India’s post-Independence service rules were designed to ensure stability through generalist administrators — an approach that was essential for nation-building. However, governance has since become increasingly shaped by science, technology, and environmental challenges. As scientists joined government service, they remained governed by rules created for a different era. This mismatch has limited the effective integration of scientific expertise into policymaking. Unlike many advanced countries with dedicated scientific cadres, India lacks a specialised framework for scientific governance, making the case for separate scientific service rules increasingly compelling.

A paradox — administrator and scientist

Civil services recruitment is highly competitive, reflecting the rigour of the administrative system. Scientific careers, however, follow an equally demanding but different path — drawing from a smaller, highly specialised pool shaped by years of advanced education, research and peer review rather than a single examination. Within government, administrators receive structured training aligned with governance roles, while scientists are often placed in diverse technical portfolios without comparable frameworks for role-specific training, career progression, or clear alignment of authority and professional safeguards.

Scientific inputs in policymaking are often commissioned for immediate needs — such as legal cases or regulatory decisions — making research time-bound and narrow. A stronger approach would support continuous, long-term research that anticipates emerging challenges, allowing decisions to be guided by evidence and foresight rather than urgency.

Until science becomes a regular partner in governance rather than a reactive tool, its full potential to improve policy and public trust will remain underused. Thus, most scientific research is not specifically designed to improve the effectiveness of existing policies or to meet the future needs of countries in shaping policy change.

As India’s responsibilities expanded into technically intensive sectors, environmental protection, climate change, oceans and coasts, public health, disaster management, nuclear safety, biotechnology, space science, and artificial intelligence, scientists became indispensable to government functioning.

Yet, instead of creating a distinct institutional framework that was suited to scientific work, scientists were largely absorbed into the existing administrative system. They continue to be governed by conduct rules, appraisal mechanisms, and hierarchies that were originally designed for general administrative functions. Over time, this has limited the ability of scientists to exercise their professional role fully within governance structures. While organisations such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and a few others have separate rules for recruitment, assessment, and promotion, they continue to be bound by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a framework designed primarily for administrative governance rather than scientific independence.

Administrative rules are not neutral

Service rules shape behaviour and culture. While civil service rules stress discipline and neutrality, scientific work requires questioning assumptions and presenting evidence even when it challenges policy. Without frameworks that accommodate this, scientific inputs remain advisory rather than fully integrated into decision-making.

Scientific progress depends on continuous inquiry, testing of evidence, and honest assessment of risks and uncertainties. In governance, this translates into the ability to flag ecological risks, technological limitations, or long-term consequences in a transparent manner. When scientists are unable to formally record or communicate such assessments within institutional processes, their role risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. Science that cannot question policy is not science. It is a decoration. Effective governance requires mechanisms that allow scientific assessments to be placed on record, even while final policy choices remain with elected authorities.

Many countries, which includes France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States have created distinct scientific cadres within government, with tailored service rules, career paths, and professional protections. These systems strengthen governance by ensuring transparent, independent scientific input into policymaking. For example, U.S. Scientific Integrity Policies protect scientists from political interference, require transparent documentation of advice, and prevent suppression or alteration of research findings, ensuring that policies are guided by credible evidence rather than political convenience.

India’s situation is distinctive. Despite strong scientific institutions and highly trained professionals, government scientists often have limited institutional authority relative to their expertise. Their inputs may not always carry formal weight in decision-making processes, particularly in technically complex sectors. This can result in cautious communication, limited documentation of uncertainty, and an over-reliance on science during crises rather than as a continuous input into policy formulation. A governance system that does not fully utilise its scientific capacity risks long-term policy weaknesses. India’s aspirations, to be a leader in climate action, environmental stewardship, public health, and technology, require institutions that value scientific evidence alongside administrative efficiency. What is needed is not additional committees or ad-hoc advisory bodies, but structural reform that clearly defines the role of scientists within governance and provides appropriate institutional safeguards.

The creation of an Indian scientific services, or ISS, offers a constructive way forward. The ISS could function as a permanent, all-India scientific cadre working alongside existing civil services. Scientists would be recruited through rigorous national-level selection and peer evaluation and placed within ministries and regulatory institutions as integral participants in decision-making. Separate scientific service rules would protect professional integrity, enable transparent recording of scientific assessments, and clarify the distinction between scientific advice and policy decisions. The ISS is not intended to replace administrative systems, but to complement them. Administrators ensure coordination and execution; scientists contribute evidence, risk assessment, and long-term perspective.

A potential framework

A possible structure for an ISS could include specialised cadres such as the Indian Environmental and Ecological Service, Indian Climate and Atmospheric Service, Indian Water and Hydrological Service, Indian Marine and Ocean Services, Indian Public Health and Biomedical Service, Indian Disaster Risk and Resilience Service, Indian Energy and Resources Service, Indian Science and Technology Policy Service, Indian Agricultural and Food Systems Service, and Indian Regulatory Science Service.

India has built strong scientific institutions. The next step is to integrate scientific expertise more directly into governance structures. The need for an ISS is no longer theoretical. It is a practical and timely reform to strengthen evidence-based policymaking and build more resilient governance for the future.

Under the current political leadership, India is steadily moving beyond its colonial legacy and building a confident new India. In this spirit, an ISS would be a forward-looking reform — much like the transformation of the Indian Civil Service after Independence — strengthening a science-driven administrative system that is aligned with India’s national aspirations and global ambitions .

P. Ragavan is a coastal ecosystem researcher with 15 years of research and field expertise on mangroves and seagrass. The views expressed are personal

Published – February 16, 2026 12:16 am IST

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) of Science and Technology Jitendra Singh during the inauguration of the Emerging Science, Technology and Innovation Conclave (ESTIC) 2025, at Bharat Mandapam, in New Delhi, on November 3, 2025.
| Photo Credit: PTI

Amid heightened tensions between the United States and China, the two countries signed a bilateral science and technology agreement on Dec. 13, 2024. The event was billed as a “renewal” of a 45-year-old pact to encourage cooperation, but that may be misleading.

The revised agreement drastically narrows the scope of the original agreement, limits the topics allowed to be jointly studied, closes opportunities for collaboration and inserts a new dispute resolution mechanism.

This shift is in line with growing global concern about research security. Governments are worried about international rivals gaining military or trade advantages or security secrets via cross-border scientific collaborations.

The European Union, Canada, Japan and the United States unveiled sweeping new measures within months of each other to protect sensitive research from foreign interference. But there’s a catch: Too much security could strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress.

As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked the increasingly close relationship in science and technology between the U.S. and China. The relationship evolved from one of knowledge transfer to genuine collaboration and competition.

Now, as security provisions change this formerly open relationship, a crucial question emerges: Can nations tighten research security without undermining the very openness that makes science work?

CHINA’S ASCENT CHANGES THE GLOBAL LANDSCAPE

China’s rise in scientific publishing marks a dramatic shift in global research. In 1980, Chinese authors produced less than 2% of research articles included in the Web of Science, a curated database of scholarly output. By my count, they claimed 25% of Web of Science articles by 2023, overtaking the United States and ending its 75-year reign at the top, which had begun in 1948 when it surpassed the United Kingdom.

In 1980, China had no patented inventions. By 2022, Chinese companies led in U.S. patents issued to foreign companies, receiving 40,000 patents compared with fewer than 2,000 for U.K. companies. In the many advanced fields of science and technology, China is at the world frontier, if not in the lead.

Since 2013, China has been the top collaborator in science with the United States. Thousands of Chinese students and scholars have conducted joint research with U.S. counterparts.

Most American policymakers who championed the signing of the 1979 bilateral agreement thought science would liberalize China. Instead, China has used technology to shore up autocratic controls and to build a strong military with an eye toward regional power and global influence.

Leadership in science and technology wins wars and builds successful economies. China’s growing strength, backed by a state-controlled government, is shifting global power. Unlike open societies where research is public and shared, China often keeps its researchers’ work secret while also taking Western technology through hacking, forced technology transfers and industrial espionage. These practices are why many governments are now implementing strict security measures.

NATIONS RESPOND

The FBI claims China has stolen sensitive technologies and research data to build up its defense capabilities. The China Initiative under the Trump administration sought to root out thieves and spies. The Biden administration did not let up the pressure. The 2022 Chips and Science Act requires the National Science Foundation to establish SECURE – a center to aid universities and small businesses in helping the research community make security-informed decisions. I am working with SECURE to evaluate the effectiveness of its mission.

Other advanced nations are on alert, too. The European Union is advising member states to boost security measures. Japan joined the United States in unveiling sweeping new measures to protect sensitive research from foreign interference and exploitation. European nations increasingly talk about technological sovereignty as a way to protect against exploitation by China. Similarly, Asian nations are wary of China’s intentions when it seeks to cooperate.

Australia has been especially vocal about the threat posed by China’s rise, but others, too, have issued warnings. The Netherlands issued a policy for secure international collaboration. Sweden raised the alarm after a study showed how spies had exploited its universities.

Canada has created the Research Security Centre for public safety and, like the U.S., has established regionally dispersed advisers to provide direct support to universities and researchers. Canada now requires mandatory risk assessment for research partnerships involving sensitive technologies. Similar approaches are underway in Australia and the U.K.

Germany’s 2023 provisions establish compliance units and ethics committees to oversee security-relevant research. They are tasked with advising researchers, mediating disputes and evaluating the ethical and security implications of research projects. The committees emphasize implementing safeguards, controlling access to sensitive data and assessing potential misuse.

Japan’s 2021 policy requires researchers to disclose and regularly update information regarding their affiliations, funding sources – both domestic and international – and potential conflicts of interest. A cross-ministerial R&D management system is unrolling seminars and briefings to educate researchers and institutions on emerging risks and best practices for maintaining research security.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development keeps a running database with more than 206 research security policy statements issued since 2022.

OPENNESS WANING

Emphasis on security can strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress. As much as 25% of all U.S. scientific articles result from international collaboration. Evidence shows that international engagement and openness produce higher-impact research. The most elite scientists work across national borders.

Even more critically, science depends on the free flow of ideas and talent across borders. After the Cold War, scientific advancement accelerated as borders opened. While national research output remained flat in recent years, international collaborations showed significant growth, revealing science’s increasingly global nature.

The challenge for research institutions will be implementing these new requirements without creating a climate of suspicion or isolation. Retrenchment to national borders could slow progress. Some degree of risk is inherent in scientific openness, but we may be coming to the end of a global, collaborative era in science.

(Author: Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University)

(Disclosure Statement: Caroline Wagner receives funding from SECURE, a research security service funded by the National Science Foundation. SECURE is administered by the University of Washington)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Japan is building a super-fast computer, the first of its kind, that will be 1,000 times faster than any computer we have now. It will be ready to use in 2030 and could cost over $780 million to make. This new computer will help Japan stay ahead in developing artificial intelligence (AI).

According to Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), development of a successor to the country’s flagship supercomputer, Fugaku, will begin in 2025. The supercomputer could reach speeds on a zetaFLOPS scale, which has never been achieved before.

According to Live Science, “Floating-point operations per second (FLOPS) is used to measure how fast computers can solve problems-where one floating-point operation is a single calculation. A supercomputer with a speed of 1 zetaFLOPS could make one sextillion (1 followed by 21 zeros) calculations per second. Today’s most powerful supercomputers have only just broken the exaFLOPS barrier, meaning they can make just over one quintillion (1 followed by 18 zeros) calculations per second.”

The Japanese news site Nikkei stated in a translated article that the decision to create such a powerful machine was taken “in order to keep up with the development of scientific research using artificial intelligence.”

According to ScienceAlert, supercomputers have proved consistently useful to scientists, helping researchers simulate black holes, discover new materials, model Earth’s future, and probe the foundations of mathematics. As these machines continue to get more powerful, we should see their capabilities expand too.Unlike quantum computers, supercomputers aren’t too different from the desktops and laptops we all use every day; they’re just scaled up to an incredibly high level. They’re still based on processors, memory, and storage, but taken to extremes.

An upgraded zetta-class machine could be trained on more data at a faster speed and produce results that are more detailed, more accurate, and more comprehensive. If all goes well, six years from now, there should be a new supercomputer standard.