The Question Is Not How to Stop Scientists from Leaving, But Why They Are Leaving
Reports that over 100 scientists and technical personnel may have left the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) in the past year deserve serious attention. The reported departures from the UR Rao Satellite Centre and the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, including professionals associated with programmes such as Gaganyaan, SpaDeX, LVM-3 and Chandrayaan, cannot simply be dismissed as routine employee turnover.
The Department of Space is reportedly examining resignations and voluntary retirements involving personnel working on critical missions more closely. This is understandable. The departure of an experienced scientist in the middle of a complex national mission can create an immediate knowledge gap that cannot be filled merely by appointing someone to a vacant post. But the government must also ask a more fundamental question: is the objective merely to prevent scientists from leaving, or to understand why they want to leave?
For an institution such as ISRO, the distinction is crucial.
A new engineer can be recruited. A vacant position can be filled. But the accumulated experience of a scientist who has spent decades working on spacecraft, launch vehicles and complex mission systems cannot be replaced overnight. Much of the knowledge required for a successful space mission is not contained in manuals or databases. It resides in the experience of individuals who have confronted failures, solved unforeseen problems and developed an instinct for making critical decisions under pressure.
This institutional memory is one of ISRO’s greatest assets. Its erosion should therefore concern policymakers.
The present debate, however, should not be reduced to a single year’s reported resignations. Employee attrition at ISRO has been discussed for several years. What may earlier have appeared as scattered departures has acquired greater significance at a time when India’s space programme is expanding rapidly. Gaganyaan, future lunar missions, advanced satellite programmes, heavy-lift launch vehicles and complex technologies such as space docking are all demanding highly specialised expertise.
The question, therefore, is not merely how many people have left. It is who has left, what expertise they carried with them and why they decided to go.
There is no single answer. The changing structure of India’s space sector is an important factor. With the opening of the sector to private investment and start-ups, professionals with years of experience at ISRO now have more opportunities outside the organisation. Private companies can potentially offer higher salaries, stock options, faster decision-making and greater freedom to work on emerging technologies.
For decades, working at ISRO represented an extraordinary form of national service. That remains an important motivation. But the expectations of a new generation of scientists are changing. Patriotism and institutional prestige remain valuable, but they cannot by themselves compensate indefinitely for limited career mobility, bureaucratic delays, restricted research freedom or an inadequate work-life balance.
This is the larger challenge before India’s public scientific institutions.
The issue is not merely about salaries. Compensation matters, particularly when the private sector is willing to pay a premium for specialised skills. But career progression, the speed of promotions, autonomy in research, participation in decision-making, recognition within the organisation and the quality of professional life are equally important.
The nature of space research makes these concerns even more significant. Missions often require years of intense work. Scientists may face prolonged periods of additional work before a launch, frequent transfers and extended separation from their families. A failed mission can impose considerable psychological pressure on teams that may have spent years working towards a single objective.
National service cannot become a justification for treating scientists as instruments without personal lives.
Reports that ISRO Chairman V. Narayanan has linked the issue of attrition to the personal and family circumstances of employees working on critical missions point to an important shift in perspective. Scientists are not merely human resources to be allocated to projects. They are individuals with families, aspirations, personal responsibilities and professional ambitions.
If an institution expects extraordinary commitment from its employees, it must also provide extraordinary institutional support.
ISRO’s efforts to expand recruitment and fill scientific, technical and administrative positions are welcome. Bringing project-based positions into more stable career structures could also help. But recruitment alone cannot solve the problem. Numerical strength is not the same as institutional capability.
A young scientist may possess excellent academic qualifications. But the experience required to lead a complex mission or manage an integrated spacecraft system is built over many years. An experienced mission director, systems engineer or programme specialist cannot be replaced simply by filling a vacancy.
The retention of experienced professionals must therefore be given as much importance as fresh recruitment.
At the same time, the government must be careful about how it responds to resignations. A critical national mission clearly requires proper handover procedures, adequate notice periods and continuity of leadership. But attempting to retain employees against their will through administrative restrictions cannot be a sustainable solution.
An employee’s physical presence in an organisation is not enough. What matters is whether that employee continues to work with commitment, creativity and confidence.
This is where the institutional approach must change. When a scientist decides to leave, the first question should be: “Why are you leaving?” Too often, the question in government systems becomes: “How can we stop you?”
The distinction reflects two completely different approaches to administration.
ISRO needs mechanisms that allow it to identify the causes of dissatisfaction before employees decide to leave. Confidential employee-satisfaction surveys, independent exit interviews, periodic reviews of career progression, comparative studies of compensation and assessments of workload should become part of institutional management.
The objective should not be to create a system that prevents resignation. It should be to create an organisation from which fewer people feel compelled to resign.
The issue must also be approached without political exaggeration. It would be irresponsible to portray the reported departures as evidence that India’s space programme is collapsing. ISRO remains one of India’s most successful scientific institutions. Its record of achieving global recognition with limited resources is unparalleled.
But the opposite response would be equally irresponsible. To say that “some people leave and others join” is to misunderstand the nature of specialised scientific institutions.
ISRO is not an ordinary government department. It is central to India’s strategic, technological and scientific capabilities. The loss of experienced personnel can have consequences that may not be immediately visible but could emerge over time through weakened institutional memory and reduced mentoring capacity.
The organisation’s greatest strength has always been its culture of excellence. But institutional cultures cannot remain frozen in the past. The generation that once saw employment at ISRO as the only meaningful path to a career in space science now has a global range of opportunities.
The competition for scientific talent has changed.
India’s space programme is itself entering a new phase. Gaganyaan is seeking to take the country into human spaceflight. Future lunar and planetary missions will demand greater technological sophistication. The private space sector is expanding. ISRO will increasingly have to function not only as a space agency but also as a national centre of advanced research, innovation and technological leadership.
In such a situation, retaining talent will become as important as recruiting it.
The larger lesson is clear. Scientists cannot be retained merely through appeals to patriotism. Nor can institutions rely indefinitely on their past glory. A strong scientific organisation must offer its employees professional dignity, meaningful career opportunities, research freedom, fair recognition and a reasonable balance between professional responsibilities and personal life.
Good salaries matter. But respect matters too. Job security matters. But autonomy matters as well. Career advancement matters. But the freedom to innovate is equally important.
The reported departure of more than 100 scientists, if accurate, does not mean that India’s space programme is in crisis. But it is a warning. The warning must be investigated rather than dismissed.
Why are scientists leaving? What is the private sector offering them? What are public institutions failing to provide? Are the problems related to compensation, promotions, workload, transfers, organisational culture or personal circumstances?
These questions require honest answers.
A rocket that fails can be redesigned. A satellite that is lost can be replaced. But the accumulated knowledge of a scientist who has spent decades solving complex problems cannot be recreated overnight.
The real challenge before ISRO, therefore, is not merely to build more rockets, launch more satellites or recruit more scientists.
It is to ensure that the minds capable of building India’s future in space continue to believe that their future lies within the institution they helped build.
ISRO will not be sustained by budgets alone. Its ultimate strength rests on the trust, commitment and confidence of its scientific community. Preserving that trust may well be the most important test facing India’s space programme in the years ahead.
