[Answered] Science must be unfettered to be useful. Analyze how government procurement norms, like GeM, impact the autonomy of scientific institutions, affecting research freedom and India’s innovation ecosystem.

Introduction

India ranks 40th in the Global Innovation Index 2023, reflecting growing R&D capacity. However, bureaucratic procurement norms like the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) often constrain scientific autonomy and innovation output.

The Nexus of Scientific Freedom and Procurement Regulation

The Government e-Marketplace (GeM), launched in 2016 to ensure transparency and cost-efficiency in public procurement, became mandatory for scientific institutions by 2020. While rooted in principles of good governance, the one-size-fits-all approach of GeM has often come at the cost of research flexibility, scientific accuracy, and timely innovation.

GeM and the Challenges to Scientific Autonomy

1. Low-Cost, Not High-Quality Approach: GeM mandates lowest-price bidding (L1), sidelining quality-specific procurement critical to research. For example, different grades of sodium chloride are chemically similar but differ in purity, impacting experimental outcomes significantly.
2. Vendor Limitations for Specialized Equipment: India lacks a deep industrial base in high-precision lab instruments or biological molecules, and GeM often does not list the vendors required for cutting-edge work. Procuring customised CRISPR kits or nano-scale lithography tools becomes unfeasible through GeM.
3. Delays in Procurement and Lost Research Windows: Time-sensitive research — such as viral genome sequencing during pandemics — suffers due to lengthy procurement processes. In competitive global science, such delays can derail entire projects and collaborations.

Institutional Impact on India’s Research Landscape

1. Loss of Reproducibility and Research Integrity: Reproducibility — a cornerstone of scientific reliability — is undermined if original materials cannot be sourced. Labs may be forced to use alternate chemicals or machines, diluting results and causing research wastage.
2. Discouragement of Ambitious Research: With constrained access to high-grade materials, institutions often scale down project scope, focusing on what is feasible rather than what is visionary. This stifles breakthrough innovations, particularly in sectors like space research, biotech, and AI hardware.
3. Demoralization and Brain Drain: Talented Indian researchers, particularly in elite institutions like IISc, IITs, and CSIR labs, express frustration over procurement bottlenecks. This contributes to brain drain, as scientists migrate to more enabling ecosystems abroad.

Recent Corrective Measures and the Way Forward

1. Exemption for Scientific Institutions (2024): The government’s recent order exempting research institutions from GeM norms marks a turning point. It aligns with earlier autonomy models where institutions could directly engage trusted vendors based on project needs.
2. Balancing Accountability with Flexibility: Procurement reforms should embed scientific discretion within transparent oversight, allowing domain experts to define vendor requirements while maintaining auditability.
3. Encouraging Domestic Manufacturing Through Innovation Hubs: Instead of restrictive mandates, support for technology incubators and public-private partnerships can organically build domestic capability in scientific equipment, thereby enhancing self-reliance without stifling science.

Conclusion

Science thrives not under coercion but freedom. Procurement norms must enable, not encumber, innovation. India’s innovation destiny hinges on freeing science from bureaucratic chains while ensuring transparent, mission-driven governance.