Sarah Iqbal is an alumna of the University of Oxford where she completed her Master’s by research and PhD in biochemistry. Following her PhD, she took up a postdoctoral position at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida where she worked on various drug discovery programs. Iqbal then joined The DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance as a public engagement officer and took over the Communication and Public Engagement portfolio. In her current role, she uses her experience as a researcher and her passion for making science more accessible to help drive relevant public outreach initiatives. She also regularly conducts workshops to train researchers on various aspects of grant writing and science communication.

In this conversation, Iqbal touches upon several interesting facets, including the fascinating idea of how science and art are intricately linked. She also brings up some hard-hitting facts about science communication and public engagement – that researchers need training in order to be able to communicate their science effectively and that it may be unfair to hold them solely responsible for effective science communication.

Could you tell us more about your work as the Lead of Communications and Public Engagement?

In my current role, I oversee external communication and public engagement activities in line with the organization’s mission to advance discovery and innovation to improve health. My job involves engagement with various stakeholders, organizing and identifying innovative programs that aim to bridge the science and society gap and finally, cultivating and maintaining new programmatic relationships, nationally and internationally, that empower India Alliance to strengthen the Indian scientific research ecosystem.

You once mentioned that when used together, the disciplines of science and art “open many more doors than they do in isolation”.This sounds interesting.Could you elaborate?

Like a majority of scientists (and artists), I was trained to look at art and science as two different worlds. Deep down I was never convinced about these differences and knew there were connections to be explored. This notion was confirmed and reinforced when I started working on programs that brought together the practice and practitioners of Science and Art. They are more alike than different.

A few hundred years ago, categorizing people as artists and scientists would have been difficult. But today they have been cast into separate silos of knowledge and practice. We are also taught a very rigid definition of these disciplines and that one always has to choose between the two.

Scientific advances and artistic experiences shape our everyday life. In that sense they are indistinguishable to the human experience. In recent times, art has been a useful tool to communicate science, and scientific advances have enhanced artistic practice; together, they enhance our understanding of the world around us.

Could you tell us more about the Khoj initiative?

The Art and Science program that India Alliance supported at Khoj aimed to catalyze interdisciplinary collaboration and experimentation to create avenues for dialogue between the disciplines of Science and Art and in the process make topics of science and health more accessible to the general public. The program gave contemporary artists a platform to explore a scientific or a health topic through their practice; it was an exploration or khoj of science through an artist’s gaze. It also stimulated fascinating discussions on the interactions between science, technology, culture and society, underlining the fact that the practice of art and science are inseparable from society.

To what extent do you think researchers understand the concept of public engagement (i.e., what it entails and why they need to do it)?

Many scientists today do realize the importance of sharing their research with the public. But–perhaps they don’t know the most effective ways to do it. And of course, many would say they don’t have the time to explore in depth the various communication and public engagement methodologies. Also, translational research and certain fields such as conservation and ecology, public health, astronomy, etc. lend themselves more easily to public engagement compared to basic sciences. Generating interest and support for fundamental research is quite challenging and require innovative communication and engagement methods.

In India, we still follow the deficit model of science communication that focuses primarily on disseminating scientific information in an accessible manner. But we have not studied the informational needs of the public and neither have we really mapped who this “public” is that we are communicating to – what do they think of and know about science.

We are yet to adopt the dialogue/engagement model for science communication in which scientists/scientific community actively engage, consult and collaborate with the public to design policies, identify research questions, and carry out research that addresses societal problems. Abhay Bang wonderfully describes three modes of conducting research in this article – research on the people, research for the people and research with the people. In India, we have reached somewhere between on and for. Research with the people is a still a long way away.

In an article you co-authored, you mention that “Public communication of science is not about marketing or public relations; it is about humanising science and cultivating a culture of questioning, reasoning and logic.” How can scientists cultivate such a culture among the public?

Science is not just a collection of facts and figures, it is a way of thinking critically and logically. This was a key take-away for me from my scientific training. Humans are deeply curious by nature and have the inherent ability to question and find solutions to problems they face. These qualities are not unique to people in a particular discipline or profession. Every profession and sector needs to make rational, evidence-based decisions to ensure well-being of people and this planet. The current education system doesn’t nurture these qualities enough.

Not only is it essential to share scientific information with the public but it is also important to convey how scientific research works – and especially to communicate that science can be uncertain, complex, fast changing, and has ethical implications. The COVID-19 crisis has been a wakeup call for us in this regard. Communicating uncertainty and the complex nature of scientific research is no easy task; this requires dedicated and sustained dialogue with the public. After all, one of the major goals of science communication is to enable evidence-based decision-making at all levels of the society. However, sharing facts and figures in the form of evidence alone is not going to be sufficient in promoting critical thinking; involving people in the process and communication of science can perhaps help bring about that change.

These lines by Ramsay Musallam really resonate with me: “If we leave behind this simple role as disseminators of content and embrace a new paradigm as cultivators of curiosity and inquiry, we just might bring a little bit more meaning to the school day and spark their imagination.” I wish we could do more of this. Before anything else, Science needs to be taught well in schools if we are to inculcate a scientific temper. Our initiative, The Explorer Series is a small effort in that direction.

What kind of institutional support do you think researchers need in order to be able to communicate their work to people?

Engaging the public in science is a multi-stakeholder process that requires a multimodal approach. Therefore, I feel that putting the entire onus on the scientist for inculcating scientific temper through science communication and engagement is a tad unreasonable.

For science communication to become a viable and sustainable activity, institutions and funding agencies need to allocate funds, set up formal structures and develop trained personnel to support this. Additionally, the value of engaging the public in research needs to be emphasised early in the scientific training.

The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare our unpreparedness to engage with the public. Any kind of public engagement effort during a crisis, such as the one we are facing, will be successful if a meaningful relationship between science and society already exists.

It’d be great if you could share some quick tips for researchers to engage with the public.

There is no fixed formula as such, only good practices. To begin with, science communication or engagement with public needs to be considered as an integral part of doing research, not as an afterthought or a tick box exercise. I cannot emphasise this enough. The success and impact of any public engagement effort would largely depend on the honesty with which we build this relationship between science and society. The only other thing I would add here is to be mindful of one’s audience, their needs, values, beliefs and prior knowledge. To be able to effectively communicate our ideas it is absolutely essential to know our audience well.

Have you been approached by non-scientists (the public) who wanted to know more about the latest scientific works and how they could affect them?

Yes, all the time! COVID-19 has also suddenly brought to fore that dormant interest in science. On more than one occasion I have been asked about how the research we fund at my organization or more generally in India benefits the average person on the street. More than the complex science the publics want to know how what scientists are working on is impacting their lives. I have also interacted and collaborated with many non-scientists for our public engagement projects where some have shared with me how difficult it is to find a scientist to consult or collaborate with and when they do, the way science is presented to them is incomprehensible. This is also why we are very keen at India Alliance to help scientists become better at communicating their research through our science communication workshops.

Today, more and more people are talking about mental health in academia. What are your thoughts about the current academic culture?

In India, we are slowly but surely waking up to this problem. It is quite ironic that those working at the very institutions that have been established for societal welfare are struggling with mental health issues because of an unhealthy work culture. I also find tokenistic recognition of mental health problematic – it needs to be viewed as a legitimate health concern. Mental well-being and physical health are intricately linked and therefore need to be treated with the same level of urgency and seriousness.

At India Alliance, we have organised as well as supported various programs that aim to raise public awareness on mental health. Recently we supported a thought-provoking series by The Life of Science that explored mental health in Indian science and brought out diverse voices and scenarios in academia that are worrisome and requires our urgent attention. With George Institute for Global Health India, we organised a workshop on Mental Health and Workplace Stress and a Public event around the same theme in Delhi. India Alliance has also been supporting another fantastic initiative, It’s Ok To Talk, that aims to engage with young people about mental health and provide them a safe space to share their experiences with mental health, mental illness and wellbeing. India Alliance is also participating in a global survey by Cactus Communications to better understand mental health challenges in academia.

By now we have conducted and seen enough surveys; there is sufficient data to show that we urgently need to create a healthier and kinder research culture to safeguard the well-being of the scientific enterprise.

What motivated you to work on nutrition-based maternal health, especially preeclampsia?

After my PhD at Agharkar Research University, I began my post-doctoral fellowship under Chittaranjan Yajnik at KEM hospital, Pune. The work I undertook was funded by the Wellcome Trust and was carried out in collaboration with David Barker and Caroline Fall from the University of Southampton, UK. The “Developmental Origins of Health and Disease” hypothesis, (also called “Fetal Origins of Adult Disease” or “Barker hypothesis”) postulates that exposure to certain environmental influences during critical periods of development and growth may have significant consequences on an individual’s short- and long-term health.

This suggests that maternal nutrition not only influences pregnancy outcome and birth weight of the baby but also contributes to the risk of the baby having cardiovascular diseases or diabetes in adulthood.

I thought this was a wonderful concept - that maternal diet can have an effect on a baby’s health even 40 years later. This held my interest for very long and soon I became part of the Pune Maternal Nutrition study which demonstrated that maternal nutrition, especially micronutrients in the mother’s diet, have a big impact on pregnancy outcome.

Then I moved to Bharati Vidyapeeth University and collaborated with clinicians from Bharati hospital where I came to know that preeclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy) is a very common disorder, with over 10% of pregnant women in Pune hospitals suffering from it. I wondered if babies born to mothers with preeclampsia have a chance of developing cardiovascular disease later in life and if this can be fixed by making changes to maternal nutrition early in pregnancy. We recruited and started monitoring nearly 3500 women at the end of their pregnancy to see how maternal diet influences biomarkers.

What, according to you, have been some of the most significant findings from thislong-term study?

Initially, we had recruited 3500 women at the end of their pregnancy, but we hadn’t determined the cause and effect of preeclampsia. We did a small preliminary study, where we followed pregnant women from the first trimester of pregnancy until the birth of the child. In these studies, we found certain biomarkers in the blood whose ratios, when compared to women with normal blood pressure during pregnancy, were high. This suggested that these could be useful in predicting the risk of preeclampsia.

We even combined this with animal studies in our department where we supplemented pregnant rats with omega-three fatty acid along with vitamin B12. These studies showed that an adequate diet not only has a positive impact on the mother but on the eventual development of the brain and nervous system of the fetus as well. As we know, the Indian diet is typically vegetarian that can often lack such micronutrients (mainly found in fish), unless supplemented.

We have even followed up with our earlier cohort to look at the children up to five years of age who were born to women with preeclampsia. We found that even at the age of five, they have higher blood pressure than children born to women without preeclampsia.

It has become quite clear from studies conducted by our group that epigenetic, as well as biochemical factors are also playing a role here. Three years back, we obtained a grant from the Centre of Advanced Research with Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to conduct a huge study where we follow up with pregnant woman from early pregnancy (11th week of gestation) through birth and until the child is 2 years old.

Now we are trying to identify early signs of preeclampsia and monitor kids born to mothers with preeclampsia for signs of developmental cognitive issues. That is the overall larger goal of the study we are doing here.

You are working in collaboration with hospitals investigating the effect of nutritional history of pregnant women of different socio-economic backgrounds. What has that process been like?

We needed to have a different approach when we spoke to and surveyed women from higher socio-economic groups versus lower socio-economic groups. The women from the higher socio-economic groups were well-read and already had questions regarding adding supplements like omega-three fatty acids to their diet. On the other hand, the marginalized groups depended on us for their information. The nutrition intake and physical activity of the two populations are vastly different as well which, in turn, affects the biochemical factors that play a role in maternal health.

Apart from that, keeping the women a consistent part of the study was a challenge too. This was mainly because Indian women tend to go to their maternal homes for an extended period of time during pregnancy or for postnatal care. We had to convince them to stay back for the larger goal of the study, which was to take care of maternal health better in the future.

Compliance of patients also plays a big part in getting together a study of this scale as non-compliance tends to minimize any difference between the groups. Since following up with subjects constitutes a significant challenge to researchers, our team has put a lot of efforts into optimizing this process. Furthermore, we need to make sure that the women under study understand the importance and implications of a study like this.

Almost all your projects have now involved a juxtaposition of nutritional science along with social science and biochemistry. How has the experience of working in such an interdisciplinary field been for you?

I am a biochemist and have always been interested in nutrition as well. I knew, for the whole picture to become clear, we would need to look at not only social aspects but also epigenetic and molecular factors. We involve people from all walks of life, like data entry specialists, social workers, doctors, biochemists, nutritionists, mathematicians etc.

We need good and novel questions with a lot of funds to carry out these studies. I am so glad that the Indian Government, especially ICMR, saw the value of this study and gave us nearly Rs 7.5 crores to carry out this work. We have even received isolated grants from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Department of Science and Technology (DST) that have kept our studies going.

Eventually, the goal is to translate the information obtained from urban areas and carry it forward to rural and tribal areas in order to monitor women’s maternal health. Once we are able to collaborate with rural health workers, we can even relay this nutrition-based information to tribal areas which don’t have access to this kind of information.

As a researcher, do you have any advice for women scientists in India?

I feel there is a huge scope in health-related research, especially maternal and child health. It’s important to remember that India is one of the signatories of the millennial development goals of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). I believe that women have a significant role to play in this and our group includes nearly forty women including scientists, PhD students, project assistants, data analysts, nutritionists, psychologists and social workers, which I am so proud of. It’s also easier for pregnant women to relate when a female scientist talks to them about the importance of the study and maternal health in general.

Note: Sadhana Joshi’s current project involves an in-depth study of diets of pregnant women from different social and economic backgrounds in order to identify what needs to be changed for better maternal health. This project - The REVAMP study: research exploring various aspects and mechanisms in preeclampsia has received funding from the Indian Council of Medical Research - Centre for Advanced Research (ICMR-CAR). This is a proposed comprehensive basic science, translational and public health-oriented collaborative research plan between basic scientists and clinicians that will help understand the origin of preeclampsia in the mother and its metabolic consequences in their offspring. It aims to identify biomarkers like growth factors in the plasma for the early prediction of risk for developing preeclampsia.

We spoke to LS Shashidhara, Professor, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Pune (Currently, on Lien at Ashoka University), about the impact the current situation has had on the way scientific research is conducted in our country, and the lessons scientists can take away from it for the future.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which researchers can come together to create a tangible impact on the present COVID-19 pandemic situation?

COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus. This virus was not known to humankind until just a few months ago. This means that scientists need to discover almost everything about it, although clues may also be obtained from earlier studies on other coronaviruses. Scientists need to understand how SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease, how it spreads, and how to develop drugs and vaccines against it. Considering how fast the virus is spreading and mutating as it propagates through human populations, it is important that scientists from all over the world join hands, freely share data, and work as one team. Sharing variations in clinical manifestation of the diseases, sequencing as many viral genomes as possible and sharing the same openly, and sharing successes and failures of drug and vaccine development are some of the ways by which we can reduce the timeline of developing preventive and treatment strategies.

What is your advice for researchers who are worried about the disruption in the progress of their research programs due to the pandemic?

It is inevitable that there would be some disruption in research work, especially for experimental scientists. But we have to convert this into an opportunity. We should think differently and innovatively about what we can do during this time to be more productive and contribute to society. We should not go back to the same path of slow and incremental research. Think of newer ideas and newer ways of doing science and find ways to participate in national and international collaborations and mission-mode projects.

What are some good ways for scientists to utilize their time during the lockdown period?

While the labs are closed, scientists can invest their time in theoretical constructions, hypothesis building, eliminating multiple possibilities by methods of exclusion etc. When the laboratories are reopened, we would be in a better position to fast track our research and do a better job. Thankfully, compared to other periods in history when there have been such crises, we are in a digital world today. We are still connected to the community and we still have access to a lot of the earlier work done in our fields of research. We can take advantage of this.

Do you believe that scientists should contribute to outreach efforts during this period?

Of course. The virus is invisible and the majority of the infected individuals are asymptomatic. Therapeutic drugs or vaccines are not yet available. Hence, it is important for scientists to educate the public on the importance of physical distancing. Because of the present ease and speed of spreading one’s opinion, we are inundated with false information and hoaxes. Scientists have the responsibility to prevent this.

Do you have any other suggestions for the scientific community for dealing with the present situation?

There is a bright side in this crisis for science - the importance of science in the society can be felt more now than any other time in human history. We should work towards retaining this trust by generating high-quality data and continuously connecting to the general public through science outreach.

How, in your opinion, will this pandemic change the course of scientific research, in India as well as abroad?

Humanity has seen worse crises than this pandemic. Science has progressed through such times. For example, there were landmark discoveries in science during 1915-25, a decade marked by World war I and the Spanish flu. I do not foresee any major change and have the confidence that science will shine through this pandemic and flourish. However, we should change the way we do science and try to improve the quality of our science. We should try to make more impact through both knowledge production and its utilization to mitigate climate change, preserve biodiversity, expand forest cover, and prevent future pandemics.

Will this pandemic affect the way in which science is taught in India?

Perhaps yes. More and more people are getting used to online teaching and using technology in education. This trend has penetrated to all parts of the country and all languages. Policymakers and teachers are also rethinking the curriculum and syllabus. Hopefully, we will progressively focus more on improving self-learning ability among students, thereby reducing the dependence on syllabi and examinations.

Do you believe this pandemic will have an effect on the public view of science and scientists?

Science is being looked upon as a saviour during this crisis, starting from the strategy of physical distancing to slow down the infection and moving towards the development of drugs and vaccines. In spite of many false claims and hoaxes, people seem to have positive opinions about science and scientists.

In your opinion, would this pandemic have an impact on the number and nature of collaborative projects in India?

Yes, they may increase. Also, research may become truly interdisciplinary. For example, to address the current pandemic, we need biologists to understand the virus and develop diagnostic kits, drugs, and vaccines. We need data scientists to develop mathematical and computational models of how the virus spreads. We also need engineers and scientists to develop disinfectants, ventilators, PPEs etc. We need clinical researchers to understand how the disease progresses and what causes mortality. Such interdisciplinary projects may become a norm in the times to come.

What do you feel are some key lessons that scientists can take away from the present situation and apply in their future research careers?

Irrespective of how much pressure one may face, the rigour of scientific methods must not be diluted. Nor can we let the need for peer-review be discounted. This would only worsen the situation and damage the reputation of scientists and their science.

We spoke to Jyotsna Dhawan, Emeritus Scientist at CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, about the impact the current situation has had on the way scientific research is conducted in our country, and the lessons scientists can take away from it for the future.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which researchers can come together to create a tangible impact on the present COVID-19 pandemic situation?

I think collaborative efforts are vital for developing effective approaches to tackle the virus. Depending on the expertise of the research group, there may be obvious clusters that could be formed to contribute. Everyone wants to be able to help in a crisis, and I think most scientists feel that our training in systematically thinking through complex problems can be impactful. So, scientists from all fields have been contributing.

This includes scientists whose field of expertise offers a hands-on or direct connection to the biology of the virus and the host, e.g. experimental virologists, immunologists, molecular and cellular biologists, geneticists, epidemiologists, structural biologists, medicinal chemists etc. Additionally, there are ecologists, systems biologists, mathematicians and theoretical physicists who have a sophisticated understanding of the complex variables that need to be introduced into models for tracking and predicting the spread and impact of the virus. Finally, social scientists are looking at the factors that influence the behaviour of diverse groups of people and which affect transmission and variable impact.

Just listing the magnitude and range of disruptive effects of this CoV2 nano-particle on our health, society and economy makes it apparent that collaboration is going to be vital for a meaningful response. But collaborations are not easy, even in the calmest of academic waters, in “times of peace”, even between just two groups who have complementary expertise in pre-identified problems. And in the current chaotic crisis scenario, when the stakes are so high and one does not know where a solution may be found or what kinds of input could be beneficial, it is exponentially more difficult to be clear-eyed about how to structure a collaboration.

It is also important to recognize that territoriality in science does not disappear in times of crisis, despite people’s best intentions. To my mind, that is one of the biggest hurdles to successful collaboration, not resources or ideas. Competitiveness is often touted as a force which spurs us to greater achievements, but I think in this situation, it can be truly harmful.

Territoriality in science does not disappear in times of crisis, despite people’s best intentions, and that is one of the biggest hurdles to successful collaboration.

Perhaps, despite the stress and urgency, we need to step back for a moment and acknowledge as individuals whether our competitive natures are a drawback to progress in this crisis. If we are able to suppress or at least mitigate the natural urge to expect credit, we might do a whole lot better at forging and sustaining collaborations. Success will be its own reward and may bring recognition, but to get to that point, I believe we need a measure of selflessness, generosity, and heightened mindfulness of our own motivations and group dynamics.

What is your advice for researchers who are worried about the disruption in the progress of their research programs due to the pandemic?

I believe that we all have to accept that there is going to be substantial disruption in the progress of everyone’s research program. Whether you are a PhD student, a postdoc, getting ready for the job search, a young PI, an established PI – this particular 30 kb of RNA has effectively managed to throw everything out of gear. There have been many nice articles in leading journals and scientific blogs about how to minimize the effects of this pandemic on progress, but I think we are dreaming if we think things are going to settle down rapidly.

Everything from academic timetables to hiring to reagent availability and equipment manufacturing to funding agencies has been thrown for a loop. So there is no way in which we can emerge unscathed or even minimally affected in the near term. But perhaps we can come out different, with new realizations.

I believe that crises can bring out the best in people. I see signs of this all over our scientific establishments: students working at a feverish pitch to voluntarily contribute to COVID testing, new ideas for diagnostics or science communication, colleagues at all levels doing their best to bury their differences, keep their tempers and find a way to be effective - not just scientifically but through organizing volunteers for various programs during the lockdown. So my own way of coping with the anxiety of how much this pandemic is going to set our research back is to look for signs of maturity, magnanimity and focus among my colleagues, and take satisfaction in the fact that there are clear indications of individual growth, which will surely stand everyone in good stead, post-crisis.

I believe that crises can bring out the best in people... I take satisfaction in the fact that there are clear indications of individual growth.

I take some comfort in this long view, the view that says adversity has its upside. But I think that there is also an important recognition of exactly how privileged we are to be doing science - I realize that this interview is focussed on our work as scientists, but there is no way to divorce our response to this pandemic from the realization that our society is so deeply divided, that those divisions have been devastatingly enhanced by a crisis of this magnitude, that the disadvantaged majority are further disempowered and victimized, and that our ability to compartmentalize our lives by ignoring those divisions is shameful and needs to be changed. The underscoring of that harsh reality must surely make an impact on our decisions and choice of scientific direction in the future.

What are some good ways for scientists to utilize their time during the lockdown period?

A lot has been written about how we can continue to run our labs remotely, have Zoom lab meetings, write manuscripts and grants, catch up on reading, learn a new skill etc. All these are of course possible, and I admire colleagues who have been able to maintain a semblance of normalcy in their scientific activities. Personally, I have found myself too distracted by the relentless march of the virus, and the compulsion to keep up with “info-demic” to be able to tackle any of these aspects very well.

Apart from our roles within our own groups and our institutes, scientists can play an important role in being a conduit for valid information to reach our families, friends and the public. There is a flood of misinformation on the internet and social media which creates substantial anxiety, and participating in fact-checking reports and countering false ones, even on our daily Whatsapp groups, can play a stabilizing role.

Do you believe that scientists should contribute to outreach efforts during this period?

Yes, of course. It has been remarked by many in the press that this is a crisis where the public is turning to science and scientists to allay their fears. We must honour that trust. Many groups have been doing this very effectively - the Indian Scientists’ Response to CoViD-19 (ISRC) website and apps, the CovidGyan website by TIFR-IISc-TMC and other partners, as well as efforts by DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance, the IITs, IndiaBioscience, the Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education (HBCSE), being just a few examples of focussed outreach. Myth-busting information in several Indian languages is particularly important, but whether this information is reaching people who need it must also be tracked, and perhaps improved.

Do you have any other suggestions for the scientific community for dealing with the present situation?

As alluded to in an earlier answer, there is no doubt that like everyone, we too are anxious about how this situation will impact our plans, in particular our students’ careers, but perhaps we could partially stem this anxiety by considering a change in scientific direction.

As a basic cell biologist who has only ever used viruses as vehicles to get genes into cells to study more cell biology, I find myself thinking about how much we have learned from understanding the clever ways used by viruses to make more viruses. Much of what we know about basic cellular processes like replication, transcription, translation, signalling, etc, comes from teasing apart how viruses subvert the host machinery. For CoV2, we know very little, so that’s an opportunity.

Here I want to highlight what Nevan Krogan’s group at the Quantitative Biosciences Institute (QBI) in the University of California, San Francisco has done - they have provided a fantastic public service by freely distributing 26 CoV2 viral cDNAs all tagged and ready to go for expression in a variety of cell types, and many institutes in India and the world over are busy using these clones to study new biology. While this may not help find a cure today, it can help in attaining a broader understanding that works towards new diagnostic or therapeutic avenues.

At a different level, we need to ask ourselves, what can our scientific enterprise, our way of doing things in this country, our response as individuals, learn from the speed with which QBI was able to generate the entire CoV2 clone-set, study protein-protein interactions, identify druggable nodes, and find FDA-approved molecules that might be repurposed against those interactions? All of the above happened in the course of about one month! This comes back to the conversation above about collaboration and open-ness - suppressing our instinctive territoriality for a common cause. I guess we need to collectively think about how we are going to change the existing system towards one that truly enables and rewards collaborations.

We all have different reasons for why we are interested in our particular field of research, in a specific question - some are easily articulated and others are quite intangible. But one thing we often feel is that we must demonstrate consistency in our approach and interest, and have a good reason for being focussed on a topic. The reality, especially in a time like a pandemic is that this consistency may not really be that important. What is important is a commitment to generating credible scientific information, which is itself a difficult and non-linear process.

Consistency in research direction may not really be as important as a commitment to generating credible scientific information.

How, in your opinion, will this pandemic change the course of scientific research, in India as well as abroad?

I alluded to this issue above. But at a broader level, perhaps we need to be thinking about why many elite institutes where really excellent research is done in India are predominantly focussed on basic science. It is easy to get used to the comfortable and rather cloistered existence of the basic science lab, but perhaps we need to be focusing on broader programs that integrate greater contact with public health and grassroots medical efforts in a structured way. Maybe direct exposure to these ways of learning will be an inspiration to work on aspects of diseases that do not have the same impact on us when understood solely through the literature. Practical training and flexible structures that can rapidly focus on response to emergent situations may be one way to learn from this pandemic.

Will this pandemic affect the way in which science is taught in India?

Ideally, it would be a wonderful fallout of a bleak situation if our educational system were able to reflect on the lacunae that have made it difficult for us to respond effectively and control transmission. It is no coincidence that Kerala, the state which has the most highly educated public, has the best record of flattening the curve. The truth is, I am not sure if an impact on science teaching is imminent.

The economic impact of this virus is already being felt, with a strong negative effect on millions of families, who already feel that they are invisible to the powers that be, and are trying to raise themselves out of hardship and deprivation. Education is one way in which Indians have traditionally tried to do this, but science education has had a difficult time. It is difficult to create a responsive system that caters to individual capacities for learning when the numbers we are dealing with are so large. A school-leaving certificate or a degree provides its holder with the entry ticket to the next step but not really the means for understanding or interrogating the world around them, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

It is difficult to create a responsive system that caters to individual capacities for learning when the numbers we are dealing with are so large.

I would hope that efforts by existing science education projects will use the public trust in science and scientists highlighted by the current crisis to inspire more kids to come into science (or perhaps more parents to see science as a useful career) or provide simpler ways to teach complex concepts. But I think this is an uphill task that requires the coordinated efforts of many different types of organizations and individuals.

Do you believe this pandemic will have an effect on the public view of science and scientists?

The public is clearly reaching out to the scientific community for help in making sense of the information overload and the flood of fake but plausibly scientific-sounding information. I think being in the privileged position of being able to access and understand the science behind the pandemic gives us the responsibility of doing our best to counter fake information. It also makes it incumbent on us to counter the tendency of fearful situations like this to make us more insular, more suspicious, more vulnerable to conspiracy theories, and more ready to assign blame.

Not all of us are going to be able to do this, but wherever we can, I hope scientists can contribute by setting the record straight when we encounter closed-minded or prejudicial views relating to virus transmission (as well as broader issues). We can try to convey the point that evidence-based opinions are important, not opinions formed on the basis of rumour and innuendo and the “viral video” mode of understanding.

Being in the privileged position of being able to access and understand the science behind the pandemic gives us the responsibility of doing our best to counter fake information.

In your opinion, would this pandemic have an impact on the number and nature of collaborative projects in India?

I have referred to this point earlier. A crisis of this magnitude might encourage scientists to think differently about their skills and interests. Consider the following examples: a large number of biologists of all flavours use RT-PCR as a very basic tool in their labs for addressing diverse questions, applied in many different formats and contexts. The fact that the best test we currently have for CoV2 is the detection of viral RNA in swab samples means that there are hundreds of students and researchers who have this capability. So what is demanded from many of us in the immediate/short term is not “high science” but the most basic of our training - just to deliver a credible RT-PCR result.

In the medium term, surely what will be needed is for us to come together and propose better tests, better basic knowledge, not just at the level of the current virus plaguing us, but better preparedness to tackle future, unpredictable outbreaks. It may well be that just as many scientists have rewired their labs to take on CoV2 projects in the current scenario, even those of us in the fundamental science category will be able to open our minds to addressing one or more applied projects addressing simple unmet needs, like point-of-care tests and devices for diverse diseases.

Let’s not forget that while COVID-19 has been declared a pandemic and is, therefore, an urgent focus, there are diseases that have been with us for millennia (like malaria and TB) which still do not have adequate responses, and from which huge numbers die every year. Perhaps this wake-up call of the pandemic will make us think more about those diseases for which we still need better care. Perhaps we need to remove this equation of “innovative=fundamental=excellent” and incorporate public health issues into our basic science programs more widely.

Here, perhaps an added dimension to consider is not only collaborations forged by the coming together of groups, but also an approach where collaborations are actively sought by funding agencies, and perhaps even the creation of a new set of intrinsically collaborative institutes that tackle issues related to future scenarios - an institute for an unpredictable future? A centre for epidemic preparedness? A program for comparing disease modelling? A project on social dynamics and epidemiology?

There are diseases that have been with us for millennia which still do not have adequate responses. Perhaps this wake-up call will make us think more about those diseases for which we still need better care.

These kinds of situations require integrated thinking and coordinated responses which need to be prepared for ahead of time and not hastily put together at the time of a crisis. I believe that young scientists have a huge role to play in these future programs. These will not be without risk and may come at personal cost, but I do believe there will be satisfaction for the young scientist who takes this path.

What do you feel are some key lessons/learnings that scientists can take away from the present situation and apply in their future research careers?

I don’t think there are comfortable lessons to be drawn from this pandemic that will allow us to simply wait for it to end and then carry on as usual, perhaps with an added sensitivity but essentially doing what we did before the pandemic. The lessons for me have been the uncomfortable ones, that force me to look at the disconnect between what is needed now and what I have spent my career doing. Possibly the greatest lesson for me has been how fragile our apparently stable system is, and that its stability depends on actively ignoring the urgent unmet needs of a large number of people.

Very large numbers cease to have impact or urgency, and many basic scientists, myself included, can happily work on problems that may derive from medical needs of either communicable or non-communicable diseases, without really having to be pushed to acknowledge the gap between our training and its effective application.

I don’t mean to suggest that we should all be working only on translational aims - fundamental knowledge is vital for understanding complex systems, for new ideas, for stretching our understanding, and cannot be replaced.

Possibly the greatest lesson for me has been how fragile our apparently stable system is, and that its stability depends on actively ignoring the urgent unmet needs of a large number of people.

But if there is one lesson I have taken from this crisis, perhaps it is that the most basic of our skills can be impactful, and applying those to urgent problems may be one way to contribute, not just to future preparedness against situations such as the current pandemic, but to the very large number of equally urgent but neglected problems that we have somehow managed to become okay with ignoring.

I am personally quite disturbed that I have spent a lifetime working on fairly esoteric issues, always with the intention of making that translational leap, but never quite managing it. Perhaps some younger colleagues may want to consider the challenge, and perhaps my students will redeem my failures.

In your opinion, is the present COVID-19 pandemic likely to result in a mental health crisis for our country?

The COVID-19 pandemic is turning out to be a major stressor for most of humanity, including our country. Never before has such an event affected so many individuals across the globe. The initial focus is necessarily on the physical consequences of the infection. However, there is growing recognition that the significant mental health consequences emerging out of this catastrophe need to be addressed. These consequences could arise out of the direct consequences of infection, the restrictive measures imposed to curtail the spread of infection, or the socio-economic impact of the pandemic.

What can individuals or families do to better nurture their mental health during this period?

At an individual level, it is important to continue being active and create a routine for ourselves. This means that although one might be at home all day, there need to be clear schedules for pleasure and work. We need to keep our bodies and minds healthy by doing things that we like to do on a daily basis, whether it be reading, gardening, music, or whatever activity keeps our spirits high. These are particularly important because of the strict lockdown rules in the country. One should avoid repeated viewing of news items on COVID-19, which are now broadcasted throughout the day. It is also important to have regular interactions with friends and relatives through electronic means, e.g. telephone or video calls.

At a family level, it is important to bring in a sense of cohesiveness and togetherness. Families need to ensure that there is a division of work within the family such that no one person is overloaded with household chores. This is also the time to do family activities which might otherwise have been difficult due to busy work schedules. We should also minimise repeated discussions on the negative consequences of COVID-19 and maintain an atmosphere of hope within the family.

What are some things that employers can do to ensure that their employees, whether working from home or on hiatus, can deal better with the present situation?

One needs to remember that this is a phase, and work will resume normally once the situation improves. Hence, employers need to ensure that they genuinely care for the well-being of their employees, and this needs to be clearly evident in their interactions. In addition, there needs to be regular interaction with employees. This in itself would make life easier for the employees, and ensure that their work output is not negatively affected. It may be good to enquire about any difficulties that the employee is facing in social isolation settings and hear out their answers. This will make further work interaction easier. If the employee is unable to perform optimally, it might be important to try and understand the reasons for the same, and maybe suggest possible ways of improving work performance at home. The employers may also be in a difficult situation due to economic adversities related to the lockdown. It may be important to have clear and transparent communications with employees on these matters.

Do you have any advice for people who are working at the frontline during this period (e.g. healthcare professionals and essential service providers) on how to care for their mental health?

Healthcare professionals are used to dealing with infections in general. Many such situations have been encountered in the past where safety precautions are paramount. However, the lack of personal protective equipment can make the situation challenging. They need to ensure that the administrative authorities are notified in advance if there is a shortage of such important equipment. The problem in this situation is that healthcare professionals may have to live away from family. In such a situation, one needs to keep the mind healthy by making some time every day to do things that we like, whether it be reading, movies, music or whatever that keeps one’s mood positive.

There is an increasing amount of productivity pressure for many people who are working from home at the moment to learn new skills, start new projects etc., especially through messages shared on social media, which can lead to further stress and anxiety. What can people facing this pressure do to manage stress?

It is difficult to stay away from social media at this point, as there is a lot of time available, and there are too many shared messages about COVID-19. More important than learning new skills is to keep doing stuff that one enjoys as well. Both mastery and pleasure are important. Additionally, one should follow all the steps outlined in the answer to the second question above.

How serious is this crisis for people with pre-existing mental illnesses, and what can they do to better cope with the situation?

The mentally ill are always more vulnerable to the effects of any health crisis. This is more so in the situation of an infectious disease pandemic. The medications and psychotherapies which are important for such individual may not be available, as all available health resources are diverted towards controlling the infection. This will lead to relapses of several common and severe mental illnesses. It will be important for mental health professionals/ hospitals to attempt contact with such individuals to ensure that they are reassured, and enable them to source medications locally. People with pre-existing illnesses need to ensure that whatever treatment they are on currently is continued till the next possible consultation.

On International Women’s Day, we interviewed a few women in science from different career levels to understand the most common factors that hinder women in science and some possible ways to improve this situation. This is the second article in a two-part series compiling these insights.

About the contributors:

Rohini Godbole is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and the editor of two popular books on women in Science (Lilavati’s Daughters and The Girl’s Guide to Life in Science). Manjari Jain is an ecologist and an Assistant Professor at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Mohali. Swati Subodh is a Senior Scientific Officer at India Health Fund, Co-founder of 1M1B (1 Million for 1 Billion) Foundation and Columnist. Lekha Bandopadhyay is the principal investigator of a project funded under DST’s Women Scientist Scheme-A at Bose Institute, Kolkata. Siuli Mitra is a Professional Expert (Science Communication & Public Relations) at Translational Health Science and Technology Institute, Faridabad.

We asked these women for suggestions related to schemes and policies that, if implemented at the institutional and national level, can result in greater numbers of women in science.

Rohini Godbole: To help women scientists deal with these challenges, one needs actions both at the societal level and policy level. One also needs to keep in mind that small numbers are a symptom and not the problem.

A widely held belief (with good justification) is that the steep drop-off in the number of women in science after PhD and reduced presence of women at higher levels is due to family responsibilities. As a result, most of the corrective policy measures that have been introduced are designed to help women come back to active science after breaks in their career.

But what is also required is to raise support structures at the societal and institutional level which will help young women scientists negotiate these early speed-breakers and avoid career breaks if they wish. It is equally important to realize that achieving work-life balance is not the responsibility of the woman alone but that of the couple and hence these policies should be made gender-neutral, as far as possible. For example, childcare leave can be renamed as parental leave with the option for either parent to avail it. Even the schemes to come back to science after a career break can be made gender-neutral. They will still be used mostly by women but the 'secondary citizen'/stepchild status that institutions/scientists often give to these schemes will change.

There need to be support structures at the societal and institutional level which will help young women scientists avoid career breaks if they wish.

One can also think of women-friendly tenure policies where a woman can ask for tenure consideration to be deferred by a year or so if she feels that childbearing has affected her professional impact. Again, implementing this in a gender-neutral way might reduce the backlash on women who opt for it. Similarly, the need for a crèche is usually looked upon as a woman's need, while it should be looked at in a gender-neutral way.

While such measures are necessary they are not sufficient. Policies implemented at the level of government can target certain invisible biases. But equally (or perhaps even more) important are steps that institutions can take and the mindset changes that we need to bring about at the level of society and the scientific community.

Awareness that it is not impossible to achieve career and family balance in a science career needs to spread to parents, families, and science practitioners alike. This sensitisation needs to start early and it needs to be made clear that this advocacy of gender balance is not just so that women’s abilities in science find expression, but because any diversity can only add to the progress of creative processes of science.

Some Institute-based efforts might be more fruitful than schemes which are implemented centrally. For example, institutes can certainly put their minds and efforts into helping couples solve dual-career issues. The solution is not to necessarily give both the partners jobs, but to at least not deny it out of hand. Instead, the decisions should be based on merit. Further, a proactive attitude where the prospective applicants feel that the institute is alive to these issues can actually go a long way towards a happy resolution of the issue through the combined efforts of the individual and the institution.

Institutions can also set themselves targets of women's share in faculty, positions of authority etc. and then take proactive steps to achieve them. The targets could be different for different disciplines reflecting the presence of women among practitioners. The definitions of equity and efforts to achieve it will also change a lot from discipline to discipline and institution to institution. An up-to-date national survey of women working in science careers is also a basic necessity for undertaking such efforts professionally.

Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network) charter in Great Britain is one such wonderful initiative. These are evaluation/accreditation programs where the institutes are charged and encouraged to make efforts to enhance gender equity. Conducting gender audits, proactively looking at ways to create an inclusive work environment are some of the steps.

Even in scientific institutions which are alive to the need for gender sensitisation, it is perceived that sensitisation of ’sexual harassment’ is all that is necessary

Hiring committees can also be made aware of how invisible biases can affect the questions we put to a prospective candidate and how to make these questions gender-neutral (e.g. women are often asked if it would be possible for their family to relocate if they are offered a job, while male candidates are almost never asked this) Instructing the committee to avoid such obvious biases can make the institution more gender-neutral and woman-friendly.

Institutions can also make it a practice to have gender sensitization training on entry for all. Quite often, even in scientific institutions which are alive to the need of sensitisation necessitated by the changing gender scenarios, it is perceived that sensitisation of ’sexual harassment’ is all that is necessary, which sadly is not the case. Even in that limited context, quite often the scientific community is cagey talking about the ’elephant in the room’.

In principle, the issue of how the community should create a woman-friendly and safe workplace needs to find a place even in basic discussions of academic ethics. These considerations need to always be at the back of our minds and not just restricted to the 'International Day for Women and Girls in Science' or 'National Science Day' or 'International Women's day'. Then and only then, will we come up with solutions that will work for us in India.

Manjari Jain:

1. Undertake active efforts to ensure some parity in hiring (normalized to ratios of women vs men candidates in the given field where hiring is taking place).
2. Provide on-campus accommodation preferentially to young mothers (as pointed out by Rohini Godbole in a talk organized at IISER Mohali on “A Life in Science”) and a good, reliable crèche facility.
3. Actively avoid biases in giving recognition and awards and stop piling awards on the same set of one or two women (this happens with far more severity with women than it happens with men, leading one to believe that these are done merely to tick the box). Instead, include more women and a diverse set of them when giving recognition. Awards may not alter one's potential for work but will certainly boost confidence and even encourage individuals who are new to science

Swati Subodh: In research,there are various schemes introduced by the government for mid-career women scientists, including re-entry grants. These schemes are a great way of bringing women back to a productive career. However, this is not enough. Due to various factors, most women shy away from actively seeking opportunities for better projects, assignments, collaborations and positions; this affects their visibility in their respective domain in addition to the biases that already exist against them.

To enable more women to thrive rather than just survive in this space, an accelerated mentorship program should be made part of the re-entry grants, at least for the initial 5 years. Senior scientists or colleagues, irrespective of their gender, should be engaged in the mentorship program for scientific guidance and professional growth trajectory of young women scientists.. This would hopefully not just enable women in science to have flourishing careers but prevent many bright minds from sinking into oblivion.

On-campus accommodation and childcare facility have been spoken about but not implemented well enough in most cases. Making child-friendly zones within campuses will enable many women researchers to manage two of their very important duties - being a mother and scientist at the same time!

To enable more women to thrive rather than just survive in this space, an accelerated mentorship program should be made part of the re-entry grants

In careers in science where women are not required to be in a lab at all times, like science communication, data analysis etc., provision should be given to have flexible working hours or to work from home. This will be especially important for young mothers. In these cases, favourable workplace practices are the immediate need rather than imposing policy interventions.

Having said this, participation from the male partners cannot be ignored and they should certainly not be left out of the equation. The challenges women face in professional life can be abrogated if this support is strengthened. Although a lot depends on a couple’s personal preferences and beliefs, policies should empower young fathers to be equally participative whenever and wherever required.

Lekha Bandopadhyay:

1. Crèche should be a basic facility in any academic or research institution.
2. The age bar clause should be erased in job advertisements in academia (for both men and women).
3. There are two good schemes at present to encourage retention of women in science - DBT BioCARe and DST Women Scientist Scheme - A, B and C. Instead of starting new schemes, it is better to fine-tune these existing ones, e.g. in terms of easing communication with the funding body, regularising fund transfer, and providing overall support.

Siuli Mitra: There exist schemes and policies for women who wish to go on maternity leave or have a break in the career for childcare, though these may not be enough. Being a single woman, I (and others like me) face a different situation. For example, if I need to look after my parents who are old, I would need the organization to be accommodative of that, even if I do not have a child. I think the flexibility of work hours and work location are going to be (still are) more important for women as their needs change. Undoubtedly, more can be done to enable such flexibility.

In the first part of this article, we asked these women in science what, according to them, are the factors that hinder women in science from reaching their full potential.

On International Women’s Day, we interviewed a few women in science from different career levels to understand the most common factors that hinder women in science and some possible ways to improve this situation. This is the first article in a two-part series compiling these insights.

About the contributors:

Rohini Godbole is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and the editor of two popular books on women in Science (Lilavati’s Daughters and The Girl’s Guide to Life in Science). Manjari Jain is an ecologist and an Assistant Professor at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Mohali. Swati Subodh is a Senior Scientific Officer at India Health Fund, Co-founder of 1M1B (1 Million for 1 Billion) Foundation and Columnist. Lekha Bandopadhyay is the principal investigator of a project funded under DST’s Women Scientist Scheme-A at Bose Institute, Kolkata. Siuli Mitra is a Professional Expert (Science Communication & Public Relations) at Translational Health Science and Technology Institute, Faridabad.

We asked these women in science what, according to them, are the factors that hinder women in science from reaching their full potential.

Rohini Godbole: There are two main types of challenges that impede the progress of women in science. First, there are some obvious and visible challenges. Unlike in other professions, for a career in science, there is a gestation period after getting the PhD degree, during which one has to establish oneself in a research career and develop a niche. But it is also the time when the biological clock is ticking. Since science does not wait for anybody, those who consciously take a break in this period have the disadvantage of starting a few meters behind the starting line.

Another issue specific to careers in science/technology is the fact that jobs are available only at a few locations which limits one’s options. Negotiating the balance between family and career is another challenge. This issue is controlled by social conventions and expectations - expectations from society, family, as well as from women themselves. All of these are reinforced during a woman’s upbringing.

There exist invisible biases about what women can and cannot do, should and should not do.

There exist, in addition, a set of invisible and unconscious challenges. These are the biases about what women can and cannot do, or what they should and should not do. These biases can directly impact both the number of women in science and their level of achievement. There is also a lack of importance attached to women's participation in science in the eyes of society and the scientific community alike. This directly affects the amount and quality of mentoring that women receive as well as the help they receive in handling dual responsibilities.

Other forms of invisible challenges include hiring practices which impact management of dual careers (such as not hiring couples together) and the lack of women-friendly workplace environments and practices. Further, recognition/awards for women are quite often delayed and missed due to various reasons. Such recognition plays a role in forming general perceptions in society about women's participation in science.

Manjari Jain: There are many challenges which have already been talked about many times. I want to emphasize that there is an inherent negative bias against women just by virtue of being women. There are additional problems attached to being a working woman (not specific to women in science) some of which I am mentioning below in order of severity faced by myself:

There is an inherent negative bias against women just by virtue of being women.

1. Lack of equitable childcare responsibilities: The most limiting factor in my opinion (and experience) is childcare responsibilities. Women have to keep inventing ways to circumvent this problem. Even when spouses are cooperative, the distribution is not always equitable and often women are hesitant to spell it out lest their spouses feel their efforts have not been acknowledged. A factor somewhat specific to mothers in science is that in many cases, women choose to have children later in life which results in children being dependent on you at a time when you most desperately need to work. You cannot afford to go home late from the lab and fieldwork often becomes a practical impossibility.
2. Reduced participation in networking and academic social life: Inability to attend conferences as much as men do (due to additional responsibilities at the home front, even without a child) can result in a lack of exposure and lack of opportunity to make new collaborations. One loses out on the opportunity to learn new techniques or be exposed to current discussions. Also not being invited to give talks as much as men results in reduced visibility and acknowledgement of work in academic circles.

Swati Subodh: In my opinion, women encounter their biggest professional challenge at a mid-career stage when they start their marital or family life. This is also the time when we’re supposed to accelerate our careers by taking tenure track academic positions or take on more assignments, competitive grants, publish papers, file patents etc. to build our scientific credibility. For most women, the professional deceleration happens many months (or years!) before they actually need to take a break. This is due to the anticipation of making major personal decisions during this time. As a result, the anxiety of not being able to deliver on commitments sets in much earlier. In between lowered aspiration and increased self-doubt, considerable time is lost during the most crucial period of one’s professional life.

It is disheartening to see women gradually disengaging and aspiring to lesser goals. It’s not just an individual’s loss, rather it’s our collective loss.

Due to high demands on their time at both professional and personal fronts simultaneously, most women choose to focus on the latter. They either opt-out of an active professional life or take on less demanding roles, both of which have a long-standing effect on how their career takes shape from thereon. As a result, very few women are able to maintain their professional momentum and the sharp decline in the number of women in mid to late-career compared to early career is proof of this. This skewed equation is also reflected in the abysmal number of women in leadership roles.

A career in science requires not just intellect and domain knowledge but also creativity, teamwork, objectivity, analytical and communication skills, something that many women are naturally good at. It is quite disheartening to then see women gradually disengaging and aspiring to lesser goals. It’s not just an individual’s loss, rather it’s our collective loss.

Lekha Bandopadhyay: Some of the factors holding back women are the same factors that also affect men, like short term contracts, age bar in job applications, and insecurity due to the scarcity of suitable positions after higher degrees in science. After a certain level, women also find themselves with fewer female colleagues and seniors. It thus demands additional strength and effort to create a place for themselves in a male-centric culture. Perhaps all these factors cumulatively portray a career in science as difficult to women already burdened with time-consuming family responsibilities including child care.

Siuli Mitra: Absence of direct and indirect societal support including limited assistance with household responsibilities, overemphasis on advancing the social ladder (through marriage, for instance) and limited examples of women who reached leadership positions in science to look up to as role models, are some of the factors that hold back women in science.

In the second part of this article, we asked these women in science to suggest some possible solutions to these issues which, in their opinion, can result in greater numbers of women in science if implemented at an institutional, societal, or policy level.

In a small village called Rathipur in the Mayurbhanj district of Odisha, a class is in session. The teacher is not young, in his late sixties, but clearly passionate about the subject he is teaching.

The students, however, are not what one would expect. They are all farmers.

The weather-beaten faces engrossed in listening to the teacher are mostly in their 40s and 50s, with a sprinkling of younger men in the back rows. As the teacher pauses in the middle of a sentence, one of the farmers quietly pokes his neighbour and mimics a pen moving across paper – it’s a silent plea from an illiterate man to a literate one to note down a point in writing.

The teacher notices, and hides his smile – for him, this subtle gesture of understanding and interest on the farmer’s part is a proud victory, one that has come from two years of painstaking effort.

The teacher here is R. K. Patnaik, a retired agronomist who worked at the Orissa Institute of Agricultural Technology for nearly 40 years, and his mission is to get farmers to adopt better agricultural practices. Patnaik is pushing the farmers in Rathipur and nearby villages to improve their socio-economic standing by sharing with them his knowledge on improving agricultural productivity.

He joins us in an interview to talk about his efforts in Rathipur and the successes and failures he has encountered in his endeavours.

Could you tell us a bit about yourself, and what your objectives are in reaching out to farmers?

I am basically an agronomist - I studied the response of crops to different growth environments like types of soil, nutrient status, and varying moisture conditions. I worked for nearly 40 years at the Orissa Institute of Agricultural Technology.

What I found out after retiring is that although thousands of graduates, post-graduates, and PhD scholars have been produced in my time at the institute, the farmers’ conditions in the agricultural field has not changed much. Of course, there have been improvements in crop production – India is now self-sufficient in food grain production – but the economic status of farmers is not improving.

So, I wanted to go to the farmers and analyze what understanding they have gained about improvements in agricultural science. Why have they not been able to improve their lot?

Tell us about the journey that brought you to Rathipur.

In the 80s and 90s, I was involved in surveying two medium-sized irrigation projects (in Kalo and Sunei) in the Mayurbhanj district. So, when I visited this place almost 30 years later, I was expecting an improvement in the agricultural production system. But to my utter surprise, although there was some improvement in paddy farming, there were few changes in cropping intensity (a measure of how many crops are raised in the same field in one agricultural year) and crop rotation (growing different crops in a field in consecutive years) was hardly being followed.

Most of the farmers in this area were also marginal (with landholding size of about 1 hectare) and small (having 1–2 hectares) farmers, who were resource-poor.

Since Mayurbhanj is located near Midnapur district of West Bengal, which is one of the major potato-growing districts of India, I wondered why farmers here did not practice crop rotation by growing potatoes as a Rabi crop (crops sown in winter and harvested in spring in India) after the paddy crops were brought in.

I went to many agricultural offices – met the deputy director, district commissioner, and other officers to find out why crop rotation wasn’t practised – but got no clear answers. That’s when I decided to simply talk to the farmers themselves, and so ended up in Rathipur.

What did you find when you interacted with the farmers in the district? How did the farmers react to your advice?

By talking to the farmers at Rathipur and few other nearby villages, I finally found out why crop rotation was not being practised in this region.

Farmers here grow a long-duration crop that is sown in July and harvested only by mid- to end-November. This means that a Rabi crop, which needs to be sown by early- to mid-November, cannot be planted. Also, my suggestion that they shift to a shorter duration paddy crop was met with deep scepticism. This, I realized, was very valid, as the harvest time for such shorter duration paddy crops would be in the middle of the cyclone season in this area – farmers would have no way to dry and store the harvested grains.

So, I shifted my attention to looking at the quality of the crops. Here, I found that the farmers were using poor quality seeds to sow their crops. According to the certification system, there are five levels of quality – Breeder, Foundation, Certified 1, Certified 2, and Certified 3. The farmers were using 3rd-grade Certified seeds, which are of the lowest quality and which they procure from the local agricultural co-operative societies and panchayats.

In 2017, I advised the farmers to obtain Breeder seeds for their next crop. I even arranged for a waiver of the license fees usually charged for such seeds. But the farmers did not go to the Institute to collect the seeds – they were hesitant to leave their homes and travel to such a far-off place and also thought the trip might be too expensive for their slender means. That year, the crop was even poorer than usual.

Did the farmers finally take your advice? What results did you see?

Finally, I found 7 farmers willing to travel to Bhubaneswar for Breeder seeds in 2018. I even added a small incentive for them – I covered all their expenses for the trip and gave them Rs. 500 for their efforts. That cash incentive went a long way in encouraging the farmers to take up this project.

I went to meet the farmers when the paddy seedlings were ready for transplanting and found that they were very happy. The seedlings were healthier than any they had seen in a long time.

When I went back next, it was during the harvest season. There was a lot of agony on my mind about what I would find. You see, in November, just before the harvest, cyclone Bulbul had ravaged Odisha, and I was afraid that the farmers had lost their crop.

But when I met the farmers, I saw such joy on their faces that I was taken aback! They told me that this type of cyclone hits the area every year and that they always lose some crops. This year though, the quality of the plants was so good that they had almost doubled their usual yield!

I arranged for a seed certification officer to certify these farmers’ seeds as Foundation seeds so that they could sell them for a better price. The officer was so impressed that he declared the fields as demonstration plots (fields usually used to teach about and explain the results of agricultural experiments). After seeing these demonstration plots, farmers from other villages are now asking me for help for the next year.

What changes do you see in the farmers since you first startedtalking to them?

Initially, when I conducted my meetings, I would find that most of what I was saying was not getting through to the farmers. They would listen but implement none of my suggestions. Now, they are more willing to argue points and use my suggestions practically.

Another thing I have noticed is that while replanting the paddy, the farmers were not maintaining the proper density of plants in their plots. To avoid spreading of diseases and pests, they plant too few seedlings in the plots. Here, again, when I advised them with the proper density, the farmers are taking note.

One very interesting change I have noticed recently is that in the earlier meetings, I would only see older farmers. Now, after the Breeder seed example, I find many of the younger generation farmers attending my sessions in the back seats.

How have you funded this project of yours?

I fund this project on my own, because at this age – I am 68 years old – I will not be able to manage getting funds from a funding agency, submitting returns and progress reports etc. My contact with the farmers will suffer, and I don’t want that to happen. So, I spend about 25,000 rupees for each of my visits (for travel and stay near Rathipur) out of my own pocket. However, it would be good if the government makes some arrangement to encourage retired agricultural scientists to adopt villages and do something like what I have started.

How do you plan to take this forward?

I have several more plans for Rathipur. The first is to continue supporting paddy farming since the land here is mainly suited for paddy. In addition, farmers here can also take up Paira cropping, where a second crop (like black gram and other pulses) is sown while the first crop (paddy) is still standing. I also want the women farmers to begin growing flowers, vegetables, and herbs in their backyards for extra income.

There is a lot of unsupervised grazing by unproductive cows – I’ve been trying to get farmers to stop this and am trying to get the animal husbandry department here to provide milch cows for dairy farming.

Apart from all of this, I’m also trying to get the younger men in the village to take up and manage agricultural service centres where machinery for efficient farming can be maintained. This will help in reducing farming costs and raise the socio-economic status of the whole village.