In this chapter of Career Stories, we bring you the journey of Mustafa Inamdar who has a postgraduate degree in biotechnology and is currently working as a science communicator at Decode age, a Longevity Research company, where he mainly drives the content for their social media pages, as well as their podcast. Additionally, he also runs his own podcast – Biotech Talks.
In this interview, he speaks at length about his journey in science communication, his approach to creating content for his YouTube channel, and elaborates upon his important learnings.
Could you briefly take us through your journey so far, and what led you towards pursuing a career in science communication? According to you, what is the main purpose of science communication- are you primarily setting out to engage, inform or educate your audience?
During the 2020 pandemic, I was a Master’s student who was attending classes online from home and found them to be quite unsatisfactory. To make the most of the situation, I decided to start my own YouTube channel, where I would teach my classmates the course curriculum in a fun way, similar to some of the previously published content. After receiving great feedback from viewers, I came up with the idea of interviewing life scientists and researchers. I reached out to a good friend of mine who was a Ph.D. student at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS) in Pune, India, and asked if she would be willing to talk about her research for my channel. She agreed and that’s how I got into science communication.
The main reason that I kept doing this was because I liked conversing with scientists and diving deeper and deeper into the subject. Since my school/college didn’t offer the best education, I wasn’t happy with the lectures. I was more content with the lectures accessible on YouTube like MIT open courseware. It was similar to the knowledge I was getting while speaking to researchers. That kept me going.
Moreover, I figured that the connections I was making through Biotech Talks would be beneficial in the future. And indeed, towards the end of my masters, I got four job offers without even applying for them. It’s also because of my channel that I managed to get a job at my current organisation.
I’m a firm believer in science, and being an atheist, nothing else matters to me. Sadly, I see that the younger generation is being heavily influenced by the content on the internet put up by political parties attempting to manipulate them. This is, I believe my primary purpose of Biotech Talks – we need to replace misleading media content with something more authentic.
Putting our podcasts about researchers can hopefully inspire others to join the science field. That is also one of the reasons I continue to work in science communication.
Do you have any personal guidelines in place, to ensure effective (and authentic) science communication? Also, what kinds of questions do you generally ask the interviewees?
I make sure to begin each project with thorough planning. To reach out to researchers for my podcast, I send cold emails which provide an overview of my YouTube channel as well as links to my previous podcasts. Once researchers have accepted my invitation, I perform a thorough background research to prepare relevant questions for the podcast. I send them a list of these questions and ask them for their inputs as well. They usually do have a few of their questions to add to the list. Additionally, if the interviewee agrees to conduct the interview at their office, I make sure I am punctual and avoid any delay from my end.
Occasionally, whenever I interview at their own office, few researchers or scientists who are around, express an interest to be a part of my podcast. Since I am unaware of the research and history of that scientist, this circumstance is unplanned. However, taking into consideration their desire and interest to support my channel, I immediately conduct interviews for them as well. Gradually, through my experience of conducting interviews (over 25, so far) I’ve grown accustomed to including unplanned elements and built my skills towards producing on-the-spot content for my podcasts upon request.
Some questions that I routinely ask scientists and researchers are:
What kind of research are they doing?
What is the meaning of a Ph.D.?
Why are there more male scientists in Indian Academy and fewer female scientists?
What is scientific temper?
What is the importance of humor in research?
All these questions revolve around topics that I personally find very interesting and relevant.
How would you demonstrate to your audience that you are trustworthy with the information you provide?
When a scientist talks about their research, what they say is assumed to be the truth. I do not truncate it if the researcher has spoken for 40 minutes, I post the complete 40 minute talk.
Recently, one of my videos went viral- I had taken some questions which I usually ask researchers and scientists and collated them into a video. About 10-15 scientists shared their views about what they believe a Ph.D. is, and it had an interesting flow. The video got over 2.6 lakh views and the comments were impressive; Prior to this video, my channel had 1k subscribers, and after this stint, the subscribers increased to 7k. In the comments, a lot of people said that the video had opened their eyes and they would now continue with their Ph.D.
I’m uncertain of my feelings on the matter because- a Ph.D. is indeed a hard path to take and if you have the opportunity to obtain it from a renowned institution then that’s wonderful. Yet, the fact that some students end up struggling to complete a Ph.D. from a university for 10-11 years is quite disheartening.
In the light of this scenario, I’m now planning to create a video titled “Why I Quit My Ph.D.” to provide a platform for those who have gone through this experience and want to share their stories.
How do you handle criticism- and balance people’s perception regarding your shared information (especially if they do not agree with it) against your conviction regarding that information?
Sometimes, if they are speaking the truth, then I have no option but to accept and ponder over it. The reality of research in India is like two sides of the same coin. I only portray the positive side of it through my interviews. The negative side is indeed there, however.
I had a great admiration for one of the scientists I interviewed, believing them to be exceptional researchers. When I visited one of their affiliated institutes, I had the chance to meet one of their students. To my surprise, they portrayed a completely different version of the scientist, which was inconsistent with how they presented themselves in my interview. This made me acknowledge that it is impossible to know whether the professor is a good or bad mentor until one experiences it. Prior to joining a Ph.D. program, it is important to investigate the nature of one’s PhD guide/mentor.
Quite recently, I suggested to my peers that just like there is a Glassdoor app which allows individuals to look into the credibility of a business and provide anonymous reviews; it could be beneficial to have a platform where Ph.D. candidates can give an anonymous feedback regarding their PhD guides. This could be a very useful website.
I am attempting to bring awareness to the Indian Academia by asking relevant questions. During one of my interviews with student scientists, I urged them to not only talk about the pressures from their parents but also to comment upon the institutional aspects, such as the bad practices of PIs and inadequate regulations. As a result, I was given some meaningful, but heartbreaking answers.
I’m hoping to encourage others to recognize this problem. There are already a lot of PIs discussing this issue, but perhaps a bigger revolution is necessary.
What inspires you to keep continuing this journey of science communicator?
During my second year of college, I had this remarkable opportunity to visit the NCMR NCC research institute in Pune, India for my Avishkar project, where we had a chance to construct an affordable fluorescence microscope. I was honored to meet Dr. Praveen Rahi, a highly-regarded scientist, and a remarkable individual. Although he spent four hours talking to me, it felt as though only five to ten minutes had passed!
It was through such dynamic conversations with the scientists and researchers that my interest in science communication flourished, which I have been diligently pursuing ever since. Through this, I am able to learn the reasoning, methodology, and the perceived outcomes from the scientists I interview and hence dive a little deeper into their mindset. It has been an enjoyable, extraordinary, and instructive experience.
Through my work, I have been very fortunate to have encountered such exceptional scientists that I may not have had the chance to meet otherwise. It was truly inspiring to personally connect with them and gain insights into their work, which was the driving force behind my motivation.
It’s a shame that our educational system has the potential to sap out the enthusiasm and curiosity of students because of the approach towards teaching subjects such as biology. Conversing with scientists and experts can truly be a source of invigoration to pursue a career in a scientific field.
