The Special Centre for Molecular Medicine is a fairly new centre with six faculty members (including me). It is currently housed in a building that used to be the old Genetic Engineering unit and is not large enough to accommodate six labs. So until the Centre moves to its new premises (which are under construction), getting laboratory space is a serious issue. I did have an office though and I thought that since I was going to be busy writing grant proposals I didn’t need lab space right away. I was wrong. Because on the very first day of my joining, a first year PhD student came to see me. He wanted to pursue his PhD in my lab (!!!!). He had joined one semester late and labs had already been allotted to other students from his batch. Senior colleagues advised me that he would be an asset in setting up the lab and rather naively, I agreed to be his PhD supervisor. Looking back, that was my very first mistake as new faculty since there really wasn’t much my first PhD student could do. I had no lab, no research project and no money. With only two courses to complete in the monsoon semester, he had ample time on his hands. His batch-mates were busy learning basic lab techniques and familiarising themselves with ongoing projects in their respective labs. Read about tight junctions, I suggested to him. He did, but there was also pressure to catch up with his batch-mates. Having no prior experience of supervising students I felt it was my moral duty (!!) to keep him occupied lest he felt left out and I spent more time trying to keep him occupied than I did on grant writing. What was I thinking?? Pressure was mounting and the combined stress of supervising a student and writing the grant proposal was getting to me. To make matters worse, I did not have accommodation on JNU campus and was commuting for more than an hour everyday to get to work. The independent faculty position was beginning to look less like a reward and more like a punishment.

With the start-up money of three lakh rupees that JNU had sanctioned, I bought a few restriction enzymes, borrowed a cloning vector and began to teach my student basic molecular biology techniques. Now I can get moving on the grant proposal, I told myself in March. There was a small problem though. I was not continuing my post-doctoral work so had to design a brand new project. It was like starting from scratch. Where do I start? The project had to be novel yet one that I could quickly develop in the given circumstances. Assembly and disassembly of tight junctions had always interested me and seemed a good idea to build on and I started searching for various stimuli that I could exploit to study de novo junction assembly. Something that would open up the tight junctions upon addition and close them upon removal of the stimulus. Now that the idea had dawned all I needed to do was to fill in the blanks! Perhaps viral or bacterial proteins would be good candidates and I started searching the literature for one that would not open or close the tight junction permanently. The pace of grant writing had picked up. So did the administrative work load. By now it was June and the new academic session was about to start. It was time to select new PhD students. Several days of interviewing later, a list of successful candidates was drawn up. I also started to teach a course on cell junctions to the new batch of students. Weekly lectures of 1-2 hours until December 2006.
In between, I did manage to finish the grant and submitted it to DBT. Things moved more quickly then and I successfully defended the grant proposal in front of the task force committee in September and had received a letter from DBT informing me that my grant was approved. By November, barely eleven months after joining SCMM, I was assigned another PhD student. Well, at least the grant money should be here soon, I consoled myself.

February 2009 and the money had still not arrived. What had arrived was a letter from DBT informing me that my grant funding had been reduced by 30%. What now? It was at this time that I attended the first Young Investigator Meeting held in Kerala. It was heartening to see that I wasn’t the only one with teething troubles. But compared to other new recruits at Institutes, I just had more of them. The meeting brought me in touch with not only established Indian scientists but also role models who have successfully integrated the scientific spirit in their lives despite all the odds. I came back feeling inspired and motivated. Rather than appeal against the cut and waste more time, I decided to accept the money from DBT. After all, I have my career to launch and two PhD students to take care of. I will build on the foundation later. Am I being optimistic? Perhaps, but what other options do I have? I am finally setting up my lab and also getting ready to submit more grants.

It is now eighteen months since I joined as new faculty. Now would be a good time to take stock and reflect on all that has happened. In this time, I have written and submitted a grant proposal, taken two PhD students, taught a new course on cell junctions and have only just started building my lab. It is painfully obvious that had I been on my own (without taking on students) I could have been much faster with grant writing. I would have also had time to start initial experiments before the arrival of students in my lab. Plus it would have been very good for my nerves. So what message am I passing on to new recruits at universities? It most certainly is NOT to dissuade them from joining universities. If anything, it is a message to policy makers who need to sit up and take notice. What would I like them to do? Increase the start-up money given to new faculty for a start. And not to assign new students to new faculty for at least a year. And to provide better infrastructure. Is that too much to ask for? I dread to even think about the smaller universities. Policy measures will only be effective if they touch every university in India where even today young students can only dream of doing cutting edge science. Is anyone listening?

While acknowledging certain intangibles, like timing the application to suit the temporally labile predilections (which are not usually advertised) of departments and institutes and for which there are no apparent ways of fine tuning the application process let me discuss a few issues that may have aided my candidature. It is imperative to note that I am discussing these in retrospect and did not have coherent strategy at the time of applying. Further, this discussion is relevant only for government run research institutes and university departments, as I did not apply to private or public-private ventures.

Let me suggest the following based on my experience:

1. Talk to peers who have completed their PhDs from India recently. This helps in understanding some nuances and quirks of specific institutions. However, be aware that the picture painted will be unrealistically grim and laced with an unhealthy dose of pessimism.

2. If possible, time your application such that when you are interviewing you are well under 35 years of age. While there is nothing official about this, it is certainly strongly preferred.

3. If you have been away from India for some time, it is worth visiting some institutions informally (not as an applicant), perhaps a year before you apply. This develops perspective for the application process, allows interactions with Indian faculty who may evaluate your application later, develops an understanding for what these institutions may be looking for and establishes contacts that stand in good stead even if you join a different institute. The latter is invaluable during the next step – establishing an independent research programme.

4. Prepare an application package with your CV, 3-5 page proposed research programme and a cover letter which clearly indicates a period of time (say 15 days) that you will be available in India and be willing to visit and present your work. I sent my package in the latter half of January and indicated I would be available late April- early May. The proposed research programme should be realistic – not purposefully grandiose in order to impress and neither deliberately watered down in order to appear frugal. Write what you really want to do in a pragmatic manner; usually this also ends up conveying the excitement of your research area.

5. Be prepared to hear nothing back from about 40% of the places you write to. A gentle reminder few weeks later helps. If you still here nothing, it may be worth contacting some of the young faculty close to your area of interest – this worked for me at least in one case. While finalizing the dates for you visit, try to ensure that the Head of Department/Chairperson/equivalent is available during that period. Also, indicate that you would like to spend time meeting as many faculty members as possible. Insist on this when you arrive – this is not normal practice in some places. Send the title and abstract of your talk in advance.

6. For the presentation, focus on the Biology and do not attempt to overwhelm with techniques and data. A single, coherent story, even if it is open-ended, is likely to make a bigger impact – there is always your CV and one-on-one contact with faculty for the rest.

7. During your visit, also try to get answers for questions you may have. Housing matters, funding, specialized research facilities you need, mentoring, childcare support, organizational structure, teaching/research balance are some topics worth exploring. It is also worth discussing with the Chairperson or equivalent about your specific research needs.

8. If your application is processed further, this is the time Letters of Recommendation are sought. A lot of value is placed on these and it is advisable to request your mentors to be prepared even before you send your application package. Ensure your mentors have a copy of your CV and research plan, which helps them to write a strong, personalized letter. The number of letters requested is typically 4-5 but can be up to 10!

9. Assuming all goes well, usually one receives a rather cryptic email indicating heightened interest in your application and enquiring if they should process it further. Apparently there are a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to be crossed in order to generate an offer letter and equally as many to withdraw one if you decline. Thus standard practice is getting a firm commitment before generating an offer letter. Some places prefer the less confusing option of calling and discussing this telephonically. In all cases it is well worth asking for a few days to think and proceed further telephonically in order to avoid confusions and misinterpretations. Effectively, in most cases one receives an official offer letter only when one has accepted the offer in principle.

10. This is also the time for securing reassurances for research support, start up funds, space, moving allowances, etc. This varies according to need and it may be well worth sending the list of requirements with a timeline – say, those needed immediately, those in 3 yrs, those in 5 yrs, etc. The dialogue that follows allows the applicant and the institution to develop a programme of commitment to each other. Note, typically, none of this will be assured in written form – the rather sterile Government offer letter format precludes this.

11. Next, comes the excruciating process of choosing which offer to take up. While there is no fixed formula for this, the following are some issues I took into consideration. Is there an overarching mission that the place has? For e.g., my current employer is committed to marrying scientific research with undergraduate teaching; academic freedom and liberty to pursue my research interests; support available and committed for my research programme; the academic environment and scientific critical mass; presence of potential mentors and collaborators; personal issues related to location, family concerns, etc.

There will usually be a gap between acceptance of an offer and starting. I decided to take 4 months off to travel before I started my new job. However, as if starting a lab of my own wasn’t daunting enough, I had chosen to go to a newly established 2-year old institute. This posed some special problems but the following are some general suggestions to have a working lab ready as soon as possible.

1. If possible, convince your employer to have you visit briefly (for a week or so) even if you’re actually going to take up the position months later. This opportunity will provide a perspective very different from when you came as a candidate and should be used to assess the space to be given to you, learn about funding, recruitment and procurement methods. Further, it is an opportunity to solicit help from existing faculty for building your laboratory.

2. With the support of existing faculty and the administration, it may be possible to start making procurements even before you physically start. If shared equipment purchases are being made see if you can piggyback on these. For example, upon learning that a research microscope was being bought I suggested the inclusion of certain configurations that would make it suitable for my use. Even for material to be used exclusively in your own research it is well worth initiating purchase of such items before joining – my employer was generous enough to help me with this.

3. Similarly, piggybacking on departmental advertisements and procedures for recruitment helps to have potential candidates for various positions shortlisted for interviews as soon as you join.

4. Once you have started, it is worth making an effort to develop a relationship with the administration, particularly the purchase section – not only to learn the procedures but also to be able to inveigle ones way out of needless delays.

5. Recruitment of staff and students requires special care as this impinges on the lab environment and is particularly critical in the first few years. There are multiple possible strategies; personally, I put equal emphasis on intellectual abilities, demonstrable laboratory skills and personality. Initially, at least a pair or two of hands are required to get the lab off the ground but I am of the opinion that care should be exercised in not conceptualizing initial hires as just manual labour.

6. Interact with other new faculty within and without your institution in order to tap into the collective experience for innovative solutions for shared problems.

7. A large number of funding opportunities are available in India. International funding is also accessible. It is advisable to secure independent funding to achieve independence and to smoothen vicissitudes of core institutional funding. Further, a positive peer review process, where available, often strengthens the research programme.


There are multiple ways of getting it right while looking for jobs in India and subsequently establishing a laboratory. I have mentioned few that I have experienced over the last year or so. These are neither comprehensive and nor a one-shoe-fits-all strategy, rather they are documented to merely provide pointers.

Until very recently, many Indian scientists did not have access to sophisticated infrastructure and a robust support system for managing their research projects. This made research an insurmountable ordeal, especially for the new graduate student. Thus young scientists tend to migrate to developed countries after completing their PhD, leaving their mentors to train graduate students all over again! Additionally, absence of a critical mass of scientists working in related fields in their institutes either prevents collaborative efforts completely or leads Indian PIs to seek collaboration with foreign labs. In order to foster collegiality, mentorship and to nurture successful working groups it is exceedingly important to have sufficient numbers of scientists with complementary skills working together. Finally, the absence of efficient and speedy purchase procedures have been prohibitive for the success of our scientists.

The good news is that a nation-wide understanding of these problems has led to huge investments by the Government of India in building the required infrastructure and creating many new jobs. While government agencies are the primary funders of basic research world-wide, independent agencies have provided extremely competitive support funding that has allowed successful individuals to position themselves as leaders in their fields. The Wellcome Trust (UK), The Howard Hughes (USA) and the HFSP fellowships are a few of such examples.

The WT-DBT India Alliance fellowships are modeled on the Wellcome Trust fellowships and are aimed to identify the current and future leaders of Indian science. Through our competitive schemes we will select the most promising young scientists and fund them generously- and flexibly, to accommodate unexpected experiments!! Our mode of funding, promises to ensure the fun of research in India.

We are looking for the current and future leaders of Indian science and to build global centers of excellence in India. Therefore, we are offering three types of fellowship, spanning key career stages from recently qualified post-docs to experienced researchers. These fellowships will be available to Indian nationals or overseas citizens of India. Exceptional candidates who are not of Indian origin, but who wish to conduct research in India, will also be eligible.

The India Alliance will consider applications from fellows working across the breadth of biomedical science including clinical and public health research. Our support is not restricted to work related to health issues relevant to India as long as the science is original, innovative and excellent!

I am also keen to ensure that this research will be carried out across India, rather than being concentrated - as it is now - in the metropolitan cities. We are aiming to support an even distribution of talent across the country, and hope that the infrastructure will also be distributed similarly.

In evaluating the very best scientists and their proposals, we lean on expert reviewers and selection committees that include leaders from all over the world including India, to ensure an international perspective along with sensitivity to Indian conditions.

The India Alliance has a very competent team of grants advisors and managers who are themselves PhDs with post-doctoral experience that has allowed them to specialize and therefore they have the required understanding in facilitating evaluation of the proposals. I invite all potential applicants to get in touch with our team at info@wellcomedbt.org and to visit our website www.wellcomedbt.org. We may take up to a week to reply to your queries, but we will reply! If you are in a hurry and don’t wish to miss a deadline – call us. Our contact numbers are given at the website as well.

Heading up one of the major new initiatives to boost biomedical research in India is a massive challenge that I am ready to face head on. I am looking forward to bringing back a lot of talent to India and keeping them here.

Introduction
The Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (inStem), is an autonomous institute of the Department of Biotechnology, located at and nurtured by the NCBS, Bangalore. The mandate of inStem is to serve as the umbrella organization for three initiatives: inStem itself, located at NCBS, Bangalore represents the core intramural program for interdisciplinary basic and translational research in frontier areas of stem cell and regeneration biology, the Center for Stem Cell Research (CSCR) located at CMC Vellore, a center for translational and clinical research in stem cells and regenerative medicine, and an Extramural Program in Stem Cell Research, a funding initiative for support of stem cell research nationwide.

Mission: Collaborative Research, Education, Innovation

The mission of inStem is to create a highly cooperative environment that enables scientists and clinicians to work in collaborative teams or clusters. Through such interactions, inStem will create a critical mass to tackle challenging problems that are beyond the scope of the traditional single principal investigator-driven laboratory. inStem will strive to create a think-tank environment that encourages innovative experimentation by bringing together experimental biologists and clinicians, chemists, physicists, engineers and computational scientists in a common culture.

inStem research programs will be conceived as collaborative team-based approaches to address outstanding questions in stem cell biology with implications for human health. One current initiative is the development of an interdisciplinary international collaboration on cardiac hypertrophy and regeneration spanning a spectrum of investigations from single molecule biophysical platforms through cellular and molecular studies in ES and iPS cells and differentiated cardiomyocytes to cardiac physiology in genetically engineered mouse models, and approaching systems, translational and human studies. Advanced technology groups at the newly established Center for Cellular and Molecular Platform Technologies (C-CAMP) will work closely with teams at inStem. C-CAMP will also manage inStem's interfaces with industry.

Platforms and Resources

inStem will create platforms and resources that will permit investigators to rapidly engage in interdisciplinary research. inStem will have access to existing high-end facilities at NCBS and develop new platforms jointly with NCBS and C-CAMP as a mission of the Bangalore Biocluster.

Technologies and resources will include genomics, proteomics, structure determination, bio-infomatics, systems modeling, imaging, flow cytometry, HTS assay development, chemical libraries etc.
Cultured cells will include ES cells, iPS cells, adult stem cells (HSC, MSC, epithelial stem cells, muscle stem cells, neural stem cells) of human and model organism origin.

Model organisms: In addition to a sophisticated mouse genetics facility, inStem will develop core facilities for work on Hydra, Planaria, C. elegans, Drosophila, and Zebrafish.


Academic Educational Program

inStem will engender a vibrant educational and training program for postdocs, graduate students and project trainees. In addition to didactic and practical courses for PhD level training that will be developed jointly with CSCR, C-CAMP and NCBS, inStem will hold workshops and conferences on frontier areas in stem cell research and applications.
Positions

Located in the Bangalore Biocluster, inStem is built on a new model in science innovation, and seeks excellent individuals at all levels, who are convinced that collaborative endeavor will drive greater basic insight and application. A key focus will be on the creation of a supportive environment for outstanding young investigators, just post-PhD, through a Fellows Program. Because of the focus on interdisciplinary approaches, we encourage scientists from all branches of the natural and physical sciences, engineers and clinicians to apply. In addition to core faculty, individuals heading resource/technology platforms will be will be offered attractive career paths and encouraged to participate in academic research as well develop industry interface programs.

People, Contacts

Officiating Director
K. VijayRaghavan vijay@ncbs.res.in (also Director NCBS)

Deans
S. Ramaswamy ramas@ncbs.res.in (also CEO of C-CAMP)
Jyotsna Dhawan jdhawan@ncbs.res.in

Adjunct Faculty
Maneesha Inamdar, JNCASR inamdar@jncasr.ac.in

Administrative Officer
K.M. Basavaraj kmbasavaraj@ncbs.res.in

Administrative Support
Suma hamsa@ncbs.res.in

Website (coming soon) www.inStem.res.in