The Union Budget 2026-27 presented science as a tool for growth, with slews of biopharma, semiconductor, carbon capture, and research-related industrial funding on paper. But experts’ reactions to this budget point to a more fragile reality.
As the country attempts to move from adopting technologies to creating them, by building mission-relevant platforms in biopharma, semiconductors, biomaterials and climate, the limiting factor appears to be not the ambition of the schemes, but rather what the government actually delivers – including reliable and timely funds, the autonomy of research institutions, and the transparency and performance of large innovation funding instruments.
In 2023-24, the allocation to the biotechnology department was revised from Rs 2,683.86 crore (BE) to Rs 1,607.32 crore (RE), and the actual expenditure further reduced to Rs 1,467.34 crore. Likewise for the Department of Science and Technology, from Rs 7,931.05 crore (BE) to Rs 4,891.78 crore (RE) by Rs 4,002.67 crore. Even in 2024-25, when renewable energy biotech departures of Rs 2,460.13 crore crossed the BE level, the science and technology department saw a significant reduction from Rs 8,029.01 crore (BE) to Rs 5,661.45 crore (RE).
Biopharma Shakti
Against this backdrop, LS Shashidhara, director of the National Center for Biosciences in Bengaluru, described spending on biopharma as welcome but patchy. He pointed to a “significant shortfall in funding following the major changes introduced in 2024-25 to the fund flow system” and delays in the transition from the Science and Engineering Research Council to the Anusandan National Research Foundation.
(To read the comments of Dr. Shashidara and other experts quoted in this article in full, click here.)
According to him, some of the underspending in recent years may have been less due to lack of intent and more due to administrative obstruction. He said the budget at least avoided “penalizing” science departments for this disruption by cutting overall allocations.
The largest allocation this year was for a new program called ‘Biopharma SHAKTI’, worth Rs 10,000 crore over five years. Biotechnology Minister Rajesh Gokhale said the program will address non-communicable diseases and expand local development and manufacturing of biologicals and biosimilars. He explicitly linked it to the earlier DBT-National Biopharma Mission.
Dr Gokhale also said the next set of ambitions would include cell and gene therapy missions, biomanufacturing and biofoundry centres, and ‘Moulincore’ centers that integrate artificial intelligence with biology.
Big ticket infrared
The technical condition of such a batch is clear. India has real competencies in vaccines, diagnostics and bioengineering. The issue here is whether spending will broaden the base or merely thicken the top layer of programs in place. Dr. Shashidhara expressed caution regarding this: If Biopharma SHAKTI is managed primarily through the pharmaceuticals division, as planned, it could privilege downstream manufacturing targets while neglecting the upstream life sciences ecosystem that produces tools and ideas.
He therefore asked the Department of Pharmaceuticals to “actively engage the broader life sciences community” in design and implementation. He also said that long-term prevention programs and the routine issuance of small and medium-sized grants can deliver high social returns – but only if agencies and the Finance Ministry’s Expenditure Division fix the problem of “smooth and timely flow of funds.”
A similar tension is evident in the budgetary embrace of expensive infrastructure associated with “missions.” Kalaiselvi, Director General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) read N. Callis described the budget as a “strong and reassuring affirmation” of science as an engine of growth and self-reliance.
She highlighted the continued support of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and CSIR and welcomed mission mode initiatives such as Biopharma SHAKTI, India Semiconductor Mission 2.0, the new Carbon Utilization and Storage (CCUS) mission, and expanded support for manufacturing of electronic components, and critical minerals.
The gap in astronomy
IIT-Madras professor T. Pradeep also welcomed the way the budget includes research “across multiple mission mode initiatives” and said platforms and infrastructure spanning multiple sectors, such as clinical trial networks and industry-linked training centres, can improve translational capacity and “full stack” capabilities in India. But his condition was that the budget “largely presents political views”. He also said he expected “different missions/ministries to allocate funding to specific sectors” in the coming years.
This has actually been a recurring problem in India’s research ecosystem: the government often declares science as a foundation for missions, but often defers the stable, long-term funding required for this foundation to future plans.
Director of the Raman Research Institute, Tarun Souradeep, made a positive comment on budgetary support for major national monitoring facilities and pointed out the various spin-off technologies produced by these facilities, including CCD imaging and high-frequency communications instruments.
“Internationally modern text”
However, National Institute of Advanced Studies Assistant Professor C P Rajendran made a counterpoint: While the Finance Ministry’s proposal to upgrade four astronomy facilities, including the Large National Solar Telescope and the Large National Optical Infrared Telescope, at a cost of Rs 3,500 crore could boost the field, support to the Indian Institute of Astrophysics has remained stagnant while a group of autonomous institutes including the Institute have received only Rs 1,623 crore.
More broadly, Dr Rajendran said the Budget followed a “global modern script” that privileges applied sectors such as space applications and semiconductors while continuing to underfund basic research. India’s total R&D spending has hovered around 0.64% to 0.7% of GDP for years, which equates to reductions in real terms when adjusted for inflation, he added. He also said that the state’s hope that private capital would carry out local research and development has not been achieved to the desired extent.
While welcoming Rs 20,000 crore for the RDI Fund, Dr Rajendran pointed out that the promise in the 2024-25 Budget to disburse Rs 1,000 crore over seven years has been followed by disbursement of only Rs 3,000 crore so far.
Likewise, Punjab University Vice-Chancellor Renu Vij hailed the budget’s focus on ‘university towns’ as a move towards integrated industrialization in education, but also said the Center should not bypass old state universities in favor of newer enclaves. Instead, it proposed the creation of a “thematic cluster” where “a well-established state university would lead basic sciences, humanities, and regional innovation, while technical institutes would provide the necessary toolkits.”
“This kind of interdisciplinarity is at the core of the National Education Policy 2020 and is already in the DNA of legacy institutions. These universities educate over 80% of our students and have built the intellectual foundation of the nation over decades; they are a national asset that must be nurtured to ensure the success of India’s new educational map,” Dr. Vij added.
TV Padma is a science journalist based in New Delhi. Vasudevan Mukunth is Science Editor, Hindu.
