In this chapter of Career Stories, we bring you the story of Radhika Vaishnav, who has donned various hats in her stellar career so far- as an R&D consultant, a SciComm enthusiast (teaching and mentoring), a college faculty, and an executive editor for the International Journal of Molecular and Immuno Oncology. In this candid discussion, she talks about how she pursued teaching and mentoring during her academic journey, and shares her opinions about the relevance of science communication for a researcher at any level.
What directed you to pursue science communication after professorship tenures at different institutes, mentoring young scientists, and academic editing?
I followed the traditional path during my initial career days. I did my BSc in Zoology and MSc in Biochemistry from MSU, Vadodara in the 90s. Then, I went to the US, because at that time you required 4 years of UG in order to pursue your PhD. I began my PhD at Loyola University Chicago, took a break for personal reasons (marriage and moving around different US cities) and subsequently rejoined my PhD program at the University of Kentucky at Lexington, Kentucky. The first PhD stint ended in a Masters degree on Molecular biology in cancer. It also led to my very first publication in the same field.
Despite my initial traditional track, my career meandered a bit from the usual. I settled in Lexington for my doctorate and postdoctorate. After that, I moved to Louisville, Kentucky for a full-time faculty position at the University of Louisville. Then, I decided to move back to India. Although I did not continue my track as a full-time faculty, I realized I was missing scientific interaction and communication that was integral to an academic scientist’s role. So a year or two after moving back to Vadodara, India, I took to mentoring clinicians locally and nationally in data analysis, presentation and writing of research articles for publication in journals.
I started actively carrying out academic editing in the capacity of a freelancer. I had always enjoyed writing and communicating. In fact, after high school, in the early 90s, one of the options I had considered for a career was journalism. I loved Biology, though, and in those days, doing the sciences alongside humanities was not even given as an option in school or college in India. My father was a strong orator, writer and was a Hemato-oncologist who opened up my mind to the possibility of Molecular Biology and its’ immense future.
Two decades later, I have merged my love of language with my depth in life sciences as a scientific writer, editor and educator.
What influenced you to choose a specialized subject like molecular biology for your second master’s degree in the US; after obtaining your UG and PG degrees from India in interdisciplinary subjects?
Once I finished my UG and PG degrees from MSU, Vadodara, India; I decided I wanted to get into molecular biology. I got influenced by 3 dynamic teachers. The first one was in my UG, Prof. Nene who taught me Biochemistry. She was a dedicated teacher who spent her weekends teaching us biochemical pathways out in the college corridors in an unconventional manner.
I was also blessed to have inspiring teachers in my PG; who were limitless in their teaching capabilities. For example, there was Prof. Acharya who had a science book club where we read many books authored by great scientists such as Feynman, Richard Dawkins, etc. We also put together a library in our Biochemistry department on the basis of student contribution of buying a book every month. Over the course of my masters, me and my fellow classmates had built a science library together; which was an inspiring activity for all.
Prof. Harish Padh had formed a small group of people from Vadodara called the “Biotechnology Interest Group.” He would invite all of us college students to come and attend their seminars. Additionally, a few of us would have a “Business in Biotechnology” session where we would indulge in student-driven round table discussions about various topics in the business of biotechnology.
I had excellent teachers and professors who would think outside the box and help me dream about what I could achieve. This, along with my own parents being in the field of life sciences, directed me to consider a career in biotechnology or molecular biology.
Molecular biology in cancer was in its baby stages with knowledge being more theoretical than practical since the protocols were still being established. That was why I chose molecular biology and I was fortunate to get into a PhD program at the Loyola University of Chicago Cancer Center in 1998. I began my work under Dr L Miele wherein I was studying the role of NOTCH-1 in transformation of normal cells into malignant ones. Around that time, telomerase, RAS, and other oncogenes/tumor suppressors were just being understood. It was an exciting time, as it paved the way for future targeted therapies that we all see today. I put my Ph.D. on hold when I married and moved for a couple years to Portland where I worked as a research scientist at the Department of Molecular Medicine, Oregon Health and Sciences University. My husband and I took turns in supporting each other in our career ambitions.
How did these foundational degrees contribute to your teaching/mentorship experience?
I think having a foundational degree in life sciences helped me a lot because I have been able to identify with students at all levels and from all walks of life. Not having a specialized curriculum from the beginning gives you a lot of versatility to formulate a career in science communication or teaching. It helps to develop a very broad understanding because you are able to move into, communicate and understand any area in the biological sciences. On this, you can steadily build and specialize if you choose to go into research.
You never know about the future, one door opens, another closes. It helps to have a variety of different experiences even if we do choose a research path. Hence, over the years please do keep a couple of other interests going on. Don’t just put all your apples in one basket because life is uncertain. Something interesting may come up and you may want to change your direction in the future. I have mentored many students and I am firm about being flexible and having a solid knowledge base. Knowledge is important but you also need a lot more than that to go through life.
Was it providence or an informed choice that brought you to pursue molecular neuroscience in neurodegeneration/injury for your PhD and Post-doctoral research?
After Portland, we moved to Lexington, Kentucky where my husband Dr. Anand Vaishnav and I both pursued our academic track. We stayed with a friend while interviewing there, and she introduced me to a scientist couple who eventually became my PhD guides i.e. Dr. Tom & Dr. Marilyn Getchell. Initially, I joined their lab as a research analyst and was responsible for overseeing all the students and managing all the research activities in the lab. Eventually, I decided to continue with my PhD which I had halted when I left Loyola. Since their work was in molecular degeneration and regeneration of the olfactory system, I chose a project in that field and finally started my PhD at Sanders Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky. It was an interesting environment where they were working on Alzheimer’s disease and aging to find early markers of the former. Autopsy or biopsy samples from humans and mouse models were utilized. Eventually, I got more interested in bioenergetics of neurons because of my keen interest in mitochondria associated with oxidative damage that can occur in the nervous system due to internal or external factors, causing degeneration of these cells.
My postdoctoral research was awarded an individual NIH fellowship on the topic of “Therapeutic Strategies for Neurodegeneration and Spinal Cord Injury” under Dr Edward Hall, Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Center (SCOBIRC), University of Kentucky.
As per your previous interview from the Young Scientist Leader (YSL) program organized by Dr Felix Bast, you have participated in many certification programs and science outreach activities since your undergraduate years. How do you see such (perceived) extra-curricular activities being of help to aspiring researchers or PhD students?
I would not prefer to use the term ‘extracurricular activities’ here, because I believe once you are pursuing doctoral or postdoctoral research, you are no longer a traditional student. You are not attending classes only to take exams. You are actually more of an apprentice during this time. Any other skills that you wish to acquire, can also be pursued. It can be an individual or group activity. I have done numerous such activities throughout my education and career.
For example, while I was pursuing my postdoc, we (myself and Dr. Theresa Thomas) had built together a postdoctoral group called SCoBIRC Postdoc Group. This driving force for the formation of this group was a realization that there is teaching and mentoring all throughout one’s education, but by the time you are a postdoctoral fellow, sometimes you lose that structure of going to a PI and acquiring guidance. So here, in this group, we had regular meetings and we would take turns presenting, especially if someone had an upcoming job interview or any kind of conference presentation. We would be the peers/teammates/classmates who would listen to and critique each other. We made it a very collegial and constructive activity.
In the US, the doctoral and postdoctoral communities are very multicultural. We would also have occasional social activities like Potluck and multicultural programs. All these activities are not exactly ‘extracurricular’, but they enrich the already existing curriculum.
Science communication stems from being able to communicate what you do. It has to start with you being able to explain what you do. I had a professor at Loyola University, Dr. Katherine Knight who used to tell us that one should be able to explain their research in a limited time- 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or max. 30 minutes. Everything does not have to be a long-winding presentation or a 45-minute lecture. If someone asks you to explain your research in under 5 minutes to them, you should be able to pitch your research and grab the audience’s attention by making it interesting as well as wrapping it up within the time limit.
While I was a faculty at the University of Louisville, my department (Department of Physiology, with Joint appointment in Neurology and Neurosurgery) sponsored a certification program in entrepreneurship with Kauffman Foundation where we would meet experts and were encouraged to take an idea from its conception to visualization/startup. Here, we were told to sell our idea in either 11 mins or 1 min elevator pitches. Initially, we did the latter. We were critiqued and trained in the same manner all throughout the course.
Elevator pitches include meeting laymen/potential investors in an elevator and your response to their question of “Hey! What do you do?” Depending on what you say in the next minute, the other person will make a decision right there whether they want to listen to you or not. So, you can imagine putting together everything you want to say within this minute, is not a cakewalk. Starting up the Journal IJMIO, working with the team, expanding it and currently stewarding it into a legacy for clinician-scientists to communicate has been possible thanks to these lessons learnt.
During my PhD, I started teaching in a community college on the weekends over the topic of Physiology. I had learnt it in depth over the years because the broad subject of my PhD was the Physiology despite my research area being neuroscience. I continued over the years to teach Physiology along with other Life Science subjects at colleges including my current affiliation as Adjunct Faculty, Life Sciences, IvyTech Community College, Indianapolis, Indiana.
So these types of things are always happening in parallel. You are not just doing one thing. You are teaching, communicating, building something, trying to put together a startup company, failing at it, while you are doing doctoral or postdoctoral research or being a faculty member. Someone did ask me to join a new steering committee to try to put together a novel neuroscience course with a very new faculty. Despite all the challenges, I did that. I was the one who would hardly say no to any self-improvement opportunities within the field. This is why I would not call these activities ‘extracurricular’. Hobbies and artistic activities can be considered ‘extracurricular activities’. But activities like science communication, being able to prepare and deliver your research pitch are co-curricular, skill-building and life-changing activities, that can actually strengthen your career profile and who you are. In the future, one or all of these will make you unique as opposed to only gaining knowledge through education.
How did you get associated with IJMIO (International Journal of Molecular and Immuno Oncology)? Please introduce us to your journey there
I did not get introduced to IJMIO but rather, I was one of the founding members of the journal.
So, in 2016, I was attending a molecular oncology conference with my father, an oncologist, Dr. Divyesh Mehta, who was giving a talk and he introduced me to his friend Dr. Purvish Parikh who was there as a faculty member. I told him about how I wanted to do something different – to leave a legacy. He offered the role of honorary executive editor at the International Journal of Molecular and Immuno Oncology. The journal was to be launched soon and he was putting together a small start-up team, which I joined.
Our goal at the journal is to encourage people who are from a clinical background, to come out of their comfort zone and actually write and communicate their work. Many people are still not communicating whatever they are observing in their clinics or their research. Hence, there is so much potential to do more. We also give encouragement to new authors and look forward to their work being published. The journal is the official journal of the Molecular Oncology Society under the current able leadership of editor Dr. Randeep Singh and a multispecialty team of oncologists on the editorial board.
It has been a very exciting activity for me because I am at the forefront of a field that is continuously undergoing a lot of change and development. So, I really chose to do this to keep myself on my toes as I am forced to read and learn constantly and stay active.
According to you, what improvements can be made in education, mentoring, and research environments in India to be on par with the USA?
Knowledge is not what is setting India apart from the US or any other country. You need to have an environment that supports or encourages fundamental research. Without the society getting interested or involved, the funding will cease.
In the US, funding comes largely from the NIH, NSF, and other similar agencies which are government-based or private foundations (Eg: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). These funds come from the public i.e. taxpayer’s money or donations. Basically, you need to empower the people and you can only do that by giving them knowledge and making them feel comfortable about research. Now, in India, there are people who are willing to donate money to hospitals, NGOs for the underprivileged, religious activities, education, children, food drives, etc. But having an actual system where everyone pays taxes and a certain percent of taxes go into funding research automatically will encourage research job creation as well as encourage our research talent to stay within our country. This change has to come from the grassroot level. For that, the public has to be included in the entire story of scientific research. For that, you have to communicate science to them: what you are doing and why you are doing it. The COVID-19 pandemic did bring that change in communication.
Moreover, science is connected. It has no boundaries. I do not look at science as being limited by national borders. I do not know if it is an unpopular opinion or not, but honestly when you are a pure scientist, you think only about science. It does not matter where you live or work. But scientists are people who have families– children, parents. Hence, we want to stay in a certain place. Once you do that, you need to sustain yourself. However noble you may feel your profession is, you want to do research and solve problems, you do need to be able to support your family. If you cannot, you will leave science or research, for sure. You will find something else because obviously you are smart and hardworking enough to get into a masters or a PhD.
The only thing that is very sad is that we have already spent a significant part of our youth preparing ourselves to be a scientist. When it comes to supporting your family, if you need to either leave the country or change your profession, then something is just not quite right yet in India. I think that we need more awareness and that is where science communication begins to gain importance.
How is this scenario changing in India, with years passing by?
Internet, globalization, and access to knowledge have been groundbreaking for research in India. Internet has been a great equalizer; so people from all over the world have access to the same knowledge. You have YouTube videos, and online PDFs of textbooks today which are very different from our days. Back then, we had to go to the library and find interesting articles from the paperback journals that were subscribed to. We were sometimes limited by the availability of resources in the library. Since all we had were paper-based journals, we had to make do with whatever was available. Those days at the beginning of my education were very different compared to now where we have everything thanks to the Internet.
The pandemic in the last 2-3 years changed many things. For example, because of the pandemic, everyone in India and around the world came to know about RT-PCR. This was impossible before the pandemic.
It is now possible for an Indian individual who has not undergone advanced education to know what a virus is, what immunity is, what PCR is, and that you need to get vaccines. Most importantly, today the Indian public knows that you need research to solve everyday problems, and it can save lives during an emergency. This is what is needed. I think we did an excellent job of communication during the pandemic. This is the spirit that needs to continue. We need to build up that energy in our own country where people love science and research and want to support it.
Please enlighten students (like myself) about notable research domains/ SciComm ventures to be explored.
Science policy is a critical area where SciComm is very valuable. Many opportunities are available globally for individuals who can act as a bridge between scientists and the community/government. Another notable field is working for large foundations. Companies such as pharmaceuticals and technology-based require content creation for education, marketing and awareness. Any of these roles would require strong communication skills.
Knowing multiple languages is a great advantage in science communication as scientific writers who can reach across languages are highly valuable. I would suggest following Wellcome Alliance, India Bioscience, United Nations, WHO, EMBO, AAAS and various international foundations which are devoted to scientific communication.
Follow your heart honestly in terms of what field to pursue. Ignore what other people say. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Add to the experience, build on it, and make yourself unique. Don’t settle or get disheartened in the case of bad mentors or professors. That’s a learning experience too. Everything adds to your experience. Take it in a positive way, cut your losses, and move on. When you have a positive mentor or a positive experience, take it in your stride. Get as much out of it as you can. However, do not be just a taker, be a giver as well. While you are learning, give back your knowledge to society by communicating. Take a few students under your wing and pass on any knowledge/skills that you have gained so far. It is extremely rewarding and essential for humankind and the future. We share what we know.
Experiences like the pandemic have taught us life is short and uncertain. All that knowledge is of no use if we have not shared it. My plea to everyone is that regardless of whatever field you choose- be it academia, any private profession, or a biotech company, please do not stop communicating in the form of teaching and mentoring. Prepare students for tomorrow at any level. There is no work that is too small for scientists. If you can take a few 5-year-olds and make them excited about something, that is absolutely fine as you are already doing a noble deed. You are already doing enough to show others that you are capable of bringing about a positive change. Getting educated is fine, but giving back is invaluable and absolutely priceless. I fervently request you all to do it.
You have been my mentor for many projects in the last two years. I have always admired your calm, composed but tenacious attitude to solving problems. Could you share with us a memorable mentorship/teaching experience that has changed your perspective, and contributed towards your own learning process?
When you are on the track of getting a PhD/becoming a scientist, you do need people who are very calm, caring, as well as resilient in your life. They continue to steer you back into the right direction. In my case, I wanted to be a scientist and a professor.
In this path, there will be many roadblocks and hurdles: your papers getting rejected and designed experiments failing most of the times. During your doctoral degree journey, you feel like a failure numerous times. On the other hand, when you go home, your family must be wondering: what in the world do you do? Why do you spend so many hours in a lab? Many a time, you may not be able to answer such questions to their satisfaction.
Usually, it is such an esoteric topic that you are working upon: one small molecule inside one small organelle and some organism that nobody in your family has ever heard of. Then you are trying to explain it in a way that they understand by telling them that it is related to a certain disease. You also want to make your response interesting to them, so that they know you are not wasting your life on something that they do not actually understand. They are proud and happy of your achievements. However, they do not really know what you do. Even my family members can only give a very vague description of anything that I ever did. Very few people in your family and friends will pick up your papers and read them. This is the life you are leading. You are living in a bubble and everyone around you is doing something else in their lives. There is a big gap.
You have a continuous impostor syndrome going on during your doctorate. After months of framing and validating your thesis, you are faced with your PhD defense viva panel and the audience. As an ambivert, you wish to not sound boring during your thesis defense.
Hence, one of my memorable mentorship experiences was with my PhD mentor Dr. Thomas Getchell. We worked during evenings and weekends to improve my PhD presentation through inculcating various tips provided by him. His gestures of caring and taking time to improve my presentation helped me tremendously. One of his tips were that during a presentation, in order to sound knowledgeable, it need not be long but it must be interesting. The details should be kept out of the presentation or else you will have slides which are just full of words which no one wants to listen to. In this way, I started to learn many presentation skills in my final year of PhD. So my final PhD defense was the first time in my life where I could speak confidently in front of an audience. Honestly, I give all credit to him. I wish I had learnt all of this earlier.
Another tip that was given to me was that I should sit in the front in an audience during a lecture and always ask one question. Perhaps my PhD mentor understood my introverted behavior, which no one else did before. I was used to the untrue feedback from my peers of being under confident, unprepared, and unready during my MSc presentations. Instead, I would love to prepare the subject beforehand thoroughly and could always write flawlessly. But during my speech in front of an audience, I used a lot of linker words like “um”, “uh” during pauses. This persists till the present day.
I just wanted to say that the memorable moments are when someone is humane despite being a great professor/researcher. If one is able to be honest about having an impostor syndrome despite being a professor, and lead by example as to how they overcame that, that honesty works like magic. This strategy works for me even today. I always project this viewpoint to my students. I always remind myself to show them that I do not know everything but I am a human and have been through a lot of things which helped me learn and gain wisdom. By this virtue, I have something to teach them as well.
