Published Apr 07, 2026 | 8:45 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 07, 2026 | 8:45 AM
Can India stand with science (Representational image)
Synopsis: WHO’s 2026 theme calls on governments to “stand with science.” While India will participate in these conversations and sign statements and send delegations, a committee of Indian parliamentarians has just told the government that India’s spending on health research has not moved in five years, and that the gap with the rest of the world is widening.
Every year on 7 April, the World Health Organisation marks World Health Day with a theme meant to focus global attention on something urgent.
This year’s theme is “Together for health. Stand with science.” It calls on governments, scientists, and health workers to engage with evidence, rebuild trust in public health institutions, and back science-led solutions.
India will participate in these conversations. It will sign statements and send delegations. What it will not easily explain is what it spends on health research at home.
The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 173rd report to Parliament on 18 March 2026, just three weeks before World Health Day.
Among its most pointed findings is this: India spends 0.02 percent of its GDP on health research. That figure has not changed in five years.
The committee does not soften this. “The percentage of the Government’s spending on Health Research in India has been stagnant for the last 5 years. Nevertheless, the statistics are disappointing.”
For context, the committee put India’s figure alongside others. The US National Institutes of Health receives approximately $47.77 billion annually, around 0.17 percent of American GDP. The UK Medical Research Council commands the equivalent of 0.36 percent of British GDP. Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council accounts for 0.07 percent of its GDP.
India, with 1.4 billion people and one of the world’s highest burdens of infectious and non-communicable disease, sits at 0.02 percent
The committee recommends that the government benchmark its health research spending against leading Asian economies, “such as China, South Korea, Japan, etc.”
The government would point to the 2026-27 budget allocation as evidence of commitment. The Budget Estimate (BE) for the year is ₹4,821 crore, a 42 percent increase over actual expenditure in 2024-25. Of this, ₹4,000 crore goes to ICMR.
The committee acknowledges the increase. But it also notes something the headline number obscures.
“Out of the total Government of India R&D outlay for FY 2026-27 at ₹63,381 crore, Department of Health Research (DHR) is allocated to the tune of ₹4,821.21 crore, which is approximately 7.6 percent.”
DHR’s allocation remains the lowest among all major research ministries, below the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Biotechnology, the Department of Space, and the Department of Atomic Energy.
The comparison with education is particularly striking. The committee notes that the Ministry of Education spends 9 percent of its total allocation on research. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shares only 4.8 percent with DHR.
There is also a question about what the money is actually spent on. The committee flags that ICMR’s pension costs appear to be drawn from the Grants-in-Aid General head, the same budget line meant for research projects, and has asked the department for a formal clarification.
One of the sharper findings concerns the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Nidhi, a non-lapsable reserve fund created to support national health priorities and fed by the health and education cess.
The committee records that less than 25 percent of health and education cess collections are actually being transferred to the PMSSN.
DHR’s schemes are not directly funded by the PMSSN. But the department told the committee that the shortfall creates indirect pressure.
It noted that schemes and programmes are “part of the larger health ecosystem that experiences increased financial pressure when the dedicated cess funds are not fully utilised as intended,” leading to “greater competition for limited Gross Budgetary Support funds.”
The committee recommends that DHR formally propose to the Ministry of Finance that a fixed percentage of the health cess be ring-fenced for its schemes.
The report is equally pointed about where within India research funding flows.
The committee raised that approximately 70 percent of DHR’s research portfolio is concentrated in urban-based institutions. The department pushed back, arguing that many urban studies have rural field components and that 60 percent of ongoing projects are in Tier II and III cities.
The committee acknowledged the response but was not satisfied. It recommended that at least 40 percent of all extramural research grants be “awarded to projects led by or implemented in rural/tribal institutions.”
On the North-East Region specifically, it was direct.
“NER is highly vulnerable to climate change, with frequent disasters exposing the people living there to conditions like malnutrition, hypertension, etc.” The region, the committee noted, remains underrepresented in both funding and laboratory infrastructure despite carrying a disproportionate burden of vector-borne and climate-amplified disease.
One initiative that was meant to signal India’s seriousness about translating research into products is MIDAC, the Medical Innovations Development Acceleration Council, envisioned as a Section-8 company to bridge the gap between research and commercialisation.
It was presented to the committee last year as a transformative initiative. This year, it is still waiting for approvals.
The committee’s frustration is visible in the report. “DHR has taken shelter behind the caveat of every procedural requirement being followed,” it states, adding that the delay “should not extend beyond a month.”
WHO’s campaign asks governments to engage with evidence, rebuild trust in science, and support science-led solutions.
The parliamentary committee’s report, read alongside that call, raises an uncomfortable question. What does “standing with science” mean when health research funding has not moved as a share of GDP in five years, when cess money earmarked for health is not being transferred as intended, and when research infrastructure remains concentrated in cities while the disease burden is heaviest in the districts that are hardest to reach?
The committee put it plainly.
At 0.02 percent of its GDP, India is in a very low position compared to developed countries in the field of Health Research expenditure. As of now, India’s representation and contribution to the global health forums are not much remarkable.”
India has a genuine scientific capacity. The committee is not dismissive of what DHR and ICMR have built. But the gap between what India spends and what comparable countries spend is not a technicality.
It is a policy choice. And on World Health Day, that is worth naming.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
