Applying for a new job is always challenging, irrespective of the time and place. In my opinion and I am sure that many will agree with me that it is a monumental task if you are applying from abroad for a job in India. The complexity of the application procedure is multiplied if you are looking within academia for research positions.

After obtaining my Ph.D. in Biology from Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in 2005, I moved to National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a post doctoral fellowship (PDF). From the very first day of my PDF, I was determined to return and start my research career in India. Since, I had a Ph.D. from India, I was aware of the procedure and time line that it takes to apply and finally get a job. In short, I was ready to face the challenges and was prepared for frustrations that application procedures bring along.

However, I must admit that my transition to a research career in India was rather smooth. With more and more technology in place, the application procedure has been stream lined in many institutes across India. Most of the applications I submitted were in the format provided online on the websites of different institutes. One basic thing that was lacking from these was responsiveness to the application. If possible, it should be made mandatory for institutes to acknowledge the receipt of any application promptly. It was evident from their lack-luster response that following your application is utmost responsibility of the applicant. Even if one is ready to undertake this responsibility, the correct contacts for follow up is not provided, which only increases and adds to the frustration of the applicant.

As I was approaching the end of my PDF and began a quest to become independent, one of the first things I did was shortlist the institutes in India that I wanted to apply to. I prepared the shortlist based on my interest and inclination to teach. As much as I enjoy doing research, I find it highly gratifying to mentor, educate young students and motivate them towards science. So I targeted places that provide me the best of both worlds – teaching and research. It is critical to understand your need and ambitions before embarking upon the arduous task of application process. This helps identifying the institutes that are suitable for you. This aspect of application is as critical as anything else. So for anyone undertaking the task of finding an academic position, my first and foremost advice would be to take some time to understand your requirement and those of institutes. It is of no avail to apply to as many places as you can without factoring in the match or suitability. A well thought out application process not only avoids a lot of frustration but also saves on time.

Based on my interests, IISERs were an ideal place for me to apply. The basic ground on which IISER's stand is to motivate young talents towards basic research as early as possible. This was very attractive to me. Apart from IISERs, I also applied to several IITs, Universities and relatively small institutes that have teaching and research opportunities. Basically, I targeted the institutes that have the teaching and research opportunities a plenty.

I was fortunate enough to have Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) constituted by Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) of Govt. of India respond very promptly to my application. IISER's stood out remarkably in acknowledging the receipt as well as responding to the queries I had regarding my application. IISER Bhopal was exceptional in being quick in their responses. Another progressive step taken from the IISER towards my application was my online interview over Skype. I was given ample time to prepare for the interview. What was more encouraging for me was the response time to know if I have been selected or not. The turn-around time was 2-3 days and I must say that the Department of Biological Sciences (DBS) did very good in helping authorities make decision promptly. I was given almost 6 months to join the institute. Due to some unforeseen reason I could not join on the stipulated time. I highly appreciate the cooperation shown by the DBS and the Director of IISER Bhopal in letting me have some time I requested before I could finally join the Institute. My move from USA to Bhopal was very smooth and it was well coordinated and cooperated by IISER Bhopal.

Science education and research in India is experiencing a huge fillip. In addition to cutting edge and exciting research in existing institutes (see for example: The biological sciences in India: aiming high for the future.Vale RD, Dell K.J Cell Biol. 2009. 184:342-53), a number of new and exciting educational initiatives have been set into motion in the past four years. This is not only transforming the opportunities for talented young students of science, but also providing an incentive for researchers to return to India at this time. However, the scale of the operation poses many challenges. This is mainly in light of a lack of adequately trained teachers and researchers in the cutting edge areas of science in India today. This is particularly acute for Biology, where the number of top quality practicing scientists in the whole country of India just about approach that in a medium sized university system in the US.

In this regard, some of us (members of the IAC) felt that the membership of the ASCB provides a wonderful opportunity to draw on a pool of talented and inspiring teachers and researchers to help bridge this gap in India, in somespecific areas where a set of identified institutes have expressed a need. To initiate this engagement, we contacted a few colleagues in three institutes to ask their views about what they would envisage for such a program. At the outset, I must add that this initiative has received very positive replies and reflects huge enthusiasm to engage with ASCB researchers.

In the initial phase of this engagement, the National Centre for Biological Sciences will serve as a nodal agency to coordinate the arrangements in India. In addition to spending some time at any one or more of the institutes listed below, we hope that ASCB members will be able to visit NCBS during their stay in India and engage with researchers and students and also give research seminar(s).

A number of Biology coordinators at the newly founded Indian Institutes for Science Education and Research, abbreviated, as almost everything is in India, as the IISERs (see below for an explanation of IISER) and the newly formed Stem Cell Biology Institute called inSTEMhave expressed an interest in having members of the ASCB visit India for a few months at a time and possibly teach a course at an institution in India. I think these institutions present an excellent opportunity for ASCB members to engage with an international effort in India. Teaching an excellent freshman course could be very valuable at some places while more advanced courses including hands on workshops at others. The presence of these researchers on campus interacting with the students over a period of a few months would leave an even more lasting impression. Workshops are also an important activity that will bring to bear the considerable human resource base of the ASCB to this exciting experiment in Research and Educationin India.

Satyajit Mayor (NCBS) and Jim Spudich(Stanford), both ASCB IAC members, HemaSomanathan and MK Mathew (for IISER, Trivandrum), L. Shashidhara (for IISER, Poona), and JyotsnaDhawan (for inSTEM, Bangalore) have agreed to act as the initial coordinators:
Interested participants may write to Satyajit Mayor or Jim Spudichwho will in turn direct your enquiries to the coordinators below.

Background on some ofthe institutes and their individual requirements:
IISERs:
The Indian Institutes for Science Education and Research (IISER) at Trivandrum and Poona are two of five such institutes set up by the Government of India over the past 4 years. The others are in Mohali, Bhopal and Kolkata. These institutes admit students after high school for an Integrated Masters programme - ie the students graduate with Masters degrees in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry or Biology. The first 2 years of the programme are common for all incoming students. They choose their majors in their 3rd year and graduate in 5.

The IISERs are not exclusively undergraduate teaching institutions as they also have vigorous research programmes and will (at steady state) be admitting graduate students in significant numbers - perhaps half as many as their undergraduate intake. They also plan to have their undergraduates undertake a year-long research project during their 5th year.

The initial batches of students admitted were drawn in large part from applicants to the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and had ranked among the top in their entrance exam. It is proposed to widen the intake stream. The students are, in general, very bright. However, many of them have limited exposure to or affinity for Biology. It would be extremely valuable to expose these students to very well taught Biology courses and to people who could enthuse them about Biology. That way, the IISERs aim to have many graduating students trained in different disciplines, who have an affinity for Biology. The faculty at the IISERs, have been chosen for research that is intrinsically interdisciplinary and goes beyond the boundaries of conventional thinking, in addition to their obvious research accomplishments, promise and teaching proficiency. One of the great strengths of IISERs is their interdisciplinarity. While purity of individual disciplines are maintained, IISERs have physicists/chemists/biologists and mathematicians working shoulder to shoulder, without any departmental (or compartmental) structure. At IISERs, the ambience is very academic, energy levels are high and there has been great enthusiasm amongst the faculty and students to carry out high quality research.

At IISER, Trivandrum, Kerala (http://iisertvm.ac.in/):
Biology at IISER, Trivandrum (TVM) is anchored by a very small team of biologists, working in very different areas of biology, headed by Prof. HemaSomanathan (hsomanathan@iisertvm.ac.in).

Hema indicates that at IISER, TVM there is a requirement for a lecture and discussion based course with some hands-on workshops, that are feasible with the limited infrastructure currently available in this newly set up institute. Students opting for this course will be familiar with basic concepts in cell biology at undergraduate/early graduate level. Facilities available to aid teaching such a course (or will be shortly available) include fluorescence and phase contrast microscopes, stereomicroscopes, AFM, flow cytometers and tissue culture facilities. The course may be taught in modules by ASCB resource persons, each spending 2-3 weeks, if that is feasible, teaching and guiding hands-on practical sessions.

Suggested course modules may cover topics such as chromatin biology, cytoskeleton and motors, intracellular trafficking, cell signaling, adhesion and motility.
The class will consist of a few biology major and minor students, and a few PhD students. The total class strength will not exceed 10.

IISER, Trivandrum will be delighted to take care of local hospitality and domestic air travel to TVM for the lecturer(s).

At IISER, Poona, Maharashtra(http://www.iiserpune.ac.in):
The IISER at Poona is more advanced in its Biology program, headed by Professor L. Shashidhara, and is interested in hosting intensive workshops on specific topics in Cell and Molecular Biology. In addition to the first proposal, others could also include Tissue and Developmental aspects as well as the Ecological Sciences. At the Poona IISER, it should be possible to coordinate a select set of ASCB members to form a core of a teaching and research intensive workshop on a regular basis.
Shashi says that a course on Fundamentals of cellular mechanics: A workshop for Integrated MS and PhD students, would be very valuable at this stage.
Venue: IISER Poona
Contact: L. Shashidhara (ls.shashidhara@iiserpune.ac.in)
Duration: 2 weeks
Time: Anytime between December to March.
Mode: 2 lectures a day. Hands-on workshop. Available facility: confocal (LSM710), Live cell imaging with TIRF, multi-frequency and sub-angstrom AFMs designed for cellular mechanics work (being built in-house), a specially designed module mounted on confocal for measuring mechanical tension (being built in-house).
In-house faculty: would include biologists, biophysicists, physicists, mathematicians etc.
Outline:
The cell's inherent mechanical properties and its ability to interpret and respond to mechanical stimuli are increasingly being recognized to play a crucial role in the proper function of cells. Deregulation of cellular mechanics is also implicated in a number of pathologies, like the loss of tensional homeostasis in cancer. Therapeutic strategies, like the burgeoning field of tissue engineering, also rest on the foundation of cellular mechanics.

Deformation of the cell's load-bearing structures and mechano-responsive biochemical signaling constitute the two major components of the cell's response to physical forces. The cell also has intrinsic force generation abilities spanning several spatio-temporal scales, including those involved in cell migration, molecular motors and micromechanics of chromatin. The last few years have seen tremendous progress in these areas, particularly with the development of a number of highly sensitive and quantitative tools to study cellular responses to time-varying forces. Theoretical approaches, like the tensegrity model, have been developed and are increasingly guiding experiments or aiding their interpretation.

We propose a workshop where the basic concepts, recent advances, technological innovations and theoretical approaches will be introduced and developed by leading researchers in the area of cell mechanics. IISER Poona, with its emphasis on interdisciplinary research and outreach spanning research scientists to undergraduates is well poised to host this event.

"Yes."

I thought about how much paperwork I usually had to get involved with when I deal with the government, so I laughed and said, "I'll be glad to give the talk. There's only one condition on the whole thing"--I pulled a number out of a hat and continued--"that I don't have to sign my name more than thirteen times, and that includes the check!"

This is how starts an interesting anecdote in the life of famous physicist Richard Feynman and it ends thus,

Finally, it got straightened out. It took a long time, and it was very complicated--but I used the thirteenth signature to cash my check.

Every time, I hear complaints on Indian bureaucracy, I remember this Feynman’s story. Can we run any organization, however small or large, without any organizational set up? Isn’t any governance set up, by default, bureaucratic? Looks like bureaucracy is a necessary evil. Unfortunately, in all large organizations bureaucracy very soon becomes so complicated, no one can comprehend the meaning and purpose of most rules and regulations. They often look too strange, more often highly illogical and irrelevant and at times ridiculous. But, do these rules and regulations really hinder academic growth/performance? Or are they just minor irritants? If former is true, how is then so many universities all over the world are doing so well? Even in India, how is that some institutes and Universities function much better than others?

My feeling is, while all institutions in India are equally bureaucratic, some individuals know the real meaning of the prevailing rules and regulations and make best use of them. If you look at the powers of governing body of any institute/university, you notice a statement that the Governing body has the power “to prescribe rules and regulations for the management and administration of the Institute/University”. This means, “we have” the power to make and to modify our rules. Typical role of the head of any organization is to “exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the Institute/University and implement the decisions of all the authorities of the Institute/University”. By law and by default, all Institute/University depend on several committees to decide on a policy and implementation of the same. Then, how is that head of an Institute/University can become a dictator?

One of the problems of Indian organizations, more than anywhere else in the world, is lack of wholehearted participation by most faculty in the deliberations and implementation of various policies/rules related to their organization/work/professional life. Naturally, heads would depend on few willing people, who put in extra time and the powers soon be in the hands of a small bunch of people. These people, mainly because they put in enormous amount of time for administrative work, may also happen to be poor in their academic performance. Heads, being dependent on them, want to reward them for their help to the organization and often they are promoted at the cost of the promotion of those who have done well academically. The organization would be soon on a slippery slope.

What is the solution? I think solution mostly lies amongst us. Just compare your own set up/institute/university with the other such organization in India, which are better than yours. Ask the question why is that X institute or Y university is better than yours? They may not be as big as M or H or C of west. But they are better than yours. That is what matters most. In most cases, X institute or Y university is better because, there is faculty participation in decision making process.

All of us, who blame the system sitting in our offices and send caustic remarks over e-mails should participate in decision making processes and contribute to all activities of the institute. Just because some wrong decisions are taken or heads have committed some mistake does not mean that they are all with vested interests. Giving up our participation in institutional affairs would only worsen the situation.

In complete contrast to this attitude, I found through a blog a new faculty in a new institute, who is very positive about functioning of various committees of the institute and about her/his role in administrative matters of the institute. Wish more such kind of people work in this country and steer their organizations to perform better.

The first and foremost requirement is to attract enthusiastic and competent young persons to faculty positions in universities. Fulfilling this requirement, however, faces problems from both sides. The typical process of selection in nearly all the central and state universities in the country is so archaic, bureaucratic and often biased because of one or the other factor, that hiring a competent person becomes a low probability event. On the other side, the prospective faculty members do not even want, as their priority choices, to join a university because they often have the impression that teaching robs them of their research time and that the environment in the university/department is not conducive to their growth. Consequently, the university system gets increasingly loaded with "dead wood" and hapless generations of students have to suffer the lack of inspiring teachers and thus do not even have the opportunity to feel the spark that they carry within them. In order to change, the universities must radically modify their recruitment procedure so that aspiring candidates can apply any time of the year and the concerned departments can have the opportunity to discuss in person with those candidates whose CV looks appropriate for the positions that the department wishes to fill. Formal selection committee meetings should make the final selections only following the feed-back after such direct and intensive interactions. The university must also provide adequate "start-up" facilities to the new faculty and at the same time, ensure that the new faculty is not loaded with enormous teaching responsibilities from day one. During the first one or two years of first-time appointment, the Assistant Professor should be given a little more time to set up the laboratory and prepare oneself for teaching.

The young prospective faculty as well as those responsible for appointments carry a general bias that those who have spent several years as post-doctoral fellow outside India are better than those who do not have such experience. This impression, which may not always be correct, has deprived the country of a thriving post-doctoral culture, and at the same time, it also has, in my view, adversely affected the quality of teaching in our universities. It is a general experience that most of those who had a productive post-doctoral experience abroad become reluctant to involve in teaching. This reluctance stems from the fact that they have been away from formal teaching/learning process for several years (time taken for Ph.D. plus the years as post-doctoral fellow) and thus hesitate taking up the responsibility of teaching. In addition, being in a university in India generally implies significantly poor infrastructure compared to that in research institutions. In the absence of "good" applicants, the universities have to hire faculty out of whatever is available, which, in view of the above, is unlikely to be the best or better! More often, it may be in agreement with the addict "those who can, do and those who cannot, teach!".

I think the university system should not be biased against young and fresh talent and should support them adequately in their teaching as well as research efforts. Someone with a liking for teaching and starting as faculty at a younger age is likely to better succeed in mastering the art of teaching than late-starters.

Interest in teaching also suffers because of the fact that the career advancement (promotions, awards/recognitions) are almost entirely based on research productivity with quality of teaching having little consideration. Although the students' evaluation of teachers is in principle a necessary requirement (at least in departments/universities recognized by UGC-recognized under the SAP or UPE programs or those accredited by the NAAC), this very constructive activity is rarely undertaken and even if undertaken for record sake, the students' assessment of teachers is very rarely actually utilized for faculty assessment. Unfortunately, the current UGC guidelines for teachers' eligibility for promotions etc also do not provide any incentive for teaching! The UGC and the university governance system must rectify this serious lacuna.

I personally believe that teaching does not really hamper research, rather it helps generate newer ideas/questions. Teaching requires much wider reading and interactions with a large number of creatively active students. Both these provide opportunities to think of one's own research in seemingly different backgrounds, which may be expected to foster better integration. Thus if good facilities and congenial environment is created in the universities, the faculty members would have the double advantage of good research and satisfaction/pleasure of teaching.

The vicious circle of poor infrastructure leading to poor faculty which invites poorer applications for new appointments can be broken on one hand by proactively improving/radically changing the governance system about the recruitment procedures and by creating congenial atmosphere. The other actors who can dramatically break this vicious circle are the younger aspirants themselves. It would be too much to expect the existing non-doers to transform into doers, but those who take the challenge afresh should and indeed can help improve the system by their own positive efforts: once several such individual efforts in any department/university begin to occur in concert, the system would readily improve and become self-sustaining. A good encouraging silver lining is that the governmental investments in the education sector, especially science teaching/learning, are increasing and this trend is expected to increase as the country moves into the 12th 5-year plan. The young potential faculty members must take advantage of this welcome development.

To emerge a truly knowledge society in the globalized world today, India needs to have quality education at all levels and in all fields. This requires proactive roles from all the stake-holders. The challenge for the present young generation and aspiring faculty is to provide far better education system to their next generation than they themselves experienced. Some sacrifice at this stage would pay rich dividends for future generations. That remains the best reward/satisfaction for a teacher.

Preface

Dr. Lakhotia and I chose to write our October blogs on the Indian universities, unknowing of the other's intent or content. These blogs arose independently after stimulating conversations that we had at BHU. A couple of blogs from two individuals is but a drop in a reservoir that needs to be filled. This situation demands a sustained dialogue, brain storming, and a commitment of time (not just money) by many individuals to improve the future prospects of universities as well as colleges in India.

Indian Universities: The Time is Now

India has dug itself into a deep hole with regard to its university level educational system in the life sciences. The development of research institutes from the 1970s to the present enabled India to modernize its research efforts in biology, particularly molecular biology. However these new research institutes were built as isolated entities, physically and intellectually separated from universities from their inception. The reason is perhaps obvious; directors of new institutes wanted to be freed of the arcane bureaucracy and antiquated research enterprise of the universities. A fresh start is what is needed for progress. However, universities not only failed to benefit intellectually from the new research institutes, but the "new" sucked up resources from the "old". The much greater financial government support of research institutes is one obvious disparity. However, as big, if not a bigger problem in my opinion, has been the "brain drain" from the universities, as incoming, accomplished scientists flocked to establish careers within the institutes. As a result of >25 years of neglect, the universities, once proud centers of learning in post-independence India, now seem like unattended gardens where only the hardiest flowers survive.

But this strategy of divorcing research from education has been short-sighted. India has some truly outstanding high schools; from visiting a few high schools, my impression is that the science and math education is on par if not better than American high schools. At the top rung of the educational ladder, the best research institutes in India are doing very well and provide good training environments for Masters and Ph.D. students. But the middle has suffered. For those pursuing science rather than an engineering degree, are these bright first-year Indian undergraduates receiving a world-class science education? Are they being exposed to the best minds in Indian biology? At this pivotal age, are they being turned on to science by enthusiastic teachers and researchers? Unfortunately, positive answers to these questions are the exception rather than the rule. By contrast, undergraduate students (including first-years) at Stanford, MIT, Princeton, UCB, and numerous other universities are lectured by their best scientists. These campuses thrive by combining missions of education and research, not by separating them.

One response of the Indian government to this dilemma was to create the IISERs and NICERs, an inspired decision to combine education/research for undergraduates. But they are new, building up slowly and enrolling relatively small numbers of students. But what about the Universities? Can something be done with these >300 establishments, which are in various states of decline? The problem seems overwhelming. There are not enough life preservers for all of them, at least in the near term. And while money will help (infrastructure improvement, faculty salaries, etc); unfortunately, it is not the entire answer. The research and teaching culture of the universities also needs to be reinvigorated, after what has been a long period of malaise. Without taken culture into account and advancing creative efforts to improve it, large sums of money could pour in from Delhi but not take hold, vanishing like rain onto a parched ground

It is easy to state the problem, but much harder to offer a solution. The central government is now established "top down" funding programs such as establishing new Centers of Excellence in specific technologies or research topics in the universities. This has certainly been helpful. However, bottom up approaches are needed to complement top-down approaches and reward local efforts. Here, I offer two relatively lost-cost, grass roots ideas that, while being limited in scope, might have some impact on the culture of a few proactive Universities. If a few Universities benefit and improve, others are likely to follow.

Fostering "Groups of Excellence"

Excellence needs to be recognized and encouraged at the universities. With promotions dictated by a clock (years of service) rather than performance, there are few incentives to aspire beyond common expectations. Yet, some university faculty members are doing good research (especially given the limited resources), deliver inspiring lectures, act as good mentors to students, and remain committed to the future of their university.

These committed and outstanding faculty constitute the university's greatest asset and also represent their greatest hope for improvement. They need to be given better resources and recognition, so that they can aspire to work beyond the status quo. I would like to see a new grants program for "Groups of Excellence", to be awarded to a collection of 3-5 faculty who have performed well both as scientists and teachers. Importantly, a "Group of Excellence" grant would not only require evidence of past performance but be based upon a forward looking vision of a grant proposal to 1) develop and teach innovative curriculum, 2) provide a mentoring program for junior faculty, 3) develop or improve a research facility (so that many people at the university benefit), and 4) expand research efforts in their own laboratories. Some of these ideas are based other successful grant programs. The HHMI Professors program has provided excellent teachers/researchers with funds for developing innovative curriculum at their universities. Human Frontiers Science Program encourages new collaborations between scientists (in their case between countries, but in the "Group of Excellence" model, collaboration between educator/scientists within or between departments would be fostered). A key point of this grant model is that funds would not be awarded to Department Chair or Dean of Faculty of Science, where politics are likely to govern the allocation and diminish the outcome as a result. Instead, this grant scheme would reward the best university faculty on a competitive basis and also those who are willing to self-organize and make a forward-looking plan that will not only benefit their laboratory but their institution as a whole.

Revamping the Recruitment Process

While the above scheme will promote outstanding current faculty, universities also must recruit excellent junior faculty if they are to survive and flourish in the future. However, despite the growing enrollment of students, the number of junior faculty at Universities is low and many open positions remain unfilled. This trend is particularly worrisome, given that these recruitment difficulties are occurring concurrently with a rapidly growing interest of postdocs being trained abroad (and within India itself) in pursuing academic careers in India. Furthermore, while there are more job positions becoming available in the institutes and IISERs, the numbers are not sufficient to match the number of credible Indian scientists seeking academic employment. If Universities desperately need new blood and there is a big pool of potential applicants, what is the problem? The reasons are several fold- universities have many arcane procedures for hiring (discouraging most applicants), have extremely limited start-up funds, and lack protected time for research in the first two years (unlike US Universities which ramp up teaching in the first few years).

Universities must revamp many of their restrictive guidelines and develop more progressive hiring procedures in order to be competitive. The exact strategy of revamping recruitment and hiring needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as each university is saddled with its own guidelines and limitations. However, some general ideas include extending the time window for application deadlines, instituting a "recruiting season" and potentially coordinating visits of postdoc applicants with several universities, networking to advertise jobs (IndiaBioscience.Org, Current Science, etc), potentially recruiting small clusters (2-3) of collaborating junior faculty (making a university potentially attractive over research institutes which might only be able to hire one person), and developing more inviting and enticing recruiting days for interviewing job candidates. It is essential that more university faculty be involved in recruitment. This is especially true for junior faculty who are largely excluded from this activity, despite the fact they are the most effective ambassadors for enticing new faculty to come (as is well established in US universities). Revamping recruitment will require the Vice-Chancellors and Dept. Chairs of the universities to reconsider their administrative procedures (a painful process). Senior faculty must be open to change in their departmental culture and in their support of junior faculty (even if that was not part of their upbringing in the Indian academic system). While not easy to change, the alternate is the status quo, which is pointing towards university life science departments not being able to renew themselves or propagating in a substandard manner. University departments that become more progressive in recruitment will become beacons for young scientists, who have excellent sensors for good scientific environments and good colleagues.

In addition to improving the recruitment process, India must support excellent young scientists who are willing to take a chance on the university system. Currently, the universities are very democratic, as they bestow similar resources on all faculty within their system. However, US and European universities flourish by providing incentives based upon performance. I would propose that India (or Wellcome-DBT) provide a new grant for outstanding junior faculty to start credible research efforts in the university system. Ideally, this could be awarded on a competitive basis to postdocs before they apply to and take a job at a university, thus making them attractive from the onset and freeing them from any departmental politics. The Wellcome-DBT Alliance provides a series of competitive career grants to individuals, the goal in part being to make India sufficiently attractive to postdocs who also will get good job offers in the US/Europe. However, virtually all of these excellent grants go to individuals who become faculty within research institutes or IISERs. A similar type of grant program could be developed to make universities sufficiently attractive for starting careers, such that a capable Indian scientist might be tempted to join a university over a research institute within India. Even a grant program with a small number of slots (e.g. 5-10) could have an enormous national impact for a relatively small cost.

Conclusions

Universities/India must act now to reverse a long trend towards obsolescence, as the rest of the world races forward with its educational systems. The IISERs are a bright addition and already successful, but are insufficient in scope and represent a typical trend of building anew instead of solving problems lingering from the past. More money from Delhi to select universities will help infrastructure, but does not represent the entire answer. The most immediate need is people and ways of recognizing/rewarding excellence. The "star" university faculty, who are the role models for students and junior faculty, need to be recognized, supported, and encouraged to do more in face of considerable inertia and political obstacles. Universities also need to recruit better junior faculty, as they will infuse new energy into the system and become the university's future and leadership. Is change unrealistic? I would argue not, because this is a small numbers game- a few people can make an enormous difference! A couple of good senior mentors together with 3-4 junior faculty can completely change the character and culture of a department. Success stories in a few university/college departments will provide optimism. It also will send a message that India cares about its faculty who are dedicated to the mission of university-level education and willing to take a risk in their careers to make it succeed.

I started my career as an active scientist and at some point turned towards scientific administration, merging my scientific training with professional management skills to do so. In writing this blog, I hope that junior researchers will be able to see that a career in academic science is but one end point of scientific training. There are many other paths one could adopt, with a bit of patient seeking of opportunities, planning, training, honest assessment of one’s interests and above all- mentorship.

I started my scientific career pursuing Biochemistry at the undergraduate and Master’s levels. Those years gave me the breadth and depth of training in several areas of modern biology such as molecular biology, immunology, physiology and structural biology. A Cambridge Commonwealth Fellowship then took me to Cambridge for a wonderful period of learning about developmental biology in model organisms. This was also the time when my son was born. Confronted with the responsibility of parenthood, I paused to seek honest answers to some difficult questions: where could I find a self-sustaining career that would allow me to integrate my various interests in life. At that point, I realized that a career in academic science was perhaps not for me. I wanted a job that would make use of my scientific training, be people-oriented and leave me room to develop in other areas aligned with my own inherent interests.

Consequently, I joined the Wellcome Trust in London as a Science Program Officer within the Cell and Developmental Biology team. This was a focused role, looking after scientific aspects of grant administration within my area of expertise. This was when I first encountered the idea of “facilitation” and what flexible funding could do to further good scientific ideas. This was also when I was introduced to the inner workings of several other activities of the Trust including their phenomenal investment division, public engagement team and meetings office to name a few. My mentors at the Trust coaxed me out of my comfort zones and within a short span of time, I expanded on the range of scientific interests, started administering Fellowship schemes, organizing scientific meetings, looking after research institutes and above all- engaging with the larger scientific community. As part of my career development at the Trust, I also had opportunities to train in new areas such as process mapping and business planning. These sessions were not intended to make me an expert in any particular area, but rather to see what a difference professional management could make to any activity. And I realized that this new career actually worked for me.

Around this time, my family and I decided to move back to India from Cambridge. I was unsure of what career opportunities existed in India for a scientist with my skill set and was prepared to take an initial career break, assess the job market and to then make an informed choice about my work. However, the timing of the move coincided well with new developments on the NCBS campus in Bangalore. NCBS were looking for a scientific administrator to set up and run a grants office and this suited me perfectly. Following a series of interactions, much like new Group leaders starting at Indian institutes, I accepted the job at NCBS. In late 2010, with support from my new mentors at NCBS, I set up the NCBS Research Development Office and now work closely with the scientific community on campus to facilitate applications for extramural support from local and international agencies. Running the RDO at NCBS makes full use of all the skills I acquired as a Funding professional at the Trust and has also required me to listen, observe, learn and adapt further. It has been a great experience so far, instructive for me and hopefully useful for the scientific community on the Bangalore Biocluster campus.

Since India Bioscience is substantially about mentorship, here are my own views on the subject. I have been extremely fortunate to have had some great mentors along my career path. Rarely have these remarkable individuals taught me how to do my job - rather they have consistently shown me the “big picture”, encouraged me be honest with myself and found me courage when my own failed me. It is vital to pick one’s mentors wisely. Your mentor does not need to be a woman because you are one. Your mentor does not need to be a scientist because you are one. Rather, your mentor needs to have a sustained interest in your development as it makes a useful contribution to the bigger picture.

Exploring alternative careers in science requires some legwork and retraining. So if you find yourself interested, seek experts in the area, talk to them and if possible, train with them. Much as you would pursue post-doctoral training.

More information on the Research Development Office at NCBS is available at http://www.ncbs.res.in/rdo

What are the shortcomings in the current job search process in India? From the postdoc point of view, the first issue is where and how to apply. Getting such information is often non-trivial. First, many postdocs are familiar with a few of the better known institutes. However, since they have been in the US or Europe for several if not many years, they are often not up-to-date with what has and is happening in India, and might miss an appropriate opportunity (see final paragraph of this blog). As a result, they may not apply to a good place with an open job, simply because they were unaware of it or unaware of recent improvements/changes in its research and infrastructure. Second, many of the academic institutes have "standing job searches". By this I mean that they do not have a firm deadline, followed by a quick review by a search committee who gets back to the applicant, as occurs in most US job searches. Instead, applicants send their CV, research description by email, and frequently complain that they never receive any response. Were they not interested, is this a really functional job search, are they not taking any more applicants, did my application drop into an email black hole, was it ever reviewed by anyone credible? Naturally this can be very frustrating and discouraging for a postdoc applicant. And there are problems from the other side as well. A director or chair might get hundreds of email applications with long and often poorly organized CVs and research descriptions. The majority of applicants may be not suitable, and it takes a lot of time to go through this material.

So how could one help this process by making it easier for postdocs and chairs/directors to get in touch (and without creating a lot of additional work)? Here is where IBS might help. The idea is to create a job search data base format, essentially allowing a postdoc to "apply" or be seen by many institutes, universities at once. In your job search profile, you (the postdoc) would enter essential information such as your significant publications (no more than five), current research interest/experiences (250 words), future research/educational interests (250 words), up to 10 key words describing your research, any geographic preference (if any), type of job interest(s) (research institute, university, industry, and/or other types of jobs), and approximate time in which you would be able to start a position. In addition to this searchable information, the postdoc can upload more conventional and detailed information in pdf format, such as a full CV and three page research description. This data base would be password protected, and Institutes, Universities or other establishments would have contact IBS to gain access to the site (without fee). The advantage for postdocs is that your application might be seen by a very good place to which you did not apply to or might have gotten lost in the shuffle in the standard application process. You can also put your information out early (to see if there are any nibbles) and update as your career progresses (e.g. new publications). The advantage for institutions is that they can quickly get information on applicants that might be a particularly good fit for their goals. For example, a Chair at JNU could search within one minute to see if there are any applicants interested in being considered for a University position, might have a preference for Northern India, and have a research program in ecology (perhaps the focus of a new search). He/she could then quickly look through the brief research description, publications, and if still interested, upload the CV and research proposal. The Chair might then email the applicant, say that they are potentially interested and would the applicant be so kind as to send letters of recommendation. And so the courtship begins. Naturally, it is good for postdocs to have more than one suitor, and they might be approached by more than one institution. Also, optional information could be added to the data base which might facilitate some specific searches- "I am a computational scientist working on protein structure prediction. Ideally, I would prefer to join a department that has a structural biology group or that would be interested in hiring young structural biologist in the future."

Would this work? It naturally depends how many postdocs submit information to such a data base. What do you think? Would you? Second, once the data base has a reasonable number of entries, IBS would contact chairs and directors so that could look at this data base and use it. It is not "business as usual", so some cajoling will be in order. However, IBS is up for this challenge. Universities and Institutes are under increasing pressure to find the best people to fill their ever growing number of positions. If such a dating game helps them in this task, then I am optimistic that they will use it. Moreover, at our last YIM meeting in Orissa, both directors and postdocs seemed interested in the idea. I also would hope that there will be more search committees involving younger faculty as well (see the blog by Dr. Shashidhara called "Democracy in our research organizations") and the entire committee could make use of this data base.

Finally, I will end with a brief story from the last YIM meeting in Bhubaneswar this year, which is not unusual for the types of contacts that can be made through the YIM rather than traditional job application processes. The relatively new Institute of Life Sciences (ILS) in Bhubaneswar was looking for a faculty member in computational biology and had trouble identifying a good person. A computational biology postdoc from Stanford was coming to the YIM and interested in jobs in India, but he did not know about ILS. The director of the ILS (Dr. Ravindran) saw his CV through the YIM and invited him to come visit ILS prior to the meeting. Both postdoc and institute saw a perfect match, a job was offered, and the postdoc will become a faculty member there in 2012. This was an example of "an arranged date" that turned out well. However, YIM in India or Boston can only act as a chaperone for the limited number of postdocs as well as chairs/directors who come to these once per year events. It would be nice to extend such possibilities for courtships to more postdocs (even grad students) and institutions across India. I know of some good and long lasting marriages that started with on-line dating. Why not India life science?

Let's start by considering a typical career trajectory for Indian biologists. Most Indians pursue their postdoctoral training abroad, and this is still a pathway that is encouraged for those who ultimately seek to become faculty members in India. Indian Ph.D. graduates choose their postdoc based upon the same pragmatic factors as their colleagues around the world: Which labs are doing the "best science" that meets their interests? Where do I want to live? Where will I ultimately receive an offer? Lower down on the list are strategic issues related to what research might be best to pursue in India.

Later on in the courting match, Indian Institutes look for the "best candidates" among the pool of available postdocs to fill their open job positions. In the past, the number of candidates was somewhat limited, so the focus has been on finding good people, with less emphasis placed on their area of research (although not strictly true). The new junior faculty then tend to pursue the same area of research that they did as a postdoc. As a result, institutes become populated with an eclectic range of disciplines and little critical mass in any one area. Furthermore, by pursuing work from their postdoc, the Indian faculty tend to work on scientific problems that are already being emphasized in the West. However, with fewer resources, they are at a potential disadvantage for achieving international recognition, as they are directly competing in an already crowded field.

Importantly, India should consider stimulating scientific efforts that are being less actively pursued in the West. By picking strategic niches, it could potentially gain more international recognition as well as promoting research that meets its own societal and educational needs. Examples of such areas might include infectious disease, human genetics of diseases that are prevalent in India, environmental life sciences, and developing new model organisms (see blog by Dr. Lakhotia). Perhaps this idea represents a partial return to the past, or at least a hybrid model. Nehru saw science and technology as being critical for the pragmatic needs of independent India. In the 1980s, the National Center for Cell Science and the National Institute of Immunology were both launched to fulfill very specific goals (creating cell line repositories and vaccine production respectively). Subsequently, these institutes re-created their missions to become very general cell/molecular biology institutes, as was the case of other newly created institutes such as NCBS. In part, this trend was driven by the changing times and appreciation that knowledge creation should be part of the mission of prestigious international scientific institutes. However, it was also likely driven, at least in part, by the "market place". Since relatively few highly successful, foreign-trained Indians wished to return to India, it made sense to open your doors to a successful scientist who wished to join, bringing with them whatever system/problem that they had learned from their foreign lab.

The changing scientific emphasis and hiring trends in India throughout the past half-century made sense, especially given the realities of those times. However, Indian science is changing yet again, as it has more resources and is becoming a more attractive place for conducting science. There is no question that a general system of hiring the best candidates with their postdoctoral research question in tow is still good and still serves as the best general model. Indeed, we still operate by this model at UCSF. However, India might consider being more proactive in taking on specific scientific challenges and making those areas more attractive to young Indians who are starting their labs.

But here is the dilemma - if the Indian diaspora for international postdoctoral training is not effectively training Indians for unique scientific opportunities/niches that can be pursued in India, then what should one do? This is a tough problem, and I do not have a perfect answer. There are two potential solutions, each with challenges and potential problems. One solution is to make it attractive for Indians to choose their postdoctoral training in a particular discipline, for example by offering postdoctoral fellowship support in an international lab working on infectious disease. However, this is a considerable investment and the trainee may decide not return to India at the end of their training. The other solution, which I favor, is to create mechanism that provides a protected opportunity for Indian junior faculty to venture in a very new field from their postdoctoral work. This would be somewhat radical, and I do not know of any precedence in the US or Europe that really does this effectively. It would have to be thought through much more carefully than I am doing in this blog. However, such a plan could have the following components: 1) The opportunity (ie funding) for the junior faculty and perhaps also one student to visit an international laboratory working in a designated training area (e.g. tuberculosis) for 6 months, with a focus on learning techniques/thinking in the field and not to produce a paper, 2) Intensive training courses within India (with Indian and international faculty), akin to the 6-8 week intensive summer courses offered at the Marine Biological Laboratory (which I know well and are very effective), 3) a grant to support the new research area, based upon the overall merit of the individual rather than past papers related to proposed field, and 4) protected time to work in the new field without penalty for lack of publications. This is important since the promotion system saddles junior faculty to their postdoctoral work since they have a greater chance of getting out papers. One would have to construct a tenure process for "pioneer faculty" that evaluates their overall progress in the new field, rather than strictly looking at publications, and/or that extends the time to tenure with salary advancement occurring at the same time intervals as other faculty. Their first "pioneer" grant renewal would similarly have to be evaluated based upon overall lab progress and not strictly on publications. The bottom line - the complete package would have to be attractive so a subset of the best junior faculty would feel secure and be excited about pursuing a new subject area from their postdoctoral work.

A similar type of strategy might be considered for promoting internationally trained Indian scientists to pursue careers that combine research and education in the University system. As an example of the current difficulty, an individual who did their postdoctoral work making mouse knockouts in a Howard Hughes Medical Institute funded laboratory might find it nearly impossible to continue such line of investigation at an Indian University. However, the goal of postdoctoral training should be training - i.e. developing greater maturity about how to approach scientific problems. In the ideal world, it should not lock you into a technique or narrow niche of scientific investigation. It would be helpful if a new University faculty member would have an opportunity to apply for a program that would allow them to retool to tackle a new problem that suits the University environment and might represent a less trodden field (see another blog on such matters by Dr. Lakhotia).

Tight visa regulations and a stagnant job market abroad coupled with awareness for burgeoning opportunities in India have increased their choice of moving back to India. In fact, the paper shows that out of 1,000 Indians surveyed only 8% wanted to firmly stay back in the US with 70% remaining undecided. This is good news for India which needs 1 million new faculty members by 2020.

Institutions like IITs and IIMs were the most preferred destinations in academia for their high quality research and teaching while private universities are almost never considered. Despite increase in academic salaries, corporate jobs are much preferred over academia for their high financial rewards. ‘’The key to attracting folks back will be creating attractive higher education environments" says author Finegold.

The next steps for the Indian government and institutions looking to recruit would be to communicate present research opportunities, reduce bureaucracy and make the job package financially rewarding by providing housing, transport etc. As most of the potential faculty use newspapers and personal networks to get information; using alumni and networking sites such as LinkedIn might yield results say the authors.

Whether reimport of people from abroad presents a good solution to finding our next generation faculty or whether these recommendations are implemented and yield results remain to be seen. Meanwhile, comment away!

The research paper can be found at the here, along with a commentary on the same.

What has been driving this trend in the West? Are 42 year old scientists more mature and capable of handling independent research? The answer is certainly "no". Most of the great discoveries in physics were performed by scientists younger than 42. Watson and Crick were mere babes when they solved the secret of DNA. Young scientists have abundant energy and intelligence to make important discoveries. We are wasting much of this energy by postponing independence. However, the real reason for delay in obtaining a job or grant has comes from a much longer vetting process; quite simply, more and/or better papers are required for a successful job or grant application. And it takes longer to produce a high quality paper, as discussed in my earlier blogs.

But India has many job opening. Does it really need this extended vetting process and protracted postdoc period for its applicants? Do Indian Institutes need the stamp of approval from Cell Press before feeling comfortable in offering someone a job? Or can it identify talented scientists in the making?

There are significant advantages in being one step ahead of the game in recruitment (especially for very talented young scientists), since Indian Institutes and Universities will not be in direct competition with the US/Europe. Furthermore, by offering jobs early, the Institute sends a message that they are welcoming the applicant as a colleague based upon the person that they are and the scientist that they will become, and not based upon the Cell paper that they published 6 months ago. After offering the job and the applicant accepting, the Institute can then allow the applicant a year (or in some cases even two) to finish their postdoctoral training. This is terrific for the postdoc/future assistant professor, since they can relax and not have the anxiety of an impending job search, which can interfere with their science. This situation allows the individual to take on a riskier project or seek out new training before starting their own lab in India.

How does one encourage early recruitment? It is a dance between Institutes and Individuals, both looking for opportunities. Showing up at the dance early and picking a partner can make good sense for both sides. Perhaps IndiaBioscience.org can help to chaperone the dance in the future.

¹Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, the word "juggernaut" derives from the Sanskrit Jagannātha (meaning "Lord of the Universe"), one of Krishna's names and the namesake of Jagannath Temple in Puri, Orissa

This issue of “foreign collaborators” has affected the evaluations of scientists at every level- students, new PIs, mid-career, and even senior scientists, who all have, at one time or another, been subject to the insidious “but did s/he really motivate the collaboration, or just provided some data? How do we know for sure?” And then some of these well meaning evaluators go on to advice PIs to “make sure you publish a few papers without any foreign authors, make sure you plan this in your work.” ???!!! How can one possibly plan NOT to collaborate? What if reviewers ask for an experiment that requires a collaborative angle- is one supposed to say “oh but I can’t have a foreign author on my paper?” Collaborations should be determined by what is the best possible way to achieve the best possible science. If it’s the easiest way to get a reagent, or add a component to one’s analysis, or if an exchange of ideas will enrich the project at hand, one should be free to GO for it- without the penalty that it will negatively impact promotions, prizes, or other forms of peer opinion.

One way of bringing about change is that those of us who are on panels evaluating student posters, or on other committees at higher levels, should speak up for candidates whose foreign collaborations are being held against them. After all, its not difficult to determine who contributed what- such is often stated in author contributions at the end of the papers- or in case of posters, one can just assess by asking the student. And it’s a positive thing if someone is able to attract non-local collaborators! To think otherwise indicates a depressingly low opinion of Indian science. Even more dangerously, such opinions will drive people to NOT collaborate, which can compromise the science itself- in turn providing justification for a low opinion of Indian Science.

Importance of core technology platforms

In life science research today, high-end technology and tools are becoming key components in conducting laboratory experiments. Hence, accessibility to these high-end technologies can determine the success of any scientific laboratory, organization, or community. In general, accessibility to advanced technology depends on individual Principal Investigator's funding availability. Additionally, sharing these advance technology from individual laboratories has been a challenge through out the world; however, western countries have tried to address this by establishing core facilities accessible to all researchers. Several universities in the US and some institutions in Europe like EMBL, Marie Curie etc. have created state of the art technology platforms with technology champions as the head of each facility.

Need in India for core technology platforms

In the Indian Bioscience research community, there is currently a lack of high-end technologies being made available to the majority of scientists. This is not due to the lack of funds but the absence of professional expert-run facilities, focused on providing timely advice and services to scientists. In order to have access to high-end technologies, individual PI's are constantly required to dig into their grant funds and establish these facilities in-house. Subsequently, these facilities become exclusively available to the PI's lab and very few others on the outside. Even when the PI is happy to share his facilities, time and resources come in the way. As a ripple effect, these expensive technologies become infrequently used and the full potential and capabilities of the technologies are scarcely realized. Another significant stumbling block is the fact that these facilities are usually run by the PIs themselves and as a result are not given the attention they require to be managed and maintained appropriately.

In countries like the US, the burden on individual researchers has been lifted to some extent with the introduction of many centralized, high-end technology facilities that specifically cater to multiple institutions and organizations. These organizations also have dedicated facility managers and support staff to ensure the smooth running of the facilities and proper maintenance of equipment.

Genesis of C-CAMP

Given this contrasting scenario, it was felt that India needed a dedicated organization with the aim of giving Indian researchers access to high-end technologies through a centralized medium, allowing them to compete on the world stage and at the frontier of biological science. Thus, in 2009-2010 Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms (C-CAMP, www.ccamp.res.in) came in to being as collaboration between Dept. of Biotechnology (Govt. of India) and Dept. of Atomic Energy (Govt. of India).

C-CAMP is part of the Bangalore BioCluster, which also consists of National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS, www.ncbs.res.in) and The Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (inStem, www.instem.res.in). Our vision is to act as an enabler of success in bioscience research and entrepreneurship by providing research, development, training and service in state of the art technology platforms.

C-CAMP wants to ensure investigators are able to utilize cutting-edge bioscience tools and not be limited by technological barriers while pursuing challenging scientific questions. We are open to interesting ideas from potential collaborators from academia and industry to achieve these goals and are willing to support these ideas at various levels.

Here's a question: What makes for a good institution? Note, that I didn't ask what is a great Institution. In India, you may say that great Institution is one which had Bose, Saha, Radhakrishnan, Raman, Ramachandran or Bhabha once upon a time. But, a currently good institution? One answer is that its a place where a significant part of its faculty is very good (by some arbitrary measure). Starting from Kashmir and running down to Kanyakumari, many departments and institutes can be considered good, by this measure. Sadly, a closer, and more demanding, inspection suggests that most of these people can be classified as good despite the efforts of the institution rather than because of it. Is there, then, a simpler assay for determining what is a good institution, as distinct from a place where there are good faculty members? Here's one assay I would like to throw out for debate: A good institution is where you would want to move to. Simple. So, shut your eyes and ask where would like to be, in India for starters, as a biologist today. Which place do you think can best nurture your science? Where can your talent be best supported by the environment so that you can excel? Here's my current short list and my reasons. This is not in any order, but each choice is for a different reason. The new neuroscience programme at the Indian Institute of Science. The Institute, as its known, has been sometimes accused of not directly doing hugely for each new entrant, yet the vibrant diversity of its student population, the strength and proximity of top quality science and engineering departments, makes IISc a truly attractive intellectual destination. The neuroscience centre is particularly attractive because it has jumped into new directions of communicating with engineers and physicists. IISER Pune is next on my randomly ordered short-list of where I would like to go. A young and energetic faculty that listens to each other and to students make you feel that you can do science here. I am less familiar with IISER Mohali and Trivandrum and least familiar with Bhopal and Kolkota, but the if asked to leap, these are places I would likely leap into. Quite simply, the opportunity to shape the place is reminiscent of the way IIT-Kanpur was in the 1960s and 1970s: If the ISSER's have half the energy of the old IIT-K, and they may well have 10X, they are great places to go to. Talking about IIT-Kanpur, its recent resurgence is amazing and its biology and bioengineering department is truly attractive. Amongst 'research institutes' the strengths in Physics, Mathematics and Computer Sciences makes the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) at Mumbai attractive, not to mention its location in paradise. TIFR's new initiative at Hyderabad is another place to consider: again, the clean slate provides a great opportunity. And, right next door to where I work is the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre: If you want to combine biology and materials science in a beautiful campus, here's the place for you.

I am sure that there are many more places that are attractive as institutions and my short-list is by not at all exhaustive. I have left out where I work, the NCBS, and its new neighbour, inStem because I'm already there. But, if they, any of these places I've discussed, and others whose residents tell you that they are happy where they are, give you a job, I would urge you to jump in. None of them have called me, so I am stuck where I am.