Bridging the "Valley of Death" in Bioscience: Turning Discoveries into Real-World Health Solutions
'This is the infamous 'valley of death' in translational research,' says Dr. Anurag Agrawal, Dean of the Trivedi School of Biosciences at
Ashoka University
. 'It's not always a technical issue. Often, people aren't incentivised to go beyond publishing papers.'
To truly cross this chasm, he argues, India must reward translational impact alongside academic publishing. 'We need to evolve institutions so that real-world outcomes matter in career progression,' Dr. Agrawal insists. 'If stepping into translation brings only red tape and no reward, no one will do it.'
Systemic Fixes: Incentives, Incubators, and Innovation Missions
Among his recommendations are streamlining bureaucratic processes, scaling up initiatives like the
Atal Innovation Mission
, and building strong incubators that support not just ideation but implementation.
'These programs are a step in the right direction,' he says, 'but they must be scaled thoughtfully to support productization and field deployment.'
Academia Meets Industry: Building a Bioscience Pipeline
On bridging academia and industry, Dr. Agrawal believes the solution lies in starting young. 'We must ignite passion for innovation early—before students become exam-focused and risk-averse.'
At Ashoka, that vision is taking shape. The university is building an innovation centre physically integrated with the Trivedi School of Biosciences. Undergraduates are encouraged to engage with cutting-edge technologies from day one. 'Biology today is interdisciplinary. AI is the new language of biology,' he declares.
Ashoka has also launched the Lodha Young Genius program, bringing high-school students—some as young as Class 9—face-to-face with leading thinkers like Nobel Laureate Paul Nurse. 'These early sparks can light lifelong fires,' Dr. Agrawal says.
From Rare Disease Breakthroughs to Mainstream Health Innovation
India's foray into genomics gained traction through the diagnosis of pediatric rare diseases using next-generation sequencing (NGS). But Dr. Agrawal sees the future in expanding these capabilities to more prevalent challenges like non-communicable diseases (NCDs), especially cancer.
'In oncology, genomic profiling helps personalise therapies using biomarkers like EGFR or ALK mutations,' he explains. However, such innovations remain largely confined to elite institutions due to cost barriers.
That's changing. Companies like
Karkinos healthcare
and
Strand Life Sciences
, now backed by Reliance, are striving to democratise
genomic diagnostics
. 'If Reliance can do for genomics what it did for telecom with Jio, we may finally see precision oncology become mainstream,' he notes.
Genomic Surveillance: A Public Good, Not a Private Gamble
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the critical role of genomic surveillance, but it also exposed gaps. 'If a novel pathogen emerges in a district hospital, are we positioned to catch it early? Not yet,' says Dr. Agrawal.
Platforms like IDSP, IHIP, and INSACOG are steps forward, but genomic surveillance remains overly centralized and research-focused. To be effective, it must be embedded in public health systems, with strong federal coordination.
'Surveillance is a public good,' he stresses. 'It cannot be left to the private sector. The government must lead—especially in a country where health is a state subject but surveillance is centrally governed.'
Precision Medicine—Broadening the Lens
Dr Agrawal urges a more inclusive understanding of
precision medicine
. 'Even a continuous glucose monitor guiding a diabetic's diet is precision health,' he says. In this broader view, AI, mobile tech, and wearable devices can bring personalised care to the masses.
However, a recurring bottleneck remains: access to targeted therapies. 'Genomic diagnostics mean little without affordable access to the corresponding drugs,' he warns. India must align diagnostics with treatment availability, regulatory flexibility, and pricing reforms.
Commenting on what should the National Research Foundation prioritise?, Dr Agarwal informed that the NRF could play a transformative role—if it focuses on people, not just infrastructure. 'Fund curiosity. Fund mentorship. Don't micromanage outcomes,' Dr. Agrawal advises. 'If we invest in passionate researchers and capable institutions, the impact will follow.'
The Road Ahead: From Talent to Translation
India's aspirations in genomics and health innovation are not limited by scientific capability—they're constrained by outdated systems. To unlock the full potential of Indian biosciences, Dr. Agrawal calls for a culture that rewards real-world outcomes, fosters interdisciplinary education, and supports translation at every step.
'Ashoka University may be small, but we can be a lab for the country—where we test bold ideas that scale,' he says. 'India has the talent and the tech. Now, we need to align incentives and invest in the right structures. Only then can we truly democratise health innovation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
10 hours ago
- News18
What Is The Doomsday Clock And Why ‘Midnight' Is Considered The Point Of No Return
Every year, it reminds us how close we are to catastrophe. From nuclear war to climate change, here's why the Doomsday Clock now stands at just 89 seconds to midnight In the University of Chicago's Keller Centre, a simple clock sits frozen at 89 seconds to midnight. There is no ticking sound. No countdown timer. And yet, each January, this symbolic clock captures global attention, from newsrooms and nuclear war rooms to climate science labs and policy circles. This is the Doomsday Clock, not a scientific instrument, but a warning sign, crafted by atomic scientists and artists in the aftermath of World War II. It marks not the passage of time, but how little time humanity may have left before it self-destructs. Updated just once a year, the clock's minute hand has become a powerful barometer of global crisis. And in January 2025, it moved again. Just 89 seconds to midnight. The closest we've ever been to metaphorical annihilation. So what exactly is the Doomsday Clock? Who decides where its hands go? And what will happen if the clock strikes midnight? What Is The Doomsday Clock? The Doomsday Clock is a metaphorical timepiece symbolising humanity's proximity to global catastrophe, such as nuclear war or climate collapse. Created in 1947 by scientists from the Manhattan Project, the clock is updated each year by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn the public of growing existential threats, both man-made and preventable. The 'time" on the clock reflects a judgement, not a prediction: the closer to midnight, the greater the danger. This year, the Bulletin moved the hands to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest humanity has ever been to symbolic self-destruction. Where Did The Clock Come From? The Doomsday Clock was originally conceived by Martyl Langsdorf, an abstract landscape artist married to Manhattan Project physicist Alexander Langsdorf Jr. In 1947, she was asked to design a cover for the Bulletin's first issue as a magazine. Moved by the urgency she sensed from scientists debating nuclear risk, she sketched a minimalist clock with hands set at seven minutes to midnight, purely for visual impact. Behind the symbolism lay deep regret. Many Manhattan Project scientists, including Leo Szilard and James Franck, had warned against using the atomic bomb on civilians. After the Hiroshima bombing, Szilard called it 'one of the greatest blunders in history." Within weeks, these scientists created the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to raise public awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. How Is The Doomsday Clock Set? Initially, the Bulletin's founding editor Eugene Rabinowitch, a scientist and arms control advocate, alone decided the clock's time. After his death in 1973, the responsibility passed to the Science and Security Board—a group of 18 experts in nuclear policy, climate science, international security, and emerging technologies. Today, the board meets twice a year, consulting widely with global experts and Nobel laureates. In addition to scientific data, they consider: They do not forecast the future but make evidence-based assessments of current threats and societal responses. Why Was It Moved To 89 Seconds This Year? On January 28, 2025, the Bulletin reset the clock to 89 seconds to midnight, its closest-ever position, citing: 'The world has not made sufficient progress on existential risks threatening all of humanity," said Daniel Holz, chair of the Science and Security Board. 'When you are at this precipice, the one thing you don't want to do is take a step forward." A Brief History: How Often Has The Clock Moved? Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted 26 times. Some of the most notable moments include: 1949: After the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, the clock was moved from 7 to 3 minutes to midnight. 1991: At the end of the Cold War, after the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), it moved to 17 minutes to midnight, the farthest ever. 2007: For the first time, climate change was formally included in hand-setting discussions. 2018: Citing nuclear uncertainty and international breakdowns, it was reset to 2 minutes. 2020–2025: A steady worsening of global trends brought the time from 100 seconds to 89 seconds, year by year. Notably, the clock was not moved during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, as too little was known publicly about the standoff at the time. What Happens If the Clock Strikes Midnight? Midnight represents global catastrophe—not a literal event, but a metaphor for nuclear war, irreversible climate collapse, or technological meltdown. It is intended to shock, not predict. Originally tied to atomic warfare, the metaphor has since expanded. As Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, explained in an interview with the University of Chicago's Big Brains podcast: 'There are tipping points in climate that you can't come back from… the clock is a warning that we may not feel the consequences until it's too late." Why Do Some People Dismiss It? While the Doomsday Clock garners international headlines, critics question its scientific basis. Some argue that the clock is too symbolic and subjective, lacking scientific rigour or a clearly defined methodology. They point out that it does not quantify risk in measurable terms and has no predictive accuracy. Others see it as Western-centric, shaped largely by American and European perspectives on global threats. There's also criticism that the clock's once-a-year adjustment feels out of sync with rapidly evolving global crises, and that its dramatic framing may provoke alarm rather than action. How The Doomsday Clock Entered Pop Culture Over the decades, the Clock has become more than a scientific symbol; it has become a pop culture icon. In the acclaimed Watchmen comics and their film and TV adaptations, the ticking clock becomes a literal countdown to nuclear war, mirroring Cold War anxieties. British heavy metal band Iron Maiden's 1984 hit '2 Minutes to Midnight" directly references the Clock, critiquing the arms race and political brinkmanship. Even in the X-Men universe, especially in stories like Days of Future Past, time is a recurring symbol of extinction-level threats, echoing the same existential urgency. Its visual simplicity makes it an enduring metaphor across art, cinema, literature, and political commentary. top videos View all Why The Clock Still Matters In an age of disinformation and short attention spans, the Doomsday Clock endures because it translates complex global threats into a simple, universal image. When the Bulletin moves the hands, the world takes notice, not because the clock is infallible, but because the danger is real. About the Author Karishma Jain Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @ More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Apocalypse climate change Doomsday Clock nuclear war view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 03, 2025, 08:00 IST News explainers What Is The Doomsday Clock And Why 'Midnight' Is Considered The Point Of No Return Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Economic Times
a day ago
- Economic Times
Machines may soon think in a language we don't understand, leaving humanity in the dark: Godfather of AI sounds alarm
Synopsis Artificial Intelligence pioneer Geoffrey Hinton cautions about AI's future. Hinton suggests AI could create its own language. This language might be beyond human understanding. He expresses regret for not recognizing the dangers sooner. Hinton highlights AI's rapid learning and knowledge sharing capabilities. He urges for ethical guidelines alongside AI advancements. The goal is to ensure AI remains benevolent. Agencies Geoffrey Hinton, the "Godfather of AI," warns that AI could develop its own incomprehensible language, potentially thinking in ways beyond human understanding. Hinton, a Nobel laureate, regrets not recognizing the dangers of AI sooner, emphasizing the rapid pace at which machines are learning and sharing information. Geoffrey Hinton, often dubbed the 'Godfather of AI,' has once again sounded a sobering alarm about the direction in which artificial intelligence is evolving. In a recent appearance on the One Decision podcast, Hinton warned that AI may soon develop a language of its own — one that even its human creators won't understand. 'Right now, AI systems do what's called 'chain of thought' reasoning in English, so we can follow what it's doing,' Hinton explained. 'But it gets more scary if they develop their own internal languages for talking to each other.' He went on to add that AI has already demonstrated it can think 'terrible' thoughts, and it's not unthinkable that machines could eventually think in ways humans can't track or interpret. Hinton's warnings carry weight. The 2024 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, awarded for his pioneering work on neural networks, has helped lay the foundation for today's most advanced AI systems, including deep learning and large language models. But today, Hinton is wrestling with what he calls a delayed realization. 'I should have realised much sooner what the eventual dangers were going to be,' he said. 'I always thought the future was far off and I wish I had thought about safety sooner.' That hindsight is now driving his advocacy. Hinton believes that as digital systems become more advanced, the gap between machine intelligence and human understanding will widen at a staggering pace. One of Hinton's most compelling concerns is how digital systems differ fundamentally from the human brain. AI models, he says, can share what they learn instantly across thousands of copies. 'Imagine if 10,000 people learned something and all of them knew it instantly — that's what happens in these systems,' he explained on BBC News . It's this kind of distributed, collective intelligence that could soon allow machines to outpace even our most ambitious understanding. AI models like GPT-4 already surpass humans in general knowledge, and though they lag in complex reasoning for now, Hinton says that gap is closing fast. While Hinton has made waves by speaking openly about AI risks, he says others in the tech world are staying quiet — at least in public. 'Many people in big companies are downplaying the risk,' he noted, despite their private concerns. One exception, he says, is Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, who has shown serious commitment to addressing those risks. Hinton's own exit from Google in 2023 was widely misinterpreted as a protest. He now clarifies, 'I left Google because I was 75 and couldn't program effectively anymore. But when I left, maybe I could talk about all these risks more freely.' With AI's capabilities expanding and governments scrambling to catch up, the global conversation around regulation is intensifying. The White House recently unveiled an 'AI Action Plan' aimed at accelerating innovation while limiting funding to overly regulated states. But for Hinton, technical advancements must go hand in hand with ethical guardrails. He says the only real hope lies in finding a way to make AI 'guaranteed benevolent' — a lofty goal, given that the very systems we build may soon be operating beyond our comprehension.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Scientists use AI-designed proteins to generate immune cells
A team of Harvard scientists has used artificial intelligence (AI), in the form of AI-designed proteins, to generate large numbers of immune cells and enhance immunity against diseases ranging from cancer to viral infections, a new research paper published in Cell said. The scientists engineered a synthetic activator of a key cellular pathway called Notch signalling, which plays a crucial role in cellular differentiation and is essential for transforming human immune progenitors into T cells. Notch signalling is a cell-to-cell communication system vital for various developmental processes and tissue homeostasis in multicellular organisms. Homeostasis is the body's way of keeping everything balanced and stable, despite what is happening around it. 'In response to viral infections or cancer, the body requires a higher production of T cells to mount an effective immune defence. However, this process depends on the activation of the Notch signalling pathway, for which no effective molecular activators have been available,' Rubul Mout from Assam, the principal scientist of the study, said. Associated with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and the Stem Cell & Regenerative Biology Program at Boston Children's Hospital, he is one of 24 scientists involved in the collaborative effort. They include George Daley, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, and Nobel laureate David Baker. Improved method According to the study, an earlier method of activating Notch signalling in laboratory settings by immobilising Notch ligands on tissue culture dishes is not applicable for therapeutic use in humans. The quest for a viable, soluble activator of Notch signalling that could work in vivo (inside a living body) made the team develop a library of custom-designed soluble Notch agonists and systematically test their ability to activate the Notch pathway and support T cell development and function. AI-driven protein design technologies, an innovation that contributed to Dr Baker receiving the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, were used to address the challenge. Using the agonists, the researchers demonstrated the large-scale generation of T cells in a laboratory bioreactor, an important advancement given the growing demand for T cell production in hospitals worldwide for Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Furthermore, when the agonists were injected into mice during vaccination, the animals displayed significantly improved T cell responses, indicating an enhanced immune response. The treatment resulted in increased production of memory T cells, which are crucial for the long-term impact of vaccines. 'Being able to activate Notch signalling opens up tremendous opportunities in immunotherapy, vaccine development, and immune cell regeneration,' Dr Mout said. 'What excites me the most is using this technology to engineer synthetic proteins that simultaneously bridge T cells and cancer cells, boost T cell-mediated killing, and neutralise the immunosuppressive tumour micro-environment. Our goal is to develop next-generation immunotherapies and cancer vaccines,' he added. The other collaborators of the study include Urban Lendahl of the Stockholm-based Karolinska Institutet and a former Chairman of the Physiology and Medicine Nobel Committee, Stephen C. Blacklow, the Chair of Harvard Medical School's Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, and R. Grant Rowe of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
