I am writing on this topic after reading Dr. Shashidhara's blog on Understanding Bureaucracy. As he explains, there are two ways to look at bureaucracy- one is as frustrating epicycles that stand in your way of getting something done. Another view is as a system of checks and balances as well as a means of preventing too much authority from being centered in one individual's hands.

One can think of bureaucracy as a "system of governance" (which it is), but one can also consider it from the perspective of the individuals (ie the administrative staff) doing their jobs. Sometimes, professors (and also graduate students/post docs) treat administrative staff members poorly. Some individuals get frustrated and angry when a mistake is made or something is going slowly. On the other hand, they do not compliment the staff when a job is done well or on time. They see the staff as "below them", a lower caste in the university/institute system. They do not appreciate or bother to learn about the complexity of their jobs.

Don't be one of those people.

If you need a good reason, the most obvious is that being demanding and treating people poorly will get you nowhere. Staff are far more likely to perform well if they are appreciated, respected and in a good work environment. In a situation where the staff are poorly paid, permanent employees, being confrontational and demanding is only going to make them entrenched in a poor attitude and uncommitted to the success of the institution. Treating staff poorly is not going to make you feel happier either. You don't need to belittle other people to make yourself feel more important. Reprimanding people is time consuming and exhausting.

Instead, I recommend getting to know your staff. Understand and learn about their lives, their concerns, their families. Tell them about your projects and work, so they understand the value of what they are doing and how they are contributing. If you have an important grant, explain why you are excited about it and how it will benefit students in your lab and the institution as a whole. If you succeed in getting that grant, congratulate them as well and thank them for their hard work. Make your success, their success. Laugh with them. Talk about something that you might have in common, rather than just running in and out of the office. Have lunch with some of the staff once per year. Offer chocolates from a trip. This is not bribing the staff; this is treating them as respected colleagues in your enterprise and the institution as a whole. You are recognizing the role that they play.

Most people respond well when they are respected and treated fairly. They will rise to a special challenge when occasional extra work is required and when you need their assistance to push things through the "bureaucratic system." Naturally some staff members may be difficult to work with and are truly poor performers. However, the better staff members tend to set the tone for the work place and can elevate others (at least partially) through their own example.

1) Whom to ask (besides your thesis advisor and postdoc mentor):
What does a faculty position letter of reference entail? It requires that the referee make a detailed appraisal of your work, your contributions, your independence, your ability to design novel strategies, your vision for the future, your abilities of training/teaching younger colleagues, and so on. So its not a good idea to ask someone with whom you might have barely had a conversation during the duration of your postdoc, merely because they are “senior” faculty in the department where you worked. If referee does not know you well enough professionally to write a letter, then that letter is not going to do your case any good… Anyone who writes you a “real” letter puts their own reputation on the line. So you will be assessed in comparison with other postdocs both your mentors have trained; other postdocs they have seen; other faculty applicants they have interviewed. If they don’t, their letter will sound as if they don’t really know you well enough to write a letter, but you asked them anyways- so that will reveal that you didn’t know whom to ask or that you didn’t have anyone else to ask. Neither is good…. If you haven't already started to create a network of colleagues (faculty and postdoc) who will write letters for you in the future, please start to do so NOW. Don’t spend all your time at your bench- have wide-ranging scientific discussions with people outside your lab, at journal clubs, ask questions in seminars. That is how someone will form a "picture" of you that is good enough for a faculty position letter.

2) Timing: when are you “ready” for a faculty position? First, you need to be truly ready to start out on your own in terms of your training. But equally important, your CV needs to reflect that too. A CV that shows no first author papers from your current lab would seem premature- as if you are trying to leave something that is not working out perhaps. Do you think your referees will be able to write you the strongest possible letter NOW? If not, then you should discuss with your mentors as to when is a good time. Once they write you a less-than-strong letter, it is hard to change their impression of you even after a couple of publications. That is because you display immaturity in asking for a letter too early, and that impression is hard to erase. Also, you risk a lot if you apply too soon to your institution of choice and get rejected. They may never give you a second chance. Even if they do, they will recall that you had "applied before and got rejected". That impression is impossible to erase. ONE real chance is all you get- use it wisely.

Finally, what does applying early with a less than adequate CV communicate? Usually, either immaturity or arrogance. You may be a wonderfully nice person, yet that doesn't matter at all- what matters is what you communicate with your application- which is either immaturity or arrogance. Is that what you want to communicate to institutions that don't know you?

3) How to ask: provide your referee with all the information they might need. A “full” CV with some information about your engagement with academic activites not directly related to your research would be useful. Have you mentored undergraduates? Where have they gone on to after their work with you? Did their work under your guidance contribute to publications? Have you started journal clubs, discussion groups, invited speakers, or shown other forms of leadership? Have you done any outreach of any kind- to lay public audiences, schools, underprivileged groups? All of this provides information for a more complete picture of your scientific persona. (these are also some of the elements of a good tenure package- which will be the subject of a whole new blog – perhaps someone will write one with the Indian context in mind?).

In closing: though this advice is meant for people at the postdoc-to-PI transition, it appears to me that recommendation letters are something of a mysterious affair to the Indian community. Students seem to have no idea that their advisors’ letters will shape their careers long, long after they get their PhDs; some referees seem to think that a letter necessarily contains a “balance” of strengths as well as weaknesses and to achieve this, will detail things that should really not appear in a letter. Many faculty seem to be inexperienced in the art of letter writing- how does one help one’s students/postdocs find positions they deserve while still giving an honest assessment of their abilities?

If one succeeds in generating scientific data, one can get a job as a professor or in a pharmaceutical company. But then, in the course of the ensuing year, experimental work for many comes to a grinding halt. There are grants to write, students to talk to, meetings to attend, coffee to drink, and many, many emails to write. It is hard to find two contiguous days to execute a complete experiment. Your buffers have disappeared; the new student has taken your abandoned pipettemen. And what is the point anyway? It is not likely that you will be able to collect enough data to generate a publishable study. What you really need is more students. Yes, more students. Maybe they are not as well trained as you are, but if you have ten of them, maybe that will increase your chances of getting tenure.

What is wrong with this picture? In my opinion, young PIs are leaving the bench too early and becoming administrators. This is especially the case at larger US universities, but I think that it is also true at Indian institutes as well. It is a sign of the times. However, I would send young PIs the following message- if you enjoy working at the bench, keep doing it as long as you can. I had my own research projects when I was an assistant professor; perhaps it was a bit selfish, because I enjoyed the "thrill of the chase" and was not quite ready to live vicariously through others. (I had 8 first author papers as an Assistant/Associate Professor between 1987 and 1994, 3 in Cell with 2 covers; but don't freak out- those were different times and easier to publish!). The main point was that I was young, still having fun doing science. I would like to think that I could convey some of my enthusiasm for science by doing it, and not just having meetings in my office. Granted, life has changed since then (only 2 first author publications since 1994). Family has supplanted my attention and your situation may be similar (and family should always come first and be your greatest reward!!).

The point of spending time in the lab as a young PI is not generating publications, despite my remarks above. The value comes from elsewhere. First, and foremost, if you have fun doing it, that is most important. It will make you happier and feel more connected to science. Try to make the time, even if once per year. Second, it sets a good example for students and postdocs who can learn by seeing how you set up and think about an experiment and witness your enthusiasm. Third, if you mess up your experiment, that will be very encouraging to them; your students/postdocs who will see that it is not just them who fail. Fourth, it will put you in touch with the reality of the lab and generating data for publication. It is easy to outline plans on a blackboard in your office; it is another matter to execute them. I think the greatest value of my last first author publication (2009) was going through myself what it takes to complete all of the experiments, analyze data, make figures, respond to review comments, etc. Fifth, when you are a very young faculty, you will be the best person in your lab, so you represent a valuable resource. Sixth, you might be the best person to take on a tough experiment or explore some new idea. Even if you do not complete it, your pioneering work can be passed along to a student in your lab to take on as a project.

Lastly, experimental work is not solely for the young. I am very inspired by work done by senior scientists in the summers at the Marine Biological Laboratory (I come there and attempt to be one of them, with mixed success). Avram Hersko is wonderful example. He is a senior scientist and a Nobel Prize winner. He certainly has no need to prove himself or struggle to get a grant. Yet, every summer he comes to the MBL so that he can have uninterrupted time to work in the lab. Everyday, he is doing an experiment himself (including pouring his own polyacrylamide gels!). Why? Because he enjoys it; because that is what science is about. Young or old, let us not forget our roots and what drove us to become scientists in the first place.

"At one point I thought of myself as a scientist who also happened to be a woman. At the end of four long-gestation projects that ran crazily overlapping with each other, two resulting in boys now aged 4 and 7, and the other two resulting in publications in Science and Nature Neuroscience, its very clear that I've traveled a road only "women scientists" get to navigate"

I had my two children when I was 35 and 38, approximately 3 years after starting my lab at TIFR. One key element of being able to balance the multiple demands on my time and brainspace was the decision my husband and I took in terms of using our financial resources. We paid our nanny Rajkumari (described in my Scientist and Mommy piece) a well-deserved salary equal to the highest pay for a similar job in our colony, with appropriate annual increases. In addition, we built in redundancy by having our children enrolled in the childcare center (CCC) for their minimum time slot. This gave us the luxury of extending their hours if the nanny was sick, or just gave her a couple of hours time to get errands or chores done while the kids played with their friends in the CCC. This arrangement continues even today, my boys aged 9 and 6 are signed up for the Saturday morning slot at the CCC which gives them the benefits of emergency extra hours. Naturally this comes at some financial cost. But the backup arrangement it provides has stood us in good stead especially since both of us have complicated scientific-conference-travel schedules.

All of this has of course affected our savings, but this was a joint decision that we had no hesitation in making. Not all women scientists may have the financial freedom to ensure dependable childcare. Our waiting to have kids until we were settled in our careers also had the benefit of higher salaries to support the increased expenses. Many women may not wait as long to have children. Yet the ability to pay for and retain good childcare was, in my opinion, the single most important factor in my being able to pursue my science without compromise.

Therefore, when I was put on a committee in 2009 to reform the competitive grant system of DBT I suggested a "childcare allowance" for women postdocs and PIs so that their childcare expenses could be met in a manner de-linked from their salaries. This allowance, I proposed, should only be usable for childcare in some form- nanny, daycare center, playschool. By not adding this allowance to the regular salary, a woman scientist would be able to make childcare decisions free of the "guilt factor" that plagues us all, or the temptation to save the money for other things. This would encourage higher quality and consistency of childcare, the two issues that women in science struggle with then they have to be traded off against the cost factor.

The committee, chaired by Prof. Shahid Jameel (ICGEB) was unanimous in its support, and our recommendations were forwarded to the DBT. Specifically, we recommended a monthly allowance of the order of Rs. 5000 (this was in 2009, to be revised upwards periodically), per child under the age of 3, upto a max of 2 children. In particular, we felt it is important that post-doctoral researchers be eligible. We hoped that this scheme will lead to both retention of post-doctoral women in science, as well as help women scientists balance the demands of the lab and the family, both of which peak, on average, during the critical post-doctoral years or the early years of setting up a lab.

The DBT is considering our recommendations and hopefully these will be incorporated in some fashion. But meanwhile, I encourage Institutions to initiate something similar using discretionary funds. The quantum of money is not large in the big picture of things. But if it helps retain women postdocs and PIs in science at this crucial point in the leaky pipeline, it will reap rich dividends.

Before I proceed further, a necessary clarification. I am not writing about power that corrupts. I am talking about good people in good institutes at all levels of the hierarchy. As Satyajit (the one in Delhi) once said in his own characteristic style - by definition, true scientists are honest because they first propose a hypothesis and then work very hard to prove that it is false. So when I group senior and senior-most faculty against relatively young faculty in a research organization, it is more like two teams battling by argument to decide whether P53 is an oncogenic protein or a tumour suppressor protein. Nothing personal in such arguments. Only philosophical differences in opinion. So if anyone bothers to reply to this blog, please address the topic to this effect.

At the time of recruitment in all good research organizations, we assess young faculty for their critical thinking, their short-, medium- and long-term research plans, and (the one most relevant to this discussion) their ability to independently establish and run their research teams, and a few other qualities. But, if you ask a young PI or faculty in this country, they say nothing is transparent; they don’t have any say in anything related to the matters that concern the institute (for example, faculty selection - be it junior level or senior level, what new facilities need to be established) and even issues related to their own lab (for example, selection of PhD students). The list is endless.

The often heard justification for this system include,

(i) senior faculty are more experienced, have necessary vision and foresight to take policy decisions. They, being academic, by default are good people and always take decisions that are universally good – be at the level of the entire institute or at the level of an individual of the institute. They are like the Philosopher King in Plato’s Utopia.

(ii) any democratic process is a slow process. It is not suitable when timely decisions are more important. The slow pace of decision taking process in a democratic place is due to endless arguments we get into while discussing an issue, however minor or major it is. By nature, we are all argumentative. In addition, our profession expects us to be “very” argumentative (so that we falsify a hypothesis, which in turn would push the science to frontiers).

There may be some merit in the above argument, but such a top-heavy system would not be sustainable. Unless additional energy is infused, entropy would dominate over the information. Required additional energy comes from the enthusiasm of young faculty. If faculty are recruited based on their ability to run, independently, a large research program for the next 30 years or so, why can’t we trust them while taking decisions? Gone are the days when we say wisdom and age are directly correlated. Until couple of decades ago, only older people had the opportunity to travel and hence would have seen more of the world and would have talked and interacted with large number of people in the profession. This helped to assess their own opinions and understanding against the rest and come with a decision suitable for their own organization. Current lot of young faculty are equally, and often more, aware of the happenings in the external world because of Internet and they too travel as much as their seniors.

The very purpose of science is to seek knowledge as a collective endeavour. No one wants to reinvent the wheel. That is why we search PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus for knowledge communicated by others. We attend conferences to share experiences. Why can’t we do the same in running an organization? Transfer of knowledge through articles and sermons by retired scientists has its own limitations. If young faculty are not mentored and groomed in a democratic ambience that practices collective decision-taking processes, how will senior and senior-most faculty pass on their experience and their knowledge on science administration?

When the decision is based on consultative discussion, it helps in many ways.

(i) young faculty would be exposed to the decision taking process, right from early days of their career. With more and more opportunities to think and express their opinion, some of them may become better leaders of science in future. If their opinion has no place in decision-taking process, they will not bother even to think what is good for the institute. Their worries would always be limited to their personal career. While this itself is not so much of a problem, the most worrisome is when young faculty have to spend more time to get things done in short-term, without time, energy, imagination and ideas to work on a long-term plan.

(ii) if faculty are involved in all decision-making process, they proudly own all decisions and work for the implementation of the same. Let us, for example, take faculty selection. They welcome new faculty with enthusiasm and try to ensure that the new person admitted to their “academic family” is settled down comfortably in the shortest time possible.

We also hear that democracy has no meaning in places where resources are scarce, because, there is nothing much to discuss in such places. In my opinion these places need to be more democratic than richer places. Just imagine, what would have happened if India did not embrace democracy soon after independence just because it was one of the poorest countries in the world. A strong democracy is what we are proud of, which is supplying necessary oxygen to keep our nation alive. In contrast, there are many very rich countries, which are doing relatively well without universal franchise – not that I support such a system. Poorer research organizations need to be more sensitive to the opinion of individual faculty to maximize the utility of whatever resources they have. This is the only way to come out of the vicious cycle of scare resources leading to poor performance making them less eligible for larger grants and thereby pushing the availability of resources to further lower levels.

Unless senior and senior-most members of the institute do not mentor young faculty by giving them full freedom, involving them in all institutional affairs, providing necessary advice and help as and when required, they can not expect full support from them in taking the institute to greater heights. This is not due to any vengeance (please remember again, we are only talking about good people here). This is not because young faculty wouldn’t want to contribute to the growth of the institute. In the absence of sufficient knowledge on why a decision is taken, their involvement in its implementation would only be marginal and their full potential would be not be exploited for the good of the institute.

Finally, if only few “select” faculty are involved in all affairs of the institute, then as a result most faculty are aloof to the issues concerning their own institute. They would neither take responsibility for failures not would own the successes with pride. Then, wouldn’t it be too much to expect them to notice and bring to light if someone in their organization practises a kind of “unnatural nature” of research. Oops, I am going away from my decision to talk about only good people. Let me stop here.

“It was only wen i was looking for 'reseach in india' on google wen i cam across all the research dat was being done in TIFR in the field of biological sciences of which ur lab caught my eye.Ma'am it wud b great if u give me a chance 2 b a part of ur lab as an intern.”

Some students write a more carefully crafted form letter, but also based on the premise that its ok misrepresent themselves to hundreds of scientists. Here are extracts taken from one such email to me:
“I am writing to discuss any research opportunities that you may have in your lab…. I have been following your lab's research closely and find a close match to my research interests. I am reaching out to you to talk about a possibility of doing my undergraduate thesis at your lab for a duration of six months….I am looking forward to complete my thesis project at an established research lab, such as yours. I have read your publications and am certain that I will be able to complete a project successfully, and live up to the lab's reputation.”

My response to this particular student was as follows:
“thank you for your interest. I must say I receive too many mails from people claiming to have followed my work closely, read my papers etc, and they are all basically "form letters" that the student emails to some 100 faculty in the hope of getting one of them to give them a project- anyone, any project seems to be their goal.

But just in case you actually mean what you said, I have a different response for you: Prove it. I'll give you 24 hours to give me a 1-page write-up on any problem that I have published on, and your thoughts about how to proceed on that project.”

Needless to say, I have yet to hear back from this student! And the appalling truth is that I occasionally receive very similar emails from POST DOC applicants- indicating that the experience of PhD research has taught them little about integrity or the perils of misrepresenting oneself.

Once in a while I will get a grateful reply thanking me for having replied at all, since they never imagined a real scientist would write back, and thanking me for the advice, saying that they never thought of it this way, but they will incorporate it in their future. Occasionally I get a reply saying “but I did bombard 100 scientists with my general letter, and that’s how I got a position, so see, it worked for me!” I do not know what the hundreds of others who don’t reply do with my advice- but if I can help even 1% it’s better than none….

Now, I am requesting your help to guide a larger community of students. Here is my response to the emails I usually receive. Please use it as you see appropriate to help students!
------------------------------------------
“Thank you for your email. If you are actually interested in Neurosciences, please check out the Society for Neuroscience website There are links called "brain briefings" which are written for the non-specialist, and a downloadable booklet called "Brainfacts" <http://www.sfn.org/skins/m ain/pdf/brainfacts/brainfa cts.pdf> Its a great way to begin in Neuroscience.

Here is some advice for students who send "form letters" to dozens of scientists often starting with "Dear Sir/Madam" and then claim to be very interested in the lab's work (!!): this is not a great way to get a position in a lab. If the student hasn't taken the trouble to visit a lab's website, it shows! Flooding the mailboxes of dozens of scientists with a generic letter is a really poor attempt to getting a position. Attempt to write a specific letter (and please avoid sms spellings). Do not ask the scientist to "furnish information about your organization" You are the one making the request- do your homework - it will only help your prospects if you learn to write a good letter. A classic example: "You are requested to give me a chance; it will be great opportunity for my career." Think about it- WHY should the scientist give YOU a chance above all the others? That it will be a great opportunity isn't enough- it will be great for everyone won't it.
Writing a good letter is, after all, your ONLY means of distinguishing yourself from the hundreds of others who apply with similar qualifications, earnest desires, aspirations, and then would be highly obliged, fervently grateful, etc etc for such positions.

Good luck.

We often hear that Indian biologists don’t do well beyond a critical level, because we don’t get good postdocs. A naïve PhD student joins the lab, get trained for 2-3 years and contribute her/his might in the next 2-3 years and then off they go to West or far east for their postdoctoral research. For us a new PhD student joins the lab and the story becomes cyclical.

If only couple of good postdocs are present in the lab, who have considerable experience, confidence and ability to mentor PhD students, Indian PIs too could spend more time to review the entire field and put their work in a larger context, spend time and efforts on new science, challenging projects and take up meaningful sabbaticals and collaborations.

What is the genesis of postdoc culture? Let us assume that most PhD students in biology want to be an independent researcher or a Principal Investigator (PI).

What do we expect in an independent researcher?
(i)Ability to sift through vast amount of knowledge available in each area of science and asks relevant questions and build hypotheses to push the frontiers and/or to fill the gaps.
(ii)Ability to design experiments (or build a model) to provide proof/evidence/validation for or against a hypothesis.
(iii)Ability to provide logical explanation for conclusions drawn and build new hypotheses based on her/his own work
(iv)Ability to communicate with clarity ideas, observations, conclusions etc to non-specialists
(v)Ability to foresee and plan research in short-, medium and long-term basis.
(vi)Ability to manage (particularly experimental researchers) labs, funding, people.
(vii)Patience and perseverance to deal with referees!

How does one attain all these qualities? Most of them are learnt and acquired. These qualities are learnt from others’ experiences not by reading essays and books, but by direct interactions.

Why only very rarely does a fresh PhD student become a PI in biology? This is not an India-specific phenomenon. It is a global phenomenon. First most undergraduate courses, which are knowledge-based rather than inquiry-based do not provide an opportunity for students to know what their real interests are. Even if they do, most students may not have matured enough to introspect and identify their real academic interests. That is why, all over the world, biology PhD students spend time learning research methodology and during postdoctoral period pursue their real academic interests and slowly mature to independent researchers. Thus, a postdoctoral stint is an incubation period for young researchers to become a PI. Until recently in Germany, even people with postdoctoral experience had to go through a habilitation phase before accepted as C3 or C4 professors!

Having said that a postdoctoral stint is important for one’s career, we now ask the question, is it important for Indian students to do postdoctoral work in foreign labs before they are accepted by the academia as independent researchers? In practice, a postdoctoral period in a foreign lab has become an un-written requirement for recruitment in Indian institutes and Universities. Why is this so? Why does a faculty applicant with postdoctoral experience in a foreign lab that is not as good as an average lab in India possess a better chance to get a faculty position than an applicant with no postdoctoral experience or with a postdoc in an Indian laboratory?

Issue here is, can we provide an academic ambiance in India that inculcate all the qualities listed above to our students? If not, why not go abroad for a postdoc? Even if scientists have nationalities, does science have a nation of its own? In the zeal of nationalism, if we ignore the importance of good training, aren't we encouraging poor quality work in India?

What is lacking in Indian training? In the Internet era, what academic ambience does an average lab in USA/Europe provide that a top scientist in India can’t provide? The answer may be a place where a large number of high-quality researchers work or visit (for collaborations or for seminars and conferences); this provides a setting for students to acquire abilities to do independent research, even if their immediate mentors/supervisors are less capable of providing necessary training. A place with large number of excellent people provides necessary criticism to the work of young researchers, which helps to enhance the quality of the training. Such places also provide insights into interesting historical anecdotes of scientific discoveries, personalities and nuisances of developing a new technology or experimental methodology. When I was doing my PhD in Cambridge (the original one in UK and not its poor imitation in USA!), amongst many people I interacted with, I specifically remember talking to HLK Whitehouse. The grand old man would talk to me about genetics and geneticists of an entire century, most of whom he had personally met. Unless we reach such a critical number of excellent people in an organization, not just in the same city, we will continue to export our PhD students. Also, we do not have sufficient number of biological researchers for our PhD students to choose based on their research interests. Money too is an important factor in life. As of today, a senior PhD student earns up to Rs 18,000 per month + HRA. A postdoc fellowship begins at Rs 21,000 per month + HRA. A mere Rs 3000 increase! What social security are we providing to a person of age ~27-28 years? Most of our students come from middle-class, often the culture demands that they take care of their parents and marriage of siblings. What rights do we, who enjoy huge increase in salary after the 6th pay commission, have in asking our PhD students to do postdoctoral work in India. Thus, we neither provide the right academic ambience nor pay our postdocs well enough.

I am in no way undermining the abilities and importance of PhD students in academic research. They are doing their best. They are the real force behind Indian biological research. What worries me is that we are not providing better learning opportunities to these enthusiastic PhD students. If developing a strong postdoc culture in India is a distant reality (although with so many new Universities and research institutes, there are hopes for an Indian academia, within the next 15-20 years, which competes with itself and sufficient peer review happens within the community), can we at least ensure better training to our PhD students such that soon after their PhD they become independent researchers? Interestingly, whenever a fresh PhD graduate is appointed as a faculty, it is almost always (at least in the recent years) she/he with the PhD degree obtained in India. This reflects the fact that selection is based on the ability of the candidate to become an independent researcher and not based on the label “just returned” from a foreign land!

In this context, some of the new initiatives such as Early Career fellowship of Welcome Trust-DBT India Alliance and INSPIRE faculty scheme of DST, which provide better career opportunities to well trained and gifted individuals, can hope to bring in refreshing changes to Indian academia.

During this time, I luckily stumbled upon an advert for a Grants Adviser's position with The Wellcome Trust/ DBT India Alliance (IA). I went for the interview with an open mind. Two things about their offer excited me: Firstly, the IA's mandate to help scientists, create efficient systems and ultimately, build scientific capacity in India; secondly, the opportunity to start work at the offices of The Wellcome Trust (WT) in London. Conditioned by years of watching out for free pizza as a graduate student, the six months all inclusive stay in central London was too tempting! My colleagues and I were recruited together. Under the tutelage of one of the most experienced administrators at the Trust, we were trained to become full-time grants administrators and although not included in our job description, part-time psychologists.

The first on-the-job training we got was to short-list preliminary applications. The IA's process mirrors that of the WT - preliminary applications are screened in-house (with occasional inputs from Committee Members) and competitive applicants are invited to make full applications. Far from being a power trip, the idea that we are the first decision-makers on an application, gave me and the entire team goose bumps. To this day, each new preliminary screening session brings on sleepless nights and upset stomachs. Having been a junior researcher myself previously, the applicant’s emotions resonated within me. Making an application takes time, effort, hard work and importantly, it is sent with a lot of hope. As easy and pleasant as it is to convey good news, that much harder and painful it is to convey bad news. It slowly dawned on me that things we do are life-changing events both professionally and personally for our applicants. This thought continues to dominate when I approach my work as a grants administrator.

The next task for us was to process invited full applications. We each got a set and I had my own portfolio of applications to work with. One of our most important contributions to the grants-process is to ensure that each application gets the best expert peer reviews. This aspect was most challenging for me: I have always been passionate about the biology of lipids and had neither the time nor interest in learning more about other fields. But at the IA, applications are distributed by institution, and not our areas of interest. To find the best referees therefore, we have to study the proposal thoroughly and know enough to identify experts. Suddenly, I found myself learning about DNA deep sequencing <shudder>, microarrays <complicated>, animal ethics <ugh> and Bayesian modeling <snooze>. My experience has now given me a large breadth of knowledge in biomedical sciences. Also, since funding is for future experiments, it always nice to read about cutting-edge science.

Working in a team was also a new experience. As a PhD and post-doc, except for the occasional collaboration, I worked in my own little world. However Grants Advisers, we have to work as a team towards the same deadlines, regardless of our handicaps. This also means if a colleague is on vacation, another has to step in to complete the job. No shelving samples into -80 here; the show must go on.

The final event of the grants cycle is the interview with the Committee. We prepare a packet of information with regards to each applicant (full application with all the costs and information verified, peer-review reports, additional information etc) and supply it to the Committee before hand. By this point we have been working with the applicant and on the application for about 6 months so we develop a level of intimacy with both. I have always found it nervous to sit in the interview room and watch "my" applicant respond. All of us cross our fingers and hope that all our applicants are awarded - what better prize for all the hard work than an award?

Fellowships are all about people and this is where the part-time psychologist comes in. Understanding aspirations and communicating news (both good and disappointing) forms a big chunk of the job. How do you tell someone that the competition is tough and that they didn’t make it without sounding patronizing? How do you tell an applicant that their CV is very good but it won't stand muster in an international competition? How do you respond to the query "Hi. i am studly. Which fellowship should i apply for?" Umm... did you read our website? Occasionally, scud missiles explode in our inbox: sharp emails accusing us of bias; rejected applicants questioning our nationalism; complaints about how unfair the decisions were etc. The stories are amusing at times but do take their toll. We begin to question ourselves: was it worth working overtime on weekends to get award letters out or to chase and beg for reviews from quality referees?

Ultimately though, what pleases me the most about the job is working with a Fellow after they have been awarded. Right from the phone call relaying the good news, we have the responsibility of making sure that funding is as hassle-free as possible. It's a pleasure to be able to offer flexible and generous funding to future leaders of Indian science and working with them. This is one of the biggest reasons why becoming a grants administrator has been a refreshing career move. And scientifically, my job has forced me to concede that not just lipids, but all science is cool.

Labs in India rely on students as the main workforce, most of whom seek post doctoral opportunities abroad, so only rarely is one lucky enough to get good postdocs who are truly past the "training" years of a PhD program and are able to function independently. So we tend to have mostly students at different levels in the lab. But with each student comes the responsibility of training them to become independent, so that they will eventually become postdocs who are able to identify problems, set out to address them, discuss their thoughts and their data with their PI as equals, write their own papers, think about how to address reviewer's comments, write grants...and then, if they wish, become faculty members who have a vision for a long-term research program, can attract competitive funding, can present and their ideas with the big picture in mind, are stimulating colleagues for other faculty and students to interact with, and indeed, are able to give their students enough guidance yet enough training so that they will eventually grow beyond needing guidance.

Nothing in our own training really prepares us for this- most of us learn on the job, often subconsciously modeling our mentoring in line with or in contrast to that of our own thesis advisors! It bears thinking about, even discussing in detail with one’s colleagues, as to what aspect of student training needs bolstering in one’s own institution or department, and what one can do about it. It’s easy to slide into treating students as "pairs of hands" and letting their brains and minds shape up by default, after all any intelligent student will learn in the right environment. The question to ask is "Are we doing enough to contribute to that environment?"

Our system at TIFR requires that 2nd yr PhD students write their thesis proposals in a grant proposal format. This itself was a new, positive step we introduced some years back, since this is usually the only grant proposal a student learns to write in our currently well-funded system. Writing a good grant proposal can be a tremendous learning experience because it forces the student to anticipate in detail how they will do their experiment, the potential pitfalls, possible alternate routes, interpretations of data they anticipate. More broadly, since students are usually more comfortable talking about techniques than questions, it requires them to "see" the broad aim that underlies a group of experiments, and the overall hypothesis that motivates a group of aims. This happens only if the advisor is willing to do multiple rounds of back-and-forth with the student, taking a scattered description of experiments with some background thrown in all the way to a cogent proposal with a hypothesis, specific aims, and well designed experiments. I have found it to be well worth the effort. A wonderful example is that of a student who has been writing her proposal with me over the past month. When pushed to write what the pitfalls might be (“think about what if this or that does not work the way you think it should,” I had suggested), she came to me very perplexed after clearly having thought things through for some time. "But Shubha, if the first aim doesn't work, then I can't even proceed to aims 2 and 3!"
What an "aha!" feeling for the advisor to have the student discover this herself! so we put our heads together and reframed each of the aims so they would address questions that do not depend on the previous one “working.” Am I doing enough to make sure students I come in contact with (outside my lab) also know about the elements of a good grant? Possibly- by questioning them closely in thesis committee meetings when they are preparing their grant proposal and finally when they defend it. Also, I am part of a DBT neuroscience task force in which we discuss at some length how to help PIs whose grants have been triaged to write better ones. Our comments are often detailed enough to help them, and all criticism is constructive, rather than only critical. Also, we have uploaded a sample grant on the DBT website. This is just a beginning- there’s a long way to go…we as a collective community need to do much, much more on this front.

Now to move on to analyzing thinking and presenting…an amazing example came from a summer student visiting my lab- a very bright undergraduate student. We asked her to present a few journal clubs of papers my own lab had published, so that she would be able to understand our work. Of her own accord, she began each presentation with a broad summary statement of what the paper contributed to biology as a whole. E.g. “in this paper we will learn how symmetry is broken in a uniform sheet of cells, and how boundaries are defined.” It was such an amazing and insightful opening (followed by a really thorough and well presented journal club), that we have now adopted this pattern for all our journal clubs, and in fact spend several minutes at the beginning of each journal club trying to collectively come up with an opening statement that would be of interest to any biologist from any area. Am I doing enough to pass on this wonderful learning experience? Perhaps, if I can spread this to other labs, as I’m trying to do via this blog.

In other blogs, I will ask the question with respect to other aspects of making one’s contribution to the scientific community at large.

As discussed in earlier blogs, most of the biologists today have an obsession with so-called "molecular biology", which of course generally needs more money for equipment as well as consumables. However, even if one were to really pursue molecular biological approaches to the questions being addressed, does one need all the equipment present in the previous doctoral or post-doctoral lab to start? Additionally, does one need all the small and big facilities within one's own possession? These issues need serious thinking. Even if the host institution does not provide a central facility, culture of sharing the facilities existing in the neighboring lab has to be developed. Culturally, we seem to literally follow Ravindra Nath Tagore's "Ekla cholore .." (move ahead alone): unfortunately, this literal meaning is not in the right spirit! Most of the university departments and even the research institutes have suffered because everyone wants to have exclusive facilities. The young investigators also get drawn into the same vicious circle. It is in their own long-term interest that the new labs being set up by young faculty start with the philosophy of sharing. As is well known, knowledge is a commodity which increases by sharing and likewise, sharing of the facilities does not make most of them limiting for the "owner".

While discussing with the young investigators the facilities that they require, I have often been baffled by their insistence on a particular model/s of common lab equipment. I think that such insistence reflects a lack of clear vision of what the young person really wants to do! The same equipment of a different make can often be obtained at much lesser cost, without compromising quality. However, the strong, albeit mis-placed, "faith" on the earlier used model, makes them take a rigid stand. The other reason of requiring a variety of equipment to be readily available from the very beginning is perhaps because much of the current research is "technology-driven" rather than "curiosity-driven". Consequently, many researchers ask a question because they are familiar with a technology rather than asking a question out of curiosity and then deciding what technology to use for the purpose (see Lakhotia, Bioessays, 2009, 31: 1370-1371).

If we can free ourselves of the "molecular biology obsession", a large variety of very important research areas are readily available and, which may also not need a high initial set up cost. This is not an "escapist" suggestion, but in my view it is essential to take up good studies in general biology: the bonus of doing this in India is that one can easily become a "pioneer" if good and comprehensive approaches are planned and followed. Taking up such studies in the university system has the additional advantage that some of the basic biology disciplines like biodiversity, systematics, form and function etc, which are fast losing quality teaching, would also get revived.

There is yet another draw-back of "big money" for research. Although one can claim that since in our times we did not have such big grants, we do not feel happy with the younger generation getting these, I would still state, based on my own experience with relatively better funding in recent times, that bigger grants do not necessarily generate better original research. A casualty of the rich grants is innovativeness; one tends to become slave of the automated machines. We should look at the remarkably detailed 1882 drawings of mitosis by Fleming, the discoverer of cell division (see Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003, Science 300:91-96) or the unbelievably precise drawings in any of Th. Boveri's papers (see Satzinger 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics 9:231-238) in the beginning of 20th century. All these were hand-drawn and observed through monocular microscopes, something of the like that most of the biology students would use in school or college class rooms. With the advent of confocal and other advanced imaging systems, we seem to have lost the faculty of seeing a cell with our eyes; we now seem to believe that without the modern imaging gadgets and "markers", nothing can be seen in a cell! It is true that the modern imaging methods have indeed revolutionized cell biology, but let us not forget that study of molecules outside the spatial and temporal contexts of cell and tissue structure is of limited consequence.

The conventional university system, submerged as it is under the weight of its own mediocrity, has obviously not been an attractive ground for those aspiring to start research career with a rich platter. If quality science has to develop and thrive prosperously in the country, the university system needs young people with innovative ideas and who are willing to work even under unfavourable conditions: their efforts would indeed bring the change. A beginning has to be made now than later – small or big grant would not necessarily make a great difference if originality, perseverance and some help from peers exist. I still believe that "slow and steady wins the race".

Science is about understanding the nature and mechanism of the world. Modern science tells us that nature is a continuum of physical world to the chemical world to the biological world. Disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc started as the knowledge base expanded and it was necessary to focus on a sub-domain for research purposes. But was dividing science into various disciplines a necessity to teach science in schools and colleges? Currently school kids are taught that Newtonian mechanics is Physics and Darwinian Evolution is biology. This makes them to assume that Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to biological systems or there is nothing to take from Physics/chemistry/mathematics to learn/research evolution. In the context of Indian scenario, a major victim of this compartmentalization is biology. It is never combined with mathematics and very rarely combined with physics and chemistry.

With easy access to knowledge through computers/internet, one can avoid remembering too much information or too many facts. However, we still need vertical depth in a discipline or even a sub-field within a discipline for doing research. Then how can one practise, so called, interdisciplinary science. Is it feasible? Here is a solution. Teach all school students, science as a single subject. Teach them basic concepts of physics and show them how under certain conditions physical entities interact with each other to give new products (chemistry) and then teach how self-organizing system (biological world) is an extension of earlier two phenomena. At the college level, one may have to teach science with more depth and hence we may have to invoke disciplines. Still all students should learn physics, maths, biology and chemistry not as separate disciplines but as complementary components of science as a whole. Only at the post-graduate level one should start acquiring vertical depth in a discipline or sub-field that is required for research purposes.

This way all students will have some understanding of continuity across all disciplines and more importantly would understand the languages of all disciplines. With better understanding of each others’ languages, collaborations across various disciplines would be more efficient.

Collaborations amongst people with broad knowledge of science as a whole combined with discipline-specific vertical depth and sufficient knowledge of methodology/terminology used in various disciplines would be a good recipe for pushing the frontiers of science in all directions.

My academic background reflects that I can think of interesting problems to solve, find solutions, foster collaborations and possess decent experimental skills. Was this enough? If not, what else could I bring to the table?

Turns out, a lot of skills acquired through extracurricular activities are relevant in a professional environment. They say instances of the past are a better predictor of future success than mere speculation. So I decided to map my skills with a list of possible attributes that might be required in a particular role.

Here’s what I found –

Being the chief organizer for a symposium demonstrates the ability to plan events and work with people. Published writing in print or web media shows you can express yourself in a coherent manner. Volunteering shows you take the initiative, are responsible, look for opportunities and would add value to any organization. Being elected to a position/leadership is an indication of peer acceptance, PR skills and accountability. Fundraising, having a summer job, doing market research are indicative of business acumen. Once I customized my CV in this fashion, I started getting interview calls. Perhaps, I landed in my current job because of this strategy. Only my interviewers would be able to tell you the real answer though ;)!

Having said this, I also think it’s best to steer clear of padding CVs with a lot of activities in which one has had a passing interest. By doing so, one runs into the risk of appearing unfocused and undedicated.

So how does one start? In my case, I didn’t really think all this through. I didn’t know what I wanted to do then anyway. I have always been keen to try new things whenever presented with an opportunity. Being a student was great for this as work timings were flexible and I could always fit ‘other activites’ in my schedule. Things which really interested me, I stuck with them. I made sure I delivered a quantifiable result each time. This demonstrable acquired skill-set has played a huge role in honing my abilities and still is in my present job.

So if you are thinking of taking up a new activity – go ahead and do it! You never know when it’ll come in handy!!

Cheers,
Swetha

PS: If you do think of trying your hand at science news writing, feel free to get in touch with me at swethas[at]ncbs dot res dot in. I can send you guidelines, tips and edit your article too

Life is tough and it's easy to get depressed. It is very tempting to blame the system for my woes. The sophisticated rarely accuse the system of personal bias. They usually accuse the system of group discrimination, and their state as a consequence. Many of us, who work from India, like to say that papers from here are not looked at as generously as papers from, say, Harvard. I find this very interesting logic. Let's say this is true. So what? How does that prove that my paper was a good one rejected on this discriminatory ground? Perhaps, my paper was not well written. Perhaps the long-list of experiments the referees suggest are actually worth doing. We do ourselves no favours when we, as individuals project ourselves as victims of discrimination and generalise our woes to external causes. If the external causes are valid, they apply to a group. Each specific case must only be examined on its merits. When applied to an individual, we must take care almost never to apply generalisations to ourselves, but mainly to others. We lose credibility when we apply generalisations to ourselves. Consider the following argument. Suppose I contend that women are discriminated against at all stages in their career. Then I say that Ms. X is remarkable because she has succeeded despite this. This argument rings true as does the statement that Ms. Y is a reasonable scientist, but has not been recognised as much as a similarly accomplished male scientist, suggesting a bias in our system. When I apply generalisations to myself, though, I need to have very high standards of proof. Could it be, I need to ask myself, that negative decisions about me are actually valid? Could it be just possible, I need to ask myself, that I am using the obvious flaws in the system to make what is an untenable case for myself? The answers to these questions are easy for each of us to make. Well, not that easy, it seems, as the kneejerk reaction which blames conspiracies, corruption, cronyism and manipulation for all my problems. All the faults listed above are likely present in all systems to varying extent, but if my examples of discrimination relate mainly to me, we have a problem.

My lesson on how to react to rejection came from the students whose paper was rejected: the worst hit of the lot! In 24 hours, they had listed out the experiments to be done and the timelines for getting them done. Not a waffle about referees, journals and their ilke being discriminatory. I will work hard over the next three months, driven by them, to see that we have a better paper submitted. The referees and the editor did a great job and my initial irritation, and disappointment aside, it's clear we too have a better job to do. On another front, my colleagues have resubmitted our grant and addressed key points which we perhaps should have done earlier. I just have to pull myself up and keep the focus on the science and not wallow in comfortable self-pity. Life is not easy and it only gets harder. But, the joys of grappling with scientific questions with colleagues in the lab and seeing the results of their excitement, wipes out all pessimism. To whine about external structures is human. To take our own whining too seriously is dangerous: worry when others whine, don't whine about yourself!

Let me start with an example of reviewing papers, which is assigned to principal investigators but frequently farmed out in practice to students and postdocs. There is a journal hierarchy and we are asked to comment on whether the paper is good enough, if it has high enough impact. Behind the cloak of anonymity, reviewers often write the most discouraging and disparaging remarks about the importance and quality of the work, perhaps because they want to make doubly sure that the paper gets rejected. In 5 min of their time, a reviewer can completely trash the work that a student or postdoc who had labored over the work for 5 years. Although it never ceases to hurt, many senior PIs have a tough enough skin to withstand such an assault on their work. However, for a young person, such a review can be devastating and calls into question their ability as a scientist and even whether they should continue in a profession populated with such kind of hostile people. I think that reviewers internally justify this type of behavior by "well, this happened to me with the last two papers that I submitted to Nature". Gandhi had a quote for this type of behavior, and I need not write it here since all of you know what it is.

And then there is verbal rancor. "I know who trashed my grant and he/she is a terrible person." "The editor at Nature is an idiot". This is dangerous, because such assumptions are very frequently wrong and you are likely pointing a loose canon in the wrong direction. Most importantly, you do not need to take someone else down in order to raise yourself higher. Most often, it backfires and does not project yourself in a good light.

While rejection is part of our business, I want to inject a word of optimism and perspective for young people. While a paper or a grant might be rejected, things even out over time if you stick with it, pick yourself and try again. If your paper from your Ph.D. thesis is rejected from a journal, your sphere of experience at that instant in time is 100% failure, which is disheartening. However, my papers get rejected too! And I feel bad too (and also for the student or postdoc in lab)! The difference is that, being an old fart, I have had more life experience to know that rejected papers can get accepted, that careers that seem to be going nowhere can change trajectory dramatically, and that personal unhappiness can turn into happiness. Patience, persistence, adaptability are key traits - yes, easy to write and read in a blog and but often learned the hard way in practice.

It also important to remember that we are all people trying to do the best that we can. Some individuals are better scientists than others, some are better journal editors than others. This diversity can manifest itself in poor judgment calls, and this creates an imperfect system of scientific governance since it is overseen by imperfect human beings. But very, very, few people have intrinsically dishonest and evil motives. The journal editors, the scientific reviewers, the grants administrators are people like you. They have a mom and dad, they have families and try to do the best for their kids, they work hard at what they do, they savor some free time after a hard week of work to go for a bike ride or enjoy a movie. And they crave the occasional positive feedback to know that they are doing some good for their hours spent at work. They also are hurt by same demoralizing blows that affect us.

In ending this blog, let me be clear - I very strongly believe that our profession is characterized by many more acts of kindness and collegiality than of hostility. But we can still seek to do better; we can improve as a profession and as individuals. Let us take control of the situation ourselves. Let us seek polite and courteous peer review. Let us not blame government, granting agencies, journals. Sure, there are problems with all of these systems and there are issues that require change. However, we must remember that we scientists largely created the systems that govern us and sometimes systems are slow to change and require patience and persistent improvement. But we can regain our own sanity immediately, be kinder to our colleagues, and help to create the type of professional environment that we all want to work in and enjoy.

When I ask an aspirant for Ph.D., holding a Master's degree in any branch of life sciences, about what he/she would like to undertake research on, the answer given by a large majority of them is "molecular biology" or "biotechnology". Discussions with many colleagues across the country reveals that evoking such simple and short answers, which the young aspirant believes is a "smart" answer, is not my unique experience. This makes me wonder if molecular biology is a research topic or a set of methods of study or a distinct discipline in biology? While answers to this would vary with individual perceptions, it is clear that young students develop great fascination for the so-called "molecular biology", often perceived by teachers and taught alike as a synonym of "modern biology". A slight prodding of the young doctoral study aspirant reveals, that all that they know about "molecular biology" is a set of names of currently fashionable techniques, without either knowing their theoretical bases or their applications. With such preparation, I would not blame the students if they have no question/s in their mind to pursue for the Ph.D. research.

A "clean slate" would be better to start research with than a wrongly "imprinted" one! But wrongly imprinted/primed minds seem to be produced in increasingly larger proportion by our academic institutions. Why have we come to this state of affairs? Besides the overflow of new information and poor teaching, the undue emphasis on molecular biology and concomitant undermining or simple ridicule of basic biology (including biodiversity) seems to be another important factor for the present mess. The absence of informed and inspiring teachers, highly compartmentalized and fragmented course contents is compounded by an utter lack of any meaningful laboratory work in the "classical" as well as "modern" teaching programs. Graduates with degrees in the so-called "modern biology" subjects (biotechnology, molecular biology, genomics, genetics, bioinformatics, nanobiotechnology and the like) often have little exposure to biodiversity or basic cell biology, physiology, genetics, developmental biology, evolution etc. On the other hand, majority of the "traditional" departments, in the run to modernize themselves, have not only lost their standing in biodiversity and other basic studies but have also failed to develop any meaningful expertise in molecular biology. Their products thus also remain ignorant of biology. Knowledge of molecular biology techniques is essential today, but cannot be the end in itself.

The introduction of teaching programmes in Biotechnology, initially at the Master's level and later at Bachelor's or even school levels, dramatically changed life sciences teaching and research in the country. I have earlier discussed the negative impact of teaching programmes in Biotechnology and related specialized subjects (Are biotechnology degree courses relevant? Current Science 94: 1244-1245; Hype and the reality of biotechnology). It is significant to note that countries which are really leading in Biotechnology, do not offer such specialized teaching programs as we do in India. Yet, the state of local biotechnology industry is not laudable.

The consequences of little understanding of biology is reflected in the general complain that the quality of products coming out of universities in recent years is deteriorating voiced by research institutions in the country, despite the fact that these research labs attract better of the young Ph. D. aspirants. Most of the young Ph.D.s, including those graduated from the well-established research institutions, are often not able to frame original questions for future research beyond their immediate area of the previous research. Even after varying period of post-doctoral experience, many of them remain at the "3' UTR of the problem", a phrase that I commonly use to describe research programs that are essentially an extension of earlier work, and for which the young PI had "approval" of the earlier "boss"!

The limited comprehension of basic biology and biodiversity does not encourage the young PIs to move beyond the "model system" that he/she became familiar with during doctoral and/or post-doctoral research. As I mentioned earlier ("Advantages of working with organisms other than the model systems"), it would indeed be a great advantage to young PIs in India to exploit the enormous biodiversity that the sub-continent offers. The young PIs can, with some extra and sincere effort, indeed prepare themselves to move out of the model systems and exploit the advantages of the available biodiversity. A greater challenge, however, is to improve our teaching programmes. We desperately need more broad-based and balanced teaching programmes on one hand and inspiring and knowledgeable teachers on the other.

Despite the enormity presented by the very large student population, the reforms must start sooner than later. It will indeed be in the self-interest of established scientists/researchers to take to teaching as well so that their knowledge/understanding may really help younger minds to get excited (see Swati Patnikar's "Scientist and Teacher"). We need to let the young minds feel the excitement of knowing the diverse living systems in nature and thereby, make them curious about the very different solutions that have evolved in different organisms for common ends/environmental conditions. Molecular understandings of these unusual life styles, adaptations and the underlying evolutionary processes will not only be exciting to decipher, but may also offer unanticipated scope for applied studies. Judicious applications of molecular biological and genomic approaches to such biological/natural history studies would indeed be exciting and pioneering. Every issue of Current Biology, Bioessays, Journal of Experimental Biology and other similar journals provide remarkable examples of the unlimited scope for going out in nature and finding new questions which can be pursued at great depths because of the powerful molecular biological approaches possible. However, to achieve and sustain this, we need to provide a more holistic training to students at Bachelor's and Master's levels, not only in the broad field of biology but other natural sciences as well. Then only real inter- or trans-disciplinary research collaborations will be effective. Young minds, even those with inherent intelligence and drive, would remain substantially under-productive unless their curiosity is timely stimulated and excited. We must not let our very rich and capable human resource languish for want of better preparedness on part of teachers and teaching institutions. Obviously, to generate academic leaders in the next generation, we need inspiring and creative teachers in the present generation.