evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship — India's Life-Sciences Reverse-Brain-Drain Programme

India · Faridabad · See the India profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 74% 57/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

India's Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship has funded the return of 312 overseas life scientists since 2007, with 203 absorbed into Indian faculty positions and over 800 resulting publications — a tracked, discipline-specific reverse-brain-drain scheme.

312
Scientists returned to India (2007–present)
203
Absorbed into permanent faculty positions
800+
Resulting peer-reviewed publications
46
New technologies developed
24
Patents
Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship — India's Life-Sciences Reverse-Brain-Drain Programme

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) / Regional Centre for Biotechnology (RCB)
Period
2007–present
Keywords
life sciences, biotechnology research, higher education, human capital

Context

India's Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship, launched in 2007 by the Department of Biotechnology, offers Indian-origin life scientists with at least three years of postdoctoral experience abroad a funded, multi-year route back into Indian research institutions, awarding up to 75 fellowships a year.

Results

Over its first decade-plus, 312 scientists returned to India through the fellowship, of whom 203 were subsequently absorbed into permanent faculty positions; their work produced more than 800 peer-reviewed papers, 46 new technologies and 24 patents.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
DBT-HRD Project Management Unit at the Regional Centre for Biotechnology, host-institution faculty mentors

Conditions for success

  • structuring re-entry as a funded, multi-year faculty pathway (three years, extendable to five) rather than an ad hoc grant

Common failure modes

  • the lighter-touch, part-time VAJRA sister scheme has shown more limited uptake, hampered by procedural delays, funding uncertainty and inconsistent institutional backing

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful