‘Always helps to have a diverse training’

Q What triggered your interest in neuroscience?

I studied engineering at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. I had several teachers who taught courses in computational science or how computers achieve a task. Questions of how behaviour is formed, how humans are moved to do something or how they make cognitive decisions started to interest me. I studied how tasks can be solved by agents and what goes on inside the agents when they are doing a task. During my undergraduate degree, I was lucky enough to get an internship in Switzerland. That is when I realised that I wanted to continue working in biology rather than just computational science. So I went to Switzerland for my master’s in biology.

Q Was it not difficult shifting focus to biology from engineering?

I tried to study some hardcore biology during my master’s, but it was difficult. I didn’t study biology at the undergraduate or 10+2 level. I don’t think such shifts are uncommon when it comes to science. There is this general idea, not only in India but also in France, that you cannot change your field of study, which is false. It always helps to have a diverse training and academic background to study complex questions in machine learning or neuroscience. I wanted to work in hands-on or wet lab biology. So I got a job in London as a research assistant for a couple of years, where I worked on the behaviour of rodents.

Q What was the subject of your doctoral thesis?

I got the European Union Marie Sklodowska-Curie scholarship for my PhD and moved to Paris. The broad idea behind my research was what goes on inside our brains and how that relates to what we do. The cells in the brain and spinal cord work together to do something as simple as moving your hand. It is also about seeing, witnessing or feeling something and then reacting to it in a certain way. For my research, I worked with zebrafish, which is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. Its scientific name (Danio rerio) is inspired by the Bengali word for paddy (dhan). It is a transparent fish, so its brain, heart and spinal cord are visible from outside. In 1822, Scottish scientist Francis Buchanan-Hamilton first described this fish. In the last few decades, several labs around the world have been using zebrafish for research. I studied balance and movement in zebrafish — when faced with an obstacle that disturbs its balance, how it reacts. Even though there is diversity in individual responses, mean behavioural trends for most species in a given situation is the same. My PhD finding was that in fish, and hence in other vertebrates, there are certain brain circuits that can choose between different strategies when faced with obstacles. I also found out how they choose those ways.

Q What about your current postdoctoral research?

I work with larvae of Drosophila melanogaster, commonly known as maggots. I’m trying to find out how motivation affects behaviour and, specifically, decisions. Motivation or reward are loaded terms and insects won’t have the same type of cognitive function as humans. But behaviours can change because of motivation. For example, there are particular ways in which maggots move in response to wind. Because the wind is a threat to them, they try to avoid it and move away. But suppose there is food in the direction from which the wind is blowing. Then what will the insects do? And if they are hungry, how will that affect their motivation? Many internal and external factors can influence decisions, and this is what I am trying to study. We expect similar brain mechanisms to be used in humans because we expect all brains to share some basic algorithms.

Q What is the larger societal impact your research may have?

My current research might help understand neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and depression. The study of animal behaviour and brain circuits is also essential for drug development. But above all, to me, the creation of knowledge is a goal in itself. Curiosity and knowledge generation is part of human culture. That is why I think it is important for scientists to talk about their work to people from non-scientific backgrounds. It is possible to explain our work, without running the risk of oversimplification, if both sides have the patience.