From molecules to mandates: why chemistry must be governed as infrastructure

Chemistry has crossed a threshold. There was no single invention, no dramatic crisis or visible turning point to mark the change because it arrived steadily and without fanfare, but chemistry has now become such an integral component of our lives that it no longer behaves like a discrete scientific discipline or industrial sector. It behaves like infrastructure. And that means the nature of governance must change with it.

Our ability to model, monitor and manufacture molecules is shaping our health, our environment and our economy. Chemistry determines whether disease outbreaks are detected early or late, whether materials are made domestically or imported, whether environmental damage is reversible or persistent, and whether health technologies reach everyone or are confined to a few. It underpins food systems, healthcare delivery, clean energy transitions, industrial manufacturing and environmental resilience. Yet despite its centrality to modern life, it is still governed largely as a technical input; regulated after deployment, corrected after harm, or subsidised after failure.

A new reality

This mismatch between chemistry’s systemic impact and its governance frameworks is no longer sustainable. Power grids, water systems, transport networks and digital platforms are all governed with foresight because their failure propagates widely. Chemistry now exhibits the same characteristics. Once introduced into our bodies, ecosystems, supply chains or markets, chemical systems diffuse, interact and persist. Their effects are rarely local or short-lived, and they often generate secondary consequences beyond their original purpose.

Yet governance has not adapted to this reality. In India, chemical governance remains predominantly reactive. Regulatory mechanisms are typically triggered once products reach scale, costs escalate, environmental or health concerns become visible, or public trust is strained. This approach may suffice for slow-moving, isolated technologies. It is poorly suited to contemporary chemistry-driven innovations, which are increasingly programmable, data-intensive, adaptive and interlinked across sectors.

The consequences of this lag can be seen everywhere. Emerging health technologies encounter regulatory ambiguity that delays adoption. Environmental monitoring systems measure concentrations without capturing real risk. Sustainable manufacturing processes stall at pilot stages due to lack of scale-up pathways. Advanced materials struggle to transition from laboratory success to industrial deployment. In each case, the limiting factor is not scientific capability, but the absence of governance structures designed to manage chemistry as a system rather than as an output.

A new approach

Treating chemistry as infrastructure requires a shift in policy orientation. Infrastructure is not governed through episodic permissions; it operates with continuous stewardship. It requires anticipation, coordination, standard-setting, redundancies and mechanisms that maintain public confidence. Importantly, infrastructure governance is not retrospective – it assumes that failure is possible and plans accordingly.

Applied to chemistry, this means that governance must begin upstream. Engagement with regulatory systems should occur during early research, development and pilot phases, particularly for technologies with clear implications for public health, the environment or industrial systems. It also implies that chemical data, ranging from environmental signals and biomarker trends to materials performance metrics, must be treated as public assets, integrated into interoperable platforms that support decision-making across institutions rather than remaining fragmented across sectors.

This perspective does not call for additional constraints on innovation. On the contrary, coherent governance reduces uncertainty for researchers, firms and investors by clarifying expectations early. It aligns innovation pathways with public objectives, rather than forcing costly corrections at later stages.

Connecting discovery and innovation

A persistent challenge in India’s science and technology landscape is the assumption that excellence in research will naturally translate into national capability. India hosts strong academic institutions, skilled scientists, advanced analytical tools and a growing innovation ecosystem. Yet excellence distributed across silos does not automatically yield public value. Without connective institutional mechanisms linking discovery, validation, regulation, scale-up and deployment, even high-quality innovations struggle to mature.

Fragmentation also weakens trust. When regulatory standards lag behind technological practice, public institutions appear unprepared. When environmental or health harms surface after deployment, public confidence in both science and governance is eroded. Treating chemistry as infrastructure offers a means to rebuild this trust by making preparedness, transparency, and accountability integral to innovation.

Chemistry-driven technologies increasingly demand anticipatory governance. This does not require prediction of specific outcomes. Rather, it requires institutional capacity to scan emerging developments, adapt regulatory approaches and revise standards as evidence evolves. Such capacity is particularly important in domains where chemical interventions have long-term or irreversible effects.

A roadmap for better governance

India already possesses many of the components needed for such an approach, but it lacks the institutional coherence required to integrate them. Incremental regulatory reform, while necessary is insufficient on its own. A governance framework is needed that recognises chemistry as an enabling system - one that connects research funding, regulatory oversight, data infrastructure, scale-up facilities and public procurement within a common strategic logic.

As part of this change, chemical data must also be recognised as a public asset. Environmental indicators, biomarker signals, and materials performance data should feed into shared, interoperable platforms that enable coordinated decision-making across ministries and agencies. Without such data integration, policy will remain fragmented regardless of scientific progress.

Translation and scale-up demand dedicated public infrastructure. Many chemistry-driven innovations fail not because they lack merit, but because pilot-scale facilities, validation pathways and mission-oriented procurement mechanisms are absent. Targeted investment in shared scale-up infrastructure would address this bottleneck more effectively than additional project-based funding alone.

Finally, regulatory capacity itself must evolve. Continuous training for regulators, closer interaction between scientific institutions and regulatory bodies, and periodic review of standards are essential. Governance systems must be designed to learn, not merely to enforce.

These measures are neither speculative nor radical. They align with practices already implemented in parts of Europe, North America and East Asia, and they build on capabilities that India already possesses. Implemented incrementally, they would shift chemical governance from a reactive posture to a preventive and enabling one.

The question is therefore not whether chemistry should be governed differently, but whether governance will adjust in time to reflect chemistry’s role in shaping public outcomes. Treating chemistry as infrastructure offers a practical framework for doing so; one grounded in preparedness, coherence, and public value rather than episodic correction.