Anjana Badrinarayanan on discovery science, DNA repair, and the Infosys Prize 2025

In her responses, Badrinarayanan emphasised that receiving the Infosys Prize has reaffirmed her commitment to curiosity-driven, long-term research. She described how her work challenges static views of DNA repair by revealing it as a dynamic, cell-wide process shaped by movement, timing, and cellular state. She also reflected on the broader importance of patient, high-risk research, mentorship, and building supportive scientific ecosystems that enable young researchers to pursue ambitious questions.

Congratulations on receiving the Infosys Prize 2025. What does this recognition mean to you at this stage of your scientific career, and how do you see it shaping your future research direction?

Receiving the Infosys Prize at this stage of my career is both affirming and grounding. It is a recognition of long-term, curiosity-driven work that does not always yield quick answers, but steadily builds understanding over time. 

Personally, it reinforces my belief in asking difficult mechanistic questions and staying with them over time, even when progress is slow or uncertain.

In terms of future direction, the prize does not redirect my research so much as strengthen my commitment to it. It gives me confidence to continue pursuing ambitious questions about genome maintenance that require interdisciplinary approaches and sustained effort. It also brings a responsibility to contribute more actively to the broader scientific ecosystem — through mentorship, collaboration, and helping build environments where young scientists feel supported in taking intellectual risks.

Your work uncovers new mechanisms of DNA repair. Could you describe how these discoveries reshape our understanding of genome maintenance?

Genome maintenance has traditionally been viewed as a largely local and passive process, where repair proteins act near sites of damage. Our work challenges this view by showing that DNA repair is highly dynamic and organised at the scale of the whole cell. Cells actively mobilise repair machinery, using energy-dependent processes to search for damaged DNA and coordinate repair efficiently. We have also shown that mutagenic DNA repair can operate outside of the conventional boundaries of the cell cycle, including in dormant or non-dividing cells. This reshapes how we think about when and where mutations arise, and suggests that genome modification is not restricted to actively replicating cells. This shifts our understanding of genome maintenance from a static framework to a dynamic one, where movement, timing, and spatial organisation play central roles. It also suggests that genome architecture and cellular state strongly influence how repair unfolds. These insights help explain how cells maintain stability under stress, and why repair outcomes can differ depending on physiological conditions. More broadly, they have important consequences for stability, adaptation, and evolution, highlighting that genome maintenance is not just about individual enzymes, but about coordinated cellular strategies.

Live-cell imaging is central to your research. How is this technology transforming the way molecular biologists investigate dynamic processes inside cells?

Live-cell imaging has fundamentally changed how we study biology by allowing us to observe processes as they unfold in real time inside living cells. For molecular biologists, this means moving beyond static descriptions to understanding dynamics: how molecules move, interact, and respond to changes over time. In our work, this has been critical for studying DNA repair, where key events occur rapidly and transiently, and would be otherwise missed. By following individual cells, we can capture dynamics and heterogeneity that are completely masked in population-averaged experiments. It has also revealed variability between individual cells, showing that even genetically identical cells can behave differently under the same conditions. More broadly, this approach is transforming molecular biology by revealing temporal order, coordination, and decision-making within cells. As imaging becomes more quantitative and integrated with computational analysis, it is enabling researchers to link molecular mechanisms to cellular behaviour in a far more direct and predictive way.

The Infosys Prize often highlights research with potential societal impact. How do you envision your discoveries contributing to long-term advances in disease research or therapeutic strategies?

Many diseases including cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, and age-related conditions are associated with defects in DNA repair and genome stability. While my research is focused on microbial systems, the underlying principles we uncover are often conserved across evolution. Studying these processes in tractable systems allows us to identify core mechanisms that are difficult to dissect in more complex cells. In the context of infectious disease, understanding DNA repair in bacteria is also important for addressing antibiotic resistance, as repair pathways enable microbes to survive stress and evolve rapidly. 

I want to highlight that the contribution of fundamental discovery research is often indirect and long-term. Rather than producing immediate therapies, it provides the conceptual foundation that informs future drug targets, treatment strategies, and diagnostic approaches. 

In that sense, it shapes the landscape in which applied and clinical research can operate more effectively, and opens new and frontier research directions. In a rapidly changing world, such forward facing, long-term fundamental research is critical to ensure we are future ready.

Frontier research in India often requires deep institutional support. How do you think awards like the Infosys Prize help strengthen basic science ecosystems and inspire confidence in high-risk, curiosity-driven research?

Awards like the Infosys Prize play a vital role in validating discovery science and curiosity-driven research, especially in areas where outcomes are uncertain and timelines are long. By recognising this, the foundation sends a strong message that depth, originality, and persistence matter. 

Such recognition goes a long way towards strengthening research ecosystems by increasing visibility for basic science, helping attract talented students and collaborators, and reinforcing institutional confidence in supporting ambitious projects. This is particularly important in India, to encourage researchers to aim for long-term impact. 

I feel that beyond individual recognition, these awards help shape scientific culture. They encourage institutions and funding agencies to invest in long-term thinking and create environments where researchers feel supported in taking intellectual risks. Over time, this builds resilience and excellence in the scientific system as a whole.

Many young researchers look up to scientists like you. What message would you like to share with early-career scientists, especially women in STEM, who aspire to pursue challenging, long-term scientific questions?

I would encourage young scientists to give themselves permission to be curious and to be patient with uncertainty. 

Scientific questions rarely yield quick answers, and progress often comes through periods of confusion and failure. This is a normal and necessary part of discovery. For women in STEM in particular, it is important to recognise that doubts and obstacles are not personal shortcomings, but structural features of the system. Building supportive networks, seeking mentors, and trusting one’s intellectual instincts can make a tremendous difference. Finally, choose questions that genuinely excite you. Sustained curiosity is what carries you through difficult phases. Science is not a straight path, and success does not look the same for everyone. There is space for diverse voices, styles, and trajectories in research.

Scientific recognition often brings new responsibilities. Do you see this award influencing your roles in mentorship, scientific leadership, or in shaping the broader research culture at National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS-TIFR)or beyond?

Scientific recognition does bring a certain sense of responsibility, though I see it more as a continuation than a change. Mentorship has always mattered deeply to me, and that commitment remains central, particularly supporting early-career scientists as they navigate uncertainty and failure. It is important to foster environments where rigorous and creative science can thrive together. At NCBS, which has a strong and vibrant culture of fundamental research, I feel it is important to help sustain and strengthen this environment that values curiosity, rigor, and intellectual risk-taking. That includes encouraging conversations across disciplines and ensuring that young researchers feel confident pursuing original ideas. I do hope to contribute to conversations about how we define and assess scientific success. Moving beyond short-term metrics to recognise depth, integrity, and long-term impact is essential. 

Shaping research culture is always a collective effort, but recognition can help give weight and visibility to these conversations.