Could you introduce Bharat Biotech and explain the focus of its work?
I began my scientific career in the United States, completing my PhD at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and serving on the faculty there before returning to India in 1997. When I founded Bharat Biotech, I did so with the conviction that India should be an innovator, not a copier of existing technologies. Most Indian companies produced what global agencies like UNICEF demanded, but I wanted to focus on neglected diseases—areas that multinationals often avoided because they were not global commercial priorities. These diseases, largely concentrated in Asia and Africa, often become the source of future pandemics, so from the beginning I positioned the company to work in that space and built the necessary infrastructure to support it.
This approach led us to develop the world’s first typhoid conjugate vaccine, which became a global benchmark, and to be early movers in Zika and chikungunya vaccine development. These experiences later enabled us to move swiftly during COVID-19, resulting in Covaxin. We have always taken calculated scientific risks and invested in modern platforms, such as using a specialized adjuvant licensed from a U.S. biotech company to create a universal vaccine response across variants. We funded Covaxin ourselves, spending around $100 million without taking government support, because I believed it was my responsibility as a scientist to give back to society. Today we continue working on vaccines including tuberculosis, one of the few in Phase III globally, and remain committed to innovation rather than copying what others do.
You have described Covaxin as a mission-mode project for India. Now that the COVID emergency has passed, how are you redefining Bharat Biotech’s priorities for the coming decade?
The pandemic left us with substantial high-grade infrastructure, including BSL-3 facilities built specifically for Covaxin production. Our priority now is to repurpose these assets to support future vaccine programs. For example, we are preparing to use these facilities for injectable polio vaccines and to scale up live chikungunya vaccine production, where the virus is grown and then inactivated. We are working to ensure that these advanced facilities continue to serve public health needs rather than remain idle, even though the repurposing process takes time.
Beyond human vaccines, we are now expanding significantly into veterinary vaccines because the next pandemic could emerge from the food chain. Diseases in cattle, poultry, or other livestock could severely disrupt food security, and we must be prepared for that possibility. To address this, we established BioVet in Bengaluru, where we recently built one of the world’s few BSL-4 production facilities—something only the Pirbright Institute in the UK has. All of this reflects our belief that preparedness cannot begin during a crisis; it must be built long before. We are taking risks by investing in these capabilities, but they are necessary for long-term global and national health security.
India is a major vaccine manufacturer, but what policy or regulatory changes are needed for it to become a global biotech innovation hub?
Vaccine regulation has unfortunately become entangled in politics and nationalism, unlike pharmaceuticals or biosimilars, which tend not to be politicized in the same way. For example, even though we conducted Phase I and II Covaxin trials in the U.S., the FDA indicated it could not consider approval because mRNA vaccines had already been deployed in the market. During a pandemic, regulators should ideally allow more flexible market entry pathways in both directions—Indian vaccines into Western countries and Western vaccines into India—so that global public health needs can be met more effectively.
There are also vaccines, such as the typhoid conjugate vaccine, that should be recognized not only for disease prevention but for their role in combating antimicrobial resistance. Travelers moving between Africa, South Asia, and Western countries can carry drug-resistant strains home, and vaccines can reduce this risk dramatically. Governments should therefore provide mechanisms to fast-track vaccines that contribute to national security, traveler safety, and antimicrobial resistance mitigation. This shift in policy and regulatory mindset would strengthen India’s position as an innovator rather than simply a manufacturer for the world.
During the Covaxin rollout, you faced intense political and media scrutiny. What did that experience teach you about communicating science, and how can Indian vaccine companies strengthen long-term vaccine confidence?
To speak very honestly, when a small Indian company develops a vaccine, it is often met with skepticism, while multinational players can develop products without attracting the same level of criticism. During the pandemic, the primary concern should have been safety—, safety, safety—yet public attention remained largely focused on efficacy. Within India, many assumed that an indigenous company could not possibly deliver a world-class vaccine, creating a negative environment in the early stages of vaccine development. In contrast, vaccines linked to well-established international institutions benefited from greater credibility and were largely shielded from similar doubt.
Despite that scrutiny, Covaxin ultimately had no safety controversies. We used a traditional inactivated-virus platform—a method as old as my grandmother, as I say—because it is reliable, stable, and stays localized in the body, avoiding systemic circulation. The early 12 to 15 months were challenging. But over time, the perception changed, and people recognized the scientific rigor behind the vaccine. The experience taught us that communication must be persistent and transparent, and that India must continue building confidence in its own scientific and manufacturing capabilities.
India clearly has strong scientific talent. What must the country do to retain and nurture that talent for future innovation?
India needs a robust ecosystem that supports innovation through both policy decisions and practical implementation. Policies should encourage research, entrepreneurship, and risk-taking, because when innovation is supported, entrepreneurs naturally emerge. With a market of 1.4 billion people, the potential for growth is enormous, but the environment must be conducive to experimentation and new ideas. If India builds this ecosystem, many scientists working abroad will feel confident returning home.
While positive policy steps are being taken, their impact often takes time to translate into on-ground outcomes. India’s progress can be likened to an elephant’s stride—steady, deliberate, and purposeful. Though gradual, this approach brings stability and resilience. In time, these efforts will lay the foundation for biotech innovation to flourish across the country, much as earlier policy reforms once enabled the growth of India’s software industry.
When you founded the company, you must have envisioned what Bharat Biotech could become. Has that vision been achieved, or is it still a work in progress?
I am still walking toward that vision. Vaccine development is a multigenerational endeavor: in pharmaceuticals, one often works for the present; in biosimilars, for the next generation; but in vaccines, the impact extends even further. This long horizon helps explain why relatively few vaccine companies exist globally. I am proud of the milestones we have achieved—such as developing the first typhoid conjugate vaccine and contributing a homegrown COVID-19 vaccine to society—but the journey is far from complete.
Vaccine development demands a deeply responsible and service-oriented mindset, particularly in diverse societies like India, where ensuring broad and equitable access to essential vaccines is critical. Commercial considerations cannot be the sole driver. My goal is to build an institution that my son and grandson can continue to nurture, because in vaccines there is no final destination—only continuous progress.
Before leaving for the U.S., India was very different. How does that earlier India compare to the one your grandson is growing up in today?
If I had remained in India and not gone to the U.S., I likely would have retired long ago from a multinational job, perhaps without ever becoming an entrepreneur. My American training gave me the skill set—molecular biology, gene knockout, gene expression—that gave me the confidence to enter the vaccine field even though it was new to me.
Skill set, not degrees or institutions, is what enables entrepreneurship.
This emphasis on skill is also why countries like China excel in biological sciences: their technical training is very strong. Today’s India offers far more opportunity than the India of my youth, but the same principle holds—skill is the differentiator. It is what empowers people to innovate, build companies, and contribute to national growth.
