I am a PhD cell biologist by training. Like many graduate students, I went through a somewhat challenging period when I was trying to publish a first-author paper towards the end of my PhD. However, unlike many graduate students, my paper did not go through submissions to multiple journals and several rounds of peer-review. After three rounds of review and discussion lasting 4 months, my paper got accepted to the first journal we had approached.

This experience sparked a period of introspection, in which I tried to analyse how the choice of journal can be approached by (first-time) authors, and whether I could draw from my own experiences to assist others facing this conundrum now. Here are a few pointers that influenced how I addressed this problem.

1. Separate journals by broad area

This does not need active effort, per se. From daily reading of relevant literature, and meeting for journal clubs to discuss new/exciting research, I automatically began to understand which journals were getting picked up more than others. I must stress that enthusiastic participation in journal clubs really helped me to get a sense of how stringent the peer-review process was in different journals, and this was crucial when deciding what journal to consider for my paper.

2. What journals require what kinds of techniques/experiments?

From the perspective of a cell biologist, I realized that top-ranked journals like Nature Cell Biology and Cell, for example, would often publish papers that featured CRISPR-Cas9 based experiments and, more importantly, exploited physiologically relevant model systems to show the broad relevance of new findings. This was also stressed upon at several international conferences I participated in. Such knowledge can help inform your own methodology when still doing experiments and subsequently, the choice of journal. Another example- in the mid-2010s, any study that used cryo-electron microscopy (to show structures of previously published molecules) would have almost guaranteed bypass of editorial review in Nature, Science etc. Note that a justification to using the technique to serve that specific research question would still exist.

3. Does your paper build upon work by your lab/others published in the same journal?

Journals ultimately want their own papers to be cited, as this has a direct impact on their impact factor. So, if someone has published a hypothetical mathematical model explaining tissue expansion during organismal development in journal X, and your study proves that hypothesis correct in a growing frog embryo, chances are that journal X may look upon your manuscript favourably. The odds are even better if the other study is recent, further implying that the journal is still broadly interested in the kind of science you are pursuing.

4. Have papers from competing labs been published in that journal?

This builds upon the last point. If a study from a competing lab directly countering your findings has been published in journal X, you could make a compelling case to that journal to publish your story there as well; this would make interested scientists consume both stories as a sort of 'package deal'. The journal would also benefit from presenting a more balanced view of the research question under debate. Invariably, future studies in that field may cite the contrasting papers, if only to present a complete background to their work, again leading to citations.

5. Consider your target audience- where would your paper gain the most visibility or bring the most returns to you?

If you have received fair feedback from your colleagues and peers, and are confident of the relevance of your findings and quality of science, the choice of journal becomes important for the direction you want your career to take. If you are sticking to a field with a niche readership, your work may be more meaningful to a more specialized journal. However, if transitioning to a different field, it may be more beneficial to publish in a journal that is more 'visible' and publishes inter-disciplinary articles. In cell biology, this may be the Journal of Cell Biology/Journal of Cell Science for niche audiences versus eLife/Current Biology/Nature Communications for a more diverse readership.

6. Check the editorial board of target journal

One may not want to think about this too much, what with conversations of nepotism cropping up across many professions. However, practically, it does not hurt to review the editorial board of target journal. Have you presented your work to scientists in the board, met them at conferences or discussed the future of a particular hypothesis with them? Have their feedbacks been positive? If experts are aware of your story, the chances that the paper is considered for reviewing increase.

Side note: Please note the importance of communication and networking here too. It is absolutely vital to present your findings to international audiences, both for marking your scientific territory, and to facilitate future career steps.

7. Explore platforms like Review Commons

If you are confused about where to publish/or have had limited feedback from peers, Review Commons is a great platform for you. Review Commons is a recent initiative that provides 'high-quality journal-independent peer-review'. A pre-print submitted to this platform will be peer-reviewed by 2-3 anonymous reviewers, and the authors can respond to the reviewers' comments. The authors can then submit their paper along with the accompanying reviews and rebuttal to any one of 17 affiliate journals covering diverse disciplines, and those journals have to either accept or reject the manuscript. In other words, the paper does not go through another round of peer-review at that journal too. The authors can, of course, choose to work on the study more before submitting it to a completely different journal altogether. Needless to say, this significantly expedites the publishing process, facilitates the choice of journal, and is a good medium to get expert feedback for what may not be a 100% complete story.

8. Build reasonable expectations, but aim high.

The process of publishing a story is protracted and can be frustrating for a lot of students. Before I set out on this journey for my own paper, I had identified one 'dream' journal that my supervisor (and indeed, me) thought was too ambitious. However, it fulfilled all the criteria I have detailed above. My paper, eventually, did end up getting published at the journal of my choice. Therefore, it is with great emphasis that I say this- while it is important to be self-aware and acknowledge the weaknesses of your study, it is equally important to identify and try your luck at a 'dream' journal first. You must have a more reasonable fallback option, but at least try your hand at a higher-ranked journal. Peer-reviewing is a community-driven process, and its participants are human, albeit highly qualified ones. Here too, as in other areas of our life, luck plays a role. A lot depends on whether a reviewer has had their morning cup of coffee and is particularly grumpy, or has had a tricky experiment finally work for them and is in a magnanimous mood.

I hope these pointers make it easier and provide some direction to students making decisions of potential journals to submit their stories to.

RT-PCR, antibodies, mRNA—words once restricted to the scientific lexicon have now entered the public consciousness. Communicating sense and science during the pandemic, however, has been anything but easy. The task was challenging not only because of the evolving behaviour of the virus (and humans!), but also because there was no precedent for science communication during a crisis in the country. Except for the well-meaning but disjointed efforts of a few individuals and organisations, there existed no peacetime science communication machinery that could be set in motion during the pandemic.

While the hashtag ‘scicomm’ circulates regularly on social media, where we are headed with this trend in the country remains unclear. This is confirmed by lack of funding and professional capacity for science engagement as well as the absence of large-scale, impactful public engagement initiatives in the country. This gap is also reflected in the poor coverage of science in the mainstream Indian media, and abysmal literature from India on public understanding of science and science communication. While Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP 2020) draft and policy on Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) by the Government of India are critical developments that demonstrate a formal commitment to enabling public engagement with science, it would not be incorrect to say that there is currently no well-integrated, evidence-based strategic framework or roadmap to implement these policies.

Having said that, in just the last few years, the number of public engagement initiatives by the government, researchers and their institutions, and the independent sector have risen significantly in the country. These efforts, however, need to be integrated such that they remain individually unique but collectively impactful—to make the whole of ‘public engagement with science’ greater than the sum of its parts.

Why promote public engagement with science?

While this question has been probed for decades now, the rift between the opinions of the scientists and the public has persisted. A survey by Pew Research Centre found that, on questions like whether genetically modified foods are safe to eat or if climate change is due to human activity, a 30-point difference or more was observed between the opinion of scientists and the public. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us exactly how filling up this rift is critical for rational and evidence-led decision making by the public on one hand, and for science to be responsive to local and global challenges on the other.

Most of the respondents observe that while the public in India is interested in science, their understanding of it is low primarily due to lack of access to scientific information.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest—but there are many other clear issues like global water shortage, air pollution, antibiotic resistance, mental health and climate change. While science leads the path in identifying the problem and finding solutions, it’s the public – policymakers included – that needs to make informed decisions to implement these solutions.

A recent survey by the science funding public charity, DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance (India Alliance) posed this question to its funded researchers. The respondents identified ‘contribution to public understanding of science, ‘informing the public/raising awareness about research’, and ‘learning from public groups and ensuring that research is relevant to society’ as the top three reasons for scientists to engage with the public. Interestingly, most of the respondents observe that while the public in India is interested in science, their understanding of it is low primarily due to lack of access to scientific information.

Whose job is it, anyway?

But who is responsible for taking science to the public? Is it the researcher who generates scientific knowledge, or public-funded institutions that host or fund research, or are other actors like media, science communicators, policymakers, and NGOs equal stakeholders in this endeavour? In India, public communication of science has largely been the domain of government science agencies, the scientific community and a handful of science or health journalists.

As producers of scientific knowledge, researchers are inherently an indispensable part of this science communication and public engagement ecosystem. While India is witnessing an upward trend in researchers showing interest in communicating their research to non-scientific audiences, the quantity or quality of formal initiatives for public engagement remains low and fairly patchy. On that account, we need to ask if researchers are willing and sufficiently equipped to engage with the public in the first place?

The India Alliance survey did not throw any major surprises here; instead, reinforced the absence of enabling structures and incentives for researchers to undertake science engagement activities. While the majority of the surveyed researchers expressed their interest to engage more with the public, they also observed that multiple competing pressures on their time, their lack of training in engaging with the public, and insufficient specialist staff at the institution to support their public engagement efforts, significantly limited their ability to do this. Not surprisingly, the survey respondents primarily employed traditional one-way communication methods and a majority (80%) indicated the absence of formal training opportunities in public engagement at their institution.

The surveyed researchers feel that raising awareness about the importance of public engagement and professional recognition for researchers’ public engagement work could greatly enhance uptake of public engagement activities. Further, the institutionalization of public engagement support through training, funding and dedicated support staff at institutions could act as key enablers. These enablers can be added to the proposed integrated science communication and engagement framework; however, implementing such a framework would require a shift in mindset and culture.

So, are researchers the only players in the equation?

While in the India Alliance survey, 87% of the respondents agreed that engaging with the public on matters of science and health is a responsibility of researchers, evidence from countries with flourishing science communication ecosystems shows that successful public engagement with science involves multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral efforts that leverage existing resources and build specialised infrastructure and capacity. In many countries, science museums, centres and festivals, along with various NGOs and CSOs play a catalytic role in connecting science with society despite having little to no direct role in generating scientific knowledge. This is largely because these spaces allow for reflexive and sustained experimentation in styles, formats and channels of communication and engagement, which is generally not supported within academic settings.

Public engagement has moved beyond merely imparting scientific information. It now involves sharing social and cultural meanings of science...

In today’s fast-changing information and communication environments, our agility in adapting to this change is important for influencing mindsets and behaviours. One can say that the scientific community is bound by ethics to play an active role in taking science to their communities and the public. Concurrently, other actors, who formally or informally contribute to science engagement, need to be recognized and integrated into the ecosystem.

Winds of change

Talking about change, the traditional ‘science popularisation’ approaches are giving way to more dialogic and innovative public engagement methodologies. Take for example Maki Naro who uses comics to explain concepts of science. Kasha Patel has been successful in sneaking science into stand-up comedy. You can visualize the history of science through the art by Arghya Manna and the global impact of disease in the Glass Microbiology sculptures of Luke Jerram. Popular web videos like Kurzgesagt — In a Nutshell, science cafes like Pint of Science or Chai and Why?, and podcasts like the Science & Nature ones of BBC, are exploring multiple disciplines of science and reaching thousands. Wellcome Photography Prize inspires thought and action through visual stories of health. Planet Divoc 91 – a participatory project – used comics, art, articles, interviews, and short films as tools to explore challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic and bring together different levels of the society for dialogue, contemplation, and action. Public engagement projects like Dustbunny, Deadinburgh, The Heart and Lung Convenience Store, It’s Ok To Talk, Contagion and Sphere are building multidisciplinary, innovative structures that help the public to participate in science and research.

These and other examples illustrate that public engagement has moved beyond merely imparting scientific information. It now involves sharing social and cultural meanings of science, receiving new perspectives through dialogue with the public, and embedding public engagement in research practice. And therefore, it is becoming increasingly clear that public engagement is no longer the job (or hobby) of an individual, but of diverse teams and collectives where the disciplinary barriers seem to have dissolved.

Seeding a new culture of science

An evolved culture of science that promotes public-science engagement by dismantling knowledge hierarchies and helps us all to make better sense of the world would require effective communication and innovative engagement practices at its core. Realising this lofty objective would need a change in our research culture—a research environment where funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers accept public engagement with science as part of the research process. Here, taking a cultural approach to embed science in society would be critical for mutually beneficial science-society engagement that can be sustained through social, cultural, economic, and political upheavals.

The way forward for building this culture of science is by laying the foundation through an evidence-based framework, which is reflexive and clearly defines the vision, inputs and outcomes of science communication and public engagement for the country and maps various actors needed to implement this. Equally important is to plug all gaps in our ecosystem through capacity building and resource mobilization. Systematic integration of public engagement practice in the STI ecosystem would ensure that these activities have a real-world impact while making STI efforts more ethical, socially relevant, and useful.

There will be another health crisis; it is only a matter of time. We are curious whether we would have moved beyond making a case for public engagement when this next crisis hits us. The time has come to develop a well-oiled science engagement machinery that not only catalyses the public's engagement with scientific evidence and research, but one that forges a partnership with them to address the many challenges that the future holds.

Background: motivation and need

One of the hallmarks of an advanced and progressive society is the emphasis it places on abstract and intellectual pursuits that may present no direct or immediate benefits to itself. In the context of science, this notion translates to engagement with fundamental research. For the purposes of this article, fundamental research (also termed basic research) includes, but is not limited to, scientific research that aims to develop new theories, challenges existing theories by generating data to the contrary, creates paradigm shifts, sheds light on mechanisms governing systems/processes and improves our ability to understand natural phenomena.

Fundamental research is usually driven by a scientist’s curiosity to seek unchartered territories in the pursuit of truth and signifies her/his deep appreciation for the inherent beauty of scientific ideas. In contrast, applied research is utility-driven, and involves innovations in technology, creating new products, achieving improved control over systems and developing processes that are efficient and/or cost-effective. The end-goal of applied research is usually well-defined and the deliverables, tangible. Although fundamental and applied research are diverse in their motivations and end-goals, most scientists today pursue both threads but exhibit a preference for one over the other in their research endeavours.

Due to the short-term impact of need-driven applied research, both scientific investment and progress in recent years have centred around societally relevant technological domains. Although translational research is essential for a developing nation, an exclusive focus on applied research at the cost of fundamental research can potentially lead to the eventual devaluation of scientific knowledge.

For a country like India that has historically taken pride in being a generator and exporter of ideas and has developed rigorous philosophies on epistemology and truth-seeking, investment in fundamental research and knowledge creation are well-suited to its ethos. Since advances in fundamental research drive innovation along trajectories that cannot be predicted easily, long-term rewards in the form of paradigm shifts, new theories and disruptive technologies can overwhelm short-term tangible/defined deliverables arising from purely applied work. Indeed, investments in basic research have been shown to have long-term effects on the macroeconomic growth of a country.

Fundamental research can also have cross-disciplinary impact whereby the results obtained in one area influence an unallied area of research. Above all, fundamental research can serve as a vital tool for training future researchers thereby laying the foundation for continuous scientific growth.

Present status: considerations and concerns

Following the debt crisis of 2009, federal agencies globally have focused on the commercial rewards of science due to externally imposed budget limitations, while fundamental research has not been the core focus of subsequent policy-driven funding initiatives. Dedication of funds to specific areas considered “attractive” makes the pursuit of fundamental research difficult, forcing researchers to work on research problems primarily based on fund availability. Since such areas change rapidly based on societal needs, researchers may end up working in areas that may have little to do with their domain expertise and training.

The presence of a dedicated fund whose disbursement is not influenced by societal needs and federal policies sends a strong signal regarding the nation’s commitment towards supporting basic research even under dire circumstances.

To compound this problem, outcomes from fundamental research can sometimes take years to fructify and cannot be easily quantified. Together, all these factors can have significant implications for early career researchers wanting to pursue fundamental research. Many academic awards and recognitions are largely based on quantitative criteria which may neither accurately reflect a researcher’s scientific contributions nor serve as a useful guide for measuring research productivity. While metrics arguably have their place in academia, linking recruitment/tenure/funding to metrics makes the pursuit of applied research in one’s early career not only attractive but also imperative. Indeed, a conscious move towards applied research is reflected even at the institutional level with several universities increasingly reorienting their research verticals to align with societal needs and incentivizing specific types of applied research.

At the time of writing this article, the entire world is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic that is bound to leave an indelible mark on societies world-over. Apart from stunting the growth of economies and resulting in large-scale unemployment, the pandemic has had a significant negative impact on the global scientific landscape including large-scale loss resulting from laboratories being shut down for several months, ill-functioning equipment that have not been operational, sensitive chemicals/reagents that have been discarded and countless (wo)man-hours that could not be leveraged for productive research. An immediate concern for researchers at such a time is to work on diverse aspects related to the virus and the development of vaccines. Rightfully so, a significant quantum of research funds has been used to support such work in most countries.

While such unprecedented circumstances mandate the diversion of funds, we believe that now is a time more than ever to not compromise the support, infrastructure and funds required to sustain curiosity-driven fundamental research. The presence of a dedicated fund whose disbursement is not influenced by societal needs and federal policies sends a strong signal regarding the nation’s commitment towards supporting basic research even under dire circumstances. Importantly, the outcomes of the research that may be carried out using these funds may prepare us for eventualities that we yet do not know exist, thus avoiding last-minute ad hoc solutions for problems that may arise in the future.

On the flip side, both the scope of the research and the nature of deliverables in fundamental research are difficult to define. Indeed, this issue represents the classical argument made against fundamental research. Phrased bluntly, it reads: “Can taxpayer money be used to satisfy someone’s curiosity?” This question also perhaps represents a deeper societal trust deficit in our own institutions and scientists. Re-phrasing the question can help lead us towards a constructive solution: “How do we ensure that the funds allocated for fundamental research be used meaningfully while allowing researchers the necessary intellectual freedom to pursue questions that they are interested in?” This re-phrasing puts the onus both on the funding agency to evaluate proposals primarily based on scientific merit (with lesser weightage for metrics and immediate translational benefits), as well as on researchers to use the funds responsibly. Since the spectrum of risk in fundamental research is wide, researchers can choose some problems that are risky and some that are not, so as to ensure a reasonable balance.

The way forward: recommendations and solutions

Given the critical need for investing and fostering curiosity-driven fundamental research, we propose the following suggestions:

• Progress in fundamental research is usually incremental, and expecting breakthroughs within three years (i.e., the usual duration of most proposals) may be unreasonable. Multi-center calls for proposals with large budgets and limited durations may also not fully serve the needs of the scientific community. Instead, funding opportunities with limited budget per proposal and longer durations can help support several high-quality proposals initially; thereafter, researchers who have demonstrated significant potential could apply for successive grants with a bigger budget. Since most scientists pursue both fundamental and applied research, checks and balances are needed to ensure that not just a few researchers ultimately benefit.

• Collaboration between scientists working in fundamental and applied research can be encouraged via joint proposals submitted against specific calls. Such proposals can have clear demarcation at the submission stage outlining the individual contributions of the scientists and a description of how the fundamental and applied portions of the proposal would work in tandem towards the proposed objectives. Such a scheme will also help scientists working on fundamental research develop a long-term vision/plan.

• Fundamental research often requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Continuous cross-disciplinary interactions can be facilitated at the institute level in the form of intramural grants. As many scientists would attest, some of the best ideas often arise from discussions with colleagues working in unrelated disciplines.
• The continuous introduction of new technologies in most areas of science and engineering can eclipse specific types of applied research, thus limiting the possibility of significant long-term commercial returns. Further, many academic institutions may have neither the infrastructure nor the funding to scale up truly significant technologies. Thus, continuous transfer of applied research to the private sector for operational production can help federal funding agencies and academic institutes nurture fundamental research.

• Holistic evaluation of a scientist’s contributions based on the quality of scientific output rather than metrics alone can encourage more early career researchers to pursue fundamental research. A possible model for recruitments/tenure is peer-review wherein scientists external to the organization are asked to review the overall work of a particular researcher. Such a review process focuses primarily on the contributions of the researcher to her/his field as assessed by experts in the same field.

• Active funding for fundamental research will encourage a serious culture of post-doctoral research in India. Increasing the number of post-doctoral scholars will also likely increase academic productivity without compromising scientific rigor. Promising candidates can be directly recruited as faculty with assured federal funding for the first two years to supplement the start-up funds that they may receive from their parent institutes.

• Engaging Ph.D. students in fundamental research can lead to reversal of delivery-based graduation outcomes that currently exist. Rigorous training in scientific methodologies, refinement of critical thinking skills and a deep understanding of one’s area can serve as robust yardsticks for graduation.

• Lastly, but importantly, scientists working on fundamental research should actively engage in societal outreach. Such initiatives can not only help overcome the trust deficit issue mentioned previously but also help taxpayers appreciate curiosity-driven fundamental research as a vital tool that enables the discovery of scientific knowledge. Such efforts can be channelled through scientific academies, both national and international.

In conclusion, sustenance of curiosity-driven fundamental research requires all stakeholders namely researchers, funding agencies and policy makers to work together to promote scientific temper, foster scientific values and nurture scientific creativity.

Being a zoology undergrad, largely unexposed to academic social science discussions, I had a generic idea about what diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) meant. Many biases of daily life apparent to the discerning, such as couched portrayal of women in advertising or typical gender roles, did not seem too out of place to me earlier. However, an international collaboration with social sciences researchers introduced me to the nitty-gritty of these issues and opened my eyes to my own unconscious biases as well as to global perspectives on DEI.

Miranda House, University of Delhi, collaborates every year with the Netherlands-based Utrecht University’s School of Applied Sciences, Hogeschool, for an Indo-Dutch Collaborative Programme. This year (from 22 February to 12 March 2021), a 15-member Indian delegation of students joined the educational collaboration. The programme consisted of online lectures, deep discussions and workshops around the theme of diversity, cultural contexts and intersectionality. For the first time in the 13 years of its existence, four Indian science students were selected to participate in the collaborative programme.

I was among these four students on a whirlwind learning experience from a social science lens. I collaborated with Mariam Bah, a Dutch social science student, to jointly research systemic racism from a multi-country perspective.

As virtual lectures (thanks to the pandemic) with speakers from both countries revealed new dimensions of DEI to us, we shed many commonly held notions. We attended truly immersive sessions on intersectionality, social movements, waves of feminism, argument culture, and portrayal of women in media, advertisements and films (we got to watch and critique popular Bollywood movies like Kabhi Kabhi and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge). The 29 Indian and Dutch students had very interesting intersectional identities ranging from an immigrant with a physical disability to a woman from a religious minority, from women brought up in unconventional family structures to non-binary individuals. This heterogeneous mix made for unique perspectives of looking at things.

As one of the few science students in this programme traditionally meant for humanities and commerce students, I came back with these key learnings:

1. DEI manifests subtly in our psyche, and respecting different perspectives is important.

I interacted with students and teachers not only from another country but also from other parts of culturally-diverse India. Our discussions on gender equality and systemic discrimination of marginalised groups made me realise that although I was broadly aware of these issues, I had hardly perceived them in such breadth or depth before.

In one session, we looked at how advertisements on TV or social media are scripted such that they appeal to a specific identity of a select audience profile. We looked at advertisements of men’s perfumes, in which confident and formally dressed men, surrounded by scantily dressed women, conveyed the stereotype of a “successful man”. We analysed the higher spatial placement of male characters over females in print advertisements and assigned gender roles – utensil ads with women and motorbike ads with men riders. Once we saw these patterns, I couldn’t stop noticing them in every second advertisement. If media campaigns took a broader and intersectional cognizance of who views these advertisements, they would perhaps get rid of these stereotypes.

The same rule applies to our conversations and narratives at academic institutions and research bodies. For instance, when we depict engineers in our graphics and pictures, we tend to show male figures. This directly reflects our socio-cultural bias which assumes that women may not be fit for ‘tough’ and ‘brainy’ jobs. During recruitment interviews, women are asked about family and caregiving commitments more often than men are. Pharmaceutical research and clinical trials continue to recruit far less women than men, thus skewing the outcomes against women. We have recognized these patterns for a while now. It is time to get rid of them.

2. Science always has a socio-cultural context.

As undergrads in basic sciences, many of us start looking at science and society as exclusive and largely unrelated entities. We may faintly realise that most of the science we study or practice was born out of the needs of the society. Whether it is social science or science, the answers to societal questions are most often unearthed by research.

70% of the Netherlands would have been under sea had it not been for their innovative water control solutions. The country accepts the reality of a climate emergency in the future and is preparing for the worst case scenario. Dutch agencies are advising countries such as Bangladesh and India about strategies that could save lives in case of water-triggered calamities. Such natural disasters impact the very social fabric of nations and all scientific attempts to mitigate their effects directly help people. These examples made us realise how science and society continuously influence each other. The COVID-19 pandemic is another example of how society looks to science for answers.

These discussions urged me to go back to studying the stories behind scientific discoveries. Undergrad science students memorise techniques and protocols that they practice in lab experiments. We often forget to look for the historic or social context in which a protocol or an experiment was designed. Linking cut and dry lab-based science to real world problems and solutions could help humanise them and make learning significantly more relatable.

3. Effective communication could drive social change.

During a lecture on social reform movements, especially focused on the waves of feminism in global history, I realised the impact that effective communication has. Starting from newspaper and magazine cartoons talking about the struggles and motives of the suffragettes, to slogans and posters used in protests and marches, effective and efficient communication was and continues to be the key to effecting change.

Similarly, science benefits and gives back to society through effective communication. This has never been so crucial as in the wake of the ongoing climate change crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Social science is equally entrenched in rigour.

While deep-diving into diversity issues, I came across systematic analyses of various social reform movements, revolutions and social fallouts of climate change. A detailed study shattered my incorrect notions that social science largely relies on anecdotal evidence. Social science research is driven by data and evidence. Due to extraneous variables in different study settings, not all results may be reproducible. However, I found that in most published literature, these limitations and social settings are comprehensively described, just as in the natural sciences.

My collaboration with a social science student based in the Netherlands got us talking about how various social contexts and environments shape us as humans and professionals. The inputs from just one programme like this, for instance, will shape the research questions both of us will ask in times to come.

5. Biology and political science must mingle.

As must mathematics and music! Interdisciplinarity is not just a fancy concept, it has tangible results. During a project on systemic racial discrimination in educational institutions, we learnt as much from gathering data buried in school and higher education textbooks as we did from putting that data in perspective with statistical methods.

My college project on the life and work of Nobel laureates May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser was dramatically enriched by a comic book from the Mosers’ lab illustrating cognitive spatial mapping in simple terms. Historians have used techniques of NMR spectroscopy and carbon dating, deeply entrenched in chemical sciences, to ascribe eras and epochs to historic artefacts. One strong takeaway from the programme has been that opening up our world as undergraduate science students to various other disciplines will only help enrich our scientific pursuits.

By the end of the programme, I had not only acquired a bunch of many-hued friends from the land of the windmills and tulips but also a reaffirmation of Descartes’ famous quote “I think therefore I am.”

Research requires persistence, and researchers devote many a sleepless night to conduct research and document the outcomes in the form of research papers. The importance of publishing research papers is multifaceted: it helps you disseminate your study findings, which in turn aids the advancement of your field while also increasing your visibility as a researcher.

Owing to the hyper competitiveness in academia, researchers are expected to start publishing early in their career and maintain a steady pace of publications. Thus, to build a successful career, you need to plan your publications carefully. This can be challenging for first-time authors as there are several considerations to address when preparing your paper for journal submission.

But do not worry! If you are planning to submit your paper for the first time, this article will discuss the most important considerations that you should take care of to maximize the chances of your paper’s acceptance.

1. Structure your manuscript well

To ensure that your manuscript conveys your ideas effectively, it is essential for you to structure it well. Many journals expect scientific research papers to be written in the IMRaD format (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, and Discussion). Here are some guidelines to help you structure your paper effectively.

• Create a persuasive title and shortlist relevant keywords: A good title grabs the attention of the readers and can play a role in persuading them to read the paper. Make sure that your title is brief, catchy, and informative, all at once. Use a title that includes descriptive terms and phrases that accurately highlight the core content of the paper. Keywords, on the other hand, supplement the information given in the title. They make the paper discoverable by search engines and indexing services such as SCOPUS, PubMed, Google Scholar, etc. So ensure that the keywords you use are relevant and describe your research well.
• Impress your editor and reviewers with an effective Abstract: An abstract is like a trailer that gives a glimpse into your research paper. This is the first section of your paper that journal editors and reviewers read. Therefore, writing it succinctly and effectively is vital. Explain why you conducted the research, what the aims were and how these were met, and what the main findings were.
• Emphasize the importance of your research problem in the Introduction section: Your Introduction sets the tone of your paper. Therefore, this part should provide sufficient background about your work and explain why your research problem is important. Use simple language and carefully developed logic to summarize the current understanding of the topic you have worked on and guide your readers to the main problem or objective of your study.
• Describe your Materials and methods in detail: Include enough details in this section so that other researchers can repeat the experiment or study if they wish to. Give details about the quantities and sources of reagents and other material, make and model of equipment, lab setups, etc. If required, you can even add images or diagrams to explain the experimental setup.
• Discuss your findings and its implications in the Results and Discussion sections: In the Results section, indicate whether you were able to solve the problem you outlined in the Introduction. Present your data in this section succinctly and highlight the most significant findings. The Discussion section should begin by stating whether your hypothesis was supported. You should also include implications of your findings and place it in context to highlight the impact your research has had. Don’t forget to mention the limitations of the study, if any.
• Acknowledgement section: This section should include all the sources of support you have received during the study.
• Tables, figures, and graphs: These are visual elements that help authors present detailed results and complex relationships, patterns, and trends clearly and concisely. So ensure that these elements are complete, clear, labelled correctly, and are presented attractively. Some journals may require submitting tables and figures in a separate document with a mention of each table/figure number and the corresponding page number of the manuscript.
• Reference section: List every source you have referred to, and ensure that you check the journal guidelines while formatting this section. However, note that many journals specify an upper limit to the permissible number of references in the manuscript.

In addition to a well-formatted manuscript, the chances of acceptance would increase greatly if you avoid making any grammatical and typographical errors. Having good connectivity between ideas and using the right terminology also goes a long way in making your manuscript more appealing. You might want to consider getting your manuscript professionally edited or at least running it by a colleague who can help catch any obvious errors. Apart from this, it is also important to check your target journal’s instructions for authors regarding word count, layout and format of the files to be uploaded, and any other such specifications.

2. A cover letter that provides all vital information

Most journals require a cover letter be submitted along with the manuscript. Unfortunately, few authors are aware of the actual impact that a cover letter can have: it provides an excellent opportunity to communicate with the journal editor and draw their interest to the submitted manuscript. A well-written cover letter should go beyond providing basic information such as the title of the paper and the name of the corresponding author. It should also include the following:

• A summary of your findings: Briefly summarize the most important findings of your study. The objective should be to place your findings in the context of the current literature.
• Motivation for submitting to the journal: Briefly explain why your study is suitable for the journal and your motivation behind choosing the journal over others. Also mention how it matches the scope of the journal and why the readers will find your study interesting.
• Originality and author agreement: Journals want to know that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication by another journal since submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at a time is considered an unethical practice. Moreover, they also want to ensure that all the authors have read the manuscript and agreed to submit it to that journal. So, provide these details.
• Prior interaction with any journal editor: If any of the journal editors has expressed interest in your work during a prior interaction (for example, on social media or at a conference), mention this in your cover letter.
• Additional information: Apart from all the above essential information, some journals require additional information (such as large tables, computer code, etc.) to be provided, which could assist the editors in reviewing the manuscript. Ensure that you check your journal guidelines carefully in this regard.

The cover letter may be your best chance to make a strong case for your manuscript. Draft your cover letter with utmost care as it may be a key factor in your manuscript being given serious consideration by the editors of the journal.

3. Conflict of interest statement: Conflicts of interest can include both financial and non-financial gains. Non-financial competing interests include a declaration of political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. You should include a statement disclosing any potential conflict of interest. Also, it is important that all the financial support you have received is acknowledged. Any commercial/financial relationship that may be viewed as a conflict of interest should be disclosed here. If there is no potential conflict of interest, you need to include a declaration mentioning this.

4. Data availability statement: If there is a dataset associated with the manuscript, provide information about where the data supporting the results or analyses presented in the paper can be accessed. Always check the journal’s guidelines for specific templates or style in which this information should be presented.

5. Ethical approval statement: If your study involves human subjects and/or animals, or if your manuscript includes case reports/case series, provide a statement mentioning whether the study was approved by the institutional review board along with approval number/ID. In case of clinical trials, mention that informed consent was obtained and provide the registration/approval number. Most reputed journals would reject a manuscript if it does not contain proper documentation of informed consent.

6. Detailed author information

If your manuscript involves multiple authors, it is important to include the names of all the co-authors along with their complete contact details and affiliations. This is especially important when it comes to the corresponding author. Some journals may require you to submit an authorship contribution statement where you would have to mention details of the contribution of each of the co-authors. Ensure that you read the journal guidelines and draft the statement accordingly.

A quick summary

Most reputed journals receive a huge volume of submissions. To improve the chances of your manuscript getting noticed and accepted, you should take care of all of the above aspects. Every journal has its own guidelines, so you should check the journal’s website to ensure your submission meets all the criteria. If as a first-time author you find this challenging, you can conduct a quick, comprehensive manuscript submission readiness check to polish your work before journal submission to avoid desk rejection and get published faster.

COVID-19 has created a global crisis that the world was not prepared for. Lack of known strategies to control this pandemic, lockdowns, loss of work and shelter, sudden overflow of patients in hospitals, closed educational institutions and more such disruptions have led to a huge impact on every aspect of human life around the globe.

Some of these aspects include work and education, physical and mental health conditions, family dynamics, and social relationships. While many of these effects are being discussed on news portals and social media on a daily basis, COVID-19’s impact on mental health remains one of the least recognized and least addressed aspects, especially in India.

As a researcher in the field of mental health, where my work involves attending to patients with mental illness in the inpatient as well as outpatient departments of a specialized mental health institute in India, I find addressing this issue to be of utmost importance at this critical juncture. This conviction is bolstered by my interactions with the community at large.

Lack of recognition and discussion regarding mental health issues is not unique to the COVID-19 situation. Mental health issues have long been equated with psychotic disorders with symptoms like disruptive behaviour, hallucinations etc. Only recently have increased awareness of mental health issues shifted the focus to common but less obvious mental health symptoms. Conversation about other mental health issues, like depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and learning disabilities, has finally been stirred.

The pandemic has had a huge impact on people’s mental health, both positive and negative. The lockdowns have given some people an opportunity to work (or study) from home, enabling them to spend more time with their family and build relationships. This, in turn, can enhance psychological wellbeing and a feeling of contentment. But this is the story of only a small section of the population.

The larger population is facing a strong negative impact of COVID-19 on their mental health. For example, COVID-19 positive patients often suffer from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress related to the disease. Frontline workers often face stigma from their community and family and have to deal with the fear of getting infected. They also suffer from burnout, anxiety, and insomnia related to overwhelming workloads.

While the challenges faced by COVID patients and frontline workers are relatively more noticeable, the issues that go unnoticed and unaddressed are that of the general population. Studies reveal that mental health issues like anxiety, depression, stress, psychological distress, loneliness have emerged progressively among the general population during the COVID-19 outbreak. Increased suicidal ideation and suicide, specifically among youth are an important concern during this time, which could be triggered by the isolation during the quarantine during the lockdown period. Clinical observation often shows an increase in alcohol and drug use, as well as severe withdrawal symptoms due to the sudden unavailability of alcohol and other addictive substances during the lockdown.

However, progressively significant work is being done to increase awareness about mental health and to strengthen mental health services in India. For example, the Government of India has initiated programs like the National Mental Health Program (NMHP) and District Mental Health Program (DMHP). During the initial lockdown period, under the mandate of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, the three central mental health institutions, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences (NIMHANS), Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health (LGBRIMH), and Central Institute of Psychiatry (CIP) initiated a national helpline to provide support for mental health concerns arising out of COVID-19.

But such mental health services still remain inaccessible to a large population in India. One of the main reasons for this is stigma. My interactions with the community have often revealed that people do not want to consult a psychiatrist or visit a mental health facility because of the social stigma associated with the same. Discussion of mental health issues on news and social media often does not help the majority of the Indian population due to a lack of education as well as language gaps, given that most of such coverage takes place in English. Some other important barriers include uneven distribution of mental services, economic inequality, and lack of enough trained mental health professionals.

While the growing conversation regarding mental health is indeed driving a slow yet significant change, these conversations are driven by and centred around those who already have access to mental health services. This has uncanny parallels with COVID-19: if one doesn’t get tested, one doesn’t get diagnosed. But the lack of diagnosis does not mean the disease doesn’t exist.

Two other reasons why these issues go unaddressed are lack of knowledge, which results in an inability to recognize the symptoms, and limited access to mental health services. For a large fraction of those who are vulnerable, limited education leads to not only a lack of awareness of mental health issues, but also a lack of vocabulary to express those issues. Again, disorders like depression, somatization and hypochondriacal disorder, which are classified as mental and behavioural disorders in ICD-10, may present only with physical symptoms like pain. This often leads individuals with these conditions to bypass mental health facilities and approach general healthcare facilities. Such patients often go undiagnosed. This is also complicated by the lack of skilled mental health personnel and excessive burden of patients in general healthcare facilities.

Mental health issues also go unidentified due to one’s inability to express emotional stress. During clinical practice, it is often seen that men and women with minimal educational exposure and lack of self-awareness find it difficult to identify and express their emotional stress and low mood, eventually resulting in not seeking help and suffering in silence. Due to their cultural beliefs, women often accept stress related to emotional and physical abuse, domestic violence, and repression (occurrences of which, according to studies, have significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic) as normal.

Traditional gender roles play an important role in the lack of reporting of men’s mental health issues as well. Studies show that although men are less likely to develop depression than women, they are more likely to die by suicide, indicating that many men may have unidentified and undiagnosed mental health issues. From interactions with people of all genders, we gathered that men find it more difficult than women to seek help due to cultural and social beliefs. These include beliefs related to the ability to control emotions, the need to have a ‘tough’ personality, and other such masculine stereotypes. It is thus understandable how the impact of loss of work and financial constraints during this time might remain unreported or underreported in men.

However, India has long been in a mental health pandemic, which is now being exacerbated by COVID-19. Lack of language on the part of the sufferers, lack of functional knowledge on dealing with mental health issues on the part of their family and friends, and apathy by the rest, has led to this pandemic. The only way forward is a sustained conversation regarding mental health in an understandable language- one that is inclusive. Mental health issues, if experienced by an individual, need to be accepted as normal because they are. The important thing is to take action and reach out for professional help.

Countering this hidden pandemic requires collective effort by various stakeholders, including health professionals, community health workers, persons affected by mental illness, family members, school teachers, workplace managers, police, civil society organizations, community heads, and policymakers. Such concerted effort needs to be directed towards the development of new infrastructure around mental health care that recognizes the crisis as institutional, as well as towards the continuous expansion of existing resources.

Welcoming a new member into a family creates unforgettable memories and happiness. At the same time, it demands a lot of preparation from an expectant parent, on both personal and professional fronts. In a fast-moving, competitive academic world, parenting can be challenging and career breaks can be expensive, especially for early-career women researchers.

In this article, we offer a guide to reducing the "baby-penalty", and provide tips to early career researchers who are parents or parents-to-be on managing their academic and familial duties. We also highlight the fellowships and schemes that are offered by Indian and international funding agencies to support researchers who are parents.

In the family way

Consider the following particulars while preparing to start a family.

• Planning: Choosing when to start a family is an individual decision. Whether it be after graduation or during postdoc or on securing a position, planning is necessary for successful management of pregnancy needs and a career in academia.

• Leave: Learn about the institutional leave policies (both maternal and paternal), review leave options, and plan the leave accordingly. Prepare the paperwork if and when needed. Individual fellowships and grant agencies often have specific guidelines for maternity leave.

• Benefits: Consult the institutional administration or the office of human resources or grant agency program officer for information regarding the benefits – parental leave, health insurance etc. - offered by the institution and/or grants. Generally, group medical insurance provided through the institution covers pregnancy-related expenditures; if not, make sure to enrol in a health insurance plan that covers the maternity expenses as well as health insurance for the newborn.

• Research safety: Identify potential hazards to pregnant women in the workplace – biological, physical, chemical, and ergonomic – and take necessary precautions.

Most institutions that come under the Government of India offer six months of paid maternity leave to women researchers. A few funding organizations have policies to support parent-researchers and expecting parents. For example, DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance fellows can receive paid maternity/paternity leave and fellows can avail up to a one-year cost extension to their fellowships on maternity grounds. Similarly, EMBO Young Investigator Programme offers a one-year extension to their fellows on maternity grounds.

Preparing for maternity break

It is important to plan and organize one’s work before going on maternity leave and while adjusting to the physical changes.

• Discussion with the advisor: There are two key factors to consider here – (1) What are your advisor’s views on maternity leave? (2) When is the right time to bring up a conversation about the pregnancy with them? Though pregnancy is a personal decision, sometimes even a supportive supervisor may have concerns given the potential delay in research progress due to maternity leave. To better prepare for the maternity leave and to organize your work, discuss the leave with your advisor or with the department chairperson/head of the institution sooner rather than later.

• Organizing work: Create a realistic and achievable plan – complete the tasks that need your physical presence, collaborate with the lab members and see if/how they can cover you during your absence, and consider working from home, e.g. writing thesis/manuscript/reviews/grant proposals, analyzing data, attending virtual lab meetings/seminars, reviewing the literature etc.

• Dealing with daily concerns: How much work you can reasonably complete before the maternity leave is limited by bodily changes and discomforts during pregnancy. Longer working hours and travelling might be difficult due to fatigue, morning sickness, and nausea. Allow yourself the flexibility to accommodate day-to-day needs.

• Contingency plans: An obstetric emergency may arise at any time during pregnancy and labour. Consider making a backup plan for pregnancy complications and discussing them with your advisor and collaborators.

Returning to the workplace

For a primary caregiver who is adjusting to a new lifestyle and the needs of a newborn, returning to the workplace after the maternity break demands strategic arrangements. Some things to keep in mind are:

• A gradual return to the work: Consider a phased return to the workplace as it allows a smoother transition for returning parents. Flexible schedules enable work productivity and allow one to adjust to dynamic changes arising due to new responsibilities. They can also help with easing the separation anxiety.

• Support system: A strategic return plan to work also involves the preparation of a support system including partner, parents, in-laws, nanny etc., to help with tending to the newborn. Taking your family with you on your career journey is very important.

• Childcare: Most research institutions and universities offer on-campus childcare facilities to students, faculties, and staff. However, due to high demand, it is recommended to apply well in advance if you plan to use the facility.

• Breastfeeding: Review facilities such as lactation rooms, access to closed-spaces for pumping, and refrigerator for storing pumped milk available at the workplace.

• Work-related travel: While planning for resuming work-related travel, weigh several factors such as the professional necessity to attend the meeting/conference/fieldwork, the availability of caregiver(s) for your kid, and the need for financial aid if your child is travelling with you.

Financial Support

Given the limited income of graduate students and postdocs, additional funds help to curb childcare expenditures.

• Childcare allowances: Several grant agencies offer additional financial support to early career researchers with families to cover costs incurred for childcare (e.g. EMBO Young Investigator Program, Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP), Marie Curie Fellowship).

• Childcare travel grants: To better accommodate primary caregiving parents at conferences and meetings many conference organizers provide childcare grants to participating researchers with young children and also offer family-friendly facilities such as on-site/off-site childcare services, lactation rooms, or family rooms at the meeting area.

Moving with young children

In academia, researchers move across institutions at various stages of their careers; borders are not limiting factors. If you’re planning to move across the country or overseas with a young child, then consider the following.

• Address moving fears: Sometimes, families with younger children worry about moving, but with a little support and help from parents, kids quickly adapt to new places. For a smooth transition, it is essential to plan, organize, and prepare oneself based on the geographical, social, and cultural requirements of the new location.

• Relocation allowances: Several research institutions and grant agencies have established relocation assistance to cover travelling and moving expenditures of the researchers. For instance, international early-career research fellowships such as HFSP, EMBO, The Helen Hay Whitney Foundation provide relocation costs to their fellows and their families.

Returning Mothers

Re-entering full-time work after a career break can be challenging for early-career women researchers. It’s best to be prepared and professional.

• Positive attitude: Returning mothers encounter several obstacles, including bias, competition, and high expectations from employers. To tackle these problems and navigate through this phase, having a positive attitude, determination, and commitment to work can be helpful. Being resilient and confident, and avoiding feelings of guilt help in overcoming impostor syndrome.

• Homework: Besides caring for the little one, a mindful commitment to work during the post-partum period and engaging in activities like learning new skills (e.g. through LinkedIn Learning, edX, Coursera etc.), enhancing one’s visibility through LinkedIn, ORCID, Google scholar, etc., networking with suitable people in the field, and seeking advice from a reliable mentor helps in planning a strategic return to the workplace.

• Remote work: Freelance and remote job opportunities in science, including fields like science communication, data analysis, medical writing, online teaching, science outreach etc. offer flexibility in terms of work hours and work location. Explore new avenues that add to your CV and offer career growth.

The Department of Science and Technology’s Women Scientists Scheme provides various categories of fellowships to women re-entering mainstream research. Similarly, the Department of Biotechnology’s Biotechnology Career Advancement and Re-Orientation programme (BioCARe) offers independent R&D projects to women scientists with a career break.

In academia, while efforts are in progress to normalize parenting among researchers, strategic planning for pregnancy, parental leave, and return to the workplace after the break can reduce the “baby-penalty” for early-career researchers.

If one is smitten by science in middle school, it is because the subject is all about exploration, creativity, fascinating projects and mostly ‘fun while you learn’. This application-based worldview of science is what motivates most students to think of pursuing it as a subject beyond school.

But by the time a student is enrolled in an undergraduate (UG) science programme, a bit of that excitement gets dampened as science is learnt from photocopied and online study material, some books and a smattering of lab practicals (Note: thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, even the lab experience has taken a beating this year). There are exceptions, of course, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) or the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs), which have transformative learning atmospheres. But such learning hubs account for just a small fraction of the entire UG science ecosystem.

Sandwiched in between school and postgraduate level education, UG education does not seem to have undergone much structural or pedagogic change over the years in India. School education has evolved significantly in the last decade as schools adopt new-age learning and teaching methods. At the postgraduate level too, many new opportunities for extra-curricular learning, internships and fellowships now exist to engage the minds of science students. Steeped primarily in curricular learning, the UG science ecosystem is in need of an infusion of life so that young adults, bubbling with creative energy, do not fall out of love with the subject.

Nowadays, many STEM-UG students come armed with basic skills in computer coding, social media handling, market research and survey methodologies, communication, presentation and documentation. In the first year of UG, they quickly learn skills such as basic lab techniques and scientific literature search.

The UG science ecosystem is in need of an infusion of life so that young adults, bubbling with creative energy, do not fall out of love with the subject.

However, this large prospective scientific workforce suffers from the absence of a streamlined process to access empirical work opportunities in the form of internships, volunteering, mentorship or entrepreneurship. Conversely, by not tapping into this demographic dividend, the country’s academia and industry are losing out on a massive semi-skilled student base, keen on hands-on learning early in their scientific career. This also assumes importance in the light of India’s new skill development initiatives (Skill India Mission) and vocational learning opportunities arising out of the National Education Policy, 2020.

What work opportunities mean to UG students

Work experience at the UG level helps students become more confident about their decision to study science. It gives them a true experience of what being in science, along with all its joys and frustrations, really means. Working in a lab or with a group of researchers actively pursuing a hypothesis teaches the student many vital life skills alongside area-specific skills. Work experience helps students identify their strengths and unexplored careers, understand which skills might be in demand and how those skills can be honed. It primes young students towards a professional environment and teamwork.

Many describe their first (and often only) UG internship or fellowship as an eye-opening, stimulating experience. They come with an interest in the subject and many times leave with a purpose. These experiences help students gauge whether they are cut out for the field or not.

Work experience helps students identify their strengths and unexplored careers, understand which skills might be in demand and how those skills can be honed.

Interning at a research lab in academia or industry, a student can gain knowledge as well as recognition for his/her work. Such collaborations are generally hands-on and last for nearly 4 to 8 weeks, sometimes more. Students may also receive a stipend or certification for their work, which adds value to their career record.

Volunteering, on the other hand, can take many forms. It is a more flexible collaboration where the student can offer to work with a group of professionals on some aspect of their work that he/she finds interesting or is experienced in. This generally culminates in a letter of recommendation that facilitates the student’s admission to higher education institutes or future employment.

Mentorship is a flexible and deeply enriching exchange, where the student may or may not actively work with a mentor but gets career guidance and direction in the mentor’s area of expertise. Many STEM-UG students also come up with start-up worthy projects and ideas and could benefit from entrepreneurship guidance by incubators, funders or industrial houses.

A UG science education without work experience is like reading only the abstract and the discussion portions of a manuscript. When a student actively engages in even a small part of the research process, it's like regaling in the deeper knowledge of the methods, the design of the scientific study and its results.

A UG student’s journey towards gaining work experience

Generally, when students reach the middle of their second year, they start looking into postgraduate courses and their eligibility criteria. This is when the importance of work experience dawns upon them. Postgraduate science courses involve lab rotations, writing dissertations and application of scientific knowledge in research-based work. Most premier colleges, both in India and abroad, prefer students with prior work experience. They give priority to students who may either have worked in laboratory settings or participated in activities such as communicating science, volunteering or organisational efforts involving the scientific community.

The search process requires the UG student to actively research his/her niche areas of interest. For example, a zoology student may be able to explore research areas in quantum biology or biophysics. The next step involves looking for the right person/researcher/academic with whom the student wishes to work. These two initial steps are very crucial in the search for the dream work opportunity. A suitable intern must then be able to express succinctly his/her understanding of the work of the mentor or opportunity provider. This involves writing a professional email that showcases the student’s preliminary research and interest in the subject.

The challenges in tracking opportunities

It would be worth chronicling the first two years of my UG science learning to illustrate the challenges. As I enrolled into a three-year Bachelor of Science (Zoology) course in Delhi University, helpful seniors and teachers primed our batch for the years to come – the first year would be the easiest, the second tough in terms of syllabus, and the third toughest in terms of both syllabus as well as planning for the future. Accordingly, I set out to plan such that I could engage in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities in the first and second years (possibly also learn a new language), and by the third year learn a set of new skills and gain some work experience.

I expected that all my peers would also think similarly and we would collaborate as well as compete with one another in this quest to learn more and be better. However, it did not turn out that way.

Just graduated from school, UG science students are absolutely new to the world of advanced science education, research and its application. Emerging from a system that runs on strict discipline and an emphasis on scoring high, UG students in India are not well equipped for exploring ideas beyond the classroom or communicating with potential mentors, teachers or seniors from whose experiences they might learn. From being disciplined, taught and handheld by teachers mostly specialised in handling children, they graduate to a free teaching environment where teachers are specialised in their subjects but the onus of learning and seeking opportunities falls on the student.

Therefore, most of my classmates and I had no inkling of what sort of work experience we might be able to look for. The most common form of work experience seemed to be an internship. However, getting one was not easy.

Emerging from a system that runs on strict discipline and an emphasis on scoring high, UG students in India are not well equipped for exploring ideas beyond the classroom or communicating with potential mentors.

Fresh into college, in my first year, I took time to understand and adjust to the world of UG education. I was also involved in several extracurricular activities, so by the time I was able to scout for internship opportunities, all internship or research fellowship applications (among the very few available for first-year students) were closed. Despite studying in a college ranked number one in the NIRF, and having a stable internet connection at home, it took me three days to list the available opportunities, and in the process, realise that I had missed most deadlines.

However, I did not want to give up. I set up an active search and managed to land two work positions with directors of eminent labs, one in India and one in Germany. Although I did not get any certification from these mentors eventually, the knowledge and experience I gained were beyond my imagination. It not only opened up my world to the evidence-driven rigour of the scientific enterprise but also how scientific research can be monotonous, stimulating, frustrating and enriching at the same time.

Global versus Indian scenario

From then on, I began exploring and creating a repository, listing out various research and learning opportunities the world over (thanks to COVID-19, learning is no longer confined to national boundaries, and even UG students can dream of conversing with global scientific leaders on a Zoom call). During this activity, I noticed that in many countries leading in scientific research, e.g. USA, Germany and UK, UG research and work experience is as commonplace and important as postgraduate or PhD level research. With numerous national level summer and visiting programmes, and research fellowships, these countries have designed efficient information channels not only for the sciences but also for interdisciplinary and application-based learning.

Although there are some UG level programmes in India, their number, magnitude, and visibility are no match to those in other science-faring countries. In an era of global open learning, when students can easily begin to explore their interests and work areas at the UG level, it is important to make the UG work experience system more efficient and accessible.

As part of the Placement Cell of my college, I noticed that very few internship opportunities needed scientific capabilities or interests. Similarly, very few science higher education institutes in India list out work experience opportunities on their websites. I get approximately five calls every week from UG STEM students inquiring if I know of any work opportunity or internship. I can seldom answer them satisfactorily.

Some websites that collate information on scientific research opportunities do exist in India. However, they either focus on a very specific area of science (thus reducing the scope for imagination, creativity and interdisciplinarity) or focus mostly on postgraduate and higher-level research.

Thus there is a great need to streamline and organise the process of informing students about the existing opportunities by making them more accessible and visible. The need for creating a centralised hub where UG STEM students can learn all about the whats and hows of securing work experience and mentorship opportunities is evident.

In essence, India needs to harness the power of her UG STEM student community, ready to broaden their world view while they prepare to take fledgeling steps into the scientific research and entrepreneurship ecosystem.

India’s innovation ecosystem has gained a major boost in the last few years. The country is doing well in defence, navigation, nuclear energy, aviation, and space sectors. We have made remarkable progress through well-integrated and self-reliant indigenous research programs and institute-industry collaborations in various fields such as medicine, pharmacy, and drug-designing. Research in astronomy, physics, weather and climate science, and defence technology is making headlines in newspapers and is a topic of discussion in news chatrooms. However, the progress in the rural sector, especially the farming sector, has been slow.

The Economic Survey Report, 2019 suggests that the growth in agriculture and allied sectors has almost stagnated with an average increase of just under 3% in the last six years. Earnings of farmers have halved between 2016-17 and 2018-19 and non-farm wage growth has also fallen by around 4%. The contribution of agriculture to GDP has gradually come down to 15% in 2018 from 21.6% in 2001 (World Bank Data).

As per conservative estimates, pests cause annual crop losses worth more than Rs 60 thousand crores. Farmers, their families, and labour are exposed to heavy doses of pesticides and reports of cancer keep pouring in from the countryside. In fact, chromosomal aberrations have also been observed in the agricultural workers exposed to pesticides. Malnutrition among children and women are also burning issues that need immediate attention. Pesticides have also caused immense, largely undocumented harm to beneficial fauna such as bees, butterflies, birds, and bats, that pollinate plants. Microbes that fertilize the farm soil are also a casualty to pesticides, depriving crop roots of symbiotic interactions and efficient nutrient uptake.

Climate change, erratic weather conditions, and pollution are other issues that farmers have to confront daily. Until recently, 300 districts were already under drought and there had been deficits in rainfall, despite average monsoons in the past few years. The cost of production of seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers and other farm equipment is constantly increasing. Farmers are not getting returns proportional to the costs incurred in production, sometimes forcing them to resort to suicide. Despite serious attempts made by the government in the past few years in terms of hybrid seed production, escalated MSPs (minimum support price), rural employment schemes, direct fund transfers, subsidies and loan waivers, farmers feel marginalized.

A wide gap between rural and urban income is a cause of concern and needs to be bridged with urgency. Technological interventions including mechanized farming equipment and quality seeds that can guarantee better yield seem to be promising options and more interventions are required in this direction.

Innovations in agriculture can address the problems of food insecurity and malnutrition across the world. Golden rice with Vitamin A, Flavr Savr tomatoes with increased shelf life, Bt Corn and Bt Soy with increased pest resistance, have really added value to these crops including an increase in crop productivity and robustness to evade stress. Transgenic crops are an integral part of the Indian government’s plans (Technology Vision 2035) to boost farm productivity and for pushing investment and growth in the biotechnology sector.

For creating transgenic crops, genes of interest that offer better yield or resistance to biotic and abiotic factors, are taken from related or unrelated organisms and inserted through recombinant DNA technology in the crop plants. Interestingly, while we are still resisting GM technology, newer developments in genome technology with higher potential, such as gene editing, have emerged.

In India, scientists have been working for the last two decades to develop transgenic crops. A huge amount of public exchequer has been spent on research and development by agricultural institutions, industry, and academia. Genetically modified Bt cotton which has a gene from bacteria for resistance against bollworm was cleared for commercial cultivation in 2002 after 19 years of research. Bt cotton cultivation resulted in an increase in yield, better crop performance, good quality seed fibre and reduction in pesticide spraying and consequent cost savings by farmers.

Eggplant and mustard are two more crops in waiting for approvals for commercial cultivation in India due to opposition from a section of the population. Time and again, the opponents raise issues such as gene contamination, allergenicity and toxicity associated with these crops, though there is no scientific evidence to support the claim.

For example, GM Brinjal, a transgenic crop ready for release, was put under a moratorium. Brinjal fruits are attacked by shoot and fruit borers that reduce their productivity drastically, and the farmer uses a huge quantity of pesticides to produce the acceptable brinjal fruit without a worm inside. As a result, the good-looking brinjals that the consumer buys have unacceptable levels of pesticide residues. By contrast, the CRY gene introduced in the Bt Brinjal through transgenic technology has been shown to be safe.

Mustard is used all over the country as an oilseed, condiment, spice and vegetable crop and its oilseed cake is used as a livestock meal. Genetically modified mustard Dhara, which was developed after years of rigorous research, works both in laboratories and the field. The variety was approved by Genetically Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in May 2017 and the recommendation was to allow farmers to plant Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11). GM mustard has gone to GEAC twice for approval and no toxicity effects have been observed, as was alleged by opponents of this technology. But it is yet to reach farmers and their fields.

It is in the public interest, especially the farmers’ interest, that approvals are accelerated for GM crops that have gone through the three-tiered regulatory procedures. After passing through the modalities laid down by the Institutional Biosafety Committees and then assessed by the Research Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in DBT, RCGM recommended these crops for approval to Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in MOEFC (Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change) for large-scale field trials. Checks for toxicity and allergenicity are carried out in specialized national laboratories and data suggests that these crops cannot cause any adverse consequence on either the biota or the environment.

A meta-analysis of research papers comparing the economic performance of GM crops to their conventional counterparts revealed that about 80% of the studies conducted showed economic benefits of GM crops in terms of higher yield and pest resistance, including better prices for farmers’ produce. This robust analysis acts as evidence to increase public trust in this technology and helps in getting wider public acceptance.

Between the years 1996 and 2016, farm incomes have increased by 186.1 billion US dollars all over the world and 49% of these gains have gone to farmers in developed countries while 51% has gone to farmers in developing countries.

If there are unjustified risks in adopting a particular technology, there can be substantial losses in rejecting it based on imaginary fears. Here, academia should come forward and help in guiding public perception and building confidence in the appropriate processes and products of GM technology. Academia can also play a role in innovating to stay on top of the competitive market. The conventional pipeline approach must make way for new technology to arrive without further delay, in order to improve food and nutritional security and livelihood of farmers. There should be provisions in the law to punish not only those who damage the environment but also others who oppose developmental pursuits without any technical or scientific basis. We should learn from our experiences; the wait for computer technology pushed us back 10 years in economic terms when there were protests against the then-government for bringing in computers in the service sector, out of the mistaken fear that computers would take away jobs.

GM crops and innovations to advance food and agriculture for better livelihoods is the way forward to realize DREAM 2022 so that farmers are benefitted, and the country is also able to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals set by United Nations by 2030. We must understand that no amount of economic support alone can replace the benefits of technology infusion in agriculture. The continued deterrence of GM technology can have serious negative consequences. For GM technology, it is now or never. How long should our farmers wait?