Latest news with #VenkatramanRamakrishnan
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Funding, infrastructure, general environment woes unattractive for senior international scientists to work in India: Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan
With the U.S. terminating several research programmes, firing thousands of federal scientists, and cancelling important, high-value federal research grants— $8 billion already and further cuts of almost $18 billion next year for National Institute of Health (NIH), proposed cuts of about $5 billion next year to National Science Foundation (NSF), proposed cut of nearly 25% to NASA's budget for 2026, and billions of dollars cut in grants to several universities — many U.S. scientists are planning to move to other countries. According to an analysis carried out by Nature Careers, U.S. applications for European vacancies shot up by 32% in March this year compared with March 2024. A Nature poll found that 75% of respondents were 'keen to leave the country'. The European Union and at least a handful of European countries have committed special funding to attract researchers from the U.S. But the committed funding is dwarfed by the scale of funding cuts by the U.S., and the funding is already highly competitive in Europe, senior scientists from the U.S. moving to Europe in large numbers may not happen. 'There will be a few scientists who will move, but I do not see a mass exodus. Firstly, salaries in Europe are well below those in the U.S. Secondly, moving is always difficult both professionally and personally. Finally, the U.S. is still the pre-eminent scientific country, and that will be hard to walk away from. I say this as someone who actually did move from the U.S. to England over 25 years ago, with a salary that was just over half what I was making there,' Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, professor at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, U.K., says in an email to The Hindu. In comparison, India has only a handful of institutions such as IISc, NCBS, TIFR, IISERs and IITs that can possibly attract U.S. scientists. According to him, even the renowned institutions in India are 'world class only in some very specific areas'. 'I do not see India as a general magnet for international science,' Prof. Ramakrishnan says. Though funding for science in India has increased in absolute terms, the percentage of GDP allocated to R&D has actually reduced. India's gross expenditure on R&D is estimated to be around 0.6-0.7% of GDP in 2025. Specifically, with long-term assured funding for basic research, which is an absolute necessity to attract researchers based in America, not guaranteed by existing programmes, can India take advantage of the situation in the U.S.? 'India's R&D investment as a fraction of GDP is much less than China's and is about a third or less of what many developed countries have, and far below countries like South Korea. It will not be competitive without a substantial increase,' he says. Lack of funding and infrastructure in India About funding in general and funding for basic research in particular, Prof. Ramakrishnan says: 'Neither the funding, the infrastructure nor the general environment in India is attractive for top-level international scientists to leave the U.S. to work in India. There may be specific areas (e.g. tropical diseases, ecology, etc) where India is particularly well suited, but even in these areas, it will be easier for scientists to do field work there while being employed in the West.' Given a choice between some European country or India, he strongly vouches Europe as 'far more attractive as a scientific destination'. Some of the key pain points Indian science faces are delayed release of funding every year, researcher scholars not being paid scholarship for as long as one year, and whimsical ways in which science policies are changed with little discussion with scientists. Even the Ramalingaswami re-entry fellowship, which aims to support the return of early-career life scientists with at least three years of international postdoctoral training, has faced abrupt policy changes. Currently, there are no national policies to attract senior scientists from other countries. 'If India is serious about attracting Indian scientists abroad to return, it needs to provide far better incentives. China has shown that with sufficient investment and a stable commitment, it can be done,' he says. Funding in India is available mainly from the government agencies such as DBT, ICMR, DST, SERB with negligible private funding. In 2021, the government announced ₹50,000 crore for Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), which will replace SERB. In December 2024, Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Science & Technology and Earth Sciences Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply to the Lok Sabha said that only ₹14,000 crore budgetary provision has been made by the government for 2023-2028. The balance ₹36,000 crore will be sourced through 'donations from any other sources' including public and private sector, philanthropist organisations, foundations and international bodies. 'In many developed countries, the ratio of private to public investment is almost two or more. In India, it is almost the opposite. This is really a failing on the part of Indian industry,' he says. Years ago, Singapore succeeded in attracting senior scientists to move permanently or as visiting fellows. He attributes Singapore's success in attracting talent from other countries to high salaries with low taxes, and excellent scientific infrastructure. On the societal front, Singapore, which is clean and well-run, with first-rate schools, health care, mass transit, and safety, has become the desired destination for scientists from developed countries, he adds. Scientists moved from Germany to the U.S. and other countries in the 1930s because they were in significant personal danger. 'They and others moved to the U.S. because the U.S. could actually offer more facilities, higher salary, all in a free society. India does not offer any of these advantages,' he says. Lack of better roads, cleaner air To attract senior scientists from other countries and to encourage talented people already working in India, he stresses on two critical aspects — scientific and social. 'India needs a strong, stable commitment to science, which means not only much more funding but also more stable funding, much better infrastructure and, just as importantly, insulating science from politics and excessive bureaucratic rules and regulations.' About the social factors, he says: 'The other detriment to attracting scientists (especially non-Indians) from abroad is India itself. Today, well-off Indians have essentially seceded from public spaces in India. Today, the streets are filthy and full of trash, the sidewalks are not navigable, and the air is unbreathable in most cities... Which non-Indian would want that sort of life for themselves and their children?' He is full of praise and appreciation for researchers in India contributing to science despite several challenges. 'I have many scientific friends in India and I am always amazed by how they manage to do such good work in such difficult conditions, and yet be so cheerful. Young Indians are so bright and enthusiastic, but they are being let down by the country as a whole. India has a demographic dividend — it is one of the few large countries with a youthful population. However, this is a temporary advantage, and if India squanders it, it may find itself unable to be competitive in the future with other Asian countries and the West,' he cautions.
WIRED
15-04-2025
- Health
- WIRED
‘We Are Not Programmed to Die,' Says Nobel Laureate Venki Ramakrishnan
Apr 15, 2025 5:00 AM The structural biologist, who has devoted his life to studying the processes behind aging, discusses the surprising things he has learned and the public misunderstandings about longevity. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan at the Milan Longevity Summit in Milan, Italy. Courtesy of the Milan Longevity Summit If you buy something using links in our stories, we may earn a commission. Learn more. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, the man of death. Although this does not sound like a good moniker, it is: Ramakrishnan is one of the world's most eminent scientists in the fields of structural biology and cellular processes related to aging and death. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2009 for his discovery of the structure of the ribosome, a crucial cellular machine responsible for gene expression. In addition to being a leading researcher, Ramakrishnan is also a prolific author. After the enormous success of The Gene Machine , a memoir in which he recounts his human and scientific journey, he published the mighty Why We Die , a book—as its name suggests—dedicated precisely to illustrating the dynamics that regulate aging and which, progressively and inexorably, lead to death. Ramakrishnan was recently in Italy, in Milan, where he gave a lecture at the second edition of the Milan Longevity Summit, the most important Italian event dedicated to longevity and psycho-physical well-being, organized by BrainCircle Italia. It was an opportunity to meet him and ask him a few questions. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. WIRED: Professor Ramakrishnan, the crucial question in your book is why we die . But exactly what is death? Venki Ramakrishnan: By death, we mean the irreversible loss of the ability to function as a coherent individual. It is the result of the failure of a critical system or apparatus, for example, heart, brain, lung, or kidney failure. In this sense there is an apparent paradox: When our organism, as a whole, is alive, millions of cells within us are constantly dying, and we do not even realize it. On the other hand, at the time of death, most of the cells in our bodies are still alive, and entire organs are still functioning and can be donated to people in need of transplantation. But at that point the body has lost the ability to function as a whole. In this sense, it is therefore important to distinguish between cell death and death of the individual. Speaking of death and aging, you say in your most recent book that you 'wanted to offer an objective look at our current understanding of the two phenomena.' What was the biggest surprise or most deeply held belief that you had to reconsider while writing and researching this work? There have been several surprises, actually. One is that death, contrary to what one might think, is not programmed by our genes. Evolution does not care how long we live, but merely selects the ability to pass on our genes, a process known as 'fitness' in evolutionary biology. Thus, the traits that are selected are those that help us survive childhood and reproduce. And it is these traits, later in life, that cause aging and decline. Another curious finding was the fact that aging is not simply due to wear and tear on cells. Wear and tear happens constantly in all living things, yet different species have very different lifespans. Instead, lifespan is the result of a balance between the expenditure of resources needed to keep the organism functioning and repairing it and those needed to make it grow, mature, and keep it healthy until it reproduces and nurtures offspring. Do you think there is an aspect of the biology of aging that is still deeply misunderstood by the general public? Certainly the indefinite extension of life. Although in principle there are no laws or constraints that prevent us from living much longer than we do currently, great longevity or 'eternal youth' are still far off, and very significant obstacles to increasing our maximum life expectancy remain. We must also beware of the pseudoscience—and business—around the concepts of 'anti-aging' or the 'reversal of aging.' These are often baseless concepts, unsupported by hard evidence, even though they may use language that sounds scientific. Unfortunately, we are all afraid of growing old and dying, so we are very sensitive to any claim that promises to help us avoid it. A famous scene in the movie Frankenstein Junior shows a student asking Professor Frankenstein about some experiments with worms, and the lecturer replies that 'a worm, with very few exceptions, is not a human being.' Yet a whole chapter of Why We Die is called 'Lessons from a Humble Worm.' What do we have to learn from worms? Science has always studied fundamental processes by using model organisms, including worms, fruit flies, and even yeast and bacteria. Of course, the closer these species are to us, the better, which is why drug trials are first conducted on mice and even monkeys and chimpanzees. But we can learn a lot from organisms like the worm. Many things discovered in worms have counterparts in humans. However, we cannot directly extrapolate every result. For example, humans with some of the same mutations that cause the longevity of worms turn out to have serious problems, such as growth defects. What do you think are the social and ethical implications of our desire to live longer? Ever since we became aware of our mortality, we have desired to defeat aging and death. However, our individual desires may conflict with what is best for society. A society in which fertility rates are very low and lifespans are very high will be a stagnant society, with very slow generational turnover, and probably much less dynamic and creative. The Nobel Prize-winning South American novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, who recently passed away, expressed it best: 'Old age on the one hand terrifies us, but when we feel anxious, it is important to remember how terrible it would be to live forever. If eternity were guaranteed, all the incentives and illusions of life would vanish. This thought can help us live old age in a better way.' This story originally appeared on WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The 1 Lifestyle Choice A Longevity Expert Prioritises For A Longer Life
You might have seen recently that Nobel Prize-winning chemist Dr Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and heart surgeon Dr Jeremy London shared their three rules for a longer life: eat well, move enough, and prioritise sleep too. But speaking to Business Insider, Dr Sofiya Milman, who studies the lifestyles of centenarians for a living, said she thinks one of those lifestyle choices is more important than the others. 'We have people who live to 100 and are healthy, so our bodies are capable. It's biologically plausible, therefore we just have to tweak things to get us there,' she told the publication. The boring answer is all of them – a combination of 'exercising, eating a healthy diet, reducing stress in my life, and getting enough sleep' is key to the experts' own routine, she said. But when asked which factor people should prioritise if they had to pick one (and it's important to remember most of us don't have to choose), she went with exercise. Muscle mass loss, also called sarcopenia, is a normal part of ageing that begins around the age of 30. But it's associated with a higher risk of falls, increased risk of dementia, and general mortality among older people. You can fight sarcopenia through resistance and strength training. It's almost never too late to start – those who picked up their first weight aged 71 saw fantastic results. But ultimately, she said, the best exercise is the one you'll actually stick with. In her studies of centenarians, Dr Milman said the things we'd expect to correlate to a longer life don't necessarily always ring true among 'super-agers'. 'They drink the same amount of alcohol, they exercise the same – no less, no more – they're just as likely to be overweight,' she shared. 'And so there isn't a lifestyle feature that we can say, well, if you do that, then you'll live to be a hundred.' Of course, lifespan is a different thing to healthspan, which is how long you feel well and physically healthy. So trying to stave off chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cognitive decline for as long as possible is ideal, she advised. 3 Research-Backed Longevity Rules A Heart Surgeon Swears By 10 Everyday Habits That Are Harming Your Longevity The Most I'm A Longevity Expert – This 30-Second Test May Reveal Your Risk Of Early Death
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
3 Simple Longevity Rules A Nobel Prize Winner Swears By
We've written before at HuffPost UK about how everything from when you eat breakfast to how late you fall asleep and even the way you walk might affect your longevity. Reassuringly, simple, conventional advice about staying on top of your heart health and getting in tune with your body clock might help you to boost your odds of a longer life. Speaking to Vatican News, biologist and winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, says he follows three such rules to improve his own longevity. Dr Ramakrishnan, who has written a book called Why We Die, says he, 'came to the conclusion that the trio of a moderate and healthy diet, regular exercise, and adequate sleep is probably better than anything out on the market today in terms of supplements or drugs.' He adds that avoiding social isolation probably helps, too. Those pearls of wisdom might seem a little well-worn compared to the shiny, controversial experiments with longevity people like Bryan Johnson get involved with – but they're much better backed. The American Medical Association says that working out two to four times above the recommended amount is associated with a 26-31% decrease in all-cause mortality. A paper published in Nature says that improving UK diets could lead to 10 years more life. And 2024 research found that men who sleep well live, on average, five years longer than those who don't. 'We're at a crossroads in terms of where we are in terms of life expectancy,' Dr Ramakrishnan told the publication at the Vatican Longevity Summit this year. 'Biology has made great strides in understanding the causes of ageing and for the first time is trying to see if we can do something about tackling ageing itself as opposed to tackling specific diseases.' While this makes him wonder 'what will it mean for society if we all start living longer', he adds that his advice should work as well for the Pope (the longevity summit was held at the Vatican) as it does the rest of us. 'As [the Pope] gets better, the trio that I suggested would work for him, just as it would for anybody else,' the Nobel prize winner ended. 10 Everyday Habits That Are Harming Your Longevity The Most I'm A Longevity Expert – This 30-Second Test May Reveal Your Risk Of Early Death I'm A Longevity Professor – These 3 Walking Rules Can Help You Live Longer
