SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

CHANGING POLICY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN INDIA

Krishna V.V.
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Keywords: India, science and technology olicy, innovation policy, policy cultures,
liberalization

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Four Science and Technology Policy Cultures
2.1. Political-Bureaucratic Culture
2.2. Industry-Market Culture

S
TE S
2.3. Academic Culture
2.4. Civic Culture

R
AP LS
3. Different Phases of S&T Policy
3.1. 1947 to 1970: Phase of Optimism in “Policy for Science”
3.2. 1970s to 1990: From Optimism to Critical Evaluation
C EO
3.3. After 1991: New Economic Reforms, Liberalization, and Globalization
3.3.1. Biotechnology
3.3.2. Information Technology
4. Changing Trends in Science as Social Institution
E –

4.1. Wealth from Knowledge

H

4.2. Withering Boundaries and Hybrid Communities

PL O

4.3. Incorporating Interests, Accountability, and a Reward Structure

4.4. Management of R&D and Entrepreneurial Activity
M SC

5. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
SA NE

Biographical Sketch

Summary
U

Four S&T policy cultures—political-bureaucratic, industry-market, academic, and

civic—are defined here in order to explore the institutional growth of science and
technology in India during the second half of the twentieth century. Within this
perspective, the article attempts to trace different phases and trends in S&T policies.
Three main phases are identified—1947–1970 (optimism in “policy for the sciences”),
1970s–1990 (from optimism to critical evaluation), and after 1991 (new economic
reforms, liberalization, and globalization)—and used when exploring the growth of
S&T. Personalities in science and politics who have played an important part in shaping
India’s S&T policies during different phases are considered. Having traced the growth
of S&T policies in historical terms, the article focuses on S&T policy challenges in the
present era of market reforms and globalization. How are these factors influencing the
research system? What institutional changes are being introduced? What are the
implications concerning “science as public good” versus “science as market good”?
And what are the current challenges?

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

1. Introduction

In India discussion of S&T policies emerged, in terms both of scholarly and policy
relevant discourse, in the latter phase of the colonial period around the beginning of the
twentieth century, and has clear roots in the anti-colonial struggle. Debates on the
reception of modern western science in India, on modes of industrialization during the
colonial phase, on the struggle to institutionalize and professionalize the Indian
scientific community, and the efforts towards establishing some key universities and
scientific and technological institutions between 1900 and 1947, were all rooted in the
actions and S&T policy debates of the Indian scientific élite and political leaders led by
Gandhi, Subhas Bose, and Nehru. Some glimpses of this discourse in the important
decade before India’s independence can be found in the first-ever Indian science policy
journal, Science and Culture, launched by the eminent Indian physicist M.N. Saha in
1938 and still published today.

S
TE S
This is not the place to go into the details of the genesis of these studies in India, which

R
AP LS
is covered by much scholarly writing. The present essay attempts to map out a
perspective of S&T policy cultures relevant to developing countries such as India in the
context of the post-colonial and post-war period. After this brief survey, it explores
C EO
different phases in S&T policies in India during the period between the late 1940s and
the 1990s. This will examine the key actors, agencies, and institutions that have shaped
India’s S&T policies, key milestones in different periods, the main agendas pursued,
and other issues. We will conclude by exploring current trends in the era of economic
E –

liberalism and globalization, placing them in the context of developments in the

H

emerging knowledge industry.

PL O

2. Four Science and Technology Policy Cultures

M SC

In India more than 75 percent of total S&T funding, including gross expenditure on
research and development (GERD), comes from the government. For this reason,
government policies and attitudes play a crucial role in decision making regarding the
SA NE

development of science and technology. Despite this, other actors, agencies, and
institutions contribute to the overall structure of S&T policy. Thomas Kuhn and Ruivo
have drawn our attention to “phases” or “paradigms” of science policy. Different
U

paradigms signify different models of the utilization and regulation of S&T research
systems. Heterogeneous groups of actors—including politicians, scientists and
engineers, academicians, diplomats, industrialists, business representatives, and opinion
leaders from civil society—influence S&T policies or goals in science, collectively or
otherwise, leading to different patterns of science and policy frameworks (Science and
Technology Policy). We can identify four distinct but overlapping policy patterns as
four different S&T cultures: “political-bureaucratic,” “industrial-market,” “academic,”
and “civic,” as relevant to the Indian context. As Elzinga and Jamison observe, these
policy cultures:

… might be thought of … coexisting within each society, competing for resources and
influence, and seeking to steer science and technology in particular directions. These
cultures, which stand out as representative of the dominant voices … represent different
political and social interests and draw on different institutional bases and traditions for

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

their positions. Each policy culture has its own perceptions of policy, including
doctrinal assumptions, ideological preferences, and ideals of science, and each has a
different set of relationships with the holders of political and economic power.

These four policy cultures display differences in development priorities, policy

instruments, ethos, and core constituencies with regard to science, technology and
development issues at the national level. The categorization of these policy cultures can
be taken as “universal” in the sense that they are relevant within the contexts of most
individual nations. However, they are to be understood and framed here with specific
reference to India. Each policy culture will be considered here briefly to this end.

2.1. Political-Bureaucratic Culture

The historical roots of this policy culture can be traced back to the centralized S&T

S
TE S
decision-making processes established by the British colonial administration. In the
post-independence period Pandit Nehru, India’s first prime minister, played an

R
AP LS
important part and is credited with having forged an important alliance with the
scientific élite. From the beginning, élite scientists who were heads of large science
agencies like the Atomic Energy Commission and the Council of Scientific and
C EO
Industrial Research were made part of the bureaucracy, as they were given positions
equivalent to those of civil servants and thus came under the Public Service rules of the
government.
E –

In the post-independence period, the “tacit” alliance between this scientific élite (a form
H

of technocracy) and the political leadership come to dominate the decision making
PL O

system in India, and continues to do so to a great extent even today. This policy culture
is dominated by science departments, councils, advisory bodies, committees, and
M SC

science agencies, where the technocracy controls the S&T budgets and takes major
decisions relating to S&T “in consultation” with the government of the day. Priorities in
scientific research are set by the government and the political party in power, and the
approach to decision making is generally “top-down.” The core constituencies of
SA NE

decision making are centered around bodies such as ministries, S&T councils, and state
planning regimes. Since political power ultimately rests on the democratic election
process, “science as public good” may claim considerable legitimacy.
U

2.2. Industry-Market Culture

This policy culture is dominated by private business and market interests, and is
generally represented by bodies such as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and
the Federation of Indian Chambers and Commerce (FICCI). It emphasizes
entrepreneurship, the use of knowledge in businesses, liberal policies for technology
transfer, and tariff concessions for local industrial firms. By and large market-related
criteria are adopted for assigning priorities in R&D; and “science as market good”
assumes considerable importance.

2.3. Academic Culture

This hardly needs much elaboration here. Much of the concern here is for maintaining

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

autonomy and scientific excellence. The academic community and its élite play a
crucial role in setting priorities in science. The academic policy culture is grounded in
what has been labeled “mode 1” of knowledge production, as opposed to a “mode 2”
more open to influence by day to day challenges. This policy culture emphasizes the
importance of science as a profession, and of scientific communities, a disciplinary-
bound science, peer evaluation in scientific decision-making, and the importance of
universities.

2.4. Civic Culture

As Elzinga and Jamison point out, “civic culture articulates its position through public
interest organizations as well as through campaigns and movements, and its influence is
obviously determined by the relative strength of the civil society in a country’s overall
political culture.” In the Indian context, the civic culture in S&T is represented by

S
TE S
various groups and movements. In the environment and ecological field, movements led
by Baba Amte, Medha Patkar, S. Bahuguna, and C.P. Bhatt, among others, provide

R
AP LS
good examples. Then there are large popular science movements led by organizations
such as Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishand (KSSP)—an all-India movement. In different
ways, the historical roots of such recent civic involvement can be traced to the efforts of
C EO
M.K. Gandhi and the Gandhian-based Sarvodaya Movement, with regard to the
application of science and technology for development.

3. Different Phases of S&T Policy

E –
H

The S&T policy-making process and its bearing on society is best understood from a
PL O

historical perspective. In the Indian context, three main overlapping phases in S&T
policy making can be defined. The intensity or varying influences of the different S&T
M SC

policy cultures mentioned above during these different phases are shown in Table 1.

Main science and technology cultures

Periods Political– Industry– Academic Civic
SA NE

bureaucratic market
1947– Very high Low influence Moderate
1970 influence influence
U

1970s High influence Low influence - Low

influence
1980s High influence Low influence - Moderate
influence
1990s Moderate High influence - Moderate
influence influence

Table 1. The influence of different science and policy cultures

3.1. 1947 to 1970: Phase of Optimism in “Policy for Science”

In this phase the political-bureaucratic culture exerted a dominant influence, mainly

through a science–politics alliance initiated by Nehru with scientists such as Homi

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

Bhabha, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, Mahalanobis, J.C. Ghosh, and D.S. Kothari, among
others, who played an important role in drawing political support for building various
science institutions and science agencies. The growth of Indian S&T in this initial phase
cannot be understood without examining closely the relations between science and
politics, particularly the close alliance referred to above. As early as 1947, when
addressing the 34th Session of the Indian Science Congress, Nehru initiated the alliance
with scientists by observing “that in India there is a growing realization of this fact that
the politician and scientist should work in close cooperation.” In contrast to Gandhi’s
critical stance towards modern science and technology, Nehru’s modern, secular image
and—most of all—his unquestioned support for science made him a “messiah” for the
development of science in India. The scientific community in general, and its élite in
particular, could immediately identify with his vision of science and development as
they also found him a great promoter of their interests. Nehru once declared that:

S
TE S
It is science alone that can solve the problem of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and
illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running

R
AP LS
over waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people. I do not see any way out of
our vicious circle of poverty except by utilising the new sources of power which science
has placed at our disposal.
C EO
(These statements by Nehru are quite well known, but their source is rarely identified.
The first is from Science Reporter, July–August 1, Volume 1, 1964. The second is from
“The Tragic Paradox of our Age,” New York Times Magazine, September 7, 196])
E –
H

This era witnessed a great deal of optimism about science and development. The
PL O

Manifesto of the Congress Party for the first national government in 1945 declared:
M SC

Science, in its instrumental fields of activity, has played an ever increasing part in
influencing and moulding human life and will do so in even greater measure in the
future … Industrial, agricultural and cultural advance, as well as national defence,
depend on it. Scientific research is, therefore, a basic and essential activity of the state
SA NE

and should be organized and encouraged on the widest scale.

This period reflects a phase of “policy for science,” during which the main emphasis
U

was on creating a basic infrastructure for S&T in the country, including the expansion
of the university sector to supply the necessary human resources. It was during this
period that India’s finest five Indian Institutes of Technology were planned.
Infrastructure development in S&T also included substantial efforts towards building
what may be termed the techno-industrial capacity of engineering, consulting, design,
and development organizations. There were 42 such organizations by 1970 in the
private sector and eight in the public sector. These institutions were to promote
partnership between science and technology in the processes of capital goods industries;
absorption of imported technology into areas such as power, chemicals, and metallurgy;
and to complete turnkey processing, plant design and engineering, and erection and
commissioning of plants in the major sectors of S&T.

Major mission-oriented science agencies such as DAE and CSIR, DRDO were either
established or rapidly expanded during this phase. Pre-independence Indian science was

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

focused on universities, but the post-independence expansion of science under the

auspices of the government emphasized these science agencies. The postwar “science
push” and “pipeline innovation” models triggered considerable optimism in the
organization of science institutions in various sectors, from atomic energy to industrial
research. Nehru and eminent scientists like Homi Bhabha, who is regarded as the father
of India’s atomic energy programme, were instrumental in getting the first-ever official
Scientific Policy Resolution (SPR) passed in the Indian Parliament in 1958. This
document is still an important landmark, since it has repeatedly been used to justify the
funding and expansion of the S&T institutional base.

One of the notable features of the science–politics alliance of the Nehru era was that the
growth and nature of the S&T institutions in different sectors was influenced by the
interests of the élite scientists who were close to Nehru. These people included S.S.
Bhatnagar in CSIR, Homi Bhabha in Atomic Energy, J.C. Ghosh and P.C. Mahalanobis

S
TE S
in the Planning Commission, and D.S. Khothari in the Defence Related Organisation. In
other words, the form adopted by the “policy for science” may be viewed as an informal

R
AP LS
science policy determined by the alliance.

Although Nehru was instrumental in setting out a scheme for planned economic
C EO
development articulated through national Five Year Plans, and despite the fact that
Nehru was one of the founders of India’s Planning Commission, India’s first ever Five
Year S&T Plan (1974–9) only came into being in 1973. Close study of its origins shows
that despite the presence of the advisory bodies created in this period, drawing scientists
E –

from various organizations and agencies, only a very small number of élite scientists
H

close to the political leadership wielded real power during Nehru’s era and that of Mrs
PL O

Gandhi, extending into the early 1980s.

M SC

Even though Nehru consulted with a wide section of the scientific intelligentsia, the
science-politics alliance of the Nehru era led S&T growth into very “specific” directions.
CSIR had no laboratories worth mentioning in 1947, but by the 1950s S.S. Bhatnagar
was able to establish a network of fifteen. The world-famous physicist C.V. Raman
SA NE

called this the “Nehru–Bhatnagar effect.” This had a parallel in the Atomic Energy
Agency, with Homi Bhabha as its head. Bhabha eventually convince Nehru to set up the
Department of Atomic Energy headquarters in Bombay, where he (Bhaba) wanted it.
U

Thus, for about two decades after independence, the real expansion of S&T
infrastructure took place in CSIR, DAE, and defense-related establishments. As
Parthasarathi rightly pointed out in the early 1970s:

It is perhaps not surprising to find that decisions regarding the allocation of scientific
resources, for example, have been taken not on the basis of the advice tendered to the
political leadership by either of these bodies [the Science Advisory Body to the Cabinet
and the Planning Commission], but as result of informal and tacit interactions between
concerned individuals in the scientific community, the executive and the polity. Even
today, decisions about defense, public health, atomic energy, industrial research and
even agricultural research are apparently being taken almost independent of the formal
national science policy.

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

With hindsight, the structure of Indian S&T institutional growth reflects the way in
which agriculture and medical research were two important fields that witnessed only
marginal development till the late 1960s. The close alliance between Nehru and élite
scientists in industrial research and atomic energy had consequences for work in other
areas. It is not surprising that the “grand old” agriculture scientist B.P. Pal lamented in
1977:

… how much the application of science to agriculture might have advanced if Nehru
had been directly associated with Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) in the
way in which he was associated with the CSIR and DAE. It is a pity that when these
modern scientific organisations were set up, the older ICAR was not drastically
reorganised on similar lines

Historically speaking, the university sector also suffered from this science–politics

S
TE S
nexus, through a relative stagnation in the allocation of R&D funds. Though higher
education witnessed considerable expansion, the locus of R&D was somehow restricted

R
AP LS
to the mission-oriented science agencies. By rough estimates the university component
of R&D budget as a percentage of total R&D expenditure remained less than 10 percent
from the 1960s to the 1990s. One reason for the domination of the mission-oriented
C EO
science agencies (such as DAE and CSIR, among others) was that they were represented
by élite scientists close to the political establishment, a tradition that continues today.
The academic community did not come to play a major part in S&T policy issues.
E –

Implicit in the “policy for science” perspective that was adopted was the view that most
H

problems inherent in scientific development could be tackled once the infrastructure for
PL O

research and development had been created, personnel trained, and a set of institutions
and universities established. This phase of the policy discourse saw unbridled optimism
M SC

from Nehru and élite scientists.

Furthermore, creating a base in science was seen as crucial for absorbing and eventually
replacing foreign technology, as well as for generating new capacities in technological
SA NE

innovation for the industrial development of the country. While the government ethos
reflected a “top-down” model of operation, the S&T policy adopted by the political-
bureaucratic regime pushed ahead strongly with policies of import substitution and self
U

reliance. The other three S&T policy cultures did not have any major part to play in
setting science and development goal direction during this phase (Table 2).

1983 Technology Policy Statement issued

1984 Computer Policy
1985 Textile Policy
Electronics Policy
Setting up of Centre for the Development of Telematics
1987 Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council
(TIFAC) created under the Department of Science and
Technology
Technology Missions launched in water, telecommunications, oil-
seeds, etc.

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

1991 New Industrial Policy Statement issued

New Industrial Policy for Small Scale Sector
Liberal policies on MNCs and FDI
Automatic permission to import technology up to R10 million
1992 National Policy on Education, 1986 (modified)
New Fertiliser Pricing Policy
1995 New reforms in CSIR and other science agencies
1996 Setting up of the autonomous Technology Development Board to
assist firms in the commercialization of technology from the
national laboratories
1998 Phokran Nuclear Explosion II; launching of indigenous space
satellites
USA making S&T collaboration with several Indian R&D
institutions

S
TE S
India developing new models of super computers

R
AP LS
Five-year tax holiday for commercial R&D companies
Excise duty waiver for three years on goods produced based on
indigenously developed technology and patented in any of the
C EO
European countries
Income tax relief on R&D expenditure
1999 New Patents Policy confirming to WTO
Exclusive marketing rights for five years to companies as part of
E –

WTO
H

2000 Information Technology Bill

PL O

Creation of a new Ministry of Information Technology

Introduction of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights
M SC

Bill in Parliament

Table 2. Major S&T policy-related developments in India since the 1980s

SA NE

Though Gandhian values and the sarvodaya model promoting the rural and agricultural
sector had considerable influence in the 1940s, the death of Gandhi in 1948 did not have
any major influence on developmental policies. The institutions involved in rural
U

development which were inspired by the Gandhian values continued to function, but
had no major influence on the political–bureaucratic policy regime.

-
-
-

TO ACCESS ALL THE 24 PAGES OF THIS CHAPTER,

Visit: http://www.eolss.net/Eolss-sampleAllChapter.aspx

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

Bibliography

Abrol D. (1999). Science & technology policy. The Indian Economy 1998–99: An Alternative Survey, pp.
183–189. New Delhi: Delhi Science Forum. [Examines collaborations between industry and S&T
institutions.]
Ahmad A. (1985). Politics of science policy making in India. Science and Public Policy 12(3), 234–240
Babar Z. (1996). The Science of Empire—Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India.
New York: State University of New York. [A historical analysis of science in the colonial period in
India.]
CSIR (1996). CSIR 2001: Vision and Strategy. New Delhi: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Elzinga A. and Jaminson A. (1994). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies (ed. S. Jasanoff et al..), pp. 572–597. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Etzkowitz H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic
science. Minerva 21, 198–233.

S
TE S
Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., and Trow M. (1994). The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London:

R
AP LS
Sage. [This book explores the notions of “mode 1” and “mode 2” with regard to knowledge production,
which have triggered fierce debates in policy-making.]
Glaser B. (1989). The Green Revolution Revisited: Critiques and Alternatives. London: Unwin Hyman.
C EO
[A review of critiques of the Green Revolution, which have been particularly strong in India.]
Jain A. (1989). Signals and regimes for science policy in India: some observations. Science Policies in
International Perspective: The Experience of India and Netherlands (ed. P.J. Lavakare and J.G.
Waardenberg). UK: Pinter.
E –

Krishna V.V. (1991). Colonial “model” and the emergence of national science in India, 1876–1920.
H

Sciences and Empires (ed. P. Petitjean et al.). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. [A historical review of the
emergence of the scientific community in India.]
PL O

Krishna V.V. (1997). Science, technology and counter hegemony: some reflections on the contemporary
M SC

science movements in India. Science and Technology in a Developing World, Sociology of the Sciences
Year Book 1995 (ed. T. Shinn, J. Spaapen, and V.V. Krishna), pp. 375–411. Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic. [The impacts of science movements in India and their effects upon science policy-making.]
Kumar D. (1995). Science and The Raj: 1857–1905. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. [A classic on
SA NE

Indian science in the colonial period.]

Kumar N. (1998). Technology generation and technology transfers in the world economy: recent trends
and implications for developing countries. Science, Technology & Society 3(2), 265–306. [An analysis of
R&D activities in recent years, and particularly of the role of multinational companies.]
U

Osborne M. and Kumar D. (1999). Special issue: social history of science. Science, Technology & Society
4(2). [Focuses on many aspects pertaining to the social history of science in developing countries.]
Padmanabhan G. (1991). Government funding and support for the DBT. Current Science, 60(9–10), 510–
513.
Pal B.P. (1977). Science and agriculture. Science and Technology (ed. B.R. Nanda ), pp. 43–54. New
Delhi: Vikas.
Parthasarathi A. (1974). Appearance and reality in two decades of science policy. Science Policy Studies
(ed. A. Rahman and K.D. Sharma). Bombay: Somaiya.
Rosenberg N. (1990). Science and technology policy for the Asian NICs: lessons from economic history.
Science and Technology Lessons for Development Policy (ed. R.E. Evenson and G. Ranis), pp. 149–150.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications. [Examines the main lessons to be drawn from the
development of the East Asian countries.]
Ruivo B. (1994). Phases and paradigms of science policy? Science and Public Policy 21(3), 157–164. [An

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - Vol. II – Changing Policy in Science and Technology in India - Krishna V.V.

attempt at identifying the differing paradigms that govern the making of a science policy.]
Salomon J.J. (1977). Science policy studies and the development of science policy. Science, Technology
and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective (ed. I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. de Solla Price). London and
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sethi H. (1988). The great technology run. Economic and Political Weekly (May 14), 999–1002. [A
critical appraisal of technology missions in the 1980s.]
Sitaramayya P. (1969). History of the Indian National Congress, Vol. 2. Delhi: S. Chand and Co.
Ziman J. (1996). Is science losing its objectivity? Nature 382, 751–754.

Biographical Sketch

Dr. V.V. Krishna is Associate Professor in Science Policy at the Centre for Studies in Science Policy,
School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He initiated the programme on
sociology of science and history of science groups at the National Institute for Science, Technology and
Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi, in the 1980s. After serving for over twenty years in this

S
TE S
institute, he was invited by the Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1997 to rejuvenate the Science Policy
Centre. This is the first center in South Asia to offer M.Phil./Ph.D. programmes in Science Policy Studies.

R
AP LS
Its main areas of teaching and research are sociology, politics, economics, history of science and
technology, S&T policy analysis, technical change, and innovation studies.
Dr. Krishna holds a Ph.D. in Sociology of Science from the University of Wollongong, New South
C EO
Wales, Australia. He has over 24 years’ research experience in the sociology of science, science and
technology policy studies, and social history of science. He has published 30 research papers and four
books including Scientific Communities in the Developing Countries (1997, New Delhi: Sage) and
Science and Technology in a Developing World (1997: The Netherlands: Kluwer). He is the founder-
editor of Science, Technology & Society—An International Journal Devoted to the Developing World,
E –

published through Sage Publications. Dr. Krishna is a consultant to UNESCO, Paris, for its programmes
H

on electronic publishing in the developing countries and its World Science Reports 1998 and 2000. He is
a Council Member of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), USA and a member of the
PL O

International Council for Science Policy Studies, ICSU, UNESCO, Paris.

M SC
SA NE
U

©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)