On Science and Changing Culture: A Conversation with Professor P. Balaram

Padmanabhan Balaram is a world-renowned biochemist and the former director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru. A recipient of the Padma Bhushan and the Third World Academy of Science (TWAS) award, Balaram continues teaching and research at the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bengaluru.

In a discussion with geoscientists Kusala Rajendran and C.P. Rajendran, Balaram shares his views on the state and future of science and challenging times for academics in contemporary India.

Although formally retired, you are busy with research and teaching. What can you say about your current life?

A researcher never retires; he remains engaged in research until the end of his life. The official retirement gives me more freedom. With no administrative responsibilities, I can read more and spend time with my students. There is still a lot to learn and teach.

Your main research was on peptides that regulate body functions. Peptides are now used in the production of vaccines, for the prevention of conditions such as diabetes and obesity, in bioengineering, and in artificial intelligence. What is India’s contribution to this advancement?

Yes, peptides, which are mini versions of proteins, or small chains of amino acids, are crucial in maintaining bodily functions, including immunity. Although peptide research was limited in India in the 60s, it later became an important field in biology. In 1973, when I came to IISc as a faculty member after doing post-doctoral research at Harvard University, G.N. Ramachandran had already started studies to determine the structures of complex biomolecules using a new scientific field called crystallography. His research was on determining the structure of collagen peptides in the human body. 

It was also a period when Sir C.V. Raman developed the basics of crystallography required for this. Through his students, S. Rama Seshan, one of his nephews (Nobel laureate S. Chandrasekhar is another nephew), M. A. Vishwamitra, H. Manohar and K. Venkatesan, C.V. Raman created a strong tradition in crystallography that helped Ramachandran's research. However, progress was slow due to the slow transmission of information from the Western world on similar research. 

Later, when pharmaceutical companies realised the importance of peptides in the field of medicine and as they started making profits, peptide research took a rapid leap forward. From a sluggish pace to a fast track. That leap was like the excitement when the cricket test matches in the 1970s became IPL. Of course, that leap was not without due benefits. Today, Danish companies sell peptide drugs that amount to more than Denmark's GDP.

Scientists believe that G.N. Ramachandran, a contemporary of Francis Crick and James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for explaining the structure of DNA, and the British chemist Rosalind Franklin, did not receive the recognition they deserved. Was there discrimination against the two scientists? 

We have discussed this topic of ‘discrimination’ before. Though a native of Tamil Nadu, Ramachandran was a Keralite from Kochi who studied at Maharaja's College. Perhaps that Kerala connection draws more connection with him, for both of you. Anyway, I think the allegation of discrimination in Ramachandran's case is not based on facts. It could just be hearsay. I have closely observed Ramachandran's studies and used them in my research. The observations Ramachandran made are fundamental and unique. That too at a time when lab-based experiments with limited facilities were slow-paced, and information and overseas communications were minimal. 

With his profound insight and ideas based on theoretical understanding, he was ahead of his time. One cannot ignore the contemporary researchers.  We know that the British chemist Rosalind Franklin, who discovered the structure of DNA, was a contemporary of Ramachandran. The famous 'Photo 51', which she took using X-rays in her lab at King's College London, the first known copy of the structure of DNA, was a landmark in DNA research. Franklin's paper was published by ‘Nature’ in 1953. Francis Crick and James Watson also published their Nobel Prize-winning scientific paper in the same issue of Nature. 

The scientific community still debate this issue and, indeed, Franklin's contributions have not received the recognition they deserve. Ramachandran's paper was published in Nature in 1954. I am not sure whether these earlier studies influenced Ramachandran’s research; in fact, I have never spoken to him about this matter. Later, C.V. Raman nominated him for the Nobel Prize for his studies on collagen. Although he did not win the Nobel Prize, the ‘Ramachandran Map’, published jointly with Gopinath Kartha, also a Keralite, became a fundamental principle in collagen molecular structure research.

You have also worked with the eminent molecular biologist, Prof. M. Vijayan, from Kerala. I had a close relationship with Vijayan and had the opportunity to interview him. I would like to know about your closeness with him, who was also a leftist thinker.

Vijayan is the most widely read person I know. There is a story behind our acquaintance. In the letter from G.N. Ramachandran informing me of my appointment as a faculty member at IISc, I was informed that Vijayan would join me. At that time, when there was no internet, I sat in the library and searched for scientific articles authored by Viyayan. I finally found a Kalyani Vijayan, who had publications on related subjects, and I presumed that I would be joining along with Kalyani Vijayan, though the person mentioned in the appointment letter was M. Vijayan. But there indeed was a connection. Kalyani Vijayan was his wife. My friendship with him continued from our early days until he passed away.

Interesting that my early discussions with Vijayan were less about science, but more about politics. As you may recall, it was a turbulent period, with the railway strike of 1974 and the Emergency of 1975, and there was a lot to talk about. Yes, indeed, Vijayan was a leftist thinker. He used to share his stories as a young party worker and fondly recall how the former Kerala chief minister, C. Achutha Menon, persuaded him to pursue higher education instead of joining politics. Always a communist at heart, Vijayan continued to maintain his ties with his friends in Kerala. I have had the opportunity to visit Kerala on various occasions, like the Science Congress. During these visits, I have met some of Vijayan's friends, R.V.G. Menon and M.A. Baby. 

C.P. Rajendran and Kusala Rajendran with P. Balram. Photo: Jaishri Sanwal Bhatt.

While post-independence India was struggling with challenges such as poverty and illiteracy, science was booming in Western countries. Before independence, despite various challenges, Satyendra Nath Bose, Jagadish Chandra Bose, C.V. Raman and others conducted research that attracted global attention. What inspired the scientific renaissance of that time?

While seeking an answer to this question, we must also understand some historical contexts, mainly the study of English. The British introduced English as a means of spreading their culture, values, and governance, but it also had other benefits for the locals. When the Presidency Colleges were started, Englishmen were appointed as professors in all of them; science was made a part of the curriculum. Although Thomas Macaulay introduced English education in India, Raja Ram Mohan Roy was responsible for its spread. When education was used as a tool for social reform and to free India from the clutches of superstition, scientific studies also advanced.

What about the scientific and research institutions in India? Who initiated them?

The credit goes to Jamshedji Tata, who had the insight that an institution was needed for scientific study and research and made significant contributions towards such a venture. IISc was established in 1909, five years after his death, through the continued efforts of his son, Sir Dorabjee Tata. The concept of IITs was started by a committee appointed by the British government under the chairmanship of Naliniranjan Sarkar after the war ended in 1945, to study and recommend measures for technological development. It became a reality after India attained independence. The first IIT was inaugurated at Kharagpur by the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on 18 August 1951. It is a matter of pride that those who studied at these institutions are leading scientific and technological projects in many parts of the world today. 

Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru had the view that science and technology were necessary to address problems like hunger and poverty. What was the learning and scientific research environment like in independent India?

I have given many lectures on the impact of nationalism on our scientific progress. While accepting the fact that we are living in an era where the concept of nationalism is being presented in a new form, let me say that independent India was the pride of the people of that time. When the freedom struggle was at its peak, G.N. Ramachandran, S. Ramaseshan, and their contemporaries were teenagers. Nationalism became part of their beings.  

Born in independent India, I had also experienced the same feelings. We were part of the environment; personal ambitions and selfish interests were few. The goal was the collective good. Somehow, that thought, which was present in that generation, later diminished. Today, collective interests have almost disappeared. Even in IISc, where I have worked for a long time, that change from common to personal interest is very apparent.

So you feel that collective interest has shifted to selfish interests. Do you think it will leave us behind, as the world seems to have become more competitive?

In a way, it is true. By the end of World War II, we were not competing with America or China. At that time, England, France, and Germany were in the lead. We have indeed become more competitive, but in the meantime, the world has also become much stronger. For example, America before and after World War II is very different, and the immigrant scientists had a clear role in the scientific and technological advances. China has also advanced a lot in science and technology.  It is a more recent phenomenon but today China dominates scientific publishing and technology. That is a reality that we must admit and recognise; without significant advances in science and technology, we cannot compete with the rest of the world or do anything significant.

What can the government do to maintain competitiveness? Do you think the increase in funding and making operations more autonomous would do the trick?

The problem is not just about funding. That is certainly needed, but institutions also need political support. That does not mean that they should be politically managed. It is not good to create the impression that some scientific developments are being overshadowed by political power. For example, when people talk about scientific achievements, the first thing that comes to their minds is the space program. 

One reason could be the extensive coverage by the media, as these events are often marked by the presence of politicians. When politicians claim credit for the success, it also takes on a nationalistic connotation. Many quietly operated, but highly successful programs are not publicised. For example, take the nuclear power program, which is not celebrated as much for obvious reasons, such as national security. If we look at the history of these different fields, we can see two visionaries behind them. While Homi Bhabha headed the atomic research program, Vikram Sarabhai started the space program. 

I am not aware that they ever had to take instructions from politicians. While we are celebrating the success of that time, I also see the resistance that is now being raised against nuclear power generation. We must recognise that each topic has its contemporary relevance. This is the age of space exploration, and there is a global excitement about it. India is doing well in space research.

Are you suggesting that there was no interference in the functioning of these institutions?

Yes. They had complete autonomy. Today, we see institutions in decline. For example, look at the current state of Delhi University, which was once known for its excellent departments of Botany, Physics, Zoology, etc. I am not saying that any political party is responsible for such failures that are affecting many of our institutions. While talking about political motives in the governance of the institutions, I cannot exempt any parties – Communist [Party of India (Marxist)], Trinamool [Congress], Congress, BJP and others – all have attempted to interfere in the running of the institutions whenever they are in power.  

When politics interferes in the process of curriculum to faculty selection, and other appointments, the very concept of excellence gets overshadowed. This trend has many implications. Everyone wants excellence to be recognised and promoted. Today, there is growing thinking among the youth that excellence does not matter, and that is dangerous.

Let us talk about gender discrimination. It is said that even Annamani, one of the famous early climate scientists in India, faced gender discrimination. She was a research student under the mentorship of C.V. Raman and had to give up her research halfway through. Although current numbers show that male and female students are equal in number in classrooms, the ratio is lower in workplaces. The number of women reaching leadership positions in scientific research and educational institutions is also generally low.

I have heard this allegation many times. If it is a common perception, then it needs to be checked for overt bias and corrected. I have not witnessed any gender discrimination against any capable candidate. Indeed, the number of women reaching leadership positions in scientific and educational institutions is low. But there are historical reasons for that. In some fields, especially engineering, there were generally fewer women in the past. Naturally, there would have been fewer people reaching the top. Although that situation has changed today, it will take time for it to be reflected in the leadership ranks. I am sure that equality will come with increasing general participation of women in all fields. There are already women heading some important departments. Manju Sharma was in the Department of Biotechnology for a long time. Renu Swaroop also headed the same department for a while; Soumya Swaminathan headed the Indian Council of Medical Research, and now Kalaivi Selvi heads the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. All these are signs that the situation you mentioned is changing. In any case, it cannot be denied that discrimination against women is a historical fact. There are reasons for that. In the past, the number of women in higher education was low because of the social system of that time. People like C.V. Raman were part of that tradition. Women must have faced problems back then. Now that situation has changed. Women students, researchers and young teachers are actively campaigning against gender bias. These activities and campaigns will help us move towards gender equality.

Philosopher Alfred Whitehead said that the greatest invention of the Victorian era was the concept of ‘invention’ itself. Now, the very concept of innovation has become complex, and technology drives us. Will technologies like AI (artificial intelligence) disrupt the very concept of work?

That argument may be somewhat reasonable. According to a study by the Pew Research Center in the United States, AI will take over repetitive and automated tasks. AI is now also present in earthquake studies, which you are more familiar with. In any field, AI’s performance is based on the data we provide. The more quality data we provide, the better the result will be. Don’t you remember the chess match between the computer ‘Deep Blue’ and Garry Kasparov in 1997? The fact that a computer surpassed human intelligence and defeated one of the most prominent intellectual champions was described as a symbolic victory for artificial intelligence at the time.

What about areas like cancer treatment? Artificial Intelligence is also making a strong inroad into the medical field, isn’t it?

AI will be more capable than humans in cancer treatment. As AI becomes more efficient in detecting and classifying dangerous tumours, radiation oncologists’ jobs have become easier. It is not surprising that AI can be more capable than humans in studying thousands of images and finding their repetitive nature.

We will now talk about some contemporary issues. In India, many researchers believe that scientists should not be "politicians" or campaigners. That is, scientists should stay in the laboratory; they should not interfere in social issues. Einstein and Bertrand Russell, and those in their league, have a history of campaigning for nuclear disarmament and against authoritarian regimes. Currently, in the United States, scientists are leading street campaigns against Donald Trump's policies of freezing science funding, laying off researchers and the administration’s policies restraining academic freedom. But in India, such a stance by the academics is not very evident, barring isolated examples.

We should not have an environment where honest opinions are discouraged. Unfortunately, the government machinery seems to prevent people from expressing their opinions. Therefore, we are slowly approaching a state of reticence. Especially in scientific matters, that stance is dangerous. 

On some issues, the right answer is not in front of us; sometimes, both sides are not right. We also see the view that wrong decisions lead to accidents. Disagreements can be personal; instead of expressing them based on whims and fancies, they should be explained in proper language and with a scientific basis. 

Let me also say one more thing. Fear has gripped us like never before. Fear is like a virus that attacks very quickly. Let us also realise that an ordinary person has little immunity against fear.

Let me tell you about my [CPR] experience. A few months ago, the Science Academy in Bangalore gave me a book for review in Current Science, with a caveat not to criticise the government. The book was a critique of the proposed International Container Transhipment Port at Galathea Bay in Great Nicobar Island, which involves significant environmental impacts. I refused to write the review under such a condition. If scientists cannot express their opinions fearlessly, won’t science itself regress?

Many people will sympathise with your stance if you make this issue public, because it is a completely unfair and dangerous approach. A journal has the freedom to decide what it should publish, and it can edit it with the permission of the author. But it does not have the freedom to tell the author what to write. That is an editorial principle.

Similarly, just because an idea is published, it does not imply that the editor agrees with it. Unfortunately, sometimes the government takes such a view and the editor, who is only being fair to his position, is held responsible. This restriction of freedom of expression is not just about science, but it seems to be in other areas too, like art and literature.

Venkataraman Ramakrishnan, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry [​​with Thomas A. Steitz and Ada Yonath], opposed the mixing of religious ideology with science at the 2016 Indian Science Congress. Later, while speaking at the University of Punjab, he said that despite significant scientific progress, superstition and wrong decision-making are prevalent in Indian society. You wrote an editorial in the November 10, 2000, issue of Current Science criticising the central government’s idea of ​​making astrology a subject of the University curriculum – a move that was seen as an attempt to legitimise pseudoscience and superstition. What was the response from the Union Government at that time?

I disagree with the mixing of science and religious beliefs. When I wrote the editorial, there was a little more tolerance from the government for such things. Then Union minister Murli Manohar Joshi did not criticise it. I have worked with him for many years without any problems. My experience as an editor is that when journals are independent, they can do whatever they want. Current Science gets government funding through the Science Academy. During my tenure as editor (UPA-1/NDA-1), no organisation has interfered with our work. The Academy had been unhappy at times, but we have not been unduly worried in those days. Everyone knows that freedom of publication comes at a price. Sometimes it can be very high, but you accept that and move forward.

People like Nobel laureate Ramakrishnan have gone outside India to do their work. Already, many foreign institutions are headed by Indians. What will happen to India’s science and technology base if this trend continues?

I am not worried about that. India and China have their strengths in numbers. The people of both these countries have the numbers and capacity to serve all the countries of the world and still satisfy their own countries. A lot of people are going out of India, and many people are returning. The important thing is to create an environment that trains people.

The central government representatives seem satisfied with the progress being made in the field of science. Union minister of science and technology Jitendra Singh said at a public event on National Science Day (February 28, 2025) that India will surpass the United States in the number of scientific publications by 2029. Critics of this statement say that India is lagging far behind in the quality of scientific publications.

That statement is like India taking credit for overtaking China in population growth. I have often said that many of our scientific publications are not up to standard. That is why we are lagging far behind in international rankings. The minister's statement is based on the new ranking method that we developed when we felt that we were lagging. But the ranking method that we decide on ourselves is just a local index to raise funds. I would say that the only recognised international ranking that we have developed is the IPL. Because cricket and the consumer/advertiser base of the money that is harvested from it are here. This is not the case with scientific subjects.

We have talked about many topics. How can we protect our future in this era of concern and uncertainty?

As I said earlier, India's wealth is its human capital. Our goal should be to develop it. If we want to shine internationally, English is important. The proficiency in English benefits India in many ways and opens doors to a wide range of opportunities. As we have said earlier, in an environment where free thinking, the ability to distinguish between science and faith, education starting from primary school, and excellent research and study centres come together, we can move forward. Let's not waste time digging up bones and opening closed chapters but pave the way forward. Eradicate the dangerous epidemic of fear and instead spread the ‘virus’ of courage. That is what the time demands. 

The interview was first published in the Malayalam Weekly Mathrubhumi, May 25, 2025.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.