This piece has been authored by S Abhipsha Dash, Student(first year), Symbiosis Law School Pune

ABSTRACT

The Indian government has proposed the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, a piece of legislation that would create a central organization dedicated to supporting and encouraging research and development initiatives across numerous industries. This measure seems, at first glance, to be a step toward enhancing the country’s scientific and technological capacities. But a closer look through the lens of Marxist ideology reveals possible consequences of the law. This article will assess how the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act affects various international treaties, violates researchers’ rights, and adheres to or departs from Karl Marx’s principles. The article’s objective is to assess whether the act upholds the notion of using scientific advancement as a tool to bring about social change or if it falls victim to the traps of capitalism and increases inequality by critically examining the act’s provisions. It is a significant piece of legislation that aims to promote research and development.

India conducts development and research. The goal of the law is to create a foundation that will pay for and provide funding for research projects in a number of fields, such as the social sciences, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. If the fundamental structures of power are not carefully considered, the act may unintentionally strengthen disproportionate systems rather than question or alter them. If the act overlooks the criticism of capitalism and its role in upholding social inequalities, it may fail to address the fundamental causes of societal problems.

KEYWORDS:

Research, TRIPS Agreement, Nagoya Protocol, Neoliberalism, Capitalism, Centralisation of Power, Marxism, Research and Development, Science and engineering, Patents, Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, Bourgeois

INTRODUCTION

“Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought”

-Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 

With the Union Cabinet’s ratification of the National Research Foundation (NRF) Act 2023 in June of this year, the scientific community on the Indian subcontinent is buzzing with excitement and intrigue as it looks to “bolster the research ecosystem in the country.”

The President signed the Bill on August 12, 2023. It formed an apex body that will lead the way in research and development and encourage an innovative culture and environment in all institutions, universities, and schools.

Simultaneously, the act aims to supersede the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) Act 2008, which established SERB as a “statutory authority” within the Department of Science and Technology, enabling it to perform all the tasks listed in NRF. “NRF would get an annual grant of 20000 crores which accounts to 0.1% of GDP,” the Kasturirangan Committee stated, highlighting the underinvestment. It is imperative that lawmakers acknowledge their failure to mobilize the private sector in order to meet the 2022 target of 2% spending on research and development. The article delves into the nuances of the act and discusses major issues in depth. The issues include constitutional concerns that arises because of excessive centralization of powers and conflict with existing research institutions, violation of several international agreement on intellectual property rights, downside of enhancing public-private partnerships. Despite being a bold attempt to transform India’s research landscape, the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act raises certain Marxist-related concerns. It gives a lot of power in the hands of Prime Minister along with which it violates the rights of indigenous people thus attracting its analysis via the marxist lens.

“Investing in science education and curiosity-driven research is investing in the future.”

1. Comparison between NRF and SERB Act 2008

                 There are some important differences between the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) Act and the National Research Foundation (NRF). In terms of reach, the NRF performs a range of tasks in addition to providing funds within a comprehensive framework. The SERB Act, on the other hand, has a more narrowly defined scope and focuses mostly on funding-related tasks.

The two entities have different legal statuses as well. Since the NRF was created by statute, it has a formal and established legal status. However, the SERB Act functions within the Ministry of Science and Technology, indicating that it is associated with the political system but does not always function as a separate legal body.Another differentiator is autonomy. The NRF has more autonomy, which implies more power for self-governance and decision-making. The SERB Act, on the other hand, is described as having less autonomy, which could indicate a more organized and controlled operating environment.

There are significant differences in ownership and IPR (intellectual property) management between the two. The NRF clearly establishes who owns intellectual property (IPR), demonstrating a methodical and transparent approach to managing intellectual property arising from its operations. On the other hand, ownership issues are not specifically addressed by the SERB Act, which may result in this component being less defined or controlled.

2. Constitutional concerns

The act in 4(k)^[1] lists “encouraging the public sector enterprises and private entities to invest in the activities of the foundation” as an objective. In addition, Section 13(1)(b) of the act restates the need for support from a variety of sources.

However, it also includes certain erroneous provisions due to the fact that it allows corporations to create organizations that sow doubt and threaten government-sponsored initiatives.

1. Neglecting state participation and undermining cooperative federalism

The act fails to give voice to state councils of higher education. This hampers the principle of “cooperative federalism”. It was quoted by Granville Austin “the constitution of India is amongst the first to champion the idea of cooperative federalism”.^[2]

Morris Jhonson also describes Indian federalism as “bargaining federalism” in which “state and national governments bargain to achieve respective goals”.^[3]

The goals of the detailed project report (DPR), which was released to allow NRF to give state institutions significant funding, are not met by the suggested decision-making framework.

2. Centralized Decision Making

Section 5^[4] of the act speaks about the presence of the governing body. The governing body’s members are listed in Section 5(2). The Prime Minister will serve as the president of the NRF’s governing board; other members will only be elected officials and specially selected bureaucrats. As a result, there is no “diverse and pluralistic” approach and the ruling body is entirely centralized.

3. Conflict with continuing research institutes.

Proposition to establish the NRF as an “independent foundation” to foster and provide endowments as mooted by the Kasturirangan committee in 2019.^[5] Additionally, it was incorporated by the National Educational Policy 2020 center. While the currently operating institutions, such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), and the Department of Biotechnology, will continue to support research in their respective fields. The Prime Minister is designated as the President and the Union Minister of Science as the Vice President in Section 5 of the act, which describes the governing body. The act’s detractors contend that it gives the government undue power, which could compromise the institutions’ democratic principles and encroach on intellectual freedom. Confusion and redundant work could also result from this. Furthermore, a method for resolving disputes between NRF and other research institutions is not specifically mentioned.

III. Intellectual Property Rights.

Potential violations of researchers’ rights regarding their inventions are analyzed henceforth.

The Science and Engineering Research Board Act of 2008 was superseded by a comprehensive law called the National Research Foundation Act. The National Research Foundation Act prioritizes supporting international research, awarding certificates, protecting intellectual property rights, and funding research, among other things. Prior to the NRF Act, a number of laws regulated the process of obtaining intellectual property rights, including

1. Patents Act 1970^[6]
2. The Copyright Act 1957^[7]
3. The Designs Act 2000^[8]
4. The Geographical Indication Act 1999^[9]
5. The TRIPS Agreement ^[10]

1. After the Introduction of the NRF Act the power rests in the hands of the centralized NRF governing body. The Section 10(c)^[11] while defining the functions of executive council vests the power of granting such rights in the hand of executive council. The centralized NRF governing body holds the reins of power following the introduction of the NRF Act. This could lead to the NRF or the research’s private funders claiming ownership of intellectual property created by university or other public institution faculty. Thus the fear of losing ownership of their ideas, this may deter researchers from conducting NRF-funded research.
2. It might also result in a scenario where the NRF and the private companies funding the research transfer intellectual property rights to the private sector without paying the researchers fairly, which would discourage researchers from carrying out more ground-breaking research. “A researcher who is employed by a company does not automatically forfeit their rights to the intellectual property that they develop as part of their employment” and further such rights can only be transferred if the researcher employed gives his consent in writing according to S.R. Laboratories v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2009).^[12]
3. The power to publish such results rests in the hands of the Central Government under Section 23(1) ^[13]of the Act. This could lead to a situation where the NRF or the private companies funding the research could block the results from being published, even if they are of public interest. This might inhibit creativity and hinder the creation of new technologies.

IV. Violation of TRIPS Agreement and The Nagoya Protocol

Because India is legally obligated to abide by the TRIPS Agreement, concerns regarding the NRF Act’s compliance with this international treaty are crucial. India might be found in breach of the TRIPS Agreement if the NRF Act is implemented in its current form. This could have a significant impact on India’s economy and standing as a major trading partner worldwide.

1. One of the core requirements of the TRIPS Agreement is that governments must provide patent protection. This is an international agreement. The TRIPS Agreement may be broken by the NRF Act, which gives the NRF the power to decide who is the rightful owner of any intellectual property created through NRF-funded research. The NRF Act by granting the NRF the authority to determine who owns the intellectual property developed by NRF-funded research may violate the TRIPS Agreement’s Article 27.3^[14] which requires countries to grant exclusive right to inventors on their inventions. The TRIPS Agreement also requires governments to protect other types of intellectual property, such as copyrights and trademarks.
2. The NRF Act may also breach the TRIPS Agreement Article 10,^[15] which obliges the nations to make sure that publicly funded research findings are accessible to the public by not offering adequate protection for results publication.
3. Since there are no extra protections for the transfer of intellectual property rights to the private sector this can further violate Article 31 of the TRIPS agreement^[16]that permits nations to grant compulsory licenses for the use of intellectual property under certain conditions, provided that the licensee gives the right holder adequate compensation.
4. Further it also violates certain articles of The Nagoya Protocol^[17] on access and benefit sharing. India signed the protocol in 2011 and ratified it in 2012. This act violates certain section of the protocol.
5. Article 5:^[18] According to this article, before using genetic resources, a country must obtain the providers’ informed consent. Pre-informed consent is not required by the act for researchers.
6. Article 6:^[19] According to this article, nations must make sure that mutually beneficial agreements are made between genetic resource providers and users. Researchers are not required by the act to offer genetic resource providers mutually agreed terms (MAT).
7. Article 15^[20]: Countries are required by this article to make sure that the providers of genetic resources receive a just and equitable share of the benefits from the use of those resources. The act does not mandate that researchers pay genetic resource providers a share of the benefits. Among the benefits are access to technology, financial advantages, and capacity building.

V. NATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT BRACES PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

Marxist analysis raises questions regarding the allocation of power and resources in the context of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, which seeks to create a government agency to assist and foster research and development in India. Marxists argue that if this act does not address issues like access, price, and control over technological advancements, inequality may still persist. Moreover, the Marxist perspective challenges the basic motivation for research and development within a capitalist framework. It claims that R&D is driven more by profit-driven goals than by the pursuit of knowledge and the welfare of society at large. The concept of public-private partnership, or PPP, is the foundation of the NRF Act. This indicates that the public will support the NRF as well as private sectors. According to Marxists, PPP allows the bourgeoisie to private the profits from scientific research and innovation while socializing the risks and expenditures.

VI. NATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT GIVES PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA AND CAPITALISTS EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY

An examination of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act through a Marxist lens sheds light on the possible contradictions and constraints of the capitalist system concerning R&D. From a Marxist standpoint, the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act’s propensity to reinforce current socioeconomic hierarchies and disparities is one of its main worries.  The members of the governing body are described in Section 5(2). The Prime Minister will preside over the NRF’s governing board, with elected officials and selected bureaucrats serving as the only other members which gives a great deal of control over the NRF. The Prime Minister has the power to appoint and remove Board members in his capacity as the ex-officio President of the NRF Governing Board. It follows that the Prime Minister may use the NRF to further his own political goals as opposed to those of science and innovation. Marxist theory states that the exploitation of the labor force by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, is what distinguishes the capitalist mode of production. In an attempt to coordinate and support research programs in India, the measure runs the risk of strengthening the power concentration in the hands of a select group of privileged individuals or organizations. This resource concentration could maintain the existing domination of those already in privileged positions, aggravating socioeconomic inequities.

Research initiatives that boost the profitability of large corporations could be funded by the NRF. For instance, the NRF may provide funding for studies into innovative approaches to manufacturing and selling consumer goods or new techniques for harvesting natural resources (without the consent of the native population).

Scientists and engineers who will work for companies in the future may receive training from the NRF. This would help businesses increase profits while cutting labor costs. Additionally, by prioritizing some research topics over others while taking into account the financial gains of the corporations sponsoring the study, the act might unintentionally perpetuate the biases and hierarchies of the current system. The act might inadvertently reinforce disproportionate systems rather than challenge or transform them if the underlying frameworks of power are not thoroughly examined. Marxist theory aims to uncover and oppose the core causes of societal issues, which the act may miss if it ignores the critique of capitalism and its role in maintaining social disparities. Neoliberalism’s economic philosophy places a strong emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and open markets. Marxists claim that neoliberalism is a tool used by capitalists to monopolize power and take advantage of the working class, and that this movement is a part of a larger trend of neoliberalization in India.

VII. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE,TRIBALS AND FARMERS:

The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023 (NRF Act) has been criticized for its potential to violate the rights of tribal and farmers in India. Some of the specific concerns that have been raised include:

1. Insufficient consultation and representation:

Without sufficient representation from or engagement with the indigenous and farming populations, the NRF Act was developed and approved. It is possible that the act will not sufficiently address the interests and concerns of these communities in light of this lack of interaction.

2. Possession of land could occur:

Because of the act’s emphasis on encouraging innovation and research, land may be acquired for research, which could force farmers and tribe members off their ancestral lands. Their customs and way of life may be disturbed by this.

3. Taking advantage of customary knowledge

Without their previous informed consent and just compensation, the act may make it easier to exploit the genetic resources and traditional knowledge systems that belong to tribal and farming communities. This can cause them to lose control over their livelihood. For instance they might seek information from tribals about high medicinal plant and make medicines out of it but not give them their due credit. They might take advantage of farmers to develop high-yielding variety seeds and not give them their due credit.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD.

In the words of Zora Neale Hurston

“Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with purpose”. ^[21]

They should be allowed to conduct research without restriction in order to fulfill their goals, without worrying about losing their intellectual property rights. The act should contain provisions that offer protection for the researcher’s intellectual property rights. Accountability to the general public is necessary. In the current geopolitical order, India is emerging as the leader of the Global South while simultaneously serving as president of two significant blocs, the SCO and the G20. India should therefore set the standard for innovation and research if it wants to become a fully realized leader. The absence of cooperation between different research institutes is another problem; NRF must find new ways to collaborate and create synergy with current institutes.

In 1966, Vikram Sarabhai wrote to then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, urging  “change of policy, administrative practices, and, most difficult of all, attitudes.” Recalibrating our processes and mindsets is imperative, and the administrative structures under ANRF must help us take full advantage of India’s research potential. An encouraging avenue for efficient resource distribution and information sharing is provided by the act’s emphasis on cooperation between government, business, and academics. The act offers a great chance to improve India’s research environment and raise its level of competitiveness internationally, even though obstacles such as bureaucratic red tape and sustainability in funding still exist.

Although the act’s broader aim is praiseworthy, questions remain about the autonomy of current research institutes and the possibility of decision-making becoming more centralized. Continued assessments and modifications are essential to guarantee the act’s success. Other suggestions are to improve the processes of peer review, encourage multidisciplinary research, and make funding allocations more inclusive.

The act may increase capitalist interests’ influence over the nation’s research agenda because of its emphasis on attracting foreign investment and working with private companies. Concern should be expressed about this as well as the potential for labor exploitation and knowledge privatization.

 Moreover, the act’s intention to promote equitable growth is at odds with its own lack of provisions addressing social disparities in access to opportunities for research. Marxists believe that one of the primary issues with the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act is that it tends to perpetuate the socioeconomic inequalities and hierarchies that already exist. The policy, which attempts to coordinate and support research initiatives across India, runs the risk of consolidating power in the hands of a select few powerful individuals or organizations. The concentration of resources that follows could strengthen the power of individuals who already enjoy privileges, aggravating social injustices and denying the indigenous people who have worshipped and lived by the resources. The violation of international agreements like TRIPS and Nagoya Protocol might land India in trouble at the global diaspora where the nation is blooming. It recently received 40^th rank in World Innovation Index by WIPO but not giving proper attention to the above concern might caste a serious doubt on India’s credibility in the minds of relevant stakeholders.

All things considered, the action is a step in the right direction toward expanding research funding by broadening the investor base. To attract more scientists and academics to the research ecosystem, there are a few issues in the act that need to be addressed. Although the act’s broader aim is praiseworthy questions looms about the autonomy of current research institutes and the possibility of decision-making becoming more centralized. Continued assessments and modifications are essential to guarantee the act’s success. Other suggestions are to improve the processes of peer review, encourage multidisciplinary research, and make funding allocations more inclusive.

References:

1.Yu, P. K. (2006). TRIPS and its Discontents. Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., 10, 369.

2. Matthews, D. (2003). Globalising intellectual property rights: the TRIPS Agreement. Routledge.

3.Steve Jobs Said What Separates a Leader From a Follower Really Comes Down to This MindsetA simple reminder of what really creates value- By Nick Jhonson

https://www.inc.com/nick-hobson/steve-jobs-said-what-separates-a-leader-from-a-follower-really-comes-down-to-this-mindset.html

4.Morgera, E., Tsioumani, E., & Buck, M. (2014). Unraveling the nagoya protocol: a commentary on the nagoya protocol on access and benefit-sharing to the convention on biological diversity (p. 444). Brill.

5. Kamau, E. C., Fedder, B., & Winter, G. (2010). The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing: What is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community. Law Env’t & Dev. J., 6, 246.

6.Anusandhan National Research Foundation Bill, 2023 tabled in Lok Sabha – August 05,2023 , The Hindu Business Line

7. Why the National Research Foundation needs to make an impact – Column by M S Santhanam – The Indian Express edition – 22 August 2023.

8.No quick fix: On National Research Foundation Bill – Editorial in The Hindu – July 21 ,2023

9. Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). Scrooge and intellectual property rights. BMJ, 333(7582), 1279-1280.

---

^[1] The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act 2023,§ 4(k), Acts of Parliament 2023(India)

^[2]Arnab Kumar Ghosh, The paradox of ‘Centralised Federalism’: An Analysis of the Challenges to India’s Federal Design, ORF Occasional Paper No. 272, September 2020, Observer Research Foundation.

^[3] Arnab Kumar Ghosh, The paradox of ‘Centralised Federalism’: An Analysis of the Challenges to India’s Federal Design,ORF Occasional Paper No. 272, September 2020, Observer Research Foundation.

^[4] The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act 2023,§ 5, Acts of Parliament 2023(India)

^[5]  Draft National Education Policy 2019 committee report

^[6] The Patents Act 1970, Acts of Parliament 1970 (Indian)

^[7]The Copyrights Act 1957, Acts of Parliament 1957 (Indian)

^[8]The Designs Act 2000, Acts of Parliament 2000( Indian)

^[9]The Geographical Indication Act 1999, Acts of Parliament 1999(Indian)

^[10]Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) 

^[11]The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act 2023,§ 10(c), Acts of Parliament 2023(India)

^[12]MANU/DE/2009/01536

^[13] The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act 2023,§ 23(1), Acts of Parliament 2023(India)

^[14]Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) art. 27.3

^[15] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) art. 10

^[16] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) art. 31

^[17] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Oct. 29, 2010, 50 I.L.M. 500 (2011).

^[18] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Oct. 29, 2010, 50 I.L.M. 500 (2011) art. 5.

^[19] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Oct. 29, 2010, 50 I.L.M. 500 (2011) art. 6.

^[20] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Oct. 29, 2010, 50 I.L.M. 500 (2011) art. 15

^[21]Hurston, Zora Neale. Dust Tracks on a Dirt Road. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1942.