Teylers Museum in Haarlem, the Netherlands’ oldest museum, offers a rare journey through 250 years of science, from giant fossils and early physics to its historic Oval Room.

As I walked along the peaceful banks of the Spaarne River in Haarlem, a historic Dutch city located just fifteen minutes by train from Amsterdam, an elegant neoclassical facade caught my eye. To a casual passerby, the grand entrance might look like just another historic manor. Stepping through its heavy doors, I felt like I had walked right into another century. This is the Teylers Museum, the oldest museum in the Netherlands, founded in 1778.

At a time when science and art were seen as sister disciplines rather than opposing worlds, Pieter Teyler van der Hulst, a wealthy cloth merchant and banker, decided to do something extraordinary. Inspired by Enlightenment ideals that people should discover the world independently through reason and hands-on investigation, he left his immense fortune to establish a public center for knowledge. Teylers Museum was designed not as a dusty storehouse for old relics, but as a living “temple of the muses.” It became a welcoming space where researchers, students, and everyday curious visitors could gather under one roof to witness live physics experiments, study fossilized secrets of the Earth, and admire master drawings.

The Heart of the Enlightenment

Inside the Oval Room Stepping into the museum’s historic core, the Oval Room, felt like walking directly into an eighteenth century laboratory. Completed in 1784, this double-tiered hall features carved wooden showcases, brass scientific instruments, and a balcony library filled with leather bound encyclopedias, all bathed in soft natural light flowing through an ornate ceiling skylight.

In the late 1700s, this room served as a high tech science hub. Martinus van Marum, the museum’s legendary first director, used the space to host public demonstrations that fascinated scholars and visitors alike. Van Marum firmly believed that science needed to be seen to be truly understood. To explore the mysterious nature of electricity, he commissioned John Cuthbertson in 1784 to build the largest electrostatic generator in the world.

From giant electrostatic machines and rare fossils to Hendrik Lorentz’s physics cabinet, Teylers Museum preserves the history of science in a remarkably intimate setting.

Equipped with two massive glass discs over five feet in diameter, Van Marum’s generator could produce sparks over two feet long, generating artificial lightning that left audiences completely amazed. As I stood before this colossal machine, I couldn’t help but think back to Van Marum’s original notes from his high voltage trials. He noticed that these massive electrical discharges left behind a distinct, sharp smell, an observation that quietly laid crucial groundwork for the later discovery of ozone gas.

Fossils, Physics, and the Foundations of Modern Science

Moving beyond the Oval Room led me into the scientific galleries, where cabinet after cabinet reveals the real origins of modern paleontology and physics. Long before Charles Darwin published his theories on evolution, early naturalists were struggling to make sense of prehistoric remains.

In 1802, Van Marum purchased a famous fossil, originally unearthed in Öhningen in southern Germany, known at the time as “Homo diluvii testis”, or “the witness of the Flood.” Theologians of the era believed it to be the skeletal remains of a human who perished in Biblical waters. Years later, French naturalist Georges Cuvier examined the specimen and identified it as the fossilized giant salamander ‘Andrias scheuchzeri’. That discovery helped overturn centuries of religious assumptions, proving that entire species could actually become extinct over time.

Teylers Museum also houses one of the rare specimens of Archaeopteryx, the famous primeval bird fossil that provided the crucial missing link between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. Walking past these display cases felt like watching the early building blocks of science come together.

The museum’s dedication to physics continued well beyond the 18th century. In 1910, theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Hendrik Lorentz was appointed Curator of Teylers Physics Cabinet. Lorentz, whose mathematical equations laid the groundwork for Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, conducted experiments on electromagnetism, optics, and atomic physics within these very walls for nearly two decades. When Einstein visited his friend Lorentz in Haarlem, he described the city and its scientific atmosphere as a sanctuary of pure thought.

A Center for Curiosity

Dutch Museum Culture Across Generations Exploring the galleries, I was repeatedly struck by an aspect of the experience that feels deeply rooted in Dutch culture. In the Netherlands, museums are rarely treated as rigid, solemn monuments reserved only for academics. Instead, they are active, community centered gathering places designed to spark curiosity across every stage of life.

Around me, multi-generational discovery was happening in real time. I watched a young child look wide-eyed at a display of polished mineral specimens, pointing out bright colors to a grandparent who was patiently explaining how crystals form. A few yards away, a group of students stood engrossed near a collection of early optical instruments, casually debating how light bends through glass lenses.

This spirit of accessibility gives Dutch museum culture its vitality. From toddlers interacting with physical phenomena to lifelong learners examining centuries old manuscripts, people of all ages come together to ask questions and explore. Teylers Museum reflects this philosophy naturally. It doesn’t feel like a dusty home for old artifacts, but a place where centuries old ideas still inspire people today.

Timeless Wonder in a Physical World

What makes Teylers Museum stand out today is its complete preservation. While modern science centers rely heavily on interactive touchscreens and digital simulations, Teylers offers something far rarer: authentic, untouched history. The brass dials of the barometers, the hand blown vacuum tubes, the polished mahogany cases, and the handwritten labels remain virtually untouched, arranged exactly as they were over two centuries ago.

Standing among these collections, the experience feels less like viewing a static display and more like walking into a researcher’s active workplace, as if the scientists have merely stepped out for a short break.

As I walked out into the quiet streets of Haarlem, I couldn’t help but feel that the real magic of the place was not just in its old collection. It was in the reminder that science is not about having all the answers, but about never losing the urge to keep looking.

India has updated its national strategy to tackle anaemia, with the latest Anaemia Mukt Bharat operational guidance continuing to emphasise supplementation, screening, treatment and addressing the underlying causes of the condition. The renewed focus comes against a persistent burden among adolescents, particularly girls.

The latest NFHS-5 data show that 59.1% of girls aged 15–19 were anaemic in 2019–21. The figure has changed little over the years: UNICEF’s analysis shows prevalence at 55.8% in 2005–06, 54.1% in 2015–16 and 59.1% in 2019–21.

UNICEF’s older data also illustrate the gender gap that about 56% of girls aged 15–19 were anaemic compared with 30% of boys.

Why are Adolescent Girls Vulnerable?

Adolescence is a period of rapid growth, increasing the body’s demand for nutrients. For girls, menstruation creates an additional source of blood and iron loss. Diet is another major factor. Iron-rich foods remain insufficient in many adolescent diets, particularly where households depend heavily on cereal-based staples. Income constraints, food availability and social and cultural practices can also influence what girls eat. But anaemia is not synonymous with iron deficiency.

Iron, folate and vitamin B12 deficiencies can contribute to anaemia, as can infections, blood loss and genetic conditions such as haemoglobin disorders. This makes diagnosis important: giving iron to every anaemic person does not necessarily address the underlying cause.

A 2024 study of 221 adolescent girls in rural Nagpur illustrates this complexity. 57% were anaemic and 84% had at least one micronutrient deficiency. Vitamin B12 deficiency was particularly common, while only 9% of the girls reported consuming government-recommended iron-folic acid tablets in the previous two weeks.

What is the Government Doing?

India’s Anaemia Mukt Bharat (AMB) strategy was launched in 2018 under the National Health Mission. It follows a life-cycle approach and combines six interventions: iron-folic acid supplementation, deworming, behaviour-change communication, testing and treatment, fortified foods, and action against non-nutritional causes such as malaria and haemoglobinopathies.

For adolescents, weekly iron-folic acid supplementation is a central intervention. India has expanded this into one of the world’s largest universal adolescent anaemia-control programmes, targeting 116 million adolescent girls and boys.

The challenge, therefore, is no longer simply whether India has an anaemia programme. It is whether interventions reach adolescents consistently, whether they are followed, and whether persistent anaemia is properly diagnosed and treated.

What Does the Evidence Say Works?

Indian research suggests that supplementation can work when delivery and adherence are strong. A large-scale programme evaluation involving 150,700 adolescent girls in Uttar Pradesh found that weekly iron-folic acid supplementation, counselling and periodic deworming were associated with a reduction in anaemia prevalence from 73.3% to 25.4% over four years. The researchers reported compliance above 85%.

Other Indian trials have similarly found improvements in haemoglobin following iron-folic acid supplementation, while studies have also examined whether different dosing schedules and health education can improve outcomes.

These findings point towards an important lesson: the problem is not necessarily that iron supplementation does not work. Implementation, adherence, diet and correct diagnosis matter.

Prevention Needs More Than Iron Tablets

Preventing adolescent anaemia requires several measures to work together. Girls need access to diverse diets containing adequate iron and other micronutrients. IFA supplementation and deworming need to be delivered regularly, while schools and community health systems need to provide nutrition and menstrual-health information.

At the same time, adolescents who remain anaemic need haemoglobin testing and appropriate follow-up. Where anaemia persists despite supplementation, health workers need to look for other causes, including vitamin deficiencies, infections and haemoglobin disorders. This is particularly important for girls who are out of school and may not be reached through school-based delivery mechanisms. The evidence therefore points to a broader approach: better diets, consistent supplementation, infection control, screening, treatment and follow-up—not iron tablets alone.

India’s adolescent anaemia burden is significant not only because of the immediate effects of fatigue, reduced physical capacity and impaired development. Anaemia during adolescence can also carry consequences into adulthood and pregnancy, making adolescence an important window for intervention.

The question for India’s anaemia programme is consequently shifting from how many tablets are distributed to whether the right adolescents receive the right intervention, take it consistently and receive treatment for the actual cause of their anaemia.

India’s research and development (R & D) spending has more than doubled in absolute terms, but R&D intensity remains below 1% of GDP. As India approaches 2047, the bigger question is whether its investment in science is sufficient to build the technologies and industries needed for technological independence.

When India became independent in 1947, the country had only 17 universities and 636 colleges serving about 2.38 lakh students. Literacy was around 14%. Nearly eight decades later, India has built a vastly larger education and research system. The country had 1,168 universities, 45,473 colleges and 12,002 standalone higher-education institutions in 2021–22, according to the All India Survey on Higher Education.

But as India looks towards its centenary of Independence in 2047, its scientific ambitions are running into a persistent question: is the country investing enough in research and development to build the technologies it will need? India’s R&D spending has increased sharply in absolute terms. Yet as a share of the economy, it has remained below 1%.

India’s R&D Spending Remains Below 1% of GDP

India’s gross expenditure on research and development rose from ₹60,197 crore in 2010–11 to ₹1,27,381 crore in 2020–21, according to the Department of Science and Technology. However, R&D expenditure as a share of GDP was 0.64% in 2020–21. The corresponding figure was 0.66% in both 2018–19 and 2019–20.

This means that while India’s research spending more than doubled over the decade, R&D intensity remained at roughly two-thirds of 1% of GDP. The latest detailed official figure available for India is therefore 0.64% for 2020–21. WIPO’s Global Innovation Index 2025 uses an R&D intensity figure of 0.65%, based on 2020 data. One of the most commonly used measures of a country’s research effort is R&D intensity—the amount a country spends on research and development as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP). It allows researchers to compare the relative priority given to R&D across economies of very different sizes.

There is currently no single internationally comparable R&D figure for every country for 2026. UNESCO’s new global R&D data collection is still underway, with the resulting data scheduled for release in November 2026.

Government Still Funds the Larger Share

The issue is not only how much India spends on R&D, but who pays for it. Government accounted for 59.2% of India’s gross expenditure on R&D in 2020–21, while business enterprises accounted for 40.8%, according to DST data.

The figures point to India’s continuing dependence on public funding for research. That becomes significant as research moves into areas such as semiconductors, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, advanced materials and clean energy. These fields can require expensive infrastructure, specialised equipment and long development cycles before research produces commercially viable technologies.

Increasing private-sector participation is therefore likely to be as important as increasing the overall R&D budget.

India is Producing More Patents and Research

Despite its relatively low R&D intensity, India has become a significant contributor to global research and innovation. The latest Nature Index data, covering April 2025 to March 2026, records 3,565 research articles from India in the journals tracked by the index.

Patent activity has also grown rapidly. Indian applicants filed 76,470 patent applications worldwide in 2024, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. This was a 19.2% increase over 2023 and placed India sixth among origins for worldwide patent applications.

The growth marks the sixth consecutive year of double-digit growth in patent applications from India-based applicants, according to WIPO. But patent filings do not necessarily mean that inventions reach the market.

A patent can protect an invention without it becoming a commercially manufactured product. For research to generate wider economic value, it has to move through several stages—from discovery to patent, prototype, product and eventually large-scale deployment. That transition remains one of the important challenges for India’s innovation ecosystem.

India Ranks Higher on Innovation Than Its R&D Spending Suggests

India’s relatively low R&D intensity has not prevented it from performing strongly on broader measures of innovation. WIPO’s Global Innovation Index 2025 ranked India 38th among 139 economies. India was also ranked first among lower-middle-income economies and first in Central and Southern Asia.

WIPO identifies India as an innovation overperformer, citing strengths including ICT services exports, venture-capital activity and the country’s ability to translate scientific knowledge into commercial impact. The contrast is significant.

India is generating considerable innovation despite spending a relatively small share of its GDP on R&D. But that does not necessarily mean that the existing level of investment is enough to support the next generation of technologies. As research becomes more capital-intensive, countries seeking technological leadership require sustained investment in infrastructure, specialised researchers and long-term development.

China Spends Four Times India’s Share

The gap becomes clearer when India is compared with major research economies. WIPO’s latest internationally comparable estimates for 2024 put R&D intensity at 6.33% of GDP in Israel and 5.32% in South Korea. Japan and the United States were both at 3.45%, while Germany stood at 3.11%.

China’s R&D intensity reached 2.65%. By comparison, India’s latest available figure is about 0.65%. China therefore spends roughly four times India’s share of GDP on R&D. Other emerging economies also show different levels of research intensity. WIPO estimates Brazil at 1.15%, Thailand at 1.16%, Türkiye at 1.42%, Vietnam at 0.42%, the Philippines at 0.32% and Indonesia at 0.28%.

The figures are not all based on the same data year, making direct comparisons imperfect. However, the broad difference between India and the world’s leading research economies remains clear.

Government Changing The Funding Model

India has begun introducing policies aimed at expanding research funding and encouraging greater industry participation. The Anusandhan National Research Foundation was established through legislation in 2023, with a planned five-year outlay of ₹50,000 crore for 2023–28.

The foundation is intended to strengthen research across universities, colleges and research institutions and encourage collaboration between academia, industry and government.

In July 2025, the government also approved a ₹1 lakh crore Research, Development and Innovation Scheme. The scheme is intended to encourage private-sector investment in high-risk and high-impact R&D, particularly in strategic and emerging areas.

The initiatives reflect an attempt to address a longstanding problem: India’s research system needs greater private-sector participation if overall R&D investment is to rise substantially.

What Would Higher R&D Spending Change?

There is no fixed relationship between R&D spending and the number of patents, papers or technologies a country will produce. Reaching a particular percentage of GDP cannot guarantee scientific breakthroughs.

But higher sustained investment could expand the country’s research capacity. Moving from 0.64% to 1% of GDP would represent an increase of about 56% relative to India’s current R&D intensity. It could provide greater resources for research grants, laboratory infrastructure, doctoral training and advanced equipment.

At 2%, India would move much closer to China’s current R&D intensity and have a substantially larger pool of resources for research in areas such as biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, AI, semiconductors and clean energy. At 3%, India would enter the range of several major research economies. The outcome, however, would depend on how effectively that money is used.

From Research Papers to Technologies

For India, the next phase of science policy may therefore need to focus as much on the movement of research into the economy as on increasing research output. Universities need stronger research infrastructure and stable funding. Public laboratories need effective technology-transfer mechanisms. Companies need stronger incentives to conduct R&D domestically. Researchers need access to advanced equipment and long-term funding.

Success could also be measured through indicators beyond publications and patents: technologies licensed to companies, university spin-offs, industry-funded research, prototypes entering production and revenue generated from publicly supported research. This is particularly important for technologies that could shape India’s economic future.

A semiconductor process developed in an Indian laboratory, a new pharmaceutical platform, an energy-storage technology or an agricultural innovation can have an economic impact far beyond the research paper that first describes it. At the same time, basic research cannot be judged only by immediate commercial returns. Some of the technologies that eventually transform economies begin as discoveries with no obvious market.

India therefore faces a two-part challenge: expand research that pushes scientific boundaries while building the institutions and industrial capacity needed to convert discoveries into technologies.

The Science Challenge India Faces in 2047

The scientific challenge India faced in 1947 was largely about building capacity. The country needed universities, laboratories, trained researchers and institutions capable of supporting scientific inquiry. Much of that foundation now exists.

The challenge approaching 2047 is different. India is no longer simply trying to establish a scientific system. It is trying to use that system to compete in technologies that will determine economic and strategic strength. That will require more sustained investment, greater participation from industry and stronger links between research institutions and the market.

As India approaches 100 years of Independence, the question is therefore no longer only how much science the country produces. It is whether India can invest enough in that science—and build the systems around it—to turn research into technologies, technologies into industries and scientific capability into technological independence.