News

Accelerating Indian science through private investments

Megha, Neha Vyas, Sangeeta Nath, Shruthi Sridhar Vembar & Sowmyashree Mayur Kaku

The RYIM Bengaluru, held from 28 – 30 November 2024, was the second Regional Young Investigators’ Meeting for the year 2024 – 2025, organised by four institutions in Bengaluru. The theme of the meeting was Accelerating Indian science through private investments.’ In this article, the organisers highlight their experience of organising a regional YIM in Bengaluru.

RYIM Bengaluru title image
Regional Young Investigators’ Meeting (RYIM) Bengaluru. Photo Credit: RYIM Bengaluru organisers.

1) First off, wonderful work on putting together and executing a fantastic Regional Young Investigators’ Meeting (RYIM) Bengaluru! So, how are you all feeling now that the meeting is done?

    We are immensely happy that, despite being spread across the four corners of the city, we successfully organised and hosted this meeting. Each of us has different research priorities and works in environments with varying levels of resources. Bringing it all together required discipline, commitment, and a shared passion. We aimed to highlight team science at this meeting, and we are thrilled to have experienced it firsthand through the process of organising it!

    2) Rewinding a bit to the beginning, can you let us in on what prompted you to apply for the RYIM Grants 2024 – 2025? How did you put together the theme and team? How was your experience with the grant application process?

      There were three things that we wanted to tie together at the meeting: research at private setups, funding by private philanthropy, and team science. The genesis of these is the fact that all of us work at private institutions, even though our education and training have been in government-funded institutions, universities, or abroad. When we were searching for faculty opportunities, and even after starting in our positions, we observed that there was a prejudice against taking up faculty positions in a private setup. As we evolved as Young Investigators in our respective institutions, we felt that this prejudice was misplaced. There is ample opportunity for research and teaching at private universities, industry, and research institutions — something young academic researchers don’t know much about.

      Another aspect of private resources is funding. By and large, the Indian government, through its S&T departments, is the major funder for science in India. However, in the last decade, many private players have emerged, both for funding and research. We wanted to bring these funding agencies to the table to create awareness about how they are different and what they can offer to YIs. Lastly, most of our training is geared towards self-development, yet the pressing priorities of Indian science require a team science approach. Such an approach requires soft skills and a mindset unlike those cultivated or even encouraged during a PhD or postdoc.

      We used RYIM Bengaluru to highlight an interdisciplinary approach, which is different from a traditional collaborative approach, to meet science goals.

      3) On the theme Accelerating Indian science through private investments’, how did you curate the speakers, sessions and topics to be relevant to the theme?

        We divided the meeting into talks, panel discussions, and roundtables. Each offered a different level of interaction between participants and invitees. On Day 1 at MIRM-MAHE, we focused on Bridging the gap between Indian academia and private investments” by inviting individuals driving private research in setups such as NGOs (Soumya Swaminathan), hospitals (Paul Salins, T. R. Raju), and universities (Anurag Agarwal). To this, we added private philanthropy with Swami Swaminathan (Ignite Life Sciences) and institutional decision-makers (Darshan Shankar, H. Basegowdappa, Sharath Rao). A panel discussion provided participants with a big-picture view of research dimensions involving private setups. For our mentors, we brought in people who are either excelling in unconventional setups, like state government-aided private institutions such as IIIT (Gaurav Ahuja), or are part of large teams that combine physicians, scientists, and industry (Samir Bhrahmachari, Bhavan Prasher). At the roundtable, participants had 1:1 time with mentors who worked in private setups and had successfully attracted funds from either industry and/​or private philanthropy.

        On Day 2 at St. John’s Academy for Health Sciences, our theme was Biomedical translational research: Questions to execution roadmap.” Here, our focus was predominantly on team science — the what, why, and how. Team science is different from collaboration, and in healthcare, we used cancer (Venkataraman Radhakrishnan) and hypertension (Prahbdeep Kaur) to illustrate that what matters is a common goal. Working across geographies and professions, together they highlighted the potential outcomes possible when team science occurs. During the panel discussion, we continued to explore funding and research in private setups (Samiran Mahapatra, Durai Sundar) along with messages from granting organizations that fund individuals as well as teams (Dipanwita Sen, Yogesh Souche). 

        A challenge we all face in team science and large datasets involving people projects is data privacy. Our mentor (Sudha Rao) spoke about the challenges that should be acknowledged and the regulatory framework. At the roundtable, we had clinician-scientists advise participants on seeding collaborations and how to get involved in team science. Overall, we made efforts to ensure that our invitees reflected the theme and intention of RYIM Bengaluru.

        Group picture at CYC workshop during RYIM Bengaluru. Photo Credit: RYIM organisers.
        Group picture at CYC workshop during RYIM Bengaluru. Photo Credit: RYIM organisers.

        4) During the preparatory phase of the meeting, how did you divide roles and responsibilities? Can you let us in on what your weekly planning meetings looked like?

          The meeting was the first time we all met face-to-face! We decided early on that, given our locations in Bangalore and the traffic, weekly online meetings were all that would be possible. At the beginning, IndiaBioscience put us on track in terms of the timeline, and thereafter, we worked together to create a timetable. Working as a team was useful, as each of us had different strengths, which we utilised to assign roles.

          Our weekly online meetings were, for the most part, quite hilarious because we often ended up discussing the vagaries of our profession rather than the agenda. Also, while no one arrived at the online meetings on time, everyone was very eager to leave on time! Hence, we instituted the quorum rule— as long as three people were present, a meeting took place. Despite irregular attendance, we were quite happy with the timely progress being made, and we kept each other focused on our respective tasks.

          5) Could you share three major highlights from the meeting? Maybe a talk or a session or a speaker that particularly stood out for you as organisers?

            We think there were important messages that our meeting highlighted, which we would like to summarise rather than focus on a session or a talk.

            1. Our meeting allowed us to appreciate that there is indeed a significant thrust currently in improving the research and educational landscape of India. Many of these efforts are also supported through private funding and institutions.
            2. As organisers, we have learned a lot from our invitees. Our speakers helped us understand that investigators need to wear several hats (across private or government institutions) to keep their research activities alive and relevant. This can also be done individually, if not institutionally built-in, and is limited only by the investigator’s vision or intent.
            3. India currently lacks platforms where young budding scientists and clinicians can understand each other. The two communities undergo very different training, of course, but their professional environments are distinct as well. These disparities are inherent and important for the requirements at each end. However, the need to respect these disparities and to build teams comprising basic researchers and clinical scientists can take us a long way! India must focus on improving evidence-based interventions.

            Most of our clinical practices (just like basic research) are adapted from Western trends and data. Our speakers illustrated the various levels at which clinical research and correlations are necessary to improve outcomes, using leukaemia and hypertension as examples. The need to understand geographical variabilities — such as the activity of locally available commercial formulations, the distinct genetics involved in disease progression, or therapy outcomes — was made very evident through these talks.

            Overall, moving from me-science” to team-science” can be far more rewarding.

            6) What input or suggestions would you give future RYIM organising teams based on your learnings and experiences?

              If it’s not fun, don’t do it. Organising a meeting involves many elements, and these often have to be managed alongside regular academic duties. While it can be challenging, working with a team you trust and where there’s good communication can elevate the organising experience.

              There will be challenges: several of our top speakers canceled, and we struggled to find replacements; we disagreed on timelines; one of us changed institutions. However, none of these issues felt insurmountable because we had each other’s support, despite our differences in opinion!

              Organising a meeting is also a wonderful way to reconnect with old friends and make new ones.

              7) While IndiaBioscience supported the meeting via the RYIM Grants programme, the RYIM Bengaluru team has also raised additional funding through partnerships and sponsorships. Can you tell us a little more about how you went about this?

                As every YI knows — or soon finds out — there’s a vast network of suppliers that are indispensable for stocking our labs. It was this network that we reached out to for additional funding. Neha and Sangeeta primarily managed the conversations, working from a list that we all compiled together.

                8) Finally, at the cost of being tongue-in-cheek, would you become co-organisers for such a meeting again?

                  Absolutely. While all of us attend science- or topic-specific meetings to stay updated on the latest developments, meetings like these offer a unique opportunity to reflect on our science and personality from a different perspective.

                  The RYIM Bengaluru, was organised by four institutions in Bengaluru: Manipal Institute of Regenerative Medicine (MIRM-MAHE), St. John’s National Academy of Health Sciences (SJNAHS), The University of Trans-Disciplinary Health Sciences and Technology (TDU), and the Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology (IBAB).