Type

Fellowship

Website

mssrf.org/careers/ms-swaminath… →

Profile

The M.S. Swaminathan Fellowship will offer a transformative 24-month experience. The fellows will be mentored by senior scientists at the foundation, trustees and relevant partner organizations, and will receive practical and hands-on experience in our regional centres. This fellowship will empower talented young post-graduates to drive impactful research and development programmes that benefit local communities. The M.S. Swaminathan Fellowship offers the opportunity to work across the disciplines of agriculture, ecology, economics, marine biology, health, nutrition and social sciences. The fellowship encourages research that fosters science-society interactions.

Duration

24 months and co-terminus with the end date of the fellowship.

Money

INR 37,000/- per month + HRA as per institutional norms (annual assessment is mandatory to continue the benefits during the fellowship period).

Qualifications

• Post graduate degree in Agriculture / Animal Sciences / Ecology / Developmental Studies / Fisheries / Marine Biology / Environmental Sciences / Forestry/ Developmental Economics / Anthropology / Nutrition / Public Health / Food Science / Biotechnology / Sociology / Climate Science with a good academic record.
• Demonstrated interest in ‘science-society’ interface to address current challenges of climate change impact on development goals (SDGs).

To Apply

Please fill out the form by clicking the Apply button on our MSSRF website below and upload your CV & SOP documents. Kindly rename your application mentioning the job tile and job code in your application. Immediate joiner or candidates with short notice period (Expected joining 1st Sep 2026. ) Applications must be submitted online in the webpage as a Merged PDF document containing: Updated Curriculum Vitae (CV) and a separate Statement of Purpose (SoP) - A short proposal outlining the candidate’s area of interest, Two relevant reference letters.

Applicants must clearly mention the application code “MSSF-07-2026” in their application.

For more details click here.

Imagine a time when the Earth was silent—a barren rock floating in space, devoid of breath and greenery. The transformation from that inanimate world to the living one we know today is perhaps the most profound event in history. This process is called abiogenesis: the theory that life didn’t just appear, but gradually emerged from non-living matter through natural chemical evolution. It is a story of how the universe, using nothing but simple chemicals including water, energy and most importantly time, slowly organized itself into something capable of survival. To understand this incredible journey, we must travel back to the very beginning, to the infancy of our planet.

Life is estimated to have started on earth approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, during the volatile Hadean and early Archean eons. The early Earth was a hostile environment, characterized by an atmosphere lacking oxygen and dominated by gases such as methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water vapour, all while being constantly bombarded by intense ultraviolet radiation and lightning. Yet, it was within this chaotic crucible that the first critical step toward life began: the synthesis of organic building blocks from inorganic precursors. The famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 provided the first experimental proof of principle for this phase, demonstrating that subjecting these gases to lightning and heat could successfully synthesize amino acids, the fundamental components of proteins, from simple molecules like water and methane.

However, the creation of simple individual components of biomolecules is only the beginning; life requires complex polymers like DNA, RNA, and proteins to function. In the vastness of the primordial ocean, these building blocks must have faced a significant hurdle known as the “dilution problem,” where they would simply drift apart in the water rather than link together. To overcome this, it is hypothesized that mineral-rich rock surfaces, perhaps located at the edge of tidal pools or hydrothermal vents, acted as chemical scaffolds. These surfaces could adsorb monomers, effectively concentrating them and catalyzing their polymerization into more complex chains.

As these chemical systems became more complex, a critical “chicken-and-egg” paradox emerged regarding the nature of the first self-replicating life form. DNA holds the genetic blueprint for life. But it is chemically passive and cannot replicate itself without the aid of complex catalytic protein machinery, such as polymerases. Conversely, these proteins cannot be synthesized without the instructions encoded within DNA. This creates a logical loop: if DNA requires proteins to replicate, but proteins require DNA to be built, how could life have possibly begun? Which of the two – a source of information or a building catalyst – must have come first?

Breaking the Loop: The RNA Solution

The widely accepted answer to this paradox lies in the unique dual nature of RNA. Unlike DNA, which is strictly utilized for information storage, or proteins, which are strictly utilized for catalytic activity, RNA possesses the capability to do both. This versatility forms the basis of the RNA World Hypothesis, which proposes that early life relied entirely on RNA for both genetic continuity and chemical catalysis. Like DNA, RNA is a nucleic acid composed of nucleotide bases and can store genetic information in its sequence, allowing “blueprints” to be passed from one generation to the next. However, unlike the rigid double helix of DNA, RNA is single-stranded and can fold into complex, three-dimensional shapes. These shapes allow RNA to function like an enzyme, creating catalytic molecules known as ribozymes.

The RNA World hypothesis solves the biological puzzle of “which came first, DNA or protein?” but it creates a new, chemical puzzle. RNA is a single-stranded biopolymer; each unit composed of a ribose sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base. Building such molecule from scratch on the early Earth conditions would have been incredibly difficult as ribose is very unstable, it is very difficult to separate ribose from other sugars and also linking it precisely to phosphates without enzymes is chemically unfavourable and inefficient.

Because of this difficulty, many scientists believe RNA was probably not the very first step. Instead, they propose a “Pre-RNA World.” The idea is that simpler, tougher genetic molecules appeared first. Think of these molecules as a “rough draft” of life – they were chemically simpler and easier to build than RNA, but they could still pair up and pass on information. Eventually, these rugged molecules acted as a scaffold or template, helping the first RNA strands to form and eventually take over.

However, recent scientific breakthroughs show that making RNA might not be as impossible as we thought. Scientists used a new approach called “Systems Chemistry” to solve this problem. They showed that if you take very simple chemicals present on the early Earth—like cyanamide and glycolaldehyde—and expose them to UV light, they can react to form the building blocks of RNA (nucleotides) directly. This suggests that the “ingredients” for life didn’t need to be made one by one; they could have been made using some atmospheric gases and volcanic compounds in a natural environment.

Finally, there is the problem of stability. Even if you make RNA, it is fragile and breaks down easily in water. To solve this dilemma, new research points to a “Co-Evolution” or “Chimeric World.” This theory suggests that RNA didn’t evolve alone. Simple, short protein fragments called peptides likely formed alongside it. These peptides could bind to the RNA, acting like a protective shell to keep it stable. In this view, the story of life isn’t just about RNA; it’s about a partnership between RNA and primitive peptides helping each other persist from the very beginning.

Once RNA was finally established – whether it took over from a simpler ancestor or was stabilized by early peptides – the stage was set for the “RNA World” to begin. In this era, a specific RNA molecule could essentially store the code for its replication while simultaneously performing the chemical reaction to copy itself. The strongest evidence for this theory exists inside every living cell today. The ribosome, the universal machine responsible for making proteins, is itself a ribozyme. Crystallographic studies have shown that the ribosome’s core catalytic engine—the part that actually stitches amino acids together to build proteins is made of RNA, not protein. This suggests that protein synthesis could have evolved from a RNA-based process. Furthermore, many essential metabolic molecules, such as ATP, NAD+, and FAD, are actually modified RNA nucleotides, appearing as remnants of a metabolism that once relied on RNA building blocks.

Ultimately, the transition to true life occurred when these self-replicating RNAs (or RNA-peptide systems) became encapsulated within lipid membranes, forming protocells. This encapsulation allowed the RNA to create a distinct internal environment, subject to Darwinian evolution – a process where functionally beneficial molecular variations were selected, preserved, and passed on. Debates still continue, especially whether metabolic cycles might have preceded genetic molecules (as cited in the “Metabolism-First” hypothesis). But these experiments have not worked out in the lab. Therefore, the scientific consensus leans toward a scenario where RNA-likely aided by simple peptides bridged the gap between non-living chemistry and the first cellular life forms, eventually handing over data storage to DNA and chemical work to proteins for their superior stability and efficiency.

A scientist can now order a custom DNA sequence as easily as ordering laboratory reagents online. The same technology that helps researchers develop vaccines, engineer crops, and design new therapies can also be used to recreate dangerous pathogens. As the barriers to synthesising biological material continue to fall, a pressing question is emerging worldwide: who decides which sequences should never be made? It was this question that brought scientists, policymakers, industry representatives, and biosecurity experts together in Bengaluru on 24 - 25 February 2026, for a workshop conducted jointly by the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC) and the Bio-Responsibility Initiative, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) titled ‘Building International Best Practices for Robust Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening’.

At the heart of the problem is a gap in oversight. Imagine a researcher placing an online order for a synthetic DNA sequence. How can a supplier know whether the order is part of legitimate scientific research or an attempt to recreate a harmful pathogen? Two safeguards are supposed to answer that question: sequence screening and customer screening. Broadly asking if the sequence itself is safe or potentially dangerous ? And is the person ordering it for a legitimate purpose or not? respectively. Sequence screening means checking whether a DNA order matches known dangerous sequences, while customer screening means verifying that the person placing the order has a legitimate scientific reason to do so. According to the Global DNA Synthesis Map published by The International Biosecurity and Biosafety Initiative for Science (IBBIS) in December 2025, over 700 companies worldwide provide synthetic nucleic acids, and more than 500 of them are required under local policy to screen their orders but currently do not do so consistently. There is also no globally agreed list of which sequences should be considered dangerous, meaning even companies that want to screen do not know where to start.

Around the world, governments are responding at different speeds. The United States has moved towards mandatory screening for federally funded research. The United Kingdom has issued voluntary guidance, while the European Union is exploring biosecurity registries. New Zealand is experimenting with an even more ambitious idea, building screening mechanisms directly into synthesis machines. Together, these efforts reveal an emerging global consensus: DNA synthesis can no longer be treated as an ordinary commercial transaction.

For India, the debate is especially urgent. The country's bioeconomy has expanded from USD 10 billion in 2014 to USD 165 billion in 2025, placing it among the world's fastest-growing biotechnology sectors. Yet this growth has occurred without a dedicated DNA synthesis screening framework. The result is a paradox: India is becoming a major biotechnology player while lacking many of the safeguards now being discussed internationally. No Indian company is a member of the International Gene Synthesis Consortium (IGSC), the leading global industry body for responsible synthesis practices. Most Indian firms do not manufacture DNA at all; they distribute products made abroad, often without applying the safety standards the original manufacturer follows. Basic customer-screening tools like institutional order forms are largely absent. What India decides to do next will matter not just domestically, but globally.

Major themes and discussions

The discussions across two days centred on four key themes.

Theme 1: Making screening work without slowing the science.

One of the workshop’s central concerns was to strengthen security measures without creating unnecessary barriers for legitimate scientific research. Participants broadly agreed that the most practical near-term approach for India is a bottom-up model, where Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBSCs), the bodies already present in research institutions under India's existing biosafety rules, serve as the first layer of verifying who is placing an order and why. Rather than building an entirely new system, this approach works with existing infrastructure. Critically, participants agreed that screening must be designed to feel easy for honest users, not punitive. As one participant noted, poorly designed guardrails tend to hinder responsible researchers; bad actors will simply find another route.

Theme 2: The Distributor dilemma

Perhaps the most difficult question concerned responsibility within India's distributor driven DNA supply chain. Unlike countries with significant domestic DNA synthesis capacity, most synthetic DNA used in India is manufactured abroad, primarily in the United States or China and sold through local distributors. This creates a gap: the foreign manufacturer may screen orders before shipping, but once the product enters India, there is no check on who ultimately uses it or why. The participants could not reach a consensus on resolving this question, but agreed it needs urgent multi-stakeholder dialogue, potentially backed by legal frameworks that clearly assign liability at each step of the chain.

Theme 3: Can existing systems support biosecurity screening?

Rather than building an entirely new regulatory architecture, participants explored whether India’s existing biosafety infrastructure could be adapted to address emerging biosecurity challenges. The Indian Biosafety Knowledge Portal (IBKP), a web-based platform already aimed at researchers and industry, was identified as a potential platform that could be used for screening-related reporting across the country. However, a significant gap was also flagged: IBSCs currently meet only once or twice a year, and their members are trained in biosafety, managing known biological risks in laboratories, rather than biosecurity, which involves anticipating and preventing deliberate misuse. Participants agreed that targeted biosecurity training for IBSC members is an immediate priority, supported by free and open-source screening tools such as the IBBIS Common Mechanism, which could be customised for Indian setting.

Theme 4: Screening as a strategic opportunity

A recurring theme throughout the workshop was the need to frame screening not as a regulatory burden but as a strategic opportunity. Countries and companies that build trusted, verified supply chains become more attractive partners for international investment and collaboration. Participants recommended that the Indian government should be approached with a clear message: establishing a national screening framework would position India as one of the safest and most reliable partners in synthetic biology globally, opening doors in the G20, Quad, and EU-India diplomatic channels rather than closing them. India's experience in building large-scale digital public infrastructure was cited as proof that scalable systems can be built quickly when the political will exists.

Unresolved challenges and open questions

Despite broad agreement on the need for screening, participants acknowledged that several difficult questions remain unresolved.

Distributor accountability: One of the most persistent challenges concerns accountability within India's distributor-driven DNA supply chain. While overseas manufacturers may conduct screening, responsibilities of distributors and end users remain unclear, highlighting the need for clearer legal and regulatory frameworks.

False positives: Participants cautioned that overly restrictive screening systems could generate excessive false alerts, creating delays for legitimate research and potentially driving users toward unscreened providers. Balancing security and usability was therefore identified as a critical design challenge.

AI-generated sequences: Advances in AI are enabling the design of novel biological sequences that may not match existing databases, limiting the effectiveness of traditional screening methods. Participants suggested benchmarking exercises, similar to cybersecurity stress tests, to support the development of next-generation screening approaches.

Split orders: Deliberately dividing a hazardous sequence into smaller fragments and ordering them from multiple providers remains a significant vulnerability. Addressing this challenge would require greater information sharing among providers, raising commercial and legal concerns.

Incident response: Discussions noted that screening efforts have focused largely on prevention. Given that no system can guarantee complete security, participants emphasised the need for response frameworks that define actions when suspicious orders are detected or dangerous sequences are synthesised despite existing safeguards.

Major recommendations

By the end of the workshop, a broad roadmap had begun to emerge:

For the Indian government, the priorities should be to develop a national biosecurity policy that makes DNA synthesis screening a condition of operating in the Indian market; to create an official national Sequence of Concern (SOC) list maintained through a coordinated inter-ministerial process; to invest in biosecurity training for IBSC members and build digital infrastructure to support screening; and to consolidate the currently fragmented responsibilities across biosafety, biosecurity, biodefence, and bioethics into a single national authority. Amending the existing laws or enacting new ones to create a specific legal basis for synthesis screening was also recommended.

For industry, the ask is straightforward: join or establish an industry consortium for sharing information on flagged sequences and suspicious customers, adopt IGSC protocols voluntarily as a starting point, and integrate basic customer verification into existing ordering platforms as a first, low-friction step. For funders and academic institutions, the recommendation is to condition research grants on the use of synthesis providers that follow best-practice screening, and to engage with bodies like the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises (ABLE) to build voluntary norms ahead of formal regulation. For the international community, the call is to ensure that open-source tools are available to providers in lower-income countries, and design frameworks are developed to make screened synthesis accelerated, convenient and cost effective rather than relying on penalties alone.

Conclusion

The EBRC–IISc conference of February 2026 took place at a genuine turning point. AI-based biodesign tools are lowering the barriers to engineering biological sequences faster than governance frameworks can keep up. A biosecurity gap in one country quickly becomes a problem for everyone, and the frameworks built for a slower, more centralised era are simply not equipped for what is coming.

For India, the stakes are especially high. A bioeconomy of USD 165 billion, growing under the BioE3 policy, currently rests on a regulatory foundation with serious gaps, and India's rapid growth is happening with limited visibility into how its supply chains could be misused. Yet the grounds for optimism are real: IBSCs offer a functioning institutional backbone, India's voice in the G20, Quad, and bilateral strategic dialogues gives it the standing to shape global norms, and the country's track record in building digital public infrastructure shows that a national screening system is entirely achievable.

The path forward is clear: build screening into India's bioeconomy as an asset, not a constraint, and act before the window for shaping global norms closes. The costs of inaction, in lives, in economic disruption, and in strategic positioning, are far higher than the costs of acting now.

CODS organised by the India KDD is the premier data centric conference in India. It is to be held from December 13th to 16th this year at DAIICT, Gandhinagar. The conference program features keynote talks by stalwarts in AI/ML, high quality research and industry tracks, topical tutorials and demo tracks. The conference invites researchers in the field of data science, data management, data mining, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, as well as papers describing the design, implementation and results of solutions of such advances to real-world problems. This year we are inviting submissions for a new track on AI for Biology describing original research contributions in the interface of AI/ML and Biology.

The AI for Biology track invites submission of abstracts describing original research contributions in the interface of AI/ML and Biology. These may include the application of AI/ML to address biological questions (“AI for Biology”) or the development of AI methods inspired by biological systems (“Biology for AI”). Submissions can range from theoretical contributions to benchmarking, to design, implementation, and results of novel AI/ML methods applied to biological problems.

Abstracts are limited to 250 words and can correspond to recently published/​accepted/​submitted papers, or ongoing work. All abstracts will undergo rigorous peer review.

Authors of all accepted abstracts will present posters at the conference. Selected accepted abstracts will also be invited for flash talks.

For more details, visit: https://​ikdd​.acm​.org/​c​o​d​s​-​2​0​2​6​/​c​a​l​l​-​f​o​r​-​a​i​-​f​o​r​-​b​i​o​l​o​g​y​-​t​r​a​c​k​-​p​a​p​e​r​s.php

Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology is organising Two days National level workshop on "Flow cytometry Techniques" which will be held August 7th and 8th, 2026 at Flow cytometry research facility, Cancer biology lab, International Research Centre, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai through Physical mode.

The workshop will cover the following topics: Basics of Flow cytometry analysis, Overview of instrument and its setup, Quality control, Experimental plan and design, Cell cycle analysis using mammalian cells, Apoptosis and Cell health analysis along with Data analysis and interpretation

ATREE

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Engagement

Contract

Hours

Full-time

Apply Online

docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI… →

Profile

The Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) invites applications for a fully funded doctoral researcher position on the interdisciplinary research theme “Rurban Ecologies, Cultural Flows, and the Making of Urban Nature.” The project explores how urban ecology and biodiversity are actively shaped through the movement of plants, materials, species, and cultural practices across interconnected rural and urban landscapes.

Moving beyond conventional approaches to urban biodiversity, the research examines the role of culturally induced flows, including ritual practices, floriculture, landscaping, and aesthetic preferences, in generating both ecological support and ecological stress within rapidly transforming cities. Drawing on the concept of rurbanity, the project investigates how ecological processes emerge through interactions between peri urban production landscapes, urban consumption spaces, and the cultural values that connect them.

The doctoral researcher will be based at ATREE, Bengaluru, with the opportunity to register for a PhD at the University of Kassel, Germany. The candidate will be jointly supervised by Dr. M. Soubadra Devy (ATREE) and Dr. Andreas Buerkert (University of Kassel) and will work within an interdisciplinary research environment spanning urban ecology, environmental science, geography, and sustainability studies. The position will involve extensive fieldwork across Bengaluru and its peri urban hinterlands and active engagement with international research networks.

Responsibilities

• Review and synthesise relevant literature on rurbanity, urban ecology, biodiversity, and cultural landscapes.
• Design and conduct interdisciplinary field research using ecological and social science methods.
• Map and analyse culturally induced flows of plant material and their ecological implications.
• Engage with communities, nurseries, temples, urban planners, and other stakeholders.
• Analyse qualitative and quantitative data and contribute to scientific publications.
• Participate in project meetings, workshops, and international conferences.

Qualifications

Applicants should hold a postgraduate degree in Ecology, Environmental Science, Conservation Biology, Sustainability Studies, or a closely related discipline. Candidates with an interest in interdisciplinary research linking urban ecology, biodiversity, and socio ecological systems are particularly encouraged to apply.

Experience

Experience in field ecology, biodiversity assessment, qualitative or mixed methods research, and data analysis will be an advantage.

To Apply

For more information click here

Contact

E JavaScript is required to reveal this email address.

Every year, scores of hilsa in our oceans swim against the tide towards the head of the Ganga to find suitable breeding grounds. Many will not survive this arduous journey. Yet none shy away from embarking on it. They are guided by ancestral memory, empowering them to instinctively respond to minute changes around them, thus allowing them to survive despite the constant threats in their environment.

While not as dramatic as a life-or-death situation, the early scientific journey of a ten-year-old boy from a small village in Madhya Pradesh was nothing short of an arduous upstream journey against the odds.

Krishanpal hails from a remote and tiny village on the outskirts of Bhopal with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. He recalls that in his youth, reaching his village from Sehore railway station required a journey involving two buses. He fondly recounts how he and a few other boys his age spent their early Gurukul days in his village learning to read Hindi, practice basic arithmetic and engage in ‘kushti’ (traditional wrestling) in the evenings. It was standard practice for them to help with their Guru's household chores.

Since no one in his village had earned a graduate degree, he had no template to emulate. However, Krishanpal’s life took an exciting turn when he joined Navodaya Vidyalaya in the sixth grade. He was one of only four children selected from his taluk based on an aptitude test that involved logical reasoning, solving puzzles, sequences, and matching patterns— skills that, as he notes, continue to underpin his scientific thinking and research even today.

Krishanpal Karmodiya is currently an Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune (IISER Pune) and an EMBO Global Investigator Network (GIN) member. His team works on piecing together a broader puzzle of what happens to whole cellular systems when one systematically tinkers with its components. They piece together this mystery in Plasmodium, a single-celled parasite that causes Malaria and spends half its life cycle in mosquitoes, with the other half spent wreaking havoc in our bodies.

While often viewed as formidable invaders from our perspective, Plasmodial cells face their fair share of extraordinary challenges too. These cells must figure out not only how to survive in harsh conditions, but also how to thrive in rapidly changing environments. They sequentially move between the gut and salivary glands of a mosquito at 25°C, and then to our liver and blood at 37°C. Despite aeons of evolutionary time to perfect this cycle, these cells now face a new challenge: drugs.

This forms the basis of the central question Krishanpal’s lab is interested in: How can a tiny cell—almost 50 times thinner than human hair at its smallest and equipped with limited genetic material—alter its behaviour rapidly enough to overcome challenges such as the mosquito and human immune systems, as well as chemical drugs?

Much like Plasmodium that must navigate a world filled with obstacles, Krishanpal’s own scientific journey was fraught with hurdles at every turn. While deeply grateful for the opportunity to study in Navodaya, he also recalls struggling to catch up. “Many of my friends were reading and writing comfortably in English, while I was still learning my ABCs”, he says.

Call it desperation or an unwavering determination to escape his circumstances, he managed to pass his class 10 examinations—much to his own disbelief. When asked what Eureka moment set him on the path to science, he says it was not a single moment, but a gradual process. In fact, he admits he only started to enjoy science in his bachelor’s degree.

He became fascinated by the remarkable abilities of microorganisms, recalling how astonished he was to learn that certain bacteria could break down petroleum. He admired the systematic nature of experimental design and marvelled at some of the simplest experiments that revealed profound results.

While he was doing well academically, pursuing science was not something he considered as a long-term possibility. More than anything else, he was primarily driven by a desire for a better life. So when, in his early 20s, he received a call from the National Defence Academy for an interview to become an army officer, he seized the opportunity with both hands. He immediately booked a train ticket to Varanasi from Indore, skipping college tests he declared unimportant at the time. He viewed a stable army job as a far better prospect than farming — the only two livelihoods he had known growing up in his village. The notion of a career in academia was but a distant dream.

But life had other plans.

In hindsight, Krishnapal believes it was sheer luck that he did not get that job. As he boarded his train from Indore for the interview, the Godhra riots broke out, with many cities on high alert. He vividly remembers arriving early in the morning at 0600 hours, tensely waiting for the basic screening scheduled for 0730 hours. Unfortunately, he was rejected at the screening stage because he was missing a required document that had been sent to his village without his knowledge. With no phones and delayed communication in those days, he only learnt about it later.

Looking back, Krishanpal believes that, given his circumstances then, securing that position would likely have diverted him away from science altogether.

He resumed his masters on returning back to Indore, tucking away the disappointment of not making it in the army. After his first year, his seniors at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (IISc Bengaluru) urged him to apply for a master's dissertation in Bengaluru. Sheepishly revealing his lack of communication etiquette, he recounts how he simply packed up his belongings at the end of his first year and went to Bengaluru to ask for an opportunity to work in a lab without sending an email first. Living with his seniors, he visited laboratories at premier institutes such as the IISc Bengaluru and the National Centre for Biological Sciences - Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (NCBS-TIFR) on a daily basis, but to no avail. On one occasion, he even made a plea to a lab manager, who patiently listened before kindly explaining that he had no authority to hire anyone.

Just as he was preparing to give up and return to Indore, fate intervened.

While he was standing in front of a notice board in the Molecular Biophysics Unit at IISc, a tall, formidable man walked by, took notice of him, and spoke to him. It was Avadhesha Surolia, who was then the Head of the Department.

“I still do not know what he saw in me within a couple of minutes of conversation”, Krishanpal reflects.

I recently visited the department and found myself thinking about how small moments like that can completely change the trajectory of a person's life.”

Instead of heading back dejected, Krishanpal was filled with a sense of anticipation after securing a dissertation at IISc Bengaluru. There was no looking back after that. Even though he remembers feeling discouraged after getting rejected from multiple institutions while searching for a PhD, his deep understanding of his dissertation worked in his favour during his interview at Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), Bengaluru.

His current research lies at the interface of the small-scale molecular tinkering he trained in as a doctoral student and the large-scale molecular patterns he investigated as a postdoctoral student. Such ambitious projects require extensive resources and collaborations. Krishanpal believes that securing the EMBO Global Investigators Network Award would facilitate networking opportunities for his group and advance knowledge in their field and improve disease management.

His group focuses on mapping the genes that Plasmodium rapidly switch on and off under different conditions to combat drugs and adopt chemical disguises that allow them to attack different tissues of the body. The alternative to this rapid on/off mechanism is to wait like a sitting duck for the slow arrival of a mutation that could perhaps be weaponised. This flexibility and resilience of Plasmodial cells to respond to the myriad of changes with “simple” coordinated switches is what Krishanpal’s team wants to understand. Studying this would require one to keep shifting focus from single molecules to organelles and entire cells. While Krishanpal now enjoys traversing up and down the cellular scale to understand the many complexities of Plasmodium, he set his sights on swimming upstream in his own life.

Azim Premji University

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Engagement

Contract

Hours

Full-time

Website

iwonder.azimpremjiuniversity.e… →

Profile

i wonder... is an Azim Premji University publication. The magazine curates and publishes articles and resources to support the classroom practice of preparatory-stage (Grades III–V) Environmental Studies (EVS) and middle-stage (Grades VI–VIII) science teachers. Our focus is on teaching and learning processes in government school contexts. Learn more about us and our work here.

i wonder... is looking for a part-time Associate Editor (Content Development) to join our team to support draft development, content creation, and core editorial workflows.

Duration

1-3 years

Money

Compensation is discussed with the candidate during the recruitment process.

Qualifications

• Strong academic background in science. A proven understanding of science pedagogy, curriculum design, and inquiry-based learning.
• Strong skills in editing and writing clearly in English. A basic understanding and ability to read Hindi and/or Kannada is an asset.
• Strong analytical and critical reading skills.
• Systematic, organized, and meticulous with an eye for structural editing, formatting, and detail.
• Enjoys a deeply collaborative process of giving and receiving constructive feedback with authors and editors.

Experience

• Experience in school EVS and/or science education.
• Experience working with or teaching in government school contexts is highly preferred.
• Experience translating complex scientific or academic text into accessible, teacher-facing language is a major advantage.

To Apply

To apply for this position, please fill out and submit this short form (https://forms.gle/5vyBKQMviBWW...) by July 15, 2026.

Contact

Chitra Ravi, Chief Editor, i wonder... magazine

E JavaScript is required to reveal this email address.

Azim Premji University

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Engagement

Contract

Hours

Full-time

Website

iwonder.azimpremjiuniversity.e… →

Profile

i wonder... is an Azim Premji University publication. The magazine curates and publishes articles and resources to support the classroom practice of preparatory-stage (Grades III–V) Environmental Studies (EVS) and middle-stage (Grades VI–VIII) science teachers. Our focus is on teaching and learning processes in government school contexts.

i wonder... is looking for a part-time Associate Editor (Coordination & Outreach) to join our team. This role is split between coordination and outreach (60%) and editorial content support (40%).

Duration

1-3 years

Money

Compensation is discussed with the candidate during the recruitment process.

Qualifications

• A strong academic background in science.
• Strong skills in communicating clearly and professionally in written English. A basic understanding and ability to read Hindi and/or Kannada is an advantage.
• Strong analytical and reasoning skills.
• Systematic, organised, and meticulous with an eye for detail.
• Enjoys working in a collaborative environment and is open to asking for and receiving feedback.

Experience

• Experience in school Environmental Studies and/or science education.
• Familiar with or has a keen interest in education in government school contexts.
• Experience in science communication or an interest in exploring creative ways of communicating science to school teachers and students is a plus.

To Apply

To apply for this position, please fill out and submit this short form (https://forms.gle/wtPPYr9y1fPh...) by July 15, 2026.

Contact

Chitra Ravi, Chief Editor i wonder... magazine

E JavaScript is required to reveal this email address.

At a Glance

—Chronic pelvic pain often reshapes the daily lives of those who suffer from it, impacting various aspects of personal and professional existence.

—The understanding of pain transcends mere physical sensations, encompassing intricate interactions between biological, psychological, and environmental factors.

—Gender disparities in pain perception highlight that women often experience more intense and chronic pain, yet their suffering is frequently dismissed or mismanaged in healthcare settings.

—Research bias in clinical trials has historically marginalised women's health issues, leading to significant gaps in understanding and treating conditions predominantly affecting women.

I have lived with chronic pelvic pain for more than a decade. It is a constant heaviness and the ache gets worse as the day goes on. Sitting for too long, prolonged standing, physical activity, sex—most things seem to aggravate it. Over time, it has slowly reshaped how I live: how I work, how I make love, how I travel, how I exercise, even how I play with my children, or what I choose to wear.

I began coming across similar stories of women in pain, online. They described years of pain, being told nothing was wrong, and made to feel like it was all in their head.

I saw several doctors over the years, mostly gynaecologists, who could not find anything obvious to fix. Routine scans looked fine and most of my tests were normal. There was not much effort to look beyond what showed up on standard tests. And somewhere along the way, the question changed. It stopped being about what might be causing the pain and became about why I was feeling it. Perhaps stress, maybe anxiety, or my lifestyle were the “triggers”?

None of the doctors I saw said it out loud, but the advice that followed made their opinion clear: if nothing shows up on a scan, maybe it was an imagined pain. That is when I realised my pain was not just something I had to live with; its very existence was something I had to keep proving.

It was frustrating that despite my background in biology, which trained me to understand my body at least to some extent, and despite having access to doctors, tests, and the kind of care that many people did not, I still had no idea why I was in pain. Over time, I started to doubt myself. Maybe it is stress. Maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe there really is nothing there.

I began coming across similar stories of women in pain, online. They described years of pain, being told nothing was wrong, and made to feel like it was all in their head. It was hard to ignore the pattern. It could not be that all of us were imagining it.

That is what made me start thinking more seriously about pain itself. What actually shapes pain—biology, the mind, or the world around us? And why does it seem to play out so differently for men and women?

Experience of pain

Pain is not just a signal from damaged tissue, even though that is how we often think about it. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines it as both a sensory and emotional experience. Imaging studies show that pain activates not just sensory areas in the brain, but also regions linked to fear, memory, and threat. Pain is shaped not just by damage but also by what we anticipate, what we remember, and how safe we feel.

Even when pain is measured in a controlled environment—heat, pressure, electrical stimulation—women, on average, feel pain earlier and tolerate it for a shorter time than men.

At a basic level, pain begins with specialised receptors—sensory nerve endings across the body—that detect potential damage. They send signals to the spinal cord and brain, where these are processed and experienced as pain. Signals travel through different neural pathways depending on whether it is sharp pain or a dull one, or an aching pain. Different parts of the brain map where it hurts, how intense it is, and the emotional response to it.

Pain is not a one-way process. The brain can also send signals back to turn pain up or down, for instance, by releasing endorphins, the body’s pain-killing hormones. These and other hormones act as chemical messengers that can influence how pain is processed and how much inflammation is present. Even as a biological mechanism, pain is not a simple, linear pathway, but the result of many factors coming together to shape how we experience it.

Womanly pain

Across countries, cultures, and conditions, women consistently report more frequent, more intense, and chronicpain. Migraine is a good example. Women get it about three times more often than men. Fibromyalgia is another. Many common pain conditions, from joint and muscle pain to irritable bowel syndrome and nerve pain, are known to be more common in women. Women are also more likely to report stronger pain during and after surgery. In addition, some chronic pain conditions affect only women, like endometriosis, interstitial cystitis, and pelvic girdle pain.

What stood out to me was that these differences do not disappear in lab settings. Even when pain is measured in a controlled environment—heat, pressure, electrical stimulation—women, on average, feel pain earlier and tolerate it for a shorter time than men. This suggests these differences are not only about reporting or communication but also may reflect underlying biological variation. This prompts the question: do men and women process pain differently?

Hormones and pain pathways

Before puberty, boys and girls respond to pain pretty much the same way. But things start to change once puberty sets in. Girls begin to report higher sensitivity to pain and deal with more chronic pain than boys, which hints that sex hormones might play a part, though it is not all that straightforward.

Men and women are not on an equal footing when it comes to pain, either in how it is experienced or how long it lasts.

Take oestrogen, the primary sex-defining hormone in women. Its levels fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle, and some research suggests women’s pain sensitivity shifts with these changes, although the results are not always consistent. Oestrogen seems to turn pain sensitivity up or down, depending on which pain pathway it is affecting.

Scientists recently have been looking into other hormones like prolactin, a hormone essential for lactation and breast development. Though this field is in its nascent stages, some studies link higher prolactin levels to nerve pathways that respond more strongly to pain, exacerbating chronic pain conditions like migraine in women with endometriosis, for example.

In contrast, testosterone, the predominant male hormone, has in some studies been linked to higher pain tolerance. This is seen in both human and animal models. But here too, the picture is not entirely clear, and the mechanisms are still being worked out. Taken together, our limited understanding today points to specific sex hormones working with specific nerve pathways either to increase or decrease the sensation of pain, with the former being mostly true for hormones that are dominant in women.

Beyond hormones, there are also gender differences in how pain is regulated in the brain. What matters is not only how intensely the pain is felt, but also how quickly it can be dampened once it begins. Evidence suggests that women, on average, do not have strong internal cellular and molecular systems when compared to men for shutting off pain signals, leading to more stubborn, long-lasting pain.

Then there is the immune system. Chronic pain is closely linked to inflammation in the nervous system and researchers are starting to realise that immune signalling works differently in men and women. Scientists are still trying to figure out what these differences mean, but it seems to be another piece of this complicated puzzle.

What emerges from all of this is not a single explanation, but a consistent pattern. Men and women are not on an equal footing when it comes to pain, either in how it is experienced or how long it lasts. Women are more likely to end up living with lingering pain, sometimes for years. And yet, why is it so often not taken seriously when women complain of persistent pain?

Who gets believed, who gets treated?

These gender disparities carry through into how pain is treated across our health systems, with many studiespointing to clear and not-so-subtle differences in how women’s pain is managed. In emergency rooms, women usually wait longer for pain relief, and are less likely to be given strong painkillers for the same complaints. Their pain is also more likely to be brushed off as psychological or emotional rather than a physical phenomenon. Most of this evidence comes from Western settings, but smaller studies and reports suggest similar patterns in India too, especially when it comes to abdominal and pelvic pain.

Then there is pain that only women experience—pain that medicine has often failed to take seriously. Endometriosis affects about one in 10 women of reproductive age, yet getting a diagnosis can take anywhere from four to 12 years worldwide. In those years, many women are told their pain is normal, exaggerated, or just due to stress. What is this but apathy?

Gaps in research

Part of this gender gap comes from how medical knowledge was built in the first place. For decades, women were simply left out of clinical trials. Preclinical research relied heavily on male animals, partly to avoid dealing with hormonal cycles. The result is that many pain models, diagnostic criteria, and treatments were developed around male bodies and then applied more broadly, without much adjustment.

The gap widens further when we look at conditions that affect only women. There are major gaps in understanding issues largely because they remain under-researched.

That has several consequences, including misdiagnosis when symptoms do not match those typically seen in men. For example, women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed during a heart attack because their presentation does not mirror the “textbook” male symptoms. The scope of this disparity is staggering: a landmark Danish population-based study found that women are diagnosed later than men for 770 different diseases, facing an average delay of four years.

But the bias is most visible in the “diagnostic interval”, the time between patients reporting their first symptom and receiving a diagnosis. Recent research across 208 million patients shows that for 112 acute and chronic diseases, women consistently wait longer for a diagnosis than men.

Drug dosing is another consequence of this research bias. It is a relatively recent realisation that women do not always respond to medication in the same way men do. One study found that women required roughly 30% more morphine than men to get the same amount of pain relief after surgery. Of course, this is not true for every drug or every kind of pain and the evidence is mixed. But it makes an uncomfortable point: the “standard” dose was never as neutral as we thought, especially for women.

Women are also 50% to 75% more likely to experience an adverse reaction from approved medications than men and the reason is similar. Most drug trials do not include enough women, so the recommendations that come out of those studies end up being based on men’s bodies. That pushes women closer to the edge of what’s considered “safe”.

The gap widens further when we look at conditions that affect only women. There are major gaps in understanding issues like endometriosis, pelvic pain, and menopause, largely because they remain under-researched. Even in 2020, just 5% of global research and development (R&D) money was spent on women’s health. And of that, about 80% went to cancers specific to women. The money left over covers everything else, with about a quarter of it focused just on fertility.

That leaves very little for chronic pain and other health struggles women deal with every day, especially gynaecological dysfunctions, autoimmune issues, or symptoms that do not fit neatly into one category. Women make up half the world, but somehow, their health is still often seen as a side note.

Pain and its consequences

What I learned from my own experience is that you cannot wish pain away or make it disappear by ignoring it. Over time, it can change in ways that make it more persistent. Neuroscience shows that untreated pain can reshape how the nervous system responds to it. Pain pathways become more sensitive and more easily triggered, a process known as central sensitisation, causing pain to become less tied to the original injury and harder to treat over time.

While we wait for science to catch up, maybe one small shift is to believe women when they talk about pain that has lasted for years.

This is also where mental health becomes relevant. Chronic pain increases the risk of anxiety and depression by two to three times. Yet pain is frequently dismissed as “just anxiety”, rather than recognising that the anxiety may be the result of years of unresolved pain.

In India, this dynamic is especially stark because there is a strong cultural expectation that pain will be supressed. Chronic pain affects roughly one in five adults, but barely 5% ever see a pain specialist. Pain is treated just as a part of life, a sign to endure, a test of faith, or even a result of karma.

Women’s pain is especially vulnerable to normalisation with additional layers of social and cultural bias. Women rarely prioritise their health and when they do complain, they are dismissed by families, by clinicians, and by society.

For those seeking care, and for women who have been living with pain for years, this matters in very real ways.

Where this leaves us

I do not think “gendered pain” has just one cause. It comes down to an intersection of biology, cultural beliefs, and the way our healthcare system works. Each of these layers changes the experience of pain for women—how they feel it, how they talk about it, and the kind of care they actually receive.

Looking at each of these pieces, it becomes clear that there are still many gaps in the evidence —perhaps because these questions have not been asked enough. What is clear, however, is that pain in women is more likely to persist; they experience longer delays in diagnosis, poorer pain management, and more barriers to appropriate care across many conditions, especially gynaecological ones.

Not everyone can push their way through the system. There are many others still living with the same kind of pain, without any hope of finding names and answers.

These delays not only deepen suffering but also affect how people live their lives. They change how people relate to their own bodies, a feeling I strongly connect with. Pain that is not taken seriously spills into work, relationships, and confidence. Over time, it teaches people to doubt themselves.

Living with pain taught me that being heard can matter just as much as being treated. While we wait for science to catch up, maybe one small shift is to believe women when they talk about pain that has lasted for years. Even if there is no immediate solution, trusting people to know their own bodies, and not dismissing their experience, is not too much to ask.

After 12 years of living with it every single day, I eventually got a diagnosis for my pelvic pain: Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS). It took a lot of reading on my own and pushing a gynaecologist for a specific scan to identify PCS. Just having a name for it, a reason, brought more relief than I expected, even before thinking about treatment.

What is hard to ignore is this: it is estimated that up to 30% of women presenting with chronic pelvic pain have PCS. And yet, it is still overlooked when women present with unexplained pelvic pain in India.

I had the knowledge and the access to keep pushing. Not everyone can push their way through the system. And that means there are many others still living with the same kind of pain, without any hope of finding names and answers.

Ponnari Gottipati is associate director of research at the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad and a WomenLift Health Global Fellow.

ILS

Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Engagement

Contract

Hours

Full-time

Profile

BRIC- Institute of Life Sciences (ILS), Bhubaneswar is a leading national institution in India under the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India. ILS has a broad vision of conducting high-quality, multidisciplinary research to advance human health, longevity, agriculture, and the environment. ILS has several advanced multidisciplinary research programs in the areas of Infectious Disease Biology, Cancer Biology, Interdisciplinary Biology, and Plant & Marine Biotechnology.

The Institute invites applications for faculty positions from eligible early as well as mid-career scientists (from Indian citizens only) with leadership potential in the field and passion for innovative research to set up independent multidisciplinary research programs specifically in the areas of Cancer immunotherapy, Clinical genomics, Gene therapy, Proteomics, Metabolomics, Metabolic and neurological disorders, Neglected tropical diseases, AMR, Vaccine development, Structural biology, Enzyme engineering, and Smart cereal crops

To Apply

Eligible & interested scientists are requested to submit their applications along with the requisite certificates and relevant documents with a well-articulated research plan (2 pages mentioning previous publications if available) only through ONLINE MODE in the prescribed format available at the ILS website link: https://www.ils.res.in/adverti... Recruitment. Applications received through any other means would not be accepted and would be summarily rejected. Latest Caste, EWS, and/or Disability Certificate from the competent authority as per GoI norms, as applicable.

An application fee of Rs. 1000/- for General and Rs. 600/- for OBC candidates (non-refundable) is to be sent only through Net Banking/Debit Card/Credit card/UPI as per the bank details mentioned below. Women candidates and candidates from the SC/ST category are exempt from paying the application fee.

Applicants working in any Government (Central/State), PSU, autonomous, or public sector Institutions within India are requested to forward their applications through proper channels. The Institute reserves the right to withdraw any/all advertised posts at any time without assigning a reason. The last date of receiving a complete application is 30 days from the date of publication of the advertisement in Employment News. Applications received after the due date will not be considered. For specific queries, please contact ao@ils.res.in. Visit us at www.ils.res.in.

For more information click here

Funded By

IgniteLSF

Type

Other

Profile

The annual scholarship provides a talented and deserving student from an underprivileged or underrepresented background with the opportunity to pursue an undergraduate degree in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at a recognised Indian university or institution.

Professor Savithri and Professor Murthy's scholarship is supported by the former students, associates, peers, friends, and family of these two outstanding human beings, who have benefited from their educational and intellectual wisdom. The scholarship honors Prof. H. S. Savithri and Prof. M. R. N. Murthy, eminent educators and scientists, whose passion and commitment to education and mentorship have inspired and shaped students' careers from early education through doctoral studies and have contributed to groundbreaking scientific discoveries. They believe that providing early access to resources for deserving students is key to their long-term success; that financial status should not be a barrier to achieving academic goals; that deserving students should be motivated; and that equity in higher education and research is a prerequisite for diversity of opinion and practice in science.

Money

• Financial aid of up to ₹1.5 Lakhs annually is available to undergraduate students to cover tuition, hostel fees, books, research, and other study materials (on an actual basis). The scholarship can be renewed each year, provided the student maintains satisfactory academic progress (75% and above) and continues to meet the eligibility criteria given below.
• Scholarship will be available for the full term of the course (3 or 4 years).
• Access to mentorship programs, career counseling, internships, and STEM workshops organized by Ignite or its partners.

To Apply

Fore more information click here

Funded By

IgniteLSF

Type

Travel Grant

Website

www.ignitelsf.in →

Profile

The Eklavya-Ignite Fellowship is a Travel Grant awarded to promising PhD and Post- doctoral students that will allow them to:

Attend a Keystone Meeting/Symposia or Gordon Conference/Seminar or another high quality/selective conference as a Presenter.

Preference will be given to first time Presenters.

The purpose of the Grant is to give young Indian scientists experiential exposure to leading researchers/research laboratories to gain knowledge, improve communication, learn soft skills relevant to cross-cultural workplaces, build confidence, and network with the global scientific community.

To Apply

For more information click here

Ashoka University

Sonepat, Haryana

Engagement

Contract

Hours

Full-time

Website

ashoka.edu.in/axis-bank-post-d… →

Profile

Ashoka University invites Indian nationals for Axis Bank-funded postdoctoral fellowships (2026–27) in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Economics, and Psychology.

Selected candidates will be funded by Axis Bank and designated as Axis Bank-Ashoka Post-doctoral Fellows.

Ashoka University offers a highly enriching and collaborative research ecosystem designed to elevate your academic and research journey.

Secure a faculty mentor, submit a joint proposal, CV, and recommendation letters to ashoka_pdfapplication@ashoka.edu.in by 10th July 2026

Duration

1 year

Money

Rs. 80,000–1,00,000/month + HRA

Qualifications

Applicants should hold a Ph.D. in a relevant discipline.

To Apply

The following will be required for the complete application process:

• A cover letter providing the name of the mentor and indicating the overlap of interests with the mentor’s research.
• CV of the applicant, providing academic trajectory, published papers and the names of 3 referees.
• Copy of PhD and master’s degree certificate and any other relevant documentation.
• A joint proposal with the mentor containing a brief (2 pages or fewer), single spaced, including background, key objectives and significance) description of the proposed research project.
• Two letters of recommendation from among the referees listed

Send an email to ashoka_pdfapplication@ashoka.edu in with all the documents to submit your application