In spite of increasing scientific output and a variety of outreach efforts, the vast majority of scientific knowledge generated by Indian researchers rarely finds its way into public understanding or appreciation. One of the ways in which this widening gap between scientists and the society at large could be bridged is strengthening the foundations of science journalism and science communication in the country.

In order to discuss and understand the present scenario surrounding science communication and journalism in India, the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, and the Indian Academy of Sciences jointly organized a workshop titled “Science, Journalism, Media: Communicating Science in a Changing India” on August 20 - 21, 2018, in Chennai. The attendees were from varying backgrounds and professions, and included scientists, print and TV journalists, science communicators, as well as a few educators and students. The aim of the meeting was to address the role of science journalism in today’s India, to investigate the lacunae in its present forms and formats, and to discuss the way forward as a community.

What do scientists and science journalists really want?

Spread over two days, ten different panels discussed a multitude of subjects spread across ideas and disciplines (a complete list can be found here). Each day commenced with a session focused on understanding the expectations of scientists and science journalists from each other. A point that was made over and over was that a basic “trust deficit” exists between these two communities. While many scientists hold a dismissive view of journalists as only being interested in “flashy” stories and operating under the dictatorship of entertainment and profit, scientists are often perceived as esoteric, eccentric and closed-off individuals.

When asked what scientists want from science journalists, the first panel consisting of Sutirth Dey (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune), D Indumathi (IMSc, Chennai), Srikanth Sastry (Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), Bengaluru) and Mukund Thattai (National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bengaluru) stressed on ensuring accuracy during reporting, as well as depicting science as a process instead of a product. While many science news stories focus on the awe-inspiring side of new technologies or discoveries, very few succeed in bringing out the human angle of doing research. "What is missing...is a personal dimension," said Sastry.

During this panel, Thattai also stressed on the fact that the basic expectation from both categories (scientists and science journalists) is to act as professionals and do their respective jobs. "They both have an obligation to something bigger – society," said Thattai, adding that scientists want their stories represented in a manner where it is not conducive to being misunderstood. Similarly, journalists want scientists to communicate their ideas in a way that they are not misunderstood.

The corresponding panel discussion on what science journalists want from scientists involved Pallava Bagla (NDTV news), Shubashree Desikan (The Hindu), Mayanglambam Merina Leimarenbi (Eastern Chronicle (Manipur)), Vasudevan Mukunth (The Wire) and Aathira Perinchery (The Hindu). Journalists often find themselves frustrated when it comes to accessing scientists and getting them to speak out on matters relevant to both the scientific community and the society beyond. Desikan pointed out how in spite of writing repeatedly to multiple institutions to obtain the facts and figures related to sexual harassment in academic workspaces, almost no one responded to the same.

Similarly, when it comes to giving expert opinions on news stories, scientists often remain inaccessible. “Some don’t reply, some don’t have time, some don’t reply in time,” said Perincherry. Journalists also protested the problem of hierarchy in many research institutions, where young scientists are ready and willing to speak to the media, yet are seldom allowed to do so by their supervisors or institute directors.

During a discussion with the audience, Prasad Ravindranath (The Hindu) emphasized that while many science journalists know and understand the scientific process, scientists largely remain unaware of the newsroom tussle. Subhra Priyadarshini (Nature India) asked for a “reality check”, urging scientists to come out of their labs and visit the newsrooms to understand the news cycle and the constraints that journalists operate under.

One suggestion which emerged out of these discussions was to create a platform where scientists (as well as journalists) can give feedback on stories reported in the media. A second initiative could be to create regularly updated and publicly accessible lists of science communicators and scientists who are ready and willing to cooperate with each other. Following the meeting, the first of these lists was recently created by members of the Indian Academy of Sciences Dialogue initiative and can be accessed here.

On representation and stereotypes

Another subject which was discussed at length in the workshop was the issue of representation and stereotyping when science stories are reported in the media. S Krishnaswamy (IMSc, Chennai) spoke about various scientific studies which explored the stereotypes often associated with scientists – including the fact that in the public imagination, science is largely an indoor activity involving beakers and chemicals.

Sandhya Koushika (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai) pointed out how scientists are often seen as experts on a broad range of subjects which they may not have specialized in, and how this often exacerbates the imposter syndrome that they feel. Mukund Thattai also drew attention to one category of people that are neglected constantly in media depictions of science and the scientific process, yet who generate most of the scientific output from the country – the graduate students.

A panel chaired by Mathangi Krishnamurthy (Indian Institute of Technololgy (IIT) Madras) briefly discussed the issue of underrepresentation of minorities and women in science and what scientists, journalists and institutions can do to contribute towards building a more equitable atmosphere. During the discussion, Nandita Jayaraj (The Life of Science) also raised the question of under-representation of minorities within the journalistic community itself.

Science and Society

Any discussion on science communication is incomplete without touching upon the position of science in our society. In recent times, this position has been precarious with pseudoscientific claims stepping repeatedly into the public spotlight. Speaking in a panel about the best way to distinguish pseudoscience from real science, D. Balasubramaniam (L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad) proposed that the litmus test of whether a theory is based in science or pseudoscience lies in the question – “Is a given theory falsifiable?”. Vasudevan Mukunth, however, pointed out that ‘falsifiability’ is not a concept that can be intuitively grasped by someone not familiar with it, and therefore requires some effort on the part of scientists to explain it well.

“Explaining why something is pseudoscience to the general public is not easy,” said Niruj Mohan Ramanujam (Astronomical Society of India – POEC), explaining that when you look at science as a collection of facts given to us by an authority figure, it is difficult to distinguish science from pseudoscience. He emphasized that the only way to combat pseudoscience is using the scientific method, and not the scientists’ position of authority. It is important to find a way to provide a way to supplant the pseudo-theory, not just counter it. “We don’t vaccinate the public against pseudoscience, we just keep giving them antibiotics,” he said during a later panel.

A number of journalists present at the meeting commented upon the uncertainty of present times, and a rise in hostile atmosphere surrounding certain kinds of journalism. “There is a lot of fear. There is a lot of apprehension. There is a lot of hate,” said Pallava Bagla. “The message from people in power is that ‘Scientific temper is on the back-burner. It can be attacked with impunity’,” said Gauhar Raza (CSIR-National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), Delhi).

A few discussions also touched upon the deeper question of who is the ‘public’ and the ‘society’ and how do we reach them. Raza pointed out that there is very little actual research on public understanding of science, even though theories abound about the same. “We know nothing about the public. Absolutely zilch. And we don’t want to know,” he said.

K Vijayraghavan, Prinicipal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India, made a point of stressing on the importance of coming up with solutions instead of simply stating and restating problems. “When we say something is wrong, are we doing sufficient work to change that?” he asked. He added that programs of scientific communication and outreach often fall flat because they do not meet the criteria of “exemplary + sustainable + scalable”. Many panelists as well as attendees emphasized that communication is the responsibility of all scientists, particularly those who accept government funding. "We can no longer live in ivory towers, " said D Indumathi (IMSc, Chennai).

If science journalism has to penetrate into the masses throughout our country, it needs to break the largely self-imposed barriers of language and geography. A panel consisting of Narmadha Devi (Dinamalar), Pathik Guha (Anandabazar and Desh), Dileep Mampallil (IISER Tirupati), Peer Mohamed (ippodhu.com), Gauhar Raza, Kollegala Sharma (CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) Mysuru) discussed their experience of communicating science regional languages, including the various challenges involved. It was pointed out during this panel that what is required is not just translations, but original content created in the regional languages by people with a clear understanding of both the science and the nuances of the language.

While it is impossible for a two-day meeting to solve the many challenges faced by scientists or science journalists operating in a country where the latter can still be argued to be in its nascent stage, this workshop brought together a group of people committed towards looking for solutions, and paved the way for opening up crucial conversations through similar initiatives throughout the country.

Videos from the meeting can be found here.

A series of articles on issues raised in the meeting by Gautam Menon (IMSc, Chennai) one of the organizers of the workshop, can be found here.

The previous discussion thread about this workshop can be accessed here.

The 2nd National Post Doc Symposium was held at CSIR - Centre for Cellular& Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, from 3 - 5 October, 2018, and was organized by postdocs from CCMB, National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), and Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (inStem) with funding support from IndiaBioscience and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance. The event was attended by 70 postdocs from across India, representing 37 different institutions and uniting with the singular focus of taking their community forward.

The theme for this year’s symposium – “Mentoring Matters” – underscored the conversations at the meeting. Mentoring during the workshop was not limited to the scientific work of postdocs, but extended to career decisions and hands-on workshops to improve soft skills. Rakesh Mishra, Director, CCMB, defined the agenda by noting that while the growing postdoc population in India is a sign of maturation of the scientific system, further support from the wider scientific community is required to nurture its development.

The Symposium has historically been postdoc-centric with dedicated sessions for postdocs to present their work. 18 postdocs from 13 institutions gave short chalkboard or oral talks about their science, and received on-the-spot feedback from mentors attending the same. In addition, poster sessions allowed the postdocs to have insightful conversations with invited faculty mentors.

Perspectives from Mentors

During the course of the meeting, established scientists including Mukund Thattai (NCBS), Rashna Bhandari (Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)), Jyotsna Dhawan (CCMB), LS Shashidhara (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune) and Roop Mallik (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR)) shared their personal scientific journeys that may inspire many of the participants in their own quest for academic success. A key message from these talks was that flexibility in trying new scientific questions or risking an untried path can facilitate career development.

SC Lakhotia (Banaras Hindu University (BHU)) and Appa Rao Podile (Vice Chancellor, University of Hyderabad) called for postdocs to assess the immense value they can bring by teaching in academic universities. They pointed out the responsibility that the postdocs would be able to discharge in shaping the minds of the future scientists of India.

There was also a strong industry representation in this year’s symposium with talks by Vijay Chandru (Strand LifeSciences), Radha Rangarajan (Vitas Pharma) and Krishna Ella (Bharat Biotech). Industry R&D has many opportunities for postdoctoral fellows – not only in the laboratory, but also in other areas such as science advocacy and business development.

Workshops for developing key communication skills

Madhankumar Anandhakrishnan (Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance) conducted a grants writing workshop, offering useful pointers on putting together strong grant applications, with a focus on the India Alliance Early Career Fellowships.

Sarah Iqbal, also from the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, summarized the need to humanize science for public communication and explained the power of authoritative science communication. Sarah echoed a need for India’s scientists to engage constructively with the society to explain their scientific pursuits.

Postdoc first!

In addition to mentoring and networking, the postdoc symposium is meant to be a platform for postdocs to raise and address their concerns. Rashna Bhandari moderated a panel discussion with Dhawan, Thattai, Lakhotia, Mallik and Shashidhara on the issues faced by postdoctoral fellows, including the need for more postdocs in India, reforms in fellowship structures, and the quantum of salary currently being offered. The general consensus was that an effective postdoctoral fellowship should be awarded for a minimum of three years with the provision of extending by an additional two years, subject to a transparent review.

A more pressing need is to review the salary of the postdoctoral fellows across the country and to install a mechanism to ensure timely dispensation of the salary. It was recommended that salaries for Research Associates need to be significantly higher than present guidelines for emoluments laid down by the Department of Science and Technology. One suggestion was to follow the pattern in western countries, where postdoc salaries are 2-2.5 times the fellowship offered to graduate students. A higher band to felicitate exceptional performance could be created to competitively encourage postdocs.

There was also a call for a transparent review process for faculty recruitment as there is a profound perception that Indian institutions prefer postdocs who have trained overseas over India-trained fellows. These perceptions where backed by data presented from a survey of over 600 Indian BSc/MSc/PhD students conducted by Megha (PostDoctoral Fellow, NCBS) and Shambhavi Naik (Research Fellow, Takshashila Institution). Consequently, inclusion of a short international collaboration component in fellowships would better equip the Indian postdocs with the training and exposure that make foreign trained postdocs desirable. Further, formal mentoring to guide PhD students and postdoctoral fellows on career choices and increased engagement between research institutions and universities was deemed necessary for the growth of the Indian scientific community.

Workshop on Developing Interpersonal skills

During the second day, Jay Shankar from Empowered Learning Systems, Pune, conducted a two-hour workshop on presenting your best self. This was an interactive session that let the postdoctoral fellows explore their own communication skills in an informal setting. During the workshop, the participants put themselves in unfamiliar situations and ended up introspecting about their persuasion skills, honing interactive capabilities and creating some long-lasting friendships.

Career Day

Day 3 was conducted at the Atal Incubation Centre-CCMB and was focused on non-academic careers with the opening talk by Smita Jain (IndiaBioscience) who gave an overview of the various choices a PhD in life science opens up.

The day covered a spectrum of non-academic career options for postdocs – Sahana Ghosh (Mongabay India) outlined the path to journalistic science writing, Shyam Suryanarayana (SciTal) suggested frameworks for self-identifying areas of strength and improvement and Jayashree Ramadas (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad) gave insights about science education. A panel discussion on careers highlighted a key area of improvement – most postdocs understood these career options exist but did not know how to pursue them. Short internships for postdocs to explore these opportunities would encourage them to make the best use their skills in areas other than the laboratory. Other talks included Vishwanad Bhoomi and Uma Parameswaran, who spoke about their work profile and job opportunities in the healthcare company, Novartis and patent research services company, SciTech, respectively. The event concluded with a panel on entrepreneurship led by S. Ramaswamy (InStem) with a short question and answer session for postdocs to quiz startup founders, investors and mentors.

Next Steps

The event organisers (Prabhavathy Devan and Gunjan Purohit, CCMB, and Dhananjay Chaturvedi and Sanchari Banerjee, NCBS-InStem) gave an overview of the journey of the symposium and there was a widespread agreement that this event needs to be held annually. This event is run voluntarily by postdocs but requires the support of institutional faculty and management. The organisers expressed their heartfelt thanks to Jyotsna Dhawan for her efforts in bringing this event to fruition at CCMB. A special thanks was also expressed to the various agencies that provided funding and logistics support – IndiaBioscience, Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, and the Atal Incubation Centre-CCMB. Funding was also provided by industry partners (Bharat Biotech and Editage-Cactus Communications) to sponsor dinner engagements, creating an ideal atmosphere for the postdocs to mingle with each other and with mentors.

The many conversations that have arisen from this symposium need to be further refined and reiterated to effect changes. Postdocs are a vital part of the Indian scientific community and only with the support of the entire community can this substantive cohort continue to flourish. Through this self-created platform, the postdoctoral community is seeking the attention and support of scientists, students and policymakers to help them drive Indian science.

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

World War II witnessed gross atrocities in the name of medical experimentation. Nazi physicians experimented on inmates of concentration camps with an absolute disregard for individual autonomy, willing participation and consent. After the war came to an end, the accused underwent a series of trials and prosecutions. One of these was the Doctor’s trial in Nuremberg, during which many German doctors involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder were sentenced to imprisonment or death.

Subsequently, a safeguard was developed in the form of a code of ethics, which came to be known as the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics. It was one of the first documents that laid emphasis on informed participation by human volunteers in research. Voluntary consent now became an absolute necessity, and researchers were urged to ensure that the risks involved in a study do not outweigh its potential benefits. The Nuremberg Code also asserted that participants must be able to exercise free will and withdraw from the study at any point, if they so wish.

As history has shaped it, informed consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. More than a document to be signed, informed consent is a process of communication between the participant and researcher about the procedure of the study and the risks involved. Its purpose is to arm the participant with necessary information on which they can base their decision to be involved in a study. This involves the researchers disclosing the purpose of the study and its expected duration, the extent of confidentiality that would be maintained, and other factors.

Theory vs Practice

Today, obtaining informed consent from participants involved in a research study and ensuring that they have a sound comprehension of the nature of the study is a central tenet of ethical research. However, bringing such ethical guidelines into actual practice poses many challenges. These include socio-economic issues like language barriers, religious influences, and literacy levels, which often prevent volunteers from accurately understanding the study.

Owing to these factors, India finds itself in a unique and vulnerable position. With the multitude of languages that exist in our country, the accuracy of consent forms and participant information sheets may be compromised because of inadequate translation. Moreover, many people have a strong sense of community and participate in collective decision making, especially in the rural areas of the country. Therefore, the choice to be part of a study or otherwise may not completely be one’s own.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) acknowledges the challenges to implement informed consent in the Indian scenario. To this end, they have published the National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health research involving human participants, which can be freely accessed by investigators and study participants alike. The guidelines advocate for marginally literate/illiterate participants in clinical trials, stating that in a situation where both the participant as well as his/her legally authorised representative (LAR) have compromised literacy, an impartial, literate person must be present as a witness while consent is being obtained. Documentation in all such cases is mandatory, whether in the form of a signature, thumb impression or in justifiable cases, verbal/oral confirmation.

Moreover, the guidelines mandate that the participant information sheet should be translated into the local language of the community under consideration, and produced in front of an Ethics Committee for approval. To deal with the issue of community coercion, ICMR guidelines suggest the institution of a Community Advisory Group that protects the rights of the community. The CAG mediates with the researchers and ethical committees for the post-research benefits that the community at large is entitled to. However, community engagement cannot replace an individual’s informed consent, which must be kept in mind in such cases.

Who is a "competent" participant?

There is another layer to the challenges in obtaining appropriate informed consent, beyond the socio-economic factors hitherto discussed. A general understanding is that the person consenting to be part of a research procedure must be “competent”. However, a lack of clarity on who is or is not a competent participant breeds ambiguity in the procedure.

For people with compromised mental faculties, neurological and psychiatric conditions, assessing their ability to consent needs scientific measures. Standardised scales that discern capable from incapable subjects in consent-giving capacity do exist, especially for neuropsychiatric conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. The current research practice in India, however, lacks the use of such objective measures. Deeming a patient to be incompetent without a sound rationale can justify coercive treatment, and hence this matter must be dealt with great sensitivity.

A research procedure may also involve children with varying cognitive levels, or in some cases, psychiatric conditions. Situations such as these call for special measures of consent. A child’s agreement to participate in a research is called assent. If a child objects to participating, i.e., dissents, the wish must be respected, even if he/she does not completely understand the nature of the study. The National Ethics Guidelines for Bio-Medical Research involving Children was issued by ICMR in 2017 in this respect. It states that for any research procedure, an oral assent is mandatory for children between 7-12 years of age under direct supervision of their parents, and a written assent for children of 13-18 years of age.

A phase IV clinical trial conducted by PATH in 2009 is illustrative of malpractices that may occur while obtaining assent from children. 30,000 tribal girls from Andhra Pradesh and Vadodara, all aged between 10-14, were administered the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines - Gardasil and Cervarix. Ethical norms were openly flouted, as wardens of residential schools signed most of the consent forms without bringing it to the parent’s knowledge. Even in cases where the parents were involved, the students were handed the consent forms and asked to obtain signatures or thumbprints from their guardians (who were illiterate in many cases) without a direct intervention by the researchers themselves in counselling the participants. Therefore, legal protection for children must be contended for, to complement the newly released ICMR guidelines for research involving children.

The road ahead

A definitive idea that emerges from a critical analysis of ethical issues in research is that a participant has the right to choose whether to be part of a study or not. To exercise this right, he/she must have a sound understanding of the research procedure, and formalize his/her agreement in the form of appropriately documented informed consent. Some ideas emerged in a discussion with Manthan Janodia from Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, who has previously written about the issues and challenges involved in obtaining informed consent in India.

Janodia is of the opinion that awareness is the key to cultivate a mindset of executing the process of informed consent, and this holds true both for researchers and participants. “The content of what is communicated to the participants is of utmost importance," he said, “The participants need to know more than the technical details of the drug they will be administered. Encapsulating one’s message in the right set of words is a people’s skill that must be instilled in young researchers, starting from their undergraduate days. Including the practice of taking an informed consent in the curriculum of research-oriented courses would be a good start.”

Please let us know your views and opinions on this article in the comments below.

In March 2010, a vaccination trial for the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) ground to a halt after media reports emerged of the deaths of 7 girls enrolled in the trials. Although the inquiry committee concluded that the deaths were not caused by the vaccine, it remarked on the non-adherence to ethical standards by trial organisers during the study. Specifically, the committee pointed out the failure to obtain proper informed consent, provide explanation for the role or usefulness of HPV vaccination and the inability of the Principal Investigators to monitor adverse effects during the study.

This was not the first time when a clinical research trial came into the spotlight in India for controversial reasons. In the 1970s and 80s, more than a thousand women were inducted into a study by researchers at the Institute for Cytology and Preventive Oncology in New Delhi to monitor the progress of precancerous lesions of the cervix. Women identified with these lesions were left untreated - several later developed invasive cancer.

These controversies demand focus on the ethical standards of biomedical research in our country. What are the ethical guidelines for clinical research, who formulates them and who ensures compliance of safety standards? And what happens when someone flouts these regulations? We approached Urmila Thatte, Professor and Head at the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College & KEM Hospital, Mumbai for answers. Thatte serves on several vigilance and ethics committees as well as task forces in India. She is also on the WHO Expert Advisory Panel on Drug Evaluation, and serves as the Secretary of the Forum for Ethics Review Committees in India.

Ethical guidelines – an overview

“Currently the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is mandated with forming ethical guidelines in India,” explains Thatte, “But these are just guidelines, i.e. there is no legal status accorded to them. And although many people argue that adherence to these is not mandatory, if you go to a court of law, a violation could go against you since these are national guidelines officially released by a government agency.”

We peeked into what these guidelines are. Funded by the Government of India through the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, ICMR is the apex body that formulates, coordinates and promotes guidelines for conducting all health-related research in India. This includes biomedical, social, genetic and behavioural studies as well as the complementary systems of AYUSH. In 2017, ICMR released revised guidelines titled “National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants”. These guidelines reiterate the four basic ethical principles: non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, beneficence and justice.

Expanded into 12 general principles of (i) essentiality (ii) voluntariness (iii) non-exploitation (iv) social responsibility (v) ensuring privacy and confidentiality (vi) risk minimization (vii) professional competence (viii) maximization of benefit (ix) institutional arrangements (x) transparency and accountability (xi) totality of responsibility and (xii) environmental protection, these guidelines aim to ‘protect the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of research participants’. Apart from ICMR, “Schedule Y” of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, and Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) also provide guidelines that adhere to international standards for clinical research practice.

Despite the existence of these guidelines, we do not have any substantial data on compliance (or lack thereof) by research organisations or companies. “That’s the problem,” says Thatte, “There is hardly any compliance check of the guidelines. The fact is that ICMR has released these guidelines and researchers are expected to follow them. Lack of legislation means even the evidence of violations is low. I personally don’t know the numbers, but compliance tends to be less than desired.”

Ethics Committees and Gatekeeping

In the face of limited regulatory oversight, the repercussions that a researcher, a journal or an institute might face following misconduct are limited. This is where the role of ethics committees (EC) becomes central. Most reputed journals, for example, insist on EC approval before a researcher embarks on a human clinical trial. Ethics committees require a quorum of 5 -15 members, having at least one each of basic biomedical scientist, clinician, legal expert/retired judge, social scientist/NGO representative, ethicist and lay person from the community. ECs are also required to undergo a methods and registration process for functioning and only thereafter get the authority to approve clinical research involving human subjects.

The entire process aims to ensure that requirements of patient confidentiality and informed consent are met. “Ethics committees ask investigators how they will protect information, and if the answers are acceptable, then that is adequate for approval,” explains Thatte, “The ECs also decide on what trials would need human data based on the objectives of the study and what previous data is being given to them. Even re-use of data requires approval, though you may not need patient consent.”

However, having ECs does not completely eliminate the issues of ethical violations in clinical research. ECs themselves have faced several challenges in the past including “inadequate formal training, contribution from non-technical members, administrative support, as well as no Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs and a heavy workload” (as Thatte described in this paper). Unlike in animal research, India does not have a central biomedical ethics committee. Thus each independent or institutional ethics committee works in isolation with their own sets of predicaments.

“They [ethics committees] have improved a lot in the last 10-15 years,” says Thatte, “Registration with Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has become mandatory, which has helped improve the structure. The DCGI office is quite vigilant and it is not easy to get registered. Which means those that are registered are of a certain standard, with SOPs in place.” Thatte shuffles through her papers, and elaborates on the numbers - about a 1000 institutional ECs were registered in 2013, out of which 615 were eligible for re-registration in 2016. The eventual number was only about 449. Eligibility criteria, which entail re-application after 3 years of first registration, have thus become more stringent.

Are we there yet?

ICMR’s other major contribution to increase transparency is the initiation of the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) in 2007. CTRI is a public domain database where researchers are expected to register their trials and upload all information related to protocols, conformity to ethical standards, and results of the trials, allowing others to freely access relevant information.

These administrative measures by government agencies have helped define the ethical boundaries in Indian clinical trials, but the buck doesn’t stop here. Increased vigilance and implementation of guidelines, such as through legal avenues, would ramp up the quality of research done in the country. It is equally important that the public becomes aware of their rights as patients in clinical trials. If a trial medicine produces side effects, a patient can report it on the free ICMR helpline (1800-180-3024) or mail pvpi.compat@gmail.com. Physicians are also expected to identify and report such adverse reactions in their patients.

There is still a long way to go. We need more clinical research that keeps the diversity of India, including varied socio-economic factors, ethnical & genetic heterogeneity in focus. Despite corrective actions being put in place in the last 5 years or so, many amendments are still ambiguous and some (such as Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill) are yet to be passed in the parliament.

With stricter regulations in 2013-14, global clinical trials in India went through a deceleration phase. Agreeably thus, corrective regulatory reforms that protect patients, ensure ethical oversight and also provide positive environment for quality clinical research are the way forward.

Thank you for reading this article. Please let us know your views on this subject in the comments below.

Between January 2018 and May 2018, 12 papers published by two researchers from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad were retracted because of image duplication and manipulation.

On April 19^th 2018, a PhD student from Calcutta University wrote a public post about the data manipulation in her lab where her guide and a senior research scholar drew “molecular weight markers with pencil on a blot and 'rescanned' the blot to convince the reviewers and the editorial board of the journal”.

In recent times, India has been in the limelight for several cases of fraudulent imaging practices. In a study published in 2016, researchers from Stanford University, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Washington School of Medicine analysed the prevalence of image duplication across different countries. To do this, they looked at 348 papers with image duplications published between 2013 and 2014 in Plos One and mapped their country of origin. The papers with duplicated images most frequently originated in India, followed by China and Taiwan.

Honest mistakes or fabrications?

Before we can discuss strategies to combat this trend, we need to understand the origin of this behaviour. Is it possible to determine if these cases arise from honest mistakes during image processing, data compilation or figure preparation – or are they outright acts of misconduct?

In a recent study available in pre-print format in BioRxiv, researchers visually analysed 960 papers published in Molecular and Cell Biology between 2009 and 2016 for inappropriate image duplication. Out of these, 59 papers (6.1%) contained inappropriate image manipulations. Interestingly, most authors who made formal corrections reported that the error arose during image assembly. For example, sometimes they accidentally included the same image twice, selected the wrong image, or assembled panels with incorrectly placed images.

This study is reassuring in the fact that most such errors could be resolved by improving the imaging and compiling practices of the authors. However, these results may not represent a general trend for papers from different countries, and we do not know how many of those 960 papers were from India.

The line between ‘adjustment’ and ‘manipulation’ can be blurry

These images show a view of few cells from a tissue during development in Drosophila. The first image (A) is unadjusted. The second (B) is adjusted, but there is no loss of information. The third image (C), though cleanest in appearance, has been adjusted such that certain information is now lost from the image−you can no longer see the small dots in some cells in the bottom right (blue circles, B). The last panel (D, blue rectangle) shows a view where the intensity of one cell has been selectively increased. Out of these cases, the second modification (B) may be acceptable, but the third and fourth (C and D) undeniably count as ‘manipulation’.

First point about making these changes – it is easy! If someone wanted to make such changes a decade ago, they would have had to put in real effort. Today, one can create a panel within minutes showing that one cell selectively shows increased levels of x protein.

Second, even if the error arose due to an erratic mouse click, it still counts as ‘manipulation’. Below is a list of some ‘honest errors’ which still count as manipulation:

• If you splice two gel images from different experiments into one without specifying.
• If you duplicate a lane in a western blot into another panel.
• If you specifically modify certain parts of an image in contrast to the whole image.
• If you combine images from different regions/time into one without specifying or showing the borders.
• If you do not possess unaltered original images/blots for each of your panels.
• If you label your images/panels incorrectly.
• If you use Photoshop to remove certain signals to make your image look ‘nice and clean’.
• If you crop certain parts of an image without mentioning. “If you desperately want to see a particular result, you can probably find it in some corner of your image – despite the fact that the major part of the data says a different story”, quips Sudipto Maiti, Professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai and a regular instructor at the Bangalore Microscopy Course at the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bangalore, one of the few courses in India which imparts training in microscopy and image processing.

The changing landscape of image submissions to journals

Journals are now adapting to the increased threat of image manipulations, and most journals require that images be minimally processed and that all unprocessed data and metafiles be submitted at the time of review. All image acquisition tools, image processing software, and processing manipulations to improve the image should be mentioned.

Journals are also training their editors to detect ‘tell-tale’ signs that an image is manipulated. Some journals perform ‘spot check’ where all images of a randomly selected paper in each issue are visually checked for image manipulations. Recently, researchers developed a software which could check image manipulation in papers. In time, the use of such software, similar to software that check plagiarism, could become prevalent in journals. Maiti has another suggestion along these lines. “It may not be too much work to get the image processing software providers to make their software so that it always embeds the raw image inside the processed image,” he says, “This will enable anyone to say do a left click on the image and check what the raw data looked like. This embedded raw image should be non-manipulable and traceable to the original machine. The journals should insist on having the image in this format, so that at least on the online format, the raw data is always available”.

What can the scientific community do to counter image manipulations in India?

Increasing awareness

“Training in advanced microscopy and imaging is indeed lagging behind,” states Rahul Roy, Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore and also an instructor at the Bangalore Microscopy Course. “There have been several efforts to impart such training through workshops and courses but they are still limited. Therefore, ‘imaging literacy’ is poor and access to new technology without proper training and support is already an impediment to doing good science”, he says.

Shifting from qualitative to quantitative reporting of images

Roy stresses that “the focus should be shifted from qualitative research reporting (like images) to quantitative reporting with statistical analysis from raw images that accompany the images”. This can be useful in cases where a single image is displayed which may not be representative of the actual data.

National and institutional legal policies

Two recent studies assessed various risk factors for scientific misconduct. Interestingly, the most common factor which is usually attributed to this behaviour − the pressure to ‘publish or perish’ – was not found to be a significant risk factor. Instead, the likelihood of retraction was lower for countries where policies against scientific misconduct were legally defined either at the level of the nation or the institution. Thus, establishing legal infrastructure in Indian institutes and government against all categories of scientific misconduct could be a potential deterrent against deliberate malpractice.

Peer control and cultural factors

Open communication and mutual criticism are two of the pillars of science. A scientific culture where peers or collaborators are discouraged or scared to criticize their peers’ work breeds an environment ripe for fraudulent practices. As a scientific community, we should encourage an environment where student and colleagues can provide honest and unbiased peer control both locally (as lab members and intra-institute members) and globally.

Misconduct does not affect one person or a lab; it shapes the view of science in our country and is a reflection of us as a scientific community. Thus, sincere and urgent efforts are required from both the scientific community and the government to improve the pursuit of science in India.

================================

This was the first article in our new series on research ethics. Please let us know your views on this topic in the comments below.

The last few decades have seen a steady increase in research output from India's rapidly growing pool of academicians and scientists. While this is certainly a positive development for our country, institutional policies, particularly those in place for hiring and evaluating researchers, have struggled to keep up. Current policies suffer from a lack of transparency and consistency, and many researchers have expressed concerns that they impose flawed benchmarks for scientists to meet in order to progress in their careers. In the wake of this, the Indian National Science Academy (INSA) recently released a policy statement that provides specific recommendations on the way basic research should be disseminated and evaluated by the Indian scientific community.

Quantifying research 'impact'

At present, any assessment of the quality of scientific contributions made by an individual scientist or an organisation often relies on the use of bibliometric standards such as the impact factor of the journals that papers are published in, the total number of publications authored by a scientist, or a myriad of citation-based indexes. “Almost nobody reads what is published,” says Subhash Chandra Lakhotia, INSA fellow and one of the lead authors of the policy statement, “They simply go by impact factor or the name of the journal, which is completely wrong.”

Metrics like impact factors reduce research output to numbers. On one hand, this makes the assessment of a large number of applications quicker and easier for already over-burdened scientists. On the other hand, this often results in a loss of the big-picture understanding of the scientific merits of a certain body of work.

Fears have also been expressed that the need to publish in high-impact factor journals sometimes creates a subtle pressure on scientists to modify the focus and interpretation of their research. “By putting a premium on publication in such journals, we are asking our young researchers to do a certain kind of research and to ensure that that research is published in a certain kind of journal,” says Praveen Chaddah, the other lead author of INSA’s policy statement. “Our interpretation of our research, the way we present it, is now being conditioned by the need to publish in such journals,” he says.

“The reason we are in this situation is because the metrics we have for numerically quantifying research impact are flawed,” says Megha, post-doctoral fellow at the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bangalore, adding that prescriptive and restrictive policies tend to mask the diversity of Indian research.

The use of publication metrics as a standard for assessing scientific merit may also extract a heavy toll from young graduate students who are just beginning their careers and already feel the pressure to publish in high-impact journals. “It takes away from that wonder and excitement,” says Rashna Bhandari, Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad, “What they are doing primarily needs to be driven by curiosity, by the satisfaction that you get at the end of finding something new, the joy that they will get from sharing it with their peers and with the world.”

The INSA policy statement strongly recommends that research should be evaluated on the basis of "what is published" rather than "where it is published". Since it may be impossible for hiring, granting and awarding committees to do an in-depth analysis of the scientific merit of every single publication by any particular candidate, the statement suggests that a researcher should be allowed to select their five “best” papers, which may then be classified by an expert committee as being "confirmatory ", "incremental" or "path-breaking" in nature.

The last category of “path-breaking” research has the highest impact on the scientific community at large and should be encouraged, according to Chaddah. “This is the kind of research we really want coming out from our leading institutes, from our best brains,” he says, “Unfortunately, we are not giving rewards for this kind of research.”

Taking research to the community

Our current policies for evaluating research also have a strong impact on the way researchers choose to disseminate their research. Over-reliance on impact factors and bibliometrics leads scientists to chase high-profile publications in well-known journals, increasing the time required for results to become available to the community at large and increasing the chances of idea-plagiarism and loss of priority on a particular discovery.

To counter this, the INSA policy statement recommends that researchers make use of the several pre-print servers that currently exist and which allow scientists to establish precedence before waiting for the lengthy pre-publication peer review process. Such repositories are publicly accessible and allow peers to discuss and comment on published content. “Publication process is only the start of the evaluation of the scientific result. The validation process starts only after you have publicly released it within the community,” says Chaddah.

While being used quite extensively by mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists, pre-print repositories are yet to see widespread use outside these fields. Biologists, in particular, have been slow to make use of bioRxiv, the pre-print server for life sciences that was launched in 2013. “I think there's still a lot of wait and watch going on,” says Bhandari.

INSA’s statement also speaks out against the policy that several institutes implement of asking for a researcher's contributions to be segregated as being published in 'national' vs 'international' journals – with the implication being that publications in Indian journals are either less reliable or of a lesser value than those in international journals. This discourages scientists from sending their research to Indian journals, starting a vicious cycle which prevents the latter from rising in quality. The present statement strongly discourages such classifications. “Our journals are international journals,” says Bhandari.

Another unfortunate side effect of the pressure to publish has been a rise in the number of predatory journals and conferences which allow scientists to pad their CVs and increase the number of publications "for a fee". A recent investigative report by The Indian Express revealed the presence of hundreds of such journals in India which charge hefty fees to churn out so-called research papers with minimal editing or reviewing.

“The genesis has to be sought in the fact that for nearly two-three decades, scientists agreed that they will pay open access charges, and processing charges and so on,” says Lakhotia, “For predatory journals and publishers, this was ready ground.”

So, what should young researchers choose to do in such a situation? “Submit the paper to the best journal (i.e. many of your peers read that journal) where you think it can get accepted. Simultaneously, put up your paper on a widely read pre-print archive,” says Chaddah. Lakhotia agrees - “As long as the journal is available publically in the given discipline and has good policy, they [young scientists] should publish and then instead of worrying about impact factor, they should justify that they did good science.”

INSA’s policy statement was published in the Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy and is already provoking discussions in several academic circles. “It really helps that INSA has put out this policy document,” says Bhandari, “I think it has been long in the making and really, really needed.”

============================

Do you agree with the policy recommendations put forward by INSA? Let us know in the comments below.

The first Young Investigator Meeting in Trivandrum in 2009 was inspired by a dinner that I had with three junior faculty in 2008 while I was on sabbatical at NCBS. The dinner conversation was centered around their questions and concerns regarding establishing their own independent laboratory. When I returned home from dinner, the evening’s discussion raced through my mind and loomed larger in its importance. These young scientists’ aspirations and insecurities in their transition struck me as similar to India’s predicament as a whole. How can India make the transition to becoming a leader in scientific research?

As I pondered this larger question, India’s scientific future seemed to be inextricably linked with the futures of these three junior faculty. They, and their peers throughout India, had to succeed if India was to succeed as a whole. However, the need for more mentoring by these three junior faculty revealed a gap in the Indian system as a whole. Something needed to happen at a bigger scale than just one dinner conversation. Furthermore, a spotlight needed to be placed on the careers of young scientists that was bright enough to draw the attention of senior scientists, institute directors, and government leaders. The Young Investigator Meeting became that spotlight as well as the nation-wide extension of the mentoring conversation that happened over dinner in Bangalore.

Many of the topics that I had discussed with the junior faculty over dinner are similar to those covered at YIM. What are the skills needed to run a successful lab? How does one succeed within the opportunities and constraints of India? How does one guide students? How does get research funds, get papers published, and nucleate collaborations? How can one get great young Indian scientists who have trained abroad to come back to India? What are inspiring stories of people who have succeeded scientifically in India? What more can be done to help women scientists succeed, allow for the success of scientists in universities and colleges, and create research programs in the diverse regions of India? Now in its 10^th year, the YIM has served as a forum for these discussions as well as a wonderful opportunity to learn about outstanding science being done by young and senior scientists in all areas of biology.

Perhaps even more important than the scientific discussions and mentoring of young scientists is the strong sense of community that has developed around each YIM. Collaborations and friendships have grown out of YIM. Young scientists have received inspiration from other peers and learned that they are not alone in their frustrations. Most importantly, most leave feeling more optimistic about their future. YIM is a shared experience that connects young scientists from different scientific fields, different parts of the country, different stages of the academic ladder, and even across different YIMs. “Which YIM did you go to? I went to the one in….” YIM creates a sense of being part of something bigger that unifies young scientists throughout India and across time. This sense of connectivity is important for the success of Indian science, as I will discuss later.

The 10th anniversary of the YIM presents an opportunity to “take the pulse” of the biological sciences in India and explore where it might be headed. The meeting will engage young scientists in thinking through issues that are relevant to their future, and we hope that several white papers will emerge. In this blog, I will highlight perspectives that will discuss in my opening talk at this year’s YIM. I will make the case that India should not blindly follow the path taken by the US in some areas and rather be willing to adopt new ideas and Indian-specific solutions. In closing, I also will reflect on what 10 years of YIM may have offered to India as a whole.

Propelling unique research programs in India

Academic scientists in India have considerable freedom in choosing their research topic. However, often, the seeds of those choices are planted in the US or Europe and not in India. Indians typically go to the US or Europe for postdoctoral training. Those that return to India as junior faculty often continue to work in the same area as their postdoctoral training. Familiarity and inertia are part of the reason. However, the reward system also favours the continuation of past projects, grant review committees often require preliminary results and evidence of competency in the field. In addition, the time to tenure for junior faculty is short and papers must be produced for promotion committees. Young scientists understandably feel these pressures to be productive and continuing past work often seems like the safest route.

The problem with this model is that one’s postdoctoral work may not be well-suited to circumstances in India. In a large US university, the postdoc may have been aided collaborations, or critical resources from cores and/or neighbouring labs. However, as a junior faculty in a smaller Indian institute or university department, the resources may be limiting and perhaps there may be few, if any colleagues, in their specific area of research. In addition, if the field is moving fast, it might be difficult to compete with US labs given the longer time needed to train students and establish a well-functioning lab in India.

India also could benefit from not just importing research programs from the US but more actively nurturing research that is pertinent to its needs and environment. Such areas include microbial biology, infectious diseases, plant sciences, ecology, among others. Many research topics are less studied and supported in the US. In addition, India contains unique biological resources that merit study, including its enormous biological diversity and the genomes of its human population that contain insights into human biology and disease.

India is expanding research efforts along the lines described above. The recent effort by the DBT to establish a marine biological research station in Goa is an example of a program devoted to understudied biology and India’s natural resources. However, many other ideas and efforts should be encouraged. It also important to consider initiatives that would re-train Indian scientists, but do not require building brick-and-mortar institutes. Let’s imagine a young or mid-career faculty member who is interested in transitioning part of his/her laboratory from, let’s say, Drosophila development, to studying the cell biology of malaria. Transitional grant mechanism (or “schemes” in the Indian parlance) that facilitate such work could be helpful. Such funding could include travel funds for short visits to labs abroad or in India to learn new techniques and forge collaborations. Establishing (and perhaps providing some funding) for “collaborative networks” within India also could help in welcoming and lowering the barrier for entry of newcomers to a field. Participation a “collaborative network” (e.g. in malaria) could involve data and reagent sharing, student exchanges, annual or semi-annual meetings, and training workshops. These networks also could help to connect a critical mass of investigators to tackle a problem within India.

Developing National Solutions for Cutting-Edge Technologies

Access to cutting-edge technologies is becoming increasingly important in modern biological research. The latest cryo-electron microscopes, super-resolution microscopes, DNA sequencers and mass spectrometers are just some of the instruments deemed to be essential. Thus, American universities are in continual “arms race” to acquire the latest instruments to retain their stature as a top university. Naturally, this requires that universities raise funds for instruments with ever-ballooning price tags. And blunders are not uncommon. In the eagerness to be at the leading edge, sometimes instruments are bought that are rarely used or show up without personnel in place, who know how to run them properly.

The instrumentation “arms race” in the US, China and Europe could leave India at a disadvantage.Because of the high cost, it is simply not possible for large numbers of Indian institutes and universities to follow the US model of being entirely self-sufficient in their suite of technologies. India must be more strategic to reach the same goals.

One strategy would to be to create more emphasis on national or regional centers of technology. Building facilities whose intention is to serve multiple institutions would facilitate broader and more democratic access to technologies. Importantly, by limiting the numbers of such facilities, focus could be placed on their excellence. Some facilities might require considerable resources and highly skilled individuals as directors and might operate at a national-scale. An example is the national cryo-EM facility (with its new Krios electron microscope), which has recently begun operations at NCBS/InStem and could expand in the future. Others facilities with broader use might be regional (e.g. mass spec and sequencing). A team of faculty (potentially from multiple institutions) could oversee such facilities. Because instrumentation is becoming increasingly automated, samples can be shipped from labs to these facilities (easy for sequencing but also possible for crystallography and cryo-EM). However, it is also important for investigators to come in person, which will require short-term housing Other associated challenges are to organise fair access and structure usage fees for such facilities.

Instruments are only as good as the people who run them. However, US institutions rarely have career tracks for individuals involved in technology development and support. Unlike the US, India could consider creating more technology support/development career track positions, ideally with a similar stature to academic faculty. If this happens, India would be more competitive in hiring such such individuals than the US. Technology development faculty also could develop courses for students and postdocs, which will have great value to India as a whole. The Bangalore Microscopy Course is an example of an outstanding course open to students throughout India and the world, and is now organised primarily by core facility managers at NCBS.

Building a sustainable pipeline of graduate and postdoc training

Between the first and the 10^th YIM, the postdoctoral work force in India has grown considerably. While perhaps an outlier, the number of postdocs at NCBS has grown 10-fold during this period time (now numbering ~100), while its faculty has only doubled in size. Postdocs are no doubt valuable additions to a laboratory and the research workforce overall. Good postdocs also are great mentors for younger students.

However, increasing the number of postdoctoral fellows has led to certain undesirable outcomes in the USA. A few decades ago, postdoctoral training typically was brief (e.g. 2 years). Now, a five year postdoc period is the norm; some stay longer. The postdoc period is becoming less about receiving training and more about obtaining the right type of scientific papers to get a job. PIs in the US also have become “addicted” to the highly skilled and relatively inexpensive postdoc workforce to fuel their research. Because of the long period of postdoc training and uncertainty of a job, many postdocs in the US have become disillusioned.

What can India learn from the problems that the US faces? First, Indian institutes and universities need to pay attention to their recent expansion of postdocs and decide how they want to treat these young scientists. Indian postdocs need to receive quality training, including in skills needed to obtain jobs, and be treated as trainees not just as labourers. Young scientists in some areas in India have self-organised to form Postdoc Associations, which is a positive step forward. However, senior leadership also should take responsibility for well-being and careers of the postdocs at their institutions. Furthermore, institutions (and perhaps India as a whole) should collect data on the length of time of postdoc training and their job outcomes. The US has failed to collect such data, and as a result, postdocs have become an invisible workforce. Since the postdoc expansion is so recent in India, now is the time to do things properly right.

India also must be attentive to its own attitudes and biases when it comes to hiring its own postdocs. Indian institutes and universities generally hire faculty who have gone abroad for postdoctoral training, recognising the valuable experience of being in a US or European laboratory. However, now India faces a dilemma. If India wants to have excellent postdocs working in their own country, rather than going abroad, then it needs to find jobs for them. Doing a postdoc in India must have value. Thus, Indian postdocs should be given a fair opportunity in the Indian academic job market, and indeed Indian postdocs are watching the situation to see what will happen. Even if a few Indian postdocs are hired to India’s top institutes, then this will send a clear message to young scientists that an Indian postdoc is not a dead-end for high career aspirations. Establishing more staff scientists positions (similar to Europe) also might provide new job routes for postdocs in India and be a good investment for Indian science overall.

One difficulty in evaluating Indian postdocs is recognising that they may not have papers in “fancy” journals like their some of their counterparts that went to labs in the US. Sadly, papers have turned into a quick and easy solutions for hiring committees to make decision. However, more important than papers is judging the character and scientific potential of an individual, which is the core of long-term success. India should invest the time to evaluate individuals, locally and abroad, using multiple means including recommendations and interviews (in person or via Skype).

Rigorous evaluation of individuals, and not their CVs, also may allow India to become more competitive in its hiring practices versus the US. For example, India might take some chances in hiring younger scientists to faculty positions, which would be a welcome change to the current trend of increasing time to independence. Many of the great discoveries in science were made by individuals in their twenties or early thirties. Offering a future faculty position to a brilliant Indian scientist who has just finished his PhD or after 1-2 years of postdoc might only be done in unusual circumstances of excellence (not politics). However, India would then reach these talented individuals before they receive more lucrative offers in the US. These individuals also could be allowed to train for a year or two abroad before starting their job in India.

Concluding remarks

After 10 years of YIM, where are we? Has it made a difference? About 800 junior faculty and postdocs have attended the first 9 YIMs. My sense is that it has done them some good. YIM has not solved the issues facing young scientists in India. But it has drawn significant national attention to their careers and mentoring. Many institute directors came to YIM skeptical at first, but left understanding what YIM seeks to accomplish for of young scientists. >50 international senior scientists also have attended YIM, many for the first time, and left inspired and more willing to engage with Indian science. YIM also has given Indian postdocs abroad a chance to see what returning to India might be like, not with glossary brochures but with frank discussions that expose the messy realities, opportunities, and warmth that are altogether characteristic of India. YIM also has served as a national forum where issues of Indian science could be discussed freely between junior and senior faculty and government leaders. Indeed, the 10^th anniversary YIM is structured primarily to address key national issues and produce white papers.

Many young scientists came to YIM seeking jobs, mentoring, collaborations, and perhaps inspiration. While these are all important, my greatest hope was that YIM might instill a sense of leadership and community-mindedness in young scientists. More than new buildings and equipment, India needs new leaders. I heard a senior scientist bemoan that Indian science is like a bucket full of crabs; when one crab manages to get to the top and escape, it is pulled down by the others. Such perceptions need to change. The future of Indian science cannot be dictated by those who complain but rather should be handed to those who have the energy and inspiration to build. As a Chinese proverb says, "The person who says, 'It can't be done' should not interrupt the person who is doing it."

New Indian leaders must rise from the ranks of this generation of YIM attendees. Young and mid-career scientists need to roll-up their sleeves and become the change that they want to see in India. Driven by passion and duty, these new leaders can do many things, big and small. The jobs include eventually becoming heads of institutes or departments, developing better graduate programs, working with government in the implementation of their programs, developing better institutional recruitment practices, helping with running instrument cores, volunteering in local schools, communicating science to the public, and the list can go on for pages. YIM has tried to plant this seed of public duty and community spirit. If this seed might be remembered by its attendees and germinate in the future, then YIM indeed will have been a great success.

The lakes of Bengaluru once popular for their beauty, are now famous for producing toxic foam, fire, foul odour and dead fishes. For centuries, these lakes have met the household and agricultural needs of the local inhabitants. In fact, many of these lakes are a natural part of city’s geography. Bengaluru has an undulating terrain and is marked by a series of valleys radiating from a ridge that forms three major watersheds, the Hebbal valley, Vrishabhavathi valley and the Koramangala & Challaghatta valleys.

The lakes dotting each of these watersheds are interconnected through a vast drainage network that was meant to carry storm water from one water body to another. Now this network mostly carries untreated sewage water and partially treated industrial & domestic wastewater. About 1258 MLD (million litres of sewage per day) is generated in the city daily and almost 65% of it remains untreated. This unchecked discharge of polluted water has proved to be devastating for the city's lakes.

However, local bodies comprising of the government, residents and researchers have now seen some success in restoring, a few of these lakes using research-backed methods. For example, Jakkur lake in the north of Bengaluru has a sewage management system that consists of a sewage treatment plant (STP) and a constructed wetland. This lake receives about 10 MLD of treated water from Jakkur STP and 0.5 MLD of raw sewage from an open storm water drain.

Treated water coming out of the Jakkur STP passes through a constructed wetland before entering the lake. This wetland is highly aerobic and colonised by algae and native macrophyte species Daphnia and Rotifera. The macrophytes help to remove fine particulate matter and algae perform nutrient remediation by taking up carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals.

The scientists studying this sewage management system have found it to be effective in cleaning up the lake water. Priyanka Jamwal, a research fellow Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, tried to measure the efficiency of this sewage management system and found that the level of ammonia reduced from~25mg/l at the inlet to less than 5 mg/l at the outlet of the lake.

In another lake, Puttenahalli, located near JP Nagar in South Bengaluru artificial floating islands were created to filter out sewage remains released into the water body. The structure of the island is made using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes, fishing nets and discarded 1 litre PET bottles. Plants like vetiver, canna and colocasia then anchor themselves to this structure. The roots of the plants float in water and feed on the nutrient rich water thereby removing the pollutants.

After the installing the floating islands, the level of dissolved oxygen (DO) in in the lake water shot up from 1.3 mg/litre in July 2016 to 3.8 mg/litre in a span of a year. As the results are promising and cost of making an artificial island low, the citizen-driven Puttenahalli Neighbourhood Lake Improvement Trust (PNLIT), who conceived the project, plans to expand it.

“All untreated sewage should be treated first, and then let into constructed wetlands to remove the nitrates and phosphates that remain after secondary STP treatment. More plants need to be built by BWSSB with all the sewerage networks linked to the plants and unauthorised release of sewage into storm water drains has to be prevented”, said, Sharad Lele Senior Fellow at ATREE and a member of Bellandur lake committee formed by the government of Karnataka

Several citizens’ groups have signed MOUs with the municipality (BBMP) to protect and rejuvenate the lakes. The lake groups spend their own funds and time to maintain, patrol, report on illegal sewage dumping and pressuring BWSSB to maintain the quality of the STP effluent as in the case of Jakkur lake. To create the feeling of ownership, recreational activity at the lakes like bird watching, drawing contests, music events, tree planting, walks are conducted. Other renovated city lakes are Sankey tank, Madiwala Lake and Nagavara lakes.

Though things have started improving for several lakes, the outlook for the largest lakes in the city- Bellandur and Varthur– is still looking grim. Bellandur lake spreads across an area of 365 ha. It is situated 5 km, upstream of Varthur Lake which spreads over an area of 220 ha. Both lie at the end of the lake series as per city’s topography and receive entire untreated sewage and industrial effluent from other upstream lakes.

Around 600 million litres per day (MLD) of sewage is diverted to their sewage treatment plants but only 200-220 MLD gets treated and the rest flows into the lakes. A recent study carried out by TV Ramachandran, Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, has now shown that the wetlands − margins along the lakes– have the potential to naturally degrade the domestic and industrial waste dumped in it. Wetlands help to recharge the groundwater by functioning in tandem as anaerobic-aerobic ponds. The high influx of effluent endows the lake with most tolerant micro flora like bacteria, algae and hardy aquatic plants.

Bacteria degrade the organic biomolecules such as polysaccharides, protein and lipids under anaerobic condition. Next, the algal systems reduce carbon, absorb inorganic nutrients and increase pH during aerobic condition. Along with the biotic community, the seasonal variations in temperature, wind speed and rainfall significantly modify the physical, chemical and biological process in the lakes.

For example, the ability to process pollutant varies greatly from pre-monsoon to monsoon. During the pre-monsoon season, water hyacinth blooms grow exponentially to cover 75% of the lake. They form a permanent cover on the lake surface, making the lakes suffer a lack of oxygen. Also, the overgrowth lowers light penetration and hampers algal growth. However, during monsoon in Varthur lake, the dense water hyacinth is washed out, by the high wind velocity and the large quantum of fresh water runoff. This helps to create open aerobic algal ponds with optimum light penetration.

What is also important to understand is that the lakes natural ability for bio-remediation is limited. Optimum bio remediation happens when the amount of pollutants entering the lake is below its threshold treatment capability.

The efficiency can be enhanced though, by regular clearing of the floating macrophytes, de-silting lakes for increasing the water residence time and regulating the concentration of carbon in the incoming sewage.

There might be no easy and quick solutions for reviving the unhealthy lakes but long-term solutions encompassing technological, ecological and social process are likely to improve the lake environment as already seen in some of the lakes.