I have been working in the Life Science industry for the past 18 years and have often come across discussions with scientists—from both government and corporate sectors—where research funding is raised as a significant challenge.
Interestingly, it’s not only researchers who raise this concern. When we, as sales and marketing professionals, engage in strategic discussions, funding for research regularly comes up as a barrier—especially when it involves acquiring and retaining market presence.
Yet, there’s an interesting observation: while some labs thrive, others struggle. Similarly, some companies consistently meet their targets, while others grapple with the market.
I see a clear analogy between these situations. This isn’t a challenge unique to the life sciences—it extends across industries and even into our personal lives. Through this blog, I want to share my perspective in a broader, more generalized way so it can resonate beyond a specific sector or research domain.
Most researchers who are now Principal Investigators would agree that the funding situation wasn’t much different when they were research fellows. In fact, many would argue it was even worse—less automation, labor-intensive methods, and very modest fellowships. I’ve often heard how they had to dip into their fellowship stipends just to complete their work. What drove them was not infrastructure or funding, but pure passion for research.
The Challenge of Abundance in Modern Research
One of the first challenges I want to highlight is what I call the “Challenge of Abundance.”
We’ve all heard the old saying: “Necessity is the mother of invention.” But in today’s research environment, where technologies are rapidly evolving and tools are readily available, we must ask—Is abundance slowly killing our passion to strive harder and think deeper?
In laboratories across the world, researchers now have access to advanced instrumentation, ready-to-use kits, AI-driven data analysis platforms, and sophisticated software. While these tools are undeniably powerful, there's a growing concern that they might be making the new generation of scientists overly dependent on plug-and-play solutions—At the cost of creativity and critical thinking.
This dependency on technology doesn't stop at the lab. At home, our children are immersed in a world driven by digital convenience. While it’s important to stay in sync with global advancements, The race should be about producing meaningful results, not just acquiring the latest machines. Unfortunately, this desire for constant technological upgrades often leads to another major roadblock: Funding Challenges.
The Funding Paradox
Let’s talk about the second key challenge: funding.
When I reviewed biotech research funding over the past three years, I noticed only a marginal increase in budgets—barely enough to keep pace with inflation. However, if we zoom out and include funding for startup incubation, there is a noticeable increase. This seems to reflect a strategic shift—particularly by governments—Toward nurturing job creators rather than job seekers, as a response to rising unemployment.
In the corporate sector, research funding often amounts to just 2–3% of annual turnover. While this may be understandable from a business standpoint, it does little to push the boundaries of innovation.
But how much control do we really have over these external factors?
The truth is—not much. What we can control is our response. We must accept the constraints and adapt strategically. Creativity often flourishes within boundaries, and it’s up to us to keep the spirit of inquiry alive despite the challenges.
From Fund Utilization to Fund Management
Striking the right balance is key.
Take a simple analogy: if I’m someone who only finds time to exercise on Sundays, does it make sense to invest in a home gym and treadmill? Not really. It would be more efficient—and cost-effective—to join a gym. It’s not just about the capital investment, but also about ongoing maintenance.
This mindset shift—from fund utilization to fund management—is critical.
We must ask ourselves: is today’s expenditure going to become tomorrow’s Liability or Asset? One approach I recommend is applying the 80-20 rule—if a resource is going to be used 80% of the time, it’s worth investing in. If not, consider outsourcing or renting.
In the current funding context, I wouldn’t want my lab to act like a central instrumentation facility. Instead, I would prefer to focus on one or two key technologies and build a Center of Excellence—a space where others come to collaborate, rather than duplicate resources.
This brings me to another critical point: Multidisciplinary Collaboration.
We have brilliant chemists, botanists, microbiologists, zoologists, biotechnologists, and clinicians working independently. But to produce meaningful, applied research outcomes, interdisciplinary partnerships are vital—especially in today’s funding environment.
I’m not suggesting we shift 100% to applied research. But at least 30% of our research portfolio should aim for practical, translational outcomes. Such collaborations can give rise to new technologies and services, and even create revenue models for researchers.
These partnerships should span all levels: from project writing and experimental design, to execution, patent filing, and paper publishing. We can no longer operate in silos or only collaborate for co-authorship after offering minimal assistance.
Gone are the days when researchers could say, “mine is a novel work and cannot be shared.” Thousands of scientists globally are working in parallel. In this fast-paced environment, Being second is as good as Being invisible.
Poor Research Planning: The Silent Killer
Finally, I want to address a challenge that often goes unnoticed: poor research planning.
In the Indian context especially, time is the most overlooked resource. From proposal approval to procurement and installation, timelines can stretch from 2 to 6 months, and for instruments, sometimes even a year. This delay directly affects research outcomes and successive funding opportunities.
Moreover, we often struggle with documentation. I’ve met many PhD scholars who have a mountain of data but delay writing their papers. I've seen cases where, during that delay, another group publishes similar work—rendering years of effort obsolete.
Improper planning doesn't just cause publication delays—it delays PhDs, wastes funds, and often results in missed opportunities for patents and recognition.
In some European institutes, there’s a dedicated role for a Research Manager—someone who oversees project timelines, planning, and documentation. This is something we might consider adopting more widely in India.
In Summary
The current environment is undoubtedly challenging, but not insurmountable. To navigate it successfully, I believe we need to focus on four key areas:
- Rationalizing Purchases
- Adapting to Funding Realities
- Encouraging Multidisciplinary Collaboration
- Implementing Meticulous Research Planning
As the saying goes, "If we fail to plan, we are planning for failure." Let us learn to manage our resources, time, and collaborations more strategically—so that innovation doesn’t just survive, but thrives.