Innovation Governance Policies

India’s IITs are world-class for undergrads—so why do they lag in research & postgraduate excellence? Despite immense talent and bright spots (IISc, select IIT labs), India’s research impact trails Western and leading Asian peers (China, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore). Closing this gap is essential for the innovation economy. What’s holding India back (plainly): Thin research funding. R&D ~0.7% of GDP; labs and core facilities underfunded. Skewed incentives. “Publish a lot” beats “publish well,” hurting citation impact and reputation. Talent leakage. Low/irregular PhD stipends and weak early-career paths push top students abroad. Low internationalization. Too few foreign faculty/students; limited international co-authorship. Teaching legacy. Institutes built for UG excellence; research pivot is recent and uneven. Red tape. Centralized rules slow hiring, procurement, partnerships, new programs. Shallow industry links. Limited sponsored research and tech transfer impede translation. Seven moves to bend the curve: 1) Fund like it matters. Lift R&D toward 2% of GDP; ring-fence facilities/core labs. Grant financial autonomy (endowments, flexible fees for specialised/intl programmes, retain IP income). 2) Reward excellence, not volume. Promotions/hiring weighted to field-leading work (top-tier journals, patents/products). Zero tolerance for predatory outlets. Time and seed grants for bold ideas. 3) Make India the best PhD destination. Raise/index fellowships; pay on time. Expand postdocs, mentoring, early-career grants. Create return-chairs for diaspora; enable globally competitive offers. 4) Go global by design. Target 20%+ foreign faculty in priority areas; scholarships for international PGs; joint PhD academies; MoUs tied to co-advised theses, shared labs, mobility. 5) Back fundamentals and translation. Fund blue-sky science alongside mission centres. Professionalize TTOs, cover patent costs, build incubators integrated with graduate training. 6) Govern for speed and accountability. Real academic/administrative autonomy with transparent dashboards (research quality, time-to-procure, graduation, placement, spin-outs). Regulators as facilitators. 7) Make industry a co-investor. Matching grants/tax credits for sponsored research; embedded industry labs; normalized faculty R&D sabbaticals; industry adjuncts; credit-bearing student build-sprints. A pragmatic horizon: With aligned money, metrics, mobility, and management, IITs/IISc/IISERs and leading universities can move from “strong teaching, patchy research” to globally competitive research engines within a decade. This is less about rankings, more about an innovation flywheel: attract talent → fund excellence → produce breakthroughs → translate at scale → reinvest. #HigherEd #Research #Innovation #India #IIT #IISc #GradSchool #STEM #Policy #Talent #RandD #UniversityReform #DeepTech #MakeInIndia #BrainGain #AcademicExcellence

Earlier today the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves outlined her growth strategy for the UK, presenting a vision for turning the country into "Europe's Silicon Valley." But to create genuine innovation ecosystems, we need to understand what made Silicon Valley successful in the first place. It wasn't just about reducing barriers - it was about decades of strategic (entrepreneurial) public investments actively shaping and creating markets. The UK has historically underinvested compared to its peers. Public investment has averaged just 2.6% of GDP over the last 25 years versus the G7 average of 3.5% and OECD average of 3.7%. While the UK has now reached the OECD average of 2.7% for gross domestic expenditure on R&D, the UK can and must do better to emulate Silicon Valley’s success. Tax breaks alone aren't enough - currently, the UK provides about twice as much tax relief as direct funding for business R&D. Recent lessons from the US demonstrate that public funding can be made conditional on business investment in areas like R&D, helping to de-financialize businesses that attempt to reap profits without real investment. But without the right institutions, it will be hard for the UK to compete with the US and China. We have relatively weak public financial institutions - nowhere near the scale of Brazil's BNDES or Germany's KfW (see my paper with Laurie Macfarlane below). Compare Germany's Fraunhofer system (€3.4bn/year, 32,000 staff, 76 centers) with the UK Catapult network (£1.6bn over 5 years). Real innovation ecosystems need sustained funding and institutional networks that connect research to markets. An entrepreneurial state isn't about top-down direction - it's about dynamic networks catalyzing innovation across entire value chains. ---- 🔗 The Entrepreneurial State: https://lnkd.in/eR_8pxiH 🔗 Industrial Policy with Conditionalities: https://lnkd.in/e-PrNF47 🔗 Mission-oriented development banks: https://lnkd.in/eEKrNcSC 🔗 Mission-oriented Industrial Strategy: https://lnkd.in/eHDNeiNu 🔗 Mission-oriented Policy Hub: https://lnkd.in/ePZtUTKg

A substantive policy decision has come out of France, where the government has committed to phasing out US based collaboration platforms across public administration in favor of a domestically developed alternative. The rationale is not novelty or protectionism, but governance. France will require public officials to move away from platforms including Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, WhatsApp, and Telegram Messenger, shifting instead to state approved tools such as Visio for videoconferencing and Tchap for messaging. Visio is developed under the authority of the Interministerial Digital Directorate and runs on French infrastructure. It is already used by tens of thousands of civil servants, with a target of broad adoption across government by 2027. https://lnkd.in/efbMG5NN Collaboration platforms are not neutral tools. They structure data flows, determine jurisdictional exposure, and embed long term dependencies into public institutions. In a regulatory environment shaped by GDPR, the EU AI Act, and increased scrutiny of cross border data transfers, these choices are no longer technical. They are political, legal, and strategic. France’s move reflects a broader shift in how digital infrastructure is understood in Europe. Digital sovereignty is being translated into procurement rules, system architecture, and enforceable institutional practice. Similar calls for greater digital independence from the United States have been made by European leaders across Germany, Spain, and at the EU level, particularly in relation to cloud services, data localization, and strategic technologies. A cross-party majority of Members of the European Parliament have explicitly called for reducing reliance on US digital infrastructure and expanding European capabilities in a recent technological sovereignty resolution, framing it as a strategic necessity rather than mere regulation.  https://lnkd.in/eBHQ3YfE What distinguishes the French case is the execution. Policy intent has now been converted into mandatory tools, monitored adoption, and infrastructure level enforcement.

In the past few months, we've worked with partners who've run into the same challenge with AI adoption. They rolled out policies or guidelines without bringing people into the conversation first—no workshop, no consensus building, just documents that needed signatures or implementation. Unsurprisingly, the result was frustrated staff expected to enforce or follow rules they had no part in creating, and leaders facing resistance instead of adoption. Both AI policies and guidelines are critical for responsible AI adoption, but they have to be built intentionally, with stakeholders driving consensus, or they most likely won't work. After working with hundreds of districts, we've created the resource below. Here are the best practices we recommend. Policies are your compliance layer and are designed to protect your district. We suggest adaptations to existing: ✔️ Acceptable use policies ✔️ Data privacy/FERPA protections ✔️ Academic integrity standards ✔️ Cyberbullying policies (to add deepfakes) Guidelines are your change management layer. They are the "why" that brings people along. We recommend including the following in your AI guidelines: 💡 Vision for GenAI adoption across your district 💡 GenAI misuse/academic integrity response protocols 💡 GenAI chatbot and EdTech tool vetting processes 💡 Digital wellbeing, data privacy, and student safety practices 💡 Implementation tips and instructional supports 💡 AI Literacy training opportunities and expectations What matters most is that both policies and guidelines should be built with stakeholders, not handed down to them. They should evolve with feedback, evidence of impact, and technical advancements. In all of our guideline and policy development work, we always start with AI literacy. It's important to build foundational understanding across stakeholders so that when policies and guidelines are developed, people can contribute meaningfully to the process and understand the "why" behind what they're being asked to implement. Intentional stakeholder engagement isn't a nice-to-have. It's what we've seen drive adoption. #AIforEducation #GenAI #ChangeManagement #AI

🌍 UNESCO’s Pillars Framework for Digital Transformation in Education offers a roadmap for leaders, educators, and tech partners to work together and bridge the digital divide. This framework is about more than just tech—it’s about supporting communities and keeping education a public good. 💡 When implementing EdTech, policymakers should pay special attention to these critical aspects to ensure that technology meaningfully enhances education without introducing unintended issues:  🚸1. Equity and Access Policymakers need to prioritize closing the digital divide by providing affordable internet, reliable devices, and offline options where connectivity is limited. Without equitable access, EdTech can worsen existing educational inequalities.  💻2. Data Privacy and Security Implementing strong data privacy laws and secure platforms is essential to build trust. Policymakers must ensure compliance with data protection standards and implement safeguards against data breaches, especially in systems that involve sensitive information.  🚌3. Pedagogical Alignment and Quality of Content Digital tools and content should be high-quality, curriculum-aligned, and support real learning needs. Policymakers should involve educators in selecting and shaping EdTech tools that align with proven pedagogical practices.  🌍4. Sustainable Funding and Cost Management To avoid financial strain, policymakers should develop sustainable, long-term funding models and evaluate the total cost of ownership, including infrastructure, updates, and training. Balancing costs with impact is key to sustaining EdTech programs.  🦺5. Capacity Building and Professional Development Training is essential for teachers to integrate EdTech into their teaching practices confidently. Policymakers need to provide robust, ongoing professional development and peer-support systems, so educators feel empowered rather than overwhelmed by new tools. 👓 6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement Policymakers should establish monitoring and evaluation processes to track progress and understand what works. This includes using data to refine strategies, ensure goals are met, and avoid wasted resources on ineffective solutions. 🧑🚒 7. Cultural and Social Adaptation Cultural sensitivity is crucial, especially in communities less familiar with digital learning. Policymakers should promote a growth mindset and address resistance through community engagement and awareness campaigns that highlight the educational value of EdTech. 🥸 8. Environmental Sustainability Policymakers should integrate green practices, like using energy-efficient devices and recycling programs, to reduce EdTech’s carbon footprint. Sustainable practices can also help keep costs manageable over time. 🔥Download: UNESCO. (2024). Six pillars for the digital transformation of education. UNESCO. https://lnkd.in/eYgr922n  #DigitalTransformation #EducationInnovation #GlobalEducation

ODI-FDI Share Swap is now permitted ! In an important amendment, Ministry of Finance notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024 on 16 August 2024 to streamline Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Overseas Investment (OI) regulations. 1. Cross-Border share swaps: Earlier, in a non-cash transaction involving share swap, issuance of shares by an Indian company to a non-resident/ foreign entity against acquisition of shares of an overseas company owned by such foreign seller was not permitted. Now, by Insertion of new rule 9A, Indian companies are allowed to issue or transfer equity instruments in exchange for foreign company equity instruments. This is one of the most significant amendment facilitating FDI and ODI exchanges and enhancing cross-border mergers and acquisitions. 2. Downstream Investments: The amendments clarify the treatment of downstream investments by Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)-owned entities, aligning them with Non-Resident Indian (NRI)-owned entities. 3. The definition of "Control" has been harmonized with the Companies Act, 2013. 4. The definition of a "startup company" has been updated to refer to a private company identified as a startup under specific government notifications. 5. Foreign Portfolio Investments Liberalised: Now the requirement of the government approval is pegged to the sectoral or statutory cap and is not limited to 49%, provided that such investment does not result in transfer of ownership and/ or control of the resident Indian company from resident Indian citizens to non-residents. 6. Sectoral caps and entry routes are introduced for specific activities, such as White Label ATM Operations (WLAO), which can have 100% foreign direct investment under the automatic route subject to Reserve Bank of India guidelines. #FEMA #FDI #ODI #RBI #NonDebtInstruments #Crossborder #Indiainc

"The rapid evolution and swift adoption of generative AI have prompted governments to keep pace and prepare for future developments and impacts. Policy-makers are considering how generative artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in the public interest, balancing economic and social opportunities while mitigating risks. To achieve this purpose, this paper provides a comprehensive 360° governance framework: 1 Harness past: Use existing regulations and address gaps introduced by generative AI. The effectiveness of national strategies for promoting AI innovation and responsible practices depends on the timely assessment of the regulatory levers at hand to tackle the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the technology. Prior to developing new AI regulations or authorities, governments should: – Assess existing regulations for tensions and gaps caused by generative AI, coordinating across the policy objectives of multiple regulatory instruments – Clarify responsibility allocation through legal and regulatory precedents and supplement efforts where gaps are found – Evaluate existing regulatory authorities for capacity to tackle generative AI challenges and consider the trade-offs for centralizing authority within a dedicated agency 2 Build present: Cultivate whole-of-society generative AI governance and cross-sector knowledge sharing. Government policy-makers and regulators cannot independently ensure the resilient governance of generative AI – additional stakeholder groups from across industry, civil society and academia are also needed. Governments must use a broader set of governance tools, beyond regulations, to: – Address challenges unique to each stakeholder group in contributing to whole-of-society generative AI governance – Cultivate multistakeholder knowledge-sharing and encourage interdisciplinary thinking – Lead by example by adopting responsible AI practices 3 Plan future: Incorporate preparedness and agility into generative AI governance and cultivate international cooperation. Generative AI’s capabilities are evolving alongside other technologies. Governments need to develop national strategies that consider limited resources and global uncertainties, and that feature foresight mechanisms to adapt policies and regulations to technological advancements and emerging risks. This necessitates the following key actions: – Targeted investments for AI upskilling and recruitment in government – Horizon scanning of generative AI innovation and foreseeable risks associated with emerging capabilities, convergence with other technologies and interactions with humans – Foresight exercises to prepare for multiple possible futures – Impact assessment and agile regulations to prepare for the downstream effects of existing regulation and for future AI developments – International cooperation to align standards and risk taxonomies and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and infrastructure"

A viral image of an ATM in Ludhiana recently caught my attention - a dangerously steep ramp ending abruptly at a glass door, with a staircase running alongside that leads nowhere. A perfect reminder of a hard-earned lesson in fintech: "Compliance isn’t just a checkbox." Product Managers: You don't want to miss saving 💾 this post for your future reference. This ramp was technically "compliant" - yes, there was a wheelchair access ramp. But it completely missed the purpose of accessibility. People had angry comments on social media about the apathy with which wheelchair-bound customers were treated and how the bank had made a mockery of accessibility. No amount of regulation can account for 'compliance as a checkbox' implementations that are designed to meet the regulation but not serve their intended purpose. It's the same trap I've seen countless fintech products fall into - implementing regulations as mere checkboxes rather than embracing them as design principles. I've experienced regulatory hurdles umpteen times in product launches; in fact, I've never experienced a straightforward implementation that hasn't hit a regulatory roadblock. BUT I can say this confidently: Compliance-first design is the secret sauce that makes the battle easier and less arduous, and inarguably 'faster' IF You just stick to the first principles of building this into your product strategy from day one . Regulations can either slow you down or become your competitive edge. To make compliance your strategic advantage, here's my 3-step playbook: 1/ Design Integration: Make regulatory adherence a natural part of the user experience rather than an afterthought ↳Embed compliance requirements into your initial product design ↳Get feedback from legal and compliance teams, and even the regulator if needed ↳Validate, Test, Iterate, Repeat 2/ Cross-Functional Collaboration: Build bridges between product, legal/compliance teams from day one ↳Involve them early ↳Make compliance & legal stakeholders brainstorm and provide feedback ↳Balance innovation with regulatory requirements using case studies and data to back up assertions instead of getting into crosshairs with them 3/ Validate Early, Validate Often: ↳Test with real scenarios ↳Get early feedback from regulators ↳Regular compliance assessments, no matter what stage of development you are in One golden tip - document everything, err on the side of caution when it comes to building and fostering trust with legal and compliance counterparts. The lesson in one line? Build WITH compliance, not around it. Instead of working around regulations, let's build with them. Because when you design within the right guardrails, innovation doesn't just survive—it scales. What's your strategy for managing fintech compliance? Share below. 👍 LIKE this post, 🔄 REPOST this to your network and follow me, Monica Jasuja

𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 A few days ago, I shared a message for new graduates entering #healthcare - encouraging them to lead with curiosity, not just credentials. To build not just a resume, but a mindset. That reflection stayed with me. India’s #pharmaceutical and #biotech sectors are on the rise - with innovative therapies, vaccine breakthroughs, AI enabled digital health platforms and so much more, shaping the future. This pivot from volume to value puts one thing front and center: talent. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞? ▪️ 𝐀𝐈/𝐌𝐋, 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 & 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 - powering precision medicine ▪️𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 - trial design, real-world evidence ▪️𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 - navigating global frameworks ▪️𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 & 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 - enabling complex therapies ▪️𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 - adaptability, collaboration, and lifelong learning 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐈𝐭 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞? 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 - Expand skilling programs in universities and vocational centers - Launch fellowships, apprenticeships, and industry-linked internships - Offer incentives for firms investing in workforce development 𝐀𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐚 - Modernise curriculum to reflect today’s science and tomorrow’s needs - Enable joint industry-academic projects and global faculty exchanges - Focus on real-world readiness through placements and hands-on labs 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 - Build internal academies and experience hubs like NEST by Novartis Development India Hub - Co-design early-career programs across R&D, regulatory, and supply chain - Promote digital fluency through open workshops and national challenges To professionals, educators, and policymakers: Let’s come together to nurture the minds that will build tomorrow’s cures. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 India is evolving from a ‘generics powerhouse’ to an ‘innovation-first life sciences leader’. This evolution needs to be backed by a talent ecosystem that’s not just skilled - but future-ready. #LifeSciences #HealthcareInnovation #SkillingIndia #WorkforceDevelopment #STEMCareers #TalentFirs

The Australian government just released its most ambitious R&D reform agenda since the 1990s "Clever Country" era. 130 pages. 20 recommendations. One urgent message. For climate tech founders, this is the most important policy document of 2026. Here's the breakdown 🧵 Australia's business R&D has collapsed to 0.9% of GDP, barely half the OECD average. We rank 105th of 145 economies for economic complexity. The government's own modelling shows projected GDP per person growth has fallen by a third since 2002. The panel's conclusion: incremental fixes won't save us. The solution: six National Innovation Pillars, each anchored by long-term national goals and delivered through NSIs, funded consortia bringing together startups, researchers, investors and government. Pillar 4 is Environment & Energy. That's our home. And the report explicitly calls out ARENA's work — including the Virescent Ventures spinout — as the model other pillars should replicate. The R&D Tax Incentive is being redesigned for startups: → Quarterly cash payments (not waiting until tax time) → Higher refundable offset rate for high-potential firms → Eligibility extended to commercialisation activities → Extended access for deep tech (longer than SaaS) For hardware, materials and energy tech companies, this is a cashflow game-changer if it passes. Here's the big one. The report recommends reforming super policy so members can elect to invest in Australian high-growth RD&I firms. $3.9 trillion in superannuation sitting on the sidelines. Even a fraction unlocked closes the late-stage funding gap that sends our best climate companies offshore. The report also calls for expanded ESIC angel incentives and simplified ESVCLP to grow VC at scale. Not everything is straightforward. The NSI consortia require 50% cash co-investment from industry, a high bar that could advantage incumbents over early-stage startups. 150+ federal programs will be consolidated. Some that serve climate founders today will disappear. The transition design matters enormously. The 6-pillar structure could also fragment support for companies that sit across energy and critical minerals. Watch how the subgoals are drawn. This is where we need the Climate Salad community. The recommendations are out. But the subgoals for Pillar 4 are still being written. The advisory councils that shape them (the NSACs) will need industry voice. We have 700+ companies, a track record, and the relationships. We should be at that table. What does this mean for your company specifically? Drop a comment. 🔗 Full report: https://lnkd.in/gaH--aUQ #climatetech #sustainability #cleantech #research #development #australian AusIndustry Department of Industry, Science and Resources HT: A big thanks to Anneliese A. for sharing this with me this morning. * AI supported post.