Transcript of An Interview with Dr.

Jyothi Vadassery

Interviewer: Can you please introduce yourself?

Interviewee: Yeah, I am Jyothilakshmi, I am a plant biologist. I work at the National Institute

of Planned Genome Research in New Delhi. I have, I've studied agriculture for my
bachelor's. And followed by, uh, you know, PhD in, uh, plant physiology from the Frederick
Sheila University in Germany. And I did a couple of postdocs after that before I came back to
India as a faculty in 2014.

Interviewer: Were you always sure, ever in school or even before that, that you wanted to
get into this field and why this field when you have so many other options available lately?
Why this particular niche?

Interviewee: Yeah, so when I was in school, I had no idea. I absolutely, I'm not from a
scientific family. And I had absolutely no idea what, what and science is, was I, I don't think
in my school as well, it was in a village. So, I also went through that path, uh, where I chose
what everyone was choosing. But, uh, then I took my B.se, I think that time, uh, agriculture, I
took a subject, which I had no clue in, I mean I grew up in Mumbai.

Interviewer: Okay. So, you spoke about lab, like how lab habits vary, from places to places.
So, how does training and actual experimentations vary across individuals in a lab? And does
that competency in that affect the, the scientific process?

Interviewee: You mean with respect to the students that, uh, we train or, uh, like as both as
individuals?

Interviewer: Both.

Interviewee: Okay. Understood. So, in our current institute, we have only PhD students.
What I see from PhD is a very advanced degree. And what I find that when students come
for PhD, they should have enough experience. Yeah. Lab experience, everybody has.
Theoretical knowledge. This is what I see in general. They know all the theory. This is not the
issue, but you shouldn't have practical experience or you should have worked in a lab for
long enough to understand that I love this field.
Interviewer: Yeah. So are you saying that being in a lab out kind of outweighs the
theoretical part, or is it like as important or.

Interviewee: Yeah, of course the theoretical part is the basis of what is in the lab, but what I
find is theoretical knowledge that most of them have, at least the students that I, we find
coming through these examinations here. That ability to think, you know, or you should
have worked somewhere where you can ask questions. You know, this is how you should be
planning an experiment, even a small one, so that you will never get it from a, just a
theoretical knowledge.

Interviewer: Okay. So, you also said that you later went, uh, you left the country where,
where to us, uh, to study outside of India?

Interviewee: Yeah. Yeah. For my PhD. Yes. Yeah.

Interviewer: So, um, how, so, how many different kinds of plans or methods does one use
to look at a problem? Like, is, is such a diversity of methods, of different views relevant to or
field?

Interviewee: Yes. Yes, yes. So, we work on mainly plant genes and proteins. So, there are,
uh, molecular biology essentially. So, uh, we do have a lot of techniques. Now. There is a
limit. Each lab will be focused on or will be good in certain techniques. So, what I've seen in
Germany is that they collaborate a lot. So now there is an X lab, which is very good in
protein biochemistry.

Interviewer: So, you also spoke about your supervisor, and so from what I, uh, inferred that
there wasn't, uh, was there like a set hierarchy?

Interviewee: No. In, in your No, not at all. He was the nicest person I've seen, and he is very
cool. And I think that is why I'm still sitting here and doing science because, uh, I never felt
that, you know, I was doing any PhD if it was great fun. He, he simply, he used to have
regular lab meeting, but no, he was not at all strict. I'm pretty cool with new I, new things
and very wonderful person to work with and very well-travelled. So, he was also, there's
also cultural element to it because you are going to a new country from India.
Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah. That's actually needed, that cultural shift, you know, that you
experience.

Interviewee: And the supervisor also facilitates that a lot. You know, it depends, uh, if your
supervisor's not, uh, very strict, it's very difficult to adjust like this to a new culture.
Certainly. Yeah.

Interviewer: So, uh, speaking about that, so what do you think, uh, what do you think is the
meritocracy like, does your work affect it or does your, does it affect your scientific process
in any way?

Interviewee: What do you mean by that?

Interviewer: So, uh, how, um, like, uh, okay, I'll give you an example. Edison and Tesla. How,
uh, Edison is known for inventing the light power Tesla actually, you know, found the, the
most important part of it. Right? So does two individuals who are, um, like, you know,
talented, they, they have the power in a society, does that affect. So, work in any way?

Interviewee: Currently not. I'm still a very young faculty, I feel, and currently I, I don't feel,
at least to me, that it has affected Okay. Much. I'm still, I feel that I've just found, just
started.
You know, though eight years is a long time, but I feel my lab is on its feet and I haven't felt
it so far.

Interviewer: I mean, yeah. It is a very long time.

Interviewee: Our field, you know, we've just started having our first say five, six papers
published. Okay. And I, I still feel I have a long way to go.

Interviewer: Okay. That's, um, and what do you feel about, uh, getting perspective, like
perspectives from the other fields? Uh, can that benefit your work?

Interviewee: Fine. Fine. I understand. So, yeah, I, I have to tell from the post, because I, for
my postdoc, I was at the Melan Institute and I was in the chemistry department. It had
nothing to do with plants. So, uh, that, you know, that interdisciplinary research that you
can use other people's, you know, other fields into your research.

Interviewer: Yeah. And, uh, you said that, um, uh, your field is particularly about applied
science. It affects us directly. Right, so there are some signs like astrophysics that does not
affect our lives indirectly, as you know, medical science does. So, should the standards of
ethics and scientific rigor be the same or different from both fields?

Interviewee: I think they should be the same in all fields. You know, you never know how,
you know, the field will affect our life one day.
Yeah. Yeah. So, their ethics, uh, should be the same. And I think it's, it's something that the
people have to be educated also from a very young, when they're embedded bachelors and
masters.

Interviewer: Yeah. So, yeah. Talking about ethics, is there anything in your, in your field of
study that feels like a moral connection? Something that.

Interviewee: Yes. Um, um, CRISPR you know, I, as I do, as I, you know, learn more and more
about, and we use CRISPR quite a lot in plants these days you can use this CRISPR to make
say, a bigger plant, a plant dollar into best. It's a technology. It's a technique. Yeah. Um, but
it's a faster technique and it's not like introducing a gene from another organism, it's just
that you're editing your own genome.

Interviewer: What do you think about that as a scientific community?

Interviewee: Do you I don't think we've reached, uh, there is any discussion on that because
as of now, we are only looking at the good side of the technology. Yeah. Even that has not
reached people. You know, we, in India, the transgenics are not approved for plants.

Interviewer: Yeah. So, talking about accessibility, how accessible is your research and
papers, uh, to people like me, like, who have no connection with this field?

Interviewee: Do you mean by accessibility to the journal or do you mean just to – Yeah,
accessibility through, through popular articles or what do you mean? Yeah, of course. I
mean, it is, uh, these journals around, most of them are pay and, but still there are thought
pillar articles that come about the work in newspapers.
So, for people who are, there, are people writing sometimes that, you know, I can't get this
paper, but I'm interested in your work, so can you send it to me? So, I always send it. Okay. I
mean, I'm also very happy if someone writes to me, a student who, who asked, I, I, I always
send it. So yeah. But there are.

Interviewer: I tried reading, I tried reading some things about too. It was tough. Then I
found, you know,

Interviewee: I've some links in the end where people have written articles.

Interviewer: Yeah, I saw those and then I saw videos to like understand it better and it was
nice, it was interesting.
And, uh, so what, what. I mean, eight years you say it's, it's not that, uh, big, big, you know,
great of time in your field, but still, it's a huge time when you study. So, like what kind
impact is your field making for you? What do you think of that?

Interviewee: The field or my study.

Interviewer: Both, um in improving the quality of life.

Interviewee: Okay. So, I, for me, I, I think my greatest, what I'm very proud of is the fact that
about understanding how plants are able to send. Signals calcium signals from when it is,
you know, bitten by insects from the leaf, which is bitten to the un. Yeah. Which are very,
very fast signals. So, you know, so we were the first one to discover that.
We are also in an era where, you know, we also are as an institution looking for helping. So
we are, for example, working on a project in. What most of the work I'm doing is in this
model plant called Arabidopsis, which is a weed, you know, it's not a real crop plant.

Interviewer: Okay, so can you just tell me more about, um, your scientific process? How do
you, uh, conduct and do research? Okay, yeah.
Interviewee: So mostly we, we begin by asking, uh, uh, you know, a valid question for which
there is no, you know, there is nothing reported for any question.
For example, we'll start. Signal traveling through the whole plant. When we began it, we did
not, we didn't even know that, you know, plant can send, send such a signal. So, we, you
look back into other systems, uh, you know, I'm working on plant in insect interaction. I will
go back to other interactions that is known for plants in general, where it is, where some
information is.

Interviewer: Okay. So, how would you say, is your sign driven by, uh, the belief of a
particular hypothesis?

Interviewee: Yeah, yeah. It is mostly driven by, uh, a very specific hypothesis. For, uh,
example, I'll tell you one hypothesis that we, which is my favourite now. So we are, uh, we.
Plants, we are able to see the scalps and signalling traveling inside the plant. So, our now
hypothesis is that maybe the insect also knows that, you know, there is the signal which is
moving very fast. So, he should, the insect should also be able to stop it because it is able to
eat it, you know, So the insect should have certain proteins, which can.

Interviewer: So that would also be other theories, that your, uh, that your group or your lab
that you're working in rejects?

Interviewee: Yes, yes, yes, yes. You discuss with the students and they can tell, oh, no, this
is not true. You know? It can be something else. Maybe we should test that. So yeah, this
comes from discussion and lot of, you know, going back and forth, but this going back and
forth only will come from students only when they're very well trained or they know what
they're, you know, really doing.

Interviewer: So, when do you feel that a particular body of work is sufficient to argue for or
fall or against hypothesis? How does that go about? Like when do you decide when
something is published?

Interviewee: So, when I have lot of independent data sets to prove my hypothesis. Yeah. So,
as I told you for your, uh, you know, easiness, that imagine I'm looking for this protein,
which in insect, which can stop this plant thing, Okay.
Yeah. And can cheat the plant into not doing this. So now I, I have proved it by multiple
independent methods that there is such a protein and it can do such a thing and for multiple
methods, I, I get the same answer that I'm looking for.
Interviewer: Okay. So, um, you talk about experimenting sexy also, right? In your work. So,
uh, as a, as a scientist, uh, you like reason and, um, make a lot of judgment calls to make a
theory, right? So, what allows that thing to be acceptable as a scientific process. What do
you, um, what do you, what do you, what do you think comes that?

Interviewee: Can you elaborate more?

Interviewer: Like how, what do you think is acceptable?

Interviewee: Okay. You mean to form a certain specific hypothesis and to ask a specific
Yeah. How do I come up with the, with the, with that idea?

Interviewer: Yeah. Basically, how do you, uh, justify the experimentation for the
hypothesis?

Interviewee: Okay. So, uh, you know, we would go also, we would do a lot of, a lot of
literature searches and, you know, what is in that field that you do, you know, from so much
years of research, I know if I have to prove that something does something, this, these are
the experimental.

Interviewer: Mm-hmm, so basically you would say experience makes a better scientist,
right? Yeah. Especially making, well, making judgment calls.

Interviewee: Yes, exactly. Yeah.

Interviewer: So, yeah. Um, and if, uh, how so taking your personal life and science, I mean,
being a decade, you have been in this field more than a decade actually. Yeah. So, uh, do
you believe something that is not scientific in your post and professional life?

Interviewee: Okay. No, I'm, uh, in general, I'm very, uh, you know, I feel science has
impacted in that way my personal life as well. And I'm in that I always look at the scientific
side of things Okay. In my personal life too, you know.
Interviewer: Okay. So, the deal, behaviour or lifestyle change in a way, like in an any major
way since you as a scientist?

Interviewee: As a woman, I don't think I have the luxury for that. Okay. I would love to sit in
the lab till 10 o'clock and think about my work or write my papers, but as a woman in
science, there's no choice. You, you, you at, at the end of the day, you have to take care of
your children and go back.

Interviewer: Okay. Yeah. So, what, like what are your, what is, what other things do you do?
What are your hobbies? What do you do outside of the lab?

Interviewee: Unfortunately, there are no major hobbies and I'm very worried as I'm getting
older. I, when I was younger, I used to write a lot. Um, you know, uh, I used to write, boy,
not young, it's not as a school kid, but even in colleges, I used to be very active in art as in
writing, and very active in all those field, even for my bachelor's and still my bachelor's.

Interviewer: Yeah. Okay. So what would you define, uh, good or successful scientist? Like,
what's, what's the difference between them?

Interviewee: I don't know what a successful scientist, um, what is the difference? I think I
enjoy, at least from my personal thing, I enjoy what I'm doing and I've always been, you
know, very focused on a specific question. From my PhD, I've been always trying to
understand how is it that kept answer, sensing this calcium signals. So, I worked with
different systems answering the same thing. So that question is always in my head and I, I
try to find, answer to that question. I don't see it as a profession. I see it as it's my hobby.

Interviewer: So, in your study, have you ever done, uh, an experiment where, it took me
understand this question, but A is, uh, a is true of x, B is also two x, but a is not true to B.
How do you, how do you like, uh, figure such false correlations in your work?

Interviewer: By experimentations, yeah, so yeah, by our, our workers mostly experimental

work. Yeah. So, correlation doesn't really, you know, mean much in our, at least in my, there
are different fields of research we don't ask so much. Uh, for example, in ecology. Yeah,
classical ecology. You can, you can ask lot of questions and test it with easier systems. You
know, you're working on a bacterium, you can ask whether that bacterium, corporate with
each other, cheat with each other. You can give, change the scenario, test it. Um, but my
field of work is not the same. So, we, we, we cannot test a lot in a real biotic interaction,
which is offering in.

Interviewer: Ok. So, uh, I want to talk about, uh, funding agencies and how do they, and
along with other external factors, dictate how science is done and you know, which problem
is. This is the only problem I feel which worries the funding agency. I mean, it doesn't match
up to our enthusiasm. Yeah, we are very enthusiastic to do, but every single day matters. A
stress, you know, you have to pay people. I mean, our institute is very well funded, so we
have certain core funds, which is always available to us in material. External funding. So
yeah, so this keeps us going, but we still have to apply for grants and they are very difficult
to come by whenever release on time.

Interviewer: Um, what is the, okay, what is the value of doing something novel in your field
or inside, or just in science in general? Because you spoke about the plant signalling thing,
right? That's, you and your team were behind that, right?

Interviewee: Yeah.

Interviewer: Yeah. So how, how is that?

Interviewee: How is that as in normal? Very normal. I mean, as in you are the first one kind
of discovery. There are very few, yeah. Okay. Where you, you where you don't have any
backdrop to do something and you've discovered something new, they would be very.

Interviewer: Okay. Yeah. So, are there risks in doing something novel?

Interviewee: Yeah. Yeah. It can. So, when I began my lab, I started a very risky big. You
know, project where we were screening some 36,000 plants for a specific plant phenotype. I
thought where I was very young, I thought, oh, I will get it done by the look of it in the
paper, it looked like, oh, I will be able to finish it in two years. Yeah. It was so simple. But
when I started, I realized sometimes the plant doesn't grow, sometimes it grows, it has an
infection and I'm not able to do it. So, this thing that I've planned for two years, it has taken
me now seven years.

Interviewer: I mean, it would feel good to have to see your work, you know, taken forward
by someone else also, like, and, um, talking about publications, if there's a publication that
stands in contrast to your work, how do you, how do you like foresee? How do you
assimilate your work or update your work or even refute other work?

Interviewer: I think science is always, you know, it's evolving. It, it changes all the time. So
there has been many instances where, you know, people, uh, would find something, which
is not what you have, you know, you have hypothesized that gene or something to function
as, um, I see it as a learning process for me as well.

Interviewer: Okay. Yeah. And. As a closing question, uh, what do you think is the duty of the
scientific community in informing, uh, the public? Especially this post covid situation?

Interviewee: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think, think we have to be more. Open and explain our
science in a simple way to people, because I think everybody likes, you know, in general,
when you explain to anyone, they're all interested in knowing what we work on, but they
have this feeling that, you know, oh, they do something we don't understand.