What are the ingredients of establishing an outstanding research center? Money, yes. But money alone is insufficient and perhaps is the easiest part of the equation. The most important ingredient is attracting and supporting motivated and talented scientists, specifically young scientists. Outstanding research and new ideas are driven by good people, not by buildings and money. Talented scientists are the “wealth” to which I refer in the title of this blog. The “wealth” of well-trained, talented young Indian scientists ultimately has to be spread to more institutions throughout India.

Many young scientists are wary of taking a job at an institution that they perceive as not being one of the “elite”. Their scientific career is at stake, and, often coming from an exciting postdoc, they do not want their research to stagnate. They look at an institution’s past record, since the future is hard to project. However, a “turn-around” of an institution is possible and can happen on a relatively short-time scale. UCSF (my institution) was a good center for medical care, but was generally viewed as a complete “backwater” for research in the 1960s and beginning of the 70s. It changed as a consequence of a small group of people who came and created a new spirit and culture. Bill Rutter (a mid-career scientist at the time) came to UCSF and took the job as Chair of the Biochemistry and Biophysics Dept. Next, several good but not yet famous young scientists came, attracted by the “new and pioneering” environment of UCSF, which contrasted the more polished, professional, and formal cultures of Harvard, MIT, UC Berkeley, etc. These young faculty included Jim Spudich, Keith Yamamoto, Christine Guthrie, Bruce Alberts and Marc Kirschner, all of whom ended up doing very well in their careers. Collectively, they turned UCSF from a second-tier to a first-tier research school by focusing on their research and creating a lively scientific culture for students and postdocs. This change at UCSF was completely “bottom-up”, and not a “top-down” initiative from the Deans and Chancellors. A similar change happened at University of Dundee (now a great research institute but one time a lowly-ranked university in Britain), when Peter Garland became chair and shortly thereafter recruited young Philip Cohen (now Sir Philip Cohen). My blog reader might say that “these are Western examples and such changes are not possible in India”. I agree that complicated institutional politics and hierarchies create barriers in India, but they can be surmounted with persistence and the right personalities. For example, Obaid Siddiqi played a major role (along with good young recruits!) in building biology at TIFR and NCBS, both in relatively short spans of time. A good recent example is IISER Pune, which started not long ago with empty land and now has become one of “most sought-after” institutions for postdocs looking for junior faculty positions.

How can a “second-tier” institution become a “first-tier” institution? The most important ingredient is attracting people who are both excellent scientists as well as active contributors to the educational mission and atmosphere of an institution. Given their competitive disadvantage in recruiting compared to the “elite” Indian institutions, the second-tier institutions need to try new recruitment strategies, which might include: 1) offering jobs early to obviously talented young scientists with good grad school records (let the “elite” institutes offer jobs to 5-7 year postdocs who have the stamp of approval of a Cell paper), 2) being more flexible in offering positions to scientific couples (who might have a harder time in finding two positions at elite institutes), and 3) offering positions to 2 or 3 young scientists who want to relocate together to the same site and nucleate a research program together (a big advantage for both the young scientists as well as the institution, which would benefit greatly from having critical mass to tackle a research topic). Also more generally, some institutions need to overcome the mentality of “we are not among the elite and no one good will want to join us”. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and young people can smell such an attitude a mile away. Even simple things can make a place more inviting, such as 1) returning emails from prospective applicants with respectand getting a reputation for doing so, and 2) inviting prospective postdoc applicants to an informal, inexpensive dinner with a few faculty and students as an opportunity to make them feel part of the community.

A second general idea is to establish a certain number of “landing positions” for young scientists within an elite institute, with the expectation of their not getting tenure and moving elsewhere after ~5-years. This situation, which is analogous to junior faculty appointments at the EMBL, Heidelberg, allows junior faculty to establish their own independent research program in a good mentoring environment and then, with more maturity and more knowledge of working in India, start a program elsewhere. This position can be made more attractive for both the young scientist and the hiring institution by providing a transition package of equipment and supplies. It also might be worthwhile to establish a few, reasonably-funded and competitive grants for mid-career or senior individuals at elite institutes to move and establish research programs or head departments at developing institutes or universities.

Another challenge for changing many institutes/universities is overcoming the generational divide in the experiences and expectations of setting up laboratories in India. Senior faculty started their laboratories with very little resources and see young Indian scientists, even in non-elite centers, as having opportunities that they never had. And young Indian scientists often view the opportunities in front of them as insufficient and not up to western standards and view the research of senior faculty as antiquated. However, there has to be a middle ground of partnership in order to elevate the stature of any institution. Senior faculty need to understand their critical role in promoting the success of new hires, and see the benefits of investing their time in mentoring and building scientific culture, even if it takes time away from their research. And young scientists need to understand some of the history of an institution and its faculty, set reasonable expectations for resources and progress, be clever in their research directions, and also realize that it is part of their job to serve an institution and not just be served.

While “spreading the wealth” of scientific talent may be difficult, India’s senior leadership needs to rise to this challenge. And some young scientists will need to adopt a pioneering spirit of building scientific excellence in new locations, rather than just looking to get a job at the “best place”. Lastly, I wish to emphasize that building excellence is a small numbers game. Two to four scientists with a “can do” attitude have the potential to change the culture of a department or institution, even if hampered by a lackadaisical administration. The process starts at a grass roots level, as it did at UCSF, by creating an exciting intellectual environment for graduate students and fellow faculty members. The reward of such efforts can be much greater than adding incrementally to an already successful institute.

There is something extraordinary about being in a room overflowing with women scientists. Every one of the thirty individuals from across South India attending the career building workshop for women scientists held at the National Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore last September represented a statistical improbability, sometimes decades of lonely struggle within a system where the odds are stacked against them. These women are path-breakers, paving the way for every young girl out there with a budding interest in astronomy or neuroscience. And every one of these women has a driving passion that they have made the core of their lives, with or without institutional and familial support, and it shows in the vibrant debate that fuels the workshop.

The interactive sessions of this week-long workshop are being run by a grassroots organization called COACh (Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists), in a program initiated and funded by the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India. COACh was initially aimed at female faculty in chemistry departments across the United States, conceived and started at the University of Oregon in 1997. As the group has grown over the past two decades, however, its target audience has steadily expanded. COACh has held workshops for female scientists and engineers in Latin America, Africa, South-East Asia and now India, with the aim of helping women across the world negotiate the academic workplace and advance their careers.

“We try to focus on women reaching the highest levels,” explains Geraldine Richmond, profes

sor of Chemistry at the University of Oregon and the chair andfounder of COACh. “Everyone in the US tends to fund programs – or did when we started COACh – for girls still in school.” What she found, however, was that even as women emerge as independent researchers, their problems are only just beginning. The girl inspired to go into science still has a high chance of lagging behind at the upper levels as the woman denied promotions and funds.

“I was tired of seeing women mistreated,” says Richmond. “In academia, I saw men the same age, with the same qualifications [as the women] getting awards, getting jobs, being able to go to international meetings. And it just didn't seem fair.” Women in science do not just face a glass ceiling, in Richmond's opinion. “I call it a polycarbonate ceiling,” she says. “You can't break polycarbonate.” But this has

not stopped COACh from trying, and follow up studies with past participants suggest that their efforts are making a difference.

“Over 95% [of those surveyed] say they've mentored others with our techniques,” says Richmond. “A huge number have said that we've reduced their stress levels. They go on and say what specific negotiation techniques they have used, what has been effective, based on what they remember from the workshop five years ago.”

Adapted for the scientific workplace from the corporate world, the strategies that COACh has developed for negotiating a tricky professional environment have broad applications. Indeed, in some countries in Africa the sessions have had equal attendance from men and women. The workshops have been refined over the past 15 years, however, to cater specifically to the problems that women scientists tend to face in the workplace, addressing the challenges of negotiation, communication, leadership and mentorship through interactive role-playing, case studies and debate. At the five-day workshop in Bangalore, sessions were added on career balance and finding role models, on publishing and proposal writing. Three of the speakers in these sessions were from COACh, but the rest were drawn from senior women scientists at academic institutes in Bangalore.

Many of the problems that COACh addresses faced by female scientists in the workplace are universal. Pushpalatha Murthy, professor of Chemistry at Michigan Tech, Program Director for the NSF GRFP and COACh faculty, shared data from studies in the US in the past two decades that suggested gender-based discrimination was holding women back in their professional careers. One survey of faculty at MIT in the mid-1990s showed that across the board, men were more likely to receive higher salaries, promotions, resources and awards than women with equivalent professional accomplishments. A more recent study published in PNAS in 2012 found that scientists of either gender tended to rate identical job applications higher if they came with a male name rather than a female name. Another study (discussed by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in her book Lean In)found that changing the name of a venture capitalist named Heidi Roizen to Howard caused business school students to rate her accomplishments in a positive light. As a woman, by contrast, her leadership qualities became signs of selfishness and aggression.

There was frequent cathartic laughter as participants, organizers and speakers alike shared war stories over the course of the week, the scars they had accumulated and hard lessons learned as women navigating a scientific establishment that is weighted against outsiders. One participant admitted that she had never been able to find an individual willing to help her through the system. “I am my own mentor,” she said. Another said that although after marriage her husband was supportive of her career, “My problem was convincing my work place that my personal life was also important.” Vijayalakshmi Ravindranath, Chairperson of the Centre for Neuroscience at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, spoke of the isolation she faced after moving to Bangalore in the 1980s. “I didn't get a single grant from the government till I got my Bhatnagar award,” she said.

Two women from ISRO (the Indian Space Research Organization, Bangalore), one with thirty years of work experience under her belt, wondered how there could be so many capable women in their organization but so few in leadership positions. “We are given equal opportunities, but what is lacking that we are not at the highest levels?” asked one woman.

Indeed, what is lacking? The glass ceiling that bars women from the upper echelons of the scientific establishment is complex, tied up with centuries of baggage. As the studies mentioned above show, however, the status quo is maintained in part via unconscious biases in both women and men that can be countered and changed. One of the best ways to remove gender stereotypes and create positive female role models for younger women would be to have more women in senior leadership positions in science, but women need to get there first.

Several elements are necessary to bring more women to the top of their fields. One that Richmond repeatedly stressed was the importance of younger women making connections with older scientists, building mentor relationships and networks. She herself pieced together role models based on male professors and female peers. “You don't have a full library of books to pick from to give you direction,” she says. “What you can do is pick chapters from here and there.” Building networks can likewise be a long, piece-meal process. The COACh workshop emphasized three levels of networks that are necessary: support networks of family and friends, professional networks, and finally aspirational networks of where you want to be in ten or twenty years. This last network is one that tends to be missed by women, says Richmond, because many women in science are preoccupied just trying to stay afloat. “You need to workto get up to that [aspirational] level, and you need to have people to help you get there,” says Richmond. “But if you don't start recognizing that as a goal when you're thirty or forty, it'll be too late when you're fifty.”

Likewise, effective negotiation, communication and leadership skills are necessary for women to move forward, but do not come naturally to everyone. Rather, these are skills that can be learned and strengthened over time. Richmond emphasizes that for women, learning how to be a good negotiator and leader does not mean mirroring the behaviour of men. “As women, we are ahead of the curve if we just embrace the styles that we're comfortable with,” she says. “The most effective leaders today are ones that areempathetic, that want to work as teams [and] reach consensus.”

Beyond such strategies that work at the individual level, structural changes within institutions are also necessary to remove the gender bias in science. Pushpalatha Murthy spoke, for instance, of her work at Michigan Tech to improve institutional support for women with young children. Speakers at the COACh workshop with work experience from the US complained about the lack of sufficient maternity leave there, whereas those in India spoke of difficulties negotiating for flexible work hours to accommodate family needs. All agreed that taking a break for childcare and elder care causes undue damage to the careers of both men and women, making it difficult to find an adequate work-family balance. Rohini Godbole, professor of Physics at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, suggested that for a woman to achieve a happy marriage, happy family and successful career all at once can be a matter of chance. Laura Greene, professor of Physics at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and mother to nine children, laughed as she described her everyday life as chaotic. Sumati Surya, professor of Physics at the Raman Research Institute, Bangalore, spoke of her efforts to bring her passion for physics home with her, so that her family stayed aware of the importance of creative research in her life.

For every such woman that possesses that combination of talent and determination to pursue a successful career in research, however, there are dozens more who might have made significant contributions to science but were turned away or stalled by an unsupportive if not directly hostile system. “There are battles all the way along,” says Richmond. “And the reason for COACh is that we found the battles got harder once you started to run faster and throw harder than the men. Because then jealousy can surface, followed by resentment. Our goal with COACh is to help women develop strengths and strategies so that such effects do not diminish their passion for their science.”

The focus of the workshops is to be a catalyst for lasting change. The organizers' aim is two-fold: on the one hand, COACh workshops serve as sites for women scientists to forge connections with each other, planning for future conferences and collaborations. They also serve, on the other hand, as vehicles through which to turn participants into teachers, refining strategies for dealing with the scientific workplace to suit local needs.

“We offer these workshops, but then we say 'Take all of our materials, because what we want you to do now is to take these home and offer them to your students and to your graduate students,'” says Richmond. “I would say if there's any message from all the things we do, it's how to help women take control of their lives.”

The Indian National Science Academy (INSA) announced the winners of its awards for young scientists earlier this year. Introduced in 1974, the INSA Medal for Young Scientists has since been given annually to researchers below 35 years of age working in the fields of science, technology, engineering, medicine and agriculture. The INSA medal comes with a certificate and cash reward of Rs. 25,000 but also with a 3-year research support of Rs. 5 lakhs per year. The research support is not just monetary. INSA President, Raghavendra Gadagkar, explains in an e-mail to IndiaBioScience, "Within five years of receiving the award, the awardees are considered for a visit abroad with full support for presenting research work at conferences, or participating in research projects."

IndiaBioScience talked to three young biologists who won the INSA medal this year about climbing the science career ladder. The conversations touched upon various aspects that are part of a career in science, be it inter-disciplinary research, role of mentors, funding opportunities, setting up labs or the idea of an ideal post-doc.

Mahalakshmi Radhakrishnan, who has been awarded the INSA medal for "contributions in the field of membrane protein biophysics," is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) in Bhopal. Having done an integrated PhD at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, where she was exposed to different techniques in various laboratories, Mahalakshmi highly values inter-disciplinary work and feels more adept in addressing a question in membrane protein science because of her background. "It has helped me a lot," she says. "Classic biology is not capable of answering the kind of questions we are desperately in need of understanding. The methodology and the kind of techniques we are developing are all at the interface. I have been able to bridge a lot of things to address specific questions in science."

Mahalakshmi is currently working out of the transit campus of IISER-Bhopal and is aiming to set up a lab once the main campus is ready. She sees being able to help with setting up the main campus as an advantage rather than a detriment. "We are building the bricks and mortar, literally!" She explains, "It gives us more confidence in moving to an area we are not comfortable in; shifting from one aspect of biology to another aspect of biology or even a related aspect in chemistry is something a scientist can manage. But making an engineer out of a scientist is not easy and is something we have been experiencing at IISER-Bhopal."

Before moving to IISER-Bhopal, Mahalakshmi completed two post-docs in the United States. On their relevance she says, "It is absolutely important that someone goes abroad for a post-doc, not because it looks good on the CV but for the research environment, which is different from India's." She clarifies it is not about resources, as some places with poor resources still carry out exceptional research. It is the approach to research, including management and interpersonal relations, that matters. Hierarchy is not as much of a problem in the US as it is in India, she adds. However, she thinks there is no dearth of funding or freedom to pursue your areas of interests in science back home.

Availability of funding is what Rohini Garg, another INSA awardee this year, appreciates about science in India. She has been awarded for her "contributions in the area of plant genomics, epigenomics and transcriptomics leading to the identification of development and stress related genes of plants." Rohini is currently an INSPIRE Faculty Fellow at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research (NIPGR) in New Delhi.

Rohini considers perseverance the most prized trait of a scientist. Science is a long process of learning, she says, compared to some other professions where one can see immediate results. Another important factor in the making of a scientist, according to her, is a good mentor who puts things into perspective. From her mentors Rohini has learnt the nitty-gritty of science; things that would help her in the long run, like how to write grant proposals. "A mentor is the only one who would make you believe that whatever you do is really important," Rohini chuckles. More seriously, she says, a mentor should have regular discussions with the student, so they can exchange ideas and benefit from the exchange.

Touching upon the role of communication in science, Rohini says, it is essential to let people know the importance of doing science because otherwise they think it is of no use to them. If scientists reach out to the public, they will know what science can do in the general advancement of the society. "If I explain my work in biological terms [the public] may not understand, but if I tell them about the application of my research, they might."

Sunil Kumar Singh is another INSPIRE Faculty Fellow awarded by INSA "for finding that graphene and its derivatives specifically induce aggregation of platelets [with] significant relevance for medical application." Using grant money he received through the INSPIRE scheme, Sunil is now setting up a lab in the Department of Biotechnology at Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT) in Allahabad. He has procured some equipment for his lab while continuing to use the more expensive ones at the institute's central facility that's open to all students and faculty.

Sunil points out some challenges that young scientists have to tackle. "Equipments are procured by labs but they are not available to all," he laments. "Different laboratories need not have the same equipments in each lab; they can be shared with others," he suggests. "A central facility like the one at MNNIT—the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research—that is open to all must be there at every institute. In most institutes, only those students who are working with a senior faculty have access to equipments in their lab."

Growth opportunities, Sunil adds, are abundant for senior scientists but young scientists like him continue to face cutthroat competition. Funds are available but they are not commensurate with the growing number of PhDs, he says. "More support from senior scientists is needed with respect to laboratories and access to equipment."

It is apparent that the three INSA young scientists that IndiaBioScience spoke with are slowly but surely making their way up the science career ladder. They may differ in their interests, approach and educational backgrounds, but what puts them on the same page is that they found their calling in science.

INSA President Raghavendra Gadagkar, who too won the INSA young scientist medal back in 1985, says, "From all accounts, receiving the award at an early stage in one's career has an inspiring and galvanising effect on the minds of recipients. It gives them both a sense of belonging and recognition by their peers in the country as well as challenges them to climb to greater heights. Having been a recipient myself I can vouch for the truth of this sentiment."

It is useful to look at some numbers. Research in the USA is driven by a very large population of postdoctoral fellows. At UCSF alone (my institution), there are 1,040 postdoctoral fellows. I am not aware of an accurate census of postdoctoral trainees throughout India, but the number is likely similar or lower. Regarding numbers for DBT-based postdoctoral funding, the DBT Postdoctoral/Research Associateship funds 70-90 individuals per year and accepts ~25% of the total applicants¹. Through this scheme, DBT's budget could fund as many as 100 individuals per year. Thus, there is a lack of perceived qualified applicants for the positions available. The same situation is true for the prestigious Wellcome-DBT Early Career Fellowships (a postdoctoral award), which has the capacity to fund up to 40 highly qualified individuals per year. Yet, since the scheme started in 2009, only 34 Early Career fellowships have been granted (this number includes 9 Fellows who have yet to activate their award). Thus, this Indian postdoctoral fellowship is vastly undersubscribed, in contrast to the converse situation for prestigious American postdoctoral fellowships which are oversubscribed (e.g. Jane Coffin Childs, Damon Runyon, etc).

What is the problem and why are available Indian postdoctoral fellowships going unfulfilled for high-qualified application? The biggest issue is the current perception of the value of postdoctoral training in India. Many institutions and scientists view Indian postdoctoral fellows as "second-rate" compared with Indians who have trained abroad at prestigious American or European institutions. They judge Indian postdocs with skepticism, feeling that they lack the scientific ability and competitive spirit of postdocs who study abroad. Because of these perceptions, good Indian graduate students also view doing postdoctoral training in India as a potentially fatal career "dead end". How can they produce the high impact papers as postdocs in US/Europe labs, which are demanded of current job applicants, and how can they convince institute directors that they are high quality scientists? A second problem is the relatively low salary for many of the postdoctoral fellowships in India². The result is a vicious cycle – good graduate students go abroad, Indian postdocs have difficulties with their status and job opportunities in India, and research labs in India lack the postdocs that could help their research. The national Indian science effort suffers as a consequence; it is very difficult to compete with US/European labs without a vibrant postdoctoral culture. Postdocs, with their extra years of experience, not only produce high quality science, but they also act as valuable mentors to Masters and Ph.D. students.

On an encouraging note, there are some positive emerging signs for the job prospects of Indian postdocs. For example, two Early Career Fellows have recently secured faculty positions at CCMB and IIT Bombay. But how can the job prospect for Indian postdocs be changed more dramatically and visibly? First and foremost, prestigious Indian institutes and universities should strategically consider recruiting Indian postdocs in their 5 year hiring plan. If a single Indian postdoc were to be hired at each of the major academic institutions over the next several years, this trend will be notice by Indian students and seen as a major change in the career pipeline. The pool of talented postdocs in turn will increase rapidly. Thus, Indian institutes should more actively discuss hiring the best individuals from the current pool of Indian postdocs. Second, DBT may need to "court" the best graduates students in India more actively. While offering a great fellowship plan (e.g. Early Career Fellowship) is a great start, good graduate students need told in person that there is a good career structure for them in India. In the current environment, Indian students hear a great deal about studying abroad but get less advice and encouragement for training in India. By the time that they hear about Indian postdoctoral programs, they likely have made up their mind to go abroad. Third, postdoctoral fellows should be incentivized to join junior or mid-career scientists in India. There is a perception that postdocs should join the lab of a senior scientist, who could politically support them in their later job search. However, many of the best and most active biologists in India are individuals who have been recruited within the last ten years. These scientists have exciting projects for postdocs. Furthermore, for these young independent investigators, having a postdoc would greatly accelerate the research work. In turn, the opportunity to have a postdoc makes an academic career in India more attractive to a prospective PI (versus taking a job in the US or elsewhere). I am not exactly sure how to incentivize such a choice, but fellowship selection committees should not penalize a perspective postdoc for choosing a young investigator and this message could be actively conveyed. Fourth, it is useful to consider how to offer some international training experiences to Indian postdoctoral fellows, even if for 3-6 months. The Early Career Fellowship allows their grantees to work in an international lab for a portion of their time (up to 2 years) and augments travel and salary support. Perhaps a 3-month stay could be built into the formal structure of many postdoctoral fellowships as a training experience, particularly with a group of partner universities.

While I am advocating for increasing opportunities for postdoctoral training in India, I do not think that India should follow the exact path of the US. A major problem currently plaguing US biomedical research is the very large "holding tank" of postdocs. As jobs (particularly academic jobs) have become scarcer, the time of postdoctoral training has become longer and longer, as postdocs try to accumulate better credentials and more impressive CVs in order to get a job. Thus, the purpose of the postdoc is shifting from true training (indeed many senior postdocs are no longer really learning new skills) to a somewhat underpaid research job during a prime period of productivity. You might be interested in Greg Petsko's iBiology talk on this subject (http://www.ibiology.org/ibiomagazine/issue-10/gregory-petsko-the-post-doctoral-situation.html).
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in-between the current Indian and the US situations. In the US, there has been little planning or discussion of the right balance and the purpose of graduate and postdoctoral studies, and it is hard to change a large system that is already in place. However, since it is still forming, India has a chance to think through these issues and strike a better balance and perhaps identify outstanding young people earlier and get them independent jobs earlier, as the situation used to be a few decades ago in the US.

Prejudices of the past often color the present, making it difficult to visualize a more productive future. Indian postdoctoral training is at an inflection point where it needs to look ahead. Young students and institute directors must both be willing to take a chance and help one another. If this could happen, the transition to complete career pipeline within India might occur within a decade and not a lifetime.

Footnote¹: In addition to DBT, there are postdoctoral schemes for CSIR, ICMR, ICAR as well intra-institutional funding and support from MHRD (Ministry of Home Resources and Development) which combined support approximately 200-250 fellowships each year. Many of the institutes also offer their own postdoctoral fellowships. In association with the release of this blog, IndiaBioScience has assembled a list of postdoctoral fellowships available in India and helpful information for exploring more details about them.

Footnote²: The DBT postdoctoral fellowships are currently set at ~30,000 Rs/month; although this stipend level is likely to increase in the near future. Other government fellowships (e.g. CSIR, etc) are in a similar range or slightly higher. On the other hand, the Wellcome-DBT Early Career Fellowships are significantly higher (~67,000 Rs/month), and may increase soon. Several research institutes also offer their own postdoctoral fellowships with higher salaries. For example, NCBS offers postdoctoral fellowships at a salary of ~60,000 Rs/month) and TIFR also has a competitive postdoc fellowship program. Thus, while postdoctoral salaries have been a problem in the past, they have been and will likely continue to improve in the future.

Further opportunities: [Download XLSX]