An Interview with Dr.

Ramani Ramchandran
Ramani

Ramchandran,

Professor, Department

PhD

of

Pediatrics,

Patrick J. and Margaret G. McMahon Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

Vice
Chair for
Research
Obstetrics
and
Gynecology,
Investigator, Children's
Research
Institute;
Professor, Developmental Vascular Biology program and Zebrafish Drug Screening Core,
The Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Dr. Ramani Ramchandran is a scientist working in the area of developmental vascular biology.
His research involves blood vessels, how they are developed during embryonic development and
their role in disease. In the following interview, he gives career advice and guidance to
undergraduate Indian students studying in areas such as biotechnology, biology and biomedical
sciences.
You have collaborations with a couple of research institutions in
India. How do you think research in biological and biomedical
sciences

is

faring

in

India

currently?

Yes, I have a few collaborations with certain institutes in India. Currently, there is a lot of
momentum towards investigator initiated research problems and scientists trained from abroad
are increasingly being hired. There are many institutions in India right now, small as well as
large, that are actively looking to expand their biological research programs and I know several
people who are well funded in India. So, yes, there is a lot of momentum in India right now in
the area of biological research.
Can you name some institutes in India, apart from the big ones such
as IISc and TIFR, that are doing great work in biological and
biomedical
sciences?
National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore, National Center for Cell Science
(NCCS) in Pune, National Institute of Immunology (NII) in Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for
Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR) in Bangalore, and Center for Cell and Molecular
Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad are doing great work. There is also a relatively new center for
stem cell research in the Christian Medical College in Vellore, and the AU-KBC (Anna

University K B Chandrasekhar) Research Centre in the MIT (Madras Institute of Technology)

Campus of Anna University, Chennai are gems that are lesser known. The typical big
powerhouses such as IISc in Bangalore are still there but new ones are coming up and are
showing a lot of promise.
What advice would you give to undergraduate Indian students who
are
aspiring
to
do
their
biotechnology/biomedical/biological

M.S
or
sciences

PhD
in
abroad?

One of the things that I would highly recommend for an undergraduate student from India is to
get as much hands on experience as possible in the lab. It would be best if they can get some
internship in a research-intensive lab, whether it is one of the mentioned institutes or in their own
university. In my view, they should get as much hands on experience. If possible, they should try
to publish a paper with their professor, as a middle author or co-author. Publishing papers helps
differentiate students and their application from others. Most students have decent GRE scores
and GPA but evaluating them is hard as there is no way to equate their Indian GPA to the grading
system in the United States. Also, recommendation letters are important but sometimes there is
too much emphasis on the letters for the admission process. They add to your profile but is not
necessarily a game changer. Having significant bench lab experience makes a big difference as
most Indian undergraduate students have minimal experience at the bench.
Plenty of students tend to do their internships in places where if
you pay a certain amount of money you get to do experiments and
then they give you a certificate. How valuable is this type of
internship?
Yes, this approach to internships is a little bit misplaced. Internships need to be a bit more
intensive in terms of education rather than some form of certificate. There is much emphasis on
grades, certificates and accolades rather than learning. It would be better if one had lesser
emphasis on certificates and more on the learning experience. Internships that last for 6 months
and involve publishing a paper will be of much more value to your application to graduate
schools in the United States. Also, students with minimal experience have lesser understanding
of what it takes to do research. For them applying for an M.S or a PhD is just the next step in
their career. Not much thought is given to whether they want to do this for the long term. I think
it is really important that they understand what they are getting into rather than following the
herd.
The kind of internships that you are talking about are very
competitive to get into and not all students can land such an
internship given the population and competition. What other

options would you suggest as an alternative to students who are

unable to land a research internship in prestigious labs in India?
Yes, there are fewer oppurtunities in academia due to certain factors such as limited number of
seats, competition etc. However, what is interesting is that there is a lot more oppurtunities
available in the Industry. Industry related internship will also be equally compelling. An
internship in, for example, a drug discovery company such as CIPLA, will result in a positive
knowledge base experience as the students will be involved in the creation of a product. So, any
kind of research experience helps, be it industry or academia, as long as the emphasis is on
learning.
A Statement of Purpose plays a big role in the admissions process
for graduate school. What do you look for the most in an SOP?
An SOP is used to evaluate a student's maturity in thinking. More importantly, it highlights their
motivation to go to graduate school. What is their purpose in life to apply to graduate school?
Many students write flowery language and idealistic things but I am looking for more practical
things. I want to be able to understand that you know what it takes to succeed in graduate
school.
A lot of students don't have clear research or scientific ideas while
writing

their

SOP.

Would

this

be

drawback?

SOP is one of the many determining factors, not THE determining factor. I would use the SOP as
supplemental information to make my case for or against a student. If an SOP is poorly written
but the student has a publication I would give that some weightage. Some students are not great
writers during early stages of their career, and you cannot put that against somebody as one can
be trained to write better. So, SOP is just one of the many factors in the admissions process. A
well written SOP will stand out but will not guarantee an admission. However, I would not put
enormous emphasis on the SOP. I would make it as succint, clear and practical as possible. I
would try to weave a story of why an education in USA or any other country would benefit
especially at the graduate school level. How would it enhance your career and how you would
use that to contribute to your long-term goals. I am less interested in your scientific objective as
that is going to change over time. You also are not expected to come up with a research proposal
in the SOP as your research interests are yet to develop.
Apart from SOP, what are the other important determining factors
for

admissions?

We give emphasis to the GRE score as it helps compare students on a common platform. We
dont know the system of Indian GPA or percentage so we can't judge the student's credentials
based on that. One of the other criteria that is important is whether the institution in the US has

taken students from your university beforehand and they have done well. This is a big plus. In
my case, when I came to Georgia in 1992, after my first year they accepted four or more students
from University of Bombay. Prior to me there were none. If I come across a student who has
done well, then I can assume that their undergraduate training was good. Then the odds of
finding another successful student from the same university are higher as opposed to admitting a
student who comes from a non-familiar university in India. You tend to have a higher comfort
level to hire students from a previous known university in India or anywhere else for that matter.
How vulnerable is the biological and biomedical sciences field to
recession
in
the
US?
Biomedical sciences are highly vulnerable to the US government performance. If the government
is undergoing debt crisis or shutdown, like we had recently, we can expect funding cuts, which is
bad news for research and the PhD enterprise, because 70% or more of US based research is
funded by the government. We have witnessed a massive problem in the last 2-3 years with
people being laid off and the competition for funds has exponentially risen. There has also been a
surplus of researchers. There are many postdocs available for jobs but not many labs around the
country have the money to hire them. In general, when the amount of money from biomedical
research or government goes down then it decreases the number of funded labs for hire, and in
turn fewer students and postdocs can procure positions. If the admission to graduate schools is
constant then you have surplus people with no jobs. So, yes this is a tough time, I routinely get 23 postdoc applications every week, even when am not even looking for postdocs.
If things are pretty bad right now, would it help if PhD or M.S
students learn extra skills that will help diversify their resumes?
I completely agree. It is a very good point you bring up. Sticking to a conventional degree and
expecting to get a job is something that one has to go away from. You need to diversify your
portfolio so an interdisciplinary approach is the way to go and students should be thinking of
such directions. This will highlight your resume when compared with others who are doing just
one thing.
When applying for graduate schools, Indian students tend to give a
lot of importance to university rankings instead of other important
factors such as research, publications etc. Some schools may not be
highly ranked but offer good funding. However, many Indian
students prefer to go to highly ranked universities that do not offer
any funding. They believe that a big name will help them with job
search and other things. What do you think about this approach?
There are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to ranking. The major advantage with

highly ranked schools is that the density of investigators with highly accomplished CV's is
greater. But that doesn't mean that someone going to a low ranked school will not be successful.
To explain it in a better way, a good analogy would be that of a 100 meter sprint race. Everybody
starts at the start line, when the gun goes off, some start faster while some start slower. As the
race goes on, the position keeps changing but no one remembers all that. The only position they
remember is the one at the finish line. Nobody pays attention to who started but everyone
remembers who finished first. That is pretty much how I apply to everything. At that early stage
in your career, it is hard to realize what is important for you. Yes, on face value it might be better
to choose a university where you will be better off economically without a large student loan
debt. On the other hand if you really love the research of the school you are going to but have no
funding, then by all means go ahead and join that school. If you want to join a university only
because it is highly ranked then you are making your decisions for all the wrong reasons. If you
are so mature at age 21 and know what you want to do with your career, all kudos to you. I can
assure you that most people, including myself, do not know what they want at that early age. You
have a vague idea of the molecular technique that you want to be immersed in. It was genetic
engineering for me. I had no clue which field of biology will help me study that technique. If a
student wants to work with a particular technique and finds an institution where they can do that
technique then I think that is a great way of choosing a university. If the emphasis is on ranking
then it might not work. But if the emphasis is on passion towards research then your decision
will be right. But that kind of maturity develops over time for most students.
What area of research is going to be the next big thing in biological
and

biomedical

sciences?

We now know how many genes we have, and the sequences of these genes. Now the big question
is how do these genes contribute to function and which of these genes are responsible for the big
diseases. That is where the money is. The few areas of biology or in general in sciences that are
going to blossom in the next 10 or 20 years are fields related to studying combinatorial gene and
protein functions, drug discovery, how to target these genes, areas of organic chemistry and
chemical synthesis is going to be big news in the next 5 - 10 years. So, areas such as chemistry,
computers, bioinformatics, biology, physics have to come together to solve critical problems in
biology such as behavior, concepts that are vague right now but those are the ones that are going
to be tackled in the near future.
So, what you suggest is doing a PhD in Biology with emphasis on
interdisciplinary
studies.
I would actually suggest doing a PhD in interdisciplinary biology or a PhD in biological sciences

or biomedical sciences with a project in interdisciplinary biology. There are plenty of schools,
including ours, that offer these types of programs.