Carl Jung, the influential Swiss psychiatrist, defined “introversion” as “inwardly directed psychic energy”. Modern psychology introduced the concept of the Big Five dimensions of personality, expanding the domain of personalities to include the aspects of neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness and intellect/imagination, in addition to extroversion/introversion. The common perception of what is considered introversion is, in fact, a blend of introversion with some of these other personality traits.

With the turn of the century, introversion has come to be better understood and accepted, and almost celebrated. While the public opinion of introverts has tuned with time and the immediate cultural context, neuroscientists have delved into the science of human personalities with a more objective lens.

Neuroimaging studies employing PET scans have shown that introverts, as compared to extroverts, have a greater measure of cerebral blood flow in the brain areas associated with planning, problem-solving and personal recollections. On the other hand, brain areas involved in interpreting real-time sensory information showed greater blood flow in extroverts, reflecting on the outward focus that is characteristic of extroverted behaviour.

Brain circuits aside, another important part of the introvert-extrovert puzzle is the neurochemicals that drive these brain circuits. Dean Hamer and others have shown that low-novelty seekers are highly sensitive to dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with seeking external rewards, which can include making money, getting a promotion at work, or climbing the social ladder. An excess of such rewards, therefore, can risk overstimulating introverts. Extroverts or high-novelty seekers, on the other hand, are less sensitive to dopamine, which makes them actively seek these situations to derive a sense of reward, say, for example, socializing at length in a cocktail party after a conference.

The bottom line is that personalities come in many flavours, and most of us lie somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between extreme introversion and extroversion. Scientists have a peculiar reputation, however, of leaning more towards the introverted end. The image of a socially awkward, geeky scientist who’d rather be chalking equations in his den than be the life of a party, is difficult to scrub from the public psyche.

It is in the very nature of scientists to be contemplative and deep thinkers, personality traits to which introverts are perfectly aligned. Needless to say, the very concept of networking may put an introvert on the edge. However, science survives and thrives on collaborations, and networking is key. Very few aspects of science can be pursued in isolation, and more often than not, it is the chance encounters over high tea breaks or a stimulating conversation during a mid-conference lunch that sparks new ideas.

As a new entrant into the academia clan, I have come to realise that scientists tend to shed their introvert skin in the lab and interact openly when they gather for scientific discussions and meetings. Free exchange of ideas and understanding the depth and breadth of each other’s work take precedence above all else. Experience does matter here, as one strengthens and expands their scientific network.

As a first-year PhD student presenting a poster at a Scientific Advisory Committee meeting, I wondered whether I had evolved enough to pull this off. All apprehensions aside, I found myself gaining clarity by communicating my work to people across the board, from young science enthusiasts who needed me to get back to the very basics, to high profile scientists who stopped by my poster to provide valuable feedback and affirm the sense of direction of my project.

Not all the world’s a stage, as introverts may often feel. Easing into “safer environments” like group meetings with peers and departmental talks first before moving onto more challenging contexts like scientific meetings can help one find one’s voice and exercise it better in scientific interactions.

With communication styles varying from person to person, mastering communication is a highly personal endeavour. Here are some ideas that, in general, can help break the ice in a scientific milieu.

Staying Organic

Though pretending to be a pseudo-extrovert may seem to be the right thing to do, it can come off as inauthentic. To overcome the initial qualms of approaching a stranger, it helps to see networking as a source of knowledge exchange and an opportunity for cultivating relationships rather than a platform for self-promotion.

Eyeing that bigshot scientist whose work you have been following up close? It helps to step away from your comfort zone and strike up a conversation. More often than not, they’re delighted to interact with young people. Expressing genuine interest and following up with thoughtful questions from their presentation is a good way to break the ice. Allowing the conversation to flow rather than relying on forced small talk requires being intuitive, and introverts know that best.

Flexing the social muscle just right

Like any other skill, socialising can be mastered with frequent exposure. Though formal networking can be draining for introverts, putting yourself and your work out there is an essential tool in any PhD scholar’s survival kit. As an ambivert playing a balancing act between introversion and extroversion, I interact with people whose work makes me tick, over a cup of coffee or lunch in scientific gatherings. At the same time, I don’t forget to re-energize in pockets of solitude. Flexing that social muscle is an art, too much or too less of which can be counterproductive.

Nurturing the network

A quick follow up email can help a person remember who they have talked to. Making a casual reference to what you talked about and what you gained from it can help build a good professional relationship. Follow-ups can often lead to correspondences that help you leverage a cocktail conversation into building a strong professional network.

Building an online presence

A classic nugget of wisdom about introverts that holds true in my experience is that they express themselves best in writing. An exercise in writing and connecting to people online can help introverts network more effectively, as compared to a buzzing conference hall.

Building a strong online presence is a good practice in one’s networking regime. It can be a good practice pad to engage with the right set of people in a succinct matter. A 140 character long tweet can be the equivalent of an elevator pitch about one’s work.

Besides the classic LinkedIn and ResearchGate, I find it rewarding to reach out to corresponding authors of research papers that I am particularly intrigued by via email, and frame questions about their research directions and methodology. Their response is usually spontaneous and welcoming, and this personal exercise has helped me establish one-on-one communication with several relevant people in my field of study.

------------------

All said and done, it is about finding what works for you and expanding yourself as you work through the unwritten rules of effective communication in scientific circles. Happy navigating!

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

Most relationships have unexpressed underlying expectations which, if unfulfilled, can give rise to frustration, resentment, and misunderstanding between the people involved. Such expectations are prevalent in both personal and professional relationships and an inability to fulfil them could be harmful, particularly in professional scenarios. This is because personal relationships often have a lot of room for acceptance, compromises, and freedom to overcome such issues, which may be missing from professional relationships.

A few years back, my department took a novel initiative by bringing all the graduate students and thesis advisors together in the same room to address these underlying unsaid expectations on an open platform. The plan was to break these expectations down and discuss their importance and feasibility for both advisors and students.

Looking back, I think it was a great initiative. The points discussed in that meeting were very helpful for both students and advisors. In my own experience, realization of those expectations as a student has helped me significantly in developing a healthy relationship with my thesis advisor as well as my thesis committee members. Some of the advisors present at the meeting have also expressed that the discussion helped them gain useful insights into students’ expectations that they can work upon.

I am penning down some of the points emerging out of that meeting here, in the hope that other students, and perhaps advisors, see the value of such open discussions.

What do advisors expect from their students?

The first point I realized was that most advisors expect their students to take responsibility for their research projects. Trust me, nothing puts them more at ease than a student taking full responsibility for the project, which includes being consistently involved in the project, from conception to completion. It also means keeping up with the literature and bringing in new and relevant insights.

On a daily basis, this responsibility includes thinking about the experiments and potential interpretations of the data, troubleshooting, and planning the next set of experiments. Another very important expectation is that the student should take the initiative when it comes to discussions with the advisor and should come to such discussions with a clear agenda in mind.

None of these expectations seems unreasonable, particularly considering that it is the student’s project and his/her own scientific journey. However, the catch here is maintaining a balance. Both of these scenarios can be actively harmful - (1) doing everything by yourself without factoring in your advisor’s expertise, or (2) not thinking at all and relying on your advisor for every little thing (and blaming them when something does not work out).

To strike this balance, one must understand the personality and philosophy that their PI operates on. For example, some PIs might just want to know the broad experimental plan, while others would like to see a detailed breakdown of each of your experiments with a timeline. Frequent and consistent communication with the PI comes handy in this situation. In fact, a lack of clear communication can stress out both advisors and students.

Many students think that expressing their thoughts and expectations regarding experiments or their journey as a graduate student and plans for the future might leave a negative impression on their advisors. However, this is not true at all. In fact, most advisors appreciate such a discussion, because it suggests that the student is indeed invested in his/her journey as a graduate student.

Such a discussion also keeps surprises off the table and helps in opening dialogues on potential points of disagreement that can be worked upon slowly to reach a compromise that would favour both the student and the PI. Such discussions, though they can be uncomfortable at first, go a long way in maintaining a healthy student-mentor relationship.

Another expectation that the advisors expressed during the meeting was an understanding on the part of the students that PIs are busy people with many other responsibilities, such as doing administrative work, writing grants, and monitoring the progress of other graduate students. Advisors, therefore, expect students to organize themselves such that most of the student-mentor interactions are time and value-effective.

This means that one should avoid abrupt plan changes as far as possible, like cancelling a pre-scheduled meeting, sending an abstract/poster/presentation for revision a day before the deadline, asking for a recommendation letter only a few days before the submission deadline etc. Additionally, it helps to send regular reminders, in case something important skips the PI’s mind. Being organized (time-efficient) also includes giving your advisor frequent, succinct and structured updates of your data.

While we are on the subject of data, advisors obviously expect students to follow ethical guidelines with regards to data generation, analysis, and organization. Since no advisor can micromanage a student at the level of experimentation, they particularly appreciate it if they can rely on the ethical lab practices of a student. A good lab notebook keeping practice is both a starting point and an indicator of such good lab practice. Advisors also expect that the student’s data is readily accessible, replicable, and can be traced back to the original experiments. Being honest with the advisors about mistakes or errors while doing experiments also falls under good lab practice.

Lastly, and very importantly, advisors expect students to maintain a healthy and scientifically sound environment in the lab. Research students spend a lot of their time in their labs (sometimes >12 hours a day). It is therefore essential that students invest and put consistent efforts in maintaining an environment that is apt for their mental fitness and growth. This includes openly discussing experiments, ideas, and scientific studies, helping each other, and being receptive of critical feedback from peers. In research, one is likely to feel frustrated for various reasons, and a healthy and supportive lab environment can cater to exactly such situations and help sustain an overall positive environment.

What do students expect from their advisors?

When it came to students, a common theme was immediately apparent: the students attending the meeting expected their PIs to be mentors, rather than just scientific advisors. They expected a mentor-mentee relationship with a more balanced power equation, rather than a boss-employee relationship. To students, being a mentor meant that the advisor would be more open to the student’s ideas about experiments, science, careers, or their journey as a researcher or as an individual.

Another aspect of mentorship that came up during the meeting was PIs treating their relationship with their students as a partnership. This also involves extending empathy (not sympathy) to students for the troubles they faced and providing support (not hand-holding) when required. Students also want their advisors to understand or at least take into consideration the student’s point of view, strengths, and weaknesses before assigning them a project, or while assessing their performance and guiding them through the research program.

The students expressed that when advisors act as mentors, it gives them (the students) a sense of lowered communication barriers, more freedom, and independence. The students understood that mentorship required more time and effort on the part of the advisor and conveyed that if advisors are open and willing to put some effort in this direction, they would feel reassured.

Besides this, surprisingly, many of the students’ expectations were similar to the advisors’ expectations. Students expected advisors to value their time equally. They would also greatly appreciate if advisors send revisions on important documents including synopsis, paper drafts, abstracts, posters in time or otherwise inform them about the delays, if any. Students also expect advisors to be sensitive to the fact that students have limited time to finish their PhD or projects.

Following ethical practices was another expectation that was similar between advisors and students. Additionally, students expect that advisors would work towards giving a healthy, happy and safe working environment which is unbiased with respect to gender, nationality, origin or background of the students.

Finally, students expect that they would be given their own physical, mental and emotional space where they can exist as individuals free to follow their passions, hobbies, or personal lives, and where professional and personal boundaries are respected.

--------------------------------------------------

I don’t know if listing all these points out in the open transformed the mentors and students but it definitely made them more aware and sensitive to each other’s expectations, which is the basic foundation of a healthy environment. I hope such open discussions would be adopted by more institutes who strive towards a healthy working environment.

PhD students across disciplines face many unexpected problems that directly and indirectly affect their capacity to work. Here, I shall discuss some of the challenges that I faced over the course of my PhD, the strategies that helped me overcome them, and what I learned from these experiences.

Challenge 1: Joining a completely new lab

The year I joined my supervisors’ lab for pursuing my doctoral degree was the same year he had shifted to the university from another institute. Since he had been using communal instruments in his previous institute, he did not have any equipment with him when he moved to the new university. As a result, we found ourselves in a lab that just had four walls and no instruments.

I started in the lab at the same time as one of my batch mates and a lab attendant. As soon as we joined, my supervisor advised us to take up the responsibility of setting up the lab since he was very busy with administrative work at the time. Even though there was a central instrumentation facility, there was a dire need for purchasing some basic instruments. Also, we could not start any routine experimental work before getting chemicals, plasticware and basic items like pipettes.

I found myself in a highly confusing situation for which I was completely unprepared. The work required not only scientific knowledge but also management, administrative and decision-making skills.

There was so much to do – selecting lab instruments and chemicals to be bought, choosing vendors, keeping records of what was bought and when, taking approvals for everything based on their value, convincing vendors to give us discounts – these were just a few of the tasks we had.

Funds were really precious and very tough to obtain; hence, we had to be very careful not to waste them. There were deadlines for spending funds, beyond which the unspent funds would go back, which obviously we didn't want.

Solution:

It is important that lab members work as a team and the division of work is clearly defined. Regular meetings with our seniors from the previous institute and our supervisor helped us decide what were the chemicals and instruments we needed to order most urgently.

Having a clear understanding of budgeting and division of money i.e. how much to spend where, especially in cases where consumables and non-consumables could be brought from the same grant, helped. Clubbing orders from the same vendor together also helped reduce a lot of paperwork.

What I learned from this episode:

Working smartly and makings tentative budgets for each category helps in spending money wisely. For newly set up labs, Central Instrumentation Facilities are a real saviour.

Apart from these, principal investigators can collaborate with already well-established and running labs to allow students to use basic instruments and chemicals during the first few months after setting up the lab. This will help the lab run smoothly. Start-up grants are also quite helpful for making one-time purchases.

Challenge 2: Managing lab work as a day scholar

Due to a long list of students waiting to get accommodation on campus, especially in universities, chances are that one would get hostel accommodation only in the third or fourth year of PhD. Since my permanent address was in the same city as the university, my chances of getting a hostel room were even slimmer. Hence, I was left with no other option but to travel 40 km daily from my home to campus and back.

I was not new to commuting and had done it during my MSc days as well. But pursuing a PhD was very different from the coursework and dissertation during an MSc, as I didn’t have to bother about the background work much in the latter case. Here, each day I juggled planning experiments and reaching home on time. Once I reached home, I hardly had any strength left to do anything else.

Solution:

Starting from home early not only made my ride in public transport much easier, but also cut the travel time since most roads were empty. Utilizing the travel time in listening to podcasts related to latest research and careers ensured that the travel time was not being wasted.

Most instruments are free during the wee hours of the morning which helped me begin my work smoothly. Planning my work the evening before gave me a fair idea of the amount of work I had for the day. Putting it down on paper helped me pin down incubation times which I used for administrative paperwork, pouring agar plates, making buffers, media, etc. Most of the free time in between was dedicated to reading related to troubleshooting of experiments.

What I learnt from the episode:

Being a day scholar gave me a set timeframe within which I had to plan my experiments and complete my work each day. This kept me from being lazy and loitering around in between. I made the best possible use of incubation periods in between by planning parallel experiments. Going back home also gave me some time away from the lab, and helped me get back with new enthusiasm the next day.

Challenge 3: Managing reading and benchwork together

It is quite easy to become so busy with lab work that we have no idea about any new knowledge coming up in our own as well as other areas of research, especially during the peak times when we are busy carrying out experiments. This not only disconnects students from the latest research but also shuts down the possibility of newer research directions that one might want to enter into. Learning to take forward benchwork and regular literature review in parallel is therefore quite useful and important.

Solution:

Dedicating a specific time of the day, like early mornings, or a particular day of the week, during which one just reads papers can be quite helpful. Discussing the latest research in informal settings with other students away from academic settings can also boost awareness about new knowledge coming up.

What I learned from this episode

Reading papers from areas unrelated to your own research is definitely not a waste of time, and helps in gaining a holistic perspective. It also places one in a better position to initiate interactions and improves understanding during scientific meetings and conferences.

Challenge 4: Changing my thesis project halfway through the PhD

We embark upon our PhD journeys with a thorough literature review and a detailed plan of the aspects that we are fascinated by and want to find answers to. As we work on our projects, we unconsciously get attached to them.

After a year of working on a project trying to understand Mycobacterium tuberculosis invasion strategies, I suddenly contracted tuberculosis myself (note: this was completely independent of my experiments). This was a huge setback for me to a point that I thought of giving up. I had to go on a long medical leave and faced eight months of heavy medication. The doctor advised me not to take up anything that will re-challenge my immuno-compromised body.

Solution:

Keeping in mind my health, I decided to take up a different project that was more compatible with my medical condition. The immense support that my supervisor and lab members gave me at the time instilled in me the confidence, space and freedom to focus on a new area. Working jointly with other lab members not only reduced the initial work pressure but also ensured that things began smoothly again.

What I learned from this episode

At any point, if one is forced to leave something they have invested time and effort into, it is important to understand that it is not the end of the world or the death-knell to our degree. We need to have a bigger picture and know the pros and cons of carrying something forward. At times we get too engrossed in our work to a point that it may take a toll on one’s health. It is important, however, to take a step backwards, prioritize things, get a bird’s eye view, and then decide.

----------------------------

I would like to conclude with the fact that one might face similar or very dissimilar challenges during their PhDs; after all, it’s a unique journey for each one of us. But acknowledging and accepting such challenges, brainstorming possible solutions, and seeking advice from those around keeps one moving forward.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

Love for being around kids led me to accept a job as a nursery teacher when a friend’s colleague went on maternity leave. I loved the job and even if I missed a single day, I used to get calls from parents mentioning that the kids are missing me. My family noticed this engrossment and asked me to take a serious call on my career choice.

That’s when the Human Brain Bank at National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences (NIMHANS) advertised for the post of a Junior Scientific Assistant. The notion of getting a prestigious central government job was the driving force for me to apply. I got through the application process and accepted the job.

NIMHANS was a different world altogether and I felt like a little fish in a big pond. Human Brain Bank was part of the pathology department and S.K. Shankar was the principal investigator. He was a perfectionist and though many people were scared of him, I felt lucky working with him. Some phrases he hated were ‘may be’, ‘could be’, ‘I don’t know’. This taught me to think deeply and to be prepared from all perspectives before having a discussion with him.

On the road to a Master's degree

I only had a Bachelor’s degree to my credit when I joined the department. I was exploring options for a Master’s degree when my family got me married. I thought that my Master’s options were gone and I would have to focus on the family as I was the eldest daughter-in-law in a very orthodox family. Days passed by. Then one day during a casual discussion, I mentioned to my husband that I was planning to pursue a Master’s degree when our marriage took place and now it was a distant dream.

After a few months, he told me that Annamalai University is an esteemed university and asked me to register for a Master’s degree there. The next day I spoke to my boss and he agreed and asked me to apply. I applied and had to attend 60 days of crash course and practical classes in the University campus, which is in Tamil Nadu. This was challenging because I had to convince my in-laws and also get leave from work. After some back and forth discussions at home as well as at the office, I got approval and packed my bags for the University.

During this period, I was 8 months pregnant and my family was disinclined to let me stay in a hostel. That’s when a close friend’s parents came to the rescue. They said “Why will she stay in the hostel when we are here?” and took care of me for those 60 days.

Then I had to appear for my theory exams, and my delivery date was close. So, every day while going for the exam, all of my medical reports and a delivery-related bag would go with me, just in case I went into labour during the exam and needed to be admitted to a hospital. My sister would sit outside the examination hall, waiting for me.

But my baby was waiting for me to complete the exam. I completed my exam on Monday and my daughter was born that same Wednesday. So that’s how my first year of Master’s ended. When I finished my second year, my daughter was not in the womb, but on my lap.

With an MSc in hand, the next step was a PhD. But since the pathology department at NIMHANS focused on clinical research, there was not much chance for someone from a basic science background to pursue a PhD here. Hence, settling to being satisfied with a Master’s degree, I continued my work in the brain bank.

A new innings

One Saturday afternoon in 2004, the telephone rang. I picked up the call and I hear someone saying “Hello” in an American accent. “I am Sumantra Chattarji (Shona) from the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS),” said the voice, “And I got to know about you from your old colleague and I am offering you a job,” My reflexive reply was, “But I am not looking for a job.” “That’s fine, but we should chat,” said Shona and asked me to come over to NCBS.

My visit and discussion with Shona changed my entire mindset. At the time I was pregnant with my second child. When I told Shona this, he said, “It is all the more reason that you should consider the job as there is a beautiful Child Care Facility here”.

I think you can guess what my decision was. I did join NCBS, but not immediately, as I had responsibilities back at the brain bank. I completed my tasks and handed over the job to my successor before going into maternity leave.

I joined NCBS in June 2005, when my son was five months old. When I joined the lab, there were a number of projects with morphology as a major focus. As soon I joined I learned the Golgi-Cox technique. Initially, I had to travel back to NIMHANS regularly to use their microtome for sectioning, but then I found an old microtome at NCBS. I was told that the machine was not working, but I fixed that antique piece and moved our sectioning work to NCBS.

The Golgi technique that was used in the lab was tedious and both money and time-consuming. I spent almost six months standardising and modifying the technique to be more efficient in terms of time, money and quality. Now, there are six publications from the lab using this technique.

Those first few years were like a marathon. At home, I was equally busy, handling the responsibilities of weddings of siblings on both sides of the family. My day used to start at 3.45 AM with cooking and packing lunch for my husband who had to leave by 6 AM and then getting the kids ready to leave home by 8.30 AM. At some corner of my brain, the three letters ‘P’ ‘H’ ‘D’ lingered, but I never had time to think about it much.

On 23 February2013, Shona called me and told me that Apoorva Sarin (Director, InStem) had suggested that given my hard work, I should register for a PhD. I cannot forget that moment. I registered at Manipal University and though I already had some data, I started my projects fresh. I used to plan major behavioural experiments during my kid’s vacation so that I could come to the campus by 7 AM. And for analysis, I used to go back in the evening. With wonderful support from all directions, I finally completed my project and defended my thesis on the 27^th of May, 2019. With this fulfillment of my long-time dream, I am now exploring my next journey.

Lessons learned

Here are some things that I want to share with my young colleagues.

Plan your day and don’t get disappointed by negative results. They may, in fact, contribute strongly to your project. Don’t be too stubborn or emotional about your hypothesis. Build a strong background in the area of the project that you join and see whether you can take forward some projects based on your seniors’ findings. In parallel, work on your own ideas and by the end of your 3^rd year, try to have a story ready for a publication. This will help in deciding what other experiments you need to perform to complete the project within the given time period.

My humble request is, “Please come out of the lab and spend at least a good 30 minutes every day playing on the lawn”. This is an amazing way to rejuvenate. Do not compromise on your playtime. Don’t say, “Where is the time?” You have the time, you just need to prioritize what’s important!

I conclude with this nursery rhyme, which all of us could bear to keep in mind in our adult lives:

Work while you work.

Play while you play.

This is the way

To be happy and gay!

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

“Are you a Doctor now, Amma?” my 6-year-old asked after sitting through my 50-minute-long thesis defense. The twinkle in her eyes made me feel that this achievement was as much hers as it was mine.

A PhD journey is not always a smooth ride and often encompasses a motley mix of experiences. Crests of enthusiasm alternate with the troughs of emotional turmoil. But what if the PhD involves carrying out field-based research at the same time as raising a toddler? Then you are definitely in for the most challenging yet the most memorable journey of your life.

I had just started working on my new PhD research project after moving on from an earlier one when I came to know that I was expecting. While I oscillated for some time as to whether I should call it quits, my decision to take a year off helped me contemplate my next step. I decided to get back on track when my daughter was five and a half months old.

But this decision meant a drastic change not only in terms of my research objectives but also in its implementation. My initial research objectives soon had to be modified to something that would be more achievable while managing a one-year-old. I also realized that fieldwork required a lot more planning than before. For e.g., my field visits needed to be broken into shorter stints to keep up with my daughter’s vaccination deadlines.

Since my research required me to stay in the Trans-Himalayas at an altitude of 4200m, getting the logistics in place when I landed was extremely important. This included finding someone to look after my daughter in my absence along with ensuring her safety in every possible way and arranging for medical help in case of emergencies. Once these were sorted, months of fieldwork required careful planning given all the anticipated days or weeks of minimal to no work due to a plethora of reasons (any health-related adversities, weather, field logistics, village festivities, agricultural harvest etc.).

Back in Bangalore and post my fieldwork, unlike many other PhD students, I worked on a 9-5 schedule with an additional at home work-slot post-dinner once my daughter slept. While Saturdays would be work days for me (especially during data analysis and thesis writing), I would devote the whole of Sunday to spending time with my daughter. Needless to say, throughout my PhD, I had great support from my advisor and co-advisor who facilitated a timely finish in spite of initial delays.

In retrospect, this phase of my life, though extremely challenging, was exhilarating. Several insights made me emerge more resilient and confident. Through my own experience, I realized how important it is to have a good support system when doing your research as a new parent and this starts essentially with having a supportive advisor.

As I was a single mom doing a PhD, my advisor ensured that I had a lot of flexibility. I was not required to physically be in the office or lab as long as I was making progress in my research. When in Bangalore, I had to resort to a 9-5 creche facility for my daughter and was incredibly lucky to have a caregiver who helped me focus without having to be constantly worried about my child. In the field, I had someone who took over the responsibility of looking after my daughter. Many a time, people in the village and my field colleagues took a fair share of babysitting in my absence during data collection. Friends in Bangalore also supported me in more ways than one when I was in my analysis and thesis writing phase.

One thing which I truly learnt is that it is important to seek help when you need it and one should not feel guilty about it. While figuring things out on one’s own is an integral part of a PhD, finding out time to troubleshoot every small step, especially during analysis can be difficult in such situations, and therefore one should actively seek help.

Time management and planning work carefully is extremely crucial for juggling both worlds. I maintained a set routine to which my daughter adapted, making it easier for both of us. A strict bedtime of 8 pm gave me a working slot at night. I would utilize this time to read a paper or do things which did not require too much concentration or thought. However, in spite of all this planning ahead, I had to keep in mind that there would be no escaping days of no work, especially during illness and crèche holidays.

I also realized how resilient kids can be, when exposed to field situations at a very young age. As mothers, sometimes we tend to mollycoddle kids because of our own fears. My parents had a lot of apprehensions when I decided to take my daughter to an altitude of 4200m. While I took a week to get adjusted to a low oxygen condition, my daughter took only four days. As long as kids do not have major health issues, they are able to survive and adapt to new conditions much better than us. Let your intuitions be your strongest aide no matter how much free advice may come your way!

Last but not least, make sure you take care of yourself. Remember that you are essentially doing two PhDs and there are times when you will feel completely exhausted being in both worlds. Your sanity is important not just for you but also for your kid, so do take breaks from work. Going through a PhD is not easy and doing it with a child is surely a feat. So celebrate this feat and do give yourself a pat on the back whenever possible.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

Graduate studies in India mostly take the usual path: choose a laboratory/supervisor, work for years sacrificing your personal life, party hard once a year, and when your fellowship is about to end, frantically try and get a publication that lets you submit your thesis. Whether we want to face this or not, this is the truth for a large number of graduate students, even in some of the most esteemed research institutes in India.

Here, I propose that one of the reasons behind this is the existence of various myths associated with graduate studies, heavily internalized by many graduate students and propagated by advisors. Some of these are:

• A PhD is about solving one problem.
• You must follow the ‘trial and error’ method for a long time before stumbling upon the solution.
• You have to sacrifice a lot of your personal life to do a good PhD. The more you sacrifice, the better.
• You need to meet your advisor regularly, and if they happen to be very busy, then at any time of their preference, even outside regular work hours.

A PhD, first of all, is a learning process. It is a training in doing science, in objective thinking and experimentation that eventually leads us to find out something more about nature than what was already known. If we define the goal of a PhD to be learning how to do science independently (and that last word is very important), then the way the majority of Indian students approach their research will change drastically.

Currently, many graduate students focus on being a part of a project that their advisor has thought of or set up the laboratory for, and learning enough to do anything worthwhile with the acquired skill-set, regardless of whether or not it aligns with their own scientific interests. I suggest a change in this attitude.

First and foremost, a graduate student must realize that the PhD is an individual journey, that their dissertation will be examined by how significantly they have advanced scientific knowledge on their own. And that requires brainstorming, planning and execution of plans.

A PhD really is about solving many small scientific problems. One breaks down a broad idea into many small questions that may be linked to one another and tries to answer them one at a time. Not all at one go, but guided by regular assessments.

If the original plan fails, then reassessment, either by oneself or by sitting across the table with the advisor, is the way to go. That is what the advisor’s job is: to advise when the chips are down. Currently, many advisors supervise almost every little thing that their students do, often ending up micromanaging the laboratory or workplace. One needs to understand that this leads to many students becoming nothing but cheap scientific labour, sometimes advancing the laboratory’s work to the denigration of their personal development.

If the advisor happens to be extremely busy, that’s all the better! One can take this as an opportunity to think and do more things on their own. We learn more by investigating than by just following instructions. Investigation, and the ability to do it independently, is the crux of scientific research.

Communication is the key to success: one should take a formal communication setup extremely seriously. In quite a few places in India, graduate students do not have the opportunity to give even one annual open-institute seminar. This is a bug with the system that needs to change today. Why? Because the more a person speaks to an audience, the more they feel accountable for the ideas that they represent. For graduate students, this replaces grunt work with enthusiasm, makes them think carefully about the smaller questions that they are trying to address, but most importantly, it allows them to hear themselves speak.

And this is an extremely important aspect of doing science, because a scientist’s best critic is the scientist themself. Giving such presentations pushes one towards learning faster, asking deeper questions, coming up with more innovative solutions. When you have to force yourself to voice the exact reasons why a pre-assessed logical plan hasn’t worked, you will often come up with five possible solutions automatically, one of which is bound to lead somewhere.

Last but not least, it is extremely important to have a parallel, personal life. This includes socializing with people who are not in science because that gives you a bigger perspective of what you are trying to do. Learning a new skill or a new language or pursuing a hobby seriously can relax the mind as well as stretch the possibilities that it can reach. Taking some time out every day for just yourself is extremely important.

Taking one complete day’s break every week breaks the monotony, and re-energizes the mind. Maintaining a work-hobby balance makes one treat their own attention to the scientific exercise much more seriously because the limitation of time is paid heed to. This leads to much more productive research and increases efficiency in the long run. It may lead one to save months’ of work that may have amounted to nothing because they have taken the right decisions at the right time. Only a rested and healthy brain can ask good questions and make important judgements.

Curiosity, and the constant drive to generate new curiosity, requires practice, as well as a broadening of the mind that the grunt work required in trying to answer scientific questions does not facilitate. Hence, it is important to take time off to be involved in other activities – sports, cooking, music – anything.

A successful PhD student learns both in breadth and depth. But a lot of graduate students and advisors in India have not realized this yet. It is very common to see people working away for hours, weeks, months without a break, or without any personal life or completely neglecting their health, both physical and mental. We need to break these habits now. Only then can we evolve as individuals, and make more significant contributions to science.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

The time was 7:45am on a beautiful March morning in San Diego. I was sipping on my coffee while walking the halls of the San Diego Convention Center, which is an absolutely ginormous gathering place that hosts meetings, trade shows and events from around the world every month. With a view of San Diego downtown on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other side, it is truly an awe-inspiring location. Of course, I was not able to enjoy any of that because I was freaking out about my very first research presentation at a major science conference which was due to start in fifteen minutes.

There was literally only one thought in my mind. I was repeating on a loop what I was going to say in my introductory slides: “Good morning, everyone! My name is Pushp Bajaj and I am a third year PhD student at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego. The title of my talk for today is …” My PhD advisor told me that doing this helps with stage fright. I was sceptical, but I decided to test it for myself.

It actually worked. It didn’t make me any less nervous; my legs and my voice were both still slightly shaky. I could feel an unnatural heat in my face which broke out in a sweat on my forehead. But, I was able to say everything that I had planned to say in those first few slides. That is the best-case scenario you can hope for in such a situation.

Once I was through the first five slides, my original voice and the strength in my legs came back. I was able to focus on presenting the work that I had done in the last two years. It went quite well and I received great feedback after it.

In retrospect, it was not so much what I did on the day of, that made the talk a success. It was what I did in the month before, that did the trick.

Since it was my first time presenting at a conference, it was an excellent opportunity to reach a wide-ranging audience with expertise in different areas of Chemistry. Everything had to be perfect; I was representing not just myself but my PI, the entire group and our research. I made sure I had a couple of mock presentations scheduled with the group. That gave me a chance to rehearse multiple times what I am going to say, how I am going to say it and if it is actually conveying the important points effectively to the audience.

Moreover, senior members of the group usually have a better grasp of the research and can be good critics of the technical aspects. Things like whether the research hypothesis and methodology are sound, whether the conclusions are aligned with the results and whether they are consistent with what is previously established in the literature. They can also tell you any obvious questions that can be expected from the audience.

Mock presentations are in fact a great way to practice answering questions from the audience. I would always encourage my lab mates to ask me tough, even tangential questions, which could arise at the actual talk. It is important in such situations to take a moment to collect your thoughts and come up with a concise, but complete answer to the question. In case nothing comes to mind on the spot or you feel that it could be a long discussion, it is perfectly acceptable to say ‘I don’t know’ or ask them for a follow-up one-to-one conversation after the talk.

One of the first pieces of advice about making presentations that my PhD advisor gave me was to make every figure such that it can be used for a publication in a journal or a research talk at a conference, even if it is only meant for a group meeting or to show to a lab mate. I realized how useful this was when I started working on this talk because I already had an arsenal of nicely made figures that can be directly used in the presentation. That saved me a lot of time and effort in the crucial moments.

Making a presentation for a research talk at a conference is very different from preparing slides for a group meeting or to show to a colleague. An ideal presentation should, first of all, be attractive to the audience. That means, all the plots/diagrams/flow-charts/tables need to be aesthetically pleasing and of high quality. The alignment and formatting need to be consistent, including font type and size. The slide titles need to be catchy and informative at the same time.

It is quite a challenge to keep the attention of a more general audience that may not be experts in your field. You have to convince them that what you are talking about is something useful or exciting and they should listen to you for the next 30 to 45 minutes. You have to give them an interesting and well-crafted story. A story in its most basic form consists of three elements- the plot (or set-up), the conflict and the resolution.

A good way to begin a talk is with some necessary background. This could be a brief summary of previously published studies or a more general introduction of the big-picture applications of your research (the plot). It should be just enough to capture the audience’s attention and not so long that it takes over the presentation, generally about 2-3 slides. Then, introduce the gaps in current understanding and your specific research question (the conflict). Follow this up with your hypothesis, results and conclusions and explain how they further your field of research (the resolution).

Giving too much information and having too much text or diagrams that are too complex in your slides are surefire ways to lose an audience. Keeping it simple is the key. Only the essential points should go on the slides, ideally one message per slide. Avoid adding any extraneous information on the slides that you would not talk about. Instead, any supporting graphs/diagrams could be moved to the end of the presentation as back-up slides, in case there is a related question from the audience.

Also, that new experimental technique or that elegant computer model that you are using is likely only exciting to you and a handful of other people. Focusing more on the results and the broad implications makes your presentation more engaging for a general audience.

During the five years of my PhD, I was fortunate enough to attend several regional, national and international conferences. I gave many talks on my research, from presentations at group meetings to University student seminars to contributed talks at international conferences. And of course, countless poster presentations. Perhaps the most important thing that I realised is that YOU are the master of what is in your presentation.

More often than not, you know more about your research project than anyone else. The audience is there to hear and learn from you; not to judge you. So, have fun with it and show them why your research is as cool and as exciting as you know it is.

Did you enjoy this article? Please let us know in the comments below.

Are you a passenger waiting to get on the train to PhD? To all the recently enrolled PhD students and aspiring young researchers out there, here is a philosophical map of your impending journey. Hopefully, this article will help prepare and equip you for traversing this road less travelled.

Reaching any destination requires a purpose-driven journey which begins with some initial steps of faith and confidence. The road to becoming a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is much the same. A PhD brings with it a sense of pride and honour. Some of you may be the only one in your family or circle of friends to have taken up such a path in the midst of other ‘glamorous’ professions. However, there may be some unexpected hurdles along the way.

A PhD student in the field of biology inevitably becomes a clinical consultant in his/her family for every ailment that hits them. And if you fail to respond to their queries or even point out (rightly) that you are not medically qualified in any way, then be prepared to hear “What kind of a doctoral course are you doing?”

Being a PhD student at Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre endorsed me as an “oncologist” amongst my family, friends and acquaintances. Quite often I am asked to interpret the biopsy reports of people and tell them how serious their condition could be. This often brings about a bout of the imposter system, and marks the only times when I wish I were a medical doctor after all.

Apart from being a pseudo-physician for the world, the society at large will applaud you only if you are working on a specific disease which will have a visible and beneficial outcome for the common man. The downside of this is that if your research is fundamental and not linked to a specific disease, you tend to get dismissed.

You may have second thoughts: That’s normal

In the initial stages of your PhD, it is likely that you will sometimes feel highly qualified and hence elated. But the ground reality of a PhD journey is that the more you walk down this road, the more you will realise how little qualified you actually are to understand the dynamics and complexity of the scientific problem you are facing. So, does that mean that this journey is not your cup of tea? No! Not at all. The more you realise that you don’t know what is happening with your cells or flies or enzymes, the more your PhD journey will drive you to explore deeper until you reach a logical answer.

Will there be disappointments and failures? Oh yes! In fact, there will be more failures than successes. Your first experiment which you set up today after reading this article may be a huge disaster. After spending a month in generating those puromycin-selected shRNA knockdown cells, you may be welcomed one morning by a heavily contaminated plate in your incubator. The 20cm X 16cm maxi gel that you had set up for running overnight stopped at midnight due to power failure. In spite of your meticulously precise adherence to the already published immunofluorescence protocol, your staining didn’t work because the antibody wasn’t working for some unknown reason.

These will be the moments which will make you wonder if you’re unsuited for this journey or unworthy of completing a PhD. Just as you are walking back home after developing a blank blot, your long-lost friend may call you to say that he/she got a job offer with amazing incentives and annual income. You might start thinking that the professions chosen by your friends are much more exciting or realistic or at least more easily achievable.

Well, after walking down this road for 6 long years, the one thing that stopped me from quitting when the days, weeks and months got tougher was the reason why I had started this quest for knowledge in the first place. The anticipation to unravel that mechanism which no one else has stumbled upon yet will drive you to overcome those failed moments and repeat every failed experiment till at least some of them succeed. I believe that for every passionate researcher, true satisfaction and joy comes when you finally see the truth of your postulated hypothesis become reality. No matter how many nights you spent crying (literally or metaphorically) and frustrated, that one moment when you face the result of a successful experiment will make you forget all those anxious nights.

A PhD not only trains you to be a scientifically sound researcher, but it inherently also builds you up to be a problem-solver in life with a zeal to never give up. As you develop an analytical and critical mindset, it also trains your mind to be creative and rational even in the basic realms of your life. It grooms you to be an independent thinker and executer, as well as a believer in unconventional ideas. A true seeker of knowledge and understanding in science will keep pushing the boundaries of their understanding, no matter how many hurdles come their way.

So young folks, as you dedicate the cream years of your youth to this road less traveled, know for yourself why you are here and only then will you know how to proceed further. Be ready to learn what you need to know and unlearn what you need to let go.

A few Do’s and Don’ts from my experience

1. Don’t let your enthusiasm and passion for your work die.
2. Be ready to go through dry moments when everything will seem to be in a lag phase.
3. Don’t compare yourself with your peers and feel inferior. Each person takes a different amount of time to enter the exponential phase.
4. Believe in your capabilities.
5. Trust your PI as you trust yourself.
6. Be modest while learning and proud while working.

In the end, don’t expect a standard protocol for your PhD journey. Brace for unexpected events! Just as science has constants and variables, so will your PhD journey. I wish you all the best for a journey which will contain many unpredictable results at the end of well-planned experiments, and hope that your work will help unfold an untold scientific story.

I would like to acknowledge my peer Saket Mishra, a 3rd year PhD student in my lab who helped in the shaping the composition of this article.

Did you enjoy this article? Let us know in the comments below.