1. What inspired you to pursue a career in behavioural ecology?

During my second year of BSc, our class went on a field trip to the Western Ghats. We planned to spend a day at the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES) at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore. During this visit, I attended a talk by Raghavendra Gadagkar, which I found fascinating. We later visited his lab, where they studied the Ropalidia marginata wasp.

He encouraged us to ask questions and answered them eagerly. A year after this trip, he released his book, ​“Survival Strategies,” which I found interesting. This experience inspired me to pursue a PhD in his lab. 

Also, a new professor at my college, Srilanjan Bhattacharya, who was a student of Madhav Gadgil, often shared interesting stories about Madhav Gadgil, Raghavendra Gadagkar, and CES. These stories further fuelled my interest in CES, making it my dream to pursue a PhD there. 

2. After your PhD in wasp at your dream lab, what prompted your transition from studying wasp to studying dogs, which was an entirely new model system for you?

I wanted to set up my lab in India, so I decided not to study social insects, as it would imply that I was doing the same thing as my PhD supervisor. To create an independent identity, I decided to look for a new model system. From my readings, I found three behaviour systems very interesting: crow, dog, and lastly, human infant behaviour. After discussing with my PhD supervisor and evaluating the pros and cons, I decided to pursue dog behaviour. 

3. What challenges did you face while setting up your research group and transitioning to studying dogs?

Initially, people were doubtful, as I was planning to do a completely different thing. As they pointed out, ​“you don’t have any experience in this,” and my answer to them was: 

That is what research is about. You do new things. I know the basic tools. So, I will be able to do it.

People were not convinced until I started publishing. To think of it, I did not face too many challenges because it felt like I had walked out of a lab and reached a new institute. Before I joined, my PhD senior, Annagiri Sumana, had joined six months earlier. She took me under her wing. 

In my initial days at IISER Kolkata, doubts about my research remained. After one year, people began asking me about publishing papers. I felt that, because of my model system, that I was not taken seriously. Another challenge I faced when I started sending out papers was that all my reviewers were from abroad since no one had worked on dogs in India. I was asked very silly questions, like why dogs live on the street or why they eat biscuits. Although we were submitting video proof for our studies, it took time to convince people, which was a real challenge after I started my lab. 

4. Would you like to tell us about some interesting results from your studies, particularly those that excite or surprise you?

One of my favourite findings is about dogs having joint families. Dog pups are always taken care of by a grandmother or aunt. We also looked at a concept called parent-offspring conflicts. Researchers have modelled it, but there are fewer experimental studies for which dogs can be a suitable study system. 

There is a common conception that dogs approach us only for food, but an experiment from our lab showed that petting alone can develop trust without offering food. 

Another fascinating result from our lab showed that dogs have an affinity for yellow, although we don’t yet understand why. 

5. What advice based on your career would you like to give to young researchers in behavioural ecology?

The field of behavioural ecology is very diverse, so it would be difficult to generalise based on my career alone. I can only share what worked for me. I had many broad questions and multiple sub-questions that could be put together to build a story. To support these stories, experimental data is required. 

We collect the data by studying live animals, and often the experimental protocol may not work. We face setbacks like the animal dying or not getting enough samples to complete the target for the day. Despite the challenges, we need to keep planning for the next day and stay committed to science. I suggest not setting very ambitious targets, as it takes time to publish a paper in this field. 

6. How do you balance the demands of field work and research with other aspects of your life and career?

Nowadays, I am not actively involved in field work, as all of it is done by my students. I have become a manager of science rather than an active science worker. As you advance in your career, more students join; all of them need your time. So, I am more involved in brainstorming than doing active fieldwork. 

My time balances out between teaching and wearing multiple hats of responsibilities and commitments to different committees. Then, of course, home is there. Everything demands time, resulting in work spilling over into my home time. I guess I can manage it well. 

7. Do you think a PhD prepares you for a faculty position, or do you think there is something missing?

On average, I will say no. I think a PhD does not prepare you for a faculty position. One fine day, you become a faculty member, and you are supposed to know how to hire people, submit research grants, teach, design syllabi, and handle committees. This all comes to you without proper training. PhD programmes are not well-designed well, with supervisors expecting students to do full-time research without mentoring them for future roles. 

8. How do you take your research from the field to the public and translate it into dog welfare?

I have received invitations from a couple of institutions to talk about my work, which would help animal welfare committees take steps to manage conflicts. These problems should be managed with the help of science, for which more research is required. Recently, I was invited by the Municipal Corporation of my town to become an advisor to a committee looking into dog problems. Efforts like these are taken locally, but there should be something at the national level too. 

Policymakers should understand the science behind a problem before coming up with any policy. 

To contribute from our side, we can encourage someone from our lab to start a startup. For example, shelter homes for stray dogs are poorly managed. If inputs are taken from scientific studies, better care can be provided to the animals. 

9. What is one significant change that can benefit women pursuing a career in science?

Ideally, social prejudice should change, but I think we should start with policy-level changes. For example, childcare leave should be considered for both parents, as raising a child is a shared responsibility between genders. It is not just the mother’s responsibility to raise a child. 

10. What was the most fulfilling moment of your career?

I think when I was invited to give a keynote address at the Canine Science Forum last year, it was really an honour for me. The Canine Science Forum congregates every two years, and all the big names from Europe in the field of canine science attend it.