The unprecedented rise in manufacturing and production activities, the fast-tracked growth of the global economy and consumerism, power generation, transportation, food production, and deforestation are leading to the production of immense gaseous emissions, mainly greenhouse gasses. The increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is causing rapid global warming and climate change, causing extreme weather conditions and climate change, very similar to having an uninvited guest over who has tons of emotional baggage. After all, climate change comes with a plethora of problems.

The only way to get rid of an uninvited guest is to tell them to leave or adjust your reaction to their unwanted presence. Unfortunately, with climate change, we cannot adopt the former strategy, so the only option we humans are left with is to pull up our socks and be more responsible with our actions.

One way to mitigate climate change is to engage in large-scale carbon dioxide removal. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a term that describes measures for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. CDR includes nature-based solutions (NBS); these are encouraged because they ensure a “nature-positive future”, which refers to not only reducing the harmful impact on the environment but helping the earth to rejuvenate and regenerate its resources.

The following case studies demonstrate how NBS are used in a real-world scenario. An example of where DAC is being implemented is in Iceland, where two companies (Climeworks and CarbFix) are capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and combining it with CO2 (sourced from geothermal fluid) to store it underground in basalt rock formations. This is the first operation of its kind, converting CO2 into rock through mineralization in the span of 23 years.

In order to preserve biodiversity, sequester carbon, and create a stable forest system resistant to climate change, the Shandong Ecological Afforestation Project concentrated on replanting degraded mountainous regions and creating a protected forest system. Over the course of the project’s 30 years, it helped to sequester the equivalent of around 12 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) and produced important information for cost-benefit analyses of the potential for carbon sequestration in project regions.

These NBS for CDR are vital because they engage and protect pre-existing natural processes of carbon removal and storage that not only combat the ill effects of climate change but act as regenerative measures towards environmental recovery from excessive industrial activity.

Even if we employ these above-mentioned techniques as optimally as possible, it would be incredibly difficult for us to accomplish complete decarbonization. This is due to the fact that massive corporations, which produce practically everything we can think of consuming, are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that only 25 government- and corporate-run producing entities account for more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions is troubling. Due to the continued rapid growth in the world’s population and the resulting rise in human consumption, these emissions are only expected to increase. Investors should start shifting away from fossil fuels and supporting investment in clean energy sources since public funding supports a fifth of the world’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to understand that we must hold these corporations accountable. In addition to this, we must be more responsible and embrace sustainable consumption.

About the Author: Ananya is currently pursuing an Undergraduate degree in Political Science and Economics from Ashoka University. She’s deeply interested in policy research, sustainable growth, and developmental economics. She has an ardent passion for stray animal welfare, content writing, and content creation as well.


One of the fundamental features of any democracy is the right to vote. People, throughout human history, have gone to great lengths to secure this right, as being able to choose your representative is a very powerful act indeed. Often overlooked in this debate of enfranchisement are minors, who are directly impacted by the government’s policy decisions, but lack the right to choose them. Should they also not have the agency to choose their preferred leaders? Lately, the debate on lowering the age of voting has been picking pace and rightly so. What then, are the reasons to justify their exclusion? 

Well, to begin with, critiques argue that minors lack the capacity to make decisions that are in their best interest and by that logic, in country’s best interest. They believe their cognitive development is not adequate for voting. Another reason often propounded is that they lack the political ‘experience’. Their exposure to ‘socio-political’ content is meagre which might cause hindrance in making informed decisions. Furthermore, it has been a quotidian belief that adolescents are gullible and can be easily manipulated. This, critiques argue might prove to be calamitous for democracy as politicians can then influence the adolescents according to their whims and fancies. This can prove to be counterproductive for many other groups as adolescents are a large percentage of the vote bank and can have a decisive impact on the electoral results. They lack the necessary motivation too for catalysing change according to some.

The problem with such arguments, critiques oft-times overlook, is that these can hold true for a major part of the adult population as well. These limitations are not just related to minors. Each and every one of us is constantly being manipulated by politicians via social media, and many adults lack the socio-political awareness too, but the right to vote has been conferred upon adults regardless. If adults are also put under such microscopic scrutiny just as adolescents, many of them might lose their entitlement to vote. Adolescents not being exposed to ‘socio-political’ content and not being adequately motivated to take part in this process is a failure of the lawmakers and not adolescents themselves. These arguments tend to provoke thoughts about whether such treatment towards minors is unjust, unfair and outright discriminatory. Recent research on adolescent brain development has also shown that a 16 years old is capable of cold cognition just like adults, making adolescents equally equipped for informed decision making when voting.

This asymmetry in the political arena needs to be get done with. The right to vote is a human right. It gives everyone an equal standing in society and minors shouldn’t be deprived of this. They are actively contributing in most fields where adults are present. Quite a few of them are earning a livelihood for their family just like adults. Sachin Tendulkar, who represented India on the international stage and many others who will represent or are already representing our country at the global stage countless of times, enduring immense pressure on a daily basis yet performing so well. They are still thought of to be not mature enough to cast a vote. They are expected to follow the law but lack a say in the decision-making process. They are good voters too, as can be seen in the voter turnout of the Norway and Austria elections, where the voters aged 16-17 years had a higher turnout rate than older voters. 

In a democracy, there are no wrong votes. People cannot be expected to perpetually vote intelligently. If this was the case half of us would lose this right. Each country should take up steps to incorporate minors in the electoral process as their choice matters too, intelligent or not. Young people exemplify responsibility, maturity and knowledge comparable to other voters and hence they justifiably deserve the right to vote. 

Saptarshi Gargari holds a bachelors degree in Psychology from University of Delhi. He’s profoundly fascinated with the working of a Political environment and International Relations. An avid non-fiction reader and a trained athlete/cricketer, Saptarshi wears multiple hats in and around his daily life. An excellent communicator and a patient researcher.


‘Photographs don’t just capture images, they recreate memories.’

Analogue photography, most commonly known as Film photography is a dying art, some may say. However, it is essential to observe that the excitement of owning a polaroid camera in this era of digital technology is an evidence of combining the adulation for film photography and the need of instant gratification made available by contemporary photography. Analogue photography has also made a come-back in the last few years as more and more photographers, amateur or professional, flock the camera repair shops with either a second-hand or heirloom camera in an attempt to rediscover non-digital, vintage photography.

Resurgence of analogue photography may be attributed to its authentic aesthetics, better quality, colour, dynamic range, the vintage appeal and the desire to capture ‘real’ images as reproduced by the camera sensor. However, the percentage of population solely attracted to film photography is yet meagre. In the age of technology and the era of digital photography enhanced by artificial intelligence and smart devices, most of the population has become addicted to clicking pictures. Social media platforms have further made possible the sharing of pictures in real-time and made people conscious about the statistics of likes on their posts. The feeling of nostalgia while going through albums is now replaced with casual scrolling.

On the face of it, digital photography may seem to be more sustainable with the fact that images made with digital cameras can be reviewed on the spot and saved for later or deleted if they are not satisfactory. They are of high resolution, do not require films and eliminate the overhead costs of developing the films which come with a lot of health hazards such as depigmentation of skin and eye injuries to name a few.  On the downside, digital photographs are easily mutable, can be exploited and edited to ‘create’ photographs, and render the ‘truth’ of photography obsolete. Evidence shows that about 350 million photographs are uploaded in a day on Facebook; 95 million photographs and videos shared on Instagram daily; the combined number of images shared uploaded on both platforms now exceeds 290 billion; whereas approximately 188 million people use Snapchat on a daily basis; and these numbers would have increased by manifold post Covid-19 pandemic. As back up, people upload pictures on a variety of platforms such as Dropbox, Google Drive, One Drive, etc. An average size of an image clicked runs in kilobytes or megabytes, depending upon the lens or the device used. It can now be comprehended how much millions of gigabytes of data is being stored via cloud computing, adding to the digital pollution. The carbon footprint while posting a photograph on Instagram is about 0.15grams whereas merely scrolling on the feed for a minute emits 1.5grams of CO2. It is estimated that an average user spends 28 minutes scrolling on social media each day, which amounts to emission of 42grams of CO2 on one social media platform.

Digital Photography may be convenient and comes with its own advantages, but is it really sustainable – is a question we need to ask ourselves. Is it time to shift back to analogue photography? Or is it time that we understand the amount of the digital pollution we are contributing to and click photographs consciously & upload them judiciously?

Ms. Priya Shukla is a Senior Project Associate at World Intellectual Foundation. She has a background in Public Administration and Political Science and works in the area of research and Public Policy. Ms. Priya wants to be the change and contribute in making the world a happier, healthier and peaceful place. She loves creating memories and practices photography as her hobby.


Plastic may in recent years have seen a decline in its popularity with increasing awareness amongst the masses around the kind of hazard it poses to the planet. Yet, its everyday use has only seen an uptick, with global plastic production doubling between 2000 and 2019. 

Plastic recycling has been championed as the way out of the problem, insinuating that if you, the consumer, engage in healthy recycling habits, the adverse effects of plastics on this planet can be mitigated, which is not true. Only 9% of all the global plastic waste generated between 1990 to 2019 has been recycled, which stands at 13% for India, with 36% ending in landfills. In India, 60% of plastic waste is recycled, out of which only 70% is reclaimed by registered centers. A lot of Plastic finds its way to landfills, where it contaminates the soil and groundwater, and incinerating it adds to air pollution. Such landfills are known to cause health hazards to communities residing in the vicinity. Also, recycling plastic usually means repurposing them into pellets etc., and is not recyclable endlessly unlike glass and aluminum and eventually disintegrates to the point of no return after a few times rendering it a waste anyway. 

Ruining Environment is a Big Business

The truth is, virgin plastic is cheaper to make than recycling it and is a big business for oil giants. The campaigns around how if consumers separate their trash into the right dustbins can help in reducing plastic pollution is a lie, significantly since plastic production is projected to balloon to 1100 million tonnes by 2050 from 400 million tonnes today

Corporates & Unethical Practices: Failing to deliver but passing the buck 

Touting plastic recycling as a viable alternative to its increasing consumption is an easy way out for manufacturers of such products to keep pushing more plastic into the market and into the hands of the consumers. At the same time, the responsibility of recycling it has been carefully shifted onto us. There has been a recent resurgence of discussions around the issue of microplastics, which have started to find their way into human bodies. Recent discovery of microplastics in Antarctica’s freshly melted snow has sent alarm bells ringing across the scientific community with the last place on earth thought to be pristine and untouched of plastic pollution finding its name creeping up into the list. There is no second-guessing as to the havoc plastics have unleashed onto the planet and our lives and cannot be addressed alone by changing consumer habits. Plastic recycling is only one of many examples of Corporations indulging in unethical practices to shed off their responsibility as a stakeholder in the planet’s future, for example, when Volkswagen was found cheating on US emission tests for its diesel cars. Its only when they are caught that they scramble in to douse the fire and spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns to change their public perception to that of a responsible company that operates on a set of values. Their recent efforts of claiming to reduce their carbon footprint is one such example, where they’ve conveniently left out Scope 3 emissions from their carbon reduction pledge which constitutes a major chunk of their emissions. 

For years ad campaigns have been run telling individual consumers to adopt sustainable practices in their daily lives to contribute to a healthy environment, and rightfully so but corporations who are easily responsible for the worst of such practices conveniently find escape routes to avoid their responsibility and are only held accountable by the public when their shoddy practices become public. From promoting the consumption of tobacco  in early 20th century to funding studies denying climate change, such floundering of public sentiment based on, at best shady practices by these corporations cannot be allowed to increase further. It should be subjected to increased public scrutiny, for they might claim to work in the interests of their shareholders. Still, when their actions start affecting the population, it necessitates that the planet’s needs trump their privileges. But for now, Plastic recycling is a sham! It is too important an issue to be left for corporates. We, the citizens must take charge!

Shikhar is a graduate in law with a knack for reading. He also likes to read up on issues of public policy and international politics. Being a tech enthusiast, he ardently follows the current happenings around all things technology. He likes to watch movies in his pastime and is also a hip-hop aficionado.


Women’s issues have been in the realm of activism at every level all over the world. In some countries, there are policies on gender equality or institutions for social justice, but as a country, Sweden leads the way through its multi-dimensional action-oriented approach. The government of Sweden’s engagement in global affairs has focused on ensuring Women’s rights, and it raised its voice in the affairs of Saudi Arabia, where women remain a subject of patriarchy, and criticized the country’s human rights records, condemning the complicated situation of women within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But back home, it has gone notches ahead.

In 2014, Sweden became the first nation-state to launch a feminist foreign policy that aims to systematically and holistically implement policies that contribute to gender equality and promote human rights for all women and girls nationally and internationally. As Sweden believes, “No society can flourish if half of its population is not included”. The socially constructed barriers that impede women from realizing their potential and rights must be addressed. The policy came in response to the intolerance and discrimination that women face across the world.

In recent decades, the situation has notably improved for women, at least in western nations. There are still significant impediments to women’s enjoyment of equal rights and independence as compared to men. And, no country around the world has been able to achieve gender equality. Incorporating feminism into foreign policy is a challenging endeavor that has been made more difficult by patriarchal systems’ tenacity, diverse social and cultural settings, and various feminist interpretations. The use of the term “feminism” to build their foreign policy explains a great degree of flexibility with respect to how Sweden, as a nation, understands the term and what they want to emphasize by using it.

The policy also allows for a focus on women’s roles in global politics and also enquires into the nation’s efforts to bring matters of intersectional feminism to the global forum through inclusivity. Feminism in decision-making at the national and international level reveals and challenges the way gender works to institutionalize hierarchical relations in global politics. In 2015, Sweden established a “Women’s Mediation Network”, which aims to promote conflict resolution peacefully and actively encourage women’s engagement in peace processes and agreements. Sweden also collaborated with UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) to develop a “Trade and Gender Toolbox” that includes methodologies for evaluating the impact of trade policy measures on women and gender equality. The policy has tried to bring an institutional culture shift.

In the light of the current global scenario, a more systemic and comprehensive effort is required to achieve gender equality. It is essential to listen and include grassroots communities and allow them to lead the way, especially women and other minorities. Like Sweden, other nations and actors must also take the responsibility to build peaceful, developed, and sustainable societies. Feminism must not be lip service, and Sweden shows the way how to do it.

Ms. Smriti Lohia has a Master’s degree in International Relations and holds her Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and French. She developed an early passion for social change and environmental sustainability. She is Senior Project Associate at World Intellectual Foundation.

Mental Health issues have grown exponentially and it may be fair to raise the level of urgency on mental health issues to be pandemic.

Within Mental Health, the most important issues that need to be addressed today are the rise in Anxiety and Depression.

A pre-COVID Lancet study revealed that in 2017, 197.3 million (14.3% of the total population of India suffered from mental health ailments), including 45.7 million who suffer from Depressive disorders and 44.9 million from Anxiety disorders.The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major effect on everyone’s lives and many people are facing challenges that can be stressful, overwhelming, and cause strong emotions in adults and children.

The National Mental Health Survey of India, 2015-16 found that 80% of the people with mental health issues did not receive treatment for over a year and there is a huge treatment gap across different mental health disorders, ranging from 28% to 83%. The stigma and treatment gap associated with mental health disorders is widely prevalent across the states, and the role of Faith-based organizations(FBOs)should be explored.

Faith-based organizations are organizations whose values are based on faith and a set of beliefs. There has been no evidence of the positive or negative impact of faith-based organizations but due to the absence of a robust mental health system, many people turn to faith to seek solutions for their problems. The FBOs could play a vital role in bridging the gap in creating awareness, removing stigma and directing to qualified practitioners for diagnosis and treatment.

According to research conducted by a Chennai based organization- Schizophrenia Research Foundation , it is seen that over 70% of people first seek help from Faith-based organizations and Faith-based healers (FBHs) before seeking professional help from a mental health practitioner.

The reason why most of the people may be turning to Faith-based organizations is, because Faith-based organizations and Faith-based healersgive external causes to the person suffering from a mental health disorder. But in allopathy, the mental health professional will give internal causes as per the mental health condition which might be difficult for the person to accept and hence the inclination towards FBHs & FBOs.  In India, people prefer to seek help through faith-based organizations due to their socio-cultural preferences and also due to the lack of infrastructure in the country. Most of the psychiatrists in India work in either metros or big towns and the treatment gap is massive in semi-urban and rural areas.Research has indicated a positive correlation between Faith and Mental health.

Innovative approach: A unique program of the Government of Gujarat and Altruist called “Dava and Dua Program”seems to be leading the way for mental health professionals to reach out to those who come to religious places in search of a cure for their mental health problems. It is based on the system to provide modern scientific mental health services along with traditional beliefs to the people visiting, for mental health issues. Even going by our ancient Indian belief, Dava (Medicine) and Dua (Prayers) is believed to cure problems faster.

FBOs & FBHs provide guidance, support and empathy to those suffering from mental health issues. They can provide a mechanism to educate individuals and families about mental health and increase awareness. This can address the stigma associated with mental health and reduce discrimination making it easier for people to seek help. FBOs & FBHs should have a long-term strategy and should be channelized, standardized and supported with evidence-based tools using technology. FBOs & FBHs should work in association with mental health professionals, government and other stakeholders to address the awareness of mental health issues and remove the stigma associated with it. The amalgamation of Faith and Science mayhelp support and alleviate the burden of Mental Health at the primary care level.

Ms. Ashima Singh holds a Masters Degree in Public Policy from Queen Mary University of London.  She is passionate about Mental Health and wants to work for the welfare of the people. With her work, she aims to enhance the quality of governance and contribute to the development of the country.She is Project Associate at the Public Policy think tank- World Intellectual Foundation.

“A Modernite ?, you guys are real snobs …….”

This is often the first response I get when I mention my School … Modern School. Immediate and automatic, pre-conceived notions lead to judgment. And after that, all that I may say is dismissed as chatter.

This type of reaction got me thinking about how we start judging, forming opinions, and disregarding conversations without going into any depth. It could come from family, friends, professional associates, acquaintances … As educator and entertainer, Kyle Hill observes, “we tend to accept information that confirms our prior beliefs and ignore or discredit information that does not. This confirmation bias settles over our eyes like distorting spectacles for everything we look at.”

How people dress and speak, their accent, their address, their car— and, of course, who they know—determine their social standing in our eyes. A current example is streamed on Netflix—the hugely popular “Inventing Anna,” the tale about the so-called German heir. She defrauded top bankers and the crème-de-la-crème of New York society of millions of dollars. How she dressed, spoke, and bragged about who she knew fooled the shrewdest.

In India—where the significant population is brown-skinned—having a fair complexion is still considered beautiful. Matrimonial advertisements continue to ask for golden girls or boys. Candidates in job interviews get selected over their dusky counterparts. Commercials make light of directives to be inclusive and continue to push the ‘fair is beautiful’ notion. Insidiously, we are body-shamed about being dark or of a different shape or size.

Religious biases, too, are revealed in pseudo-secular narratives. Debate on religion is getting increasingly contentious. The slightest reference to any sacred text, custom, or rites leads to social branding and heated talking points. Deep divides get deeper and harder to bridge.

What does this say about us as people? Instead of regarding differences as an asset and embracing them, we are becoming more close-minded and intolerant. As the world gets closer, we as individuals and groups become more distant and unforgiving. What happened to the ideal thought of “unity in diversity”? Is “E Pluribus Unum” just an aspirational Latin motto we all want but do not live up to?

Preconceived notions: Risk for Reality: ‘There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so,’ said William Shakespeare. When we create ideas about things that matter and make decisions on the same, it could ruin someone’s career prospects or adversely impact the social or financial status or even bring down a reputed organization. So, it is essential to consider the risk associated with our preconceived notions and biases. It can be self-detrimental, and it could be devastating for others.

We all should follow what Charles F. Kettering wrote, “It’s amazing what ordinary people can do if they set out without preconceived notions.”. The world is full of amazing people, and let’s keep it that way.

Ms. Geeta Sudan is an independent financial consultant and advisor at World Intellectual Foundation


We have witnessed a decade of digital media expansion in India, the world’s second-largest Internet user domain, to propose the idea of “millennial India.” Millennial (1981- 1996) India highlights the processes of digitalization as a distinct socio-political, economic, and environmental moment entailing new conditions of communication and the stakes of “millennials” who are drawn to digital media to articulate these matters. These processes have led to a democratization of public participation through the self-activity of online users. The increasing tech-savvy world is on the top of the list because youth want to be ‘woke’. The ‘woke’ is a GenZ (born between 1997-2012) term to be awake and aware of the injustice in society, to become more active with their opinion.

With the increase in popularity of social media, it has created an innovative platform for promotions and publicity along with entertainment. Social media has become a forum to discuss woke topics. Such as the use of the #metoo movement, which created a revolution for humans in every possible industry. American activist Tarana Burke sparked this movement in 2006, but it failed. Again in 2017, it spread all over the world, including India, where the accusers were taken into legal custody. Another such event, #Blacklivesmatter- with the killing of George Floyd by a US Police officer in May 2020, this movement spread like fire all over the world through social media with a message to look upon. The revolutionary event #FridaysforFuture also known as the school strike for climate change, was a protest movement led by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. Many students skipped going to school, protested all over the streets on environmental protection for climate change, and urged the leaders in authority to initiate actions and save the climate before it’s too late. These events were peaceful, and the movement was a ‘woke’ to create a change within our system. These events went viral all over social media. The use of social media is a boon as well as a bane. Perhaps, how we consume it is important.

Spreading fake news, destroying an individual’s image, trolling, etc., should not be glorified. Giving a perception or an opinion is perfectly right, but if it becomes intolerable, then it should be discarded. Stress, lower self-esteem, depression, self-harm, and suicide ideation have become more prevalent amongst millennials due to the trolling. According to UNICEF, 1 in 7 Indians of the age group 15-24 feels depressed due to excessive use of social media. Technology, especially digitalization, has offered fantastic opportunities for everyone, but its appropriate usage is imperative in these times.    

We tend to detach from the ‘real’ world and get attached to the ‘reel’ world. Be responsible enough while socially connecting that you don’t forget to ‘connect socially.’ Don’t let your digital space overpower your emotions. It is just a gadget for some purposes, don’t make it the ‘purpose of life.’

Ms. Kaumudi Shah is a Public Policy enthusiast and a researcher. She has previously worked as a copywriter in the area of advertising. She is Project Associate at the Public Policy think tank- World Intellectual Foundation.

‘Publish or Perish’ i.e., Either publish or bid goodbye to your dreams of becoming a researcher. Globally, this tremendous pressure to publish a preset number of scientific articles, especially in India, has given rise to predatory journals and papers of marginal quality, which has diluted the spirit of science and scientific temperament. The mandatory requirement for Ph.D. in most countries – A gateway to the world of research – is to write a few academic papers as a part of the prerequisite criteria for being awarded the degree. Data says that India is the third-largest producer of research papers despite the low numbers of doctoral graduates passing each year compared to other countries.

In 2014, 67,449 people in the United States received a Ph.D., compared to 28,147 in Germany. With 25,020 Ph.D. graduates, the United Kingdom was at third position, barely ahead of India with 24,300 doctoral students (OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook ). In 2019, according to the All India Survey of Higher Education, 2881 students enrolled in Integrated Ph.D. in addition to 2.02 lakh students enrolled for Ph.D. students, and a total of 38,986 Indian students were awarded a Ph.D. degree. But the number of Ph.D. degree holders getting into the research field every year does not correlate with the quality and impact these research publications can create and should be able to make. Science is burgeoning under the false expectations under the tsunami of scientific publications that have little or no real influence, along with a black hole of XYZ Journals.

According to National Science Foundation, 2.6 million scientific papers (Science and Engineering S&E) were published worldwide in 2018, which is a 4% annual increase over the last ten years. High-income economies (the United States, Germany, Japan, and other similar countries) produced 56% of S&E articles, followed by upper-middle-income economies (China, Russia, Brazil, and other similar countries) with 34% and lower-middle-income economies (India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other similar countries) with 9%. China and the United States produced 21% and 17% of total publications in 2018, followed by India (5%), Germany (4%), Japan (4%), and the U.K (4%). However, as a group, on Impact Factor (measure the importance of journal by the number of times a typical article in a journal has been cited in a given year), considering S&E publication output in top 1% of cited publications as a criterion, USA scored 1.88%, EU 1.30% and China 1.12% which is more than world average of 1% whereas Japan and India scored 0.88% and 0.70% which is below the world average. It should be noted that both the countries, Japan and India, appeared in the top 10 countries in terms of volume of publications.

On the quality of researchers, according to Clarivate Plc’s list of Highly Cited Researchers in 2021, the United States is home to a total of 2,622 out of 6,600 recognized researchers who demonstrated significant influence in their chosen field through the publication of highly cited articles over the last decade. The U.S is followed by China (935), the United Kingdom (492), Australia (332), Germany, and The Netherlands. However, Indian researchers do not appear on the list. In 2019, only 10 Indian scientists were among the top 4000 highly cited researchers.

These numbers tell a story of a dire situation of dying science. We need to rethink the national R&D eco-system, the quality of research institutions, the number of Ph.D. students graduating from universities, research and development funding priorities, and overall attitude towards science. India spends 0.7% of GDP on R&D and has 156 researchers per million inhabitants, whereas 2.7% of GDP is spent in the USA with 4,205 researches per million inhabitants. To address the case of ‘Missing Science’ in our country requires concrete efforts from government and academia. Also, we must not compromise the quality of scientific knowledge in the quest to make science accessible to all. Of course, there are other issues that need to be addressed, such as paywall removal, funding, and how science is conveyed to the general public.

Dr. Manpreet Kaur is a doctor by training, a researcher, an activist, and public health enthusiast. She also works in the area of innovation, societal impact, and transformation. She is Chief of Staff at the Public Policy think tank- World Intellectual Foundation.