A background note can be accessed here: India Opens ₹50 Crore Drug-Discovery Funding Track for Start-ups and Small Firms
The New Discovery track supports projects at the earliest stages of drug research, where scientific uncertainty is high, but the framework does not specify how proposals will be evaluated or how competing projects will be ranked. What would a credible and transparent evaluation framework for early drug-discovery proposals need to look like when conventional indicators of commercial or scientific success are themselves uncertain?
The New Discovery track is a welcome and timely step. By funding research at its earliest and riskiest stage, the Department of Pharmaceuticals is backing Indian science where support has long been scarce. The stage-wise structure and the published guidance for applicants already provide a good foundation for a clear selection process.
That foundation can be built on further. Technology readiness levels show how far a project has progressed but say little about its quality. Published selection criteria could include the strength of the science, the team's ability to deliver, and clear points at which work will stop if results are poor. Each project within a funded portfolio could also be assessed on its own merits.
Additionally, health needs could carry special weight. This would ensure that health challenges which weigh heavily on India, such as tuberculosis and antimicrobial resistance, are not crowded out by more profitable areas such as cancer. Projects serving vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, deserve similar priority.
Sharing scoring criteria in advance, describing review panels, and giving applicants written reasons and clear timelines would build further confidence in the process, especially among small start-ups.
The requirement that at least 25 percent of project costs come from institutional investors creates an additional access test for start-ups and small firms, potentially favouring researchers and entrepreneurs who already have stronger investor networks and funding histories. Does this create a case for complementary funding instruments that can identify and support scientifically promising ideas before they become attractive to established investors?
Requiring 25 percent investor co-funding is a sensible design choice. It brings private money and expertise into projects at an early stage and shows the government acting as a partner in risk rather than the sole funder. The size of the track, up to ₹50 crore, is also a strong vote of confidence in Indian drug discovery.
Complementary support would help ensure that good ideas are not missed. Researchers at universities, or at small firms outside the major cities, may have strong science but fewer investor contacts. The Early Stage track already helps in such a scenario, requiring no co-funding for projects with a total cost of up to ₹1 crore. A clear route from Early Stage into New Discovery would let promising projects grow from one to the other. A definition of "bona fide institutional investor" that includes philanthropic foundations and global health funds would widen the pool further.
The scheme could also make inclusion an explicit aim by spreading funding across regions and encouraging women researchers. Government support to patent and defend inventions would help small firms protect their ideas from larger companies and strengthen their position when seeking investment.
PRIP separates support across discovery, early-stage and later-stage projects, with progressively different funding ceilings and co-funding requirements. How should the programme assess whether this stage-based funding model is actually moving promising drug candidates towards validation and clinical development rather than simply distributing capital across projects at different technology-readiness levels?
The stage-based design of the scheme recognises that a laboratory idea and a product nearing trials have very different needs. The approval of 41 projects involving around ₹1,600 crore in financial assistance in the first call also shows strong demand. The next step is to track how far these projects progress.
Releasing money in instalments linked to scientific progress and allowing unsuccessful projects to stop early would make good use of public funds. The Milestone Descriptor Catalogue offers a ready base for this. Regular public updates would then show the scheme's progress against key indicators: how many projects advanced, how much private money followed, and how many reached clinical trials.
Two further measures would add value. A faster review route with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) and the Department of Health Research for funded projects would help them reach patients sooner. Funding conditions could also ask firms to continue development after the funded phase and to keep intellectual property in India if they are acquired.
Public support falls from up to 75 percent under New Discovery to 35 percent at the Later Stage. Careful attention to this transition would help promising projects keep moving forward.