About Mangala Srinivas
Mangala Srinivas was born in India, moved to Indonesia and then to Singapore, where she completed her B.Sc. (Honours) at the National University of Singapore (NUS). From there, she went to Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, USA) for her Ph.D. She has since been working at the Department of Tumour Immunology at the Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences in The Netherlands. Mangala’s initial work involved the development and application of 19F magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for in vivo cell tracking. Her present work has expanded to multimodal imaging agents in a range of clinical and preclinical applications. Mangala is currently funded by a VENI grant from the Netherlands Institute for Scientific Research (NWO), and recently received a Starting Grant by the European Research Council (ERC).
Interview
Dr Mangala Srinivas, you have just been awarded an ERC Starting Grant. Congratulations! Could you tell us a little bit about the research you are planning to conduct with this grant?
My research involves the development of contrast agents for in vivo imaging us ing different imaging modalities, such as ultrasound, MRI and fluorescence. These agents are stable, although they are not damaged by imaging (a pressing issue with microbubble contrast agents for ultrasound). The agents I’m working on are biodegradable, and thus can be used in vivo. I will be optimising these contrast agents, and testing them in a clinical setting for cell tracking, and a preclinical one for a broader range of applications such as in vivo targeting. This is a very interesting, multidisciplinary project with lots of exciting applications. .
Can you tell us a little bit about the anticipated outcome of this research project? How will the general public benefit from it?
In vivo imaging, especially techniques such as ultrasound and MRI, is an excellent, noninvasive manner in which to assess therapeutics such as cellular therapeutics or targeted drug delivery. These tools are sorely needed to optimise these extremely promising treatments, and tailor them for the individual. In particular, the ability to use ultrasound for such monitoring, in place of much more expensive imaging modalities such as MRI or PET will make the technology more accessible to both researchers and patients. What this means is that it will become easier to monitor and optimise personalised medicine applications, which is of great benefit to patients with conditions ranging from cancer to organ transplants. Of course, it will take a lot of work for us to reach that stage, but progress is being made.
You are one of 287 successful ERC Starting Grant applicants. How did you find out about this grant?
I was looking for possibilities to apply for another grant. It is quite early in my career, effectively just over three years after completion of my Ph.D., so I had a lot of options. I knew that the ERC is very competitive and that the last year may have been especially so, due to the change from FP7 to Horizon2020 funding schemes. However, I felt that the ERC grant was the best fit for both my project and my career: The research I have planned is relatively high risk, which is what the ERC encourages, and I am ready to start my own group. I also liked that the grant was open to all researchers working in or strongly affiliated with the EU. Another grant that I was considering applying to is the VIDI from the Netherlands Institute for Scientific Research (NWO), which is the next step from my current VENI grant.
Can you share any tips with our readers for a successful application to the next round of applications for an ERC grant?
Start early! Talk to others who have previously applied for the grant about their experience. I found that very helpful. It goes without saying that you need a good research idea that is meticulously planned through. Presentation and formatting is also very important, so that the proposal is “user-friendly”. This is often something that scientists tend to overlook, although it is essential.
You have studied in Singapore and are currently working in Europe. Could you tell us a little more about the stops in your research career so far?
Yes, I did my B.Sc. (Honours) in Singapore, before moving to the US for my Ph.D. From there, I chose to move to Europe to continue my work. I felt that my education at the National University of Singapore (NUS) gave me a very strong base in science. While I was there, I also participated in several special programmes such as the University Scholars Programme (USP), which emphasizes a broad education by requiring several courses in fields outside of one’s major. That multidisciplinary approach was something I really enjoyed, and so I chose to apply to universities like Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), which encourage interdisciplinary collaborations. For example, I did my Ph.D. there in the Dept. of Biological Sciences, although my advisor was a physicist by training. I find that working at the interface of different disciplines gives varied perspectives on the same work, while simultaneously enriching the whole experience. I continued with that mindset when I joined the Dept. of Tumour Immunology at Radboud University in The Netherlands. Here, I’m working in a department composed primarily of immunologists, while my research focuses on imaging techniques. Thus, I have a lot of collaborators who specialise in physics and chemistry to facilitate my work.
Having conducted research both in Asia and in Europe, what are the best aspects of either research community?
I’m not qualified to talk about research in Asia, as I have never worked there (excepting my time during my undergraduate, which is not really comparable). But, I have heard from colleagues and friends that there is a lot of positive energy directed towards research in Asia, with plenty of expansion and growth, and an increasingly multicultural environment. Based on all this, I would like very much to start collaborations with groups in Asia and experience these changes for myself. And of course, coming from Singapore, I cannot fail to mention that the local food is a benefit that is not insignificant!
Here in Europe, I particularly enjoy the flexible working hours (and longer vacations). This is important for me, as I have a young family and want to be able to spend time with them. Furthermore, I feel that defined working hours, whether enforced by the working environment or the working culture, are not necessarily the best for creative work in science. Of course, it takes more discipline to work flexibly and it is not the best solution for everyone. Access to such flexibility varies widely with local norms and preferences, but I feel that the European working lifestyle is generally easier to incorporate with a busy family life than that in the US or Asia currently, although this may be changing.
How important is the scientific cooperation between these two regions?
Science rarely progresses without cooperation, thus this is almost a rhetorical question! In particular, many new research centres are being developed in Asia and these need to actively seek out collaborations, whether with Europe or elsewhere, in order to establish themselves. Becoming established is a slow process, but from what I have seen, it looks like Asian research institutes are doing an excellent job at this, and we are seeing more and more great work from these centres. From the other side, there is often a shortage of researchers; large proportions of these positions are often filled by students or post-docs from Asia. There is also increasing interest in research areas such as tropical diseases, traditional medicines and even newer fields like fuel production from palm oil. These are areas which would really benefit from collaborative research.
In your opinion, what could be done to further enhance international scientific cooperation and, most importantly, the mobility of international researchers?
The availability of information is crucial. This includes information on funding opportunities and job openings. I think more short term possibilities such as funded invited talks or small, focused symposia, and exchange programmes between graduate students and visiting faculty are necessary. Such initiatives would greatly foster international exchange through personal meetings without requiring a long-term commitment, at least initially. The short term nature is vital, in my opinion, as this makes the openings accessible to many more people, who may not consider moving from their current homes. It also makes it easier to take that difficult “first step” and make the move. From all the researchers I have met who have worked abroad, no one has ended up regretting it, but the process can seem intimidating in the beginning. At the moment, it seems that most such short term exchanges are organised by individual groups within preexisting collaborations. It would be very helpful to have institutional support and funding for such exchanges, both in Europe and in Asia.
What motivates you as a researcher?
I find research fun! It is very exciting to be able work creatively in a scientific environment. Which goals are you still hoping to achieve? This is still early in my career, so I have several goals to achieve. In the short term, I would like to develop my research group. I would also like to see my project reach clinical or commercial development. In the long term, I would like to see tangible benefits to society from this research. I’m sure that is a goal shared by many researchers. I would also like to establish more collaborative work with research groups in Asia towards these ends. Of course, in the immediate future, I will focus on my family, as we are expecting our second child in the next month.
Congratulations on your fantastic achievement and thank you for the interview!