India’s Research Ecosystem Under the Microscope: What the First Ease of Doing Research Survey Reveals

• First nationwide Ease of Doing Research survey highlights systemic bottlenecks in India’s R&D ecosystem.

• Heavy dependence on government funding; minimal private and international support access.

• Lengthy approval, fund disbursement, and procurement timelines disrupt research efficiency.

• Post-doctoral funding gaps and scholarship delays strain the academic pipeline.

• Women disproportionately impacted by career breaks.

• Strong demand for structural reforms to boost competitiveness.

India’s scientific community has received a candid reality check. In mid-2025, a pioneering Ease of Doing Research (EoDR) survey—spearheaded by NITI Aayog—captured the experiences of researchers across some of the country’s premier institutions. The findings, accessed by The Economic Times, shed light on structural bottlenecks that continue to challenge the nation’s R&D landscape, from funding shortages and administrative delays to limited industry engagement and gender disparities.

A Broad-Based Survey of India’s Scientific Community

The study gathered 878 responses from fellows affiliated with the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), the National Academy of Sciences, India (NASI), central universities, and leading technical institutions such as IITs and NITs. Respondents spanned academic ranks and research disciplines. Women comprised 24.5% of participants, while men accounted for 75.5%, reflecting the broader gender imbalance in India’s research ecosystem.

Funding Sources: Heavy Reliance on Government Support

More than half of the respondents (52.5%) reported receiving financial support from the Department of Science and Technology (DST). Another 37.7% cited the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), while 30.6% relied on institutional funding.

In stark contrast, private funding remains marginal—just 13% of researchers indicated receiving support from industry sources. Compared with R&D-intensive economies such as the United States, South Korea, and Germany, India’s private-sector contribution to research funding appears notably limited.

When it comes to central Extra Mural Funding (EMF), 59.2% of researchers described the process as highly competitive and demanding significant effort. An additional 15% characterized access to such funding as rare.

On the question of adequacy, government funding earned mixed reviews. While 31% deemed it sufficient, 39% said it met their needs only partially. Institutional funding fared worse: 37% labeled it inadequate, and 27% found it only partly sufficient.

The Missing Private Sector

The survey highlights a glaring funding gap beyond government channels. A significant 68% of researchers reported having no access to industry or CSR funding. Nearly three-quarters (73%) said private foundations were out of reach, and 60% indicated they lacked opportunities for international funding support.

Interestingly, when industry funding does materialize, it offers certain advantages. Researchers pointed to flexible fund utilization (73%), streamlined administrative processes (58.7%), improved financial availability (48.6%), and greater autonomy in hiring project personnel (41.3%).

Yet industry engagement remains sporadic. Over 76% of respondents stated that companies seldom support R&D initiatives in their fields. Additionally, 45.9% observed that corporate expectations for quick, market-ready outputs often clash with the longer timelines required for rigorous scientific inquiry. Another 23% identified the absence of standardized intellectual property-sharing mechanisms as a deterrent to collaboration.

Government vs. Industry: A Matter of Alignment

Despite administrative hurdles, a clear majority—62.5%—expressed a preference for government funding over private or industrial backing, particularly among researchers focused on fundamental science. In fact, 74% favored public funding over corporate sources.

However, preferences were more evenly split among those engaged in applied or translational research. This suggests a possible disconnect between the nature of research undertaken and the funding ecosystems currently available.

The Long Journey from Proposal to Project Completion

Perhaps the most telling insights relate to timelines.

On average, researchers spend two months drafting a proposal. After submission, they typically wait between seven and fifteen months for a decision. Even after approval, the sanctioning process can take another six months to two years, with funds arriving roughly five months later. This leaves investigators with only about seven months to utilize the allocated budget before deadlines loom.

If funds lapse, an additional four months may pass before they are reinstated. Closing out projects is no simpler: even after meeting objectives and filing required documentation, researchers report waiting seven months to two years for final settlement and fund release.

Procurement and Spending Challenges

Administrative delays extend to equipment purchases. Around 12.6% of respondents said acquiring research equipment takes more than a year, while 39% reported waiting between six months and a year.

Nearly 40% of researchers admitted they were unable to spend their allocated funds within the prescribed timeframe. Among them, 51% blamed delays in receiving sanctioned amounts, and 20.6% cited internal administrative bottlenecks.

Education Pipeline Concerns: The Post-Doctoral Gap

The survey also underscores a fragile support system for young researchers. Roughly one-third (33.8%) reported that their institutions lacked dedicated funding for Ph.D. and post-doctoral scholars. While 25.4% indicated funding schemes existed for Ph.D. candidates, a mere 1.4% reported dedicated support exclusively for post-doctoral researchers.

Scholarship disbursement timelines add another layer of strain. On average, scholars wait 3.5 months to receive government stipends, and half of respondents reported delays stretching close to a year.

Women in Research: The Career Break Disparity

Gender disparities surfaced sharply in the survey. While 93.5% of respondents said they had not taken career breaks, among those who had, women accounted for 83%—a disproportionately high figure compared with their overall representation in the workforce. The findings point to systemic challenges that disproportionately affect women in STEM careers.

A System Ready for Reform

The EoDR survey paints a detailed portrait of India’s research environment: committed scientists navigating complex funding processes, uneven private-sector participation, prolonged administrative cycles, and structural inequities.

As policymakers examine these findings, the challenge ahead is clear. Simplifying procedures, expanding funding diversity, strengthening post-doctoral support, and creating inclusive career pathways could be pivotal steps in enhancing India’s research productivity and global competitiveness.

The message from India’s researchers is not one of resignation—but of urgency.