Survival refers to the persistence of life, whether it be of an individual, a population, or an entire ecosystem, and is mostly shaped by adaptation, resource availability, and environmental interactions from an ecological standpoint. Popularly captured in the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, it underpins evolution and sustains the resilience and diversity of the natural world.

But what happens when we extend this idea to human societies? At its simplest, survival means access to essential elements like food, water, shelter, and safety. These elements align with the core dimensions of human security introduced in the United Nations Development Programme’s landmark Human Development Report of 1994. However, sociology reminds us that this definition is incomplete. Émile Durkheim’s writings on social solidarity and Pierre Bourdieu’s work on inequality tell us that survival is not only material but also social. True survival also interweaves dignity, equity, participation, and autonomy. If ecology teaches us about interdependence, sociology highlights how power and inequality shape access to resources.

Survival and power: In human societies, survival is often mediated by three main questions: (A) Who controls the land? (B) Who decides on development? (C) Who bears the costs of ecological damage? Thus, these questions lie in both realms – sociological as well as ecological. Marginalised groups such as Adivasi communities, small farmers, fishing families, and the urban poor are most dependent on natural resources, yet they remain the most vulnerable to environmental degradation. Ironically, they contribute the least to the crises they endure.

In Central India, Adivasi communities have long faced displacement due to mining and dam projects framed as ‘national development’. Such projects not only strip them of ancestral lands but also dismantle their forest-based livelihoods. On paper, their claims are legally recognised under the Forest Rights Act (2006), but the ground reality is different; weak implementation leaves their ecological survival tied to struggles for cultural identity and political recognition.

In Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, fishing families, Dalit settlements, and low-income groups live alongside the SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu). This industrial complex forms one of India’s largest clusters of chemical factories producing pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and plastics. Residents have reported respiratory illnesses, skin diseases, and cancers, as documented by Community Environmental Monitoring reports and independent studies by the CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). The investigations also detected unsafe levels of carcinogenic pollutants, including benzene and other volatile organic compounds. Community leaders argue that the siting of hazardous industries here is a clear case of environmental injustice. They point out that zoning decisions and weak enforcement have placed a disproportionate burden on vulnerable communities, leaving them to bear the toxic costs of industrialisation.

Beyond endurance: Survival is not only about endurance but also about resistance. The Save Aarey movement in Mumbai illustrates this vividly. When authorities proposed clearing parts of Aarey Colony, a 1200-hectare urban forest inhabited by Adivasi communities, youth, environmental groups, and local leaders mobilised. For Adivasi groups, Aarey was an ancestral home; for young and budding environmental protectors, it was Mumbai’s green lungs and vital to climate resilience. Through sit-ins, art installations, and social media campaigns, they reframed the struggle: not just saving trees, but protecting cultural sovereignty, ecological justice, and the right of future generations to breathe. The urgency was amplified by Mumbai’s worsening air pollution, with the city repeatedly ranking among the most polluted globally in IQAir’s annual reports. Despite police crackdowns, environmental defenders persisted, underscoring that survival today must also mean a liveable tomorrow.

For oppressed and marginalised groups, survival often takes the form of political struggle. Practices such as seed-saving, community farming, water sovereignty, and grassroots environmental movements are not merely ecological strategies but acts of reclaiming dignity and autonomy.

Rethinking survival: True survival is more than avoiding death. It is a socially and ecologically just existence that allows people to thrive. It demands cultural continuity, collective memory, intergenerational justice, and environmental stewardship. Movements such as ecofeminism, indigenous resurgence, and degrowth challenge narrow definitions of survival as competition. Instead, they emphasise cooperation, care, and regeneration.

This reframing is essential in an age of climate crisis and widening inequality. As extreme weather events intensify and resource conflicts sharpen, the question is no longer just how we survive, but who gets to survive and under what conditions.

Towards true survival: Governments often justify large-scale infrastructure and industrial projects in the name of development and growth. For instance, the Economic Survey 2023–24 identifies infrastructure expansion as a key driver of growth, while NITI Aayog’s strategy documents highlight industrial corridors as important enablers of development. Yet development that undermines the ecological base of marginalised communities’ risks turning survival into a privilege rather than a universal right. Bridging ecology and sociology shows us that survival is not only biological but also political, cultural, and ethical.

Survival attains its fullest meaning when it is just, regenerative, and emancipatory, and when societies collectively ensure that life is not merely possible but genuinely liveable for all.

In January 1997, at a small cardiac clinic in Sonapur, Assam, an ambitious Indian surgeon performed what he described as the first pig-to-human heart transplant. The patient, Purno Saikia, was a critically ill heart patient who had exhausted all conventional options. Dhaniram Baruah, a cardiac surgeon from Assam, completed the 15-hour surgery. Although the surgery was initially deemed successful, the patient passed away after seven days due to acute organ rejection.

Outrage followed. The transplant was performed without any prior approval or ethical oversight. Assam police arrested the surgeon on charges of culpable homicide and violations of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. He spent 40 days in jail before being released on bail. Protestors vandalised Baruah’s clinic, and a government committee condemned the transplant as unethical and unlawful.

This dramatic incident marked India’s first encounter with xenotransplantation, the transplantation of animal organs into humans. More importantly, it was a pivotal moment that highlighted gaps in India's legal and regulatory frameworks for emerging biotechnologies. In the absence of a dedicated legal framework, authorities stretched the existing transplantation law and criminal laws to address this crisis.

Xenotransplantation comes of age

Nearly three decades later, xenotransplantation is no longer a fringe experiment but an advancing clinical reality.

Advances in genome-editing technologies, especially the development of CRISPR-Cas9, have made genome editing easier, more effective, and more economical. Scientists now edit donor animals’ DNA by switching off genes that trigger human immune rejection and reducing the risk of transmitting animal-borne viruses.

Since 2020, there have been multiple transplants of genetically altered pig kidneys, hearts and even lungs into humans. In 2022, a genetically edited pig heart was transplanted into a human. Although the heart only functioned for a few weeks, it demonstrated feasibility in human patients.

The year 2025 saw significant developments in xenotransplantation. Scientists in China transplanted genetically modified pig lungs to a brain-dead human, who survived for nine days, showcasing viability. A United States national lived with a genetically altered kidney for 271 days before requiring dialysis, and a woman in China survived for 261 days before her body rejected it. Scientists now believe that patients' survival durations may continue to extend.

Today, xenotransplantation is not limited to organ transplants. It also includes the use of animal skin grafts and pig heart valves as replacements for human heart valves.

This shift from an experimental option to a viable lifesaving procedure puts pressure on legislation worldwide, including India.

Organ scarcity, xenografts, and India’s regulatory shortcuts.

Xenotransplantation’s appeal lies in its potential as an alternative to human organ transplantation. India faces a high demand for organ transplants, with its organ donation rate being 0.86 per million population. Studies estimate that only 2 - 3 per cent of demand is met in the country. For thousands of patients, genetically modified animal organs could represent a new practical solution.

While this shortage strengthens the case for alternative sources, India has taken a precautionary stand in the regulation and research of xenotransplantation. The country has not put in place any dedicated framework for the technology. Xenotransplantation was briefly addressed in the ICMR’s Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants, 2007. The guideline discussed the ethical and medical issues associated with the technology. It permitted only animal-to-animal experimental transplantation at the existing level of knowledge, while tasking ethics and advisory committees to oversee the experiments. However, the 2017 updated guidelines omit any reference to xenotransplantation.

India's primary transplant legislation, the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994, is similarly limited. It regulates only human-to-human transplantation and focuses on allocation ethics, prohibition of commercial organ trade and consent. It does not offer any meaningful tools to address issues arising from animal-to-human organ transplantation.

India’s drug law approach to xenografts

In the absence of a dedicated framework, India has attempted to govern xenografts through its drug approval regime. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 have categorised “xenografts intended for use as drugs” as a “New Drug”, thus subjecting them to rigorous clinical trial and approval processes.

In October 2025, the government proposed a draft amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The amendments would add xenografts to its licensing and regulatory provisions. These Rules, along with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, govern the manufacture, sale, and licensing of drugs. The proposed amendments seek to extend regulatory control beyond trials to market-stage production and commercialisation, which can be read as an indication that the government expects the technology to enter the market.

The conceptual problem that arises in regulating xenotransplantation through drug laws is whether xenografts can appropriately be classified as drugs. On a literal reading, certain xenotransplantation procedures, especially skin grafts, can fall within the definition of drugs because they are therapeutic and alter bodily functions. However, this approach is conceptually strained when applied to organ transplantation. Entire organs like the heart and kidneys cannot be coherently categorised as ‘drugs’.

Retrofitting this new technology into an existing regime provides a provisional regulatory pathway. However, this framework was originally designed for pharmaceutical drugs and is ill-equipped to address the novel challenges associated with interspecies organ transplantation, which involves the use of adaptive living organs.

What should xenotransplantation guidelines address?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has adopted multiple resolutions regarding xenotransplantation. At the 57th World Health Assembly in 2004, Resolution WHA57.18 called on member states to establish national regulatory mechanisms for xenogeneic transplantation. It also called for international cooperation in developing standards to mitigate the risks of secondary transmission of xenogeneic infections.

Like any new technology, xenotransplantation is accompanied by challenges unique to it. Primarily, xenotransplantation risks cross-species pathogen transmission, which may emerge even years after transplantation. This is categorised as a public health risk associated with the technology since the pathogen can transform into an infectious disease affecting third parties.

Another major issue concerns animal governance. Safety in xenotransplantation is significantly enhanced by careful donor selection. Donor herds must undergo continuous pathogen monitoring and viral genome sequencing to detect emerging infections.

From an animal rights perspective, the country's existing norms governing the use of animals are not designed to accommodate xenotransplantation. The process requires long-term breeding alongside genetic modification, raising ethical concerns. The issue of using animals as expendable sources of organs must also be addressed. A dedicated law should align with the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, and incorporate the norms issued by the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals, while taking into account the requirements of xenotransplantation.

Having specific guidelines for new biotechnologies is a regulatory logic that India has followed in the past as well. ICMR guidelines for stem cell research, as well as guidelines for gene therapy product development, reflect this approach.

Animal-to-human organ transplant is no longer science fiction; it is moving steadily towards clinical reality. Recent trials show patients surviving longer with gene-edited pig organs, yet India continues to rely on a patchwork of regulations rather than developing a dedicated, forward-looking framework. So, the question is no longer whether the technology will arrive in India, but whether India’s legal system will be ready when that moment arrives.

For anyone deeply embedded in the world of life sciences and biotechnology, the academic path is often seen as both a calling and a challenge. Yet, truly open and candid conversations about the realities of faculty life, such as the triumphs, trials, and wisdom gained, are surprisingly rare.

NaviClar, an initiative that supports the life science community in career navigation and progression, embarked on a unique series of interviews, aiming to amplify the voices of life science faculty and scientists from India and across the world to foster appreciation, enhance visibility, and spark meaningful dialogue that could inform policy.

NaviClar also recognised the immense value these insights hold for the next generation. Aditya Parekh, founder of NaviClar, said, “The experiences of seasoned academics offer a rich learning ground for early-career faculty and serve as a vital preparatory resource for postdoctoral researchers aspiring to enter the challenging yet rewarding realm of academia.”

In a series of 32 interviews, Sakshi Poddar (PhD,National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Bhubaneswar) and Aditya Parekh (Founder, NaviClar) interacted virtually with faculty members, asking multiple questions to delve into the heart of their professional lives. Here is a glimpse into the responses to three vital questions:

1. What is the thing that satisfies you the most in your job?

Across the board, a resounding theme emerged: the joy of discovery and the impact on the next generation. Most of the faculty members’ faces lit up when they spoke about how seeing their students grow into the next stages of their careers made them fulfilled and proud. Many faculty members spoke passionately about the thrill of witnessing a student's ‘aha!’ moment, seeing their research flourish, or contributing to a deeper understanding of biological processes.

2. What is your biggest struggle as a faculty?

The challenges faced by faculty are diverse, but certain struggles resonated universally. Securing consistent funding and managing work-life balance were frequently cited as major hurdles. The relentless pursuit of grants, administrative burdens, and the pressure to publish often take a toll.

Most of the faculty members underlined that balancing teaching and/or research, along with administrative duties and other responsibilities, becomes a challenge. The pleasure of doing science often gets affected. These struggles underscore the intense demands placed on academics and the need for robust support systems.

3. What is one mistake you would advise young faculty to avoid early in their careers?

The wisdom and advice shared by faculty members offer invaluable lessons for navigating early academic careers. Prioritising careful recruitment and patient mentorship over immediate results was frequently cited as essential. The tendency towards isolation and the administrative burden often take a toll. Most members underlined that trusting intuition while managing productivity dips becomes a critical transition. These insights underscore the need for mental well-being and mutual respect.

Pathways to mentor satisfaction

There is more than one way in which STEM mentors derive satisfaction from their work and perceive their research to have an impact.

As mentors reflected and shared about the most satisfying moments of their professional lives, the joy of solving fundamental problems or asking “why” questions in their respective fields emerged as something profoundly fulfilling. These could require taking leaps to resolve big questions being debated within the scientific community or creating novel methods and developing cutting-edge techniques, both advancing knowledge and initiating new lines of inquiry. Engaging with the ‘unknowns’ gave a sense of purpose to their work and proved deeply motivating.

For me, one of the best parts of this job is figuring out puzzles. Some of the most exciting moments are when students or postdocs bring in data that are completely mysterious and new. Then you start putting the pieces together and discover a story that nobody has heard before. That’s one of the most exciting aspects of my work.”

- Piali Sengupta

Mentors also find gratification in impact measured by community uptake and continuity. The extent to which their discoveries, methods, or datasets are adopted by mentees, collaborators, and the wider research community feeds back into what mentors perceive as the impact of their work. The joy of discovery extends beyond individual breakthroughs into sustained use and evolution of their contributions, influencing future generations of scientists.

I get to talk with and engage with and watch the development of students and postdocs and even, you know, technicians and other folks who are working in the lab and watch them develop as scientists and interact with them as they kind of approach challenging problems. And that's by far the best thing about the job.”

- Erin Goley

The mentorship journey is often recognised for its intellectual significance. However, these pathways reveal that the impact most valued by mentors encompasses intellectual advancement, practical relevance, and an enduring legacy through community growth. This multifaceted sense of research impact is a central driver of mentor satisfaction, reinforcing their commitment to nurturing the STEM ecosystem.

Time management and prioritisation

The tension between pursuing ambitious research goals and the pragmatics of meeting the expectations of the academic calendar and institutional demands is faced by every mentor and can be alleviated through a well-thought-out balancing act.

Reflecting on the challenges faced at the intersection of multiple demanding roles, mentors felt that managing time more effectively was critical while juggling teaching, fulfilling administrative responsibilities, and conducting research. A faculty member or scientist is expected to frequently switch between tasks seamlessly, yet fragmented workflows disrupt focused work and hinder effective sequencing of activities.

I would advise everyone to be very mindful of their time management, not to agree to doing everything, and not get distracted by the noise around you.”

- Rejji Kuruvilla

The time one would want to spend on strategic thinking and intellectual exploration is often crowded out with responsibilities like grant writing, lab management, and other service commitments. While faced with such competing priorities, one needs to prioritise between high-risk, high-reward projects and incremental progress, all while navigating looming deadlines.

Mentors who also have caregiving responsibilities or personal life rhythms are forced to make sharper choices about how to allocate their time, a decision especially complex when they coincide with peak research periods.

One had to struggle to figure out how much time to give to research. That was always a challenge because, at times, I would devote much more than I wanted to, and then I would have to step back and restore some work–life balance before moving forward again. This continues to be a struggle for many women in science in India. But things have changed a lot, and today there’s far more support and opportunity to pursue research ambitiously.”

- Shobhona Sharma

Oftentimes, carving out protected blocks of time for focused work, prioritising ruthlessly, delegation to senior lab members, and batching administrative tasks helped with sustainable productivity at work and personal well-being.

Funding: Bureaucracy and administration challenges

Mentors also face significant challenges stemming from the intensity and inherent uncertainty of the research grant cycle.

Preparing grant applications demands extensive time and effort, often yielding low success rates. As a result, many applicants are required to submit multiple proposals in parallel and continuously revise them based on feedback. This cycle creates substantial rework and pressure.

Compounding the issue is the administrative load, which interviewees characterised as a growing burden of compliance, reporting, procurement, human resources, and other institutional processes that increasingly consume research time.

One of the biggest struggles is navigating administrative tasks that you are probably not used to doing as a postdoc and just making sure that everything is functioning smoothly and efficiently in the lab.”

- Gira Bhabha

These responsibilities fragment focus and slow momentum while performing core research and mentoring responsibilities. Mentors also encounter limits on allowable expenses, slow purchasing processes, and timing mismatches between available funds and project needs, all of which hinder research execution.

Some interviewees also shared that review panels often favour safer, short-term projects, requiring researchers to invest additional effort and time in framing risky or interdisciplinary proposals in ways that appear fundable.

I think my biggest struggle is one that many faculty in the Indian ecosystem share—the ease of doing science in India. It’s about having an idea and being able to execute it at the pace you’d like, without running into roadblocks that slow you down. For example, delays in the timely disbursement of funds or in ordering and receiving materials because of red tape. All of this cumulatively falls into the broader challenge of the ease of doing science. And it’s something I still struggle with, even after having done this for quite a while.”

- Vidita Vaidya

The purchase process was unbelievably difficult at the start and was a big learning experience; Over the years, things changed a little, and we probably just got used to it. It still remains challenging, though.”

- Dileep Vasudevan

Being more thorough with funding agency norms, creating templates for commonly used sections, building administrative scaffolds, and collaborating more extensively with co-principal investigators to share workloads were shared as effective coping strategies to meet grant submission challenges.

They also shared that institutions that centralise grant support and streamline procurement and recruitment processes free up significant burden, allowing PIs to concentrate on research and mentoring. They felt that funders can increase their impact by clarifying review criteria, reducing redundancies in proposal requirements, and providing iterative pre-proposal feedback.

The human-centric blueprint for academic success

The transition to a faculty role is often marked by the mistake of working in isolation. Experienced mentors emphasise that building a successful lab requires rejecting the "lone wolf" mentality and actively seeking guidance from those who understand the institutional landscape. By establishing a strong support network early, new PIs can avoid struggling in a vacuum, stay transparent about their learning curves, and leverage collective experience to navigate scientific and professional hurdles.

I think one of the things the young faculty should always be ready for is to go and talk to everyone and at different places wherever possible, without thinking what return that would fetch in immediate future.”

- Jomon Joseph

Effective lab management requires a strategic balance between administrative duties and core research goals. Faculty members warn against the pressure to over-commit to non-essential tasks or rush the establishment of a physical space. Success lies in selective participation, careful time management, and a willingness to collaborate locally to streamline logistics. By protecting their research focus and bracing for initial productivity dips, early-career researchers can build sustainable, efficient operations without succumbing to administrative burnout.

And one mistake I would advise young faculties to avoid, I guess, is failing to approach and find mentors actively and overcommitting to non-scientific administrative jobs.”

- Samraat Pawar

Building a successful laboratory requires prioritizing long-term team fit over immediate recruitment. Faculty members emphasize that being intentional about hiring passionate, respectful individuals is as vital as the science itself. Success stems from patient mentorship, fostering student independence through their own mistakes, and maintaining a secure, supportive environment that never compromises on mental health.

I think one of the things when young faculty start is they feel really eager to hire students and postdocs to create a team which makes sense but I've seen several instances where people hire too quickly and don't make sure they find the right person, right match and that leads to frustration for both, them and for the person they hired."

- Van Savage

Take your time to judge somebody else and try to find their strengths and weaknesses before they are judged."

- Roop Mallik

Overall, this interview series aims to be more than just that; it's a platform for shared learning. By bringing these diverse perspectives to the forefront, NaviClar not only celebrates the dedication of the life science faculty but also equips the next generation with the insights they need to navigate the exciting, yet challenging world of academia.

NaviClar is a global mentorship and networking platform for higher education students and early career researchers. Check out their website and their social media channels on Linkedin , X (formerly, Twitter) and Instagram

Watch the accompanying discussion/video related to this article here.

**Note - Quotes in this article have been lightly edited for clarity and flow while ensuring the original meaning and intent of the faculty mentors remain unchanged.

Acknowledgement

We sincerely thank all the faculty mentors who participated in this structured interview series with NaviClar. This article offers a glimpse into our discussions. A more comprehensive feature, exploring a wider range of themes in greater depth and featuring an expanded group of faculty, will be published soon

1. Radhika Nair (Centre for Human Genetics - CHG, Bengaluru, India)

2. Van Savage (University of California, Los Angeles - UCLA, USA)

3. Jomon Joseph (National Center for Cell Science - NCCS, Pune, India)

4. Chijioke Emenike (Dalhousie University, Canada)

5. R. Sowdhamini (National Centre for Biological Sciences - NCBS, Bengaluru, India)

6. Samraat Pawar (Imperial College London, UK)

7. Roop Mallik (Indian Institute of Technology - IIT Bombay, India)

8. Sandeep Robert Datta (Harvard Medical School, USA)

9. Umesh Varshney (Indian Institute of Science - IISc, Bengaluru, India)

10. Katherine Gundling (University of California, San Francisco - UCSF, USA)

11. Dileep Vasudevan (Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology - RGCB, Thiruvananthapuram, India)

12. Soma Chattopadhyay (Institute of Life Sciences - ILS, Bhubaneswar, India)

13. Sudarshan Gadadhar (Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine - BRIC inStem, Bengaluru, India)

14. Gira Bhabha (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA)

15. Shobhona Sharma (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - TIFR, Mumbai, India)

16. Jose Manuel Andreu (Margarita Salas Center for Biological Research - CIB-CSIC, Madrid, Spain)

17. Satyajit Rath (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research - IISER, Pune, India)

18. Kristin Michel (Kansas State University, USA)

19. Vidita Vaidya (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - TIFR, Mumbai, India)

20. Palok Aich (National Institute of Science Education and Research - NISER, Bhubaneswar, India)

21. Anurag Agrawal (Ashoka University, Haryana, India)

22. Piali Sengupta (Brandeis University, USA)

23. Amrendra K Ajay (Harvard Medical School, USA)

24. Deepak Modi (NIRRCH, Mumbai, India)

25. Erin Goley (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA)

26. Raghunand Tirumalai (CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology - CCMB, Hyderabad, India)

27. Poonam Thakur (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research - IISER, Thiruvananthapuram, India)

28. Nischay Mishra (Columbia University, USA)

29. Mohit Kumar Jolly (Indian Institute of Science - IISc, Bengaluru, India)

30. Rejji Kuruvilla (Johns Hopkins University, USA)

31. Aniruddha Datta Roy (National Institute of Science Education and Research - NISER, Bhubaneswar, India)

32. Ronald Vale (Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT, USA)

In the era of AI and digital platforms, intellectual curiosity is growing among the people of India. Nowadays, it is almost impossible to skip any reels or posts talking about the health benefits of either eating all kinds of seeds or quitting refined sugar. Creators across India are gaining traction by focusing on niche areas, whether it is educating scientific concepts to school students in a simplified way by Talk To A Scientist or the captivating Chai and Why show to make science more visible across all generations, complements a very interesting clause of Article 51(A) of the Indian Constitution that states: to develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry & reform.

We, The Scicomm Synapse, registered under the Ministry of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, runs solely by students and scholars from diverse age groups and different parts of India, believe that science communication is not only limited to information but also involves bringing out the stories behind the backbones of knowledge creators. The Scicomm Synapse is a creative impulse to bridge the gap between scientists and the public. Recently, we completed hosting more than 50 live sessions. Through our initiative, The Next Experiment (a live science podcast series), we encourage scientists to step beyond their lab coats and engage in meaningful, informal conversations with our audience.

The joy of the community members in organising such events is immeasurable, demonstrating a highly collaborative spirit by engaging in various activities, from reaching out to speakers to hosting a live show to marketing on social media platforms. Hence, we find our niche in spending quality time every second Sundays of the month with our favorite scientist or science communicator and listening to their STEM journey.

We have hosted a diverse panel of speakers. Our list of notable speakers include eminent scientists as L.S. Shashidhara, Vinay K. Nandicoori. Shashidhara extended learnings on the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to science and how skills acquired in one field can be profitably applied to another. He also shared that mentoring, for him, is about giving his students a free hand for experimental design while playing an advisory role. Nandicoori emphasised that good science starts with curiosity, not just techniques. He also shared that his own journey wasn’t perfectly planned and suggested to students that they shouldn’t feel pressured to have everything figured out early.

We also hosted Karishma S Kaushik, a staunch advocate for women in STEM. A key takeaway message from her was that careers in science are never linear. However, we are not only limited to eminent leaders in STEM but have also extended our platform to young startup founders like Sanyam Sharma, whose desire to do something of his own burned brighter than accepting a PhD position abroad.

The primary aim behind organising such sessions is to showcase academia as a diverse career option. Gone are the days when parents and students viewed careers as limited to “doctor” or “engineer”. More than achievements, what truly stayed with us was how different a journey one can opt for and pursue in science.

Under our flagship initiative, KalaTatva, a sci-art project, we got the opportunity to cover stories of a scientist-turned-science communicator, Ipsa Jain, who tells scientific stories through her art and illustration, and how Rafeeque Mavoor, a scientific illustrator, opened his own Sci-art services, collaborating with various institutions and researchers.

What began as a small idea to create a platform for STEM peers has now grown into a vibrant, student-led community comprising individuals from diverse career backgrounds and regions—all working voluntarily. However, sustaining such a community comes with challenges, including annual website maintenance costs, limited access to high-quality content creation tools, and the need to better recognise team contributions.

Looking ahead, we aim to apply for science communication grants to address these challenges, improve content quality, and expand outreach across India. We also aspire to bridge the urban–rural divide in science communication by engaging with rural communities and conducting workshops in regional languages. We welcome collaborators who share our vision of bringing scientists’ stories to wider audiences and strengthening science communication across the country.

A pinprick of light in a complex disease

When 46-year-old Meera from Pune visited her doctor with persistent fatigue, cancer was the last thing she expected to hear. By the time her tumour was detected, it had already advanced. In India, every year, thousands of cancer cases are detected far later than they should be, as early warning signs in many patients remain invisible, buried deep within the cells before symptoms appear.

But what if we had tools that could reveal these signs much earlier? Tools so small that they could slip inside a single cell and light up disease before it took root?

Scientists across the country have been trying to solve this challenge using a surprising tool: a tiny, glowing nanoparticle known as a quantum dot (QD). These few-nanometer specks of matter can illuminate specific molecules inside a cell with a remarkable luminosity.

In recent years, QDs have emerged as pioneers in cancer imaging and diagnostics worldwide. But what role do these tiny nanoparticles play in India’s growing cancer research ecosystem? And how are Indian institutions, from IITs and IISc to CSIR laboratories, exploring and advancing their potential?

This article takes a closer look at how QDs are being engineered, tested, and applied in India, and why these “glowing particles” hold strong promise for the future of cancer detection and personalised treatment in the country.

What exactly are QDs, and why do they matter?

QDs are nanometre-sized crystals, tiny lanterns that glow brightly when illuminated by light. Each QD is so small that thousands could sit on the head of a pin, yet they emit light with a clarity far beyond ordinary fluorescent organic dyes.

What makes QDs distinctive is their tunability: changes in size can precisely adjust the colour they emit, much like tuning the pitch of a musical note. This property enables multiplexing, creating a nanoscale palette of light, from smaller dots glowing blue to larger ones glowing red.

Inside a cell, these dots act as glowing breadcrumbs, binding to specific molecules and illuminating biological pathways that are otherwise invisible. These dots help the researchers to track even the faintest signals of disease through their brightness, stability, and precision. Today, these “nano-lanterns” are helping scientists follow tumour cells, detect cancer biomarkers, and monitor drug movement in real-time, making them one of the most powerful visual tools in modern biomedicine.

Breaking down their key strengths, we get:

• Clearer imaging with brighter, longer-lasting signals than traditional dyes

• High precision with the potential to guide drugs directly to tumour cells

• Sensitive diagnostics capable of detecting trace biomarkers in blood or tissue

With this foundation in mind, how are Indian laboratories putting QDsinto action?

India’s QD research landscape: Tiny tools, big impact

Below is a curated set of studies representing some of India’s most exciting strides in QD-based cancer research, each offering a glimpse into how diverse institutions are shaping this fast-growing field.

IIT Gandhinagar, Gujarat

Mango leaf QDs that kill cancer and nurture neurons

Using mango leaves, researchers synthesised red-emitting QDs and enhanced them with dopamine. These dots penetrated tissues, killed breast cancer cells, and even promoted neuronal growth in zebrafish.

Outcome: A plant-derived, multi-functional nanomaterial with imaging, therapeutic, and neuro-regenerative potential.

CSIR–AMPRI, Bhopal & AcSIR, Ghaziabad

Battery waste transformed into a breast cancer biosensor

Discarded lithium-ion batteries were converted into graphene QDs. Functionalised QDs became a sensitive biosensor for the breast cancer biomarker CD44, detectable from tiny serum volumes.

Outcome: Low-cost, sustainable cancer diagnostics from waste-derived QDs.

CSIR-CDRI, Lucknow & AcSIR, Ghaziabad

Watermelon-based QDs for lead detection and cancer imaging

Watermelon juice yielded bright carbon quantum dots (CQDs), later modified to selectively detect lead at picomolar levels and to image HeLa cancer cells.

Outcome: Eco-friendly QDs bridging environmental monitoring and cancer diagnostics.

BITS Pilani, Goa Campus & BARC, Mumbai

A supramolecular “Lego Sensor” for cancer biomarkers

A hybrid of hydroxy graphene quantum dots (GQDs-OH), dyes, and cucurbiturils acted like a molecular assembly line, detecting spermine/spermidine biomarkers in real serum using colour and fluorescence changes.

Outcome: A sensitive, modular sensor suitable for clinical samples.

CSIR–CDRI, Lucknow & JNU Delhi

Exosome-coated QDs for targeted breast cancer therapy

Drug-loaded CQDs were wrapped in cancer-cell-derived exosomes, enabling precise tumour targeting in mice and enhanced therapeutic performance with fewer side effects.

Outcome: A promising bio-inspired platform for targeted nanomedicine.

Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Andhra Pradesh

QDs reveal hidden cancer cell subpopulations

Researchers designed a co-culture cancer model and tagged cells with QD-based antibodies. This approach exposed rare EpCAM-negative cancer cell populations, cells that often drive metastasis and treatment resistance.

Outcome: A simple in-vitro system that helps detect cancer cells usually missed in routine diagnostics.

Supporting examples strengthening India’s QD landscape

IIT Hyderabad

Lipid-coated red fluorescent carbon dots from Clitoria ternatea showed strong imaging and Near-Infrared Radiation (NIR)-based photothermal therapy potential with prolonged circulation.

Bharathiar University, Tamil Nadu

Nitrogen-doped CQD immunosensors detected HER2 from patient samples, enabling rapid breast cancer diagnostics.

RGCB, Thiruvananthapuram & RCB, Faridabad

High drug-loading CQDs with pH-controlled release improved doxorubicin delivery profiles.

IIT Guwahati

Pristine and doped GQDs interacting with methotrexate demonstrated enhanced drug efficacy with minimal toxicity.

IIT Jodhpur

Lemon-derived CQDs successfully delivered curcumin into cancer cells, increasing its solubility and bioactivity.

Looking ahead: India’s nano-bio future

QDs offer India a unique platform - scientifically powerful, economically scalable, and creatively adaptable. From fruit waste to exosome coatings, Indian researchers are proving that innovation doesn’t always require exotic materials or expensive infrastructure; sometimes, it begins with a simple idea and the right scientific question.

The interdisciplinary teams across the country continue to merge chemistry to shine light on cancer biology. India stands poised to illuminate new paths for diagnosis and therapy—one quantum dot at a time.

Once upon a time…

In the Autumn of 1944, the world was expecting the end of bloodshed that had been occurring for the past five years. The Allied Forces had invaded France and were advancing towards Hitler’s Germany. With these developments, the general public was anticipating normalcy any time from then. The grocer who had become an artilleryman could go back to his store and the physicist who worked on bombs could go back to his studies on water droplets.

In the midst of this, a young physiologist named Alan Hodgkin was working with the allied forces on the effect of altitude on the human body to design better aircraft. Before the war began, his Roman Empire was the nerve in the thigh of frogs. Utilising the frog sciatic nerve as a model, he used to study the electrical impulses transmitted in the nerves. With the end of the War in sight, he was released from military service and summoned back to Cambridge under the influence of an aristocratic electrophysiologist and Nobel Laureate, The Lord Adrian to continue his work on biophysics. Subsequently, in 1952, Hodgkin, along with his collaborator Andrew Huxley, published a series of 5 papers which elaborated, mathematically, the workings of electricity inside living tissues, building on years of experimental data. They eventually won the Nobel Prize in 1963. What did they show? Their model showed how neurons behave while firing. This firing is fundamental for everything that our brain does from emotions to intellect.

Today

Fast forward 80 years, the same excitement on nerve excitability is now being collaboratively explored by a group of Indian nanotechnologists working across Mohali, Hyderabad, and Lucknow, who have developed a brand new way to tap the potential of neuronal excitability to treat debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, using a semiconductor. The same class of materials that make up our phones are now changing brain chemistry (in a good way, unlike phones!). Researchers used graphitic carbon nitride to understand how they might affect neuronal modulation. The results were so multifaceted that they defy a singular, linear narrative of explanation.

Brainology

All cells maintain an electrical gradient around them. This potential is created by a bunch of ions like sodium, chloride, potassium, and calcium. A rule of thumb is that the outside of a cell, or the water in which the cell floats, is like sea water - abundant in sodium, chloride, and calcium. On the other hand, the inside of a cell has an abundance of potassium ions.

The influx of calcium ions into the cell from the outside is fundamental for changes in neuronal membrane potential to occur. This influx happens through tiny tubes. These tubes have gates guarding them so that too much or too little ions don't enter. Whenever there is a change in potential around the cells, the floodgates of these tubes open, allowing vast amounts of calcium to enter the cell.

Once so much calcium enters inside, the simpleton ion transforms itself into a polymath. Aiding hormone synthesis? Check. Genetic regulation? Check. Muscle contraction? Check. Growth? Check. When calcium is known to play such a central role inside the cell, it should be of no surprise that this attracts researchers around the globe, and public attention, for at least the past 40 years.

Going nano

Indranil De, Abhinoy Kishore, Subhabrata Das, Sownyak Mondal, Sakshi Yadav, Prashant Sharma, Mansi Pahuja, Srishti Singh, Aamir Nazir, Soumya Ghosh, Kaushik Ghosh, and Manish Singh, from the Institute of Nano Science and Technology (INST), Mohali; Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Hyderabad; and CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, worked in collaboration to test the potential of carbon nitride nanosheets both in cell cultures and in living worms.

In cell cultures, over a period of 21 days, nerve cells showed increased differentiation and formed more outgrowths. What was happening in parallel (or driving it) was an increase in calcium influx into the cells. How do we know that calcium is doing the work here? For the above-mentioned processes, dopamine is required inside the cells. To synthesise dopamine cells use a whole arsenal of molecular machines which in turn require calcium to function. The scientists found out that there is an increased concentration of molecular machines inside the cell, which confirmed that the graphite carbon nitride was playing its role.

To test the nanomaterial's impact on living cells, they used a worm called Caenorhabditis elegans. It is considered as the workhorse of genetics. It has a bunch of unique properties such as easy to grow, short life span, limited number of cells which makes it ideal for genetic research. It was observed that carbon nitride nanosheets prevented some protein blobs from forming inside the cells. This kind of aggregation of protein blobs is implicated in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, which wreak havoc in patients’ and their loved ones’ lives. This feature of the nanomaterial holds immense promise in devising treatment methods for these diseases in the future.

Bio-hacking

The impact of this development is not limited to medical advantage. An idea in vogue among Biotech bros and nerds is the concept of Biocomputing, with brain tissue performing computations, replacing, or aiding machines. This research has the potential to improve the function of brain tissue as a biological processor. This is an area where the boundaries between the biological mind and technological machine get blurred, and important ethical questions such as machine consciousness emerge, but that's a topic for another day.

The idea of compounds altering brain function isn't new. Drugs do exactly that. We have been cracking open the brain up and changing its structure safely for at least 120 years. So what's new here? The material used here is a biocompatible semiconductor. This is where the “brain stuff” and “phone stuff”, for the lack of better term, get blended, and create a novel junction point around which medical and machinist revolutions can pivot around. That India is at the centre of this research signals the pace at which Indian scientific ideas and capabilities are advancing.

To explore this further, IndiaBioscience and Taylor & Francis Group convened two meetings in Bengaluru and Delhi in 2025 to get researchers, science policy experts, institutional leaders, science-funding representatives, and publishing professionals at the same table. These discussions examined how open research has evolved in India, where current mandates and practices align or diverge, and the lived realities of implementation across open access, research integrity, data stewardship, and assessment.

This article draws on those discussions to highlight how different science institutions in India, academic, funding agencies, policymaking bodies, publishers, and intermediaries, are collectively reflecting on what an Indian model of open research could look like. The insights shared point toward a future in which openness is embedded not only as a policy requirement but as a cultural and operational norm that strengthens India’s life science research for the long term.

Rethinking policy: Going beyond Open Access to ‘true openness’

India’s current open access (OA) frameworks remain fragmented and unevenly implemented. While authors are encouraged to publish openly, there is limited institutional or funder support to help them do so, particularly in covering publishing-related costs or navigating OA options.

The national One Nation, One Subscription (ONOS) scheme was widely regarded as a step forward in improving reader access across the country. However, it was described as a subscription mechanism rather than a policy that improves access for Indian researchers while leaving most Indian-authored work inaccessible to the global community. Moreover, the scheme offers limited support for authors to publish their work in open access, constraining the global visibility and dissemination of Indian research outputs.

Participants emphasised the need to move beyond treating openness as a voluntary or aspirational practice and toward positioning it as an expected outcome of publicly funded research. Few participants compared with models in the UK and Europe, where depositing accepted manuscripts and providing open access are integrated into evaluation frameworks. However, participants cautioned against replicating these models without contextualising local publishing practices, stressing the importance of recognising India’s linguistic diversity, supporting regional and community-generated datasets, strengthening local repository infrastructure, and treating openness as a dimension of research quality and trustworthiness.

Aligning incentives and assessment with openness

A recurring theme was the misalignment between policy aspirations and academic incentives. Many institutions remain functionally “closed”, because hiring, promotion, and grant evaluations continue to rely heavily on journal prestige and impact-factor-driven metrics. This discourages practices such as depositing accepted manuscripts, sharing data and code, adopting FAIR/CARE principles, or experimenting with open publishing formats, particularly when these activities do not clearly contribute to career progression.

Participants highlighted the need to rebalance research assessment systems to recognise a wider range of contributions, including high-quality datasets, preprints, software and protocols, evidence of societal uptake, outputs in Indian languages, and community-oriented research products that rarely appear in top-tier journals. India’s ongoing higher-education reforms and the establishment of newer funding agencies present a timely opportunity to embed principles of openness, transparency, and responsible assessment from the outset.

Taylor & Francis's open research framework was highlighted as an example of how publishers can support this shift. The framework includes funder-compliant publishing options, transformative agreements, and open science practices such as open data policies and new article types, all aimed at making research more transparent, reusable, and impactful.

Preprints, Green OA and underused infrastructure

Discussions in Bengaluru examined the distinction between green OA and preprints, and why both remain underused in India despite their wider global uptake.

Participants observed that Indian preprint adoption remains comparatively low, citing limited awareness, fragmented institutional practices, inconsistent or unclear journal policies, and the absence of incentives from funders or employers. Researchers also expressed concerns about plagiarism-detection flags triggered during submission or about how different publishers and platforms handle preprints during review.

Existing repositories such as CSIR-Central and Science Central were viewed as promising but currently under-resourced, under-promoted, and insufficiently integrated into day-to-day research workflows. Some felt that strengthening these national infrastructures, along with clearer policies, streamlined deposition processes, and linking deposits to evaluation and funding criteria, could meaningfully accelerate India’s pathway to openness without relying solely on pay-to-publish routes.

Funding, APCs and the economics of openness

Both roundtables surfaced significant concerns about the affordability and equity of prevailing OA business models, particularly Article Processing Charges (APCs). Experimental scientists described the difficult trade-off between paying high APCs, often higher in hybrid journals and supporting core research activities, especially in settings with modest grants or limited institutional support. Questions were also raised about perceived duplication of costs, as institutions pay for large subscription packages while individual researchers still pay APCs for OA visibility.

Taylor & Francis representatives responded by outlining what APCs generally cover: peer review management, editorial processes, technical infrastructure, long-term preservation, and handling large volumes of rejected manuscripts in selective journals. They highlighted “read-and-publish” and other consortial agreements as approaches that redirect subscription spending to support OA publishing without charging authors directly, noting that such models have facilitated wider transitions to openness in parts of Africa, Europe and Asia.

Even so, participants agreed that these models are unevenly implemented and not yet optimised for India’s diverse institutional landscape. While a few funding agencies in India now permit grant budgets for publication costs, most lack coherent policies to support OA. As a result, researchers are often expected to publish openly without clear financial pathways to do so, underscoring the need for more coordinated national strategies. An example suggested at the Bangalore event was earmarking funds for publishing OA, which supports better planning.

Ownership, licensing and control of data

Discussions in Bengaluru highlighted the importance of ownership and licensing in Open Research. Traditional copyright transfer agreements can often limit how authors and institutions can reuse or build on their own publicly funded work. Participants emphasised the need for transparent frameworks governing the access and use of texts and datasets, including licenses such as CC-BY that allow for reuse, adaptation, and sharing.

Rights-retention policies were suggested as a way to empower authors to retain key reuse rights when publishing in established journals. Such approaches could support a more equitable balance among global publishers, Indian institutions, and the communities whose knowledge and data underpin scientific research.

Capacity building, community engagement and culture change

Policy shifts and technical infrastructure alone cannot deliver openness without sustained capacity building and cultural change. IndiaBioscience and Taylor & Francis shared ongoing initiatives, including large-scale webinars, local-language materials, train-the-trainer programmes and in-person events such as the Young Investigators’ Meetings. These efforts aim to strengthen the understanding of why openness matters for visibility, reuse, and public trust in science by anchoring focused discussions with the community.

Participants highlighted the value of supporting locally led open-science and outreach projects through small grants, which can grow into longer-term, independently sustained initiatives. However, they noted that such activities require institutional recognition within workload and evaluation systems to be fully integrated into research culture.

Quality, integrity and responsible openness

While OA increases the visibility of literature and data, it does not guarantee rigorous peer review, sound methodology, or responsible reuse. Participants emphasised the need to advance openness and quality together. Examples of emerging integrity infrastructures included institutional research integrity units, centralised project-tracking systems, and mandatory coursework for graduate students on OA models and critical appraisal.

Taylor & Francis described measures such as strengthened data policies, expanded roles for desk editors, and targeted training for editors and reviewers on responsible open-data practices. These efforts aim to ensure that openness is accompanied by trustworthiness and rigour.

Across groups, integrity was framed as a shared responsibility: a culture that must extend throughout the research lifecycle rather than being treated as a final-stage checkpoint.

Towards an Indian model of Open Research

The Delhi and Bengaluru roundtables paint a picture of a research system that is ideologically open but structurally constrained. India has a broad community interest in openness, improved access through ONOS, increasing global visibility for its science, and important policy windows through evolving assessment reforms and new funding mechanisms. At the same time, misaligned incentives, uneven financial support for APCs and repositories, underused infrastructures, and continued reliance on impact-factor–driven evaluation remain barriers.

The conversations represent early steps toward articulating a unique vision for open research in India. By building cross-sector collaborations and embedding openness as a cultural and operational norm, India can create a more equitable, trusted, and impactful research ecosystem.