A Curiosity That Started Small
I entered science with a fascination for how subtle molecular differences can lead to dramatically different health outcomes. That curiosity shaped my earliest research experience in Mumbai, India where I worked on a population level study examining genetic variation and disease risk in more than one thousand individuals.
It was the first time I had worked with a dataset of that scale, and nothing about it felt simple. Laboratory work required constant troubleshooting. Gel bands appeared faint or inconsistent. Sample quality varied in unexpected ways. Storage conditions influenced results more than I had anticipated. I learned quickly that technical challenges do not disappear just because a protocol is written clearly. They require patience, repetition, and the willingness to admit when something is not working.
Learning to Trust the Data
A turning point came during statistical analysis, when the data revealed something unexpected. A common genetic variation appeared to influence diabetes risk differently in women than in men. My first reaction was doubt. I questioned whether the result was real or an artifact of noise or bias.
What followed were weeks of reanalysis, validation, and careful discussion. Slowly, the pattern held. That experience taught me an early lesson in scientific maturity. Insight often does not arrive neatly. It emerges through persistence, skepticism, and comfort with uncertainty. Accepting that result deepened my interest in how molecular biology intersects with broader aspects of human identity.
Starting Over in a New System
Moving to New York for my Master of Science at Fordham University marked another major transition. I arrived with excitement and insecurity in equal measure. The laboratory environment was faster paced, the equipment more advanced, and expectations higher than anything I had previously experienced.
The early months were challenging. I struggled with unfamiliar instruments, contamination issues, and inconsistent nucleic acid yields. At times, I worried that I was not progressing quickly enough or that I was falling behind my peers. Over time, I realized that these struggles were not personal failures. They were part of learning how to work in a new scientific ecosystem.
Through repetition, careful reading, and persistence, workflows that once felt intimidating became second nature. More importantly, I learned how to remain steady when experiments failed.
From Results to Understanding
As my technical confidence grew, I began noticing a broader gap in scientific training. Many early researchers are taught how to follow protocols, but few are trained to interpret results with independence and context. Experiments generate data, but interpretation creates meaning.
This realization became central to how I approach science. I began asking not only whether results were statistically sound, but whether they made biological sense and how they could guide future decisions.
Science Under Real World Pressure
Today, I work as an Associate Researcher at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, supporting translational research in eczema and atopic dermatitis. My role involves processing high quality RNA from non invasive clinical samples collected during Phase Two and Phase Three clinical trials.
This work demands precision. Small lapses in timing or temperature can compromise downstream sequencing. Early challenges with yield consistency required careful workflow refinement and systematic troubleshooting. Working within clinical trial timelines taught me how to manage pressure, document rigorously, and communicate clearly across interdisciplinary teams.
Translational research showed me how scientific decisions operate within real world constraints. Delays affect entire studies. Reliability matters as much as curiosity.
Giving Voice to Quiet Struggles
Alongside laboratory work, I developed a strong interest in scientific communication. Many struggles in science are rarely discussed openly. Failed experiments. Interpretive uncertainty. The pressure to appear confident even when nothing feels clear.
I wanted to give language to those experiences. This led me to write an opinion piece titled “Science is not complete until it is clear”, published by BioSpace Career Insider. Writing forced me to articulate a belief shaped by years at the bench. Clarity in communication is not separate from scientific rigor. It is part of the research process itself.
Community and Perspective
Through peer review and involvement in scientific societies such as Sigma Xi, I gained a deeper appreciation for how knowledge is evaluated and refined. Reviewing manuscripts strengthened my critical thinking and reinforced the importance of mentorship and integrity in science.
As a woman in research, my journey has included relocation, academic pressure, and periods of self doubt. Navigating new environments, high expectations, and unfamiliar systems required resilience I did not always feel I had. Science taught me that growth often begins during uncertainty, and that confidence is built gradually through persistence rather than perfection.
Looking Ahead
I hope to continue working at the intersection of molecular research, translational science, and communication. I want to contribute to research with meaningful therapeutic impact and support early career women navigating the same uncertainties that shaped me.
My journey began with a genetic question, but it taught me something broader. Science is not only about the data we collect. It is about the clarity we create, the resilience we build, and the stories we share so others know they are not alone.