Epidemiologist, novelist and winner of the Rosalind Franklin Award
I work in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford where I study the ways in which diseases and humans interact and evolve.
An example is flu. Humans have developed immunity to flu, so the pathogen has found ways to disguise itself, circumvent the immunity and so cause an epidemic. Through our research we’ve discovered that this is not a slow process where the flu germ has infinite ways of evolving – it happens quickly, with a limited number of options. The good news is that this means that really virulent strains, such as bird flu, are more likely to go away than get stronger (you can watch a Royal Society lecture where I explain this in more detail).
I grew up in Calcutta. My father was a historian, but the milieu I grew up in encouraged intellectual curiosity across all subjects in both boys and girls. I went to university in the States (Princeton) to study physics. The syllabus was very flexible and I became increasingly interested in applying mathematical models to biology and that’s where my career has developed.
At Oxford, I do most of my research at a computer – my field is theoretical epidemiology and involves maths and statistics - but I collaborate closely with laboratory and field scientists. I teach as well. We have a broad department here, with interests ranging from animal behaviour to cells and genes. We have more female students than male, and some of them are spectacular. Three of our young women faculty members have won the L’Oreal prize in the last three years: Theresa Burt de Perera, Ashleigh Griffin and Natalie Seddon. They and the other women here are fantastic role models.
Last year I was won the Royal Society Rosalind Franklin Award. It’s, naturally, a great honour. We’ve been pushing controversial ideas and its been hard at times, so this scientific recognition is important. I am also very glad to be seen as a role model – it’s a way to give something back. And a project has come out of it – I am writing a children’s book about women scientists in history. Its been amazing doing the research – all sorts of women I knew little or nothing about, such as that the Menten of the famous Michaelis-Menten equations was a Maud Leonora Menten (1879 – 1960) from Port Lambton, Ontario, who had to leave Canada because at that time women were not allowed to do research there.
I’ve had five novels published. My first stories were science fiction and I wrote in Bengali. Once I was living in the States I switched to English, and my first novel came in the same month as I got my PhD. My books are not about science - only once have I made the lead character a scientist. My latest, ‘So good in black’, is just out, and is the first after a ten year gap. Its tough combining science, teaching and writing. And I’m mother of two girls, aged 10 and 13. It doesn’t leave a lot of time!
Sunetra Gupta is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University's Department of Zoology and is a Fellow of Linacre College. You can find out more about her novels and her work at: http://www.sunetragupta.com/
Comments
Ruth Wilson (UKRC moderator):
Hi Sunetra - thank you for being our first blogger of the new year, and of the new decade. I wish you all the best with your various projects, including the new novel. The decade just ending was shaped in part by technological and scientific advances, and by environmental concerns. At he same time, the recession has hit some SET sectors hard, yet they are inevitably key to progress and recovery. I wanted to ask you to look into the crystal ball at the year to come. What lies ahead for women in SET? Are there going to be new opportunities for women to enter SET, be integrated, valued and even rise to the top? Will women become more visible as leaders on the key science issues that we face? It needs a sea-change - do you think that\'s on the cards? Hope you don\'t mind starting off with some big issues!
Sunetra Gupta:
Thank you, Ruth, for your kind words. I am very pleases indeed to be the first blogger of the year and wish everyone reading this a very wonderful 2010! The questions you have posed are of fundamental importance and I wish I had good, wise answers to provide but the truth is that I am hardly qualified to predict what this decade will bring. More importantly though, I am humbled by its possibilities. It is true that belts will have to be tightened in the short term, and this may well affect those of us who are less able to demand what is their due (which, sadly, is more common among women) - but I am also heartened by the emphasis on the \\\\\\\'poverty of aspiration\\\\\\\' as something to be tackled in the coming years. Change - real change - is always slow, but I am optimistic that its gradual trend in favour of gender equality will continue. I am currently based in a university department where this is a priority, so am speaking from that privileged position. That young women - and young men - should be able to fulfill their potential in a climate of equality is naturally what we all hope to see established in the coming decade.
Malcolm Davies:
Hi Sunetra. Wow - how on earth do you find the time? Great blog - 2 questions from me 1. Please could you give a little background about the controversial ideas which you refer to? 2. Do you think of yourself as a role model for women, women scientists, women writers or for anyone wanting to improve the world in which we live and to make the best possible use of time available? I look forward to following your thoughts during the rest of the month. Malcolm - from a frozen Tickhill!
Marion Scott (UKRC Policy Advisor):
Thank you for finding time to do this blog. I am interested in your views on the ability to do maths and the capacity for interest in maths. It is central to your work I understand. I also see that you have more female students than male - do you have any thoughts on why, and secondly, are all the students - male and female, doing as much maths as you? the same amount of maths as each other? Are there any \\\\\'gender trends\\\\\"?
Sunetra Gupta:
Hi Malcolm, In answer to your first question, how do I find the time - the truth is that I don\\\'t very easily at the moment, and many things have had to be put on hold - which is difficult, but responsibilities have to come before passions as I\\\'m sure we all well know. There are many controversial ideas that my work has generated. For example, in 1994, we published a paper saying that the intrinsic transmission potential of the malaria parasite was actually quite low even though the risk of getting malaria upon arriving in many endemic areas can be extremely high. We argued that this high risk arose because there were many strains of the parasite co-circulating rather than because any of these was particularly good at getting from person to person (through the mosquito vector). Evidence for this is now mounting from the rates of decline of the disease through recent drives in intervention, but it was initially met with huge scepticism. More recently, we have suggested that the dynamics of influenza are better explained by the virus population having to recycle the various parts our immune system recognises rather than developing new disguises. It was very hard for us to publish this model as it challenged the orthodoxy that the virus population was slowly and incrementally evolving away from its original state. However, observations from the current swine flu pandemic (in particular that protection exists among older people who were around before 1957 when the same subtype was in regular circulation) are very much in line with our model predictions. Finally, it would be wonderful to be able to inspire anybody wanting to do the same things as I\\\'ve done or simply wanting to live life as fully as possible and in a responsible way. But I also think being a good \\\"role model\\\"" is as much achieved through smaller acts as it is through demonstrating the larger possibilities in life.
Sunetra Gupta:
Thank you for your message, Kaye. I don\\\'t think passions ever die, but they can suffer to be put on hold. Also, achievement itself is not all - so much luck involved in it - I am more moved by those who quietly pursue their passions than trumpet their achievements. It is extremely hard to combine passions, and I certainly found it close to impossible to finish my novel while my children were young. But then came a time when I felt I absolutely must, and they (being about 7 and 10 years old at the time) could also see the need and kept busy for hours by themselves just so I could do it. Then there are times when a scientific problem so engrosses me that I feel I am neglecting them. Or just rushing around to conferences (which I try very hard to limit) can take its toll in unexpected ways. These are the realities, shared by many of us, of trying to be true to the many sides of ourselves. But I don\\\'t see paring your life down to a single pursuit as the best solution (although it is one solution, and one that must be respected), so the only choice left is to persevere. I know it must be tricky for you now to balance everything but I also envy you with a new baby coming and a toddler around - a magical time in your life.
Kaye Heyes:
Thank you for reminding me that it IS such a magical time, having a toddler and a new baby coming. My post made it sound like childcare was all chore, and as you know, it certainly isn\'t. It\'s a wonderful learning experience in itself and the word you used - magical is exactly right - I can certainly see why you are a successful novelist! Good luck in whatever direction you life and work takes you in the future and I shall follow your work with interest!
Subscribe by RSS
Add your own comment