Birth, growth, collapse and renewal

Professor Nirmala Jain is a retired professor of Hindi literature from Delhi University, and a well-known literary critic.  A few days ago, after reading her commentary on some well-known Hindi writers (such as Krishna Sobti, Usha Priyamvada and Mannu Bhandari), I was curious to learn more about her own literary journey.  Her autobiography, "Zamane Mein Hum" is a detailed memoir of her life, covering her childhood (she was born in the early 1930s), her long academic career at Delhi University, and her literary associations. I started reading the book in earnest during recent travel, and it gave me an opportunity to reflect on personal resilience in the midst of unrelenting family struggles, the twists and turns of an academic journey, and the joy of being part of an academic ecosystem abundant with talented, purpose-driven scholars. Her journey also provides a glimpse into academically vibrant institutions with great potential devolving into uninspiring workspaces that no longer fulfill that potential. This is the story of many universities in India.

Professor Jain was among the cohort of lecturers who started teaching at Lady Shriram College in the year of its inception, 1956. She spent 14 years at the college. Her interview for the position was chaired by its founder, Lala Shriram, the owner of Delhi Cloth Mills, who also carefully mentored the institution in its early years. She witnessed the change of campus from a small school in Darya Ganj to its current location in Lajpat Nagar with its iconic red building and 55 pillars. She describes the efforts that the faculty members put into the academic training of their students (who came from diverse socio-economic backgrounds) and in creating an atmosphere that fostered wholesome growth encompassing the arts and culture. 

This part of her memoir was fascinating to me for two reasons.  My undergraduate education was completed at Lady Shriram College (LSR).  The college provided a safe, nurturing space for three years to study and reflect on the way forward.  As I entered the college gate every morning after a long, tiring commute from Noida, the red building and its 55 pillars represented a welcoming space that manifested everything positive in my life at that point [0].  A couple of years after graduating, I read the novel "Pachpan Khambein Laal Deewarein" (translation: 55 pillars and red walls) by Usha Priyamvada [1], who was also among the new faculty members who had joined the college. In the world of this novel, however, these pillars and walls symbolized the emotional suffocation of the protagonist. "How could the author not see this space as the intellectually stimulating space that I experienced", my younger self wondered [2]. On the other hand, Professor Jain's narrative was closer to how I viewed the institution, a space that provided its members the resources and opportunities to grow and find their way forward. 

The other reason why I enjoyed reading this part of her story is because it resonated with my experience of starting a faculty position at a new institution.  I joined IISER Kolkata (and later, IISER Pune) in their early years, and saw many transitions of the kind that she describes at LSR.  At a new institution, faculty members have to work with limited resources and often have to take up roles well beyond the purview of the classroom in order to contribute to institution-building [3]. Just as the young Nirmala Jain and her colleagues benefited from mentoring and encouragement by Lala Shriram and other institution builders, we were fortunate to be mentored by inspiring academic leaders such as Professor Ganesh and Professor Shashidhara through tough academic phases (individual as well as institutional). The birth and growth pangs of a new institution intermingled with our personal quest for scientific and intellectual growth.  Reading this part of the memoir revived memories of the journey of the IISERs in the early years. 

The later part of the memoir starts to get sombre. We now start reading stories about the downslide of institutions when a handful of people acquire disproportionate power and start putting themselves above the institution. We read about bureaucratic shenanigans by academics to hurt colleagues who have demonstrated higher scholarly merit, and situations where students try to acquire academic benefits through "extracurricular" means, overlooking the importance of individual, focused effort at the study table. Professor Jain lived through an era which saw the degeneration of many Indian universities into living nightmares. The early phases of this degeneration were also observed by Harivansh Rai Bachchan (a distinguished poet and a professor at Allahabad University who later quit academia) in the third volume of his autobiography. Professor Jain saw institutions in various phases: birth, growth, collapse and renewal. Her memoir presents the story of Delhi University from her point of view. Thanks to her own academic preparation, intellectual curiosity and association with the leading litterateurs of the day, she worked to keep the academic culture of her department alive and thriving. For example, dedicated teachers organized regular conferences and seminars to ensure that students and department members were exposed to distinguished poets and writers who were leading significant literary movements in their times.

The coming up of institutions such as the IISERs, new Central Universities, new IITs and NITs represents a promising phase in science and education in our country (similar to what the older universities represented in the earlier part of the 20th century). The later part of Jain's memoir makes us reflect on what keeps an academic culture flowing and growing versus the attitudes/actions that have the opposite effect. Can we continue with the resolution and clarity of vision to put academic excellence above all else? Can we support and nurture academic potential in ourselves, our colleagues and students? Can we show up every morning to our work with a sense of wonder, and a commitment to give it our best? 

[0] It's a different matter that I had to walk across this part of the building into a darker, less inspiring section where the mathematics classes were conducted.

[1] The pen-name of Professor Usha Saxena-Nilsson, who later worked at Allahabad University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

[2] I learnt to appreciate that no author is obliged to represent something exactly as I view it, even if the topic is close to my heart :-)

[3] For example, folklore has it that Professor Ambika, one of our earliest faculty members at IISER Pune who also served as dean (academics), personally intervened to wake up students who slept late and were at the risk of missing their exams.

Movers and Shapers - II

[The first past of the following post can be found here.]

Starting a new faculty position is no joke.  Books have been written on it, it is a hot topic on multiple blogs/websites (for example, see here and here) and many institutions conduct orientation programmes for new faculty.  You have become a PI with complete responsibility for your research group, you are on the other side of the class for the first time and you are performing a lot of laborious administrative tasks.  Joining a new institute where you will move labs/offices at least three or four times (either move from one building to another or readjust within the same building as new members join at high frequency) adds further layers of complications.  Even with the best of planning, things can go wrong.

For example, at IISER, through the “moving and shaping,” all sorts of difficulties came up.  There were delays in ordering material and in clearing customs.  Sometimes, enzymes thawed and were refrozen during transport: this caused unexpected results in experiments!  There were sudden pressures, for example, preparing a lab (practically overnight) for a new batch of students.  Sometimes, after a move, people would realize that the power requirements were much higher than anticipated.  Sometimes, there would be water shortage.  In a new building, there could be unforeseen damages due to heavy rainfall.  With many members sharing limited space, there would occasionally be differences and vocal exchange of views. 

All colleagues I spoke to acknowledged setbacks.  But, every single one of them also insisted that they do not retain any bitterness about it.  Many felt that their efforts towards meeting personal research goals created positive energy and this helped them to see difficult experiences as enriching.

M. Jayakannan from Chemistry (joined. 2007) mentions that by the summer of 2009, labs were sufficiently equipped for active research work at IISER.  The first few publications from work done at these labs started coming out by 2010 and since then, all the research groups in chemistry have been productive.  The early faculty hires were very active in publishing, averaging about 4 papers per group every year.  This gave confidence and healthy peer pressure to those who joined later.

My colleague Thomas Pucadyil joined the Biology group in 2010.  As of today, Thomas has a thriving research lab that includes 8 student members. Recently, a publication from his lab, “A high-throughput platform for real-time analysis of membrane fission reactions reveals dynamin function,” authored by Srishti Dar, Sukrut Kamerkar and Thomas Pucadyil has appeared in Nature Cell Biology. 

During a fun conversation over a cup of coffee, Srishti (the first author of this paper and one of Thomas’s earliest PhD students) and Thomas described how they set up the lab and the “assay system” leading to this publication.  For Thomas, the experience of starting his lab with students was full of surprises.  It  required multiple managerial skill sets, which he acquired on-the-go.  Early preparations for this work were started in Sai Trinity Building in 2011: this included visiting a goat market and slaughter house one early morning to acquire the brain of a goat.  They started off with an attempt to extract and isolate a specific protein from the goat brain.  While at Sai, they succeeded in it and knew that their project had passed the litmus test.  This motivated them to develop assays that would help to better streamline the role of this protein in facilitating cellular processes.  A detailed explanation of their work can be found here.

Thomas feels that the composition of his graduate-student-heavy lab played a crucial role in choosing and persisting with this project.  With postdocs, one tends to get results sooner, but postdocs are only present for a short stint.  On the other hand, graduate students are present for a much longer time and this gives you more room to experiment and set something up. In this case, their project took more than three years to develop and the results finally started coming together in 2014.  By this time, they had gone through two relocations, first to G1, a prefabricated lab building in the permanent campus in 2012 and the second, to the main building in 2014.  Their lab is now well settled with its core facilities in place and work done by his group has exceeded the expectations of the institute.

Thomas feels the strong camaraderie among the biologists helped him to move beyond the challenges and establish himself at IISER Pune.  Similar sentiments were expressed by others.  Girish Ratnaparkhi, one of the master planners behind the multiple relocations of the Biology group, mentions that when he joined, he felt energetic and very happy to help.  He remained very involved with the functionality of the department.  Be it preparing indents, supervising the packing and moving, receiving/hosting institute guests or organizing a conference, no work was shunned.  Everything was done in the spirit of service to the institute.

Talking to these colleagues made me wonder: can such an attitude of positivity and service to the institute be developed superficially? Or is it something that stems naturally from a deeper feeling of personal empowerment, which in turn comes from research productivity?

Movers and shapers - I

Last week, I got an opportunity to talk to some of my colleagues from Biology and Chemistry who joined between 2006 and 2008, that is, within the first two years of IISER.  The people I spoke to are H.N. Gopi, M. Jayakannan, Mayurika Lahiri and Girish Ratnaparkhi.  They shared some fascinating stories from these early days: stories of adjustment, setting things up, moving, expansion and readjustment.  This post and the next are based on their inputs. 

IISER started functioning from one floor of NCL Innovation Park in 2006.  Due to limited space, several faculty members shared what they call “hot desks” in the same office.  From 9 am to 6 pm, they designed curricula, taught classes (many for the first time), cleaned and prepared teaching labs themselves as there were no lab attendants, made purchase indents for lab equipment and held regular meetings to design their future labs/offices.  After dinner, many returned for a “second shift”, during which they corresponded with their collaborators or students from former work places, wrote papers and made grant applications [1].  The second shift could continue into the wee hours of the morning.

People could walk into our director Professor Ganesh’s office anytime they needed to [2].  Many a times, they would enter feeling worried, but would come out of the office with a big smile sharing his dreams about the future of IISER.

Professor Shashidhara (Shashi) walked from his place of residence in Panchwati to the permanent campus, Innovation Park and Sai Trinity Building every single day to oversee the progress at each point (and give things a good push whenever needed).  He patiently taught new faculty members from scratch how to work through administrative rules and regulations for acquiring equipment and setting up labs as many were fresh out of postdocs and were doing it all for the first time. 

When a potential faculty candidate visited for a job interview in those days, it was easy to get discouraged at the state of affairs: no research labs, no offices and no PhD students.  Apart from generous start-up grants, some of the things that attracted the early people to join were clear communication from the leadership about future plans, love of teaching and personal ambition.  The sense that they were building the institute and were equal contributors to every stage of development gave them a feeling of personal empowerment.  My colleague Mayurika mentions, “When I first visited for my job interview in 2007, I only saw the floor at Innovation Park and empty spaces in Sai Trinity building [3].   Shashi told me that things would be ready before I joined and I instinctively believed him.  Sure enough, things were ready by the time I joined in March 2008.  I did not feel any negativity around me. ” 

The central wing of the Sai Trinity building was inaugurated in January 2008 and was adequately ready for the biologists within a couple of months.

That was the time when experimental faculty had to spend maximum time in acquiring equipment for the labs. While doing this and allocating lab spaces, they decided upon a few healthy practices, which continue till date: first was the practice of shared labs.  Except a handful of cases where the nature of research is highly specialized, spacious common labs were to be shared by multiple members.  This not only reduced wastage of resources, but also taught faculty to treat resources as shared facilities rather than individual possessions.  As a colleague puts it jokingly, the tendency to act as “estate builder” was cut off right at the beginning.  Second was the practice of looking ahead: in any lab, some extra space was kept aside for future faculty.  When people ordered equipment and material for themselves, they ordered in extra quantities so that a new faculty would have enough workspace and resources to get started immediately upon joining.  This was very crucial because the Sai Trinity years witnessed a burst in hiring. 

In the meanwhile, the right side of the Sai Trinity building was acquired for chemistry and the chemists started moving there.  At one point of time, 11 faculty members and 40 students shared a lab space of 1800 square feet.

Around that time, Biology and Chemistry started looking for suitable PhD students.  The first advertisement for PhD went out from Chemistry in January 2008.  There would be at least three more rounds of advertisement and selection procedures before 4 students were selected in July 2008.  Biology also got their first few PhD students in August 2008.  These students took course work for a year and also actively helped with setting up the labs in Sai Trinity building.  By summer of 2009, the labs were well equipped and ready for active research.  Publications based on work done at IISER started coming out by 2010.

One of the reasons my early colleagues did not cave in to disappointment or exhaustion from frequent moves is that from the very beginning, no one lost sight of the final product, the permanent campus.  Gopi describes the happiness they felt while they witnessed the official land transfer of the permanent campus land to IISER in a ceremony at Pride Hotel in 2008: “We knew this informally, but were really thrilled when we saw it happening officially.”  Jayakannan mentions that even before all the moves across temporary locations happened, they started planning for the permanent campus.  Sometimes, they would wear construction hats and spend time at the construction sites.  “We adjusted to what was available with belief and sense of involvement in what was to come.  The institute always came first.”

But, Girish has a simpler explanation for the (more or less) high spirits: “Nothing big broke during the moves.  This kept everyone happy.”

[Stories of further moves and other groups coming up in future posts.  The second part of this post is here.]

[1] It would be a while before publications started coming out from work done at IISER. 

[2] We still can: it’s just that we don’t need to do so all that much anymore.  I only discovered the location of the director’s office last month, when a group met there to plan our 10 year celebrations.

[3] An office complex in the heart of Pashan, which was to remain our temporary campus for a long time.

Life begins at 10

Today morning, while working through some calculations done by a PhD student towards her project, I rewound 10 years ago to the end of 2005, when I was in the final year of PhD.  I had my task cut out that winter: start writing the first draft of thesis, prepare CV and research statement and apply to about a 100 places for postdoctoral positions.  As I carried package after package to the post office in the dreary winter (many places were still not accepting online applications), I speculated about where I would go next, next after the next and where in India could one apply.  I liked my grad school very much and hoped to eventually work at such an institution, one that is not just a (research) institute or a (teaching) university, but a combination of both [1].

At around the same time, the scientific advisory committee to the Prime Minister of India and the Ministry of Human Resource Development in India were taking concrete steps to lay the foundations of five such science institutes in India, namely the IISERs.  Two among these IISERs, IISER Kolkata and IISER Pune, started their academic programmes in August 2006 and are now in their tenth year.  Thanks, therefore, to a perfect combination of right opportunities and right timing, I am now based at IISER Pune, an institute that has given me everything I hoped for in a faculty position [2].

For a young institute, a decade is a good time to celebrate its accomplishments, reflect on future directions and engage with the larger public about its values, purposes, science and education.  My colleagues (especially the ones who joined in the very early years) have seen the development of our campus from a desolate, unused piece of land into a beautiful, fully residential campus, whose view they can enjoy every morning from their balconies with a cup of coffee.   

In a series of upcoming blog posts, I hope to document various important milestones in the growth of IISER Pune, memories of colleagues, alumni and current students from earlier years as well as  perspectives on where we are headed.  I will also update you about various programmes that we are organizing in the coming year to celebrate our tenth birthday.  Stay tuned.

[Update: the first post in the 10 year series can be found here]


[1] A place with mild winters would be an added bonus.
[2] This includes life in a city with not just mild winters, but also mild summers.

A meeting with the Prime Minister

There have been reports in the media of a meeting of the Prime Minister with around 30 scientists at his residence on 19^th August.  This blog is about my experience and impression of that meeting as (possibly) the youngest person present in it.  As the meeting was organized by the Department of Biotechnology, I thank Professor VijayRaghavan for this truly awesome opportunity. 

Disclaimer 1:  This post is not meant to be a comprehensive report about the event (one can read the news reports for that), but solely my own perception of how it played out.  A lot of it is from memory and some hurried notes I took during PM’s speech: so, I can only paraphrase his statements and not quote them verbatim.

Disclaimer 2: This is going to be a long post.

Although I am not very interested in politics, I have been very curious about Modi government’s thoughts and policies on science in India.  Sadly, be it mainstream or social media, our intellectual elite or journalists, the discourse on anything related to our Prime Minister seems to fluctuate between two extremes: one side considers him as the savior who will solve all of India’s problems in no time and the other side is extremely critical and suspicious of him.  It is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in reading prevalent opinions.  At the same time, as a scientist at a new institute, I cannot help but notice the pressure under which our administration is functioning due to severe budget cuts.  Are the current science funding policies of the government formulated with a view to control the overall government expenditure across the economy or does it have something to do with how high (or low) they place science on their priority list? How does the present regime view science, science in India and the scientific community?  These are questions to which I have been unable to get reasonable answers through our biased (and may I add unscientific) media discourse.  Therefore, when I received an invitation to attend this meeting, I was very excited at the possibility of meeting the Prime Minister and hearing directly his views about science in India.

The agenda of the meeting had been designed carefully.  The PM wanted a discussion on the current state of Indian science and from what I understood in a smaller preparation meeting before we headed out to RCR, he had conveyed his eagerness to hear diverse viewpoints.  The secretaries of the science ministries (mostly scientists themselves), therefore, were to play a moderating role and let the other invitees from the science community do most of the talking.

Around 14 people, representing various fields of science, were to give presentations about the progress made and challenges ahead in their respective domains of expertise.  The meeting was to be conducted for two hours and therefore, speakers were requested to respect the time limitations so that there could also be adequate time for discussion.  Before heading out to RCR, some of the invitees wondered if the PM would be able to follow the numerous presentations and if someone should further summarise the main points of the speakers at the end.  As it turned out, however, Mr. Modi not only listened attentively to each and every presentation, but also kept asking very pointed questions from almost all the speakers.  For instance, when the first speaker presented data about the number of research papers that were published in India every year, Mr. Modi immediately asked how big or small this number was, in proportion to our population.  The very low number of scientists in our country was briefly discussed.  

As the presentations continued, he made several remarks, but I only remember a few.  For example, one of the speakers mentioned that in India, once a faculty member becomes a full professor, the only further possible ``promotion” beyond that is to become a senior level administrator.  This hinders research productivity and he therefore suggested that we create more positions, equivalent to VCs/directors etc, but in which one would only do research.  The PM caught on to this suggestion and requested the speaker to prepare a detailed proposal.  There were several other talks on topics including biomedical research, agricultural research, research in universities, physics, mathematics, research in industry and research in the north east. 

My personal favourite was Professor Spenta Wadia’s talk on physics, in which he beautifully outlined, in simple language, India’s recent contributions to several areas like string theory, high energy physics, condensed matter and materials science, statistical physics and physical biology[*].  I also liked Professor Gagandeep Kang’s talk on biomedical research.  Prof. Mythily Ramaswamy gave a talk on mathematics.  

(* A previous version of this blog post just mentioned string theory.  This is because (as I have stated in the disclaimer), I was writing from (limited) memory and in no way did I mean to imply that he only talked about string theory!  As a mathematician with an interest in modular forms, string theory stayed back in my memory.)

Among his many questions, Mr. Modi had one for mathematicians: he wanted to know if mathematics could solve the problem of call drops in mobile conversations!  Later, when the presentations got over, I made a comment about applications of cryptography and coding theory in communication problems, but that this field is underrepresented in most Indian institutes [please see addendum below for the mathematics behind call drops].  It was only after returning home that I came to know from my brother that the issue of call drops is, in fact, a very contentious issue nowadays and has also been raised in the parliament. 

In most presentations, the presenters explained and emphasized the need for sustained funding in science if we were to continue the progress and not slide backwards. 

After the presentations were over, it was time to elicit comments from the rest of the audience: by this point, we ran out of time.  But the PM continued to listen to the comments and personally called out the names of people who indicated that they wanted to speak  (either his vision is very strong or he had the seating plans laid out in front of him!). 

Since it was well beyond 6 pm, I thought with some disappointment that he would leave and I would not be able to hear his views on science issues in India.  But, he did speak, and from that point, Modi, the orator, took over.

 After addressing us as ``Aap Diggaj Log,” he started his talk with the observation that we cannot make much progress in the current scenario.  The lack of  openness between the cabinet and scientists as well as overwhelming administrative regulations hindered science.  He recognized that research needs flexibility, and while there had to reasonable checks and balances, one could not expect scientists to keep, in his own words, ``pai pai ka hisaab.”   This generated some laughter and applause.

The next point he made was that there was a lot of overlap between the work done by different science agencies, which do not communicate adequately with each other and are unable to work towards common scientific goals of the nation.  He emphasized, as the news reports mention, that instead of working in isolation, scientists have to come together and take a multidisciplinary approach to solving problems.

One point that the PM kept making repeatedly was that the solutions to most of the problems, be it coordination of resources or addressing specific needs of the nation such as Swachh Bharat, cleaning the Ganges, low agricultural productivity, the contradictory problems of malnutrition and food wastage, better utilization of solar energy, the solutions would have to come from the scientists and not the bureaucracy.  ``Can you do it?” he asked us directly.

He also made some remarks about a disconnect between writing research papers and translating the research into technology.  One of the examples he mentioned was why agricultural research has not addressed the problem of poor yield of pulses in India. 

Towards the end of his speech, he said that he has noted our complaints to him: those of science policy, budget and administration.  But, he too has a complaint, namely the scientific community is not broadminded about optimum sharing and utilization of resources.  His wish list for us was sensitivity to India-specific problems, better coordination among science workers and a multidisciplinary approach. 

 All in all, I certainly understood the PM’s attitude towards science better than before.  It was heartening to note his awareness of science challenges in the country and that his thoughts on science are not restricted to Ganesha and plastic surgery, as many journalists would have us believe.  But, I am writing as an assistant professor whose research work is mostly of a solitary nature and who does not have to deal (much) with administration and bureaucracy.  People in positions of responsibility, who deal directly with the consequences of budgetary cuts and lack of a coherent science policy would have higher expectations of this meeting and its consequences. 

Speaking personally, I came back with a strong feeling that this government perceives the science community as underperforming and wants it to produce more.  Therefore, it is absolutely essential for us early career scientists to keep improving our performance so that we do not feel unempowered in front of any administrator or bureaucrat.  For a scientist, empowerment comes only with productivity.

  -----------------------------     

Addendum: 

My comment is not entirely accurate.  Professor Vijay Chandru (Co-founder and Chairman, Strand Life Sciences), who was also present at the meeting, pointed out the following in a private correspondence:

``While cryptography and coding theory are at the foundations of computing and fault tolerant communications, the problem of call drops is driven more by cellular transmission capacities (# of cell towers and energy considerations) and protocols for handoff between cells. 

The multiple co-existing cellular technologies GSM, 3G, LTE would also add a layer of complexity. I believe the math disciplines involved would be more like stochastic dynamical systems and congestion modelling.

Anurag Kumar, D. Manjunath and Joy Kuri have authored a nice book “Wireless Networking” that makes these connections."

What makes the work place work (for a mathematician)?

A few days ago, Abi's blog pointed to a very interesting article about serious steps being taken by premier institutes in India to attract faculty and bridge the huge gap between sanctioned versus existing faculty numbers.  This includes providing new faculty with high start-up grants needed to set up labs, streamlining hiring processes, and creating opportunities for spousal employment (especially at institutes where location might cause a disadvantage).

At around the same time, I came to know that 4 new mathematicians had been hired at IISER Pune.  They will be increasing not only our numbers, but also the research specialities represented by the Maths group here.  This made me wonder: How is it that new institutes like IISER Pune have managed to build a promising and vibrant Mathematics community while several institutes seriously struggle to even get Mathematics faculty to apply, leave alone join? Is it merely because Pune has a location advantage or are the reasons far deeper?  If a mathematician were to write an article along the same lines as the ET article mentioned above, what factors would they consider important to attract Mathematics faculty (especially at a new institute)? ``Huge" start-up grants are not such an important issue because most of us don't need to set up labs. How does an institute attract and retain its mathematicians?

While many of a mathematician's requirements overlap with those of faculty in other sciences, a few of these requirements are more crucial (in my opinion, make or break for new institutes) for Maths.  Being at IISER Pune, I can't help but write about how this institute in particular has reached out to its Mathematics faculty and has fostered an overall sense of professional satisfaction.  I hope that this post will lead to a healthy discussion about what makes an academic work place work for the people who join it.

Firstly, a key factor that can propel the growth of a baby department is the presence of accomplished researchers who can provide a leadership and mentoring role to it.  In a country where even established institutes are short of Maths faculty, this may be wishful thinking for new institutes.  However, even if a new department has one such accomplished researcher, they can attract more people to apply. In many ways, they become the face of the department.  One good hire leads to interest in the department from more job candidates, the department gets a pool of strong applications and soon starts to build non trivial research groups in diverse areas.  Such a person becomes a bridge between the institute-level administration (director, deans etc) and younger faculty members in the department.  Their strength in research as well as leadership abilities inspires the confidence of the younger faculty and the respect of the admin.  These mentors, being Mathematicians themselves, can understand the needs of Maths faculty better, the faculty can unhesitatingly put forward their requirements or concerns or suggestions to them and  they become effective channels to convey these points to the senior administrators. This is particularly important for Mathematics because some of its needs and practices with respect to publishing etc are different from others and this often needs to be convincingly conveyed to senior administrators.
Of course, several new departments are functioning without such mentors. At these departments, younger faculty members are entrusted with such a role.  Faced with the task of building up their research programmes and play a leadership role, they work very hard to do so (even with their very limited experience), but I believe that someone who has more experience and has already built a strong research programme will be much better able to undertake such a role.

Secondly, the library plays the same role for a mathematician that a laboratory plays for an experimentalist.  Whenever a prospective Maths job candidate visits an institute, invariably, one of the first few things that they want to know about is the library.  Many candidates even choose to spend a couple of hours at the library during their job visits and I know of some institutes which even schedule this as part of a candidate's job visit.  While talking to departmental members, they have questions about which journals or book series the library subscribes to and how easy is it to order new books or journals for the library.  This single factor plays a huge role in ensuring the professional satisfaction of Maths faculty.  While it is great to have electronic access to journals or books of their choice, the ideal situation would be to also have them in hard copy. Mathematicians often come up with research ideas while in the library. They don't necessarily visit the library to gain access to a particular book or journal: instead they browse through shelves (somewhat like what people do at bookstores), pick up a journal volume or book that catches their interest and often come up with good questions or ideas while going through its contents.  That is why many Mathematics departments at universities across the world have their own libraries and members are given unrestricted access at any time of the day or night on any day of the week.  While this may not be immediately possible at new institutes (due to shortage of space), recognizing the central role that a library plays for a mathematician and giving members the freedom and opportunity to order books and journals in a smooth and timely manner is a great start!

Thirdly, it is very important for mathematicians to attend conferences/workshops/ seminars on a regular basis.  Almost all job candidates have queries about travel grants for national and international travel, flexibility to attend conferences during term time and so on. This applies to all sciences and has been addressed in many articles (including the one mentioned above) - so, I need not elaborate upon it too much.  However, some comments: Pune's closeness to Mumbai and therefore easy accessibility to conferences and short-term research programmes organized at TIFR and IIT Bombay undoubtedly played some role in attracting the first few Maths faculty members to IISER Pune.  The rules and procedures to attend scientific meetings, claim travel reimbursement etc (especially with respect to balancing central government regulations about airlines with Pune airport's scheduling constraints) are very smooth and faculty-friendly here [1].  Also, I have mentioned before that the Mathematics department here is provided with resources and tremendous administrative support to organize conferences.  The recognition by the institute of the importance of such meetings for Mathematicians was one of the factors that motivated me to apply here.

Finally, an important question that a mathematician asks is if his/her department is treated like a service department to the other departments (for example, in terms of course work etc- is there a good variety of Maths courses for students interested in learning Mathematics or does the institute only wish to offer a limited number of Math courses aimed primarily at teaching mathematical techniques required for other disciplines?)  Or, is the department considered an independent and integral part of the institute? Also, does the leadership play merely a critical role or a critical as well as a facilitating role for the department?  Answers to these questions can eventually determine if an institute can attract and retain its mathematicians.

Here's a simple example:  let's say that a Maths department at an institute has a much smaller number of PhD students than other departments.  A critical leadership will simply question the competence of the faculty and will pressurize them to take more students.  However, a critical and facilitating leadership will not talk about the numbers, but of the faculty-to-PhD student ratio.  It will take steps to increase the number of faculty members in the department in diverse research areas and therefore foster an environment in which it will be feasible for the department to have a full fledged PhD programme with higher number of students.

Finally, let me pen down some non-academic factors (which apply to all faculty) which can make for a very faculty friendly workplace.  When I joined IISER Pune, I noticed that in order to overcome the disadvantages of a campus still under construction, the institute had made some key arrangements for the benefit of their employees.  For example, since campus housing is not yet ready, we have to find an apartment outside.  However, the lease is signed by IISER Pune - this one step prevents a lot of inconvenience.  Many house owners prefer to rent out to a central government organization.  IISER also pays the advance deposit which is a non-trivial amount and issues all rental cheques directly to the owner.  Secondly, since many of us were operating from the temporary campus and classes were held at the permanent campus, there was a fleet of five buses plying students and faculty between campuses. If needed, smaller vehicles could also be made available at short notice.  The whole system worked painlessly.  A transport system was also in place between the guest house (for visitors and newly arrived faculty) and the campus.  Did the institute have an instinctive understanding of the needs of its members from the very beginning? Probably not, but what they do have is a proper system in which members can unhesitatingly bring up their suggestions and grievances to the director and deans with the confidence that their input/feedback will be treated and acted upon in a professional manner.  It is possible that these facilities were not provided to begin with, but were made available when faculty members brought them up at the correct forums.  An institute where the admin works for the well being of all and where the culture is not based upon a senior/junior dichotomy but that of mutual respect and professional courtesy among all goes a long way in keeping its faculty happy, motivated and most importantly, focused on their scientific goals.




[1] Talking about smooth travel policies, a few days ago, I had to take a really early morning flight to go to Bhubaneswar for a Maths event.  I was a bit worried about how safe it would be for a woman to book a cab at 3 am and travel alone to the airport.  I was most pleasantly surprised to know that the institute makes airport/station pick up and drop off arrangements  for employees for professional travel and that there was no need to worry.  

Waiting to go home

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am now wrapping up a semester long visit  to North America. This has been a productive semester. I was glad to be able to talk to many people in my field. I was also glad to be able to focus completely on science and not deal with administrative work at N1.  
I am refreshed, rejuvenated and ready to go back home now.  My department has to take many important decisions in the coming weeks related to faculty hiring, supervising of grad students and course structure for our undergraduate and graduate programs.  I am all set to jump right into it.  While on my sabbatical, I had a chance to talk to some senior colleagues in North America, who have given me valuable advice about many of these matters. A few days ago, I was particularly fortunate to meet a British emeritus professor who started his career in the early sixties in one of the IITs.  He spent four years there before returning to England.  He generously shared his experiences with me.  Much of what he mentioned is very similar to the current situation in N1.  I felt very encouraged and inspired after talking to him.

While I was away, many important events have taken place at N1.  Many labs have moved into our new, permanent campus.  The students residence is also well underway and expected to be ready by the start of the next term.  This makes me very happy because when I joined last year, the new campus was not much more than a deserted piece of flat land.  I am very excited to see it quickly evolving into a proper institute campus!  

The other things that I am eagerly looking forward to are home-made freshly baked chapatis, drinking tea in a Kulhar at our institute's tea shop,  fresh milk and vegetables from local farms AND mangoes freshly plucked from  trees within our campus :)

To have or to be

Most of us will agree that an established group in one's research area is a highly desirable attribute in a school where one hopes to work.  If such a group does not exist, it helps if the department concerned has a few senior professors with productive research programs.  These people, apart from maintaining a research-oriented and intellectually vibrant atmosphere, also provide leadership and much-needed guidance to the new entrants.

When you join a baby department of a very new institute, the presence of such people may not always be possible.  In my subfield, for example, there are only three research institutes in India with groups of  > 1 people.  As these places do not have undergraduate programs and I am a strong believer of the IIT/IISER/North American model of departments with both undergraduate and graduate programs, I did not have the luxury of joining an institute with readily available research collaborators.  Most of my colleagues are in a similar situation.  The institute provides us with all the professional support we need, but because it is itself very new, it cannot give us previously formed research groups.  In fact, it expects us, the newbies to get our research programs going and build the groups that we want.  In other words, it wants us to be what we cannot have.  

People looking at academic careers in India would want to keep this in mind and think about this issue carefully.  

For precisely these reasons, when I decided to join my current institute (following previous notation, let's continue to call it N1), I met with mild disapproval from some friends and colleagues and stern warnings from some senior colleagues from the O institutes that I was ruining my future (in general, people in India can be very direct in expressing their opinions and do not sugarcoat their words, especially when they talk to people younger to them, male or female.)   I respect their point of view (without agreeing with their forecast for my future).  Fortunately, the people whose opinions mattered the most, like my former PhD advisor and senior, experienced mentors through grad school and postdocs, encouraged me in taking this step. 

I have already explained in a previous post the various reasons why N1 was attractive to me: a highly supportive and dynamic leadership provided by the director and deans, efficient administration, friendly colleagues, absence of the politics imposed by the old boys network, flexibility to travel, but most importantly, the desire to build something from fresh along with other like-minded people.  

As my colleagues and I settle down into our new jobs, we have to grapple with the challenges and take concrete steps to "convert dreams into reality".  Before building up the department, we have to build up our own research programs and put them on a firm basis.  In this context, I've had to deal with the following issues (and I expect that a lot of people would have similar issues in this situation):

1) When I joined, I was in the middle of pursuing a research project, which was progressing slowly but surely.  This project was independent of my PhD work .  I personally saw this project as an important step in severing the umbilical cord with my PhD supervisor.  Within the first two months of joining N1, I seemed to have reached a dead end in this project and did not know how to proceed.  It felt like my mind was unable to think beyond a few ideas that really weren't going far.  I sorely felt the need to talk to someone in my research field and discuss this, but that was not a possibility.  Fortunately, I was able to take an entire semester off to visit a university in North America where I got a chance to discuss this with an expert in this field.  This has been immensely helpful, we have made a lot of progress on this project and we will be soon submitting our paper. 

N1 allowed me to take this "sabbatical" within a few months of joining and supported me in many ways ( my application for leave was promptly approved and I was also allowed to retain my house on campus).

However, it is not possible to hop over to North America frequently and for long intervals.  Once I return, I will have to actively form collaborations within India.  This might result in generating more visitors to N1 or hiring a postdoctoral fellow, which will also be good for the department.  Another way to avoid research deadlocks would be to expand my research interests a little and find common ground with other members in the department.  The institute seems to encourage this approach. 

2) On joining N1, I did not intend taking on a PhD student for the next two to three years.  This is clearly a very serious responsibility and I wanted to wait until my research program had developed more.  However, an interesting turn of events left me with no option but to accept a student much earlier than I thought I would.  Our department received a lot of PhD applications and the administration made it clear that since research was an integral objective of the institute, we had to start a graduate program without delay.  We ended up interviewing a large number of candidates, out of whom we shortlisted three. Let's call them A1, A2 and A3 in order of their scores.  The performance of these three students was good and it would have been cruel to turn down their application (not to mention that the administration would have seriously frowned upon us).  The research interests of A2 and A3  matched with colleagues who were ready to supervise students.  A1 was interested in my area.  The scores made it impossible for us to admit A2 and A3 without also admitting A1.  How can you reject a student whose past academic performance has been excellent, who has great reference letters and who does well in the interview?  Refusing him admission just did not seem right.

I consulted my former PhD advisor and other senior mentors who all unanimously told me that I should not shy away from supervising this student.  This student will start working with me in the coming semester.  I have a couple of projects in mind for him, but will wait to decide which one would be more suitable.  This is the story of my first "unplanned" grad student.

Moral of the story: in a country which has many more qualified and interested students than faculty willing or available to supervise them, newbies have to be ready to start supervising graduate students sooner than they had planned.  

3) While in North America, I was pretty visible on the conference circuit.  I had the good fortune of working with very nice people who not only taught be great science but also gave me the opportunity and necessary funding to attend a lot of conferences and talk about my work.  It was also much easier to travel to conferences within the same continent.  Now, back in India, I feel a bit concerned that it may not be as painless to attend international conferences.  In fact, my fear is that my geographical location will make it less probable for me to be invited to talk at these conferences and interact with potential collaborators.  

On the other hand, thanks to generous research funding by the Indian government, institutes now have more opportunities and resources to host international conferences within India.  

People planning to start academic careers in India should keep these issues in mind.  Joining a new institute is not for the faint-hearted.  We may not have all the resources that one takes for granted in an established set up.  However, this lack of resources is temporary and will not last long because funding is not the problem.  One simply needs to take the initiative to ask the management for things they need for their academic growth and work patiently along with the management to get what they need.  With some careful planning and a positive outlook on the part of its employees, there is no limit to the growth of an institute. 

But, not all people fit into or are willing to join such a set up.  I have some friends who would be very unhappy being in a place like N1.  They either already have positions in O type institutes, where they are doing very good work,  or are looking for such positions.

At the end of the day, we will be productive and will contribute our best to a department only if we are happy there.  The choice has to be made carefully but firmly, because once the decision is taken, there will be no time to look back.