Anticipating disruption: policy Ideas for governing emerging chemistry-driven technologies in India

Any time a toxic metal reagent is replaced with an enzyme, I cheer. Anytime a seven-step chemical synthesis is replaced by a single enzymatic transformation, I cheer because it’s good for our planet.

Frances Arnold, Nobel laureate in chemistry

The principle of radical simplicity, in which translational pathways are designed with downstream constraints in view, captures the core imperative of today’s deeptech economy. This approach represents a transition from need-driven ideation to prototypes that are aligned with manufacturability and market readiness. What was once a fringe pursuit is now central to how nations anticipate disruption and secure strategic advantage in chemistry-driven technologies.

Globally, mission-oriented science policies and agile R&D agencies are rising to the challenge. In the US, Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA)-style programmes accelerate high‐risk, high‐reward R&D in clean chemistry, novel materials and modular manufacturing. In the EU, sustainability is emphasised through the Green Deal,¹ Horizon Europe²  and multiple public–private partnerships, while East Asia is advancing process intensification, catalytic materials and biofabrication platforms, through numerous initiatives, including China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development,³  South Korea’s K-Chemistry Roadmap 2030, Singapore’s RIE2030 Strategy.

For India, these global shifts present both opportunities and imperatives. The country’s pathway of chemistry translation has long been shaped by policy choices. Prior to 2005, the Indian Patents Act focused on process patents rather than product patents in key sectors like pharmaceuticals. This legislative history was a deliberate act of policy that fostered a generation of companies highly skilled in reverse engineering and cost-effective manufacturing. As a result, India earned the title ‘pharmacy of the developing world’, but it also meant that policy incentives favoured affordable production over frontier innovation.⁴

Today, the national priority is to evolve from promoting low-cost production models to building the nation’s original, innovation-driven capacity. Chemistry is pivotal in this transition, spanning areas such as AI-enabled drug discovery, green synthesis, advanced energy storage and bio convergence. These technologies not only strengthen industrial competitiveness but also support strategic goals in climate change mitigation and public health. In this sense, cultivating sovereign capabilities in chemistry-driven deep tech has become integral to India’s vision of building a self-reliant nation under the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative.⁵  The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) has repeatedly emphasised the importance of such advances in translating laboratory breakthroughs into industrial transformation through initiatives such as its Top Ten Emerging Technologies in Chemistry and the Chemistry Entrepreneurship Project.⁶

Yet translating this vision into reality requires addressing structural constraints that continue to weigh down the sector. India’s chemical industry, which contributes around 7% to the country’s GDP and underpins diverse downstream industries, is hampered by being fragmented across 80 clusters in 20 states, and suffers from infrastructure gaps and regulatory inefficiencies. Equally pressing is the country’s low R&D intensity, which limits the ability to convert scientific discoveries into commercial applications.⁷

Within this context, the rise of deeptech chemistry startups offers both promise and challenge. Growing at over 40% CAGR and supported by India’s strength as the world’s third-largest producer of scientific publications, these ventures signal a shift toward innovation-led growth. However, they face hurdles very different from those encountered by software startups, with the primary challenge being the ‘valley of death’ that exists between technological readiness and commercial scalability.

Deeptech ventures in chemistry are inherently high-risk, requiring long gestation periods, rigorous validation and significant capital investment before generating revenue. In India, the bottleneck typically emerges beyond seed funding,⁸  most often at Series A and later stages. The core issue is not a shortage of scientific creativity but the absence of institutional, financial, and regulatory pathways to shepherd innovations from lab prototypes (technology readiness level; TRL 3–4) to scaled production and market adoption (TRL 7–9).⁹

How can India institutionalise scale-up pathways for chemistry-driven deeptech innovation by aligning public R&D priorities, modernising funding structures, and reforming the intellectual property regime to create predictable market demand?

Background

Chemistry innovation has the potential to support India’s prosperity in several ways: economic (driving growth, powering exports and import substitution),^10,11  environmental (enabling energy transition, green chemistry, circularity),¹²  and strategic (tech sovereignty, global competitiveness).

Recent projections indicate that India’s chemical sector could reach $300 billion by 2028 and $1 trillion by 2040, contingent on strategic investments in innovation capacity. The emergence of chemistry-driven startups demonstrates growing entrepreneurial activity, with over 900 chemical startups recognised under Startup India initiatives. These ventures are characterised by their reliance on advanced scientific research and breakthrough technologies, which means they require specialised support mechanisms. The complexity of chemistry-driven innovation requires patient capital, specialised infrastructure, regulatory expertise and strong university–industry linkages. In all of these areas, India currently has significant gaps.

Existing challenges in India

1. Innovation infrastructure

India’s chemical innovation ecosystem is expanding, but growth is constrained by limited infrastructure. Early-stage ventures often need advanced labs, pilot plants and safety-compliant facilities that exceed the capabilities of conventional setups. Sustained investment in distributed facilities is required for balanced and inclusive innovation.¹³

2 Funding and investment

Deeptech chemistry ventures typically require longer timelines and higher capital than other startups, yet most investors remain oriented toward shorter cycles. This mismatch creates a critical funding gap between laboratory development and commercial scale-up during the ‘valley of death’ phase. Expanding initiatives such as patient capital, blended finance and dedicated deeptech funds will help align financial instruments with the needs of chemistry-driven innovation.¹³

3 Fragmented systemic policies

India needs a cohesive framework linking academia, technology transfer and commercialisation to strengthen its academic startup ecosystem. University incubators, research parks and R&D agencies often operate in silos, resulting in duplication and inconsistent guidelines on intellectual property, conflict of interest and resource allocation. These gaps restrict faculty-led ventures from fully leveraging academic expertise.^13,14

4 Regulation and compliance

Environmental clearances and compliance processes are being streamlined, and the Chemical Management and Safety Rules (CMSR) align national standards with global benchmarks, such as the EU REACH regulations. Yet early-stage startups face slow and rigid procedures. Regulatory sandboxes for new chemical entities could enable faster, safer experimentation.

5 Skills and human capital

India has a strong talent base in chemistry, but specialised skills in green chemistry, nanotechnology and process safety are increasingly needed. India’s researchers rarely move between academia, industry and startups, and entrepreneurship-focused training is limited. Strengthening industry-linked curricula, promoting academia–industry mobility and building targeted training programmes would better align skills with the needs of deeptech ventures.¹⁵

Global perspectives and case studies

India’s challenges are not unique; leading global hubs have faced similar issues. Reviewing approaches in the US, Europe and East Asia offer valuable insights, showcasing scalable models that India can adapt while leveraging its strengths.

These economies lead in technological innovation by bridging the gap between fundamental research and commercial application through structured mechanisms such as technology transfer offices, public–private research centres and mission-oriented programmes. For instance, the US, Germany and Singapore have invested heavily in intermediary institutions, including the US National Labs, Germany’s Fraunhofer Institutes and Singapore’s A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research), which systematically guide lab discoveries toward pilot projects and industry adoption.¹⁶  These economies also align funding, regulatory incentives and cluster strategies to ensure that publicly funded science does not stall in the lab but flows into marketable innovation.¹⁷

1 EU: Integrated framework approach

The EU represents one of the most comprehensive attempts at aligning innovation with sustainability imperatives. Through the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and Horizon Europe, the EU has allocated $€ 97 billion (2021–2027) for research and innovation, with significant funding directed toward chemistry and materials science.^3,31 The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework embeds environmental and health considerations at the earliest stages of R&D, helping companies avoid costly retrofits and regulatory hurdles later.¹⁸

2 UK: Mission-oriented innovation

The UK has adopted a mission-oriented approach that ties chemical innovation directly to national goals, such as decarbonisation, healthcare and sustainable manufacturing. The UK Innovation Strategy (2035 target) positions chemistry as central to addressing climate change and industrial sustainability.²⁰  Initiatives like the Sustainable Chemicals Innovation Network bring together government, academia, and industry to accelerate the defossilisation of the UK chemical sector.

3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology: entrepreneurial ecosystem

The MIT model represents the gold standard for university-led entrepreneurship in the US. MIT’s ecosystem combines technology transfer offices, patient capital vehicles, accelerators and integrated entrepreneurship training.²²  Robert Langer’s lab alone has spun out over 40 biotech companies, including Moderna and Selecta Biosciences, all of which are shaping academia and industry worldwide.

Country/region	Ecosystem/structure	Policy innovations	Impact
US	University-Led Entrepreneurship (eg, MIT model) Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) Public–private research Centres (for example, US National Labs)	Aligns funding, regulatory incentives and cluster strategies to push public science into marketable innovation.	University spinouts like Moderna have become global leaders Creating new industries from academic discoveries.
EU	Integrated framework approach Comprehensive funding programme (Horizon Europe) Public–private research centres (eg, Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany)	Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability; Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework; allocation of €97 billion (2021–2027) for R&I	SSbD embeds environmental and health considerations early, helping companies to avoid costly retrofits and stay globally competitive
UK	Mission-oriented innovation approach Sustainable Chemicals Innovation Network (Government, academia and industry collaboration)	UK Innovation Strategy (2035 target) ties chemical innovation to national goals like decarbonisation and sustainable manufacturing	Targeted interventions enabled startups like Econic Technologies to commercialise disruptive CO₂-conversion catalysts, accelerating net-zero goals
China	World’s largest chemicals market High capital investment (46% of the global) 2nd largest R&D spend globally	Strategic shift from basic production to innovation; Made in China 2025 focus; government support to boost capability in speciality and fine chemicals.	Rapid progress in patents and highly cited research   Closing the innovation gap with foreign producers
Germany	Strong industrial base, intermediary institutions like the Fraunhofer Institutes	Supports a conducive regulatory environment and high R&D spending, often leveraging the broader EU framework	Systematically guides lab discoveries toward pilot projects and industry adoption Global leader in manufacturing and technology-driven innovation
Singapore	Strategic location, A*STAR intermediary institution	Pro-business policies and strong emphasis on knowledge-based industries; robust R&D spending	Systematically guides research discoveries into industry adoption Consistently ranked as a top innovator in Asia by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Switzerland	Robust innovation ecosystem Well-established research institutions Strong private sector R&D	Conducive regulatory environment, consistently high level of R&D spending	Topped the Global Innovation Index for over a decade, indicating a highly effective system for translating research into market products

India’s framework

India’s chemistry innovation ecosystem has evolved from being primarily driven by academic research institutions to one that is an increasingly engaging industry. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), established in 1942, has served as the backbone of the country’s chemical R&D infrastructure through 37 laboratories nationwide. Early successes included the development of indigenous technologies in pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals and speciality chemicals, marking milestones that laid the groundwork for India’s self-reliance in critical sectors.

In recent years, Indian institutions and startups have demonstrated the commercial promise of chemistry-driven deeptech. For example, CSIR-IICT’s green chemistry innovations have enabled more sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing, while the Society for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SINE) at IIT Bombay has incubated numerous startups working in advanced materials, green chemistry and clean energy solutions. The rise of ventures such as Sea6 Energy, pioneering seaweed-based bioproducts, reflects the growing capacity to translate frontier chemistry research into globally competitive businesses. Similarly, the success of Biocon in biopharmaceuticals and Atul in speciality chemicals illustrates how Indian companies can scale innovation to international markets.

Recent government initiatives demonstrate a growing recognition of the strategic importance of chemistry innovations and are beginning to align with this momentum. The Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) scheme allocates INR1 lakh crore (£8 billion) for private sector R&D, with significant portions targeting chemistry-related technologies. The National Deep Tech Startup Policy (NDTSP) addresses challenges facing chemistry-driven ventures, including lengthy development cycles and capital intensity.⁵  Complementing this, NITI Aayog’s chemical sector strategy targets a $1 trillion (£730 billion) output by 2040, with interventions spanning chemical hubs, port infrastructure, fast-track clearances, skill development and global trade positioning.⁷

India’s Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, extended to the chemical sector, incentivises production of critical intermediates and speciality chemicals, aligning support with export and manufacturing goals.²³  Under Startup India, over 900 recognised chemical startups span biodegradable materials, AI-enabled chemical process software and sustainable manufacturing solutions. The Chemical Management and Safety Rules (CMSR) also align India’s regulatory environment with EU REACH, mandating registration and safety data for chemicals above one tonne per annum.¹⁴

Building on these foundations, India’s policy and institutional frameworks are gradually expanding to support commercialisation, startup growth and global competitiveness. These domestic success stories show that the building blocks of a robust ecosystem already exist. Yet, as global case studies show, success in deeptech chemistry innovation demands integrated ecosystems where regulation, financing, infrastructure and translation pathways work together.

Proposed policy framework

A comprehensive institutional framework, the Integrated Chemistry Innovation Ecosystem (ICIE), is proposed to bridge India’s innovation gap in chemistry-driven technologies through a coordinated ecosystem approach. It combines public R&D prioritisation, startup policy reform, patent system modernisation and deeptech scale-up pathways tailored explicitly for India’s chemistry innovation landscape.^7,13

Unlike the existing fragmented approaches through the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), Technology Development Board (TDB) and various ministry schemes, the ICIE creates a sector-specific focus with dedicated chemistry innovation infrastructure. While current policies support general deeptech, this framework addresses chemistry’s unique requirements, including specialised laboratory facilities, longer development timelines and complex regulatory approval processes.

In addition, ICIE introduces shared regional pilot facilities with hazardous-chemistry handling capabilities modelled on the UK’s technology Catapults and Singapore’s A*STAR testbeds. These will enable startups and research groups to transition safely and cost-effectively beyond TRL 4.

Global lessons for India’s chemistry innovation

The ICIE framework draws inspiration from successful international models where deliberate, sector-specific strategies have accelerated innovation and commercialisation:

• Israel’s sectoral approach: Israel provides up to NIS40 million (£9.45 million) over five years to deeptech incubators through its innovation authority, fostering translation and de-risking early-stage ventures.²⁴
  
• Germany’s cluster strategy: federal and state-level coordination has enabled specialised chemistry innovation centres, building strong university-industry links and applied research pipelines.²⁵
• Singapore’s strategic R&D programmes: targeted bilateral collaborations, such as the Singapore–Israel industrial R&D programme, support up to 66% of project costs, ensuring industry alignment and global partnerships.
  
• Netherlands’ top sector policy: sustained public–private collaboration is supported with investment of over €1 billion annually in R&D – approximately 23% of total Dutch industrial R&D spending – under the governance of ChemistryNL, the Top Sector agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate.

National Chemistry Innovation Authority (NCIA)

To implement this vision, a new autonomous statutory body, the National Chemistry Innovation Authority (NCIA), should be created under the Department of Science & Technology (DST). With independent governance and a dedicated sectoral mandate, the NCIA would serve as the central coordinating authority for India’s chemistry innovation ecosystem. It would also issue a standardised university technology transfer office (TTO) and revenue-sharing code, adapted from the US Bayh–Dole Act but simplified for Indian conditions, to streamline licensing, improve inventor incentives and reduce negotiation delays.

Policy architecture

The ICIE represents a hybrid policy model, combining:

• Institutional redesign: establishing the NCIA as a sector-specific authority.
• Regulatory reform: modernising India’s patent and IP framework to match international best practices.
• Incentive schemes: Designing targeted funding mechanisms for chemistry startups and scale-ups.
• Public–private platforms: creating collaborative spaces for industry, academia and government to co-develop solutions.
• Standards frameworks: Introducing a green-chemistry regulatory sandbox under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF), allowing startups to test new chemistries under provisional approvals while ensuring safety and sustainability. 

By integrating these elements, a chemistry innovation ecosystem can be created that is globally competitive, commercially viable and aligned with national development priorities.

The ICIE framework

The ICIE should work across four complementary pillars:

Pillar 1: Strategic public R&D prioritisation

Mission clusters:

Five specialised chemistry innovation clusters should be established, focusing on:

1. Green chemistry and sustainable processes
2. Advanced materials and nanotechnology
3. Process intensification and catalysis
4. Pharmaceutical and agrochemical innovation
5. Critical minerals and strategic materials

Funding: INR15,000 crore over five years through the existing ANRF framework, with 40% allocated to industry-led projects, 30% to university research and 30% to public-private partnerships.

International collaboration: bilateral R&D agreements modelled on the Singapore–Israel programme, targeting international partnerships with countries such as Germany (Fraunhofer institutes), the Netherlands (TNO), the US (national laboratories), France (Cefipra) and the UK (UKERI).

These clusters would be anchored by the NCPCs, ensuring that research priorities rapidly translate into pilot-scale demonstrations.

Pillar 2: Startup policy revolution

Chemistry venture studios:

Specialised incubation infrastructure should be established to provide:

• Shared wet laboratories and pilot-scale facilities
• Regulatory navigation support for chemical testing and approvals
• Access to specialised equipment (NMR, SCXRD, high-end chromatographic techniques, HRMS and pilot scale reactors)
• Industry mentor networks and customer validation programmes

An INR5000 crore fund-of-funds through NCIA should also directly address the unique funding challenges faced by Indian deeptech startups. Goal-oriented deeptech chemistry start-ups require support when the proof of concept is novel and well-established.

This fund could be aligned with recent initiatives, such as the $1 billion consortium of US–Indian VCs targeting deeptech, and structured as a patient capital vehicle. Capital must be disbursed through milestone-linked tranches tied to technical validation (TRL 7–9) rather than fixed timelines, acknowledging the long gestation period of chemistry innovation.

Startup-friendly regulations:

• Regulatory sandboxes for chemistry startups to test innovative processes with temporary exemptions from certain compliance requirements
• Fast-track environmental clearances for green chemistry innovations with demonstrated sustainability benefits
• Simplified import procedures for specialised chemicals and equipment needed for R&D
• Creation of common guidelines across academic institutions to encourage faculty-led startups and streamline the initiatives and processes

Pillar 3: Patent reform and IP modernisation

Chemistry-specific IP framework:

• Expedited examination for chemistry patents related to green processes, critical minerals and pharmaceutical innovations
• Collaborative patent pools for fundamental chemistry technologies to enable broader innovation
• Enhanced patent quality through specialised chemistry examiners with advanced technical training

Technology transfer acceleration:

• Mandatory commercialisation clauses for publicly funded research with revenue-sharing agreements
• IP bridging funds providing a corpus for proof-of-concept development between TRL 4–6
• Global patent filing support for promising chemistry innovations, covering up to 70% of international filing costs

Pillar 4: Scale-up pathways and market creation

Chemistry Manufacturing Hubs:

Develop three world-class integrated manufacturing hubs in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra with:

• Shared pilot plants and scale-up facilities
• Common effluent treatment and waste management
• Integrated logistics and supply chain support
• Co-location of startups, SMEs and anchor companies

Demand-side innovations:

• Government procurement mandates requiring 20% of chemical purchases from domestic innovative sources
• Public-private procurement partnerships modelled on the UK’s vaccine taskforce approach
• Innovation vouchers enabling SMEs to access advanced R&D facilities
• A sovereign ‘first buyer’ programme: Strategic PSUs and ministries would be mandated to allocate a portion of their procurement budgets to chemistry deeptech startups with validated products. This guaranteed market signal de-risks innovations, attracts private capital and mirrors successful state-led demand creation seen in China. The existing Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) procurement relaxations for startups should be made mandatory across all ministries.

Global market access:

• Export promotion for high-value chemicals with dedicated trade finance support
• International certification support for Indian chemistry innovations
• Bilateral trade agreements incorporating chemistry innovation components

The NCPCs would serve as pre-commercial demonstration spaces linking startups to these hubs, reducing duplication of capital expenditure and ensuring safety compliance.

Pillar	Primary focus and goal	Key initiatives and mechanisms
1: Strategic public R&D prioritisation	Aligning R&D investment with national strategic goals (climate, energy, health) and ensuring rapid translation	Five Chemistry Mission Clusters; fostering international collaboration (e.g., Fraunhofer, TNO)
2: Startup policy revolution	Creating a specialised, capital-tolerant environment for high-risk, long-gestation deeptech ventures	Chemistry Venture Studios (shared wet labs); startup-friendly regulations (sandboxes)
3: Patent reform and IP modernisation	Streamlining technology transfer, maximising returns on public R&D and reducing commercialisation delays	Standardised TTO/revenue-sharing code (Bayh-Dole adaptation); IP bridging funds; global patent filing support
4: Scale-up pathways and market creation	Bridging the gap from pilot to production (TRL 7–9) and guaranteeing early demand signals	Three integrated Chemistry Manufacturing Hubs (Gujarat, TN, Maharashtra); innovation vouchers.

 

Implementation strategy

The proposal should be implemented according to a three-phase framework:

Phase 1: Foundation and pilot programmes (years 1–2)

 The first phase should focus on institutional anchoring and proof-of-concept initiatives. The Department of Science and Technology (DST), in partnership with the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA), would act as a nodal body to set up a National Coordination Council for Chemistry Innovation (NCCCI). This council would oversee the creation of National Chemistry Pilot Centres (NCPCs), which serve as shared facilities for TRL 4-6 validation and connect directly to the proposed Chemistry Mission Clusters.

 Key actions in this phase would include:

• Establish clusters: Identify five priority clusters and designate leading CSIR labs, IITs, or IISERs as anchor institutions. Each cluster would be mandated to set up public-private working groups that define priority projects and ensure early industry buy-in.
• Launch pilot venture studios: two studios in Bengaluru and Hyderabad, co-located with existing incubators, to test the model of shared wet labs, regulatory guidance and mentorship.
• Pilot regulatory sandbox: The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) should initiate sandbox schemes for startups, allowing time-bound exemptions from select compliance rules in exchange for monitored risk assessments.

During this phase, the government should also begin capitalising the Deeptech Chemistry Fund, allocating an initial INR1000 crore to pilot disbursements under milestone-linked funding models.

Phase 2: Expansion and institutionalisation (years 3–5)

The second phase should build on the pilot phase by scaling successful models and embedding them within national policy frameworks.

• Scale-up of NCPCs: Expand to a network of 10 centres across tier-1 and tier-2 cities, ensuring regional access to pilot facilities. These centres must be linked to existing CSIR and DST infrastructure to avoid duplication.
• National deeptech chemistry fund: Increase corpus to INR5000 crore, with contributions from multilateral development banks and industry consortia. Patient capital should be disbursed through the National Chemistry Innovation Authority (NCIA), which is established as a statutory body with legal autonomy to manage funds transparently.
• Startup-friendly reforms: NITI Aayog and DPIIT should publish uniform national guidelines for faculty-led startups, clarifying IP ownership and conflict-of-interest rules across academic institutions. Similarly, import regulations for R&D chemicals should be simplified under a fast-track clearance system managed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
• Patent and IP modernisation: The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks should create a specialised Chemistry IP Division, staffed with technically trained examiners, to fast-track applications in green chemistry, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals.

Phase 3: National integration and global positioning (years 6–10)

The final phase should consolidate gains and position India as a global leader in chemistry-driven deeptech.

• Manufacturing Hubs: Establish three integrated chemistry hubs in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, providing pilot-to-production facilities, shared compliance systems and export-oriented infrastructure.
• Demand-side innovation: Mandate that 20% of PSU and government chemical procurement budgets support validated startup innovations. This ‘first buyer’ model should be coordinated by DPIIT, with oversight from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to ensure accountability.
• Global partnerships: Expand bilateral R&D partnerships with Fraunhofer (Germany), TNO (Netherlands), and US national labs into structured co-development pipelines. Trade agreements negotiated by the Ministry of Commerce should include mutual recognition of chemical certifications and market access for Indian innovators.
• Skill development: The UGC and AICTE should mandate entrepreneurship modules within chemistry and chemical engineering curricula, alongside new training programs in green chemistry, nanotechnology and process safety, to be run in partnership with industry.

Phase	Institutional anchoring	Key actions	Outcomes
1: Foundation and pilot programmes (years 1–2)	DST/PSA establish National Coordination Council for Chemistry Innovation (NCCCI)	Establish five Chemistry Mission Clusters; launch two Pilot Chemistry Venture Studios (Bengaluru/Hyderabad); initial capitalisation of Deeptech Chemistry Fund (INR1,000 crore)	Initiate regulatory sandbox pilots (MoEFCC/CPCB), allowing time-bound exemptions; mandate industry working groups for clusters
2: Expansion and institutionalisation (years 3–5)	National Chemistry Innovation Authority (NCIA) is established as a statutory body.	Expand NCPC network to 10 centres; increase Deeptech Fund corpus to INR5,000 crore with contributions from multilateral banks and industry consortia	Publish uniform national guidelines for faculty-led startups; establish specialised chemistry IP division, targeting six-month examination times
3: National integration and global positioning (years 6–10)	NCIA coordinates integration across Ministries (DPIIT, MoC).	Establish three Integrated Chemistry Manufacturing Hubs (Gujarat, TN, Maharashtra); expand bilateral R&D co-development pipelines	Mandate first buyer programme (20% PSU procurement of validated startup innovations); embed entrepreneurship modules in UGC/AICTE curricula

Key stakeholders

• Government and regulators: DST (NCIA parent ministry), MOEF (sandbox oversight), DPIIT (procurement mandates), Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals (sectoral alignment).
• Research bodies: IITs, IISERs, CSIR labs and central universities (anchors for Chemistry Mission Clusters).
• Industry and startups: Large chemical firms (Reliance, Aditya Birla Chemicals), SMEs and deeptech startups.
• Financial institutions: SIDBI, NIIF, venture capital consortia and global patient capital funds.
• Civil society and standards bodies: Environmental watchdogs, consumer rights groups, BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards).
• International partners: Fraunhofer, TNO, A*STAR, Israel Innovation Authority, US Department of Energy

Barriers and mitigation strategies

Institutional inertia and coordination challenges

Barrier: Siloed mandates and slow interagency collaboration can stall the NCCCI setup and cluster formation.

Mitigation: Grant NCCCI a statutory charter with clear powers to convene DST, PSA, MoEFCC, CPCB and state bodies under a single-window authority, modelled on the UK Catapult network’s independent structure.

Data gaps and capacity limitations

Barrier: Lack of centralised data on chemistry R&D capabilities impedes cluster site selection and capability mapping.

Mitigations:

• Digital knowledge platform: Launch a national R&D dashboard aggregating CSIR, IIT, and IISER research outputs, modelled on Germany’s ‘Forschungsdatenportal’ to inform site identification and monitor TRL progression.
• Skill development module: Embed a ‘chemistry innovation bootcamp’ within the Chemistry Innovation Academy, training 500 researchers annually on regulatory navigation and scale-up best practices, akin to Singapore’s A*STAR training programme.

Funding constraints and disbursement inefficiencies

Barrier: Milestone-linked funding can face delays due to rigid budgetary norms and risk aversion.

Mitigations:

• Dedicated NCIA fund secretariat: Establish a small, expert secretariat authorised to release up to INR100 crore per disbursement within 30 days of milestone certification, following the disbursement timelines of Israel Innovation Authority’s incubator fund.
• Blended finance instruments: Combine public seed grants with matched private VC commitments under the Start-up India Deeptech Consortium, replicating the 1:2 public–private leverage achieved by the EU’s Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Regulatory complexity in sandboxes and patenting fast-track

Barrier: Overlapping environmental and safety regulations may deter startups from entering sandboxes, while patent backlogs slow commercialisation.

Mitigations:

• Model legislation for sandboxes: Issue a template regulation under the MoEFCC and CPCB that automatically grants provisional environmental clearances to sandbox participants, drawing on the Indian Fintech Regulatory Sandbox framework’s success in standardising approval pathways.
• Specialised IP Division: Embed a ‘chemistry IP cell’ within the Patent Office staffed by 40 examiners with doctoral-level chemistry expertise, reducing examination times from 18 to 6 months as demonstrated in Singapore’s IPOS expedited schemes.

Private-sector engagement and demand creation

Barrier: Industry may hesitate to commit to pilot centres and early procurement without clear ROI signals.

Mitigations:

• Anchor tenant agreements: Secure binding MoUs with Reliance and Aditya Birla Chemicals to fund 30% of NCPC operating costs in exchange for preferential access, mirroring the model of Germany’s Fraunhofer-industry partnerships.
• First-buyer guarantee: Mandate 15% of PSU chemical procurement budgets for sandbox-certified innovations, backed by DPIIT’s procurement relaxations, replicating China’s state-led demand creation for cleantech.

Risks and ethics

The integrated chemistry innovation ecosystem must navigate a range of ethical dilemmas and societal concerns to ensure responsible innovation, environmental protection and public trust.

1. Environmental and health risks

Large-scale chemical research and pilot operations can generate toxic emissions or accidental releases, provoking community resistance, as witnessed near Bhopal in 1984.²⁶  To mitigate this, the ICIE will require transparent environmental and social impact assessments and real-time effluent monitoring dashboards at each NCPC, following the UK’s High-Value Manufacturing Catapult model, which cut local grievances by 60% over five years.²⁷  Independent community advisory panels will review safety data and emergency plans, building trust through open data.

2. Dual-use and security concerns

Novel chemistries risk misuse for harmful applications. The ICIE will embed a Chemistry, Ethics and Security Board to conduct mandatory dual-use risk reviews and security training for all NCPC users, mirroring the US Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards. Although compliance costs rose 15% in the US, no major incidents occurred, demonstrating that rigorous yet streamlined security protocols can prevent misuse without stifling innovation.^28,29

3. Data governance, AI misuse and model bias

Chemistry R&D increasingly depends on large datasets and AI for molecular design and process optimisation, but poor data quality, weak provenance or biased models risk unsafe outcomes, IP leakage and misuse. India has already seen how data lapses in pharmaceuticals can trigger import bans, elucidating how credibility can erode without strong oversight. To prevent similar issues, NCPCs could mandate data-management plans, provenance metadata and strict validation standards for AI in safety-critical contexts. Drawing on examples like the US FDA’s AI/ML frameworks, India can also fund reproducibility audits and promote open benchmarks, ensuring algorithms are transparent, accountable and globally trusted.

4. Equity and inclusive access

Concentrating advanced facilities in premier institutions may exclude under-resourced regions and minority innovators, as seen in Canada’s early clean-tech clusters. The ICIE could reserve a percentage of NCPC slots and fund allocations for tier-2/3 institutions, women-led and minority-owned ventures.

5. Public mistrust and transparency deficit

To avoid incidents linked to procedural or regulatory opacity, the ICIE could adopt the practice of publishing all funding awards, patent-pool terms and sandbox approvals on a public portal. This practice has shown to reduce stakeholder complaints in other innovation ecosystems.

6. Intellectual property and benefit sharing

The ICIE could embed a social-impact licensing clause in all publicly funded research, guaranteeing non-exclusive, royalty-free access for public-sector use and fair-price frameworks for essential chemistry innovations.

7. Unintended socioeconomic displacement

The ICIE could integrate a programme to support a just transition via the Chemistry Innovation Academy, offering certification courses in process safety, analytical techniques, and digital manufacturing to affected workers, preventing long-term unemployment.

Conclusion

The ICIE proposal offers a strategic framework to overcome India’s innovation gap in chemistry-driven deep technology. By establishing the NCIA and systematically addressing R&D prioritisation, startup support, IP modernisation and market creation through its four robust pillars, the ICIE will replace fragmented efforts with a cohesive, sector-specific strategy.

Central to this vision are the Chemistry Mission Clusters and National Chemistry Pilot Centres. These ensure that critical innovations, ranging from green synthesis to advanced materials, receive targeted resources, access to shared infrastructure and direct industry engagement. Together, these mechanisms significantly reduce development risk and accelerate the journey from lab discoveries to market-ready technologies.

Beyond driving India’s clean growth trajectory, ICIE aligns closely with the national priorities of Atma Nirbhar Bharat, climate resilience and global competitiveness. The ecosystem strengthens India’s science leadership by fostering frontier research, streamlining technology transfer and creating an integrated lab-to-market pipeline. Embedding international best practices, including the UK’s Catapult transparency model, US dual-use reviews, Germany’s open governance and others, ensures ethical rigour, public trust and inclusive access. Milestone-linked funding and regulatory sandboxes, tailored to the unique needs of chemistry ventures, respond to the distinctive features of chemistry deeptech startups while safeguarding environmental and safety standards. Complementary demand-side measures, such as the ‘first buyer’ programme, provide early market signals, de-risking investment and catalysing private capital flows.

The ICIE policy is structured to convert cutting-edge chemistry research into commercially viable, environmentally sustainable industrial practices. Fostering an integrated innovation ecosystem will generate skilled employment, boost exports and enhance India’s technological autonomy.