In the mid-1990s, suggesting that India could venture into original drug discovery research wasn’t just optimistic—it was laughable. The country’s pharmaceutical prowess rested entirely on reverse-engineering Western patents, manufacturing generics cheaply, and exporting to developing markets. Innovation? New chemical entities? Clinical trials meeting US FDA standards? These belonged to multinational pharmaceutical giants operating from gleaming research campuses in New Jersey and Basel, not companies in Hyderabad navigating power cuts, import restrictions, and profound scepticism from global partners.
Ranjan Chakrabarti didn’t just witness this transformation—he played a key role in it. Over 36 years spanning continents and institutions, he’s become one of Indian biopharma’s well-known figures. He has a PhD in Biochemistry from Calcutta University. He worked with renowned research groups on metabolic disorders in the United States using NIH grants, thereby establishing scientific credibility that proved crucial when he made the decision to return to India in 1995. As Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories assembled its pioneering drug discovery unit, Chakrabarti became instrumental in building infrastructure from scratch—importing specialized animals from Jackson Labs (whilst battling catastrophic shipment mortality rates), educating vendors about temperature-sensitive biological reagents and personally meeting with government officials across Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mumbai to explain why their nascent research required import licenses for materials bureaucrats didn’t understand.
Critics accused Dr. Reddy’s of pursuing discovery research purely a fruitless expenditure rather than genuine innovation. Vendors struggled to comprehend why enzymes required different handling than commodity chemicals. Global pharmaceutical companies questioned whether Indian scientists could execute research while meeting their stringent standards. Yet Chakrabarti and his colleagues persevered, eventually achieving what seemed impossible: out-licensing molecules to multinational corporations, conducting clinical trials simultaneously in India and the US. During that period, Dr. Reddy’s became the first pharmaceutical company outside Japan listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
As Vice President of Biologics at United States Pharmacopeia-India from 2011–2021, Chakrabarti oversaw USP’s biology laboratories across China, Ghana, the US, and India, strengthening global pharmaceutical standards whilst building biological research capacity across Asia. His tenure as Senior VP at GVK Bio bridged these experiences, providing insights into contract research that would shape how Indian CROs engage with global biopharma clients. Today, being a member of the advisory committee of the centre of excellence at NIPER, as Executive Committee member of the Federation of Asian Biotech Associations and Advisory Board member at Pharma Now, Chakrabarti continues advocating stronger industry-academia bridges and innovation ecosystems that could elevate India from being a manufacturing powerhouse to becoming an innovation leader.
The Return to India’s Drug Discovery Frontier
Career-defining decisions often trace back to seemingly mundane moments. For Ranjan Chakrabarti, transformation began in the reading room of the US Consulate, where international scientific publications revealed a field that would consume his professional life.
Mr. Chakrabarti, you’ve shared that you discovered your passion for biochemistry through international newspapers at the US Consulate. What specific articles or scientific developments caught your attention during those formative years and sparked your interest in the intersection of chemistry and medicine?
“It was several decades ago, I cannot remember the exact articles now. In journals like Science, Scientific American and others, I used to read several articles, on how the new stream of science (at that time)—Biochemistry, which covers both Chemistry and Biology—is gaining importance in drug discovery and understanding disease biology was discussed. Besides, I always used to follow the advertisements for postdoctoral and drug industry positions and comprehend the growing demand for people with biochemistry background. This gave me the idea that this will be the subject of the future.”
The prescient observation—identifying biochemistry as “the subject of the future” decades before its centrality to modern drug discovery became obvious—reveals the forward-thinking that would characterize Chakrabarti’s career. Whilst most Indian pharmaceutical professionals focused on established chemical synthesis for generics, he recognized that understanding biological mechanisms at the molecular level would revolutionize medicine. The job advertisements he studied weren’t just career opportunities but leading indicators signalling where pharmaceutical innovation was heading. By positioning himself at the intersection of chemistry and biology, Chakrabarti prepared for opportunities that wouldn’t materialize in India for another decade.
The decision to return after establishing successful research credentials in the United States proved pivotal—and profoundly contrarian. Most Indian scientists who worked with NIH grants and positions with renowned US research groups remained there, building comfortable careers in well-funded laboratories with established infrastructure. Reversing this brain drain required more than patriotism; it demanded conviction that India could support meaningful research despite obvious infrastructure and ecosystem gaps.
After achieving considerable success abroad with NIH grants and working with renowned research groups on metabolic disorders, what personal or professional motivations drove you to return to India in 1995 and pioneer drug discovery at a time when the field faced significant scepticism?
“One of the major reasons was of course my family commitment in India. Besides, at that time, senior management people of Dr. Reddy’s and Ranbaxy were travelling across US and Europe to hire scientists for their newly formed drug discovery units. After talking to them, I was convinced that they were serious about drug discovery and were dedicating ample resources towards this. I found it very interesting and thought that we can could make some significant contribution in changing India’s image from a nation of copycats to that of innovators.”
Personal circumstances matter profoundly in decisions about where to build careers, and acknowledging this reality doesn’t diminish professional achievement. What proves remarkable is Chakrabarti’s ability to align personal needs with professional opportunity—finding companies willing to make genuine commitments to drug discovery precisely when he needed reasons to return to India. The phrase “changing India’s image from a nation of copycats to that of innovators” captures both the challenge and the opportunity. India’s pharmaceutical industry had prospered through imitation, but this success created reputational constraints limiting global partnerships and market opportunities. Breaking this perception required not just successful projects but fundamental transformation in how global pharmaceutical companies viewed Indian scientific capabilities.
Building the Impossible: Infrastructure, Credibility, and Dr. Anji Reddy’s Unwavering Vision
Establishing drug discovery capabilities in 1990s India required more than hiring talented scientists—it demanded building entire ecosystems from scratch and maintaining conviction despite pervasive scepticism about whether Indian companies could execute genuine innovation.
Partnering with Dr. Anji Reddy, you helped establish drug discovery at Dr. Reddy’s when the field was still nascent in India. How did you overcome the initial criticisms that the company was merely chasing share value gains rather than pursuing genuine innovation?
“Dr. Anji Reddy was an outstanding visionary and had the power to motivate people working with him. He shared with us that being seen as a copycat in the global pharmaceutical industry bothered him a lot and he took up the challenge of showing the world that India could make cost-effective drug discovery. Besides, we had some great people at our discovery research management, who, earlier in their careers had worked with Nobel laureates in the USA and then at top MNCs. Dr. Reddy used to meet with CEOs of top pharma companies across the globe, discussed their drug discovery research practices and shared their experiences with us. This helped us in the early days. Once we started patenting our molecules in the US & Europe and out-licensing our molecules to top MNCs for further development, the whole scenario changed. With this success, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories became the first pharmaceutical company, outside of Japan, to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. People started having faith in us, offered their support and encouragement.”
Dr. Anji Reddy’s motivation—personal frustration with being perceived as copycat—provided powerful emotional fuel for what required sustained, expensive commitment with uncertain outcomes. Leaders driven purely by financial calculations might have abandoned drug discovery when early progress proved slower than anticipated or sceptics questioned resource allocation. Personal conviction that India deserved better reputation created resilience against short-term pressures, enabling multi-year investments before tangible results materialized.
The strategy of recruiting scientists who’d worked with Nobel laureates and top MNCs served dual purposes: acquiring technical capabilities whilst building credibility with global pharmaceutical executives evaluating potential partnerships. When Dr. Reddy met with global pharma CEOs, he spoke about his team members with recognizable credentials and institutional affiliations that pointed towards commendable scientific capabilities. This credibility proved essential when negotiating out-licensing agreements where multinational corporations risked substantial capital on molecules developed by Indian researchers—a leap requiring confidence in capabilities that track records had yet to establish.
The transformation point—patenting molecules in US and Europe, out-licensing to MNCs, achieving NYSE listing—validated the model publicly and irreversibly. Sceptics could no longer dismiss Dr. Reddy’s efforts as promotional theatre when multinational pharmaceutical corporations committed real money to advance Indian-discovered molecules through expensive clinical development.
You’ve recounted importing animals from Jackson Labs, dealing with high mortality rates during shipments, and even breeding your own colonies. What were the most daunting supply chain and infrastructure hurdles you faced in the 1990s India, and how did Dr. Anji Reddy’s support enable you to overcome them?
“All supplies were a problem. Our vendors were used to supplying chemicals but had no idea about the critical handling of bio materials, their temperature-sensitive nature etc. We had to spend several hours teaching vendors how to handle biological reagents (e.g., enzymes etc.). We had several meetings with government officials (agencies who issue import licences, customs officials etc.) in Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai to educate them. Dr. Reddy used to connect us to relevant officials sometimes and he personally used to talk to ministers when necessary. Regarding infrastructure, there was no problem with money from the company, but we had to spend long hours with engineers/contractors explaining to them the design and critical aspects of technical details. Interestingly, afterwards people from many Indian companies used to visit our research centre to learn how to build and maintain their infrastructure.”
This ground-level reality reveals challenges rarely captured in corporate success stories. Established pharmaceutical research in developed markets benefits from mature ecosystems where vendors understand biological materials, customs officials recognize research reagents, and contractors possess experience building specialized laboratories. In 1990s India, none of this infrastructure existed—requiring researchers to become educators teaching vendors, bureaucrats, and contractors about requirements completely outside their experience.
The vendor education proves particularly striking. Enzyme stability depends on precise temperature control; proteins denature if frozen improperly; cell cultures die from contamination introduced through improper handling. Vendors accustomed to commodity chemicals where room-temperature storage sufficed couldn’t comprehend why biological materials demanded refrigerated transport, specialized packaging, and immediate processing upon arrival. Hours spent teaching these fundamentals represented time diverted from actual research but proved essential infrastructure investment enabling future work.
Dr. Reddy’s willingness to connect researchers with relevant officials, personally engaging ministers when necessary—demonstrates sophisticated understanding that scientific excellence alone couldn’t overcome bureaucratic obstacles. Import licences, customs clearances, and regulatory approvals required navigation of government systems designed around conventional manufacturing, not cutting-edge research. Coordinating with government officials accelerated the process which otherwise might have stalled.
The detail about other Indian companies visiting to learn infrastructure development reveals how Dr. Reddy’s pioneering efforts created positive externalities benefiting India’s broader pharmaceutical ecosystem. Knowledge about designing biological research facilities, managing specialized equipment, and maintaining critical infrastructure diffused beyond company boundaries, enabling competitors and collaborators to build capabilities more efficiently than Dr. Reddy’s initial trial-and-error approach. This knowledge-sharing accelerated the transform of India’s innovation capabilities.
Dr. Reddy’s became the first Indian company to out-license a drug and conduct clinical trials in India and the US. Which specific project marked that turning point, and what regulatory or scientific barriers did you have to navigate to get there?
“These are the molecules from the Metabolic Disorder project for diabetes and dyslipidaemia. I shall confess that we learnt a lot from our MNC partners regarding global clinical trials and handling regulatory authorities. We had an Expert Advisory Board with members from the US, Europe and India to guide us. I think, the same path is followed by the Indian companies even today, especially biosimilar companies. Their collaboration with global players is helping them to take their products into developing markets. Our only regret is that we could not launch a new drug, which in recent years a few other Indian companies have been able to do. I congratulate them.”
The metabolic disorder focus—diabetes and dyslipidaemia—proved strategically astute given India’s growing burden of these conditions and the global market size justifying substantial development investments. These therapeutic areas offered clear commercial rationale whilst addressing genuine unmet medical needs. The acknowledgment of learning from MNC partners reveals pragmatic humility often missing in corporate narratives emphasizing indigenous innovation. Conducting clinical trials meeting US FDA standards required expertise Indian companies lacked; partnering with organizations possessing this knowledge accelerated capability development far faster than purely internal learning. The Expert Advisory Board structure formalized this knowledge transfer, providing ongoing guidance navigating regulatory complexities and scientific challenges that novice organizations inevitably encounter.
The observation that biosimilar companies follow similar partnership paths today validates the template Dr. Reddy’s established: Indian companies partner with global pharmaceutical leaders to access expertise, regulatory knowledge, and market access whilst contributing cost-effective development, manufacturing capabilities, and emerging market understanding.
The candid regret about not launching a new drug acknowledges the ultimate measure by which drug discovery success is judged. Out-licensing molecules generates revenue and validates scientific capabilities, but launching approved medicines that reach patients represents the complete journey from laboratory research to clinical impact. Recent successes by other Indian companies achieving this milestone—Wockhardt’s Zaynich NDA acceptance, for instance—demonstrate that the capabilities Dr. Reddy’s pioneered have matured across India’s pharmaceutical ecosystem, fulfilling the vision of transforming India into a genuine innovator rather than a mere manufacturer.
Global Standards, Contract Research, and Building Bridges: From Operations to Advocacy
Chakrabarti’s career trajectory extended beyond single-company impact into roles shaping broader pharmaceutical ecosystems—establishing global standards, building contract research capabilities, and advocating for industry-academia collaborations essential for sustainable innovation.
Moving from VP at Dr. Reddy’s to Vice President of Biologics at United States Pharmacopeia-India (2011–2021), you oversaw USP’s biology laboratories across China, Ghana, the US, and India. What key lessons from managing multinational operations helped establish USP’s role in strengthening global pharmaceutical standards?
“It was an interesting experience. Awareness of cultural diversities, different regulatory systems while handling people of different nationalities in their countries. In those days all Asian countries were at the early stage of the biology standard-setting process. USP is a globally respected standard-setting organisation in the area of pharma, biopharma and others. We worked very closely with both the regulators and companies to help them in the standard-setting process across Asian countries. My colleagues and I used to visit all these places to train people. People from regulatory agencies of these countries often visited our labs for training. Today USP has collaboration agreements with relevant groups across these countries.”
The cultural sensitivity required managing multinational operations often receives insufficient emphasis in technical narratives. Standards that seem universal actually embed cultural assumptions about risk tolerance, documentation practices, and authority structures. Implementing USP standards in China required understanding Chinese regulatory philosophy and bureaucratic processes; Ghana presented completely different challenges around infrastructure limitations and capacity constraints; US operations navigated established but complex regulatory frameworks. Successfully operating across these contexts demanded adaptive leadership recognizing that effective implementation requires local customization whilst maintaining core standards integrity.
The detail about Asian countries being “at early stages of biology standard-setting process” highlights how Chakrabarti’s work extended beyond operations into capacity-building with lasting impact. Pharmaceutical standards enable global trade by creating common quality benchmarks; countries lacking robust standard-setting capabilities face barriers to international market access.
The bidirectional knowledge flow—USP experts training in-country whilst regulatory officials visiting USP labs—created relationships transcending formal collaboration agreements. Personal connections forged through training build trust, enable ongoing informal consultations, and create networks accelerating problem-solving when challenges arise.
You’ve noted that whilst India’s chemical capabilities were strong in 1995, biological research infrastructure lagged far behind. How did you build that biological research capacity at Dr. Reddy’s, and what advice would you give emerging biotech leaders facing similar ecosystem gaps today?
“I think, I have explained it above already. The scenario has significantly improved today but the hurdles with regulatory agencies still exist, with respect to licensing agencies, agencies which approve clinical trials and product launch. The only way to overcome this is to work with agencies, train them, help them as much as you can. It is for your own good. Regarding the global market, collaboration with MNCs are a must. You will need to choose your partner for this. One good thing is that GOI has understood the potential of biologics in India, is spending a lot of money and is open to suggestions which can improve the system. We all need to work together to succeed.”
The persistence of regulatory hurdles despite overall improvement highlights that infrastructure development proves easier than institutional evolution. Physical facilities can be built relatively quickly with sufficient capital; changing regulatory processes, building institutional expertise, and establishing trust between industry and government requires sustained engagement over years. Regulatory capacity-building serves industry interests directly by enabling faster, more predictable approvals whilst maintaining appropriate safety and efficacy standards.
The insistence that global market access requires MNC collaboration acknowledges realities that pure nationalism might resist. Indian companies possess cost advantages, growing technical capabilities, and understanding of emerging markets; multinational corporations bring regulatory expertise, established clinical trial networks, and developed market access. Partnerships based on complementary strengths is the rational strategy.
The optimism about government understanding biologics potential and openness to suggestions represents significant shift from 1990s when Chakrabarti first confronted bureaucratic obstacles. The collaborative framing—“we all need to work together”—captures an essential truth that transforming India’s innovation ecosystem requires coordinated effort across government, industry, and academia rather than any sector succeeding independently.
Your tenure as Senior VP at GVK Bio (2007–2009) bridged your time at Dr. Reddy’s and USP. What unique opportunities did that role provide in advancing contract research capabilities, and how did it shape your perspective on global collaborations in biopharma?
“Contract research is a different ball game. You need to work with different companies, large, middle and startups across the globe. Each company has its unique system/process and you need to align with it when you work with them. Besides, the quality control, data integrity etc. of these global companies were much more stringent and we needed to adhere to those. My experience of working with MNCs at Dr. Reddy’s and in the US helped me a lot in this aspect. One problem we faced in those days was lack of understanding of biology capabilities in Indian CROs. We had to spend a considerable amount of time explaining our capabilities with case studies, to make them confident about collaborating with us. It has changed now as global companies are well aware of our capabilities today. We need to understand clients’ requirements, communicate transparently (do not hide problems), adhere to timelines and quality.”
The characterization of contract research as “different ball game” acknowledges fundamental differences between developing proprietary products and executing research services for diverse clients. Proprietary development allows optimization around a single strategy; contract research demands flexibility adapting to varied client processes whilst maintaining consistent quality standards. This requires organizational agility and cultural acceptance of external direction that companies focused on proprietary products often struggle developing.
The observation about stringent quality and data integrity requirements from global companies highlights how contract research exposure accelerated Indian CROs’ capability development. Clients demanding rigorous documentation, comprehensive quality control, and absolute data integrity forced Indian organizations to elevate standards matching global best practices.
The shift from needing extensive explanation of Indian CRO capabilities to global awareness represents market maturation enabled by successful track records. Early adopters taking risks on Indian CROs despite limited track records created proof points demonstrating capabilities; subsequent clients leveraged this established credibility, reducing sales cycles and enabling focus on technical execution rather than capability validation. This evolution mirrors Chakrabarti’s journey mirrors the evolution from scepticism to acceptance as successful projects demonstrated competence.
The prescription for success—understanding client requirements, transparent communication, timeline adherence, and quality focus—seems straightforward but proves challenging in execution. Transparent communication about problems conflicts with short-term incentives to hide issues hoping for resolution before client awareness; timeline adherence requires sophisticated project management capabilities many organizations lack; quality demands resource investments that cost-focused competitors might avoid. Organizations consistently delivering on these dimensions build reputations enabling premium pricing and preferred partner status that pure cost competition cannot achieve.
As Executive Committee member of the Federation of Asian Biotech Associations and Advisory Board member at Pharma Now, how has your personal journey influenced your advocacy for India’s innovation landscape, particularly in fostering stronger bridges between academia and industry?
“I had the opportunity to work closely with companies in Europe, US, China and other Southeast Asian countries which are very strong in innovation. Discovery is driven by academics, which is then translated to a product by companies. Industry-academia collaboration is essential for this. Besides, there is a strong collaboration among basic researchers and clinicians in those countries, which helps in understanding disease biology and thereby in developing cures for diseases. Unfortunately, we do not have it here and hence we are way behind in the innovation index even among our Asian neighbours. This is also affecting the availability of skilled manpower in our companies. Besides the association mentioned above, I am also closely associated with different academic institutions (NIPER, CSIR Labs, private universities) and am trying to contribute in improving the industry-academic collaborations to build an innovation ecosystem in our country.”
The observation that discovery is driven by academics then translated to products by companies describes an ideal innovation flow operating successfully in leading pharmaceutical markets but remaining aspirational in India. Academic researchers pursue fundamental questions about disease mechanisms, molecular pathways, and potential therapeutic targets without immediate commercial pressure; companies leverage these discoveries, applying commercial discipline, regulatory expertise, and development capabilities to create marketable products. This division of labour allows each sector to focus on core competencies whilst benefiting from the other’s complementary capabilities.
The emphasis on basic researcher-clinician collaboration addresses a crucial gap in Indian biomedical research. Basic scientists studying molecular mechanisms often lack understanding of clinical realities—which diseases cause greatest morbidity, which patient populations lack effective treatments, which side effects prove most problematic. Clinicians treating patients daily possess this knowledge but may lack molecular understanding which enables novel therapeutic approaches.
India’s lag in innovation indices despite growing research capabilities highlights that innovation requires more than talented individuals or adequate funding—it demands functional ecosystems where knowledge flows efficiently between sectors, incentives align to support risk-taking, and institutional structures enable rather than obstruct collaboration. Chakrabarti’s direct engagement with academic institutions represents practical contribution towards ecosystem development, leveraging industry experience to inform academic priorities whilst connecting researchers with commercial opportunities.
With over 36 years in biopharma—from your academic foundations (PhD in Biochemistry from Calcutta University) through to consulting on R&D strategy—what one piece of advice would you offer young scientists aspiring to build India’s drug discovery ecosystem amid current global challenges?
“It is an exciting time for biologists as well as for the innovation ecosystem in India. We need trained manpower with hunger in their bellies and success will follow. Train yourself extensively, upgrade yourself continuously—and the world will be yours.”
The emphasis on “hunger in their bellies” captures an essential truth that technical training alone proves insufficient without drive, ambition, and willingness to persist through inevitable setbacks. Drug discovery involves more failures than successes, requires patience for processes measured in years rather than months, and demands resilience when experiments fail, regulatory approvals stall, or partnerships collapse. The prescription for continuous training and upgrading acknowledges that biological sciences evolve rapidly, making credentials earned years earlier insufficient for current challenges. CRISPR gene editing, CAR-T cell therapy, AI-driven drug discovery, and countless other innovations have emerged within the past decade, requiring practitioners to continuously acquire new capabilities or risk obsolescence. This learning imperative extends throughout careers, not merely early phases—making intellectual curiosity and learning agility more important than any specific technical skill.
The optimism about biology and India’s innovation ecosystem reflects an earned perspective from someone who witnessed transformation from impossible to established reality. Young scientists today benefit from infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, global credibility, and partnership opportunities that Chakrabarti’s generation built from scratch. Leveraging these advantages whilst maintaining hunger that drove pioneers creates potential for India to achieve innovation leadership matching its manufacturing dominance.
Looking Forward: The Bioxyra Summit and India’s Innovation Imperative
As our conversation concludes, Chakrabarti reflects on the Bioxyra Summit’s role in accelerating conversations and collaborations essential for India’s continued biological research advancement.
“Events like Bioxyra Summit create crucial spaces where researchers, industry leaders, regulators, and investors can engage substantively rather than superficially,” he observes. For Chakrabarti, the summit represents evolution beyond his pioneering days when Indian pharmaceutical companies struggled to find global partners willing to engage seriously. His advice to summit attendees emphasizes active engagement over passive attendance.
Looking ahead, Chakrabarti sees India’s biologics and biotechnology sector at an inflection point where accumulated capabilities, supportive policy environment, and global credibility create unprecedented opportunities. The Bioxyra Summit, by convening leaders who’ve driven this evolution alongside those who’ll write its next chapters, accelerates progress towards Chakrabarti’s founding aspiration: changing India’s image from a copycat nation to an innovation leader recognized globally for scientific excellence, commercial acumen, and contributions advancing human health.
Ranjan Chakrabarti will be a featured speaker at the Bioxyra Summit, where he will share insights from his pioneering work establishing drug discovery capabilities in India, building global pharmaceutical standards across Asia, and fostering industry-academia collaborations essential for sustainable innovation ecosystems. Join us to learn from this accomplished leader whose career charts India’s transformation from pharmaceutical manufacturer to biopharma innovator.