In June 2025, the Anusandhan National Research Foundation announced the first leg of the Advanced Research Grants (ARG), which builds upon the erstwhile Science and Engineering Research Board’s Core Research Grants (CRG). The ARG will fund basic, applied, and translational research, allow flexible funding, increase travel funding to enable meaningful collaborations, and facilitate the communication of research with the public, as explained by the CEO, Shivkumar Kalyanaraman, in this post on LinkedIn. To dig deeper, we spoke with him to better understand the shifts in how research will be funded by ANRF going forward and to decode that for early career researchers in India.

Siuli: Congratulations on completing three months at ANRF, and thank you for joining us. Since the ANRF Act of 2023 and new grants and fellowships, there’s been a lot of change in the funding landscape. You’ve been meeting stakeholders across the country — how is this shaping your goals? Could you share your top priorities for the next few years and longer term?

Shiv: Thank you. At ANRF, our work has three main parts:

First, our horizontal approach supports broad-based, fundamental and applied research; programmes like the Advanced Research Grants and the Prime Minister Early Career Research Grant. These are bottom-up, allowing researchers to propose novel ideas, as many breakthroughs come from unexpected places. We have improved our ARG evaluation metrics to reflect this.

I often get asked, ​‘Do you [ANRF] support fundamental research?’ The answer is yes, we do.

Second, there are the vertical, mission-driven programmes — take the Electric Vehicle Mission, for example. These programmes come in two types: ones that focus on building or strengthening economic value chains and ecosystems, and others that tackle India’s societal challenges, where research, innovation, and science and technology can really make a difference.

Third, we are working to catalyse more investment in research in India through partnerships with industry, foundations, and other organisations. 

We want to see many more research labs come forward to create more employment opportunities for others, expand beyond postdoctoral fellowships and academic circles, and find many more employers who value PhDs.”

We are also expanding partnerships with philanthropic groups and CSR initiatives, encouraging the industry to support and conduct research.

Looking ahead, we aim to further liberalise funding, especially in mission-driven programs. The overall goal, if I were to sum it up in one sentence, is to foster greater collaboration for better research outcomes and a stronger return on investment.

Siuli: That was very succinct. As we work towards these goals, I think we will need to redefine scientific excellence. It can’t just be about the number of publications anymore. Do you also see these goals changing our definition of excellence? If so, please share your thoughts on that.

Shiv: That is an important question. It is crucial for researchers to consider the broader impact of their work. Since research funding ultimately comes from society, whether through taxpayers or foundations, there is a responsibility to ensure it benefits the public. We are asking our grantees to articulate potential impact in grant proposals, and that goes beyond just publications and patents.

Now, coming to the potential impact beyond publications and patents, I want to reemphasise what I mean by ​“beyond publications.” Let me articulate this in a few ways, as its meaning can vary across different communities, and I don’t want to make assumptions.

For example, fundamental research might result in a high-profile paper, but real impact could be to drive deeper scientific and non-scientific dissemination that accelerates downstream value creation. Scientific dissemination could also be done via social media, and it could attract translational innovators to pick up on new fundamental work faster. Beyond pure scientific dissemination, there is value in creating simplified or exciting, scientifically based content that demystifies that work and inspires others. Platforms like IndiaBioscience could encourage researchers to communicate their work more broadly, even to friends and family. The former is only documentation, while the latter has an impact.

We are also making research dissemination through social media a requirement in some programmes, focusing on quality content. At ANRF, we are developing tools to help convert scientific papers into posters, videos, podcasts, and translations, making research more accessible. Human conversations will still remain vital.

Impact also includes sharing datasets or open-source software, making your research useful to others: the more people use your data or tools, the greater the impact.

Ultimately, impact has many forms. 

We welcome ongoing conversations within the community. Tell us what impact means for you, and how that definition might evolve. We want these definitions to come from the community, not just from the top down.”

Siuli: Thank you. At IndiaBioscience, we have been gathering community perspectives on how researchers view impact.

Shiv: I would also like to see an impact framework from your community, with categories defined by what matters to you, not just numbers. Research impact should go beyond metrics and factor in societal and community benefits. We need to broaden how we think about dissemination and technology diffusion, from basic science to advanced applications.

The transition from fundamental to advanced research relies on technology diffusion, which is complex and people-driven — there is no set formula. Our goal is to speed up this process and improve success rates.

We should also assess research impact at the portfolio level. Not every paper will have a big impact, and that is fine, but the overall body of work should make a difference. Impact doesn’t mean everything must be translational. It is not just about patents. Consider prototypes and unit economics as well. Having worked across fundamental, applied, and translational research, I know each requires a distinct approach.

I sometimes say, you can’t make every Einstein become an Elon Musk. They are very different.

At the same time, if we want to arrive at meaningful outcomes, specialisation is essential. But while specialising, it is equally important to collaborate with others who can extend that work into different areas.

Siuli: That brings us to my next question. You have, at other avenues too, emphasised the importance of collaboration across disciplines, institutions, and countries. The new ARG program also encourages this. While interdisciplinary research offers great opportunities, it comes with communication and coordination challenges. What advice do you have for researchers entering these spaces, especially when funding supports collaboration but institutional culture may lag?

Shiv: I think great work is done when people follow their heart, and significant impact comes from tackling big problems, not just incremental work. So, the first thing I would urge is for people to always want to do great work. Funding agencies like ours are actively encouraging breakthroughs and risk-taking; we want to reward ambitious work. For example, the ARG programme allows honorary PIs, so you can bring in industry or international collaborators. We have also updated policies to make collaboration easier, such as allowing multiple grants and supporting international travel. And of course, we will convey the same message to our programme committees so that they value that.

The thing to remember is that problems don’t respect disciplinary boundaries — these are constructs we create. While depth is important, we must move beyond silos and learn enough of each other’s ​“language” to collaborate effectively. Respect and a willingness to understand even a bit of another field’s vocabulary are important.

Second, we are working to lower barriers to collaboration, whether between countries, institutions, or industry and academia. This includes rethinking how research labs are set up to encourage collaboration from the start.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that academic recognition still tends to favour individual-centric work. So, we continue our discussions with institutional leaders to better value collaborative work, while still recognising individual contributions. Structural barriers remain, but acknowledging them is the first step.

Change won’t happen overnight, but I’m optimistic. With India’s strong talent pool, we’re on the verge of becoming a global research partner, not just a service provider, and that is a story I would like to tell.”

Siuli: To close, I have noticed you emphasise impact, not just today, but throughout your talks and visits. Do you think these conversations will actually influence how funding and evaluation decisions are made? How practical is that?

Shiv: The simple answer is, yes. And there is a simple way to look at it. 

Think of it like investing: if one option gives a higher return, you naturally gravitate toward it, even if it carries some risk. The idea of return on investment is central; it is about productivity and impact, not just input.

Currently, we invest about 0.7% of GDP in research. To justify and potentially increase this, we need to boost the productivity of our research system; AND we need greater levels of non-governmental participation in this investment. At ANRF, we are aiming to catalyse BOTH of these. If we make our ​“engine” more efficient, we will see better outcomes and attract more investment. That’s why I focus on impact and collaboration; they help solve bigger problems and make the system stronger.

Ultimately, greater impact leads to greater returns for science and society. If we deliver more, we will naturally draw more investment, compounding benefits over time.