India’s post-Independence service rules were designed to ensure stability through generalist administrators — an approach that was essential for nation-building. However, governance has since become increasingly shaped by science, technology, and environmental challenges. As scientists joined government service, they remained governed by rules created for a different era. This mismatch has limited the effective integration of scientific expertise into policymaking. Unlike many advanced countries with dedicated scientific cadres, India lacks a specialised framework for scientific governance, making the case for separate scientific service rules increasingly compelling.
A paradox — administrator and scientist
Civil services recruitment is highly competitive, reflecting the rigour of the administrative system. Scientific careers, however, follow an equally demanding but different path — drawing from a smaller, highly specialised pool shaped by years of advanced education, research and peer review rather than a single examination. Within government, administrators receive structured training aligned with governance roles, while scientists are often placed in diverse technical portfolios without comparable frameworks for role-specific training, career progression, or clear alignment of authority and professional safeguards.
Scientific inputs in policymaking are often commissioned for immediate needs — such as legal cases or regulatory decisions — making research time-bound and narrow. A stronger approach would support continuous, long-term research that anticipates emerging challenges, allowing decisions to be guided by evidence and foresight rather than urgency.
Until science becomes a regular partner in governance rather than a reactive tool, its full potential to improve policy and public trust will remain underused. Thus, most scientific research is not specifically designed to improve the effectiveness of existing policies or to meet the future needs of countries in shaping policy change.
As India’s responsibilities expanded into technically intensive sectors, environmental protection, climate change, oceans and coasts, public health, disaster management, nuclear safety, biotechnology, space science, and artificial intelligence, scientists became indispensable to government functioning.
Yet, instead of creating a distinct institutional framework that was suited to scientific work, scientists were largely absorbed into the existing administrative system. They continue to be governed by conduct rules, appraisal mechanisms, and hierarchies that were originally designed for general administrative functions. Over time, this has limited the ability of scientists to exercise their professional role fully within governance structures. While organisations such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and a few others have separate rules for recruitment, assessment, and promotion, they continue to be bound by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a framework designed primarily for administrative governance rather than scientific independence.
Administrative rules are not neutral
Service rules shape behaviour and culture. While civil service rules stress discipline and neutrality, scientific work requires questioning assumptions and presenting evidence even when it challenges policy. Without frameworks that accommodate this, scientific inputs remain advisory rather than fully integrated into decision-making.
Scientific progress depends on continuous inquiry, testing of evidence, and honest assessment of risks and uncertainties. In governance, this translates into the ability to flag ecological risks, technological limitations, or long-term consequences in a transparent manner. When scientists are unable to formally record or communicate such assessments within institutional processes, their role risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. Science that cannot question policy is not science. It is a decoration. Effective governance requires mechanisms that allow scientific assessments to be placed on record, even while final policy choices remain with elected authorities.
Many countries, which includes France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States have created distinct scientific cadres within government, with tailored service rules, career paths, and professional protections. These systems strengthen governance by ensuring transparent, independent scientific input into policymaking. For example, U.S. Scientific Integrity Policies protect scientists from political interference, require transparent documentation of advice, and prevent suppression or alteration of research findings, ensuring that policies are guided by credible evidence rather than political convenience.
India’s situation is distinctive. Despite strong scientific institutions and highly trained professionals, government scientists often have limited institutional authority relative to their expertise. Their inputs may not always carry formal weight in decision-making processes, particularly in technically complex sectors. This can result in cautious communication, limited documentation of uncertainty, and an over-reliance on science during crises rather than as a continuous input into policy formulation. A governance system that does not fully utilise its scientific capacity risks long-term policy weaknesses. India’s aspirations, to be a leader in climate action, environmental stewardship, public health, and technology, require institutions that value scientific evidence alongside administrative efficiency. What is needed is not additional committees or ad-hoc advisory bodies, but structural reform that clearly defines the role of scientists within governance and provides appropriate institutional safeguards.
The creation of an Indian scientific services, or ISS, offers a constructive way forward. The ISS could function as a permanent, all-India scientific cadre working alongside existing civil services. Scientists would be recruited through rigorous national-level selection and peer evaluation and placed within ministries and regulatory institutions as integral participants in decision-making. Separate scientific service rules would protect professional integrity, enable transparent recording of scientific assessments, and clarify the distinction between scientific advice and policy decisions. The ISS is not intended to replace administrative systems, but to complement them. Administrators ensure coordination and execution; scientists contribute evidence, risk assessment, and long-term perspective.
A potential framework
A possible structure for an ISS could include specialised cadres such as the Indian Environmental and Ecological Service, Indian Climate and Atmospheric Service, Indian Water and Hydrological Service, Indian Marine and Ocean Services, Indian Public Health and Biomedical Service, Indian Disaster Risk and Resilience Service, Indian Energy and Resources Service, Indian Science and Technology Policy Service, Indian Agricultural and Food Systems Service, and Indian Regulatory Science Service.
India has built strong scientific institutions. The next step is to integrate scientific expertise more directly into governance structures. The need for an ISS is no longer theoretical. It is a practical and timely reform to strengthen evidence-based policymaking and build more resilient governance for the future.
Under the current political leadership, India is steadily moving beyond its colonial legacy and building a confident new India. In this spirit, an ISS would be a forward-looking reform — much like the transformation of the Indian Civil Service after Independence — strengthening a science-driven administrative system that is aligned with India’s national aspirations and global ambitions .
P. Ragavan is a coastal ecosystem researcher with 15 years of research and field expertise on mangroves and seagrass. The views expressed are personal
Leave a Reply