Padma Shri awardee Prof Goverdhan Mehta, one of India's most distinguished organic chemists, has spent more than six decades advancing research, building scientific institutions and mentoring generations of scientists. A former director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, he spoke to TNIE's Siddhardha Gattimi about curiosity, failure, scientific temper and the ideas that shaped his remarkable career.
You often describe curiosity as the foundation of science. Where did your own journey begin?
Looking back, I realise my fascination with science began long before I knew what science actually meant. I grew up in a family where education was deeply valued. Learning was simply a way of life, encouraging me to observe, ask questions and remain curious.
Some of my earliest memories are of visiting factories and research laboratories with my parents during vacations. I was too young to understand the experiments, but the sight of glass apparatus, colourful liquids and scientists at work fascinated me.
Nature became my first classroom. I wondered why flowers had different colours, why leaves changed with the seasons and what produced the brilliant colours of Diwali fireworks. Chemistry gradually emerged as the subject that answered those everyday mysteries. By high school, choosing chemistry was a conscious decision and, looking back, one of the best I ever made.
Was there a defining moment when you felt you had become a scientist?
There was never a single defining moment. Becoming a scientist is a gradual journey shaped by mentors, experiences and constant learning.
The real turning point came when I joined the National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), Pune, for my PhD after completing my master's degree at BITS Pilani. There was no internet then, so I simply wrote to the Director expressing my interest. That letter eventually reached one of India's leading organic chemists, who accepted me as his student.
I joined IIT Kanpur after my postdoctoral work in the United States at just twenty-four. The institution was young but extraordinarily ambitious, attracting brilliant faculty from India and abroad. Being surrounded by such colleagues pushed me to raise my own standards.
Soon I began publishing independent research, including an early paper in the Journal of Organic Chemistry in 1971. I wasn't thinking about prestige. I simply believed it addressed an interesting scientific problem.
India's research ecosystem was much smaller then, so quality work received attention quickly. That early recognition strengthened my conviction that Indian scientists could compete internationally by measuring themselves against global standards rather than local expectations.
Research today is supported by sophisticated laboratories and advanced instruments. What were the biggest challenges when you began your career?
Infrastructure was our biggest challenge. Even basic laboratory equipment and chemicals were difficult to obtain because foreign exchange was scarce and procurement procedures were slow.
Rather than treating these limitations as obstacles, we learnt to improvise. A good example was our work in photochemistry. Researchers elsewhere used expensive lamps that produced light at specific wavelengths, but we simply could not afford them.
So we looked outside the laboratory. Hyderabad enjoys abundant sunshine for most of the year, and I wondered why we could not use sunlight itself as our light source. What began as an improvised solution eventually became one of our most recognised scientific contributions.
Those years also taught us the value of collaboration. Friends and colleagues abroad often mailed small quantities of chemicals that were otherwise impossible to obtain in India.
Most importantly, those experiences convinced me that great science is driven by ideas rather than infrastructure. Sophisticated laboratories help, but they cannot replace imagination, perseverance or originality.
Your research spans organic synthesis, stereochemistry, molecular architecture and nanoscience. Was this diversity intentional?
Absolutely. I have never believed a scientist should spend an entire career working on a single problem simply because it is familiar. My expertise has always been in designing molecules, but within that broad field I deliberately changed direction whenever I sensed a new frontier emerging.
I have always read scientific literature widely. Whenever I encountered a breakthrough that I believed would influence chemistry over the next decade, I wanted to understand it and contribute to it.
One such example was fullerene chemistry in the early 1990s. The discovery generated enormous excitement because it represented a completely new molecular architecture. Many believed such structures were nearly impossible to synthesise, but we decided to explore synthetic approaches to the problem.
Although we did not synthesise fullerene itself, our work became widely recognised because it addressed a question that fascinated chemists across the world. One of our papers became highly cited, proving that even pursuing ambitious problems can leave a lasting scientific impact.
You have often described chemists as "molecular architects". What do you mean by that?
Chemists build structures that no one can see with the naked eye, yet those invisible structures shape the visible world around us. In many ways, our work resembles that of an architect. The difference is that instead of bricks and concrete, we build with atoms and molecules.
What makes chemistry exciting is the opportunity to imagine structures that have never existed before and bring them into reality. Sometimes those structures even resemble familiar objects. During Hyderabad's 400th anniversary celebrations, we synthesised a dome-shaped hydrocarbon that reminded us of Golconda Fort, so we named it Golcondane. The name later entered international chemical literature, giving Hyderabad's history an unexpected place in modern science.
On another occasion, we created a molecule resembling a bird with outstretched wings and named it Garudane, after the mythical Garuda. Such names reflected our belief that science and culture need not exist in separate worlds. They make chemistry more relatable and remind people that molecules possess beauty as well as utility.
Many young researchers fear failure. How important has failure been in your own scientific journey?
Failure is inseparable from research. Anyone who claims to have succeeded all the time has probably never attempted truly difficult problems.
More than half the projects we pursued did not achieve the results we expected. Some ideas consumed years of effort before we realised they would not work. Yet none of those experiences were wasted. Every unsuccessful experiment eliminated possibilities, refined our understanding and pointed us towards better solutions.
The important thing is to choose meaningful questions rather than easy ones. We were never interested in publishing papers simply for the sake of numbers. Instead, we wanted to tackle problems that mattered internationally. Even when our answers were incomplete, they added something valuable to scientific knowledge.
Research demands courage because uncertainty is built into the process. You often invest years without knowing whether success will come. That uncertainty is not a weakness of science. It is precisely what makes discovery possible.
You have often said Indian scientists should compete globally rather than locally. Why is that mindset important?
Science has no national boundaries. Molecules behave the same way whether they are studied in Hyderabad, London or Tokyo. The benchmark for meaningful research should always be the best work being done anywhere in the world.
I was never concerned about competing with other laboratories in India. My real competition was with the finest researchers internationally. That mindset pushed us to maintain high standards because we constantly asked whether our work would stand scrutiny anywhere in the world.
I remember scientists from leading international universities visiting our laboratories at the University of Hyderabad during the 1980s. The facilities were modest. In the early days, we even worked while sitting on empty paint drums because proper laboratory furniture had not yet arrived. Yet our visitors were often surprised that internationally respected research emerged from such humble surroundings.
The explanation was simple: scientific excellence does not depend on the size of a laboratory but on the originality of ideas and the rigour with which they are pursued.
Having played key roles in building leading institutions, what do you believe is the most important ingredient for institutional excellence?
Leadership is the single most important ingredient in building a great institution. Institutions are not defined by their buildings or infrastructure but by the vision and values of the people who lead them.
History shows that India's greatest scientific institutions were shaped by visionary leaders. Our achievements in atomic energy were guided by Homi Bhabha, while Vikram Sarabhai laid the foundations of the country's space programme. Such leaders create a culture where excellence becomes the norm.
One of the biggest challenges facing higher education today is governance. Expanding the number of universities is important, but numbers alone do not guarantee quality. Institutions need academic freedom, transparent governance and leaders who place scholarship above personal interests. A first-rate institution cannot consistently emerge under second-rate leadership. An outstanding leader, however, can transform even an ordinary institution into one that commands global respect.
You have long advocated sustainable chemistry. Why do you believe chemistry is central to building a sustainable future?
Chemistry has often suffered from an image problem. Many people associate it with pollution, toxic chemicals and industrial waste. While chemistry has undoubtedly contributed to some environmental challenges, it will also provide many of the solutions.
Years ago, a few colleagues and I reflected on why chemistry's public image had declined. Society readily blamed chemistry for pollution but rarely acknowledged its role in solving global challenges. Every cleaner industrial process, environmentally friendly material, efficient battery and advanced catalyst ultimately depends on chemistry. We believed chemistry should be recognised not as the problem but as one of the most powerful tools for achieving sustainability.
That conviction inspired us to promote the idea of "Chemistry as the Sustainable Science for the 21st Century." Long before sustainability became a global priority, we argued that chemistry's future lay in designing cleaner reactions, reducing waste and making industrial processes environmentally responsible. Sustainability should not be an optional addition to chemistry. It should become its central purpose.
Can you give an example of how chemistry has transformed everyday life?
One of the simplest examples is food production. Most people are unaware that natural nitrogen fixation alone cannot sustain today's global population. Without synthetic fertilisers such as urea, the world simply could not produce enough food to feed more than eight billion people.
This illustrates chemistry's profound influence on civilisation. It has enabled agricultural revolutions, modern medicines, clean drinking water, advanced materials and countless technologies people now take for granted.
The challenge before today's scientists is to ensure future innovations are cleaner, safer and more sustainable. Chemistry is no longer just a laboratory discipline. It influences agriculture, healthcare, energy, transportation and environmental protection. Few sciences touch as many aspects of everyday life.
Your initiative, 'Chemists for Sustainability', has attracted international attention. How did it begin?
It began with an informal discussion among four scientists from India, Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom during an international conference. We shared a concern that chemistry was increasingly being viewed only through the lens of pollution and felt chemists themselves needed to promote environmentally responsible science.
That conversation eventually led to the formation of Chemists for Sustainability (C4S). Over the years, we have written nearly fifty articles in leading international chemistry journals, encouraging researchers to design reactions that consume less energy, generate less waste and minimise environmental impact.
When the United Nations introduced the Sustainable Development Goals, our conviction grew even stronger. Many of those goals cannot be achieved without innovations in chemistry. Whether it is clean energy, sustainable agriculture, pollution control or new materials, chemistry remains central to building a greener future.
Many young people today are drawn to artificial intelligence and data science. How can chemistry remain relevant in this era?
It is natural for every generation to be attracted to emerging technologies. Today that excitement surrounds artificial intelligence, just as information technology did a few decades ago. But chemistry remains one of the most fundamental sciences because it connects with almost every other discipline.
Biology cannot advance without chemistry. Medicine depends on chemistry. New materials, clean energy technologies, electronics and even many AI-enabled devices rely on advances in chemistry. The challenge is not chemistry's relevance, but the perception that career opportunities in core research are fewer than in software or AI.
If industry invests more in research and development, particularly in pharmaceuticals, advanced materials, green technologies and energy storage, I believe many talented students will once again be drawn towards chemistry.
The future of science is increasingly interdisciplinary. Breakthroughs will emerge where chemistry intersects with biology, engineering, medicine, environmental science and even artificial intelligence. Young researchers should learn to work across disciplines rather than remain confined within traditional boundaries.
If you were beginning your scientific career today, what problems would you choose to work on?
There is certainly no shortage of important questions. One area that fascinates me is sustainable construction materials. Cement and steel have transformed civilisation, but they are also among the largest contributors to global carbon emissions. Can we recycle cement economically? Can cleaner chemical processes produce steel? These are scientific questions of enormous importance.
Battery technology is another exciting area. The world currently depends heavily on limited mineral resources. Can chemists design entirely new classes of battery materials, perhaps based on organic molecules? I do not claim to know the answers, but these are exactly the kinds of questions that should inspire young scientists.
What excites me most is that humanity's biggest scientific challenges remain unsolved. Rather than seeing that as a problem, young researchers should recognise it as an extraordinary opportunity.
Finally, what message would you like to give students and young researchers who aspire to become scientists?
Curiosity is the first requirement. Never stop asking questions, however simple they may seem. Every great scientific discovery began with someone refusing to accept that the existing explanation was complete.
Equally important is integrity. Science depends on honesty, evidence and reproducibility. Your reputation is built not only on your discoveries but also on your credibility. Facts must always come before convenience.
Young researchers should never fear failure. Many of the most valuable lessons come from experiments that do not succeed. Failure is not wasted effort if it deepens your understanding and prepares you for the next breakthrough.
Finally, read widely and think beyond the boundaries of your own discipline. Chemistry intersects with biology, engineering, medicine, physics and environmental science. The future belongs to researchers willing to collaborate across disciplines and solve problems that matter to society.
Above all, remember that science is a public service. Whether you choose chemistry, biology, physics or artificial intelligence, ask yourself one question: Will my work make people's lives better? If the answer is yes, you are already on the right path.