Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 25 October 2025
Content Please Mind the Gap Respect the health rights of India’s children Please Mind the Gap Context The Government of India is considering a policy to attract Indian-origin “star faculty” in STEM fields from abroad to work in Indian institutions. The move coincides with restrictive US immigration and funding policies (Trump-era tightening, continuing post-COVID). Objective: Strengthen India’s research ecosystem, reverse brain drain, and establish India as a global knowledge hub. Relevance GS-2 (Governance): Administrative reforms, institutional capacity, public service efficiency. GS-3 (Science & Technology): R&D ecosystem, innovation policy, human capital, brain drain. GS-3 (Economy): Technological self-reliance, knowledge economy, global competitiveness. Practice Question The Government’s plan to attract Indian-origin “star faculty” from abroad can help reverse India’s brain drain only if accompanied by deep institutional reforms. Discuss.(250 Words) Background Over 3.32 lakh Indian students were enrolled in US universities in 2023–24 (IIE Open Doors Report, 2024). India is one of the largest source of STEM PhD talent in the US — ~12% of all foreign PhDs (NSF, 2023). The scheme seeks to convert this “brain drain” into “brain circulation”, offering return pathways with infrastructure and autonomy. Objectives of the Scheme Long-term engagement (not short-term consultancies). Integration into premier institutions — IITs, IISc, IISERs, AIIMS, CSIR labs. Substantial set-up grants (potentially ₹5–10 crore per investigator, modeled on DST’s Swarnajayanti Fellowships). Foster collaborative innovation ecosystems between domestic and global research communities. Major Challenges Identified (a) Administrative & Bureaucratic Barriers India’s research process is heavily bureaucratic: Scientists spend 20–30% of time on administrative tasks (DST internal audit, 2022). Example: Delays of 6–12 months in equipment tendering are common due to overlapping financial oversight. (b) Institutional & Cultural Adjustment Returning scientists face a rigid hierarchy and lack of academic autonomy. Indian institutions have low international faculty ratio — only 0.5% (QS World Rankings, 2025). Sudden re-entry into bureaucratic culture contrasts with the performance-based, decentralized systems of US/Europe. (c) Financial Disparities Average assistant professor salary: India: ₹12–16 lakh/year US: ₹90,000–$120,000/year (~₹75–100 lakh/year) Even adjusted for PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), India’s net advantage remains below 40%. Research funding per faculty: IITs: ~$40,000/year US R1 universities: ~$300,000/year (NSF, 2023). (d) Social & Logistical Constraints Public services (housing, schooling, healthcare) often inadequate for global returnees. Limited international schooling in Tier-II research cities (IISER Bhopal, NISER Bhubaneswar, etc.). Frequent transfers, poor campus facilities, and red-tape in relocation deter long-term engagement. Comparative Example – China’s “Thousand Talents Program” Launched: 2008; later expanded as “Overseas High-Level Talent Program.” Offers: RMB 1–3 million (₹1–3 crore) in start-up grants, Tax-free relocation benefits, Housing subsidies, and Guaranteed tenured positions. Result: Over 7,000 top Chinese-origin researchers returned by 2020. China’s GERD (Gross Expenditure on R&D) rose from 1.4% (2008) to 2.7% of GDP (2023). Contributed to rise in Nature Index ranking — China now ranks #2 globally (after the US). Challenges: Native faculty resentment and occasional cases of “dual loyalty” scrutiny. India’s Current R&D Landscape (Data-Driven Snapshot) Indicator India (2023–24) Comparator GERD (% of GDP) 0.7% China: 2.7%, USA: 3.4%, Israel: 5.4% Govt share of R&D 55% OECD Avg: 25% Private sector share 45% OECD Avg: 75% Researchers per million 262 Global Avg: 1,341 No. of publications (Scopus, 2024) 2.75 lakh USA: 7.1 lakh Patent filings (WIPO, 2024) 83,000 China: 17 lakh Global Innovation Index (2024) Rank 40 China: 12, USA: 3 Policy Implications India’s brain drain costs ~0.5% of GDP annually in lost R&D productivity (World Bank, 2023). For “brain gain,” policies must integrate structural reform + ecosystem improvement, not just repatriation. Ease of Research Index (proposed by NITI Aayog, 2025) can help track administrative efficiency. Focus should be on research clusters — like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Pune — to ensure scale and collaboration. Key Recommendations Simplify procurement & fund utilization: Introduce single-window research portals (expand SERB’s PRISM and SPARK initiatives). Long-term institutional autonomy: Replicate IISc’s self-governing model for other institutes. Balanced privileges: Equal benefits to resident and returning scientists to prevent resentment. R&D spending target: Raise to 1.5% of GDP by 2030, aligning with National R&D Policy (Draft 2023). Diaspora collaboration hubs: Create Global Indian Research Network (GIRN) under DST for remote collaboration. Socio-economic enablers: Provide schooling, housing, and spousal employment support to attract families sustainably. Author’s Central Argument Mere financial incentives will fail if domestic research culture remains bureaucratic. India must first ensure a vibrant ecosystem for existing scientists before expecting NRIs to return. Without long-term autonomy, flexible funding, and respect for meritocracy — the “star faculty” initiative may repeat past failures. Conclusion India stands at a crossroads: between brain drain and brain circulation. The proposed NRI scientist scheme can succeed only if backed by deep institutional reforms, sustained funding, and merit-based governance. If executed well, it could position India as a scientific powerhouse by 2047, aligned with the vision of Viksit Bharat @2047. Respect the health rights of India’s children Context Incident: Death of 25 children in Madhya Pradesh due to contaminated cough syrup in October 2025. Trigger: The syrup, banned by the Union Health Ministry (April 2025) for use in children below 4 years, continued to be prescribed. Scandal: The prescribing doctor reportedly earned a ₹2.54 commission per bottle — symbolizing systemic collapse and ethical failure. The tragedy underscores regulatory weaknesses in India’s drug oversight and the lack of paediatric pharmacovigilance infrastructure. Relevance GS-2 (Governance, Social Justice): Child welfare, Article 39(f), policy implementation. GS-3 (Science & Technology, Health): Drug regulation, pharmacovigilance, WHO standards. GS-4 (Ethics): Medical ethics, public accountability, duty of care. Practice Question The recurring incidents of contaminated cough syrups highlight a deeper governance and ethical crisis in India’s pharmaceutical regulation. Discuss.(250 Words) Constitutional & Policy Backdrop Article 39(f) (DPSP): Mandates the State to ensure children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner and are protected from exploitation and moral/material abandonment. Children’s share in population: 39% (Census projection, 2024 ≈ 520 million). Existing child-focused policies (13 major): National Policy for Children, 1974; National Health Policy, 2017; Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram, 2013; India Newborn Action Plan, 2014, etc. Key child-related legislations (10+): PCPNDT Act, 1994; Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; RTE Act, 2009; POCSO Act, 2012; Aadhaar Act, 2016, etc. Gap: None directly regulate paediatric pharmaceuticals or establish child–specific drug safety frameworks. The Regulatory Architecture Regulatory Body Jurisdiction Key Issues CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation) Large manufacturers, export approvals Limited manpower (only ~1,800 officers nationwide) State Drug Control Authorities SMEs, retail distribution Weak enforcement, fragmented coordination Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) Adverse drug reaction reporting Poor coverage for paediatric drugs FSSAI (in OTC products) Monitors nutraceutical syrups Overlaps and confusion in jurisdiction India has 10,500 licensed drug manufacturers, of which 70% are small-scale, often outside rigorous central oversight. India’s Paediatric Pharmacovigilance Gap Children are not “small adults”; drug absorption, metabolism, and toxicity differ drastically. 90–95% of global drug trials are on adults (Lancet Global Health, 2023). In India, only 2–3% of drug trials involve paediatric subjects. Result: Dosage extrapolated from adult data, leading to off-label or unlicensed use. Termed by Dr. Harry Shirkey as “therapeutic orphans” — children’s medicine needs remain neglected. International Best Practices Country/Region Key Law/Policy Key Provisions United States Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), 2002 Research incentives, FDA-mandated paediatric studies European Union Paediatric Use Marketing Authorisation (PUMA) Requires paediatric investigation plans before approval WHO (Global) Essential Medicines List for Children (EMLc) Defines safe, age-appropriate essential drugs Contrast: India lacks a dedicated paediatric drug act, relying only on CDSCO advisories. Even the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2022) updates adult formulations frequently, but the EMLc (India) remains under-reviewed since 2011. Broader Public Health Dimension Over-the-Counter (OTC) drugs (esp. for cough, cold, fever) are widely available without prescription. Estimated OTC market size: ₹38,000 crore (ASSOCHAM, 2024). Urban misuse: 58% of parents self-medicate children for minor ailments (AIIMS Pediatric Study, 2023). Pharmacist compliance: Less than 40% read or communicate label warnings (FSSAI, 2023). Public sector shortfall: Only 1 pharmacist per 6,000 citizens (WHO recommends 1:2,000). Global Context of Indian Cough Syrup Controversies Between 2022–2025, WHO issued multiple medical product alerts over Indian–madecoughsyrups linked to child deaths in: Gambia (70 deaths, 2022) – Maiden Pharmaceuticals (Haryana) Uzbekistan (65 deaths, 2022) – Marion Biotech (Noida) Cameroon, Indonesia (2023–24) – diethylene glycol (DEG) and ethylene glycol contamination DEG contamination is lethal at 1 ml/kg; used improperly as a solvent substitute. These incidents tarnished India’s global image as the “Pharmacy of the Global South.” Key Data on India’s Drug Regulation Indicator India (2025) Comparator Drug inspectors ~3,000 nationwide Needed: 12,000 (Mashelkar Committee, 2003) Manufacturing units 10,500 70% uninspected in last 3 years Pharmacovigilance centers 650 (PvPI data, 2024) Only 10% linked to child drug data Testing labs 50 (Central + State) Only 18 accredited to WHO-GMP Export value of formulations $28.4 billion (FY2024–25) 45% to Global South markets Ethical, Social, and Legal Dimensions Violation of Child Rights: Using untested/off-label medicines breaches Article 39(f) and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), ratified by India in 1992. Economic inequality: 63% of child deaths from drug toxicity occur in households below₹10,000/month income (NFHS-5 data extrapolation). Moral hazard: Low commissions and incentives drive unethical prescriptions — commercialization of care. Policy Recommendations Legislative Action Draft a Paediatric Drug Safety and Regulation Act (PDSRA) — akin to BPCA (US). Mandate Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs) before drug licensing. Data and Research Establish a National Paediatric Pharmacovigilance Network (NPPN) under ICMR. Fund child-specific drug trials using indigenous data. Essential Medicines Reform Annual revision of India’s EMLc (Children). Prioritize affordability and availability under Ayushman Bharat & Jan Aushadhi. Regulatory Strengthening Expand drug inspectorate by 4×; digital track-and-trace for all paediatric drugs. Zero tolerance for DEG/EG contamination; establish batch-level testing in exports. Public Awareness & Training Pharmacist and caregiver education on child dosages and labelling. Strict control of OTC sales; mandatory prescriptions for paediatric cough syrups. International Cooperation Align with WHO’s Global Surveillance and Monitoring System (GSMS) for substandard medicines. Build shared R&D with UNICEF and GAVI for safe paediatric formulations. Author’s Core Argument India’s pharmacovigilance for children is fragmented, reactive, and under-institutionalized. Children remain therapeutic orphans, denied safe medicines due to adult-centric drug frameworks. India’s responsibility as a global pharma exporter must be matched with ethical and child-safe production standards. Conclusion The Madhya Pradesh tragedy is not isolated — it is symptomatic of regulatory anemia, data vacuum, and ethical collapse. Paediatric drug safety requires legislation, infrastructure, and accountability. Protecting children’s right to safe medicine is not charity — it is a constitutional and fiduciary obligation under Article 39(f) and the UNCRC. India must shift from being the “Pharmacy of the Global South” to being the “Guardian of Safe Medicine.”