 03:00 pm IST
