An Unconventional Route into Chemistry
I did not approach chemistry by following the traditional sequence of learning basic science first and professional practice later. I earned a Bachelor of Technology in Industrial Biotechnology in Chennai, India, and later a Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, UK. Those programs were intentionally application-driven. They trained me to work with real systems within real constraints, and they taught me to value function, performance, and practicality. At the same time, they also revealed a recurring limitation: a system may appear optimized until a small change uncovers that the underlying science was never fully understood. That is where I developed my habits. When something behaved unexpectedly, I did not settle for a workaround. I wanted to understand the mechanism, the governing principle, and the point at which a result would stop being reliable.
Even at that stage, the kinds of problems I was drawn to had a clear focus. My undergraduate work concentrated on beneficial microbes, heavy-metal-resistant strains, and bioremediation, which made me think early on about how science can be applied to solve environmental problems. My master’s research then involved nano-assembled microcapsules embedded with gold nanoparticles for drug delivery applications, bringing me closer to questions at the intersection of materials, biology, and healthcare. Looking back, those projects were different in form, but they were connected by the same core idea: I was drawn to science that could do more than just explain. I wanted understanding that could be applied to solve significant problems effectively. Over time, that instinct led me toward chemistry because it offered the explanation and rigor I was seeking, along with a way to transform that understanding into something useful.
Why Chemistry Became the Right Home
That mindset is what led me to pursue a PhD in Chemistry at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, USA, where I worked under Professor Silvana Andreescu. My doctoral research focused on additive manufacturing and the formulation of 3D printable hydrogel-based inks for sensing and environmental applications. For me, this was not a departure from applied science, but a way to deepen its foundation. I wanted to connect materials, formulation, performance, and measurement in a way that could be explained, tested, and reproduced. Fundamental understanding was never the endpoint. Its value depended on whether it could be translated into reliable methods, better decisions, and solutions that would remain useful outside ideal conditions.
My experience teaching and mentoring in instrumental and spectroscopy laboratories reinforced the same lesson from another perspective. Fundamentals are not separate from practice; they enable results to be transferred across instruments, analysts, and settings. The value of a method is not just that it works once under ideal conditions, but that it can be understood deeply enough to remain relevant when conditions change. That idea stayed with me, and it became one of the strongest themes throughout the rest of my career.
Where Practice Sharpened My Perspective
Industry made those ideas more tangible and emphasized their importance. At Biocon, I worked in downstream processing and recombinant protein purification using analytical and preparative chromatography, including HPLC, FPLC, ultrafiltration, and diafiltration systems. That experience exposed me to real purification and development challenges and provided hands-on work with key biopharmaceutical molecules, such as insulin-related programs, GCSF, and PEG-GCSF. It was an early lesson that analytical and process science are most important when they support products that may eventually reach patients.
At USV, in a cGMP biologics analytical R&D environment, I worked on analytical method development using RP-HPLC, SEC-HPLC, and IEX-HPLC, along with method qualification for product-related, process-related, and residual analyses aligned with ICH expectations. I also participated in investigations, change control, CAPA, audits, biosimilarity studies, and broader GMP and quality-system activities. That role pushed me beyond seeing analytical chemistry as a technical function. It showed me that rigorous methods are part of how product quality is established, defended, and improved.
Later, during my doctoral years, I gained targeted industrial experience in the USA through roles at Boehringer Ingelheim and Abon Pharmaceuticals. At Boehringer Ingelheim, I developed analytical methods to monitor peptide and viral protein degradation and conducted forced degradation studies to assess aggregation and structural damage. At Abon Pharmaceuticals, I created and validated analytical methods for raw materials, in-process samples, finished products, and stability studies. I also worked on dissolution methods for complex drug products. Throughout these experiences, one lesson became repeatedly clear: analytical chemistry is not just about generating data. It’s about producing trustworthy data that others can rely on when making important decisions.
From Making Things Work to Making Them Trustworthy
As my career advanced, my focus shifted from simply making things work to making them measurable, reliable, and defensible. My experience across biotechnology, biopharmaceutical, and analytical R&D environments clarified that analytical chemistry is not just about generating data. It’s about producing data that fosters confidence. That confidence must be present in the method, the sample, and the decision that the data ultimately supports. In biotechnology and biopharmaceutical work, that responsibility is significant because the quality of the science can impact product quality, development choices, and the therapies delivered to patients. That connection has always been important to me. I am driven by work where rigorous analytical science can improve decision-making, enhance product reliability, and directly or indirectly lead to better outcomes for those who depend on them. For me, the value of scientific understanding isn’t just that it explains how systems behave, but that it can be used to solve important problems effectively and help turn innovation into something truly beneficial for patients.
Where That Perspective Has Led Me
Today, as a Principal Scientist at Waters Corporation, I work at the intersection of separation science and biomolecular characterization. What continues to motivate me is the same theme that has run through my career: taking complex systems, asking fundamental questions that truly explain their behavior, and translating those answers into analytical workflows that other scientists can trust. Working across diverse molecular systems has only strengthened that conviction. Different molecules challenge methods in different ways, and they quickly teach you that analytical science is not about forcing every problem into the same framework. It is about understanding a system well enough to choose or develop an approach that is scientifically sound, fit for purpose, and defensible. That is where chemistry is most powerful. It does not just explain systems. It provides the foundation for making sound decisions about them and for building solutions that can stand up in practice. In fields like biotechnology and biopharmaceutical development, that is crucial because robust analytical thinking is part of making innovation reliable rather than merely promising. I have come to value work that is not only technically strong, but also practical, trustworthy, and directed toward needs beyond my own.
Why the P.Chem. Designation Matters to Me
The P.Chem. designation means a lot to me for the same reasons. It signifies more than just technical skill. It also reflects accountability, professional judgment, and a dedication to standards that go beyond the laboratory. I especially appreciated ACPA’s Jurisprudence Course and Professional Ethics for Chemists because they clarified these responsibilities in a practical way. They link technical work to scope of practice, ongoing competence, due diligence, trust, integrity, and ethical decision-making, all of which are directly relevant to professional life. That perspective resonates with me because I view the professional side of chemistry as integrated with the scientific side—not separate from it, but essential to maintaining science’s credibility and trustworthiness.
I also value chances to contribute more broadly to the profession. Serving on the ACS Committee on Analytical Reagents means a lot to me because its focus on quality, specifications, and analytical defensibility closely matches themes that have been central throughout my career. Whether in research, development, or professional service, I believe chemistry is most valuable when practiced to a standard others can depend on, not just for technical accuracy, but also for consistency, clarity, and accountability. I also believe that experience comes with a responsibility to contribute whenever possible, whether by helping strengthen standards, supporting colleagues, or advancing work that others can build upon.
What I would Pass on to Others
If I were advising students or early-career chemists, I would say this: do not settle for what simply works. Ask why it works, what assumptions support the result, and what could cause it to fail. But do not stop there either. A strong career in chemistry is built not only on technical skill and understanding, but also on the ability to apply that knowledge to solve meaningful problems. It is also worth engaging with a professional community early. Professional identity is not just a title or credential; it is a way to connect your work to standards, ethics, accountability, and a community committed to practicing chemistry well. Over time, I have found that the most meaningful work is not only about expanding knowledge, but about applying that knowledge with integrity and in service to others.