India Selects First Biotech Startups Under ₹1 Trillion R&D Initiative as Transparency Concerns Linger
Key Insights
India has selected its first batch of biotechnology startups—Fermbox Bio (search), Sea6 Energy (search), Revelations Biotech (search), 4baseCare (search), and Telluris Biotech (search)—for funding under the ₹1 trillion Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) initiative.
The initial biotech projects could receive approximately ₹450 crore in government support through a co-funding model requiring companies to contribute remaining project costs.
The RDI initiative targets strategic sectors including biotechnology, AI, quantum computing, and energy security, with the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (search) serving as first-level custodian of funds.
India has taken a concrete step forward in its ambitious plan to catalyze deep-tech innovation, selecting the first batch of biotechnology startups for funding under the ₹1 trillion (₹1,00,000 crore) Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) initiative. The chosen companies—Fermbox Bio (search), Sea6 Energy (search), Revelations Biotech (search), 4baseCare (search), and Telluris Biotech (search)—represent the government's push to transition promising laboratory research into large-scale commercial biomanufacturing.
The Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), which oversees the biotechnology component of the scheme, selected these initial projects. The first group could receive approximately ₹450 crore in government support, though the funding model requires participating companies to contribute the remaining project cost—a co-funding structure designed to attract private investment while ensuring substantial public backing for high-potential projects.
A Landmark Funding Mechanism
The RDI initiative, officially called the Research Development & Innovation fund, was announced by the Indian government in November and will be funded through loans and equity investments. The first tranche of ₹20,000 crore was released in the last budget, with the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (search) (ANRF) designated as the first-level custodian of funds. Other government bodies, including BIRAC, the Technology Development Board (search), and non-banking financial corporations, serve as second-level fund managers.
For context, BIRAC has reportedly disbursed only ₹4,200 crore in grants since its inception in 2012, making the scale of the RDI initiative a significant escalation in government R&D spending. The scheme targets sunrise sectors as well as sectors important for economic security and strategic purposes, with energy security, deep technology including quantum computing and artificial intelligence, identified as priority areas earlier this year.
Why the Funding Push Matters
The initiative seeks to reduce India's dependence on imported biotech products, build domestic manufacturing capabilities, and accelerate commercialization of research. It supports emerging technologies such as synthetic biology and biofuels, and encourages startups to move beyond academic research toward real-world industrial applications that can compete globally.
The biotechnology funding round forms part of a broader national innovation plan targeting Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Space Technology, Healthcare, and Energy Security. For Indian deep-tech startups, the RDI initiative could become a valuable source of long-term patient capital, given that deep-tech projects often require extended development timelines, significant research investment, and higher risk tolerance.
Transparency and Intellectual Property Concerns
Despite the welcome increase in government R&D funding, significant questions have been raised about whether increased funding without reform of the "red tape" culture in public research institutions will achieve meaningful outcomes. Two specific concerns dominate the discourse: transparency and intellectual property management.
When Parliament gives the bureaucracy complete discretion to disburse ₹1 lakh crore, observers expected a legal framework ensuring transparency in funding decisions. Currently, funding bodies do not release elaborate information on who makes funding decisions, nor do they make funding agreements publicly available with appropriate redactions. This stands in contrast to the United States, where the National Institutes of Health grants policy states that "most grant-related information submitted to NIH by the applicant or recipient... is considered public information."
The opacity has real consequences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, BIRAC handed out crores of public money to Indian pharmaceutical companies for vaccine development but refused to disclose funding agreements even when projects became controversial. In the case of Gennova Pharmaceuticals (search)' mRNA vaccine, an American biotech company alleged trade secret theft, yet BIRAC remained silent while the dispute played out in courts. Similarly, Bharat Biotech initially filed patent applications for Covaxin without including the Indian Council for Medical Research as a co-patentee—a situation rectified only after the issue was raised in Parliament.
On intellectual property, the ANRF Act of 2023 is silent about IP generated via public funding. While ANRF has published an IP policy with "guiding principles," including language on march-in rights, the policy only makes non-binding recommendations, delegating crucial decision-making powers to bureaucrats. As Prashant Reddy T., coauthor of Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas, and Yogesh Byadwal note, enforcing march-in rights through contractual agreements or compulsory licensing provisions "tends to be legally complicated and may require payment of reasonable compensation, thereby opening the door for litigation."
India previously attempted to enact its own version of the US Bayh-Dole Act following a recommendation by the erstwhile National Knowledge Commission, but that effort failed in 2010 after a Parliamentary Standing Committee torpedoed the poorly drafted legislation. Since then, the scientific bureaucracy has preferred non-binding guidelines over statutory law—an approach that preserves opaque discretionary powers.
As the RDI initiative moves forward with its first biotech beneficiaries, the tension between ambitious funding goals and the absence of robust legislative safeguards remains unresolved. The political establishment, observers argue, may soon realize the risks of handing over ₹1,00,000 crore to the bureaucracy without a framework ensuring both transparency and protection of public interest in publicly funded intellectual property.