Whether it is scientific innovation, healthy diets or pollution-free cities, the future we want will be determined by what we prioritise today, and how societies are organised to deliver those priorities.

On a warm November morning in Bengaluru, a packed auditorium of students sat on the edge of their seats as Nobel Prize laureates and other world-leading experts discussed the science and institutions needed to drive change. Hands shot up to ask questions about democracy, youth empowerment and how the rules and regulations that governments create shape the prosperity of a country.

In 2024, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.” Their research shows how former European colonies have thrived or struggled depending on the governance systems colonial powers imposed. This award became the spark for the Nobel Prize Dialogue in India, where Robinson and 2021 chemistry laureate David MacMillan met hundreds of students to discuss science and institutions. 

Challenged the familiar narrative

Robinson challenged the familiar “one-way street” narrative of economic development, proposed by leading British philosophers and economists from the eighteenth century onwards. In that narrative, Western societies, stretching back to the ancient Greeks, solved social and economic challenges and the rest of the world copied. In this worldview, the only way to achieve economic progress and human flourishing was through adopting liberal governance philosophies. This story has been persuasive and for good reason: life expectancy in wealthy liberal economies has grown markedly in the last century. 

But Robinson pointed out that many European ideas and innovations – whether the idea is “democracy” or the “printing press” – are often taken from elsewhere and adapted. Or the new idea is the direct result of cultures interacting, says Robinson. He called this the “two-way street” but argued that this is no longer the only way of innovating. Other economic models, notably China, have also delivered rapid progress for society without adopting liberal ideals. On top of that, in recent decades gross inequality has become a destabilising influence in many liberal societies, he said.

What does this mean for the future we want? From an institutional point of view, the future is less clear. Economic models that have dominated for over a century are being questioned. For Robinson, this offers possibilities, but can also be profoundly unsettling.

Catalysing action

David MacMillan brought a different perspective to the table. MacMillan is convinced that the solutions to many of the challenges facing humanity, from disease prevention to zero-carbon societies, will likely have chemistry at their heart.

Chemical reactions are at the center of most major industrial chemical processes – and most of these are driven by catalysts. For MacMillan the science of catalysts is one of the most exciting areas of chemistry, offering huge potential. For example, Earth’s population of eight billion people is dependent on the catalyst behind the Haber-Bosch process (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918) to produce nitrogen fertilisers. Indeed, half the nitrogen in our bodies comes from synthetic fertilisers. 

To realise the full potential of chemistry will require much greater investment in chemistry – and India is well placed to grow its chemistry community. 

If we can match the sky-high optimism of this generation with fairer institutions, better wealth redistribution, youth empowerment and long-term investment in research and education – then the future we want becomes the future we collectively create.

Read more and watch a video from the Nobel Prize Dialogue in India