Society
RFK Jr. at HHS: A health reformer or a risk to public safety?
Robert f. Kennedy jr. And the future of US Health policy: A closer look at the implications of his anti-vaccine stance and food reform efforts
The recent announcement that Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr. has been tapped to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the second term of President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the health and scientific communities. Kennedy, a well-known anti-vaccine activist, has long championed controversial views about immunization, leading many to worry about the potential consequences of his appointment for public health in the United States. However, while his positions on vaccines remain contentious, his advocacy for stricter regulations on processed foods, particularly in school nutrition, raises an important debate about the intersection of health, policy, and public welfare.
The Anti-Vaccine Movement: A Dangerous Shift?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on vaccines are well-documented and widely criticized by the medical community. He has persistently questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are among the most effective public health tools available to prevent infectious diseases. His stance runs counter to decades of research that have demonstrated the life-saving benefits of vaccines, from eradicating smallpox to virtually eliminating polio and reducing the incidence of diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella.
This would particularly threaten vulnerable populations, such as infants, elderly individuals…
Kennedy’s vocal opposition to vaccine mandates, coupled with his belief that vaccines may cause harm—particularly to children—has placed him at odds with leading medical experts and public health authorities. His appointment as the head of HHS, the agency responsible for overseeing the nation’s public health policy, could have profound consequences. If Kennedy uses this platform to advocate for policies that reduce vaccination rates or diminish the credibility of scientific research supporting vaccines, it could lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases. This would particularly threaten vulnerable populations, such as infants, elderly individuals, and those with compromised immune systems, who rely on herd immunity to stay safe.
In the context of the ongoing global health challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy’s stance on vaccines poses a potential risk to efforts aimed at preventing future outbreaks. If the U.S. were to experience another pandemic under his leadership, Kennedy’s approach to vaccines could undermine the country’s ability to respond effectively, endangering millions of lives.
A Silver Lining: Food Reform and Child Nutrition
While Kennedy’s anti-vaccine rhetoric remains a cause for concern, his stance on food policy, particularly regarding the food served in schools, offers a more promising avenue for public health reform. Kennedy has been a vocal critic of the processed food industry, particularly its influence on school lunches. He has argued that the widespread consumption of unhealthy, highly processed foods is a key factor driving the obesity and chronic disease epidemics in the United States, particularly among children.
The connection between poor nutrition and health outcomes is well-established. Diets high in processed foods, sugars, and unhealthy fats contribute to a range of health issues, from obesity and diabetes to heart disease and hypertension. The alarming rise in childhood obesity rates has prompted calls for more stringent regulations around the food products served in schools, where many children receive a significant portion of their daily calories. Kennedy’s push for healthier school meals, free from processed foods and filled with nutritious alternatives, is a policy that aligns with the recommendations of many nutrition experts.
Kennedy’s calls for food reform could provide a much-needed counterbalance to the harmful influence of corporate interests in the food industry
While his anti-vaccine views may overshadow his other positions, Kennedy’s stance on food reform is one that could benefit the health of future generations. Improving the quality of food served to schoolchildren would not only help combat rising rates of childhood obesity but could also reduce the long-term burden of chronic diseases, ultimately easing the strain on the nation’s healthcare system.
A Complex Legacy and Uncertain Future
The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head HHS is emblematic of the broader tensions within the Trump administration, which has frequently positioned itself against the scientific establishment. Kennedy’s promotion, alongside other controversial picks, suggests a continuation of the president’s desire to reshape key federal agencies in line with his ideological and political views, often at odds with established science and public health expertise.
However, Kennedy’s anti-establishment persona also resonates with a segment of the American public that feels disconnected from traditional political elites and the institutions that govern public health. His views on vaccines may appeal to those who distrust government-mandated health policies, even if those policies are grounded in extensive scientific research.
At the same time, Kennedy’s calls for food reform could provide a much-needed counterbalance to the harmful influence of corporate interests in the food industry. If he were to focus on improving the nutritional standards of school meals and advocating for greater transparency in food labeling, he could help shift the national conversation toward healthier diets and better public health outcomes.
A Balancing Act for Public Health
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. takes on the responsibility of leading the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the country faces a complex and uncertain future. While his stance on vaccines raises significant concerns, his advocacy for healthier food policies could offer valuable solutions to the growing public health crisis of diet-related diseases. In navigating his dual legacy of promoting vaccine skepticism and championing food reform, Kennedy will need to balance his controversial views with the scientific evidence that underpins public health policy.
The true test of his leadership will be whether he can embrace evidence-based health practices while addressing the pressing challenges of childhood nutrition, chronic disease prevention, and the fight against harmful food industries. If Kennedy can move beyond his anti-vaccine stance and focus on fostering a healthier, more informed public, his tenure at HHS could ultimately benefit the health and well-being of Americans—especially the nation’s children, who will inherit the public health policies of today.
Society
79 Years After Independence: Is India Investing Enough in Science and Technology?
India’s R&D spending remains below 1% of GDP despite rising research output and patents. Is the country investing enough to achieve technological independence by 2047?
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.
Editor’s Note
Dipin Damodharan, Co-founder & Editor-in-Chief, EdPublica
South Korea offers an instructive comparison. R&D intensity—the share of a country’s GDP devoted to research and development—is not, by itself, a guarantee of economic transformation. But South Korea’s experience shows what sustained investment can achieve when it is accompanied by strong university research, private-sector participation and technological development.
UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics reported that South Korea’s R&D expenditure had reached 4.03% of GDP in 2011, compared with 0.81% for India at the time. The private sector accounted for a substantial share of South Korea’s R&D expenditure, highlighting the importance of industry participation alongside public investment.
The lesson for India is therefore not simply to spend more. It is to build an ecosystem in which increased R&D funding translates into research capacity, technologies, companies and productive industries.
Climate
From Fighting Water to Saving It: The Netherlands Faces a Growing Drought Challenge
A land built to keep water out is now struggling to keep enough of it in — forcing a world leader in water management to rethink its infrastructure
The Netherlands built its global reputation by keeping water out. Now, longer dry spells and intensifying heatwaves are forcing the country to confront a very different problem: how to keep enough fresh water in the landscape. From greenhouse agriculture to homes built on wooden foundation piles, the Netherlands drought challenge is exposing the limits of infrastructure designed primarily for flood protection.
When people think of the Netherlands, the images that come to mind are windmills, tulip fields and the great sea walls that have kept the ocean at bay for centuries. The Dutch built their reputation, and much of their nation, on mastering water — pumping it away, holding it back, and reclaiming land from the sea to build a prosperous country on ground that, by rights, shouldn’t exist. Yet beneath that carefully engineered landscape, the Netherlands is now facing an unfamiliar problem: it is running out of fresh water.
As repeated summer heatwaves sweep across Western Europe, Dutch water authorities say they have reached the limit of what engineering can do. In several regions, officials have exhausted every standard measure available to them and are left with what amounts to a last resort — waiting, and hoping, for rain.
Netherlands Drought Challenge: From Floods to Water Scarcity
To understand how a country famous for its rainfall and rivers has arrived at this point, it helps to look at how the land itself was designed. For generations, the Dutch water system had one job: get excess water out to sea as fast as possible, to prevent flooding. That same efficiency has become a liability as weather patterns shift towards longer dry spells and more intense heat. The pressure peaks in late summer, when temperatures regularly cross 35°C and water evaporates faster than rainfall can replace it.
The consequences of shrinking water reserves go well beyond the daily weather report. They are already reaching into the economy, and into the foundations — quite literally — of Dutch homes.
Thousands of historic Dutch houses stand on wooden foundation piles. When groundwater levels drop, those piles are exposed to air and begin to rot. On clay and peat soils, the ground shrinks unevenly, pulling foundations down and cracking brick walls
Economic Strain and Sinking Homes
In Westland, the heart of Dutch greenhouse horticulture, the Delfland water authority has banned growers from drawing irrigation water from local ditches and canals — the first such ban in its history. According to the growers’ umbrella body Glastuinbouw Nederland, the ban affects around 150 commercial growers, with potential damages running as high as €150 million.
At the same time, a quieter crisis is unfolding beneath people’s homes. Thousands of historic Dutch houses stand on wooden foundation piles. When groundwater levels drop, those piles are exposed to air and begin to rot. On clay and peat soils, the ground shrinks unevenly, pulling foundations down and cracking brick walls. The Council for the Living Environment and Infrastructure estimates that close to half a million buildings across the country could show foundation damage by 2035, with repair costs reaching as much as €54 billion.
From Water Battle to Water Sponge
This reality is forcing a fundamental shift in how the Netherlands manages its resources. For centuries, Dutch policy was simple: fight the water, and push it away. Today, water authorities are engaged in a delicate balancing act, trying to save every drop using canal locks and storage basins. But holding onto existing water can only do so much once the rain stops altogether.
Long-term resilience will require redesigning the landscape itself. Rather than treating rainwater as a threat to be flushed out to sea, experts increasingly argue that the Netherlands needs to function more like a giant sponge — capturing heavy winter rain and storing it safely to survive the dry summer months that are becoming the norm.
A Lesson Beyond Borders
What is unfolding in the Netherlands carries a lesson well beyond it. If a nation this experienced in water engineering is struggling to keep pace with a changing climate, it says something about how quickly conditions can outrun even the most sophisticated infrastructure. As riverbeds stay low and the dry spells drag on, the Dutch find themselves in an unfamiliar position for a country built on water: waiting for the skies to open.
Society
Urban Women Hit by a Stark 8.7% Unemployment Rate
India’s unemployment rate rose to 5.4% in April–June 2026, but the sharpest divide was among urban workers: women faced 8.7% unemployment, while only 22.8% were employed compared with 70.7% of men.
India’s urban labour market continues to show a persistent gender imbalance, even as overall employment trends remain relatively stable. While unemployment rates are often used as the primary indicator of job stress, they do not fully capture who is able to access work in the first place.
India’s latest employment data reveal a divide larger than the headline unemployment rate. In April–June 2026, 8.7% of urban women aged 15 years and above who were in the labour force were unemployed, compared with 6.1% of urban men. But the sharper gap lies in employment itself: only 22.8% of urban women were working, compared with 70.7% of urban men.
The figures come as India’s overall unemployment rate rose to 5.4%, from 5.0% in January–March, according to the latest Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Quarterly Bulletin released by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Rural unemployment rose from 4.3% to 4.8%, while urban unemployment remained almost unchanged at 6.7%.
For urban women, unemployment actually fell from 9.1% to 8.7% over the quarter. Yet it remains considerably higher than the rate for men.
That makes the story less about a sudden rise in female unemployment and more about a persistent question: why are so few urban women participating in paid work?
The Bigger Divide is Participation
The unemployment rate counts people who are working or actively seeking and available for work. Those outside the labour force are not counted as unemployed.
That distinction is crucial. The urban Worker Population Ratio (WPR) stood at 46.8% overall in April–June. But the gender gap was stark: 70.7% for men and just 22.8% for women.
The nearly 48-percentage-point difference means that looking only at the 8.7% female unemployment rate captures only part of the employment problem. India can therefore have a relatively stable urban unemployment rate while still having a large pool of women who are not participating in the labour market.

Urban Jobs are Changing, But the Gender Gap Remains
The urban labour market itself is not showing signs of a broad collapse. Urban unemployment edged up only marginally from 6.6% to 6.7% during the quarter. At the same time, the share of urban workers in regular wage or salaried employment increased from 48.9% to 49.3%.
Urban employment is also dominated by services. The tertiary sector accounted for 62% of urban employment in April–June, compared with 61.7% a year earlier.
Yet these shifts have not translated into comparable employment outcomes for women.
Rural Unemployment Rose Faster
The national increase in unemployment was partly driven by rural India. Rural unemployment rose by 0.5 percentage points, compared with a 0.1-point increase in urban areas. At the same time, rural employment continued to shift away from agriculture: agriculture’s share fell from 55.8% to 52.9%, while the secondary sector rose from 22.6% to 24.4%.
The figures point to an economy undergoing changes in where and how people work, even as access to employment remains uneven.
Women’s Participation Also Fell
The gender gap extends beyond cities. Overall female labour-force participation declined from 34.7% in January–March to 33.2% in April–June. The overall LFPR for people aged 15 and above also fell, from 55.5% to 54.6%.
The latest figures should not be interpreted as proof that women simply lost jobs. LFPR measures participation in the labour force, while WPR measures actual employment.
But together, the indicators highlight a persistent challenge: India’s employment story cannot be understood through unemployment alone.
The Question of Gender Gap
The PLFS does not establish why urban women participate in the labour market at much lower rates than men. Factors such as childcare, household responsibilities, transport, workplace conditions, safety and access to suitable jobs require separate evidence and reporting.
What the data do establish is the scale of the divide. Urban female unemployment is 8.7%, compared with 6.1% for men. But the much larger gap is in actual employment: 22.8% of urban women were working, against 70.7% of urban men.
As India’s urban economy becomes increasingly service-led and regular salaried employment expands, the central employment question is no longer only how many jobs are being created. It is also who is able to enter the workforce and stay in it.
-
Math3 weeks agoThe 2026 Fields Medals: Four Proofs, Four Decades-Old Problems Solved
-
Climate2 weeks agoAfter Kerala’s Deadliest Landslide, the Hardest Thing to Rebuild Was Childhood
-
Society1 month agoWest Asia Crisis: Can Kerala’s Returning Gulf Migrants Find a Future in the Green Economy?
-
Space & Physics3 months agoIndia Semiconductor Mission: ‘It’s Not About Fabs. It’s About Building An Entire Ecosystem’
-
Climate2 months agoThe Climate World Cup? How Climate Change Could Affect Player Performance at the 2026 World Cup
-
Society1 month agoWhat Is Civilisational Diplomacy? Understanding India’s Newest Foreign Policy Tool
-
Society2 months agoFrom Bell Labs to the Classroom: A Second Career in Teaching
-
Space & Physics2 months agoEngineers Develop Dual-Mode Propulsion System for Next-Generation Small Satellites


