The pursuit of noble prize in physiology and medicine: Current challenges in Indian research environment-A new frame of reference

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

Dear editor, We read the article entitled "Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine by the Indian medical education system: How far and how close?" with great delight. The author diligently enlisted a plethora of reasons for the Indian medical education system being huge but yet, unable to make any mark in the field of research in physiology or medicine globally. The reasons given are high out-of-pocket expenditure on health care, a high consumer market-driven approach with a focus on manufacturing rather than invention, and the national medical commission (NMC) on setting minimum standards on education and outsourced clinical trials. Here are our observations for the same. Developed countries like the USA have more recipients of Nobel Prizes and the reasons are a heavy investment in basic science, more academic freedom, spending around 2.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) on research, and having enough philanthropy and private endowments.[1,2] Whereas, the scientific and research infrastructure in India is bureaucratic, restrictive, and inefficient. Gross spending on R&D in India as a proportion of GDP has stayed constant at around 0.7% for roughly ten years, according to national institution for transforming India (NITI) Aayog. India follows the "publish or perish" approach, which is mandatory for the promotion of medical teachers to improve their quality but lack innovative research ideas.[3] It becomes challenging to publish the studies in a reputable publication unless the concept is original and the data is precise. Armchair research discourages students from strategic thinking and leads to faulty research methodology. The faculty bears the responsibility for raising ethical, committed, and enthusiastic researchers who aren't afraid to ask the right questions.[4] Most clinicians and researchers lack writing or journalism skills, despite their professionalism and competence. As a result, in the quest to improve "industrial standards," medical professionals in academia are persuaded into abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism.[5] The majority of medical research is centered on the investigation, diagnosis, and treatment for improving health and patient care. However, there is a dire need for advancement in basic research, which is a source for novel instruments, approaches, and strategies that are vital to revolutionizing research and development outside of the fields that gave origin to them. Weak intellectual property rights protection discourages risk-taking, while nascent innovation ecosystems are still unable to scale up the training, mentoring, and support of researchers and innovators. Poor education, health, and infrastructure also prevent greater participation in research and development.[6] Market-driven technological development promotes the commercialization of new innovations, improving the return on investment for research funds.[6] Many medical periodicals, especially open-access journals and predatory journals, are prospering in India due to low rejection rates, threatening the quality of science. Academics should be trained and their digital abilities should be honed to recognize predatory publications and low-quality articles. Research institutes in underdeveloped nations, such as India, must work hard to enhance publishing literacy, particularly among young researchers. Nobel Prizes and widespread recognition are only a small part of the picture. India needs to engage more broadly and profoundly in scientific endeavor to develop a meaningful scientific hold over impending challenges. Thinking critically and creatively is necessary, and it can only advance in sync with investments in basic science research. Formulating policies aimed at goals such as intellectual property protection and research and development, stimulate innovation and technological change more directly. There are several potential strategies available, including direct government funding of research centers, grants to university or private-sector scholars, collaborations for specific projects with national and international experts, and tax exemptions. To put oneself in the running for the Nobel Prize, learning about the people who have previously received the prize is of utmost importance. It is important to note that no one can nominate himself or herself for the Nobel Peace Prize. Collaborative research with an understanding of social capital assures that worldwide societal issues can be addressed by pooling resources, brainpower, and complementing expertise. Though there is no single formula for success, many Nobel laureates have the same characteristics. Those who are engrossed in their fields and driven to make a difference in the world are more likely to get a Nobel Prize for their work. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.