Close to 100 women from various science organisations across India met at an event in 2025 to deliberate on issues of inclusivity, representation and the success of women scientists in academia. IndiaBioscience facilitated the event, after which we spoke with a few founding members of PowerBio, a collective that initiated the discussions leading up to the main event at IIT Bombay. Through a series of articles, we will share conversations with these members to better understand the collective and the important dialogues it is fostering.
Radhika Nair, who leads a team of young women researchers at the Bengaluru-based Centre for Human Genetics, studies the molecular mediators of end-stage cancer or metastasis, an endeavour complicated by the inherent heterogeneity within tumours. Her team investigates the intrinsic cellular mechanisms and the external environment influencing tumour progression to build a more comprehensive understanding. In our conversation with Radhika, what stood out was her sense of collegiality and shared purpose, both in research and in advocating for inclusive spaces for women in science.
Building meaningful collaborations in India
There are multiple challenges to carrying out translational science in India. Building meaningful interdisciplinary collaborations is still relatively hard to develop in India, and warrants a deeper look at both challenges and enabling factors that have helped build some of them. Firstly, Radhika feels that a synergistic relationship between a hospital setting and a research laboratory is critical, and added that very few cohorts are built through such projects in India. An example of the kind of collaborative effort required by teams involves Jyoti S Prabhu [St. John’s Research Institute (SJRI)] and Mohit Kumar Jolly [Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (IISc)], who bring in the clinical and bioinformatics specialisation for Radhika through multiple short projects. Looking at cancer through a bioengineering perspective through work with Mahendran KR [Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology (RGCB)] has given her a novel way of viewing peptide-based therapies. Secondly, she does think that “a permanent position,” unfortunately, is a deciding factor for a collaboration. Third, there is a mismatch of priorities between the clinician and the researcher. For example, while a biologist might insist on preserving the tissue’s integrity, a clinician will put attending to their patient first. It is necessary to have policies formulated around these problems to ensure collaborations are sustained and evolve at multiple levels, including individual and institutional.
Finding inspiration (and better answers) beyond the lab
As a biologist, Radhika is driven by scientific questions — but for her, this knowledge must translate into reducing the 80% mortality associated with metastasis. What has helped partnerships succeed is a deeper understanding of the challenges clinicians face when collaborating with researchers. In a partnership, the approaches to asking and answering questions need to be complementary. She also recognises the realities of clinical work: clinicians must prioritise patient care, which means they often lack the time or resources to pursue research in parallel. There are also logistical and ethical challenges in accessing biological samples from patients.
Despite these hurdles, she believes these challenges are valuable lessons because they shift a biologist’s perspective toward patient-centred research. That’s where interdisciplinary collaboration becomes crucial. “I truly believe that ‘the best biologists are not ‘biologists’, but they are the ones who come from other fields because they see things so differently.”
Here’s how she articulated her view of interdisciplinary work: “No single method, procedure, or experiment is going to be perfect ever — each has its limitations. For example, I cannot limit my work to cell culture in my research. There are advantages to this system, because I can manipulate it very fast, but there are disadvantages too. It’s not real and doesn’t recapitulate the complexity of the human system. Now, when using mouse models, the advantage you have is that you have a live body and immune system, but it again completely doesn’t represent a human body. Patient samples are perfect, but you can’t manipulate a human being. So, I think every model system has strengths and caveats, and you have to use multiple model systems to get a complete picture. This works for collaborations too- getting collaborators from different domains allows me to look at problems in novel ways.”
Lived experiences in research
During her postdoctoral stint abroad, Radhika observed how patients are included in research teams via counselling and representation on grant review boards. It reinforced for her the need to embed empathy into training for researchers, cancer care professionals, and counsellors. She recalled a particularly powerful moment for her at a global cancer conference when a woman stood up and asked, ‘When is this drug coming out? How will it help me? What’s the timeline? I’m metastatic, I’m stage four, I am living from scan to scan, week to week.’“Everyone just went silent. That was the real face of the disease, not us sitting and tinkering in the lab.” Radhika feels that research becomes deeply personal after witnessing the disease up close, as she did while caregiving for a loved one — “Seeing radiation take its toll, watching chemotherapy run into a blood vessel and turn it pitch black, multiple surgeries- gave me a completely different insight into the disease. You don’t get that from a lab. It changes how you think.”
Women in STEM
Following a privileged upbringing by her supportive parents, life took a harsh turn for Radhika in her 20s, with domestic violence rearing its ugly head during a career break. Going back to her passion for science gave her purpose and financial independence, even as she endured abuse during the time she was pursuing postdoctoral research at Cambridge.
She recalls, “I was often asked why I didn’t come back by 35, it was too late to come back by 38. How could I explain that I lost years of my life fighting for my child, my life and safety?”
After eight years, she escaped with the help of her son, started afresh, and returned to India to find limited support within the ageist scientific system. Despite the odds, she has secured a faculty position. She continues to push forward, emphasising that although the system is faulty, science provided her with the power, dignity and integrity to survive and flourish as a single mother solely responsible for a young child’s financial and emotional security.
Radhika’s connection with PowerBio is also profoundly personal. She was fortunate to have a supportive mentor in Alexander Swarbrick (Garvan Institute of Medical Research), friends at work and home in Australia, where the healing finally happened. “Until I made the decision to leave an abusive situation, I had to survive and work as if everything was normal. There was no safe space for me. I had to show up like nothing had happened.” Her story underscores the need for collectives like PowerBio, not just for policy change, but for recognition, solidarity, and healing.
Still, the core issues remain.
Our nurturing, reproductive, and productive work years clash. I wish we lived in a world where women could walk freely and not be judged. But that’s not the world we live in. Sometimes, I feel the conversation gets lost here. Bravery is important. But so is practicality. We have to work within the society we live in.”
Small steps forward
Radhika believes that“India as a society has a long way to go. Indian science is a reflection of the deep biases held against women in general, and especially women who have a different path but have persevered. I am proud to be a survivor, thrived, and have made my way in science in my own manner, however circuitous the journey may have been- meeting many incredible women and men along the way who have empowered me.I hope my opening up will show others that, however difficult- even if the research ecosystem is archaic and deeply flawed- science is not biased, and it has helped me to survive and live my life with dignity.”
What began as a group of seven women sharing their thoughts on inclusivity in March 2024 is now a 28-member collective, PowerBio. The aim? To create a safe space for women to speak openly. “Most women just want to articulate what they’re going through. They want to ask, ‘Am I alone in this?’ Because you’re made to feel weak or like you’re whining. But often, you’re genuinely struggling — and the system expects you to keep quiet and cope.”
Conversations range from how to respond to interview questions about marital status to navigating funding, challenges faced by single women in science, and workplace sexual harassment.
PowerBio is evolving. I joined because I felt that, individually, I could only do so much. A collective, on the other hand, has more agency and critical mass to effect change.”
indiabioscience.org (Article Sourced Website)
#Resilience #representation #research #conversation #Radhika #Nair