PMRC scheme to bring scientists home raises hopes. But an enabling research system is missing

For years, India has seen its students and young researchers leave the country in large numbers, often to build academic careers abroad where research support is stronger, systems are more stable, and academic freedom is greater. In this context, the government’s announcement of the Prime Minister Research Chair (PMRC) scheme has raised hopes. The scheme proposes to bring back around 120 Indian scientists working overseas and place them in the IITs. Given the steady outflow of research talent, it is easy to understand why such an initiative sounds promising and deserves careful attention.

What kind of research system scientists return to

But we also need to be clear-eyed. Bringing scientists back, by itself, has never been the main problem, and it is unlikely to be the main solution. Most people who work in science already understand this. The real question is not only about who returns, but about the kind of research system they return to.

Building strong research infrastructure is essential if India is serious about its ambition to become a global power. Scientists trained abroad do bring valuable experience, including international networks, exposure to high-quality research, and an understanding of how strong institutions function. A well-designed research chair can give them time, space, and authority to begin new work and mentor younger researchers, and in that sense, the PMRC scheme does send a positive signal.

Appearance vs real change

Anyone who has worked in Indian universities knows how hard it is to do serious research here. Teachers carry heavy teaching loads, face strict administrative control, and depend on funding that is often short-term and uncertain. Ph.D. students struggle with low stipends and uneven guidance, and postdoctoral positions—which are crucial in a strong research system—are few and poorly supported. As a result, research careers often feel unstable and tiring. In this situation, bringing back a small number of scientists risks becoming more about appearance than real change.

China’s Thousand Talents Programme shows that attracting researchers works best when it is backed by large, long-term investments in labs, teams, and institutional support. Even the most talented researchers cannot work alone. Good research needs teams, technical staff, steady funding, and institutions that are willing to wait for results. Without these, good work happens only for short periods and does not last.

Focus limited to IITs

There is another issue that deserves more attention. The PMRC scheme is focused mainly on the IITs. While the IITs play an important role, they are only one part of India’s higher education system. Even though most Indian students study in State universities, these universities remain underfunded and tightly regulated, with limited space to develop their research capacity.

When too much attention is placed on elite institutions, our understanding of where knowledge is produced becomes narrow. The success of developing a strong research system could be limited if the focus is only on a few elite institutions. The depth of building a strong research system, including a robust training at the Ph.D. level could be helpful with widespread and steady funding, and creating an environment of freedom to set-up own research priorities aligning with the national interest.

India’s own experience shows that individual talent cannot compensate for weak institutional conditions. Many Indian scientists choose to stay abroad not only because of higher pay, but because research systems there are more predictable. Funding is longer-term, rules are clearer, and researchers are trusted to do their work. Unless these conditions improve at home, efforts to bring people back may result in short-term engagement rather than lasting commitment.

This is where the larger conversation should begin. If bringing scientists back is only one part of the picture, then it is worth reflecting on what makes research systems strong and sustainable over time. At the heart of any such system are young researchers—Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows—whose work and training quietly shape the future of science. Their experiences often determine whether research careers feel viable and meaningful.

The way research is funded also shapes the kind of questions that get asked. When support is predictable and long-term, it allows scholars to think deeply and take intellectual risks. Short and uncertain funding, by contrast, can narrow ambition and discourage sustained work.

Much also depends on how universities are allowed to function. Institutions grow when they are trusted to make decisions, build teams, and respond to local challenges. This is particularly important for State universities, which sit close to many of the regional challenges that research needs to engage with.

It may also be time to reflect on how we define “important” research. Issues such as climate change, public health, agriculture, and urban life cut across disciplines and regions, and cannot be addressed by a few elite campuses alone. They call for collaboration, diversity of institutions, and long-term commitment.

Seen in this light, the PM Research Chair scheme can be viewed as the start of a wider discussion rather than a final answer. Bringing scientists back will naturally draw attention. Building research institutions that people choose to stay in, and grow with, is a quieter task—but one that will shape India’s place in the global knowledge landscape far more deeply.