- The National Capital Region’s pollution crisis has revealed a widening gap between scientific principles and on-ground decision-making.
- Cloud seeding was pursued despite expert warnings against it and inadequate atmospheric conditions, resulting in predictable failure. India must shift from a pollute-and-clean mindset to a prevention-focused, scientifically grounded approach.
- Effective science and technology leadership requires evidence-based decisions, rigorous peer review, domain expertise, and humility to learn from failures.
- The views in this commentary are that of the author.
The post-Diwali 2025 pollution season in India’s National Capital Region (NCR) and its adjoining regions — home to several tens of millions of people — became a stark display of misplaced science and technology (S&T) management. Every winter, India’s chronic air pollution crisis returns, with smog choking cities across northern India, particularly in the NCR and adjoining areas. While pollution remains high year-round due to construction dust, industrial and vehicular emissions, and other seasonal sources, winter meteorological conditions — characterised by cold air, moisture, and slow winds — trap pollutants and significantly exacerbate the situation.
The much-hyped cloud seeding, as an approach to control pollution, failed due to inadequate applicable knowledge in cloud science. Similarly, other so-called solutions, such as the use of “green” prefixes, were neither genuinely green nor effectively regulated. Together, these exposed a deeper institutional gap between scientific validation and field execution, compounded by the lead role given to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, which lacks core expertise in atmospheric sciences.
Technologies intended for public welfare demand scientific credibility, contextual feasibility, rigorous testing, and well-defined standard operating procedures. When governance and accountability erode within science and technology leadership, environmental crises turn into repetitive experiments that are costly in outcome and corrosive to public trust.
Context and conflict
Following the relaxation of the ban on so-called “green” crackers, Delhi’s air quality plunged to hazardous levels, prompting the administration to attempt cloud seeding as an emergency measure. IIT Kanpur conducted two days of cloud seeding trials to induce artificial rainfall and reduce post-Diwali smog. Using an aircraft fitted with salt-based flares, the team reported a drizzle in a few areas, though no measurable improvement in air quality was recorded.
The trials, conducted at considerable public expense and amid high public expectations, raised serious concerns. Almost all specialised agencies, including the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the India Meteorological Department (IMD), had opposed the plan, citing the lack of suitable meteorological conditions. Experts had warned that Delhi’s post-monsoon atmosphere lacks the moisture-rich convective clouds required for successful seeding and that any droplet formation from such operations would be insufficient to cleanse particulate pollution.
Despite these objections, IIT Kanpur, without core competence or prior experience in atmospheric sciences, was tasked with executing the trials as part of a long-term research initiative to collect atmospheric data and test its proprietary salt formulation. The outcome, however, only reinforced the expert warning that cloud seeding is scientifically unviable and operationally ineffective as a pollution control measure.
Lack of expertise and due diligence
IIT Kanpur, a premier engineering institution, does not have an academic unit in atmospheric sciences, the core discipline for research in cloud physics and weather modification. In its absence, the project was led by a faculty member from Management Studies, with participation from a few others in Aerospace Engineering and Chemistry. While IIT Kanpur possesses rare infrastructure such as an on-campus airstrip and an aerospace engineering department, these facilities are designed for aerodynamics research, not meteorological studies.
The team reportedly sought to test its proprietary solution — a mixture of 20% silver iodide, rock salt, and common salt — despite knowing that cloud moisture was below 15%, far too low for meaningful results. More critically, IIT Kanpur’s enthusiasm to proceed contradicted repeated warnings from meteorological experts.
Assigning such a sensitive and high-stakes task — one that directly affects the health and environment of millions — to a team without domain expertise reflected a serious lapse in scientific due diligence and administrative oversight. When the trials predictably failed, IIT Kanpur justified them as data-gathering exercises and announced plans to continue, effectively shifting focus from feasibility to optics. Furthermore, all media briefings were conducted by the Director, who is not an expert in any related science and technology domain, rather than by the scientists involved.
Science is absolute, technology appropriate
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique that manages rainfall by introducing fine particles, such as silver iodide or other salts, into clouds that contain moisture. These particles act as nuclei around which water vapour condenses to form droplets that coalesce and fall as rain. However, it cannot create clouds; it only accelerates condensation when adequate moisture is already present. The process demands precise knowledge of cloud physics, humidity, temperature, and atmospheric dynamics. Globally, several agencies use it for drought relief or precipitation control, but its success depends entirely on accurate meteorological assessment and domain expertise.
The so-called green crackers reflect a similar distortion of science — a form of greenwashing meant to reassure the public rather than reduce pollution. The idea that burning chemicals in open air can be environmentally benign defies both science and reason. If such practices are considered eco-friendly, then environmental science itself risks being redefined by rhetoric rather than evidence.
Science is absolute, verifiable, and universally applicable. Technology, by contrast, must be appropriate to its purpose and context. Technological appropriateness arises from domain expertise, iterative trials, customisation to real-world constraints, and careful evaluation of feasibility, sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and societal impact.
Engineering links science and society only when it respects these boundaries of knowledge, control, and constraints. Without such rigor, technology erodes public trust and endangers the very lives it is meant to improve. Decisions affecting millions must rest on replicable evidence and rigorous testing, not emotion or administrative optimism.
From lab to field to public use
The recent decisions on green crackers and cloud seeding exemplify how a small, empowered group can override the collective wisdom of domain experts. When scientists, technologists, science and technology administrators, and politicians ignore well-established principles and validated practices, the outcome is not innovation but harm. Millions, including children, senior citizens, and other vulnerable groups, were left to breathe suffocating air in a man-made gas chamber of our own making.
The cloud seeding trial exposed glaring gaps in S&T administration. Despite explicit objections from expert organisations, it was conducted over one of the most polluted and densely populated regions in the world. Such decisions reveal systemic failures in defining competence, responsibility, and oversight. When projects with direct public health implications proceed without peer review, consultation, or inter-agency coordination, the breakdown is administrative, not scientific.
For science and technology to truly serve society, institutions must move beyond announcing experiments to learning from them. Failures such as cloud seeding and green crackers reveal deeper systemic weaknesses, especially when publicly funded projects that affect health and the environment do not meet the highest standards of scientific scrutiny and ethics.
Success and failure are two sides of the same coin; each failure should become a lesson, not be ignored or repeated. Accountability in S&T is not about punishment but about ensuring that decisions are evidence-based, expert-validated, and communicated transparently. Leadership lies not in showcasing technology but in applying it appropriately — through validation, adaptation, humility, and collaboration — so that technology serves the public good rather than public relations.
Individualistic decisions without professionalism
A troubling trend in recent S&T interventions is the shift from institutional decision-making to individual-centric judgments that bypass professional scrutiny. This case reflects decisions driven more by personal confidence than by collective expertise. Effective S&T governance relies on structured processes, including expert consultation, peer validation, and interdisciplinary collaboration; however, these are increasingly replaced by individual assertion and administrative endorsement in place of scientific assessment. Decisions taken in haste and shaped by subjective preferences erode the credibility of the S&T system; when governance overrides professional discipline, public welfare becomes collateral damage.
Professionalism in science is not about hierarchy or authority; it is rooted in knowledge, method, evidence, and accountability. True leadership requires humility — the willingness to defer to domain expertise and collective wisdom — not the impulse to claim ownership of experiments whose risks are borne by the public.
The way forward
India’s S&T governance must rebuild the bridge between science, policy, and society. Technologies that affect millions require validation, expert review, and transparent accountability, not public trials. Environmental challenges demand prevention, not spectacle, through sustained efforts in emission control, clean energy, and sustainable planning. Discarding the pollute-and-clean approach to tackling pollution, leadership must focus on emission cuts and minimisation of pollutant creation through firm, science-driven decisions rather than populist measures.
Science must serve people, not publicity; only then can it regain credibility and truly work for the public good.
The author is a former professor of Computer Science at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former scientist at DRDO and DST. He has contributed to technology development in India and abroad for over 45 years, spanning academia, R&D, and industry.
Read more: Cloud seeding not a proven solution for air pollution
Banner image: Aerial view of Old Delhi. Image by Vyacheslav Argenberg via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0).
Credits
