The third Regional Young Investigator’s (RYIM) meeting was held at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research (NIPGR), New Delhi, on 6-7 August, 2019. The meeting brought together academic researchers, industry representatives, post-doctoral researchers, PhD students, and funding agency representatives from all over Delhi NCR under one roof. The two-day meeting included two keynote addresses, six plenary talks, three panel discussions, talks from funding agencies & bio-incubators, and a poster session.

The meeting was organized by Jagadis Gupta Kapuganti and Senthil-Kumar Muthappa from NIPGR, Divya Chandran, Regional Centre for Biotechnology (RCB), Mukesh Jain, Jawaharlal Lal Nehru University (JNU), and Rohini Garg, Shiv Nadar University with inputs from IndiaBioscience.

In the welcome address, Jagadis Gupta Kapuganti stated that the objective of regional YIMs is to provide a platform where researchers can meet, network and share their experiences. Subhra Chakraborty (NIPGR), in her opening remarks, asked young researchers to take this opportunity to identify researchers with similar interests with whom they can work, collaborate, and grow.

Finally, Smita Jain gave an overview of IndiaBioscience and its various initiatives related to networking, science communication, science career development, skill-building, policy discussions, etc. She spoke about the ethos on which Regional YIMs were initiated and stressed on the fact that these meetings are by Young Investigators (YIs) and for YIs.

Keynote addresses

K VijayRaghavan, Principal Scientific Advisor, Government of India, and Shekhar C Mande, Director General- Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), gave keynote addresses on 6 and 7 August, respectively. VijayRaghavan urged the scientific community to take collective responsibility for the issues at hand and opened the floor for discussing various challenges that restrict the growth of the life science fraternity in India.

Researchers deliberated on age limits for faculty recruitment, reasons for delays in finishing PhD, and the high turnout of PhDs from Indian laboratories vis-à-vis lack of faculty jobs in the market. A need was felt to encourage scholars towards other science careers like science communication, policy, administration, IPR etc. based on their skills and interests.

Mande, in his turn, gave an overview of the timeline of development of science and technology in India (starting from ancient times). He added that only those post-colonial countries who, like India, made friends with science after independence were able to prosper and develop in the last century. He also spoke about the role that CSIR has played in nation-building. For example, the indelible ink used during Indian elections was created in the National Physical Laboratory and CSIR was one of the partners in the development of Electric voting machines (EVM).

Speaking about current challenges in the scientific space, Mande said that the ecosystem for start-ups is not well developed, which is hampering the translation of research from basic science laboratories. He opined that a dialogue between basic researchers and translational researchers could help in taking the outcomes of scientific research to the market for the good of society.

Opportunities for Early career researchers

Representatives from various funding agencies described opportunities for early career researchers provided by their respective agencies. Sandeep Verma, Secretary, Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), discussed various schemes for early career researchers such as National Post-Doctoral Fellowship, Early Career Research Award, Startup Research Grant, Social Equity Program, Ramanujan Fellowship and Teachers Associateship for Research Excellence (TARE). He also mentioned four new and upcoming schemes: SERB SUPRA, SERB TETRA, SERB-STAR and SERB-NSC.

Meenakshi Munshi from Department of Biotechnology (DBT) explained the attributes of a good research proposal and gave an overview of various schemes for young scientists from DBT, such as DBT-Research Associateship, Innovative Young Biotechnologist Award (IYBA), BioCARE, CREST, B4-Boston, Ramalingaswamy Entry Fellowship and DBT- Wellcome India Alliance fellowships.

Sachin Sharma (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance) spoke about Early Career, Intermediate and Senior level fellowships along with three new funding schemes: Team Science Grants, Clinical/ Public Health Research Centres and Clinical Research Training Programme.

Finally, Matthias Kiesselbach, Director, DFG Office, India discussed the various opportunities for Indian researchers who intend to carry out research in Germany, collaborate with German scientists, or travel to Germany for workshops.

Science Communication

Sarah Iqbal (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance), described how science communication helps in building public trust, formulating evidence-based policies, and generating funding support for science. Pointing out the differences between an academic research paper and a science news article, she emphasized keeping the audience in mind while communicating science. She stated that science communication is a moral responsibility for scientists as most of the science funding in India comes from tax-payers’ money.

Panel Discussions

Scientific collaborations can enhance the research output of laboratories by bringing experts from various fields together for a common goal. The first panel discussion, entitled "The art of establishing and maintaining collaborations” deliberated on various strategies to ensure that collaborations are fruitful and meet the expectations of all the researchers involved. The discussion was chaired by Amulya K. Panda, National Institute of Immunology (NII) and included Manoj Prasad, NIPGR, Ashwani Pareek and Deepak Gaur, JNU and Suman Govil, former Adviser, DBT, as panellists. The panellists deliberated on various personal, legal and scientific matters to be kept in mind for a successful collaboration, as well as the need to ensure clarity and benefits for all parties involved.

To give young researchers a gist of upcoming research in various disciplines of biology, a panel discussion on “Emerging trends in life science research” was also organized. Neeraj Jain, National Brain Research Centre, talked about artificial intelligence as an emerging technology for neuroscience and the need for integrating already available brain data to gain better insights into this complex system. Anurag Aggarwal, Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB), emphasized the need for multidisciplinary and collaborative research projects in human biology. He also mentioned that although precision medicine may seem unaffordable at the moment, with an economy of scales and good data management, it is realizable.

Sujatha Mohanty, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, talked about recent advances in tissue engineering and her work on cornea and skin replacement. Debasis Chattopadhyay from NIPGR talked about innovations in plant phenotyping facilities that help in weed management, nutrient status assessment, pathogen detection, drought stress assessment, and yield prediction. Sudhanshu Vrati, RCB, who chaired the session, spoke about the rise of new human pathogens and related infectious diseases, perhaps due to increased human-wildlife contact.

The scarcity of women in leadership positions in science has been quite a concern in scientific community. To discuss this issue and brainstorm solutions, a panel discussion on “Women in leadership” was also organized at the meeting. Chandrima Shaha, President, Indian National Science Academy (INSA), and Professor of Eminence, NII, chaired the panel that included Gagandeep Kang,Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI), Satyajit Mayor,National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bangalore, and Subhra Chakraborty (NIPGR). A point that emerged was that while a considerable number of women can be found in PhD and faculty positions, the burden of family responsibilities may prevent many women from opting for high profile positions.

Onsite child care facilities, flexibility in work timings, extension of maternity leaves, mandatory inclusion of women in forums and most of all, respect from the society were put forth as some of the ways to increase the number of women in academia and later in leadership positions.

Words of Wisdom: Life in Science

Rajesh Gokhale (NII), in his plenary talk, suggested that young researchers should look for both competitive advantage and potential applications while selecting a research problem. Citing examples of two biopharmaceutical companies (Vyome Biosciences and Ahammunune Bioscience) that brought his lab’s research in dermatology to the market, he encouraged researchers to take their research from the bench to the market for the greater good of society.

Satyajit Mayor, Director, NCBS, shared his journey from a Post-Doctoral fellow at Columbia University to a scientist at NCBS. Graduating as an engineer, followed by a Masters in Chemistry and a PhD in life science, gave Mayor the ability to look at problems from many different angles, which subsequently helped him in his research on membrane organization and trafficking. He advised students to make well-informed choices, keeping eyes open for various opportunities, and network with other researchers.

Gagandeep Kang (THSTI) talked about her journey from medical student to scientist. She spoke about the high burden of rotavirus infection in India, which led her to focus her research on its biology. Adding a fresh dose of positivity to the session, she encouraged young researchers to believe that they can solve any problem and not shy away from asking help from others if required.

Bio-incubators: From Lab to Market

Suman Gupta (RCB) and Ashutosh Pastor (IIT-Delhi) discussed the BioNEST Bio-incubator and the Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FITT), respectively, which are housed at their respective institutes. They said that bio-incubators provide an ecosystem that is conducive for startups. The incubates are mentored by senior scientists, assisted by in-house patent team for formulating patent applications, and put in touch with the funders and industrial partners.

The talks were followed by concluding remarks by Satyajit Mayor who applauded the large number and active crowd at RYIM-Delhi. The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks by Kapuganti.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

The first Kolkata chapter of the Regional Young Investigators’ Meetings (RYIM) was held on 5-6 February, 2019 at the historic campus of Presidency University (erstwhile Presidency College) situated in the heart of Kolkata’s educational district.

The idea of RYIMs was sowed during the 10th national Young Investigators’ Meeting in 2018 when YIM alumni from the past ten years met and felt the need for better connected local scientific networks in India. When the idea of organizing a Regional YIM (RYIM) in Kolkata was pitched, we were excited and readily agreed.

The organizing team consisted of Piyali Mukherjee, Abhik Saha, Shubhra Majumder and Chandrama Mukherjee from Presidency University, Benu Brata Das from the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), Dipyaman Ganguly from CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (IICB), Geetanjali Sundaram from the University of Calcutta, Bornali Bhattacharjee from National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG) and myself (Smarajit Polley from Bose Institute).

Inaugural Session

The first day began with a welcome address by Piyali Mukherjee who gave a short introduction to the concept of Regional YIMs and mentioned how the local culture of coming together over a cause could be translated into making a better research environment for a brighter tomorrow. Right after this, Smita Jain spoke about IndiaBioscience and its goals and mandates. These two lectures helped set the tone of the meeting and helped the attending Young Investigators (YIs) from the region connect to the theme of the meeting. Shortly afterward, the ~90 attending YIs introduced themselves to the community.

Bikash C. Sinha (Homi Bhabha Chair Professor of the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (VECC)), an internationally acclaimed nuclear and high energy physicist from the city, delivered the keynote address. He described his journey as a scientist and his experience of seeing Indian scientists playing important roles in gigantic international projects like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and succeeding against all odds. Several times during his lecture, he reminded the audience of the importance of scientific culture and temper in building a vibrant nation.

Mentor Talks

A number of well-established researchers from almost every walk of life science research were invited to share their scientific journeys with the YIs attending the meeting. These mentors came from different working environments, prior experiences, backgrounds and different practices. Nevertheless, there was one thing common in them - passion! No matter how successful are they today, they all had to struggle at the onset to remove the roadblocks in their path, be it financial, infrastructural or administrative.

Maitrayee Dasgupta, Professor in the Department of Biochemistry, University of Calcutta, explained how she has addressed some fundamental questions in plant biology like symbiosis, nodulation, and photosynthesis using her strengths in biochemistry, slowly progressing into organismal biology. Her journey encouraged many who had found themselves in rough working conditions near the beginning of their scientific careers.

Anindya (Rana) Sinha, Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) introduced the audience to the world of primates and his discovery of a new primate species called the Arunachal macaque. It was quite an experience listening to the story of his transition from botanist to molecular biologist to behavioural ecologist and cognitive psychologist of primates.

Ron Vale, Professor at the University of California, San Francisco, has been involved with IndiaBioscience and Young Investigators’ Meetings from the very beginning. Addressing the audience via Skype, Vale reiterated the importance of conducting meetings like this on regular intervals to allow the scientific culture of a region to thrive.

Shantanu Chowdhury, Senior Principal Scientist at CSIR-Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology (IGIB), described his journey from chemistry to biology and mentioned the importance of remaining focused on one’s goals. He explained his fascination with unusual DNA structures and their importance in gene regulation with special emphasis on cancer initiation and progression.

Soumen Basak, Senior Scientist at the National Institute of Immunology (NII), is an immunologist who blends biochemistry and mouse genetics to obtain a systems view of immunological questions. He stated that it is necessary to support home-bound YIs who bring cutting-edge science to the country and maximize the benefits of their postdoctoral experiences.

Lolitika Mandal, Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Mohali explained how she was able to take advantage of a rather large force of highly excited undergraduate students at her institute for getting her lab to take off. She also pointed out how she created her own niche and exploited the strength of Drosophila genetics through her work.

Suvendranath Bhattacharya, Principal Scientist at CSIR-IICB, explained how his long-term goals to understand various aspects of miRNA biology helped him find his spot in the global research scenario in this field. He also showed the audience how he streamlined a number of aspects of miRNA biology in his independent research program.

Parthasarathi Chakraborty, Associate Professor at the Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, explained how his work on metal-natural ligands interactions established their crucial roles in controlling distribution, fate, mobility, and bioavailability of heavy metals in marine ecosystems.

Mamta Chawla Sarkar, Senior Scientist at National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases (NICED), explained how she used omics-based approaches to discover important post-translational modification dynamics of cellular proteins upon infection with rotavirus.

Jayanta Mukhopadhyay, Associate Professor at Bose Institute, explained how he loves to rethink textbook knowledge about prokaryotic transcription regulation. Most of his discoveries in his lab came out of questioning popular beliefs. He also emphasized the fact one doesn’t always have to be too serious to be in science.

Abhishek Dey, Professor of Chemistry at IACS, calls his lab the MADLAB. He talked about emulating the elegant design principles of metalloenzymes for bio-inspired catalysis, work that is of vital importance for a cleaner, more habitable environment for our future.

Special Lectures

Apart from the Keynote lecture and mentor talks, we had the privilege to witness two special lectures delivered by Partha Pratim Majumder, Distinguished Professor, National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, and Chandan K Sen, Director of the Indiana Center for Regenerative Medicine & Engineering, Indiana University, USA.

Majumder described his journey from the field of mathematics and statistics into experimental genomics. He mentioned the extraordinary difficulty of earning the confidence of the community in his early days as a scientist and convincing them that a scientist who mastered numbers could actually contribute to the field of biology.

Sen described the science of adult tissue reprogramming practiced at his Institute and lab to come up with solutions for an array of diseases. He shared some fascinating discoveries from his group on tissue injury and repair with special emphasis on post-infarction myocardial remodelling and cutaneous wound healing.

Panel Discussions

At the onset of organizing this meeting, the organizers unanimously decided to include multiple panel discussions on important issues that deal with various aspects of a YI’s journey. The panels included many eminent scientists, educators, clinicians, current and former Directors of institutes and VCs of universities of the region along with many YIs and mentors.

Panel 1: Collate and Collaborate: an administrator’s perspective

Panellists: Anuradha Lohia (VC, Presidency University), Dhrubajyoti Chattopadhyay (VC, Amity University Kolkata), Sujoy K Dasgupta (Director officiating, Bose Institute), Sharmila Sengupta (Former Director, NIBMG), Saumitra Das (Director, NIBMG)

The first two panel discussions focused on the path to creating a research environment that is collaborative and YI-friendly. Anuradha Lohia shared her journey of nurturing a research atmosphere in a nascent state-funded university. Dhrubajyoti Chattopadhyay, on the other hand, spoke about the very different ways in which a private university functions. While Sujoy K Dasgupta explained the role Bose Institute played in nurturing its young brigade, Sharmila Sengupta spoke of the journey of creating a cutting-edge genomics institute. Saumitra Das urged the YIs to display more conviction in their approach in creating their niche research programs. The panelists also informed the audience of different schemes undertaken by their respective organizations as well as the government agencies to foster infrastructure developments that could be accessed by all the researchers in the country.

Panel 2: Collate and Collaborate: the investigators’ perspective

Panelists: Malay Das (Presidency University), Chandrima Das (Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics), Amitava Sengupta (IICB), Smarajit Polley (Bose Institute), Bornali Bhattacharjee (NIBMG), Geetanjali Sundaram (University of Calcutta)

In the counterpart to the above discussion, investigators shared their own experiences and views on establishing a research program. A need for proactive interdisciplinary collaborative associations was stressed upon. Overall, the panelists also agreed that funding agencies could come together in creating independently-run regional infrastructural facilities that could be seamlessly accessed by all the researchers.

Given the dearth of funds in research, avoiding the creation of clones of the same kind of facilities in each organization could open up possibilities of creating high-end infrastructural facilities that would otherwise be impossible given their costs. This would also broaden the horizons of conducting research for many researchers in not-so-well-funded organizations. Another issue that the researchers felt needed immediate revamping is the General Financial Rules (GFR) for research purposes and subsequent financial audits. The current scenario does not help a YI while establishing their laboratory, and takes up a huge amount of their man-hours in dealing with mundane paperwork that may have a net negative impact on their scientific pursuits.

Panel 3: Science, health and society

Panelists: Subhash C. Lakhotia (Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi), Partha P. Majumder (NIBMG), Hemanta K. Majumder (IICB). Raghunath Chatterjee (Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata), Soma Banerjee (Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata)

AND

Panel 4: Public Outreach in Science: an educator’s perspective

Panelists: Parthiba Basu (University of Calcutta), ParthaSarathi Mukherjee (Indian Institute of Liver and Digestive Sciences, Sonarpur), Dipyaman Ganguly (IICB), Punyabrata Gun (Sromojibi Sastho Udyog), Arup Kr. Mitra (St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata), Krishna Ray (West Bengal State University, Kolkata)

The other two sessions were devoted to the theme of outreach. The panelists were experts from different walks of life - teachers, researchers, clinicians, and YIs. The discussion session encompassed various issues starting from scientific temper, science vs. pseudoscience, science communication, engaging with society to eradicate misbeliefs, education for all and universal healthcare.

Panelists agreed that everyone concerned must play their part in order to create a society that runs based on a solid scientific temper. However, it will need the engagement of people from many domains in order to be able to eradicate deep-rooted views based on faith instead of logic, which could be tricky for a country like India. It was stressed that it is necessary to talk to the community at large in a language and form they are comfortable with to get the message across.

The panelists, as well as the audience, agreed that misreporting of scientific facts in the mainstream media is a concern and that this is a two-way process, with researchers exaggerating their findings out of proportion and journalists sensationalizing their piece to make it more attractive.

From the educators, we learned how important it was to increase the funding in education and basic research in India. Last but not least, the clinicians educated the attendees about the possibility of universal healthcare and busted many myths around the concept. They discussed how spending on public hygiene and healthcare through public entities could be beneficial for the GDP-growth of India as well as contributing to public health.

Funding opportunities for basic and entrepreneurial research

Meenakshi Munshi (Adviser, Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India) spoke about various funding schemes of DBT for researchers at various career levels. Viswanadham Duppatla (IKP Knowledge Park, Hyderabad) presented various funding and logistic possibilities for science entrepreneurs.

Looking ahead

After two days packed with highly stimulating science lectures, mentor talks, poster sessions, panel discussions along with great food, this meeting came to an end. Participants decided to form a forum of local YIs to share resources and meeting formally once or twice a year. They also proposed that the R-YIM of the Kolkata chapter be continued in the future as a biennial event.

In retrospect, organizers think that the event couldn’t have been a reality without tremendous support from the Presidency University on every aspect of organizing a meeting like this, and financial support from Partha Pratim Majumder, Bose Institute and IndiaBioscience. They would also like to thank the commercial sponsors for their generous support.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

In addition to mentor talks and poster presentations, the Young Investigators’ Meeting (YIM) 2019 also hosted a number of discussions centred around topics important to life science research in India. Here is a brief overview of some of these sessions, which saw active participation by young investigators, post-doctoral fellows, and mentors, in addition to the invited panellists.

Panel Discussion 1: Directions of Indian Research, Collaborations and Publication

Panellists: From left to Right: D Narasimha Rao (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore), Dominique Bergmann (Stanford University, USA), Satyajit Mayor (National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore), B Ravindran (Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar), Ron Vale (University of California, San Francisco, USA)

Moderator: Dipyaman Ganguly (Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata)

The first panel discussion of YIM 2019 focused on the broad directions that Indian life science research is expected to move towards in the coming few years. One of the early points raised during the discussion was the dichotomy between basic and applied research and whether funding decisions rely on which of the two categories one’s proposal falls into.

While Rao suggested that there is a bias on the part of funding agencies towards rewarding applied or translational research more than fundamental research, Ravindran strongly opposed this notion. He added that no good translational research begins as a purely translational project – rather it is findings from basic research that often lead to unexpected translational directions.

Using an example from his own lab’s work, Mayor suggested that while it is imperative to continue doing good science, basic researchers should also spend some thought on whether or not any of their findings have a potential for translation. Finally, Shahid Jameel (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance) who was in the audience, pointed out that no funding agency makes unanimous decisions – it is scientists who sit on committees and panels, and therefore have a collective responsibility for evaluating and contributing to the progress of good science, both basic and applied.

Another point which emerged during this discussion was that young researchers returning from abroad often pick a problem which is similar to their post-doctoral work – yet that problem may not be particularly relevant in the Indian context. The panel agreed on the fact that indigenous problems, or issues with a uniquely Indian context, need to be given more importance.

The discussion also touched upon collaborative research, especially collaborations between clinicians and researchers, which need to be better addressed and facilitated. Bergmann provided a few pieces of advice based on her experience, stressing that collaborations are not necessarily free of conflict, they don’t always form naturally, and therefore need to be carefully nurtured and maintained.

Finally, the panel also discussed the issue of publications in the light of recent worldwide trends that support open access and moving away from journals with high publication fees. Vale called this “a conversation that India should be participating in, and not watching from the sidelines.” He also spoke about how the journal hierarchy system today acts as a proxy for evaluating the quality of research and determines our reward system, a scenario which he believes is “destructive to science as a whole”.

Panel Discussion 2: Funding in Science

Panellists: From left to right: Rashna Bhandari (CSIR-Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad), Vaishnavi Punjabi (Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India), LS Shashidhara (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Pune), Srini Kaveri (Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France), B K Thelma (University of Delhi), Shahid Jameel (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance)

Moderator: B Anand (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati)

The discussion began with the three funding agency representatives on the panel (Jameel, Kaveri and Punjabi) each giving an overview of the mechanisms and opportunities for funding in place at their respective organisations. Both the panel and the audience agreed on the need for greater transparency in funding procedures and clear timelines, coupled with better quality of reviews and feedback, particularly when a grant application is rejected.

Another point that came up through interactions with the audience is how funds need to be flexible in order to accommodate the needs of different areas of biology – for e.g. a field ecologist would need to utilize his/her funds in a very different way from a cell biologist, and current subheads in grants often don’t allow this.

Speaking about the institutional side of funding, Thelma pointed out the huge difference in infrastructure and funding between state and central universities, particularly the lack of intramural funding in the latter. Bhandari spoke about the need for institutional mechanisms to provide adequate start-up grants for new faculty, as well as to ensure that labs can sustain themselves once the initial grants are over.

While most of the panellists agreed that the percent GDP spending on science and technology in the country must go up, they also stressed that we need to start looking outside the government system to attract more funding, including corporate resources.

Panel Discussion 3: Science Communication

Panellists: From left to right: Chitra Ravi (Azim Premji University, Bangalore), Aashima Dogra (The Life of Science), Leslee Lazar, (IIT Gandhinagar), Vasudevan Mukunth (The Wire), Amitabh Joshi (Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bangalore), Sarah Iqbal, (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance)

Moderator: Richa Rikhy (IISER, Pune)

This panel discussion focused on the topic of how scientists utilising taxpayer money have a responsibility to the general public of communicating their science. “Communication is an integral part of a scientist’s career,” said Iqbal, delineating the ways in which India Alliance encourages its fellows to engage in various forms of public outreach.

Joshi pointed out how phrases such as ‘communicating to the masses’ or ‘communicating to the common man’, which are often used in this context, tend to look down on the audience, setting scientists apart from society. He also spoke about the importance of communicating science in languages other than English, and some of the initiatives by the Indian Academy of Sciences in this regard.

Mukunth, in turn, spoke about the responsibility that science journalists have to further science education in a country where the media tends to provide a more accessible account of scientific development than classrooms which focus on rote-learning. He proposed that we take advantage of the fact, and write articles that help in building scientific knowledge and not just communicate recent news of discoveries.

Ravi, who is a chief editor of Azim Premji Foundation’s I Wonder magazine for middle school science teachers suggested some approaches for scientists to communicate better, including getting to know one’s audience, and to reveal the process or the method of doing science instead of just focusing on the result.

Lazar spoke about his experience with creating science illustrations and on promoting science ‘engagement’ rather than just science communication. He suggested pushing the boundaries of the ways in which we communicate science in order to promote more collaborative learning with the audience. Dogra, on the other hand, spoke about how journalism can bring to the fore strong social issues, including the pressing needs of women and minority communities in science.

Some additional issues that were raised in the discussion with the audience were the importance of maintaining accuracy in news reports, the lack of primetime media coverage on science policy, and on social media as an emerging platform for communication.

Panel Discussion 4: Mentoring

Panellists: From left to right: Geetanjali Sundaram (YI, University of Calcutta), Saman Habib (Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Lucknow), Priyanka Singh (YI, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Jodhpur), Boris Reizis (NYU Langone Medical Center, USA), Kaushik Biswas (YI, Bose Institute, Kolkata), Roop Mallik (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai)

Moderator: Rashna Bhandari (CDFD, Hyderabad)

This panel brought together three young investigators (selected from amongst the participants) and three experienced researchers to discuss the importance of mentorship, and how to provide the same to the next generation of scientists. The discussion revolved around the questions of whether mentorship should be ‘hands-on’ or ‘hands-off’, whether advisors should be friends with their students or maintain distance, and under what circumstances can the mentor-mentee relationship break down enough to consider termination.

Mallik stressed the importance of teaching the mentees to become effective mentors themselves, as this allows the lab to become a nurturing ecosystem where more experienced members can mentor less experienced ones. Most panellists agreed on providing some initial guidance to students, but also providing them room to grow. “I try to allow my students to make mistakes,” said Sundaram.

On the question of distance, while almost all panellists agreed that a certain level of professional distance is desirable between students and mentors, the advisors should still keep an eye out if the student is struggling due to issues of a personal nature. The importance of paying attention to the student’s mental health was raised, given the inadequate support system for the same in most institutes and universities. Finally, both the panellists and audience agreed on the fact that mentorship should be taken into consideration while deciding tenure, in addition to a researcher’s scientific output.

Other Interactive Sessions

In addition to panel discussions, a breakout session on lab management was held, wherein participants were divided into three groups for discussions on issues ranging from initial lab set-up to obtaining grants, working with administration, leaning on the expertise of colleagues and senior faculty, sharing common facilities and more. Poster presentations by both young investigators and post-doctoral fellows showcased research across diverse life science disciplines, and gave rise to many fruitful interactions and discussions. Finally, the recommendations born out of breakout sessions during YIM 2018 were discussed with both participants and Institute representatives, and consensus was sought on taking the same forward.

YIM 2019 was an opportunity for young researchers to understand the science ecosystem in India, discuss trends in biological research, and form deep connections and professional networks with those of a like mind.

The 11th Young Investigators' Meeting (YIM) was held in Guwahati, Assam, from 6 to 10 March, 2019. The meeting was attended by ~40 young investigators selected from all parts of India, as well as the same number of postdoctoral fellows, over 50% of whom hailed from Indian research institutes. The meeting also brought together eight senior scientists in the form of mentors, several guest speakers and panellists, and the directors of nearly 25 research institutes and universities.

This year, the organisers of the meeting were B Anand (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Guwahati), Richa Rikhy (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Pune), Dipyaman Ganguly (CSIR - Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (CSIR - IICB) Kolkata), and Smita Jain (IndiaB­ioscience).

Inaugural Session

The meeting began on 6 March with a welcome address by B Anand. Noting that he is a YIM alumnus himself, Anand stated that the YIMs have enriched the perspectives of many young investigators. “When it comes to science, most of us celebrate the impact of scientific outcome," he said, emphasizing the fact that scientific outcome is actually determined by a number of processes occurring ‘behind the scenes’ – developing ideas, conceptualization, mentorship, etc. which do not receive as much attention. He urged the participants to make full use of the opportunity to interact with the mentors and develop these attributes “to naturally elevate the quality of science that we do".

Smita Jain from IndiaBioscience also addressed the audience during this session, explaining the aims and key mandates of IndiaBioscience. Touching briefly upon the 11-year history of YIMs, she spoke about the overwhelmingly positive feedback received from YIM alumni of the past ten years about the usefulness of this initiative. Jain also shed light on the many other areas and projects IndiaBioscience is presently engaged in, including workshops for career development, enabling undergraduate biology education, an active communication program, and the recent launch of Spoorthi, an eBooklet celebrating Indian Women in Science.

This was followed by a short talk by Sahaj Uddin Ahmed from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, who explained the various schemes and programmes introduced by DBT to attract and retain scientific talent in India, and answered questions about funding mechanisms at DBT.

Keynote lectures

The first keynote address of YIM 2019 was delivered by Renu Swarup, Secretary, Department of Biotechnology (DBT). Addressing the participants via a video message, Swarup discussed how the YIMs have become a wonderful platform for investigators to interact with each other and get connected. She touched upon four things that researchers need to be successful: 1) Good job opportunities, 2) Good mentors to help them move forward, 3) Strong infrastructure 4) Enabling environment.

Swarup mentioned the various efforts being undertaken by DBT to address these at the policy level, including fellowships like the Ramalingaswami re-entry fellowship to encourage young researchers, schemes like Scientific Infrastructure Access for Harnessing Academia University Research Joint Collaboration (SAHAJ) to allow sharing of infrastructure and facilities, formation of bioclusters with shared resources, and finally, policies to encourage bio-entrepreneurship and start-ups for better translation of basic research.

The second keynote lecture was delivered by K VijayRaghavan, Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) to the government of India. VijayRaghavan focused his talk on some of the most pressing global challenges we face today: climate change, environmental degradation and the data revolution, and the role that Indian scientists must play in this rapidly changing scenario. He spoke of the disconnect between what scientists are doing and the problems that the world faces, and how India must emulate, but not imitate the revolutions that are happening in the rest of the world.

Mentor talks

Over the first three days of the meeting, the participants had the opportunity to interact with and listen to talks by a number of senior scientists from both India and abroad. Here is a brief overview of these talks:

Ron Vale: Currently a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Ron Vale was recently elected the executive director of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s (HHMI) Janelia Research Campus and an HHMI vice president. Vale has been involved with the Young Investigators’ Meetings and IndiaBioscience since their inception. In his talk, Vale reminisced about how the first YIM was born out of a dinner conversation he had with a few junior faculty, and how it was designed to “instil a spirit of leadership among young scientists”.

He encouraged the participants to think about some ‘big’ questions - Why do we do science? Why is it important? How can biology in India prosper? The emphasis of his talk was on the importance of scientific culture and how young investigators can play an active role in establishing it at various levels, starting from their own laboratory, and going up the institution level, then the country and finally the world itself. “Establishing the right scientific culture can be really fundamental to success,” he said.

DN Rao: The second mentor talk was delivered by DN Rao from the Department of Biochemistry, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, who has been an enzymologist for the last 40 years. In his talk, Rao delineated his scientific journey, beginning with first setting up his lab in the late 1980s with its focus on type III restriction enzymes, followed by broadening of his interests to encompass DNA mismatch repair and Restriction-Modification systems in the gut bacterium Helicobacter pylori. He mentioned the many collaborations he has been a part of over the years, and advised the researchers to keep their focus on the science during the first 5-6 years after setting up their labs. He ended with an appeal to all young investigators to teach at least one course. "“You learn a lot when you are teaching," he said.

Dominique Bergmann: Bergmann, who is a Professor of Biology at Stanford University, spoke about her transition from a C elegans developmental biologist to a plant cell biologist studying the development of stoma. She listed five key strategies for sustaining a successful lab - 1) embracing new (and old) technology 2) developing a supportive lab culture 3) identifying unique local resources 4) reading and revising classic studies, and 5) becoming the missing link in order to carve out a niche.

Amitabh Joshi: The next mentor talk was by Amitabh Joshi from the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), who switched gears and spoke about the 'poet's way of science', a phrase which he asserted describes his own journey rather accurately. He spoke about the many random factors which have affected his choices at various stages in his scientific career, including his choice to pursue science, the decision to study evolutionary biology, and his choice of graduate school. He also emphasized the importance of embracing conceptual and theoretical approaches to life sciences, in addition to the more common 'descriptive' approach. "Theory is too important to be left to theoreticians,” he ended.

B Ravindran: An emeritus professor at the Institute of Life Sciences (ILS), Bhubaneshwar, began his talk with an appeal to the participants to "Go set up your own laboratory under a banyan tree." In his talk, Ravindran touched upon this approach through his own example of studying nitric oxide synthase biology, and spoke about how many years of fundamental research ended up translating into druggable targets, even though that wasn't the aim to begin with.

BK Thelma: A professor at the Department of Genetics, Delhi University, BK Thelma was the next mentor to address the participants. Through her work on familial genetic diseases during the last 30+ years, Thelma has seen first-hand the technological evolution of gene mapping in human disorders, which progressed from linkage scans to candidate gene studies to genome-wide-association (GWA) studies to next-generation sequencing methods. She also spoke of the many projects that have arisen out of this work, including a SERB funded initiative on newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism, and a DBT funded project on Ayurgenomics.

Boris Reizis: Boris Reizis, Professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, spoke about all the different mentors and role models who have played a strong role in his own scientific journey over the years, including Garry Abelev, Irun Cohen and Philip Leder. Taking a slightly different approach, Reizis focused his talk around the 'mistakes' he made along the way, and the things he learnt from each. The 'mistakes' included dealing with space issues, hiring the wrong people, and experiments taking inordinately long times to work. “Only thing that makes your life worth living is the young people who come into your lab," he said, adding that to be complete, one has to be a good human being in addition to a good scientist.

Saman Habib: The last mentor talk was delivered by Saman Habib, from CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute (CSIR-CDRI), Lucknow. Habib spoke about how the discovery of a plastid-like organelle (the apicoplast) in the malaria parasite led significant revelations in the understanding of host-parasite evolution processes, and how her lab has pushed forward the understanding of apicoplast biology. She also gave examples of some ingenious ways of overcoming obstacles in the early years of setting up one’s lab, including setting up a PCR machine powered by a PC which ‘worked from home’.

Special Lectures

Day 2 of the meeting (7 March) began with a special talk by LS Shashidhara, IISER Pune, on the importance of integrating education and research. Shashidhara explained how teaching and research feed each other - teaching can lead to new ideas for research, and research can improve understanding that helps one teach better. He emphasized the disparity in the quality of undergraduate education across the country; with over 18000 science colleges in the country, there are only a few true centres of excellence. Educational reforms, therefore, need better planning and execution. He suggested a few ways in which young scientists can contribute to improving the quality of education in our country, including developing inquiry-based and research-based undergraduate as well as graduate science education programs, paying attention to pedagogy, training the next generation of teachers and participating in science outreach by going out to schools or colleges in their locality. He also spoke about the funding opportunities that are available for undertaking these efforts.

Another highlight of the meeting was a special lecture by Arvind Gupta, an engineer-turned-toymaker. Gupta, a Padma Shree awardee, left a corporate job to indulge in a lifelong passion for making science fun and enjoyable for young children. For the last 40 years, he has been working at the grassroots level, conducting workshops and producing videos that have been viewed by over 70 million children worldwide. Using a table full of toys made out of 'trash', Gupta left audiences enthralled with a demonstration of how instilling scientific thought and temperament in children requires innovation in thinking rather than a surplus of money. “Ideas live much longer than people,” said Gupta during the talk, which received a standing ovation from the audience.

The final special lecture was delivered by Anitha Kurup from the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru. Addressing audiences on 8 March (International Women's Day), Kurup spoke about the paucity of national-level data on women in science, particularly statistics on how many women complete their PhD, even though over 30% of those enrolled in PhD programs are women. Based on a decade of study, she strongly contested that the usual reasons given for women not being represented in science, i.e. that they make a personal choice to leave science due to domestic/family burdens, or that they are less productive or less capable, do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Rather, it is the lack of opportunity and hostile institutional atmospheres that tend to push many promising young women off the academic path. She strongly emphasized the need to bring visibility to the success stories as well, so that both women and men can learn from those who survived the system. The discussion following from the talk touched upon various issues still prevalent in academia, including the practice of asking women about their family lives during job interviews, and the low representation of women in decision-making positions in institutional and national committees.

In closing, Satyajit Mayor, Director, NCBS and IndiaBioscience board member summarized the key highlights from the three days and thanked the participants and organizers for making YIM 2019 an interactive and enjoyable experience for all concerned.

The last two days of the meeting were given over to the post-doc satellite meeting, wherein the post-doctoral fellows attending the conference each presented a summary of their scientific work as well as their future research plans to an audience of directors and representatives from ~25 Indian research institutes. Each participant only had 5 minutes in which to communicate the crux of their research experience and goals. These 'lightning' talks were interspersed by presentations by institutional representatives and directors on the ideology, recruitment practices, and recent successes of their respective institutions.

Poster sessions for both young investigators and post-doctoral fellows involved active engagement with mentors and directors as well as many interactions between YIs and PDFs. Both YIs and PDFs had an opportunity to present their science in detail to their peers as well as to receive direct feedback from the mentors. The five days also held no less than four panel discussions, a breakout session, several open interaction sessions and discussions based around the recommendations made during the 10th YIM at Thiruvananthapuram. The second part of this report (coming soon) will elaborate on the outcomes of these sessions.

How did you decide to join the YIM 2019 organising team?

Anand: I’m an alumnus of YIM. It is a great pleasure to give back to YIM by hosting the event at Guwahati.

Richa: YIMs have played a role in bringing together budding scientists at different stages of their career in the Indian biology research scene. They have provided a comprehensive insight into different aspects of research in biology, from how support is available in the country to aspects of running science. I had attended YIM2011 after just starting my lab in IISER, Pune, and it was very educative to meet so many peers at the same stage of their career and exchange some "gossip" about setting up a lab. This was a memorable meeting and I have been enthusiastic to be a part of the YIM2019 organisation team and a part of discussions on events that could be added to such a meeting.

Dipyaman: It was a call from Dr. Roop Mallik that got me into this exciting confluence. Actually I had never been to any of the YIMs as a PDF or YI, but had heard a lot about them. So when Roop asked me to be a member of the organizing team I was excited. I mentioned to Roop that I had never been to one, in response he was like 'That's a good enough reason to be an organizer yourself, you can bring new ideas!' I did find this response very encouraging and was excited to take part.

Smita: IndiaBioscience has been organizing YIMs for more than a decade now and they have become flagship meetings, helping build a strong knit network of researchers across the country. Both myself and YIMs have been an integral part of IndiaBioscience and thus, I am part of the organizing team :). Being part of the organizing team not only gives an opportunity to make new friendships with the other co-organizers but also allows me to influence and bring in new themes/topics for deliberation at the meeting. Also, it is a great way to learn.

What do you think the participating YIs can hope to gain from this YIM?

Anand: When it comes to science, one tends to overtly celebrate the impact of outcome. However, it is the journey that is more memorable than the destination. Therefore, YIM lays more emphasis on the underlying scientific process and soft skills that are often overlooked. By adopting best scientific practices, we can naturally elevate the quality of scientific outcome.

Richa: To my anticipatory stress about whether I could be a faculty or not, a mentor once said, "You will not know if you can do it until you do it, so just go ahead, take the opportunity and do it!". The participating YIs should look forward to hearing from mentors and peers about aspects of a research career that may have been challenging and those that have been full of fun.

Dipyaman: This YIM has an exquisite blend of mentors from different fields of biomedical sciences and thus should interest YIs who represent those different fields. Organizers took special care to accomplish that. The YIMs have been happening for long now and has its ingrained modus operandi, but the present organizing committee is very keen on incorporating new ideas and helping the YIs with their individualistic requirements as and when necessary. Several break-out sessions are spread over all three days and will offer great opportunities to get to know each other. The panel discussions have been designed after a lot of deliberations and organizers believe they will offer many new facets of being and YI and managing it well.

Smita: We have a great line-up of mentors and special invitees, both for talks and panels, who are going to share their journeys and thoughts with the audience. We have picked up a vast range of topics, keeping the very ethos of YIMs in mind, for the panel discussions and breakout sessions. Each of these is very critical and important for the success of YIs, who are getting initiated in the scientific journey. Apart from science, there will be lots of other important issues that will be deliberated upon during YIM. It is up to the YIs to participate and interact wholeheartedly in these discussions and gain the most out it. Also, the meeting will provide ample opportunity for everyone to network. Everyone should make the best use of this opportunity and grow a strong network, which is again a key factor for growth leading to success.

How will this YIM be useful for the attending PDFs?

Anand: The landscape of the academic job market in India is quite complex. Apart from networking and mentoring support, YIM offers a one of a kind opportunity for potential PDFs to explore the job prospects with prospective employers. This could be a starting point to plan for their career advancement.

Richa: The participating PDFs could look forward to coming closer to solving the "Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be..." conundrum for their opportunities in science. The participating PDFs will meet other PDFs thinking of becoming YIs in the future and hopefully find a group that they will forever share experiences with. They should look forward to chatting with YIs who are just back and have initiated a lab and most of all they should look forward to meeting the Directors from different institutes looking to hire new faculty.

Dipyaman: Several heads of the institutions from all over the country will be attending the PDF meeting and people who are looking forward to getting independent positions will have ample opportunity to know about different institutes. Institutes all over India are on a hiring spree and thus this meeting can be great catalyst for the best matches, which is one of the most important factors that should influence one's choice of institute.

Smita: PDFs are a group who are getting ready to get into the scientific ecosystem and are in the exploration mode. YIM provides an excellent platform to explore and gain knowledge of this ecosystem where they get an opportunity to meet YIs, mentors, institutional representatives and people from funding agencies. YIs give them a first-hand perspective of the ground reality; mentors, by sharing their life stories, provide an insight about the journey ahead that is awaiting them; and institutional representatives give a broad perspective about the kinds of institutions that exist along with the functioning and hiring process of each of them.

We are going to have a really large number of such talks by institutional heads who represent different types of institutions. It will be a wonderful opportunity for PDFs to not just gain vast amount of information that will be shared during the meeting but to also build networks for the future. Deepa Subramanyam from NCCS had said in one of her interviews that YIM helped her form a 'buddy group', and so my suggestion to all the PDFs attending YIM2019 is to look for their buddy group and make the most out of it. It is for the first time that there are ~20 PDFs joining us from Indian labs which in itself could prove to be a game changer.

Which sessions are you looking forward to the most?

Anand: Mentor talks and Panel discussions are my favourites.

Richa: The YIM sessions have a great set of mentors from India and abroad. There are sessions on funding in science; this year there is a special session on outreach in science and science communication and I am looking forward to the discussion by the panel members in these sessions. And hey, let us not forget, that there is an outing on a cruise in the great Brahmaputra river!

Dipyaman: I am actually looking forward to the panel discussion on March 6 on 'Direction of Indian research, Collaborations, Publishing in science' which I believe will bring a lot of not-so-discussed but very pertinent topics to the table, e.g. ‘Good’ science vs ‘Bad’ science, ‘Basic’ research vs ‘Translational’ research, ‘Organismal’ biology vs ‘Molecular’ biology, ‘Biomedical’ problems vs ‘Biological’ problems; and then ‘Paywall’ vs ‘Open’ publications, ‘Society’ journals vs ‘Publishing house’ journals as well as a discussion on ‘Preprints’. I also look forward to listening to the excellent line-up of mentors who are going to share their thoughts on becoming an independent investigator and what it takes to be one.

Smita: Very difficult question to answer! I am looking forward to almost everything that is going to be part of YIM2019. All the mentor talks - listening to success stories of others is not just motivating for me but a great way to learn; Panel discussions - they give an opportunity to hear different viewpoints and loads of key advice on different topics; Special talks by Anitha Kurup and Arvind Gupta to know about really exciting work that they both are doing in their individual spheres; Poster sessions - to know about science and to know people as well. Last but not the least, PDF satellite meeting - talks by institutional representatives to gain insight about the diverse ecosystem of Indian science and talks by PDFs to know about the amazing work that they are involved in. Looking forward to YIM2019.