The world's pharmacy is currently under attack, but it is a silent, microscopic one. As a result of being both a global leader in providing affordable generic drugs, and as a country at the forefront of an increasing wave of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), India is at the centre of this growing problem. At the core of the AMR crisis is a structural conflict, which the scientific community does not discuss enough: the "stewardship paradox".

As it stands now, when pharmaceutical innovations succeed globally, they are based upon their ability to penetrate markets and create high sales volumes. However, for antibiotics, "success," from a public health perspective, requires the exact opposite: they must be used sparingly, strictly conserved, and to the lowest extent possible to delay the onset of resistance. As such, there exists a market failure within the patent system that rewards the behaviour that causes the rapid obsolescence of the drug. As an independent researcher and patent agent, I have witnessed how the ROI generated by the patent system is inconsistent with the R&D required for the stewardship of the drug. In order to generate the next generation of life-saving drugs, we need to separate the cost of R&D from the volume of sales.

The "stewardship paradox" in action

For at least thirty years, the typical response to the "drought" in the development of new antibiotics has included offering stronger intellectual property rights and/or longer patents to potential developers of antibiotics. The rationale behind this approach has always been that, by increasing the level of economic reward from developing a new antibiotic (i.e., greater profits), there would be more financial incentive for researchers to develop new antibiotics. Unfortunately, it has been more than thirty years since a new generation of antibiotics has entered clinical use.

The reason for this lack of success with the approach of strengthening the intellectual property rights for antibiotic developers lies in what is referred to as the "stewardship paradox". Unlike most therapeutic classes (e.g., oncology; chronic lifestyle disease), where the primary objective of a patent applicant/holder is to treat as many patients as possible with their patented compound, the primary objective of an antibiotic developer is to delay resistance by limiting use. Therefore, when a new "last-resort" antibiotic enters clinical practice, it simultaneously marks the beginning of its path toward eventual obsolescence.

A fundamental contradiction arises when public health officials want to restrict the availability of drugs to ensure they remain effective, and pharmaceutical companies want to make money from their products. The commercial success of a drug, particularly a costly one like an antibiotic, depends on high volume sales. Companies cannot recoup their R&D investments if their products are locked away in "glass cases" as emergency supplies only. Thus, companies must aggressively promote their products to maximise volume sales. However, in countries where patients pay directly for health care (e.g., India) this typically translates into aggressive marketing to physicians and pharmacists. This leads to exactly the type of overprescribing that generates drug resistance.

The way forward: A delinkage model

The solution lies in moving towards a “delinkage model”. Delinking refers to the separation of the financial returns from a drug from the volume of the drug's sales. Instead of relying on large-scale sales, innovators receive "pull incentives", e.g., market entry rewards or milestone payments.

One widely discussed approach is the "subscription model" (also known as the "Netflix model" for antibiotics), where governments pay a fixed annual fee to a company for access to an effective antibiotic regardless of whether the antibiotic is used. The subscription model allows companies to generate revenue from their products and provide governments with the means to retain effective drugs "in inventory" for stewardship purposes.

Adopting a delinkage model would not only be scientifically necessary for India but also strategically important as the country transitions from a manufacturing-based to an innovation-driven bioeconomy. Domestic startups require predictable returns on investment that do not depend on contributing to the AMR crisis. By integrating delinkage into national science policy, India can lead in creating a system that balances innovation with sustainability.

Reframing innovation for a world resistant to disease:

The tension between 20th-century patent law and 21st-century evolutionary forces of microorganisms is no longer simply a theoretical debate – it is a pressing public health crisis. For India to continue to protect its role as the "pharmacy of the world", we need to look beyond the limited focus on volume-based ROI. Protecting and strengthening IP rights in the absence of stewardship-compatible financial incentives will only add to the flames of the fire we are desperately trying to put out.

Addressing this challenge requires a multi-faceted approach: adopting delinkage models, increasing funding for early-stage antimicrobial R&D, and developing national policies that treat antibiotics as a global public good rather than a commercial commodity.

Young researchers and policymakers will play a critical role in shaping this future. The goal must be to create an ecosystem where the value of a drug is measured by the lives it saves over time, rather than the volume of units sold in a quarter. In doing so, India has the opportunity to lead a global model of sustainable innovation—one where science stays ahead of resistance.

On a train from Pune to Mumbai after attending Young Investigator Meeting 2026, Pune (YIM 2026), I found myself thinking about a contradiction at the heart of Indian innovation. This started as a casual conversation with a fellow traveller, a young entrepreneur, someone who has taken the path I was contemplating to take. I was still carrying a certain energy from the meeting, the optimism, urgency, and a sense that something important is trying to take shape in the Indian biosciences ecosystem.

Coming from the UK after more than a decade abroad, this visit felt different. The conversations at YIM 2026, especially the repeated emphasis on team science, translational research, biomanufacturing, and mission-mode efforts felt like a clear signal. There is intent. There is direction. There is, at least at the level of vision, a strong alignment on where India needs to go.

And yet, somewhere between that vision and what one sees on the ground, there is a noticeable gap. The energy of the meeting initially masked this gap. But it became harder to ignore during a short post-YIM 2026 tour across Pune, Hyderabad, Mumbai, and Delhi. Conversations with academics, industry professionals, and startup ecosystems revealed a growing disconnect between vision and execution.

During the YIM 2026 meeting, many university representatives spoke about supporting startups, incubators, faculty-driven ventures, and student entrepreneurship. It all sounded right, motivating, and familiar. The language of innovation has clearly spread across the system.

But when the conversation moved from intent to outcomes and specific support, things became less clear. There were only a handful of examples of startups that had truly emerged from faculty and scaled meaningfully. A few exceptions stood out but it was hard to tell whether they were the result of strong institutional ecosystems or simply driven by exceptional individuals, or even advantages tied to specific cities.

What seemed more widespread was something else: a kind of collective momentum driven by the fear of being left behind — a kind of institutional FOMO. Incubators are being set up. Programmes are being launched. Everyone wants to participate in the startup narrative.

But mere participation is not the same as impact. The harder questions, around how many of these efforts translate into real companies, meaningful IP, or revenue-generating technologies remain largely unanswered. There is still a visible gap between patents filed and patents that matter, between announcements made and systems that deliver.

This is where the tension deepens. Because at the same time, the broader call from leadership at YIM 2026 was powerful and necessary: to move towards mission-driven science, to build teams rather than silos, to focus on translation and manufacturing, and to think at scale. There is a kind of consonance in this vision almost everyone agrees on the direction. And yet, the execution ecosystem feels fragmented. For someone like me, standing at the edge looking in, this creates a very real dilemma.

Because in parallel, there is another pattern that continues to play out globally. Many founders and scientists of Indian origin still choose to anchor their intellectual property and companies in the US or UK, while building operational or execution layers in India. This is not about lack of intent to build in India. It is about where systems make it easier to take risks.

Setting up a company abroad is faster. Funding for uncertain, early-stage science is more accessible. There is more patience for ideas that take time to mature.

In India, bold, long-horizon work often falls into a gap, too applied for academia, too early for venture capital, and not yet fully supported by mission-mode structures at scale. So the outcome becomes almost predictable: the thinking happens in one geography, the execution in another. Over time, ownership follows the thinking. And that is the heart of the "two-body problem."

Sitting on that train, this is what stayed with me, the contrast between what is being said, and what is still being built. This is not about intent, the intent, if anything, feels genuine.

YIM 2026 felt like a rare and important space, one where these conversations are happening honestly, and where a generation of scientists is trying to imagine a different system. If anything, it made me feel that platforms like YIM are not just useful, they are essential.

But they are also too small. If India is serious about building in deep-tech, biotech, and frontier science, spaces like this need to grow 50 –100 times in scale, depth, and continuity. Hearing that even this kind of platform faces funding constraints is concerning. These are the spaces where alignment begins.

They could also become places where something more concrete emerges, shared roadmaps, policy inputs, sustained networks, and even training for those returning after years abroad, trying to re-understand a system that has evolved in their absence.

Because that is the other layer to this story, the human one.

For many of us working outside India, the question of returning is never fully settled. It sits somewhere in the background, shaped by both emotion and practicality. You feel the pull to come back, to contribute, to build something meaningful in the place that shaped your early curiosity. But you also see the friction, the delays, the uncertainties, the structural gaps. So for those who are contemplating the question of coming back to India, you end up, quite literally, on the fence.

There was one more thing that came up at YIM 2026, almost unanimously, and yet strangely quietly, that felt like a quintessential example of this gap: age. Everyone acknowledged it as a real barrier for talented people considering a return. Too old for certain fellowships, ineligible for schemes designed for an earlier career stage, structurally locked out by limits that were never designed with the diaspora in mind.

And yet, despite broad agreement in the room, it remained one of those things nobody wanted to say too loudly, the kind of problem everyone sees clearly, but that sits just above the threshold of open confrontation.

To be fair, there has been some movement. There is gradual progress toward revising age limits in certain programmes and that matters. But it is difficult not to notice a deeper pattern.

We often admire the scientific and innovation ecosystems of the western countries like the US, and the UK, and often attribute their success primarily to resources and funding. What we speak about less is what quietly enabled those systems to flourish: the removal of artificial barriers such as rigid age limits, and the prioritisation of merit over inconsequential parameters. It was not just wealth that built those ecosystems. It was also the decision to step aside and allow talent to emerge — regardless of when in life it appeared.

And that is why this moment feels important. Because there is momentum. There are signals. There is a growing recognition that India needs to move towards team science, translational impact, and biomanufacturing at scale.

The question is whether the systems will evolve fast enough to match that vision.

And that is perhaps where this becomes less of a reflection, and more of a call for action.

To the people shaping these systems, the leaders across funding agencies, institutions, and policy bodies, this is the moment where alignment needs to move from language to structure. Because small decisions made at that level determine much larger outcomes: who returns, who stays, who builds, and where.

India does not lack talent. It does not lack ambition. It does not even lack vision.

What it needs now is coherence — a system willing to remove artificial barriers to innovation, whether age, rigid credentialism, or institutional risk aversion toward backing ambitious early-stage ideas. And for those of us watching, deciding, and hoping to return, and build in India, that makes all the difference.

I almost ignored it.

On a plate seeded with bacteria, our C. elegans mutants were not feeding in the dispersed manner we expected. Instead, they formed distinct clusters at the edge of the food and did not disperse well despite being starved in that confined space. It would have been easy to dismiss the pattern as noise — a population density effect, a plating inconsistency, or a minor behavioural fluctuation. Biology is full of variation, and we are trained to average it away.

But the aggregation persisted. It appeared again. And again.

Most scientific papers begin with a hypothesis. Many scientific discoveries do not. They begin with a moment of hesitation and a pause long enough to ask: Why is this happening?

In the early days of ethology, scientists such as Nikolaas Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch spent years simply watching animals, without a defined map of what they should see. The zig-zag courtship of a fish, the waggle dance of a bee — these were not predictions tested into existence. They patiently allowed the organism to define the question. That spirit of disciplined observation still matters.

Starting from an observation rather than a predefined roadmap allowed us to explore the worm swarming phenomenon without prematurely narrowing its meaning. We did not yet know whether the behaviour reflected altered sensory processing, neuromodulatory imbalance, or something else entirely. What we did know was that it was reproducible.

For us, that shift from seeing to measuring marked a turning point. Recording videos, quantifying aggregation, and developing assays transformed a fleeting observation into something testable. Hypotheses emerged, but they emerged honestly, grounded in description rather than imposed upon it. There were many failed attempts. There were also moments when the animals behaved exactly as predicted. Those moments did not feel like confirmation of a prewritten story. They felt like alignment, as if the original observation had been pointing toward something real all along.

Yet scientific culture often narrates discovery differently. By the time a paper is written, the path appears linear. The hypothesis comes first. The experiment follows. The answer emerges. The uncertainty, the false starts, and the long period of simply watching rarely make it to print. This is not merely a stylistic issue. It shapes how young scientists are trained.

In many Indian research settings, students are encouraged, and often required, to define precise hypotheses early, sometimes before they have deeply encountered their system. Grant applications demand clear deliverables. Doctoral committees ask for directional clarity. These structures are not unreasonable; they provide accountability. They can also unintentionally signal that exploratory observation is unfocused or risky.

Observation-driven science is risky. It requires time without immediate narrative payoff. It requires tolerating ambiguity long enough for patterns to clarify. In environments where productivity is measured in short cycles, that patience can feel indulgent.

In my teaching, I try to carve out space for this discipline of attention. When students encounter C. elegans for the first time, I do not begin with an explanation. I hand them a plate and ask them to record eight to ten observations before attempting interpretation. Only afterward do we discuss the meaning behind those observations. The exercise separates noticing from explaining.

In practical sessions, I present a single behavioural phenomenon and ask: What questions arise? What assumptions are you making? How would you test this? The goal is not to extract the correct answer. It is to cultivate the habit of careful seeing before structured reasoning.

This approach does not oppose hypothesis-driven science. It strengthens it. Clear predictions are more powerful when they arise from faithful description. If we only reward predefined narratives, we risk overlooking the phenomena that generate the best hypotheses in the first place.

Today, our tools are becoming extraordinarily powerful, such as automated imaging, large-scale behavioural tracking, and machine learning–based analysis. These technologies expand what we can measure. They do not replace the first step: noticing that something is worth measuring.

Before logic, before models, before validation, there is the simple act of seeing.

Reclaiming the value of observation is not a call to abandon rigour. It is a reminder that rigour begins with attention. By protecting space for careful observation in our labs, our classrooms, and our funding structures, we protect the source from which meaningful questions arise.

In a recent survey, public trust in scientists was relatively high in India, which ranked second among 68 countries. However, the proportion of people who think that science is interesting is still thought to be a “minority”. It is widely accepted that communities that do not uphold value-based science risk losing the foundation for long-term progress. Trust without interest suggests two things: first, that science is viewed as important work done by scientists, but is not perceived as relevant or useful to common people. Second, that scientists do not speak the language of the public who pay the tax that most commonly funds their work.

The general lack of interest in science, compounded by anecdotes of early-career researchers reporting delayed or unpaid salaries, toxic lab environments, and poor mentorship, may contribute to research not being among the top career choices in India. Apart from lower investment in research, brain drain and the lack of preference for a career in research may also contribute to India’s lower research density. India is reported to have only about 255 full-time equivalent researchers per million people, which is way below the figure for developed economies such as the US (over 4,800) and Germany (5,400), or other Asian countries, such as Pakistan (474), China (1,849) and Singapore (7,920).

Additionally, while scientific outreach efforts to ignite interest in the community are making slow but steady progress, there has been a rapid increase in publication retractions from India (1, 2), driven by errors, plagiarism, and ethical concerns. For example, the proportion of randomised controlled trials published in Anaesthesia between 2017 and 2021 found that 62% of Indian trials contained falsified data, while 46% were fatally flawed. Partly driven by the “publish or perish” pressures in Indian academia, such practices lead to research and resource waste in an already limited resource environment. More importantly, over time, research or publication errors and fraud can chip away at scientific credibility and compromise public trust.

This misalignment between trust and interest in science in citizens, coupled with the preoccupation with publication metrics, presents a reality that requires us to introspect and assess “what ails science in India?” This introspection is a necessary step for the scientific community because issues can be appropriately addressed once they are recognised and then faced head-on. The urgency is greater now than ever because new technologies amplify both facts and falsehoods. Artificial intelligence (AI) can scale errors and distortions rapidly, and celebrity influencers can package persuasive narratives that cast science and researchers as snake-oil merchants rather than as servants of society. Thus, restoring integrity, transparency, and accountability in scientific research is critical to maintaining public trust. In life science research, the misalignment is prominent due to the high stakes associated with life-saving research and its outcomes.

With shared experience of over two decades spread over Asia, Europe, and America, we identify the following as important drivers of the current state of life science research in India and its social relevance.

1. Rewarding individualism versus collectivism: Institutions routinely single out and reward individuals and concentrate authority, despite the norm of science being largely interdisciplinary and collaborative. This focused recognition reinforces power hierarchies in academia. The need is to recognise the collective contribution of each researcher to institution-building. Like the adage, it takes a village to build an institution! The centralised power structure fosters “mafia-like behaviour” of research groups where younger researchers or new faculty in a university “toe the line” of senior researchers to survive or advance in academia. Reinforcement of existing poor practices and behaviours through role-modelling and recognition is among the dangers for science at institutional, national, and global levels. The younger generation is more likely to choose science if it looks less hierarchical.

2. Obsession with metrics: Currently, institutional ranking and career promotion metrics are a proxy for excellence and high quality. While such metrics have merits for assessment agencies and scientometric evaluations, in the recent past, they have led to an obsession and a certain fixation with such numerical indices. Most ignore the biases in these indices and, by citing a lack of alternatives, indirectly encourage others to use these metrics. There will be new metrics that invariably would be implicitly reductive and ignore the nuances of how science works. Nevertheless, the presence of a flawed framework risks amplifying the same problem. There are numerous instances where authorships are frequently negotiated or imposed through power dynamics. Such practices have been demonstrated repeatedly to be disadvantageous for women and underrepresented researchers because the system was built in the global north, which is relatively safeguarded from some of these biases. Ghost and gift authorships, and, more recently, fake authorships generated by paper mills, inflate existing metrics utilising their underlying weaknesses. Funders that prioritise apparent "return on investment" often channel resources toward already highly-ranked individuals and institutions, reinforcing conventional thinking, entrenching investigator biases, and sidelining alternative perspectives that might be scientifically valuable. This particularly affects early and middle-career researchers, making research a less optimal career choice with lower probabilities of success, making attracting and retaining talent difficult.

3. Undervaluing mentorship and collegial service: Institutions celebrate huge grant wins, publications in prestigious life science journals, and awards. However, the support for a healthier research culture that sustains and provides for such achievements is overlooked and not given enough credit. In short, we fail to recognise “goodness” in scientists. Improving methods, mentoring trainees thoughtfully, running professional societies and focused groups, serving as editors and performing peer review are less factored. In other words, a framework akin to Maslow's hierarchy of needs for life science research may be needed to foster a healthier research culture.

4. Social media influencing: Currently, social media amplifies both the good and not-so-good parts of academia. High-profile cases where former mentees publicly shared unpleasant or negative experiences show that professional success does not guarantee good leadership. Also, social media tends to project survivorship bias. On the contrary, when researchers share their work on social media, they democratise knowledge and build public trust. But they must do so responsibly: explain findings in plain language, state limitations and uncertainty, avoid hype or definitive claims beyond the data, and link to primary sources where possible. Good science communication invites questions, corrects errors visibly, and treats audiences with respect. This helps people make informed decisions rather than just chasing attention. For example, a tweetorial or thread explaining recent publication in lay terms is one approach. Institutional science communication channels also serve as valuable resources. It is important to recognise that publications are not the end, but the beginning of dissemination.. This is one way to increase social engagement and increase public interest in science.

5. Inadequate emphasis on standards of research integrity & reproducibility: Thanks to social media and other outlets, the frequency of news reporting scientific misconduct and other practices is higher than earlier. While this exposure is welcome, it indicates the need for emphasis on research integrity and reproducibility in the institutional setting, in researcher training. There should be funds and time allocated for reproducibility audits and independent replication studies as a normal part of research cycles, and not as a corrective action. Indian scientists enjoy a high level of trust and should persevere to keep it.

6. Biased perceptions: There exists an implicit bias that high-quality science happens only in well-established and elite institutions, while other institutions are engaged primarily in teaching. However, the ground reality is that there is good science happening in many institutions, and there are retractions of published work from elite institutions, both within India and abroad. An understanding that such bias exists and learning to ignore the pincode/zipcode-based evaluations would benefit all stakeholders. This would also reduce the brain drain and migration towards elite institutions within and outside the country.

What’s the way forward?

Some practical steps to consider are given below to make science interesting to society:

To make science socially relevant

• Encourage scientific communication as part of a research career and foster healthy discussions about ongoing research with local communities.

• Train grant reviewers, institutional evaluators, and researchers on qualitative research impact assessment, such as DORA and CORRA, which are still unfamiliar to many.

• Make scientific dissemination plan an essential criterion in research grants.

• Reduce emphasis on individual visibility and publication metrics, and adopt a multi-pronged assessment framework in hiring and promotion decisions

To make scientific careers attractive and retain talent

• Create and strengthen existing fellowship schemes that encourage students to pursue research at postdoctoral levels, with scope for stable positions

• Co-develop research programs with the industry/research institutions to establish research positions also outside of academia

• Create alternative funding schemes that incentivise inter-institutional or industry-academia collaborations to build capacity, and explicitly prioritise early- and middle-career investigators and collaborations between investigators with varying levels of experience.

• Develop structured mentorship schemes, where senior researchers mentor junior investigators beyond their immediate networks, creating broader opportunities for growth.

• Recognise and reward effective mentorship through institutional and professional society-level awards, and actively amplify these values.

• Normalise routine, constructive feedback from mentees as part of faculty review and professional development.

To improve research integrity to reinforce trust in science

• Conduct workshops for researchers on the risks of hyper-productivity and the ethical and practical problems of being a hyper-prolific author

• Guide researchers away from idolising institutions or individuals (within and outside India). Instead, emphasise evaluating contributions based on their societal impact, including knowledge generation, process improvement, and innovation.

The trajectory of India’s scientific growth is defined by a vibrant spirit of innovation and an urgent commitment to scaling impactful solutions. As the nation pursues its goal of becoming a global powerhouse, a clear opportunity exists to align academic excellence with socio-economic reality. By embracing a unified vision bolstered by the operationalisation of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), India is successfully pivoting toward a structure that prioritises domestic needs and high-impact translation through strategic collaboration.

India’s real scientific challenge is not discovery, its translation

India’s unique competitive edge lies in its unparalleled ability to scale affordable, high-quality medicine. While high-tech biologicals continue to advance, peroral dosage forms remain the industry’s cornerstone, representing the most accessible bridge to healthcare for a massive global population. By focusing research specifically on peroral nanomedicine, overcoming physiological barriers like gastric pH degradation and mucosal permeation, and leveraging R&D reinvestments from industry leaders, India can transform "chronic disease management" into a self-sustaining export engine. This evolution involves developing “novel functional excipients”, converting complex injectables into patient-friendly oral formats, and serving as a specialised Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations (CDMOs) to minimise drug attrition through advanced nanoparticle formulation (nanomedicines).

India is uniquely positioned to lead the global transition in making nanomedicines, traditionally reserved for intravenous routes, viable for peroral administration, setting a new international standard for patient care. To date, global regulatory frameworks have almost exclusively addressed intravenous targeted nanomedicines, leading to a prevailing industry presumption that nanotechnology is synonymous with intravenous delivery. India has the opportunity to disrupt this status quo by providing a definitive regulatory direction, including drafting the world’s first comprehensive guidelines for peroral nanomedicine. By establishing this framework, India does not just follow international standards; it creates them.

From bench to market: Why India needs patient capital, not fast papers

This immense potential remains largely theoretical because the path from "bench to bedside" is currently blocked by a dual crisis of capital and culture. While deep-tech startups recognise these opportunities, they are frequently caught off-guard by the "exit-strategy obsession" of traditional venture capital. To overcome this, funding agencies must look beyond blue-sky innovation and incentivize the “unsexy” stages of development-such as pilot scaling, and rigorous preclinical, and early clinical validation, which currently fall outside the remit of academic grants. This structural misalignment between short-term capital expectations and the long-term gestation periods of nanotechnological breakthroughs often stifles innovation in its infancy, leaving brilliant translational work stranded in a "valley of death". To bridge this gap, India must pivot toward "patient capital" and strategic sovereign funding, ensuring that deep-tech ventures are nurtured by investors who value long-term sovereignty over immediate liquidity.

Institutional reform: Beyond the “rolling advertisement” culture

Capital alone cannot bridge the valley if the institutional framework remains stagnant. The persistence of "rolling advertisements" across NIPERs, IITs, IISERs, and INST has evolved from a recruitment strategy into a symptom of a deeper structural crisis. While these open-ended calls suggest a constant search for talent, they effectively mask a rigid institutional culture that over-indexes on traditional academic metrics like h-index and publication counts at the expense of translational expertise. This has created a bottleneck that alienates high-caliber, mid-career professionals. The "rolling" status is no longer a sign of growth, but an admission of an inability to integrate seasoned, market-aware experts into a traditional, hierarchical framework.

The ILF model: Fueling the lab-to-market pipeline

The solution lies in a structural shift where the State provides the foundational platform, but Industry provides the operational fuel through an Industry-Linked Faculty (ILF) model. Proposed here as a high-impact pilot program under the mandate of the ANRF, this 100% industry-funded track targets expert-tier professionals in translational research. Under a 60/40 functional split, these experts dedicate 60% of their bandwidth to solving high-stakes industrial challenges, such as the complex transition of nanomedicines from lab to market, while the remaining 40% is reserved for the rigorous teaching and mentorship required to build a world-class, industry-ready workforce.

To ensure this model is commercially viable, it must be underpinned by a modern, industry-weighted intellectual property (IP) framework. In this shared IP ecosystem, the sponsoring industry partner retains a majority share, typically 70% to 80%, ensuring the commercial freedom and "right to play" necessary for massive capital reinvestment. The host academic institution retains a minority stake and a royalty-linked revenue stream, ensuring the lab remains self-sustaining while providing the financial basis to align faculty incentives with industrial outcomes. This model serves both Industry and Government with precision: industry gains direct access to state-of-the-art infrastructure and elite talent, while the Government fulfills its mandate to scale high-quality education without additional fiscal overhead.

Asserting global authority

In this framework, the "return to India" movement transcends philanthropy to become a self-sustaining economic engine. By focusing on national bottlenecks through collaborative innovation, India’s elite institutes move beyond traditional academic metrics to become the primary drivers of a resilient mission that delivers genuine, life-changing impact on a global scale.

Whilst basic science remains the indispensable underpinning of our research, the future necessitates more than mere discovery; it demands a decisive intervention in the high-stakes arena of translational drug delivery. By bridging this gap with precision, India will move beyond the mere adoption of global benchmarks, and instead, assert the authority to define them.

Why don't giant animals get more cancer?

When cancer comes to mind, it is usually a human disease. While it might seem that every multicellular organism, including massive animals like whales, would be much more likely to develop cancer simply because they have so many more cells where something could go wrong, recent research shows that some large mammals have evolved special mechanisms to reduce their cancer risk. For example, elephants have lessened their risk by duplicating a key gene called TP53.

Surprisingly, this is not what is seen. Very large, long‑lived animals such as whales and elephants do not appear to get cancer nearly as often as simple “more cells = more cancer” reasoning would predict. This puzzling mismatch between expectation and reality is known as Peto’s paradox, and it has pushed scientists to ask a deep evolutionary question: How do giant animals stay cancer‑resistant for so long?

Peto’s paradox in plain language

Across species, cancer risk does not scale up straightforwardly with body size or lifespan. A blue whale has orders of magnitude more cells than a mouse and lives far longer, yet whales are not wiped out by cancer early in life. If each cell carries the same chance of turning malignant, whales should be in constant danger.

The fact that whale and elephant populations persist tells us something important: these species must have evolved extra layers of protection that keep cancer in check. Instead of being victims of their own size, they are products of intense natural selection for better tumour suppression, DNA repair, and immune surveillance.

The bowhead whales DNA shield

One striking example is the bowhead whale, which can live for more than 200 years while showing surprisingly low cancer incidence. Research suggests that bowhead cells maintain their DNA with exceptional accuracy, especially when dealing with dangerous double‑strand breaks events where both strands of the DNA helix are cut at once. If these breaks are not fixed correctly, they can trigger mutations or outright cell death.

Cells usually repair such breaks using a process called non‑homologous end joining (NHEJ), which rejoins the broken ends quickly but can introduce errors. In whales, this process seems to work with much higher fidelity. A key player is a protein called CIRBP (cold‑inducible RNA‑binding protein). Humans also have CIRBP, but the whale version appears to stabilize broken DNA ends more effectively and guide them into cleaner repair. When scientists introduced whale CIRBP into human cells, those cells repaired DNA damage more accurately and picked up fewer harmful mutations over time.

Experiments in other organisms support this idea of a broad protective role. In fruit flies engineered to produce more CIRBP, researchers observed longer lifespans and better resistance to DNA‑damaging stress, such as radiation. Together, these findings suggest that bowhead whales are not just relying on extra tumour‑suppressor genes. Instead, they have evolved ultra‑precise DNA maintenance systems that reduce mutation accumulation across their unusually long lives, helping to explain both their longevity and their apparently low cancer rates.

Genomes of giants: Humpback whales and beyond

Whales defense does not stop at a single protein. When scientists assembled and analysed the humpback whale genome, the full set of its genetic instructions, they found extensive signs of adaptation in genes involved in body structure, immunity, and the control of cell growth and death. Many of these genes sit at key checkpoints where a cell either repairs damage, pauses division, or self‑destructs if things look too risky.

Notably, humpback whales carry extra, active copies of several genes that help identify and remove damaged or unhealthy cells. These additional copies may allow whale tissues to cull potentially cancerous cells more aggressively before they can form tumours. Genomic and cellular data also indicate that whales, as a group, accumulate genetic errors more slowly than would be expected for animals of their size and lifespan. Fewer mutations over a lifetime mean fewer chances for a cell to become malignant, neatly fitting the broader pattern described by Peto’s paradox.

What this could mean for human cancer

All of this raises an exciting possibility: instead of fighting cancer only with drugs designed from scratch, medicine might borrow strategies that evolution has already tested at a massive scale in whales and other large animals. The goal would not be to use whale cells directly, but to understand and adapt their defenses.

There are several promising avenues. Whale‑like versions of DNA repair factors such as CIRBP, or small molecules that boost their activity, might one day help human cells fix dangerous DNA damage more accurately. Extra copies or enhanced forms of certain tumour‑suppressor genes could inspire gene‑therapy or gene‑editing strategies that make high‑risk tissues more resilient. Insights from whale immune surveillance and cell‑death pathways might guide new immunotherapies that recognise and clear precancerous cells earlier and more reliably.

Peto’s paradox shows that huge body size and long life do not have to come with a crushing cancer burden.

Whales, elephants, and other giants demonstrate that biology can evolve powerful internal systems to keep cancer in check, even under extreme conditions. By decoding those systems in detail, biotechnology may eventually turn the same evolutionary tricks that protect whales into new tools for preventing and treating cancer in humans.

Featured Article 1: Plant Drought Stress Tolerance: Understanding Its Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular Mechanisms

Authors: Sheikh Shanawaz Bashir, Anjuman Hussain, Sofi Javed Hussain, Owais Ali Wani, Sheikh Zahid Nabi, Niyaz A. Dar, Faheem Shehzad Baloch & Sheikh Mansoor

As climate change intensifies water scarcity, understanding how plants respond to drought stress remains a key area of research in agriculture. This review synthesises current knowledge on the physiological, biochemical, and molecular adaptations that help plants survive water-limited environments.

With drought causing 30% of global crop yield loss and worsening due to climate change, the need for drought-tolerant crops has never been more urgent.

The authors discuss mechanisms like stomatal closure, oxidative stress response, and the role of hormones like abscisic acid (ABA) in combating water deficit. The article also highlights how advanced genome editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9, enable precise modifications of genes involved in stress response pathways. By leveraging such technologies, researchers are opening doors to genetically modified crops that can thrive under increasingly challenging environmental conditions.

Source:

This article was originally published in Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment (Taylor & Francis).

Read the full study: https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2021.2020161

Featured Article 2: Strategies for Combating Bacterial Biofilms: A Focus on Anti-Biofilm Agents and Their Mechanisms of Action

Authors: Ranita Roy, Monalisa Tiwari, Gianfranco Donelli & Vishvanath Tiwari

Bacterial biofilms represent a major challenge in modern medicine, contributing to nearly 50% of hospital-acquired infections and significantly increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. This review examines current efforts to develop anti-biofilm therapies and provides an overview of natural and synthetic molecules that can prevent, disrupt, or eradicate biofilm-associated infections.

The authors describe a range of mechanisms of action used by anti-biofilm agents, including inhibition of quorum sensing, degradation of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), disassembly of mature biofilms, and interference with intracellular signaling systems such as c-di-GMP and (p)ppGpp. Highlighted compounds include furanones, quercetin, lantibiotics, endolysins, and emerging peptide-based therapies, many of which show potential for combating drug-resistant pathogens like P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, and S. aureus.

Amid rising antibiotic resistance, this review offers useful insights for researchers working in translational microbiology, pharmacology, and infectious disease. It outlines biofilm structure, detection methods, and therapeutic targets, and provides a consolidated landscape of molecules under investigation for anti-biofilm activity.

Source:

This article was originally published in Virulence.

Read the full article:https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372

Featured Article 3: Health Hazards of Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI) and Its Microbial Reduction

Authors: Pooja Sharma, Surendra Pratap Singh, Sheetal Kishor Parakh & Yen Wah Tong

Hexavalent chromium (Cr (VI)) remains one of the world’s most persistent environmental pollutants, commonly released from industrial sectors such as electroplating, leather tanning, textile dyeing, wood preservation, and metallurgy. This review examines the toxicological impact of Cr (VI), a Group 1 carcinogen, on humans, plants, and microbial communities, highlighting its genotoxic, mutagenic, and cytotoxic properties.

The authors outline how Cr (VI) enters the body through inhalation, ingestion, and skin exposure, leading to oxidative stress, DNA damage, respiratory illness, kidney and liver injury, and increased cancer risk. Its mobility and solubility allow it to persist in soil and water for long periods, increasing exposure potential.

Beyond human health, the review discusses Cr (VI)’s effects on plant biology, including impacts on seed germination, chlorophyll synthesis, photosynthesis, and biomass production, as well as its influence on soil microbial diversity. A key focus of the article is microbial strategies for Cr (VI) detoxification, such as biosorption, bioreduction, bioaccumulation, and biomineralisation, which convert the toxic oxidised form into the less harmful Cr (III).

By summarising a wide range of bacteria, fungi, and algae capable of reducing Cr (VI), the review provides a practical roadmap for implementing microbial bioremediation as a sustainable alternative to conventional chemical or physical treatment methods.

Source:

The article was originally published in Bioengineered.

Read the full article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2037273

Featured Article 4: Microbial Electrolysis — A Promising Approach for Treatment and Resource Recovery from Industrial Wastewater

Authors: Yamini Koul, Viralkunvar Devda, Sunita Varjani, Wenshan Guo, Huu Hao Ngo, Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, Jo-Shu Chang, Jonathan W. C. Wong, Muhammad Bilal, Sang-Hyoun Kim, Xuan-Thanh Bui & Roberto Parra-Saldívar

Microbial Electrolysis Cells (MECs) are being investigated as a biotechnology platform for transforming industrial wastewater treatment into a resource-recovery opportunity. This review discusses the principles, advancements, and future potential of MECs as an energy-positive, carbon-negative technology capable of producing hydrogen, methane, formic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and clean water, all while reducing pollutant load.

The article situates MECs within broader efforts to identify circular and bioeconomic approaches for managing wastewater, given increasing energy demand, and climate pressures. It describes how MECs can be coupled with other processes, including anaerobic digestion, membrane bioreactors, thermoelectric systems, dark fermentation, and microbial fuel cells, to improve treatment efficiency and energy recovery.

The authors provide a technical overview of MEC designs (single- and double-chamber systems), electrogenic microbial communities, substrate utilisation patterns, and degradation pathways for complex pollutants such as nitrobenzene, chlorophenols, sulfates, and heavy metals. The review also underscores current engineering and operational challenges of scaling MECs related to reactor design, electrode materials, process optimisation, cost, and life-cycle considerations.

With wastewater treatment accounting for ~3% of global electricity use yet containing 2–4× more recoverable energy, the article highlights MECs as one of the most disruptive technological pathways toward net-positive energy recovery, green hydrogen economy, and industrial decarbonisation.

Source:

The article was originally published in Bioengineered.

Read the full article:https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2051842

Featured Article 5: Sulfur Nutrition and Its Role in Plant Growth and Development

Authors: Om Prakash Narayan, Paras Kumar, Bindu Yadav, Meenakshi Dua & Atul Kumar Johri

Sulphur is an essential but often overlooked macronutrient that is necessary for plant growth, productivity, and resilience. This review explores sulphur’s critical role in plant physiology, through its presence in amino acids (cysteine, methionine), coenzymes, vitamins, glutathione, and in Iron–Sulfur (Fe–S) clusters, to its involvement in detoxification, redox regulation, and stress signalling pathways. With declining atmospheric sulphur deposition and intensifying agricultural demand, deficiency of this critical element has emerged as a global challenge affecting crop yields and nutritional quality.

The authors detail sulphur sources in soil, uptake mechanisms via high- and low-affinity sulphate transporters, intracellular transport, and assimilation processes that convert sulphate into vital biomolecules. The review also focusses on the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and endophytic fungi like Serendipita indica in enhancing sulphur acquisition, especially under deficiency conditions. These microbial partners can significantly boost nutrient uptake, plant growth, and tolerance to environmental stresses offering sustainable alternatives to chemical fertilisers.

The paper further highlights sulphur’s role in biotic and abiotic stress tolerance, including its influence on antioxidant activity, hormone signalling, osmotic balance, and the importance of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) as a signalling molecule that regulates how plants respond to drought, salinity, heat, heavy metals, and pathogen attack.

Source:

The article was originally published in Plant Signaling & Behavior.

Read the full article:https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2022.2030082

Disclaimer: This article is written in the author's own personal capacity and not an official document of ANRF. This is meant to be a simplified overview of ANRF and RDI. All official communication should be from GoI web pages and documents. Any errors / mis statements in this article or elsewhere in social media by this author are the author's alone. The author reserves the right to make any changes or withdraw any statements made. These should not be viewed as basis for current or future programs of ANRF (which are approved only by the ANRF Executive Council). Neither the author nor ANRF nor Govt of India will bear any liability for any impact directly/indirectly from any interpretation of what is written in this article.

Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) is a statutory body, presided by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, created by the ANRF Act 2023 as an apex organisation for research and innovation across all stakeholders (government, academia, industry/startups, labs, philanthropy, international etc). The organisation was notified in Feb 5, 2024, and the erstwhile Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) was dissolved.

ANRF aims to catalyze the rise of India as a Research, Development and Innovation powerhouse. The idea of a National Research Foundation (NRF) in India had its genesis in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, Chapter 17. National Education Policy 2020 envisions a comprehensive approach to transforming the quality and quantity of research in India. Research and innovation at education institutions in India, particularly those that are engaged in higher education, is critical. To build on these various elements in a synergistic manner, and to thereby truly grow and catalyze quality research in the nation, NEP 2020 envisions the establishment of a National Research Foundation (NRF).

The governance structure of ANRF is a Governing Board (GB) Presided by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, an Executive Council (EC) chaired by the Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) to the Govt of India, and the CEO who reports to the Executive Council. The Vice Presidents of the Governing Board are the Hon'ble Minister of Science and Technology and the Hon'ble Minister of Education. I am privileged to serve as the first full time CEO of ANRF, succeeding Prof. Abhay Karandikar who served as Interim CEO. DST is the administrative ministry for ANRF; but as a statutory body and apex organisation, ANRF serves stakeholders in all parts of the government in its focus areas. Secretaries/DGs of scientific departments, and selected ministries are members of the GB and EC.

What is ANRF Core ? What is RDI ? How are they Related?

Hon PM Narendra Modi ji on 3rd Nov 2025 announced the Rs. 1 lakh Crore RDI Scheme (https://lnkd.in/gGCvajBf ), anchored by DST and Operationalized via ANRF. Prof. Abhay Karandikar , Secretary DST, is the interim Executive Director of RDIF. DST has a RDI Cell, and a business unit called RDIF Business unit is being established in ANRF in close collaboration between the DST RDI Cell and ANRF teams. I would like to extend my congratulations and sincere thanks to DST and RDI cell for amazing work on RDI in record time. Key roles for hiring in the RDIF business unit will be announced shortly. Multiple outreach events (in Mumbai, Bangalore, Panchakula) have been held, and more is coming (Delhi, Hyderabad) as of Dec 7th, 2025. The deadline for the SLFM proposals is in January 2026.

The picture below illustrates the complementary relationship between ANRF Core (grants) agenda and RDI Fund (patient capital, non-grants) agenda.

ANRF Core focuses on grants-in-aid to the research entities of India: academia, national research laboratories (NRLs), section 8s linked to these entities (not-for-profit entities which are bridges to industry or other stakeholders), and registered DSIR-SIRO research organisations, hospitals etc. In some of our programs we support other research done by entities like Darpan-registered NGOs, startups, MSMEs etc. At the moment, due to ANRF's genesis in National Education Policy, we do not use our core budgets for the private sector grants.

Grants are used largely for academia, national research labs, section 8 and such entities (with some differences based upon programs) to de-risk and develop technologies at lower TRL levels (1-6). Broad based grant programs (eg: ARG, PMECRG) and mission mode grant programs (eg: MAHA EV, MedTech, 2D Materials, AI for Science/Engineering etc) fall in this category. ANRF directly is involved in entire program lifecycle (formulation, selection, monitoring, governance etc), assisted by external committees, etc.

The ANRF Act 2023 has an Innovation Fund structure, which along with co-funding from non-governmental entities (eg: philanthropy, CSR, family offices, diaspora, or corporate R&D) could be used to support a combination of industry, startups and academia/labs. In other words, the partnership beyond government is helpful beyond just expansion of budget, but also in supporting a wider variety of stakeholders, and driving greater productivity through collaboration and spillovers to the broader economy.

Therefore, ANRF invites the non-govt / private sector to partner holistically with us across the entire spectrum. Philanthropy / Foundations, Corporate CSR, R&D In Kind/Cash based engagements are examples of partnership on grants (ANRF Core) at scale which in turn forms a long-term pipeline for RDI (see below).

The Act also allows the creation of Special Purpose Funds (SPFs) for special purposes determined by GoI. One such ANRF SPF is the Research, Development, and Innovation (RDI) Fund of Rs. 1 lakh Crores.

RDI fund is aimed at the private sector, and TRL 4+ (translation & scaling). These are NOT grants (i.e. capital where the tax payer expects their money back). The capital may be patient (longer tenor), unsecured, loans/debt/equity or hybrid, and have differential cost of capital (IRR expectations, deferred coupons, some part convertible etc) compared to capital available today. The figure below gives an overview of the proposed overview of RDI Fund mechanism (and how it is distinct from the grant).

ANRF is a first level custodian (and NOT the decision maker on projects). So please do not approach ANRF directly with project proposals. ANRF is given the capital from Consolidated Fund of India via our Anchor Ministry DST, as a loan, specifically at 0% interest, 50 year tenor (note this does not mean end-projects get the money at these terms!).

ANRF Executive Council appoints second level fund managers (SLFMs) who in turn will design the appropriate financial instruments (debt, equity, hybrid etc) and allocate capital to eligible companies and projects. SLFMs can be AIFs, FROs, DFIs, NBFCs etc. In addition, corporate entities, GCCs may partner in the formation of AIFs (or SLFMs) as limited partners. Eligible entities must have management control by Resident Indians. Any conflict of interest must be made clear in applications.

Eligible entities may choose to apply on a project-basis to an appropriate SLFM. This RDI fund is NOT for routine R&D, and must be RDI-intensive R&D. These SLFMs (financial intermediaries) in turn make the capital allocation decisions to deploy this patient capital into specific RDI-intensive projects, companies passing on the patience and blended IRR into the real economy. There is a listing of Sectors and sub-sectors eligible for RDI on the website. These may be revised periodically by the ANRF Executive council, or by the Empowered Group of Secretaries (EGoS) chaired by the Cabinet Secretary

Note that RDI is NOT for academia, research labs etc. However, RDI will lead to a lot of indirect opportunities for technology translation, industry-academic collaboration and alumni engagement. RDI intensive (deep tech) startups spun out of academia will have more paths to market and funding via SLFMs. Further larger industry players, unicorns and MSMEs will look to academia / labs for deep tech technologies to license or partner on. They may also require ongoing backend partnerships for driving competitiveness in a world of RDI. This will drive demand for industry-academic collaboration. Academia/ labs and technology transfer offices (TTOs) should re-imagine their roles to drive greater levels of translation and engagement in a world of RDI. For students, researchers, RDI will mean more jobs in the private sector beyond the academic / labs sector. We also envision the needs for research visitorships and increased value of Professors of Practice in academia in a world of RDI.

A multiplier of between 3X to 10X+ is expected as the fund capital is invested into the real economy across sectors. At a median of Rs. 4-5 lakh crore, RDI combined w/ the grant investments of ANRF itself will drive a direct increment of 0.25% of GDP and catalyze a virtuous cycle of private R&D investments which could be much larger over time. As investments pay off, and the proceeds and gains will be re-cycled into catalyzing further R&D investments.

For more details on RDI (Rs 1 lakh Crore Fund): https://lnkd.in/gGCvajBf

• Brochure: https://lnkd.in/giKSvjbR
• Subsectors: https://lnkd.in/gVf2yyQu
• Implementation Guidelines: https://lnkd.in/gdjniKNm
• Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) for SLFMs: https://lnkd.in/gDqWefDU
• More details on RDI, Please Contact: https://rdifund.anrf.gov.in/contact.html
• Please also see Prof. Abhay's posts: here and here

ANRF Core Grants Strategy

ANRF core lays the TRL 1-4 foundation for basic & fundamental research; and TRL 2-6 acceleration of applied research as a feeder into the larger RDI pipeline. ANRF targets this by a combination of a "horizontal" and "vertical" strategy outlined below.

By "horizontal" we mean broad based research, smaller projects (larger number of awards), individual fellowships, where we don't tell investigators what to do, and instead evaluate their bottom-up ideas via expert committees. ANRF also supports humanities and social sciences (including management sciences & policy studies) at the interface of science & technology. A good analogy for this is how the National Science Foundation (NSF) drives broad based basic research investments in the USA.

There has been some trepidation whether ANRF will only focus on translational research. On the contrary, we are increasing our investments in basic and fundamental research. Only that we are asking researchers to be bolder, ambitious and where appropriate, consider interdisciplinary collaboration and small teams for greater impact. Impact beyond publications is also an important aspect, which means that the researchers should do more to drive deeper dissemination of their work artifacts, creation of data sets, open software/IP as appropriate, collaborate with technology transition specialists. Retaining specialization in their core areas, while catalyzing deeper diffusion of research outcomes should be viewed more positively as normal course of expectations consistent with larger investments by society into the research enterprise. Einsteins do not have to transform into Elon Musks -- they may remain Einsteins or Elon Musks, but only communicate with each other.

ANRF will also be driving greater emphasis on research capacity development across the country, sharing of infrastructure, and research visits to other collaborators / industry. Many steps are being taken to drive up ease of doing science, including support for international travel as standard, flexibility in recurring budget in individual-centric programs, simplified procurement policies with institution head approval, and the establishment of administrative nodal officers in every institution with corresponding linkages to ANRF nodal officers to move the administrative burdens away from scientific principal investigators.

A significant feature of ANRF is also its role in catalyzing earlier stage involvement of non-governmental partners across ANRF programs. All ANRF programs are open for co-funding (initially at a higher clip level top-down) by non-governmental sources. Industry & GCC may also collaborate with ANRF in other compelling ways, and in bottom-up manner as part of academic-led consortia in ANRF programs. This will also give a strong pipeline for RDI competitiveness for industry.

Vertical programs are more targeted programs, either driven by sectors / ecosystems / value chains to be accelerated, indigenous technology capability accumulation in critical sectors, or driven by technological innovation for societal problems. ANRF takes a "DARPA" style focussed approach to these, but appropriately tailored for each target sector. These programs are typically cross-disciplinary, cross-ministerial and ideally will also involve partnership with non-governmental partners (eg: foundations, companies etc), and involve collaborative teams / consortia involvement with some co-funding expected. These projects are monitored/managed more intensely, and governed towards impact, albeit with more mentoring, and ecosystem linkages explicitly engineered via support of project management units. ANRF is developing deeper institutional capabilities on program governance across all its programs.

The picture below gives some candidate programs either launched or contemplated. Note that the specific approach or even the possibility of launching any specific program is dependent upon whether co-funding partners emerge from within government or from non-governmental sources. An example is the ANRF MAHA MedTech program which is created by the partnership of ANRF, Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and Gates Foundation as anchor partners. Later the Wadhwani Foundation has also expressed interest in supporting some of the projects. Similarly, the ANRF MAHA AI for Science & Engineering program involves partnership with MEITY, DRDO, Ministry of Earth Sciences, DBT and non-governmental partners including the Gates Foundation, Sarvam.ai and BharatGen. We have interest from multiple other partners interested in contributing to ANRF programs.

ANRF is rapidly establishing such "All of Government" and "All of Society" partnerships, and invites holistic thinking by non-governmental partners, including industry, international partners and contribute to current and future ANRF Programs. My doors are open for such conversations and partnerships.

Another major class of "vertical" or focussed programs is the PAIR program, which is a hub-and-spoke approach to research capacity development and upliftment of aspiring institutions (including a large fraction of state universities) with hubs as top institutions. In the initial iteration, we have supported seven such networks including 45 spoke institutions. This is a more intensive and active capacity development driving collaboration, and with significant incentives for all parties. A map of institutions and the hub/spoke pattern is outlined in the pictures below. We will be complimenting these with PM Professorships in spoke institutions to drive mentoring and institutional development, research capacity development workshops, and technology platforms for driving collaboration, simplification / democratizing of research content for a broader set of institutions. There are also other initiatives such as One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) to help drive availability of research publications easily available for a large number of public institutions; and discussions are underway to enhance the coverage of this program in Phase 2.

Putting it together, we may consider the grant programs strategically as helping build a "Acropolis" style building depicted below. The ANRF Horizontal programs drive science excellence, capacity building and the interface of S&T with Social Sciences and Humanities. The vertical programs are like pillars driving focus in key areas important for the economy, society, industry-academic collaboration and uplifting of the S&T research ecosystem. Finally at the top we have some selected "Apex" activities ANRF performs to drive cross stakeholder visibility, collaboration, reducing frictions, sharing best practices for collaboration.

One example of this is the SARAL AI open source project ANRF is mentoring and closely collaborating with that helps democratize, demystify and diffuse knowledge at scale across language boundaries, and converting complex primary research into "SARALified" (simplified/demystified) secondary content in different forms (videos, Reels, podcasts, presentations, posters etc) automatically via AI in 19 different languages.

This is a first step and an inkling of many more interesting things to come using AI for the good of our research and innovation ecosystem. Finally, ANRF has been doing proof of concept of different types of non-governmental partnerships top down at scale. We have established early partnerships with Gates Foundation and Wadhwani Foundation, and have further linked these to co-investment by government partners (different departments such as DST, DBT, MEITY, MoES, DRDO, ICMR, Ministry of Mines etc). We welcome partners to co-invest (and leverage the investment of ANRF) in our grant programs.

All of ANRF programs - horizontal and vertical - will be open for co-investments, and we value the totality of what our partners bring to the table. We also have simple but consistent IP policies (IP is owned / titled by our grantees similar to Bayh-Dole approach in the USA, but grantees may make commercialization arrangements with their partners). In some areas (eg: our AI for Science & Engineering program) we have gone for a ANRF Open License model (building off a MIT license) to encourage the creation of public goods and rapid ecosystem development.

We welcome conversations with partners interested in co-investing in the foundation of Research and Innovation in India to reach out to us. We do deals quickly. Also this forms an important pipeline for RDI which allows more private sector participation at the second and third levels as discussed earlier.

ANRF is rapidly establishing such "All of Government" and "All of Society" partnerships, and invites holistic thinking by non-governmental partners, including industry, international partners and contribute to current and future ANRF Programs. My doors are open for such conversations and partnerships.

How Can an Organisation or a Person Engage w/ ANRF ?

Ministry / Department or State Government: We welcome partnerships (with financial co-funding contributions) in any of our programs. Most of our MAHA mission mode programs are launched with anchor partners with one or more ministries/departments who are contributing to the outlay as well (eg: MedTech with ICMR, 2D Materials with MEITY, AI for S&E with MEITY, DRDO, MoES, DBT, CRM with Ministry of Mines, and Drones with MEITY, ICMR). If your department / ministry would like to partner with ANRF and leverage our investment in your sector using R&D, please reach out to me via your Secretary rank officer. Beyond central government, we would welcome state governments who would like to align some of their investments with our GoI central govt investments (eg: in PAIR program supporting many state universities or our mission mode programs in various sectors etc). I would request the Principal Secretary of the State Govt to please reach out to me.

Foundation / Philanthropy / CSR / Family Offices: We welcome partnerships with Foundations. As per our ANRF Act 2023ANRF welcomes contributions to ANRF programs (either current or future). As mentioned in the figure above, ANRF designs, operates programs (horizontal, vertical, or in rare cases, catalytic programs) as approved by ANRF Executive Council in national interest. We welcome ideas for new programs that we can co-design with specific partners (at scale). Partners may partner with ANRF and they have capital allocation flexibility on which programs / projects / fellowships they can contribute to. We will be adding more ways for smaller contributions. Currently we are doing larger partnerships such as what we have done with Gates Foundation, Wadhwani Foundation. You may also bottom up partner with individual grantees or consortia which bid for ANRF programs (note that in this case, ANRF is not directly involved). We also welcome collaborative philanthropy where a credible entity serves as an aggregator of individuals, family offices, company CSR or foundations. If a credible counterparty emerges, ANRF will be open to partnering (and the contributions will get leverage because of the investments ANRF & GoI are making in specific sectors or programs).

Startup / MSME: Please await the formation of RDI SLFMs (second level fund managers). This will lead to a lot of financial intermediaries and capital of different forms (soft loans, vanilla loans, OCDs, equity etc). We expect startups to be big beneficiaries of the RDI fund and its multiplier effect in capital formation. On grants, please partner with any of academia / national labs / section 8 entities appropriately in proposals to ANRF. While we may (on the short term) not be able to send grant money to these entities (till we raise more capital), most of our MAHA mission mode programs welcome partnerships. In our AI for Science & Engineering program we also have an ANRF Open License (based upon MIT license).

Industry (larger) / GCCs / Industry Associations : Please await the formation of RDI SLFMs (second level fund managers). This will lead to a lot of financial intermediaries and capital of different forms (soft loans, vanilla loans, OCDs, equity etc). Industry / GCCs could also be limited partners in SLFMs, but with conflict of interest clearly declared. Our grant programs do not currently send money to industry with rare exceptions like MAHA MedTech programs. In the future we may consider ANRF special purpose funds in partnership with specific ministries (or individual ministries may run programs directly). Please also participate in consortiums led by academia / national research labs / section 8s. National research labs will be increasingly be doing more co-development and other PPP models which ANRF may choose to catalyze. For competitiveness in RDI, you are strongly encouraged to partner with academia, labs, section 8s in the backend. If you want major new MAHA mission mode programs, please come and partner top-down with ANRF (either directly or a consortium or with an appropriate industry association.

Scientists / Professors / Industry Folks / Administrators interested in ANRF positions and contributing for a fixed term or long term: ANRF is hiring at different levels:

• Scientist C, D ... and deputation for Scientist G; and administrative positions: More details here. And advertisements here and here
• Experts at various levels ... 2-3 year appointments in ANRF. More details here.

Committed Volunteering: We are considering a model for committed volunteers (real commitment, no pay, not a formal appointment). If you are interested, please contact Atul Batra and/or Amol Khire who are helping me organize this.

Connect with ANRF: ANRF is now on many social media platforms and quite active. We will be expanding soon to Whatsapp and Arattai. In the meantime, please follow / subscribe to ANRF in these channels. We also have channels specific for individual programs in Linkedin. Join / connect with ANRF on these social media:

• 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗜𝗻: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anrfindia/
• (𝗧𝘄𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿): https://x.com/ANRFIndia
• 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸: https://lnkd.in/gkBtnbMK
• 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗧𝘂𝗯𝗲: https://lnkd.in/gWYijzek
• 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺: https://lnkd.in/gXK_-WP3
• Use hashtag #ANRFIndia for tagging.

When the morning mist lifts over the hills of the Santhal Pargana region of Jharkhand, the forests begin to breathe in slow rhythm — Sal leaves whispering stories of roots, soil, and forgotten songs. I often begin my day there, notebook damp with dew, listening not for words but for the language of the land. In these uplands of Jharkhand, science is not just an academic pursuit; it is a dialogue between people, plants, and the spirits of the earth.

My research began as part of a biodiversity mapping study, exploring the geo-ecological zones across Kathi Kund, Barapaghar, Danro (Dumka, Jharkhand), and Sundar Pahari (Godda, Jharkhand )— landscapes where tribal communities have lived for centuries, weaving their survival with forest wisdom. Every hill here holds a memory. I met elders who could read the forest like a book; predicting rain from the flight of herons, naming each medicinal root with reverence, and teaching me that knowledge grows best in humility.

I documented species from edible wild leaves to medicinal tubers, carefully collecting samples, labeling them with field notes, and tracing their ecological patterns with tools like QGIS (Quantum Geographic Information System) which is an open-source software widely used in ecological and biodiversity studies to map species distribution, analyse elevation and vegetation data, and visualise spatial patterns in the field and Google Earth Pro which helps visualise landscapes in 3D, measure altitude and slope, mark GPS locations, and track changes in forest cover or land use over time. Yet, beyond data and coordinates, what I found most powerful was the relationship between humans and the forest; a rhythm of coexistence slowly fading in modern noise. This work was not just research; it was a rediscovery of how communities become custodians of biodiversity when they see the forest as kin rather than a resource.

Attending the 9th International Congress on Zoology and Technology (ICZAT 2025) in Ankara, Turkey, though happened virtually, was an experience that quietly shifted my understanding of where my work stands in the wider world. Researchers from Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East spoke about large protected reserves, automated monitoring systems, and datasets built over decades. In that room, my work originated from a very different place: from hills where scientific documentation is still in its infancy, where biodiversity thrives not behind research fences but within the memories, practices, and rhythms of tribal communities.

Several participants told me it was the first time they had seen a systematic biodiversity gradient study from the uplands of Jharkhand.

One senior ecologist said during a conversation, “Regions like yours are the missing pages of India’s ecological atlas”. That line stayed with me. It reminded me that field notes, local names, hand-written labels, and quiet hours spent listening to forests can also contribute to science in a way that large datasets sometimes cannot.

Presenting my work at ICZAT made me realise something essential — that Eastern India holds ecological knowledge the world has not yet fully looked at. The landscapes of Kathi Kund, Sundar Pahari, Rajmahal Hills, and Rajapathar may not often appear in scientific meetings, but the stories they carry are no less important.

And sometimes, the most meaningful insights come not from big laboratories, but from hills where people have been reading the forest long before the word “biodiversity” existed.

(1) As a young field researcher working in the tribal uplands of Eastern India, my work is shaped not by laboratories alone but by landscapes, elders’ knowledge, and long walks across hills that raised me.

(2) My understanding of these forests has grown slowly over the years—visiting the same hills through monsoon, winter, and summer, watching how colours, silences, and species shift with every season.

(3) My documentation process spans field notebooks, labelled specimens, GPS-tagged photographs, geospatial layers on QGIS, and small ethnobotanical conversations with local communities—each adding a different layer to the truth of these forests.

(4) If these notes help bring Santhal Pargana’s forests into larger ecological conversations, then the voices of these hills will travel farther than I ever could.

I carried the echo of these hills with me. Each photo, each specimen label, carries the essence of Santhal Pargana, the pulse of a living landscape that still remembers its people. The journey continues, not just as a researcher, but as someone learning to listen to forests again.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”

- Albert Einstein

In late 2024, when eLife announced it would publish every manuscript passing editorial checks as a “reviewed preprint”, it rattled the academic world. For the first time, a major biomedical journal decided that the hidden back-and-forth of peer review should be visible to everyone. Reviews, author responses, and editorial notes would now be accessible to the entire community.

The move unsettled many. Could careers survive without an accept/reject stamp of approval? Clarivate quickly stripped eLife of its Impact Factor (IF), arguing that the new model no longer met the criteria for the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Yet the journal stood firm, insisting that trust in science depends on openness, not secrecy, and challenging the value of a metric that has long dominated how research is judged.

This clash highlights a deeper question: how should we evaluate scientific work, and how can researchers earn the trust of the societies they serve?

The black box of peer review

At the heart of scientific publishing lies peer review. Experts, mostly anonymous, evaluate the merit and fit of a scientific work to decide whether the paper deserves to be published. Their verdict can shape careers, influence funding, and determine which problems attract attention. Yet this crucial process is hidden from view.

While anonymity shields reviewers from backlash, it conceals bias and systemic problems. Studies have documented disadvantages for women, younger researchers, and those outside elite institutions. Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, warned that peer review is “biased against the provincial and those from low and middle-income countries”. For many, rejection feels less like evaluation and more like exclusion.

At its best, peer review sharpens ideas. At its worst, it reinforces hierarchies and leaves those outside the system wondering whether the game is rigged.

The weight of IF

If peer review is the black box, IF of scientific journals has become the shortcut. Created in the 1970s to help librarians choose subscriptions, it measures the average number of citations articles in a journal receive in two years. Originally a practical tool, , it has since ballooned into an all-purpose proxy for scientific quality. A high IF often counts for more than the science itself. Universities use it to evaluate job applicants. Funders use it as a shortcut to gauge quality. This has distorted incentives. Researchers chase “high impact” journals, often sidelining replication studies, negative results, and research on urgent local challenges.

As critics note in the Leiden Manifesto, journal-level metrics are a poor substitute for evaluating individual contributions. Yet despite repeated calls for change, the grip of IF is still strong.

While the Impact Factor dominates how research is evaluated, it reveals little about the quality or fairness of the review process itself.

Opening the doors

Open peer review emerged as an attempt to fix these flaws. In this model, reviews, author responses, and editorial decisions are public. Readers see not only the polished paper but the debate that shaped it. By making the evaluation transparent, this model allows readers and committees to assess the research on its merits rather than relying solely on the journal’s prestige. Transparency in peer review thus complements broader efforts to move beyond metrics and rebuild trust in science.

Advocates argue this improves accountability, documents the evolution of ideas, and teaches young scientists how critique strengthens research. Organisations like ASAPbio are pushing this further by encouraging review of preprints, even before journals are involved.
Yet adoption has been limited. Many reviewers fear backlash, conflicts of interest, or a lack of protection if their names are attached to strong critiques. A flexible approach may offer a middle ground. At eLife, for example, the arguments are made public, but anonymity is preserved for those who want it. Reviewers can choose to sign their comments, but the decision rests with the individual. This balance allows openness without forcing exposure.

The first time I read an open exchange between authors and reviewers, I was struck by how much it revealed- the probing questions, the pushback, and the way a paper evolved through dialogue.

Making this process visible does not solve every flaw, but it reflects science as it truly unfolds: through debate, revision, and disagreement.

India’s bottleneck

In India, the weight of the Impact Factor is especially heavy. Hiring committees often begin by scanning CVs for “high-impact” publications. Subhash Chandra Lakhotia, a senior zoologist, has put it bluntly: “Impact factor can never be an effective tool in distinguishing good research from bad”.

When I considered sending my first PhD paper to an open review journal, peers warned me against it. Their concern was not about the model itself but about how committees would interpret my CV.

A strong paper in a journal without IF, they argued, might count for little. This hesitation is widespread, and it explains why experiments like eLife’s polarise opinion. Openness attracts support, but existing incentives keep many from embracing it.

Beyond numbers

Numbers are easy to count, but they cannot capture the value of research. The dominance of IF might have narrowed definitions of quality and skewed incentives. Trust in science will not be rebuilt by clinging to metrics, it will come from shifting attention back to substance: the reasoning, critique, and debate that shape science.

Open peer review cannot solve every problem, but it represents a step in that direction. What matters is not whether reviewers reveal their names, but that their arguments are visible. Debate must be public; identity can remain optional.

From journals to society

While this may appear to be an insider squabble within academia, it shapes the science society gets. Public trust in science has never been more contested. From COVID-19 vaccines, where people questioned trial speed, to climate change where consensus collides with politicised denial, public debates hinge on whether the scientific process is fair. The controversies extend to GM crops and drug safety as well. Each dispute reflects anxieties about rigour and transparency.

In other words, how science is judged within academia directly shapes the science society benefits from. When careers are tied to IF, researchers tend to chase “hot” topics over urgent local ones. A young scientist in India might avoid studying soil fertility or air pollution, even though these problems affect millions. A study on dengue vaccine may lose out to CRISPR research, even if the former saves more lives locally. These vital studies rarely attract “high impact” journals, which prefer global trends. Thus, if open peer review gains acceptance, committees could look beyond journal labels and judge the importance and merit of the science itself, but only if willing to invest the time.

What needs to change

For openness to make a difference, institutions must act:

• Hiring committees should move beyond IF-based filters and engage directly with the science.

• Funders can create incentives by recognising preprints and transparent reviews.

• Universities could train PhD students in both giving and receiving peer review, helping them see critique as part of learning rather than gatekeeping.

• Researchers must also take the risk of publishing in open-review platforms, signalling that they value transparency over branding.

However, one critical challenge that shadows this transition is the cost of openness. Many open-access or open-review journals require authors to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs), which can be prohibitively expensive, especially for researchers in low- and middle-income countries. While these fees sustain open publishing infrastructures, they risk reinforcing existing inequities, those who can afford to publish are heard, while others remain excluded. For openness to truly democratise science, equitable funding models or institutional support for APCs are essential.

The transition will not be quick. For young researchers like me, choosing openness can feel like a gamble: career safety versus a belief in transparency. But the risk is worth it. If science is to serve society, then society deserves to see not just the answers but the debates that built them.

A quiet conversation between microbes and neurons

When we picture pregnancy, we usually think of genetics, hormones, and the mother’s diet. However, recent research points to another surprising player: the bacteria living in a mother’s body.

Pregnancy is now seen as a critical window when a mother’s gut bacteria can shape their baby’s brain. Laboratory studies in mice show that pregnant females without a normal gut microbiome gave birth to offspring with altered brain genes, fewer immune cells, and weaker nerve connections. But when mothers were given back key bacterial products, brain development was restored. Similarly, adding a single probiotic strain (Bifidobacterium breve) boosted nutrient flow and brain growth signals in mouse fetuses.

So how does this work? These animal findings (1, 2) highlight likely mechanisms. Some bacterial products, especially short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), cross the placenta and help calm inflammation, creating a safer immune environment for the developing brain.

Others, made from amino acids like tryptophan, may travel in the blood and act directly on neurons or brain immune cells. In mice, together, these signals seem to boost the growth of thalamocortical axons (nerve fibers critical for sensory processing).

However, much remains speculative in humans. To date, no one has credibly found live gut bacteria in the womb; most experts think microbes do not colonise the fetus until birth. Instead, maternal microbes likely “signal” through their metabolic byproducts. Human research so far is largely observational. An Australian study found that higher diversity of gut bacteria in third-trimester mothers, especially a high abundance of fibre-fermenting families like Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae, predicted fewer anxiety/depression symptoms (internalising behaviours) in their 2-year-old children. In other words, moms with more “healthy” gut flora had toddlers with better emotional outcomes. But this was an association and does not prove cause-and-effect. Other cohort studies (1,2,3) suggest that a fiber-rich diet during pregnancy may support better child behaviour. Still, no clinical trials have tested probiotics or prebiotics in pregnant women to track brain outcomes in children.

Why this matters for India

India’s context is unique. Our diets are high in plant fibers and fermented foods, factors that shape the gut microbiome in characteristic ways. Nationwide studies (like LogMPIE) show that Indian adults tend to have Prevotella-rich gut communities, reflecting high-fiber diets, and many regional fermented foods boost Lactobacillus and SCFA production. These dietary patterns may favour microbes that generate metabolites beneficial to the fetus. On the other hand, India also faces a heavy neurodevelopmental and mental health burden: roughly one in eight Indian children (ages 2–9) has at least one diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) such as intellectual disability, autism, epilepsy, or hearing loss. Nationwide surveys also find that about 10–15% of the general population suffers from significant mental health issues.

Urban and westernised diets with more fat and sugar shift the gut community towards Bacteroides and reduce microbial diversity. Uneven sanitation and usage of antibiotics further shape microbiota composition. In rural areas, children are often exposed to diverse environmental microbes but may suffer recurrent infections and undernutrition, while urban mothers experience “hygienic” lifestyles, processed foods, and high antibiotic exposure. Could differences in maternal microbiomes across diets, regions, and lifestyles partly explain this?

Where research can go next

Key research opportunities in India include building on existing pregnancy cohorts (e.g., the DBT-supported GARBH-INi cohort) by adding gut microbiome and blood metabolite measurements during pregnancy and linking these data to newborn and infant brain outcomes. DRISHTI's new data platform aims to integrate imaging, nutrition, and environmental data with clinical records. Yet microbiome sampling has so far been limited. Adding modules to collect maternal stool, vaginal swabs, and breast milk, alongside detailed dietary and antibiotic use information, could open the door to addressing questions raised by the mouse studies. Blood samples from the mother in mid- and late pregnancy could be analysed (metabolomics) and matched with fetal ultrasound (brain growth) and later child developmental assessments. Such longitudinal and multi-site cohorts, ideally spanning India’s diverse regions and diets, could clarify whether specific maternal microbes or metabolites predict infant cognitive milestones or risk of NDDs. Parallel animal or cell studies could test causality, e.g., pregnant mice given Indian-style high-fiber diets or traditional probiotics (from curd, idli, etc.) to see if fetal brain wiring improves.

Moving from microbes to interventions

If microbes do shape brain development, could we harness them? Trials might test whether probiotic supplements, high-fiber diets, or even traditional fermented foods in pregnancy improve infant brain health. More complex approaches like Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) are being explored abroad, but in India, simpler, culturally familiar strategies may hold more promise.

Policy and the bigger picture

Several Indian infrastructures can be leveraged. The GARBH-INi/DRISHTI birth cohort already follows thousands of mothers with detailed clinical and biosample data. It could be straightforward and high-yielding to add a “microbiome module” to it, sequencing mothers’ gut microbiota, metaproteomics, and measuring metabolites. Other long-term studies could similarly incorporate gut-brain parameters. Nationwide health surveys (ICMR’s Non-communicable diseases or Maternal health projects) might add questions on diet and collect stool from subsamples. The recently launched “OneHealth” and digital health initiatives could include microbiome data in their research agendas.

Importantly, India’s funding agencies are already seeding this field. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has financed extensive microbiome surveys (e.g., the Pune Microbiome project) and established centres focused on microbiome science. ICMR has prioritised neurodevelopment and mental health (e.g., autism, ADHD) in its national programs and could easily encourage microbiome components in these studies. The National Mental Health Survey (ICMR 2015–16) highlighted India’s 10–14% mental illness prevalence; adding microbiome-metabolome arms to future waves would be timely.

The “maternal microbiome-fetal brain” axis is a frontier of science with tremendous promise for India. By integrating gut flora and metabolite data into our pregnancy research, and by piloting culturally tailored dietary or probiotic interventions, Indian researchers can uncover locally relevant insights. Such work could lead to novel public-health strategies, national guidelines on fiber-rich diets in pregnancy, or probiotic supplements for expectant mothers that reduce the country’s NDD and mental-health burden.

The best advice remains for now: nourish yourself well, follow medical guidance, and trust that your body and its resident microbes are working together to build your child’s brain.

Welcome to an era of healthcare powered by microfluidics.

Microfluidics may sound complex, but it simply involves manipulation of tiny volumes of fluid, measured in microlitres or nanolitres, within well-designed chips. It also finds many applications in various sectors of healthcare.

Advancements in designing and developing microfluidics devices have made it a reality to miniaturise conventional laboratories into an efficient and cost-effective microchannel tool. These devices function with a drop of blood, urine, or saliva and can be used for the diagnosis of multiple tests, within minutes, on the chips. These chips are usually etched or printed on materials like paper, glass or plastic, and control the transport of fluids to various compartments that are specific to the analyte to be tested (Kumar et. al, Songok et. al, Nielsen et.al, Smith et. al).

They eliminate the need for expensive and huge machinery and laboratories, and at times, the requirement of skilled personnel. It is rapid, portable, affordable, accessible, and precise. These devices are a combination of smart engineering with a dash of innovation.

Why should India care about microfluidics?

The Indian healthcare industry is valued at $ 98.98 billion in 2023 and is estimated to reach $193.59 billion by 2032. Although the healthcare system of the country is improving, it still remains under massive pressure due to the large rural population with limited access to diagnostic labs, long distances of travel, shortage of trained technicians, and overburdened urban hospital staff. Microfluidics becomes a game-changer for this scenario. A community health worker could simply carry a pocket-sized device to the rural areas and diagnose health issues such as tuberculosis (TB), dengue, malaria, and diabetes, right there, without the need to transport the samples to far-off labs.

Yes, this is the future that is already under trial at certain locations.

The quiet revolution of microfluidics is already underway in numerous laboratories, startups and universities across the country. Diagnosis of health issues such as TB, dengue, and malaria is being performed using microfluidics. Startups present portable tests that can deliver faster results without depending on heavy infrastructure. Rapid diagnostic test kits are also being developed for maternal and child health conditions like anaemia, gestational diabetes, and infections during pregnancy. These devices aid frontline health providers in screening women in a fast and safe manner in low-resource settings. Microfluidics also enables addressing the growing concern of lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular health, and thyroid disorders in the country. The majority of these health issues require continuous monitoring rather than a one-time test. Microfluidic devices enable continuous and low-cost monitoring at home or local health clinics and reduce the load on hospitals.

Numerous institutions and research laboratories have been working on the development of such innovative solutions. The recent award to Suman Chakraborty, Director, IIT, Kharagpur for developing affordable medical diagnostics is a testament to India’s homegrown innovators. A few homegrown innovators, such as Mylabs Discovery Solutions, Achira Labs, Module Innovations, SigTuple, and OmiX Labs are revolutionising the healthcare industry. Innovators are developing affordable microfluidics-based diagnostics for hormone levels, infections, and chronic conditions. Startups are also integrating AI for automating sample analysis in order to reduce dependency on skilled personnel. These key players are not just enabling the country to catch up, but rather leading in frugal and scalable healthcare solutions.

Few commercially available solutions. (COVID Self RAT, Malaria test kit)

Why now? Why are the researchers so focused now on microfluidics?

One of the major drivers behind this is the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic increased the demand for rapid, portable testing and microfluidics fit right into it.

The other factors driving this era are the growth of India’s startup ecosystem for biotech entrepreneurship, academic innovations in premier institutions like IITs, IISc, IISERs, CSIRs and NITs, that propel the research and aid incubating student-led innovations. The Indian government has also been extending numerous initiatives such as Make in India, BIRAC, and Startup India, funding as well as policy support, in order to promote such innovations.

In the journey of revolutionising healthcare with microfluidics, there have been innumerable challenges. Some have been addressed, whereas others still have a long way to go. Even though these solutions are cheaper than the laboratory tests per use, the development and manufacturing of these devices at a large scale still remains costly for the Indian market. Not all materials, prototyping tools and skilled personnel are readily available domestically. Another major challenge lies with the regulatory approval process from authorities. The process is time-consuming, complex, and at times exhaustive. Quite a number of innovators end up struggling to move ahead from this stage. Another factor to account for is that the device is only as good as the user. The Indian healthcare system needs training modules for frontline workers to enable them to use and trust microfluidic tests. And in order for these tests to reach the rural and low-resource settings, devices require local manufacture, reliable distribution and easy maintenance, all of which are still a work in progress.

RDT (Rapid Diagnostics Test) tests are used in healthcare facilities for COVID, a post COVID effect, for faster diagnostics. (COVID antigen rapid test)

So, what’s the opportunity?

Despite these challenges, the potential of microfluidics in healthcare still remains massive. India has the patient volume, disease diversity and talent pool in order to benefit from this technology and lead its development on a global stage. This potential would enable an Asha (Accredited Social Health Activist) worker to perform their primary roles in their communities, such as raising awareness about health issues, facilitating access to health services such as maternal and child care, and mobilizing the community for improved health outcomes. These trained female community health activists in India may use these devices to diagnose malaria on the spot, enable a school health checkup to screen for health issues instantly and help patients monitor their health issues at home. For India to truly harness the power of microfluidics, academia needs to facilitate interdisciplinary education across fields. A new curriculum should be designed that merges biology, engineering, design, and entrepreneurship for university-level courses. There is also a need for increased funding support in terms of grants and seed money for healthcare innovations. Startups also require support for connections to suitable government healthcare systems for increased field trials. Domestic production of the components for the development of such devices needs to be highly incentivised. Researchers should be encouraged to share designs, results, and best practices for collaborative facilitation of microfluidic healthcare innovations.

One must understand that microfluidics is not a replacement for healthcare providers or institutions. It is a revolution to bring the diagnostics closer to the common population, and the ones that need them the most, especially in remote and low-resource settings, such as villages, slums, small towns, as well as crowded clinics. This revolution is quiet, yet already on the way. The next huge leap for Indian public health might not be from a massive hospital chain or a fancier global deal. It would be from a tiny chip, powered by homegrown science, and delivered by a local health worker, to save lives. One test at a time.

During my bachelor's, I had the opportunity to act in a play. Those theatre days were some of the most alive moments of my life.

My mentors would often say, “Leave yourself behind the curtain and breathe life into your character.” Theatre was more than performance; it deeply shaped my connections with people and emotions.

Later, when I began exploring neuroscience, I discovered how our brains are constantly shaped by experience, connection, and environment. That was when I understood why acting had such a profound impact on me. In this article, I want to share how theatre doesn’t just move us emotionally, it changes us neurologically.

What happens in the brain when we act?

When an actor steps onto the stage, they don’t just imitate a character; they inhabit it. Their own identity begins to blur as they feel what the character feels, live where they lived, and experience their world fully. As this transformation unfolds, the audience also begins to connect—silently, deeply.

But what exactly is happening here? How does this shared space, this dim, enclosed theatre, spark such intense understanding between strangers? And what does neuroscience tell us about this exchange between actor, character, and audience?

How does our brain grasp what an actor is portraying?

We often feel a lump in our throat during a heartbreaking scene on stage or laugh until our stomachs ache during a well-timed comedic performance. Our brains possess an incredible system that allows us to resonate with such experiences—it’s called the mirror neuron system.

A study by Rizzolatti &Craighero (2004) revealed that mirror neurons play a crucial role in understanding others' emotions and intentions. It’s the same mechanism that allows us to feel connected while watching a play or reading a novel; we’re not just observing, we’re internally mirroring what the characters feel. These neurons were first discovered in macaque monkeys, where researchers noticed that specific neurons in the premotor cortex were activated both when the monkeys performed an action and when they watched someone else perform it. In humans, similar brain regions - like the inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule get activated when we observe or perform an action, helping us simulate and understand others’ behaviour from within.

Keysers & Gazzola (2010) expanded our understanding of the mirror neuron system, showing that it is spread across several brain areas and supports a wide range of social abilities. Interestingly, they observed that some mirror neurons reduce their activity when we observe others, a feature that helps us distinguish between our actions and those of others, preventing us from simply copying what we see.

In theatre, this becomes especially clear: actors can embody the emotions and experiences of a character while still retaining their sense of self. Similarly, audiences connect with the characters on stage, while remaining aware that they are witnessing a performance.

Parakaya pravesha: Becoming the role

In Kannada and Indian philosophy, parakaya pravesha refers to the act of fully entering another’s being—a phrase that perfectly captures what happens when an actor becomes their character. It marks a moment of deep immersion where the boundaries between the self and the role begin to blur.

When an actor reads a script, practises dialogue, sings, or moves to bring a role to life, the brain actively supports the transformation. How? Our sensorimotor systems enable us to simulate the emotions and actions of others—an ability originally evolved to help us understand our own experiences. Gallese (2009) suggested that this simulation helps us access others’ mental states, allowing for empathy and deeper understanding.

More recently, Singh (2024) proposed that the sense of self is not fixed in the mind but shaped by how the body interacts with the world. This is evident in acting. As actors step into a role, they go beyond memorised lines. They embody the character, through posture, eye contact, gestures, and voice, adapting even to light and space. This process, known as embodied simulation, is how we momentarily see one person become another.

What changes in the brain during theatre?

So far, we have explored how our brain responds to drama. But what exactly changes inside the brain when we’re involved in theatre arts, whether watching or performing? A study by Brown et al. (2019) using fMRI revealed that emotionally engaging performances activate several brain regions, including the amygdala (for emotional processing), the precuneus (linked to self-reflection), and the temporo-parietal junction (involved in empathy and perspective-taking). Even motor areas, the governing voice, facial expression, and movement, come alive during a performance.

Theatre rewires the plastic brain

These neural responses aren’t just momentary flickers. They can lead to longer-lasting changes in how the brain is wired—a phenomenon known as neuroplasticity—repeatedly engaging in dramatic expression or emotionally rich storytelling can strengthen these brain circuits. For actors, embodying different characters and shifting between emotional states enhances their ability to empathise and regulate their own emotions. For audiences, regular exposure to performances deepens perspective-taking and emotional insight. Theatre, in this sense, becomes more than a creative outlet; it becomes an exercise for the social brain.

Drama therapy in mental health care

In mood disorders like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and ADHD, the ability to think, express emotions, or relate to others often becomes disrupted. A review by Jiang et al. (2023) highlights how drama therapy through role play, symbolic acting, and emotional expression can support emotional regulation, strengthen the sense of self, and enhance coping skills. Despite the promise shown by such interventions, there is limited research or clinical implementation of drama-based therapies in India. This is surprising, given that India is culturally rich in storytelling, theatre, and performative traditions. Drama is both accessible and familiar in the Indian context, yet it remains underutilised as a therapeutic tool.

With the growing burden of mental health disorders, integrating drama as a form of expressive therapy could offer a culturally resonant and emotionally empowering pathway to healing.

What drama teaches us about ourselves

Despite decades of research and countless perspectives, the brain remains the most complex organ in the human body—especially when it comes to understanding mental health. Human emotions are intricate and paradoxical: we sometimes laugh through pain and shed tears in moments of joy. This complexity calls for deeper, interdisciplinary exploration and greater collaboration. Neuroscience brings us closer to understanding who we are, and theatre, interestingly, does the same. When the stage lights come on, we witness raw emotions clothed in costumes, expressed through dialogue and movement. Theatre allows us to live through stories not our own, to momentarily become someone else, and in doing so, to discover parts of ourselves. It awakens our shared humanity and reminds us that healing, whether scientific or emotional, often begins with understanding. So, the next time you watch a play, remember your brain isn’t just watching; it's simulating, feeling, and subtly reshaping itself. Thanks to systems like mirror neurons and embodied simulation, theatre doesn’t just entertain—it rewires us.

Imagine if life-saving treatments for cancer, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases were available to everyone, everywhere—regardless of income. That’s the promise of biosimilars: affordable versions of complex biologic drugs. As global healthcare systems look for cost-effective solutions, India is quietly building the capacity to become a global hub for biosimilar production. But will we rise to the challenge?

What are biosimilars and why do they matter?

Biologics are advanced medicines made from living cells. They’ve revolutionised treatment—but come at steep prices. Biosimilars are not generic drugs in the usual sense; they are near-identical copies of biologics whose patents have expired, requiring rigorous testing to prove similarity, safety, and efficacy.

With biologics worth nearly $390 billion globally, and many of them nearing patent expiration by 2030, the biosimilar market is booming. India, already a leader in generic medicines, has the infrastructure, talent, and regulatory push to step up. But the road isn’t without its bumps.

India’s advantages: The potential is real

India’s biopharmaceutical industry is already showing what’s possible. Companies like Biocon, Zydus Cadila , and Dr. Reddy’s have launched biosimilars globally. Biocon’s Semglee, an insulin biosimilar, became the first from India to receive interchangeable status from the US FDA—a milestone not just for the company, but for the country.

Add to that:

• Skilled manpower: India trains thousands in life sciences and pharmacy every year.

• Cost advantage: Production costs are lower, making drugs more affordable.

• Regulatory progress: With bodies like CDSCO streamlining biosimilar approval guidelines, India is increasingly aligned with global norms.

Yet, these strengths can only take us so far without addressing systemic bottlenecks.

What’s holding us back?

Despite global recognition, India’s biosimilar sector faces challenges in manufacturing scale, global credibility, and policy clarity.

• Regulatory complexity: Indian biosimilars still struggle with non-harmonised international requirements. A product approved in India often needs additional trials for the US or EU.

• Data integrity and quality issues: Recent FDA warnings to Indian manufacturers highlight the need for robust quality control and compliance systems.

• Insufficient R&D ecosystem: Biosimilars require not just manufacturing but advanced analytical capabilities, clinical testing, and tech transfer pipelines—areas needing urgent investment.

Moreover, cross-sectoral coordination between research institutes, biotech startups, regulators, and pharma players is currently fragmented.

What will it take for India to lead?

If India wants to lead the biosimilar revolution; not just participate—it needs more than ambition. It needs a focused gameplan, one that combines smart regulation with scientific readiness. Here's what that could look like:

• Make regulation an enabler, not a roadblock
  Streamline biosimilar approvals with science-backed fast tracks. Align with global norms—what works for the EU or US shouldn’t require a repeat trial here.

• Invest where it matters
  Build and scale biologics clusters—not just in metros, but in Tier-II cities. Strengthen cold chains, digital tracking, and export logistics. Let every new lab double as a training ground.

• Skilling for the science of tomorrow
  Biosimilars need talent that understands both biology and regulation. From pharmacovigilance to digital bioprocessing, we need to skill and reskill thousands to meet global expectations.

• Build bridges, not silos
  Work closely with global regulators like EMA and FDA. Encourage research collaborations, joint reviews, and mutual recognition. Indian science doesn’t need to work in isolation.

This isn’t about favouring big pharma. It’s about creating an ecosystem where startups, researchers, and manufacturers can collaborate and thrive.

From generic powerhouse to biologics leader

India already produces over 60% of the world’s vaccines. Biosimilars could be the next big leap not just for export numbers, but for equitable, affordable healthcare globally.

If we act now, projections suggest India could meet half the world’s biosimilar demand by 2040. That’s not just a market opportunity; it's a moral one. Countries like South Korea and Singapore have built thriving biotherapeutics sectors through strategic policies, strong R&D investments, and international partnerships.

The Figures 3, 4 and 5 presents three illustrative case studies—Biocon in India, Samsung Biologics in South Korea, and Celltrion in South Korea—demonstrating how targeted patent-cliff strategies, robust infrastructure, and global collaborations can drive rapid growth. Beyond operational excellence, these examples highlight the strategic importance of building end-to-end capabilities—from R&D to regulatory readiness and export facilitation. The scale and speed achieved by these firms were not solely the result of internal efficiencies, but of broader ecosystem support, including fast-track approvals, coordinated policy push, and sustained state backing. Notably, the South Korean examples underscore how clear regulatory timelines and generous fiscal incentives can catalyse industrial scale-up, while Biocon’s trajectory reflects how long-term institutional investments and scientific leadership shape global competitiveness. Together, they demonstrate that when government policy, industrial strategy, and research priorities are aligned, biotherapeutics capacity can grow rapidly and resiliently.

By adapting these lessons, India can refine its policy frameworks, strengthen its innovation pipelines, and fast-track approval processes to establish a leadership position in global biotherapeutics.

The bottom line

India has the science, the talent, and the manufacturing muscle. But without focused investment, stronger regulation, and collaborative infrastructure, the window of opportunity could close fast.

Indian agriculture relies heavily on the monsoon, with the kharif season playing a vital role in national food security. Traditionally, kharif crops such as paddy, maize, cotton, soybean, millets, and various vegetables (including cucurbits, brinjal, lady’s finger, French beans, and others) are sown at the onset of the southwest monsoon. However, in recent decades, a notable trend has emerged, particularly in northwestern states like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, where the sowing and cultivation of these crops have begun much earlier— during early or mid-summer—making crop production entirely dependent on groundwater. This shift is not merely a change in agricultural practice; it poses a serious threat to the sustainability of our water resources and indicates a clear departure from ecologically sound practices.

A disconnected practice

Farmers are not to blame. They are responding to economic signals—such as assured procurement, labour availability, market demands, and attempts to escape post-harvest penalties. In Punjab, Haryana, and even hilly regions like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the premature cultivation of water demanding crops is increasingly seen as a profitable choice. But from an ecological perspective, it is an irrational one.

Why irrational? Because this early cultivation relies entirely on groundwater to sustain crops through the driest and hottest months of the year. At a time when temperatures peak and evaporation rates soar, we are withdrawing tens of thousands of liters of groundwater per hectare to grow crops meant for the rainy season.

Water crisis in the making

India is already among the most water-stressed nations globally. According to the World Resources Institute, we use nearly 80% of our available water annually, with agriculture being the primary consumer. Reports from the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) show that most revenue districts across northwestern India are experiencing groundwater depletion at rates of one to three meters per year. When we grow water demanding crops like kharif vegetables, paddy or spring maize in summer months, the entire crop life cycle becomes groundwater-dependent, placing an unbearable strain on already fragile aquifers.

As someone who has worked closely with horticultural production systems for decades, I can say—it’s a systemic misalignment between our cropping patterns and natural ecological cycles,not merely a water issue. We are promoting farming against the climate.

Climate change adds fuel to the fire

Climate variability has further complicated the monsoon’s reliability. A recent study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) reported that 11 percent of tehsils in India have experienced decrease in southwest monsoon rainfall, 68 percent experienced reduced rainfall, while 87 percent showed a decline during kharif sowing months between 1982 and 2022. Meanwhile, October rainfall has increased, delaying the Rabi sowing window. In this context, the early cultivation of kharif crops isn’t just unwise—it’s potentially catastrophic.

The pre-monsoon months now coincide with heat waves, prolonged dry spells, and erratic weather. Under such conditions, advancing sowing only amplifies evapotranspiration, increases pest burdens, and reduces yields. We are spending more inputs, extracting more water, and gaining less in return.

The fallacy of "productivity at any cost"

Behind this trend lies a deeper issue: The failure to align cropping systems with agro-climatic realities. The spring cultivation of maize—requiring as many as 18 to 20 irrigation cycles—is a prime example of a flawed practice masquerading as progress. It is ecologically unsuited to regions like Punjab or western Uttar Pradesh, yet it continues, driven by subsidies on electricity and water that make unsustainable practices appear economically viable.

This model of "productivity at any cost" is no longer tenable. It disregards the ecological costs—soil degradation, aquifer exhaustion, biodiversity loss—that will ultimately undermine the very productivity it seeks to maximise.

What must be done: A call to action

Reversing this trend requires a coordinated, science-driven, and policy-supported strategy. We must act decisively:

1. Enforce agro-ecological crop calendars: States must uphold laws restricting pre-monsoon sowing and incentivise adherence to rainfall-based calendars.

2. Promote low-water crops: Deep rooted fruit crops, millets, pulses, and less water-demanding vegetables must be supported with procurement incentives and market development.

3. Invest in water-saving technologies: Technologies like precision irrigation, mulching, and alternate wetting-drying need additional policy push, farmer training, and economic support.

4. Align subsidies with sustainability: Agricultural subsidies must be redesigned to promote ecological balance rather than prioritise short-term yields.

5. Educate and empower farmers: Awareness campaigns and local field demonstrations can catalyse a shift in farmer behaviour, especially when backed by viable economic alternatives.

A moral and ecological imperative

The choice before us is stark. Either we continue to encourage a farming system that depletes life-sustaining groundwater, or we reimagine our agricultural paradigm to honour ecological wisdom. The summer sowing of kharif crops may seem like a technical detail to some, but to those of us attuned to the long-term implications, it is a betrayal of our intergenerational justice.

Water is not just an input—it is a legacy. Protecting it demands not just policy reform, but a transformation in how we think about agriculture. As scientists, educators, and citizens, we must raise our voices—before the silence of our aquifers becomes irreversible.