"Science can no longer remain an activity conducted *for* society but *without* society." Discuss this in the context of India's research governance.

Science's "social contract" says the state funds research and scientists return useful knowledge. It treats citizens as taxpayers and beneficiaries, not as partners. In India, the government pays about 64% of a GERD of only 0.64% of GDP [1], so "society" largely means the state. Bringing citizens in has become necessary, but it has to be designed with care.

Why science needs society's participation

• Trust and legitimacy: As trust in institutions falls, people support science more when they have a say in it. The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) explicitly recognises citizen and participatory science [2].
• Dependence on one patron: Private R&D has been stuck at about 0.25% of GDP [1]. With the state as almost the only funder, it can demand quick returns or micromanage research, and nobody balances it.
• Accountability of the state: The research foundation's Rs 2,000 crore allocation fell to Rs 259 crore at revised estimates in 2023-24. DST also spent about 18% less than its budget on average over 2018-24 [1]. Citizens with a stake in research create pressure on the state to keep its promises.
• Relevance: Water, crops and air quality are local problems, and citizen data and needs-mapping make research on them more useful.

Gaps and cautions in India's framework

• Draft Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) Policy, 2019: It asks each scientist for 10 person-days a year of outreach and proposes a portal to collect society's needs [3]. This is one-way "giving back", not partnership, and the policy is still not confirmed as final.
• Thin research base: India had only about 260 researchers per million people in 2015. Standing Committee Report No. 343 found that universities are mainly teaching centres [1]. A compulsory outreach duty on so few people could turn into box-ticking.
• Counter-view: Citizens tend to choose visible, near-term problems. If they picked individual projects, curiosity-driven basic research could lose funding.

Way forward

• Under the ANRF Act, 2023 [4], consult citizens on broad mission areas, keep peer review for individual projects, and ring-fence a fixed share of funds for basic research.
• Make SSR two-way, so that needs gathered on the portal feed into ANRF and DST calls for proposals.
• Follow OECD (2025) guidance for funding agencies on embedding citizen science [5].
• Release the money that is budgeted, and set out a credible, year-by-year path to higher GERD.

Science for society now has to become science with society. Tiered participation would renew the contract: citizens shape priorities, experts judge merit, and the state funds reliably. This would strengthen public trust and give life to the duty to develop scientific temper under Article 51A(h).