Research should be treated not as an expenditure, but as a strategic investment in long-term national development
The current political climate in Nepal offers a glimmer of hope for the academic sector. With education reform now a national priority, momentum for meaningful change is steadily building. However, reform must extend beyond isolated initiatives and event-based progress. Transforming Nepal's higher education system requires a disciplined, long-term framework that bridges classroom learning with experimentation, discovery, and innovation.
Education and research are two sides of the same coin. While quality education builds a skilled workforce, it is research and innovation that translate this capacity into meaningful socioeconomic transformation. The absence of a strong productive scientific ecosystem remains a key reason many of Nepal's brightest graduates seek opportunities abroad.
As a capital-scarce nation, Nepal must prioritise applied research that addresses real-world challenges, enhances productivity, and improves public services. Limited resources should be directed towards maximising social and economic returns through a unified national strategy where universities, colleges, and research institutes collaborate and build on shared knowledge rather than working in isolation.
Research Priority Sectors should be defined at the national level through synergy between the scientific community and key stakeholders, including government, academia, industry, and policy institutions. Such coordination would ensure the development of a coherent national knowledge system rather than fragmented outputs. New Zealand provides a strong example, prioritising applied research in sectors like agriculture through targeted funding design, commercialisation incentives, and close coordination between universities and Crown Research Institutes.
To cultivate a genuine research culture, Nepal must establish a sustained cycle of substantial, competitive research funding. Research should be treated not as an expenditure, but as a strategic investment in long-term national development.
It is also essential to avoid the pitfalls of "thin distribution," where limited resources are spread too widely across too many projects. Instead, the state should concentrate investment in strategically important Research Priority Sectors.
We often measure development by the kilometers of blacktopped roads constructed. Yet a road's true value lies in reduced transport costs and/or improved access to hospitals and markets. Research funding should follow the same principle. Every rupee invested should be evaluated by measurable outcomes and social impact.
Transparency must be strengthened through a centralised digital research portal. Every grant, financial breakdown, and real-time financial audit should be publicly accessible. Beyond deterring corruption, such a system would create a competitive and collaborative research environment.
For instance, a student in a remote district with an innovative idea but limited access to equipment or suppliers could use the platform to identify available instruments, vendors, locate institutions with resources, and build collaborations across institutions. A transparent system would therefore become not only a record of spending, but also a national scientific networking platform.
Perhaps, the most critical transformation lies in redefining the role of university faculty. Higher education institutions require not only teachers, but researchers and facilitators who can inspire discussion and discovery. This necessitates a shift towards a structured and transparent Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workload model, similar to systems used in the United States and many other countries. Under this framework, a full-time faculty appointment is defined as 1.0 FTE, distributed across teaching, research, outreach, and administrative responsibilities.
A key advantage of the FTE system is the ability for faculty to "buy out" time through competitive research grants. Institutions may fund a baseline workload, while externally funded grants can supplement salaries or reduce teaching obligations, thereby increasing dedicated research time. This model directly incentivises competitive research output and rewards academic productivity.
International exposure should also become a requirement for promotion beyond junior faculty levels. A minimum of six months of research or teaching experience at a recognised international institution would not only enhance individual academic development but also strengthen institutional capacity upon return. However, such a policy must be preceded by rigorous study and supported by a structured competitive fellowship grant framework. China provides a relevant example of implementing similar requirements for academic advancement.
To build a sustainable and impactful scientific ecosystem, Nepal should adopt a tiered institutional structure. At the provincial level, Research Sandboxes can function as student-driven innovation centres where young researchers experiment under structured mentorship. These spaces would serve as incubators for creativity, practical learning, and early-stage innovation. At the national level, Nepal should establish a unified National Innovation Hub with distributed research stations across the country. The Hub should not be a silo of the state, but a centre for collaboration, attracting national and international funding while partnering with private industry.
Allowing private firms to establish research and development divisions within the Hub would create direct pathways for talent recruitment, interdisciplinary collaboration, and healthy innovation-driven competition. Over time, the Hub could evolve into a national benchmark institution, with certifications and outputs carrying international credibility.
Whether in agriculture, tourism, health, or data science, the outcome of publicly funded research must directly improve the lives of the public. If the government shows the will and invites the Nepali diaspora to contribute, I am confident they will respond positively and stand ready to engage.
Bhattarai is a research scientist affiliated to Brown University and Harvard University