I woke up at 11 a.m. on a Saturday in June to find a missed call that made me sit up on my bed with a jolt. It was from Shubha Tole, a Professor at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai, with whom I was supposed to work for my year-long MS dissertation starting May this year, before all plans were rendered moot by the COVID-19 pandemic. At that point, we weren’t sure if the situation would become conducive for me to travel to Mumbai to work in her lab any time soon.

I called her back, anticipating bad news. She answered with her characteristic friendly greeting. She informed me that the situation was dire in Mumbai and it wasn’t likely that I would get to work at the institute in time to complete my thesis. This was not unexpected. But what struck me as incredible was her calling me to convey this news, rather than sending me a short e-mail, as is the usual practice. I expressed my immense gratitude for the gesture. She answered that this was the least she could do for an earnest student, as I and my peers represent the future of science.

This left me speechless. Here was a senior professor and a highly regarded scientist extending a most generous act of mentorship and claiming that there was nothing impressive about it at all! The call lasted 6 minutes and it left me re-thinking the prevailing practices of correspondence and mentorship that I had thus far accepted as the standard.

This incident reminded me of the numerous instances when I had spent a week reading about the current research of a particular professor whose work I was interested in. I would email them requesting an opportunity to pursue an internship at their lab, stating what I found interesting in their work (gleaned from their website and published papers), my general understanding of their field, and the skills I possess relevant to their work. Immediately upon sending the email, I would mark the date on my google calendar and set two reminders in the app to send follow-up emails to the professor at one-week intervals, requesting them to reply to my mail.

The sad thing is that I have always had to send the first reminder and in at least a third of the cases, the second reminder before the professor would acknowledge my mail, even if it is to decline the request due to lack of space in their lab. Some of them never acknowledge the mail.

This is not just my experience, but that of a huge chunk of my peers, who have a good amount of lab experience and are among the highest-scoring students at a premier institute in the country. Most of us make a list of labs in the order of our interest in their work and write to the most preferred lab first. The delay and uncertainty in getting a reply results in the whole process of applying for internships getting extended, with an accompanying decline in our spirits, as we wait for an acknowledgement from our dream labs. Is it justified for weeks of dedicated effort from the students’ part to go unacknowledged like this?

I have always had to send the first reminder and in at least a third of the cases, the second reminder before the professor would acknowledge my mail, even if it is to decline the request due to lack of space in their lab. Some of them never acknowledge the mail.

Over the years, a few of us began calling this practice wherein an undergraduate (UG) student emails a professor and keeps pursuing them until their willpower runs out as “academic courtship”. Once the term was coined, we noticed that the “courtship” continues even after a professor grants us an interview. One of my friends who applied to a lab in the UK and got an interview with the scientist was astonished when she asked her about her expectations from the lab during the conversation. That she as the applicant was allowed to have expectations from the lab bestowing the opportunity on her had never occurred to her! Isn’t there something inherently wrong with the system if the cream of the crop of undergraduates across the country are so used to complying that they are left speechless when they are offered consideration?

Once granted a project, most UG students are asked to shadow senior PhD students or post-docs to learn the basic protocols in the lab. This is a very comfortable arrangement most of the time, except for when the very well-documented stressful lives of these senior members of the lab put them in a position from where they can’t handle the demanding task of mentoring a new student effectively.

When this happens, more often than not, the naïve UG student finds themselves as the final recipient of the pressure trickling down through the academic hierarchy. This can damage the spirit and will of a young student taking the first tentative steps into the extremely bewildering world of academicians. Even when the relationship with senior students is healthy, it is not justified to let that person be the sole mentor to the junior student. Unfortunately, absentee PIs are extremely common, limiting mentorship to that offered by generous PhD students or postdocs.

Isn’t there something inherently wrong with the system if the cream of the crop of undergraduates across the country are so used to complying that they are left speechless when they are offered consideration?

While the most common problems faced by UG students fall within the above categories, problems arising out of differences, often personal, with faculties who are not above pursuing such differences viciously to the detriment of the young student are not unheard of. Addressing such extreme cases needs that empowered committees are set up at the institutional level, making available a safe space for the extremely vulnerable students to speak up and seek redressal.

The problems faced by the youngest members of the academic community fall within a wide range of severity and even the seemingly lighter concerns outlined here can cause significant damage on chronic exposure. Hence, there is a need to replace the almost systematic neglect with an active effort towards mending the work culture.

Working toward solutions

Running a research lab is no small task. We have all read article after article about the challenging lives of career scientists. A friendly faculty or two have often divulged that their busy schedules don’t permit replying to the large number of emails that they receive every day, especially close to the summer break, even though they want to. But, the existing system is one which is taking an unhealthy toll on undergraduate students across the country. We find ourselves falling prey to an extremely skewed hierarchical set-up, and end up neglecting our own well-being in a bid to get acknowledged and mentored.

It should be acknowledged that the process of coming up with a concise email that is designed to pique the interest of a distinguished member of the scientific community is the first professional endeavour for most students. A lot of thought goes into crafting each sentence. Replying to these emails within a week or so, even if it is to inform them that it is not possible to accept their candidature, will go a long way in boosting the confidence of the student. Even effectively declining an application needs to be viewed as part of mentorship.

We find ourselves falling prey to an extremely skewed hierarchical set-up, and end up neglecting our own well-being in a bid to get acknowledged and mentored.

It may help to put in place specific guidelines for applicants, designed to help professors address a large number of emails efficiently. Perhaps all the students who apply for positions can be instructed to send their emails within a specific time window with a particular subject line. I cannot stress the importance of updating lab websites to explicitly inform us that you don’t have enough lab space. Such small changes could go a long way towards making the whole process healthier and more rewarding for the students with minimal efforts on the side of the faculty.

Accessibility of the faculty mentor is key. While most professors have regular meeting schedules with their PhD students, a similar system does not exist for UG students in most labs. The importance of face-to-face conversations with your mentor cannot be emphasised enough. Such a practice will go a long way towards enhancing the morale of students, besides helping them express any concerns they may have about the lab environment in a trusted space. Besides, a student-centric approach to mentoring is the need of the hour, given that very few students understand the myriad of new avenues opening up for science graduates.

Science is a collaborative enterprise at its core. It is the efforts of generations of scientists that often coalesce into paradigm-shifting results. It is only by standing on the shoulders of giants that one can see further. Hence, mentoring the next generation of scientists who will take the quest forward is as important as original research. The science of today is not just about being curious and evaluating questions systematically through the lens of rationality. It is also about being a member of a highly dynamic and partially closed community.

While the syllabi of our universities are being revised to impart knowledge in better ways, the specific challenges of being part of a simultaneously competitive and interdependent community need to be learnt from being a part of active research. With more and more UG students expressing the interest and calibre to engage in research, I am humbly appealing to the entire scientific community to make an effort towards making the system more welcoming for us.

As we gradually transition into the fourth phase of the nationwide lockdown, we continue to implement strong defensive strategies against the novel coronavirus, including fast and reliable diagnostic procedures, as well as plans that limit the spread of the contagion. However, to be effective, these must be combined with equivalent offensive tactics against the virus, such as drugs and vaccines.

This concerted “defence & attack” approach is necessary for eradicating this deadly pathogen. An effective and successful “offensive” approach will ultimately depend on formulating and developing both prophylactic (preventive) as well as therapeutic (treatment) strategies to fight SARS-CoV-2. Such strategies can only be developed if we combine our scientific knowledge from previous viral infections with modern scientific and technological advancements.

In the first part of this article, we discussed how understanding the novel coronavirus’s biology helps us devise methods to restrict its spread and quickly diagnose its presence in patient samples. This second part will focus on the wealth of knowledge we have gained from previous such viral infections of pandemic proportion, and how some of these have been translated to SARS-CoV-2 research with an aim to discover novel therapeutics.

Developing therapeutic strategies

The need of the hour is to develop drugs against this deadly virus – which is easier said than done. Before we come up with strategies to fight the virus, we need to study its behaviour closely to understand which of its essential processes we can target.

Currently, researchers are following three main approaches. The first approach is to find a drug that can prevent the virus from entering the cell. However, for this, we need to understand exactly how the virus enters the host cell. The second approach is understanding how the virus replicates inside the host cell and developing agents that could block this replication cycle. Finally, in the third approach, researchers are also investigating if drugs which are already approved and available commercially can be repurposed to target COVID-19.

Strategy 1: Targeting SARS-CoV-2 binding to the host cell

A little over a month after the first reported COVID-19 case, a group of researchers led by Jason McLellan from the University of Texas published a detailed structure of the viral “S” protein (which forms its spiky outer layer) and highlighted how it is used by the virus to bind to the host cell. This study demonstrated that the virus uses a “Lock and Key” mechanism to attach itself to the host cell, which is the first step in the infection process.

In this, the viral “S” protein acts as the “Key” which attaches itself to a human protein, ACE2 (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme), which acts as a “Lock”. ACE2 is present on several human cells including the cells that line our lungs. This attachment is essential for viral entry into the host cell, and therefore presents a unique opportunity to scientists, as any molecule that can disrupt this attachment can be potential drug candidates.

Another study, published at the beginning of March 2020, provides more support to this approach. In this study, a group of researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Germany, working under the leadership of Stefan Polhmann demonstrated that another protein, TMPRSS2 assists in viral entry into the host cell by priming the spike protein “S”. This study also highlights how a synthetic inhibitor, Camostat Mesylate, can target this viral protein and blocks the virus from entering the host cells. This kind of breakthrough research opens up possibilities of new drug discovery which targets the virus-host attachment.

Strategy 2: Targeting SARS-CoV-2 replication inside the host cell

Researchers have also been trying to find ways to target viral replication - the process through which the virus multiplies once it’s inside the host cell. A ground-breaking study by a group led by Rolf Hilgenfeld at the University of Lubeck, Germany, described the detailed structure of another viral protein, Mpro, which plays an integral role in viral replication. The researchers also showed that the reproduction of the virus inside the cells could be blocked by using an inhibitor, α-ketoamide, thereby offering a promising strategy for potential therapeutic intervention.

Strategy 3: Repurposing already approved drugs

Alternate strategies for treating COVID-19 may stem out of repurposing drugs that are already in the market for other diseases and disorders. Already antiretrovirals, which have been used to treat HIV infections, are being explored for their efficacy against COVID-19. However, these have had limited success, and the findings from the trials have been somewhat contradictory. Very recently, a laboratory study highlighting a combination of Remdesivir, an antiviral drug, and chloroquine, a common anti-malarial drug, has shown great promise against SARS-CoV-2.

Just recently, Remdesivir alone has shown tremendous promise in a group of patients with COVID-19 and is presently under clinical trial, conducted by GILEAD, USA. These results were backed up by another publication showing that hydroxychloroquine, a derivative of chloroquine, can inhibit lab-grown SARS-CoV-2 with minimal toxicity. Another drug combination - Azithromycin and Hydroxychloroquine - has also been shown to show positive results on COVID-19 infected patients in a study by researchers at IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France, although these studies need further evaluation with larger groups of patients. An FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin has also been shown to have potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV2. In another comprehensive study, a large scale screening of already available drugs identified 30 potential drugs that could block viral replication.

Alternate Strategies

As I am writing this update, over 4.9 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide with more than 3 lakh confirmed deaths. But researchers always try to find the little rays of hope within the grey, and the positive news here is that over 1.9 million people have recovered worldwide. This means that all these people who have recovered are now harbouring priceless antibodies against this deadly virus in their bloodstream. Utilizing this anti-sera from people who have recovered from COVID-19 may provide an excellent strategy to fight this infection.

In fact, during the SARS and the MERS pandemics a few years back, sera with antibodies from recovered patients were used to successfully treat patients with an active infection. The possibility of using such an approach for COVID-19 has also been under discussion. Recently, a purified but inactivated SARS-nCoV-2 virus has been shown to be promising as a vaccine candidate.

An emerging idea in the treatment of COVID-19 is to study human subjects who are naturally resistant to the virus. If we are able to identify subsets of people who are naturally resistant, comparative gene sequencing of such naturally resistant people with COVID-19 susceptible patients may unravel a treasure trove of data, which may assist in effective drug development against this virus. In fact, not long ago, studying people naturally resistant to the deadly virus HIV gave us invaluable clues about their immunological profile, which played a significant role in the development of anti-HIV treatment strategies.

Indian Initiatives on COVID-19 research.

On the Indian side as well, initiatives on COVID-19 research have been taken up quickly. While a core team of professionals has been formed to formulate strategies to combat COVID-19, the country’s scientific organizations like DST have set up their own COVID-19 task force to accelerate diagnostics and R&D to boost the country’s effort to mitigate COVID-19. Basic research to understand the genomics of the virus infecting Indian population, as a first step towards effective drug development, has been reported in several pre-print publications. DNA sequence analysis of the S-protein from Indian isolates has revealed a critical amino acid change in the viral S-protein which might affect its infectivity in the Indian population. Similarly, Indian researchers have been working on the identification of potential drug targets and vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2.

Past, present, and future

Hope is not lost. In fact, what history has shown us is that the human race persists. Also, all this while, we have been thinking of the virus as a constant entity without any change, but this is not true. As the virus infects more and more people, it encounters new micro-environments inside the human body and accumulates small changes. Evidence from both the SARS and Ebola epidemics has shown that with increasing infections and onward transmissions, the number of mutations in the virus’s genome also increases.

Many of these mutations do not affect the virus’s pathogenicity. Often they reduce the harmfulness of the virus, by reducing its infectivity or capacity to cause death. This is because a virus cannot live by itself - it needs a viable host. Hence the virus always looks for environments where it can thrive, even if it comes at the cost of its ability to cause disease. In fact, the Global Initiative on Viral Data Sharing has shown that SARS-CoV-2 genome has undergone mutations several times. Even the SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from Kerala, India has undergone several mutations compared to the original Wuhan strain. Whether these mutations alter the virus’s pathogenicity in the long term is yet to be studied.

Finally, I would like to end on a slightly more philosophical note. Why are these outbreaks occurring at this particular period during human history? Do the increasing technological advancement of the human race and changing ecology have anything to do with this? Epidemiological data and genetic sequence analysis show that many of these coronavirus strains might date as far back as ~ 5000 BCE or even earlier. Many of these originated in animal hosts, particularly bats. These viruses have undergone mutations and exchanged hosts several times before transferring to humans. Are the changing climate, increasing pollution, and modernization in any way responsible for inducing critical mutations in these viruses, that enable them to be transferred to humans? Why are bats resistant to such viruses?

These questions prompt different perspectives, and hence alternate approaches to solve these mysteries. The answers to these questions might be critical in dealing more effectively with this kind of crisis. If anything, this global pandemic has paved the way to the inevitable realization that the development of a supportive environment towards promoting scientific culture and temperament is essential towards tackling such pandemics in the future.

And towards meeting these ends, policymakers globally have to prioritize the promotion of a better scientific environment and practice, both intellectually as well as financially. The most powerful message that has come out of all this is that the human race is capable of presenting a united front against a crisis, in spite of whatever geographical, racial, and religious borders may exist. With a species so determined to persist, a minuscule virus won’t be able to defeat us so easily.

“It’s not a question of “Whether”, it is rather a matter of “When” we will face such a pandemic” was the warning issued by Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist who helped in the eradication of smallpox. In fact, Brilliant was one of the chief advisors of the 2011 Hollywood Blockbuster “Contagion”, which surprisingly foretells much of what we are seeing around us today.

On 31 December, 2019, reports of a cluster of patients from Wuhan, China with a pneumonic fever of unknown origin reached the district level office of the World Health Organization (WHO). Within 10 days, WHO declared the infectious agent to be an RNA virus of the family Coronaviridae (named after the crown-like outer structure of the virus; “corona” means “crown” in Latin) and a close relative of the viruses which caused the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002-04 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012.

But this one was new. The world had never seen this particular virus before and neither had this virus seen humans. It appears that the virus transferred to humans from an animal host (in this case, bats) by acquiring some new mutations. Officially named SARS-CoV-2, and informally called the novel coronavirus, this virus causes a completely new respiratory disease – COVID-19.

And therein lies the problem. We now have an “enemy” that we cannot see, and that we do not know much about. How do we fight such an enemy? The only way is to study and learn more about it - what it wants, what it does in order to survive, and where its weaknesses lie. And this is where science plays a significant role.

This COVID-19 pandemic has brought to our attention how building up scientific temperament and propagation of scientific culture are critically important to tackling a pandemic of this scale. The knowledge so acquired can help us understand the very basics of the disease process, helping us make progress in treating and preventing it.

Understanding the “enemy”

Broadly, viruses can be classified into two main types depending on the nature of their genetic material – DNA viruses and RNA viruses. This genetic material enables the virus to hijack the host’s cellular machinery and synthesize proteins critical for its survival. SARS-CoV-2, like other coronaviruses, contains RNA as its genome.

Each single viral particle (often called “virion”) contains an envelope, consisting primarily of molecules called lipoproteins as well as three characteristic proteins - the spike (S) protein which gives the virion the characteristic appearance of a crown, the envelope (E) protein and the membrane (M) protein. This envelope can be broken down and destroyed by soap, which is why doctors are asking you to wash your hands often. Apart from this, there is also the nucleocapsid (N) protein which surrounds the RNA genome.

In the few months since we first encountered this infectious pathogen, researchers around the world have embarked upon an almost undeclared joint venture. They have proceeded at breakneck speed to decipher and target various aspects of this virus in an attempt to find ways of limiting the infection, stopping its spread, and eventually devising a potential cure for COVID-19. These aspects include but are not limited to the virus’s structure, its mechanism of infection, its molecular biology, the origins of its nucleic acid sequence, and the epidemiology of disease spread.

It's amazing how the human race can do unbelievable things at an unbelievable pace when faced with a global crisis. This two-part article will focus on how basic research endeavours have made significant discoveries that have led us towards a better understanding of how the virus spreads from one person to another, how it attaches to cells, how it replicates, how it is different from the SARS or MERS viruses, and how these findings could translate into developing novel therapeutics or preventive strategies against this disease.

Limiting the spread of the virus

The very first step was to identify the process through which the virus spreads – is it airborne, blood-borne, or does it spread through some other means? Knowing this answer was crucial to developing a strategy to limit its spread. Clinical data and epidemiological studies quickly established that SARS-CoV-2 spreads from person-to-person either through direct contact or through water droplets from the patient’s cough or nasal discharge.

These and similar findings led most countries to resort to “Physical Distancing” as the primary strategy for limiting the outbreak. Similarly, scientific understanding of the fact that the viral envelope consists of a lipid layer, one which can be readily disrupted by detergents or alcohol, has also provided us with a scientific rationale for using soap or alcohol-based sanitizers as a preventive strategy.

Adequate and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 in a patient population is a key to understanding the level of infectivity in a population, and hence required for minimizing the spread of this disease. Rapid identification of COVID-19 patients is a frontline need towards effective management and research has, therefore, been accelerated towards understanding the structure, molecular biology, and immunology of SARS-CoV-2.

In this regard, several platforms for highly specific as well as sensitive, rapid diagnostic tests have been reported globally. A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based technique has been the primary platform for detection of COVID-19, globally as well as in India. RT-PCR is fast, specific, sensitive as well as cost-effective in diagnosis, where time is of the essence.

Next-Generation Sequencing can also play a very significant role in high-throughput and highly specific detection of SARS-CoV-2, although it involves higher costs. Very recently, a targeted gene-editing technique based detection of the virus has also been reported, which is highly sensitive and faster than RT-PCR.

Rapid diagnostic tests detecting the presence of antibodies to specific SARS-CoV-2 proteins have already been approved by the FDA (a list of which can be found here). However, these antibody-based detection methods can only confirm whether a person has ever encountered the virus, and does not necessarily reflect the present infection status of the individual.

***

In the past few months, as we have dealt with this pandemic, we have educated ourselves, discovered innovative solutions to limit the spread of this virus, and presented affordable diagnostic strategies. In addition to this, we have begun learning how to co-exist with this virus in the long term. These necessity-driven innovations point towards the fact that nurturing the scientific community through gradual and sustained development and the propagation of a scientific environment is critically important towards becoming a “Pandemic-ready” nation in the future.

In the next part, we will discuss more scientific discoveries that have provided us clues on how to go about developing therapeutics against this disease, as well as some mysteries and insights that this episode in our history has brought into sharp focus.

COVID-19 is a global health emergency not only in terms of physical health but mental health as well, warn experts. Most of us have not witnessed a global pandemic of this magnitude in our lives. The numbers and the extent are unprecedented, creating a sense of fear and anxiety. In contrast, regions around the world with previous experiences of pandemics appear more prepared. So do small communities with limited healthcare systems.

The constant conversation about the disease, those affected, and the number of deaths, is not helping anyone. “There is seriously no other topic than this, these days,” says Aishwarya, a research scholar in a German university. Uncertainty and the fear of the unknown naturally give rise to the wish to gather information. News highlights negative developments, and this can trigger stressors. Those who are prone to anxiety are especially vulnerable. “Limit the news and be careful what you read,” advises an article published in BBC News. While it is very important to know what’s happening, it is also okay not to be updated about every little detail.

I have found it important to acknowledge that every human being is different, and what works for one may not work for others.

Many of us are used to living structured lives with a fixed routine, which has been disrupted. It has also led to additional responsibilities for many, for example, parents with small children, or people with elderly parents. In this situation, it is important to give ourselves time to process the changes and adjust. It is normal to be having trouble. It is okay if we cannot bring ourselves to be highly productive. All the pending projects need not be finished right now.

Physical distancing has locked people in with others they may not be used to staying with, seriously testing many relationships. Some others have found themselves completely isolated at home. I have found it helpful to stay socially connected with a few people I consider close. I have had that chat with my school friend that we had been postponing for a long time and formed new bonds of friendship with a few I used to earlier think of as acquaintances.

While some have steady jobs and can work from home, others have been caught between jobs, and some have been laid off. There is increased pressure on many people to be more productive, upskill themselves, start on a dream project during this period. This can lead to shame and disappointment. The fear of how the world and our lives will be once this is over, particularly from an economic standpoint, is also adding to the anxiety.

At the crux of the mental health crisis is fear, and human fear stems from the unknown. A lot about this novel virus is unknown even at the forefront of research. The uncertainty of the practical circumstances has added to the stress. “At this point, I am actually scared about whether I will get to see my friends, comrades, lovers, extended family after all this is over,” says Puja, a former student.

Instead of worrying about things that are not in our hands, it is probably a good idea to focus on things that we can do. By actively dissociating ourselves from things in which one has no constructive role to play, we can keep the anxiety away.

The current situation puts many who are vulnerable at greater risk. “People who are already mentally ill, especially those on medication, are not getting the usual medicines, thus have chances of relapse,” says Subhra Sarkar, PhD Scholar, Department of Psychiatric Nursing, LGBRIMH, Tezpur. Preventive measures like washing hands regularly can cause complications for those with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder who usually find it difficult to control these practices. Those with an anxiety disorder who are already vulnerable to the fear of diseases have been confronted with a situation that can make fighting their anxiety more difficult.

Many Indians have had to face rumour-mongering amongst neighbours, relatives, and even friends after returning to India from abroad. Undue and constant speculations have strained many otherwise stable relationships. “COVID-stigma is real,” says Navin, a PhD scholar in Columbia University, who returned to his home in India just before all international commercial flights were cancelled.

Like the disease itself, such daily problems can amplify, reinforce, and push otherwise mentally healthy people towards a negative loop of emotions, thoughts, and actions. In such times, it is even more important to acknowledge that mental health is as important as physical health. If we are not going about our lives in a reasonable manner and taking care of ourselves, others may not be able to help us with the chores and responsibilities of a functioning adult. We need to ensure that our basic self-care needs are met.

Yastika Kamboj, a mental health consultant, advises, “It helps to remember that this is temporary and just another challenge that will be overcome. Instead of stressing over the situation, we should try to take out a moment during the day to distance ourselves from the worrying. Another thing that is helping me is to try and stay in the present. It is important to remember we are strong and capable of dealing with those challenges.”

Sometimes, we tend to take a lot of burden on ourselves. Probably this is a good time to remind ourselves that we as individuals cannot solve everything. Humanity has the capacity to heal, learn, and grow. With time, it will overcome this challenge. By taking care of ourselves and those around us, we can see this as an opportunity to learn lessons that will serve us for the rest of our lives.

Phrases like “Experiments solve scientific problems better than computational models do”, “Proteomics is definitely high-throughput, but lacks real purpose”, “The real question is answered by phenomenological observations, as opposed to mutated residues” often linger in the corridors of my department. This made me wonder: am I the only one who has encountered researchers who consider their own field superior to others? Turns out, I am not alone!

This perception seems to exist in social sciences and physics, too. A scientist unravelling the mysteries of Mother Nature might scorn another who commercializes their research product while the latter might view the former’s work as devoid of real-world applications. A theorist might ridicule an experimentalist for wasting time, money, reagents, and model animals while the latter might rubbish the former’s findings stating they hold true only in ideal environments. A researcher using cutting edge technology might consider a traditionalist a prude while the latter might consider the former flamboyant and superfluous. The real losers in this squabble are Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

Why do researchers indulge in trash talk? Every field prides itself on its own unique style of reasoning. As we delve deeper into research, our minds get conditioned to approach problems in a manner distinctive to our own fields. With this conditioning, when we evaluate another field, we tend to use the yardstick custom-made for our own fields. I speculate that this comparison of apples to oranges leads us to believe that the other field is somewhat inferior to our own. Also, when we present our research work to someone from a different field, we generally simplify it and completely skip over the negative results and challenges we faced. This might result in the other person perceiving our field as less than elegant.

Does this casual diss battle get problematic? The answer is yes! If left untamed, it could lead to (i) suppressing innovative ideas, (ii) encouraging only those ideas that align with one’s own belief system, (iii) resisting collaborative research, and (iv) impeding the development of certain areas of research.

Peer review aims to uphold the quality of research. However, when confirmation bias and conservatism muddles the peer review process, the freedom of expression of scientists gets hushed. Carole J. Lee, an associate professor at the University of Washington, specializes in the evaluation of knowledge and peer review process. In her paper, the authors define confirmation bias as “…the tendency to gather, interpret, and remember evidence in ways that affirm rather than challenge one’s already held beliefs.” They define conservatism as “…bias against groundbreaking and innovative research”.

Studies have shown how confirmation bias adversely affects the development of STEM. Similarly, there is evidence that conservatism decelerates research. Biased peer review is more fatal to funding than to communicating scientific results. Manuscripts find a way to get published; however, the projects denied grants simply wither off. As a result of these biases, certain ideas and fields vanish from the public domain. Then, peer review begins to resemble censorship.

Considering certain fields inferior may hinder open-minded interdisciplinary collaborations for research. In my opinion, researchers -- the metaphorical blind men -- explain only the small part of an elephant they comprehend. Instead of arguing over their status in the pyramid, they may build an ecosystem where the data generated by many labs are pieced together to elucidate the elephant holistically. Every researcher can’t be interested in and skilled in every field but every field of research is respectable and makes up a valuable piece of a large puzzle. Deeming certain fields as inferior threatens the extinction of certain fields of science. While one may argue true science and technology endures the test of all selection pressures, one may also argue extinct fields of science become bottlenecks for the advancement of STEM.

What can be done to prevent such thinking styles from destroying STEM? I believe the first step is to be aware that as humans, our minds are inevitably biased. The next step is to be mindful that these biases don’t cloud our judgement, especially when asked to review or critique another researcher’s work.

Research scholars, in my view, should be trained from the early stages of their career to keep their biases in check, especially in journal clubs and seminars. Honing their critical thinking skills, as a part of this exercise, would act as an added bonus. Institutes can create a level playing field by recruiting faculties of diverse fields and by having all fields represented in committee meetings. To ensure equitable peer review, journal editorial boards and grant committees can use blinded reviews, multiple reviews, and declaration of conflicts of interest by reviewers.

In conclusion, researchers should be cautious about their personal judgements reflecting in collaborations, peer review, or hiring processes. The questions we need to introspect over are: Is losing collaborative projects due to personal bias worth the trade-off? If a method is applied to uproot “bad science”, wouldn’t it inadvertently kill some “good science” too? What can I do – as an individual, as a teacher, as a Principal Investigator (PI), as a recruiter, as a peer reviewer – to prevent my personal biases from obstructing STEM?

To read further about scientific studies on conservatism and confirmation bias, please click here.