{
  "id": 1553284,
  "title": "Taxing ‘frivolous’ industries will not fund India’s science",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/17/taxing-frivolous-industries-will-not-fund-indias-science",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-08-17T19:55:20.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Hindu - Sci-Tech",
    "slug": "the-hindu-sci-tech",
    "url": "https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/taxing-frivolous-industries-will-not-fund-indias-science/article71357138.ece"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Taxing \"frivolous\" industries, such as cinema, tourism, apparel, and perfumes, will not effectively fund India's science, according to a widely circulated opinion. While some academics have suggested taxing popular events like the Indian Premier League (IPL) to generate funds for scientific pursuits, the proposal overlooks the complex economic consequences of such decisions. Organized sports, for instance, create employment across various industries, including merchandise, food and beverage, broadcasting, and sports science, which itself is a science. The notion that taxes imposed on one sector directly benefit another is simplistic and flawed. The empirical evidence shows that countries with substantial investment in sports do not necessarily have poor scientific output, and vice versa. Additionally, science and technology contribute significantly to the production of films and textiles, making it difficult to separate the two industries. Critics argue that centralised academic or bureaucratic intelligence may not accurately determine the optimal allocation of wealth, as individual decisions made by ordinary people often contain more information. Furthermore, government spending is subject to the discretion of bureaucrats and politicians, who may not be impartial in its allocation. Decisions regarding the distribution of funds among various institutes and laboratories become even more contentious when productivity is measured and by whom. The same pool of government money could be used for various equally valid but competing claims, leading to political influence in decision-making. The debate extends beyond science, raising questions about other sectors such as medicine and law enforcement, which also deserve investment from the same government funds. The focus on \"only science\" fails to consider the diverse needs of society. Moreover, the nature of scientific research is not straightforward; scientists may have varied preferences for equipment and resources, leading to factionalism among themselves. The government's approach to providing subsidies, such as those for fertilizers, often results in wastage due to rigid categorisation and monitoring, mirroring the inefficiencies in science funding. The bureaucratic red tape surrounding science funding further exacerbates the problem, with laboratories unable to purchase necessary equipment due to mislabeled funds. The procurement process is often cumbersome, and scientists may face wastage by spending allocated money on less critical items. Additionally, the recruitment of scientists is hindered by outdated laws, causing the loss of top talent to international opportunities. Lastly, suggestions to remove GST and import duties could potentially expand available funds for science, but the complexities of these economic measures are not addressed in the source. In conclusion, taxing \"frivolous\" industries to fund science is a misguided approach that overlooks the intricate nature of economic and scientific relationships, bureaucratic constraints, and the diverse needs of society.",
  "summary": "The way forward is to liberalise the channels through which money and capital flow into academia and reduce dependence on the government",
  "key_points": [
    "Taxing popular industries like cinema and tourism won't effectively fund India's science.",
    "Complex economic consequences of such taxes are often overlooked in proposals.",
    "Bureaucratic constraints and diverse societal needs complicate government funding decisions."
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}