Scientist Ankita Bansal is investigating cancer metabolism to uncover new pathways for precision cancer therapies and early detection. Her research aims to make cancer treatment more personalised, accessible, and effective for Indian patients.

In the evolving landscape of cancer research, where breakthroughs increasingly depend on understanding the invisible workings of cells, metabolism is emerging as one of the most powerful frontiers. At the centre of this shift is Dr Ankita Bansal—scientist, educator, and one of the new voices shaping India’s precision medicine ecosystem. As part of Education Publica’s ‘Women in Science’ series, Bansal represents a generation of researchers redefining not just what science discovers, but how it translates into real-world impact. An Assistant Professor at Jio Institute, Mumbai and recipient of the prestigious Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship, her work focuses on decoding how cancer cells reprogram their metabolism—and how these hidden dependencies can be turned into targeted, patient-specific therapies. Trained across leading global institutions, Bansal’s scientific journey spans aging biology to cancer metabolism, united by a single question: how do we move from understanding disease to meaningfully improving lives? Her research now centres on identifying metabolic signatures unique to Indian patients, with the aim of building scalable, accessible precision therapeutics. At a time when India is positioning itself as a hub for translational science, Bansal’s work sits at a critical intersection—where biology meets technology, and where discovery is measured not just in publications, but in its potential to reach patients.

From Cells to Systems: Rethinking Cancer with Ankita Bansal

Ankita Bansal is exploring how cancer cells rewire their metabolism – unlocking new pathways for precision therapies tailored to Indian patients

What first sparked your curiosity about biology – and was there a moment when you knew research was the path you wanted to take?

It started with simple observations and asking “why?” Over time, that curiosity deepened into a desire to understand why living systems behave the way they do. I began tinkering with home experiments to tease things apart, though I never actually set out to become a researcher. I simply followed my instinct to test ideas and see what happens when you change a variable. It was only much later that I realized what I had been doing all along had a formal name: research.

During your PhD, your work showed that living longer and living healthier are not necessarily driven by the same genes. How did that discovery change the way you think about aging – and about what science should aim for?

Longevity without quality of life is not worth aspiring to. Healthspan is about independence, resilience, and the ability to engage with the world—it isn’t just a fixed number of years on a chart. This philosophy carries directly into my cancer work, where improving how people live, staying in remission, and catching cancer early matters as much as extending survival.

Science operates the same way. It is not just about metrics—publications, h-index, or grants—but the broader ecosystem: the people, the communities it touches, and how it shapes society.

Decoding Cancer Metabolism for Better Care

You’ve worked across systems from C. elegans to cancer cells. How has this shaped you as a scientist?

Training in C. elegans grounded me in systems biology and metabolism, constantly reminding me that disease is rarely a single-gene or single-pathway problem. Moving into cancer research reinforced the complexity of biological networks and the importance of thinking at the level of the whole organism. This journey shaped me into a scientist who views disease as a dynamic interaction between metabolism, environment, and time, rather than an isolated molecular event.

What fascinates you most about targeting cancer through its metabolism rather than more traditional approaches?

Cancer cells are highly adaptable, yet they remain dependent on specific metabolic sources. That paradox is what fascinates me; that dependency is a vulnerability we can exploit. Metabolism fuels growth. A cancer cell can carry every genetic mutation imaginable, but without access to specific metabolic building blocks, it cannot sustain itself.

It also opens questions beyond treatment: Why do some cancers stay in remission while others metastasize? What metabolic signatures appear early enough to catch a tumor before it becomes a clinical problem? Understanding these dependencies allows us to build early detection approaches that are scalable and accessible to broader populations.

Are there experiences from your global training that influence how you mentor students or run your lab?

If you cannot explain your science to a ten-year-old or a ninety-year-old grandmother, the project might not be good enough. In my lab, I want to train scientists who communicate well, take ownership, and think like mavericks—be the goat, not the sheep.

It is okay to fail, provided you learn during the process. I want people who question assumptions and feel safe doing so. This culture can be difficult to implement in India, where deference runs deep in academic structures, but that makes it all the more important to try.

Why is the gap between academic discovery and patient-ready products still so wide – and what needs to change?

The biggest misconception is that academia and patient-ready products exist in separate silos. They don’t; they exist on a continuum. While this is a global problem, it is particularly acute in India. Academia rewards novelty, while translation requires scalability and collaboration. You cannot simply license a ready technology and call it translation; you have to be part of the process from day one. Academia must take real ownership in nation-building, with the patient’s needs as the starting point, not an afterthought. Scientists, clinicians, industry, and policymakers need to be in the room together far earlier than they currently are.

Building a research lab from the ground up is no small task. As a woman leading a lab, what challenges have surprised you the most?

The juggling act that no one adequately prepares you for: running a competitive research program while raising a family. In India, the lack of high-quality childcare and reliable after-school programs is a significant challenge. It is a major hurdle that directly affects productivity and well-being. Being open about these realities matters, because pretending they don’t exist helps no one.

Gender disparities in science are still very visible in India. Where do you see genuine opportunities for change?

Every day is better than the last. Things are genuinely improving, and I don’t want to paint a picture darker than reality. The most persistent barriers remain inadequate childcare infrastructure and the “two-body problem.” Beyond that, there are no impossible bottlenecks. The trajectory is positive. The key is to keep making the case that these structural issues are solvable through dialogue and goodwill.

How can Indian institutions better support women in science?

We need childcare infrastructure, flexible timelines, and open communication channels. These should be framed not as “accommodations,” but as essential investments in retaining top-tier talent.

Did role models play a part in your journey?

My grandmother pursued a double MA after marriage and showed me that learning has no expiration date. My mother embodied the resilience required of a working woman, and my father taught me that success comes through sacrifice. My PhD mentor ignited my passion for research, even while facing her own health challenges, shaping my approach to science with both rigor and empathy. I also value the scientific dialogue I share with my husband, a scientist-entrepreneur whose translational outlook broadens my perspective.

Visibility matters. When women scientists share not only their achievements but also their doubts and unconventional paths, the journey becomes more accessible. There is no single template for success.

What excites you most about building a precision therapeutics lab in India right now?

Our time has begun. India is at a unique point in its trajectory—our Amrit Kaal. We have growing technological capacity, vast patient populations, and massive unmet clinical needs. Out-of-the-box thinking is now highly sought after. Translating discoveries into affordable, scalable solutions that directly impact patients is what motivates me every morning.

Looking ahead a decade, what legacy do you hope your work leaves behind?

I hope to leave behind frameworks that integrate metabolism, technology, and clinical insight to revolutionize early cancer detection. More importantly, I hope to foster a culture where science is patient-centered first—where we start with the patient’s needs, not the publication, and build everything outward from there.

As India pushes ahead with its semiconductor ambitions under the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM), questions remain about where the country can realistically compete and how long it will take to build a viable ecosystem. In this exclusive conversation with Education Publica Editor Dipin Damodharan in Mumbai, Neelkanth Mishra, Chief Economist at Axis Bank and Head of Global Research at Axis Capital, draws on two decades of experience tracking the global semiconductor industry to explain India’s advantages, constraints, and long term trajectory. He is also a member of the advisory committee of the government’s India Semiconductor Mission and part-time Chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Edited excerpts.

How the India Semiconductor Mission Is Shaping the Industry

Let me start with asking something out of curiosity – how did you get interested in semiconductors in the first place?

When I joined Credit Suisse First Boston in 2003 in Singapore, the person who hired me was heading Asia technology research and was also the lead analyst for semiconductor foundries such as TSMC and UMC. I was hired to cover IT services, but he wanted help in building the semiconductor research franchise.

That led me to start reading about how chips are made. At that time, the industry was transitioning from 130-nanometer to 90-nanometer nodes, and copper was being introduced to replace aluminum due to resistance issues. There were challenges around yields because copper was seeping into substrates. I remember writing my first note around this issue after going through technical papers.

That note became quite popular, and it gave me the confidence to continue covering semiconductors. I spent a lot of time travelling to Taiwan, studying DRAM cycles, capex cycles, node transitions, and the broader global semiconductor ecosystem. Eventually, I moved to Taipei and began covering chip design companies such as MediaTek.

At that time, were you also tracking what was happening in India?

India has had chip design activity for a long time, even in the 1990s. Companies like Texas Instruments, Cadence, and Synopsys were recruiting from Indian campuses. Many engineers built long careers in these firms.

However, India did not have domestic chip manufacturing or strong Indian-owned chip design companies. By the mid-2000s, global firms such as Nvidia, Broadcom, and Intel began setting up design centres in India. So the design ecosystem was growing, but it was largely driven by global companies.

It is only in the last four to five years that more serious efforts have begun toward building Indian-owned capabilities.

So what changed in the last few years? Was it policy, or something else?

Policy has played a role. The Design Linked Incentive (DLI) scheme has been an important catalyst. We are seeing some early success. At the same time, there is also an evolutionary factor at play. Engineers who moved abroad 20–25 years ago are now at a stage where they have both the experience and financial capacity to take entrepreneurial risks. Many also want to return to India.

Another important factor is the growth of India’s electronics manufacturing ecosystem. As assembly volumes increase, there is greater awareness of what products need to be designed. Without that visibility into OEM pipelines, it is difficult to design chips.

Schemes like PLI for electronics manufacturing have helped build that awareness and ecosystem. As downstream industries grow, upstream opportunities in chip design also become clearer.

As US is good at designing chips, Taiwan and South Korea are good at manufacturing There’s always this question – should India focus on design, manufacturing, or packaging?

There is no either/or. India needs to participate across the value chain.

We already have a natural advantage in chip design, with about 20% of global design engineers based in India. Design is also less capital-intensive compared to manufacturing. In a $10 chip, $5–6 of value is captured by the designer, and in some cases even more.

At the same time, semiconductor manufacturing is a geopolitical necessity. It is not just a commercial issue but also a matter of national security. That is why governments provide significant subsidies for fabs.

However, manufacturing is a low-return business globally. Only a few companies like TSMC and Samsung have consistently generated returns above their cost of capital. Much of the value in the ecosystem is captured by design firms and by capital equipment suppliers, which operate in highly concentrated markets.

Therefore, India must build capabilities across the chain—from design to manufacturing to equipment and materials—if it wants meaningful value capture.

When we talk about building an ecosystem, how complex is that in reality?

It is extremely complex. The industry has multiple layers of specialization. For example, electronic design automation (EDA) tools are dominated by a few companies. Lithography, especially extreme ultraviolet, is controlled by a single company globally. Equipment for deposition, wafer slicing, and testing is also concentrated among a handful of firms.

Even the chemicals used in wafer cleaning are highly sophisticated and require extraordinary purity. A single wafer can take months to manufacture, involving hundreds of process steps.

So when we talk about semiconductors, it is not just about fabs. It is about building an entire ecosystem—equipment, materials, design, testing, and packaging. This is why it is a 15–20 year journey at least.

What about talent? Are we ready from a skills perspective?

In general, skilling in India is more of a demand problem than a supply problem. If there is sufficient demand, the industry tends to create the supply.

For example, there is already discussion about developing tens of thousands of chip testing engineers in India, and that is achievable. However, for cutting-edge technologies, there is a need for deeper investment in research.

As we move toward more advanced nodes—such as 7 to 12 nanometers—we will require significant high-end research capabilities. Countries like China took over 25 years to reach that level.

We need to invest not just in near-commercial research (TRL 6–9) but also in fundamental research (TRL 1–4), which creates long-term intellectual property. Government initiatives like the Anusandhan National Research Fund are steps in that direction, but overall R&D spending needs to increase.

What role should industry play in R&D?

Industry participation is essential. The government can catalyse investment, but companies will invest when they see potential returns.

We have seen this in pharmaceuticals, where Indian firms moved into R&D after reaching limits in generics. A similar shift can happen in semiconductors, but it will require scale, capital, and long-term commitment.

Where do startups fit into this picture?

Startups will have a significant role, particularly in chip design. Manufacturing is extremely capital-intensive, requiring billions of dollars in investment, which limits the role of startups.

However, in design and innovation, startups can play an important part. Many innovations in the semiconductor ecosystem originate from smaller firms, which are later acquired or integrated into larger companies.

To produce a globally competitive company, you need a large ecosystem of startups, experimentation, and risk-taking.

Coming to policy – what did India learn from ISM 1.0?

ISM 1.0 (India Semiconductor Mission) was a learning curve for everyone. It helped the government understand how to evaluate proposals, support companies, and manage operational challenges.

There were practical issues—from customs procedures affecting sensitive equipment to ensuring uninterrupted power supply. Semiconductor manufacturing requires extremely high reliability, and even a brief power outage can cause significant losses.

Another important learning is that the global industry is now more comfortable working with India. While India may not yet be the first choice, confidence has improved due to visible commitment and progress.

This increased comfort allows India to be more ambitious with ISM 2.0.

How important is policy stability?

Policy continuity is very important because these are long-term projects. Global firms value consistency in decision-making and relationships.

There is also a growing effort to ensure continuity in leadership within government institutions, which helps build expertise and trust over time.

Do we need a dedicated semiconductor research institution like IMEC?

There are existing efforts, such as the facility in Mohali, which supports defence-related applications. There are also discussions around creating IMEC-like research centres.

However, over time, the private sector will need to take a larger role in research. Government support is critical in the early stages, but for sustained innovation and competitiveness, industry-led initiatives are more effective. The government can act as the binding force or the catalyst that brings people to the table; however, I believe it is ultimately better if the private sector takes the lead. This creates a natural incentive for innovation and rigorous research. Beyond a certain point, government support becomes both fiscally unfeasible and operationally undesirable

If we look ahead 20 years, where do you see India?

On the design side, India can become much more significant. It is possible to see 10–15 large chip design companies and many smaller firms emerging.

On the manufacturing side, we could have several large fabs and potentially global players establishing operations in India, especially if a strong domestic design ecosystem develops.

For example, companies like TSMC tend to follow innovation ecosystems. If Indian design firms grow in scale and sophistication, it could attract global manufacturing investments.

Let me end with this – can India produce a company like Nvidia?

It is possible, but it requires a large ecosystem. Many Indians already occupy senior roles in global semiconductor companies and are involved in cutting-edge design work.

To create a company of that scale, you need risk capital, entrepreneurial ambition, and a large number of startups. In other markets, hundreds of firms compete, and one eventually emerges as a dominant player.

So it is not about a single effort—it is about building an ecosystem where many experiments take place, and success emerges from that.

In modern mathematics, where imagination meets deep abstraction, Dr Laura Monk has quickly become one of the field’s most exciting young geometers. In 2024, she was awarded the Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prize, an honour regarded as one of the most prestigious recognitions for early-career women mathematicians and presented at the Breakthrough Prize ceremony—often called the “Oscars of Science.” A mathematician whose work explores the geometry of negatively curved spaces, Monk’s path into the field was shaped not only by intellectual fascination but also by uncertainty, self-doubt, and the search for belonging—a journey familiar to many women in STEM. Growing up in France, she found early encouragement from teachers who pushed her to think harder and explore deeper. Later, mentors like Nalini Anantharaman and the pioneering legacy of Iranian math genius Maryam Mirzakhani helped her see that mathematics could be a creative, expansive world—not an exclusive club.

A Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Bristol, Monk works on the geometry of negatively curved spaces and the behaviour of objects moving within them. In this conversation with Dipin Damodharan, she speaks candidly about intuition, representation, hyperbolic geometry, and the courage required to stay in mathematics when you’re not sure you fit.

‘Go for it! Math is super cool and useful’

To start with, could you tell us how your journey in mathematics began? Was there a defining moment when you realised this would become your life’s work?

I always enjoyed mathematics at school and thought it would be a good idea to study it, as I was interested in it and it opens the door to many jobs. After my first two years of study, I realized I loved the subject itself more than the idea of finding a job using it, and decided I wanted to work in mathematics (probably as a teacher).

I faced many challenges and doubts—I somehow never felt sure mathematics was “for me,” even though I loved it. But I’m very happy I stuck with it and made a few leaps of faith at the right times. At the end of my master’s, I decided to start a PhD because it is required for certain higher education teaching positions in France. I thought: three years is a lot of time, better get excited and really go for it! Luckily, I met my PhD advisor, Nalini Anantharaman, who introduced me to a fascinating research project.

The way she ventured into different areas of mathematics, tackling ambitious new projects with no apparent fear, was an incredible inspiration. She was very different from the image I had of “the mathematician.” Her mentorship made me feel confident I could do it if I wanted to. And then I did!

Growing up in France, were there specific teachers, mentors, or institutions that played a pivotal role in shaping your mathematical thinking?

Mathematics is taught and shared, and I have many teachers to thank for my mathematical upbringing. My high-school teacher had extremely high standards and told me off a few times for doing the minimum instead of pushing myself. My second-year teacher gave me a first glimpse of how exciting venturing into the unknown can be during a research project.

One of the ways maths is taught in France is through a two-year intensive preparatory school followed by further studies at university. I found this structure gave me a strong basis to build on, as well as methods to organize myself and work well.

What were some of the challenges you faced as a young woman entering a field often dominated by men? How did you navigate them?

Mathematics is, indeed, a very masculine field, and one could imagine sexist behaviours to be common. I have to say, luckily perhaps, that this has not been my experience. I have always felt extremely welcomed into this community, whether as a student or a researcher.

However, I did still struggle very much as a student with finding a sense of place and purpose in what I was doing. Though these difficulties are quite universal, I think they were amplified by being one of the only girls in my cohort. Identifying this was very helpful in overcoming these feelings, because it led me to build strong connections with my peers, to find female mentors and role models, and to invest myself in events for young women, all of which helped tremendously.

Much of your work lies at the intersection of geometry and dynamics. Could you explain your research focus in simple terms?

I study certain types of surfaces called “hyperbolic surfaces.” Unlike a piece of paper (which is flat) or a sphere (which is positively curved), hyperbolic surfaces have negative curvature: they look like Pringles. There exist many, many hyperbolic surfaces, and they appear in very different fields of mathematics: number theory, mathematical physics, dynamics…

I am trying to understand what these surfaces “look like” a bit better. In order to do so, I put all of them in a (big) bag, take one at random, and try to describe it.

Mathematics often requires deep abstraction. How do you stay connected to the beauty or “reality” behind these abstractions?

I relate more to the beauty than the reality! To me, mathematics is a gigantic world that we are building or exploring together. I find a lot of joy in how different parts of this world interact and how bridges can be built; simple ideas can come together from far apart and create something new.

What role does intuition play in your mathematical process?

A big role! One of the reasons why I have been drawn to mathematics is that, once you understand a formula or a theorem, you don’t really need to memorize it by heart anymore: it just makes sense. When I learn something new, I go through a lengthy process of unravelling everything and I often feel very confused (or sometimes even a bit desperate!).

But, one day, all of a sudden, everything becomes clear, to the extent that it is even hard to remember why I was so lost initially. I think this is one of the reasons why it is so hard for us to share and convey what we do to one another, or to the general public.

Maryam Mirzakhani’s groundbreaking work in geometry and moduli spaces continues to inspire mathematicians globally. In what ways has her work influenced your own research? You have worked on topics that build upon or are inspired by Mirzakhani’s legacy. Could you speak about this continuity—how do you see her influence evolving in your field?

Maryam Mirzakhani created my research field, and I have studied a certain part of her work in great detail. My research consists in picking a hyperbolic surface at random and looking at it. She was one of the first people to have had this amazing idea. At the time, there existed a probability model allowing one to pick hyperbolic surfaces at random, but it was completely abstract and unusable.

Through several beautiful breakthroughs, she created a method that made this possible. We are still at the beginning of the wide variety of applications following from these advances.

If you could give a message to a young girl fascinated by numbers but unsure about pursuing math, what would you say?

Go for it! Math is super cool and useful, so you will have loads of fun and learn a lot. It is ok if you don’t identify with the image of the “math guy”; there are a lot of ways to enjoy math. It is not just about proving theorems or solving exercises, it is about creativity and sharing.

Outside of mathematics, what brings you joy or fuels your curiosity?

I quite like jigsaw puzzles and knitting, both of which relax me and make me appreciate how a lot of little steps can come together to create something big. Right now, my main source of joy is my two-year-old daughter, and seeing her discover the world. If only we could stay this curious and observant about every single little thing!

Do you think artificial intelligence and computers are changing the way we do mathematics?

Computers definitely have! We used to pay people to perform long lists of computations for researchers, and to publish entire books of randomly generated numbers in order to study probabilities. Now both of these activities seem very silly. Mathematicians use computers all the time, whether to perform experiments, find the answer to a simple question, or write and share their work.

I personally choose to be optimistic about the future of AI. You would have a very hard time conveying to someone in 1980 the role that computers play in everyone’s lives, but for mathematics, they have greatly enlarged our experience and allowed us to go faster, further. Things are scary now because we do not know what is ahead of us.