"It is important to build national capability"

Prof. Vijayan strongly believes that in spite of the globalization India should stand on its own feet and speak from a position of strength. In an interview to BioSpectrum Prof. Vijayan elaborates on the current developments in the field of X ray crystallography and how can India strengthen its position in modern biology.

What have been your major areas of interest?

I am now involved in a variety of things but one of my primary efforts have been in the field of macromolecular crystallography in the country, which is central to the field of structural biology. I have been working on molecules present during the origin of life and chemical evolution, protein hydration and its consequences and lectins (which is the flagship project), and now TB structural genomics and building of research capability in the country.

My major national commitment on molecular crystallography was possible only in 1983 when DST started what are called the thrust area programs. Many people were funded and we were funded for molecular crystallography. Our mandate at that time was not only to set up a vibrant research group at Bangalore in the Indian Institute of Science but also to function as a national nucleus for the development of the area in the country. Over a period of time now the people trained in this lab have spread out over the country. We have at least a dozen groups now in India and a large macromolecular crystallographic setup in the country. Today the macromolecular crystallography activity in India is reasonably competitive, of international level and we form a significant component of the international activity. This is a matter of great satisfaction to me.

I started work on lectins, which are carbohydrate-binding proteins, in collaboration with other scientists. We got into the field at the right time as then not much work was being done, lectins were not considered really interesting molecules but now we know that much of the recognative process in biology are mediated by carbohydrates. We have done a lot of work and have international presence in this area. This is the major program that I have. The other project that I started in this area is on protein hydration, that is protein water interactions, the study of hydration, plasticity and activity of proteins and also lectin protein hydration. More recently my activities have been in area of structural genomics.

What have been the latest developments in the area of structural genomics in India?

Structural genomics deals with the determination of the 3D structure of the genes and their proteins. The maim tool required here is X ray crystallography—the NMR and bioinformatics in that order. In India we have started working on the structural genomics of TB protein, which is part of an international effort now. Right now we are not doing too badly in that. World over the 3D structure of 30 TB protein has been determined and out of which five are from India. But we need to see if we can speed up this ratio. As on date we are a reasonable component of the TB structural genomics group.

Then I thought that the kind of sophisticated infrastructure and expertise required for TB structural genomics is the same the will be needed for the structural genomics of microbial pathogens which is relevant in India. So with everyone’s consensus I have been orchestrating a national program on the structural genomic of pathogens, which is supported by the DBT. It has several components and work is going on in many organizations like CDFD,CDRI, NII etc. Primarily work is going on the TB structural genomics and comparative structural genomics of virus in plant pathogens, work on different strains of rotavirus is being planned, and also on parasites. Some research, though not as part of the concerted efforts is also going on malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum and leishmania. This is the latest thing that we are orchestrating.

What are the major constraints in this area?

Right now in the field of macromolecular crystallography, the Achilles heel is the absence of a synchrotron X ray source. Among the recent protein structure determinations, about 90 percent have used synchrotron radiation. Despite our proven competence and reputation, we (the Indian crystallographers) are among the deprived 10 percent. This has begun to seriously affect the competitiveness of Indian macromolecular crystallography. This is the single most important thing lacking in the field now.

But over all when compared to that a decade ago, definitely facilities have improved tremendously. The infrastructure for doing modern biology and biotechnology has improved substantially, except in a few critical areas like, say synchrotron X ray source. But on the whole I would say that today facilities are not rate limiting but good people are.

What are the strengths of IISc and what is your vision for the institute?

In India many institutions come with great force but over a period of time they get fossilized. But this has not happened with IISc. 2009 is the centenary year of IISc and still the institute remains very productive and vibrant. There could be many reasons for this. First is that we take the very best of people. There is no compromise in the appointment of faculty members and the selection of students. And in that process nobody interferes, which is a tribute to the political leaders and the governing council of the institute. They all have always been very supportive.

Another point is that the place is very low on hierarchy and bureaucracy. The fact is that hierarchy cannot be avoided even biology has hierarchy. But it should not become fossilized or needless hierarchy. The institute has rules and regulations but by and large things go by precedence, convention and what is perceived correct. There is a lot of academic freedom. Each faculty member is free to choose and do what he wants. All this makes the atmosphere becomes very free and vibrant.

We are also a national resource facility and the first institute to permit and encourage entrepreneurship through our business arm. From time to time there have been discussions on what an institution like this should do. How to grow with time? After a long series of discussions it was concluded that the thrust of our institute should be on fundamental studies but while focusing on basic fundamental research we should keep our eyes and ears open for possible applications. And this approach has worked. Scientists have come up with lots of things.

Now, I would like to see IISc as the International Institute of Science.

What is the current scenario of biotech education in India? How can it be improved?

Biotechnology being primarily knowledge based, basic human resources development is very important. In order to have a thriving biotechnology industry and in order to sustain it on a long term basis we need to have good modern biology including all its aspects like good molecular biology, good structural biology, cell biology, etc. A major effort in this area came from the government. In the early eighties the Department of Science and Technology established a National Biotechnology Board, a forerunner to the Department of Biotechnology that came up later. The first thrust of the board was manpower development. It was then that the first MSc biotechnology courses were started in the country. We were also involved in it and IISc perhaps was the first institute, which had organized post doctorate programs in the country. These were some government initiatives, which have served the country very well. But now the tendency is a mushrooming of biotechnology courses in the country without proper quality and infrastructure, because the name biotechnology sells. This is something that has to be attended to. I think that we do not have quality control on many of the courses started by the university unlike the DBT courses.

How can India be in the forefront in this field?

It requires a combination of factors—good human resources as I have elaborated above, then sufficient financial support from the government. A great deal of private initiative is required but that should be in addition to and not instead of government support.

I feel that any activity in the country whether it is political, economic, industrial or scientific should have an element of standing up to the county. It is important to build up national capability. Although globalization is there but ultimately strength recognizes strength. We should be able to talk to people from near equal platforms. So as far as my own individual scientific efforts are concerned they are the work on molecules in the origin of life, chemical evolution, protein hydration and its consequences and lectins (which is the flagship project), and now TB structural genomics and building of research capability in the country. We should have close international relations wherever possible and necessary but should also endeavor to stand on our own feet. And in turn collaborations will stand on their own feet. Building indigenous capability is very important.

And finally in the present stage of development when we still have to catch up with the advanced world, a positive pressure of national feelings, a measure of nationalism is a good motivating force. We should have the attitude that "we can do it".

Rolly Dureha