Good day, Blessy Joseph. I'm Arjun. I've had a look through your background and your professional record. I'm interested in hearing more about your work and how you see yourself fitting in here with our faculty. Ready to start?

Please start by introducing your professional journey in academia.

Uh, good evening. I'm Leslie Joseph. To summarize my journey, I did my empty in biotechnology and biochemical engineering from University of Kerala. My research Burney began by doing PhD in Mahatma Gandhi University. My research was focused on developing polymer nanoparts for biotechnological applications. Then I moved to the US for doing a post doctoral research and my postdoctoral research was.

By the funding from FDA so doing physical chemical analysis of dry powder inhalers. The work was mainly focused on preparing commercial inhalers as well as the generic inhalers. I had the opportunity to teach the undergrad and the masters students in a course known as the Biomaterials and now I am looking forward for new jobs.

Thank you, Professor Joseph, for sharing your journey. Let's proceed.

Professor, let's begin by exploring your expertise in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in healthcare, Health Informatics, or Computer Science. Can you describe a specific algorithm or method that you've applied in healthcare or Health Informatics, and explain its impact?

I have not worked with artificial intelligence yet, but I have been working with various advanced sophisticated techniques and image analysis softwares for analyzing the dry powder aerosols. That is, the aerosols are mainly used for allergic applications, especially for asthma and chronic pulmonary disorders. So the mainly the softwares that I work with involved AI. But even though I was not a direct.

User of the AI technique but I work with the softwares. The software was mainly used for developing images and for drawing plots and it was worked with. It was used for the analysis related to atomic force microscope and other infrared spectroscopic techniques. The software was known as the image. The software was mainly imaging as well as some advanced software softwares used for plotting techniques.

Thank you, Professor. While you haven't directly worked on artificial intelligence techniques, your experience with advanced imaging tools and software applications such as atomic force microscopy and infrared spectroscopy techniques shows your ability to leverage complex tools for scientific analysis. Could you elaborate on how these software tools or techniques contributed to optimizing or improving the study of aerosols for chronic diseases?

That that's an excellent question. In fact, as I told, my work basically involved atomic force microscope combined with infrared spectroscopy, a technique that's mainly used by the Broker, as well as optical infrared spectroscopy that was developed by the Photothermal Corporation. So both these techniques are used for analyzing the dry powder inhalers especially. Their shape and the size.

And for quantifying the size of the dry powder aerosols. So basically the technique is used for comparing a from IR and OPT IR that is like a from IRS high resolution technique that can go up, down, up to like resolution of 50 nanometers. Whereas OPT IR is a technique that can scan particles with the resolution of about 500 nanometers. So I use basically use both techniques to.

Compare the generic aerosols Vixela as well as the commercial inhaler that is known as the adware. Discuss. So the main objective of the work was to compare the physicochemical properties of the commercial inhaler as well as the generic inhaler and to study how the bioavailability vary between the generic as well as the commercial inhalers. So basically. Our study was the size comparison as well as the shape comparison of both the.

Uh, inhalers.

I see, Professor. It's fascinating to hear how you utilized high-resolution techniques like AFM-IR and OPT-IR to compare the physicochemical properties and bioavailability of generic versus commercial dry powder inhalers. This level of analysis is crucial for understanding drug delivery and efficacy for respiratory conditions. How did you ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data generated during your comparisons? Were there specific validation methods or calibration processes involved?

Whose both techniques are highly calibrated techniques, even though OPJ and a form I are better main techniques useful Capabilson. Our work was in collaboration with University of Sydney, a group, the pharmacology group that mainly uh, work with formulations. So our technology, our technique was to buy both the commercial inhalers as well as the generic inhalers, as well as also tweak formulations, uh, that resemble this commercial as well as the generic inhaler.

So collaborated at Sydney, made the formulations which was then sent to us. And what I did was like I compared the like the formulations with the commercially available as well as the generic, generic generic inhalers. And then we had a very like analysis of the significant changes in the properties OPJR and the AFMIR data was again compared with the images from the scanning.

Microscope and both, uh, whatever results, uh, we got from scanning electron microscope and uh, the Opti R&A from IR where then sorted and compared.

Understood, Professor. Your collaborative work with the University of Sydney and the detailed multi-technique comparison approach—including AFM-IR, OPT-IR, and SEM imaging—seems robust in ensuring the accuracy and depth of your analysis. That kind of interdisciplinary validation adds significant credibility to your findings. Given this experience, how would you explain the application of these techniques and findings to students in a classroom or laboratory setting, particularly those who may be unfamiliar with them?

See, it's very, uh, very easy to explain. Like most of the children face asthmatic disorders, especially like the commonly, uh, seen asthma or allergic reactions. And some children respond very easily to certain medications, whereas the other may not. So if one person or one child responds, responds to Vixela, the other child may not respond, uh, may not respond to Vixela very good as the first kid. So it's basically like every.

Send may not respond to the same drug in the same way.

But the problem with the commercial inhalers is that most of the commercial inhalers are very much expensive. So the widely used commercial inhaler contains fluticasone, propionate and salmeterol as well as lactose. So basically there are two drugs and a carrier that is known as lactose or it's a sugar molecule.

So we see that basically the doctors will ask us to always shake your retailers. That's because the lactose is a high, it's a it's present in high quantity. And if you do not shake it, what you will ultimately reach us. Your lung is not the drug, but only the sugar.

So our study was mainly involved to study the distribution of the drugs along with the carrier that is known as the lactose. So our study is like focused on how to analyse how the lactose is carrying the whole drug into into your lungs and what is the percentage of drug that actually reaches your lung along with the sugar. So actually the lactose molecule is supposed to remain in your throat and it is not supposed to actually reach your lungs because it's just a carrier.

But in most cases, we could observe that even though the lactose is not supposed to reach your lungs, in most cases the lactose may actually join with the drug and richola. So our study is basically, in a simple word, how to analyze the distribution of drugs with the sugar molecule that is known as the lactose, and what is the percentage of drugs that will ultimately reach your lump compartments?

Thank you, Professor. You've articulated the significance of your study very effectively. By focusing on the distribution and actual delivery of the active pharmaceutical ingredients—fluticasone propionate and salmeterol—along with the lactose carrier, you provide crucial insights that not only improve our understanding of inhaler functionality but also address the real-world challenge of medication costs and efficacy. Your explanation is direct, relatable, and highlights both the scientific rigor and the practical relevance of your research. How would you adapt this explanation or teaching approach for advanced doctoral students looking to replicate or expand upon your methodology?

The role of actually the main goal of FDA as I told my research was funded by the FDA USA so the main aim of FDA is to how is to reduce the animal studies involved in every research study so the main goal of this study is to.

To analyze how A from spectroscopic tools like A from IR and OPT IR will help to analyze the properties of the drugs so before going into animal studies.

It it's like it acts like a basic tool to compare both the generic as well as the commercial inhalers. So for the students, a from IR and OPTAR are excellent tools to learn because it's a it's a highly, highly sophisticated technique as well as both techniques are of high resolution and it's a highly advanced technique like a form IR and opt IR and moreover these drugs.

Are distributed using next generation impactor. It's a pharmaceutical instrument that is widely used in Pharmaceutical industry. So the the role of the next generation impactor is to distribute the drugs according to their according to their aerodynamics size. So when the drug particles are separated based on SIS, then we study these particles using a from IER and the Optir so the students can take.

Advantage of this sophisticated techniques like a Formir and Optir as well as they can understand how these aerosol particles distribute in the lunk apartments.

Thank you, Professor. You've highlighted a critical aspect of pre-clinical research, especially in reducing animal studies through advanced spectroscopic tools like AFM-IR and OPT-IR. By combining these techniques with next-generation impactor technology, students have the chance to understand both theoretical and practical aspects—such as high-resolution analysis and aerodynamic drug particle distribution. Your suggestion to involve students in learning and applying these techniques to study aerosol behaviors and compartmental delivery is excellent. It not only prepares them for sophisticated pharmaceutical methodologies but also aligns with regulatory objectives like those of the FDA. For doctoral students, this hands-on experience would empower them to bridge laboratory findings with real-world clinical applications. Professor, let’s move on to another aspect of teaching. How comfortable are you with conducting theory and practical laboratory courses? Could you also give examples of specific elements you'd emphasize while teaching these courses?

During my PhD, I started involving with students. So those time I had project students who used to work with me in the lab. Then my teaching expanded when I went to US to do the postdoc. So I was the basic lead operator of AFMIR in the University of Alabama at Birmingham. So I had several students doing masters and undergrad who would come to do the laboratory course. Especially they had a course on biomaterials in which.

The students have to learn various instruments used for drug delivery purpose. So the main instruments I used to teach them where a from IR, next generation impactor and the spray dryer. So the students will come to know like what are the major instruments used for in the engineer in the material science department and they also get a hands on training.

In, uh, the small scale atomic force microscopy that we had in the lab as well as the next generation impactor all, all, uh, in addition to that, uh, I also mentored a PhD student who was in a rotation program and I helped her to develop some nano formulations for drug delivery applications. So it was also, uh, uh, the another aim of the work was also to develop nano formulations in collaboration with an industry, so.

In this way, the students get to learn how collaboration works with an industry as well as how these basics, sophisticated instruments work. So that was my interaction with students in the laboratory setting.

Understood, Professor. Thank you for sharing your extensive experience in laboratory instruction and collaboration. It's evident that your mentoring style emphasizes both hands-on exposure to sophisticated instruments—like AFM-IR, next-generation impactor, and spray dryer—and a deeper understanding of applied research, including collaborations with industry for real-world formulations. This practical approach provides invaluable experience to students, particularly in bridging theoretical learning with the demands of research and industry. Your mentoring of doctoral students, particularly in nanoformulations for drug delivery, further reflects your ability to guide complex academic endeavors with interdisciplinary collaboration. How do you typically balance the emphasis between theoretical understanding and technical skill development when teaching such theory and laboratory courses?

Uh, some students may not be interested in the clear impact, Some may be only interested with the laboratory setting. So it's uh, in fact, very much, uh, difficult to like balance. In fact, both the technique, but, uh.

In order for the students to have a hands on experience with the instruments, it's very important that they should have a prior theoretical knowledge. So before getting into the lab, the students will be given a detailed theory class about how the machine works and what are the safety procedures that they should adopt. In fact, there are several courses they have to undergo before.

Even like getting into the lab. So all these courses, the safety manual.

Everything will be taken care of because I was the laboratory manager in the lab. So I had to ensure that all students undergo all these safety protocols as well as they undergo all these course curriculums they have to undertake before getting into a lab. And the students should explain all the instrument protocols that they are supposed to know. And then in fact, I will get into a first training of the in fact.

Made a very detailed statement of procedure or the SOP for every instrument in the lab. So it is very easy for the students to then read and understand the SOP and then get into the hands on training with the instrument. Even though it will undergo like several hours of training or several days of training. But it was a very interesting approach.

Thank you, Professor. It's clear that your structured approach to blending theory with hands-on experience ensures an effective learning environment. By introducing detailed theoretical foundations, safety protocols, and instrument-specific SOPs before students engage with laboratory equipment, you offer a robust framework that ensures both safety and comprehension. Your role as a laboratory manager further underscores your commitment to maintaining discipline, procedural rigor, and a high standard of student preparation. The dedicated hours of training and detailed SOPs you implemented set an excellent example of how to balance technical skill-building with theoretical knowledge. Professor, moving forward, let’s discuss your experience with student evaluations, exams, and grading processes. Could you outline your approach to these responsibilities, particularly in ensuring fairness and encouraging academic growth?

The evaluation was actually based on certain rubrics that is already provided by the university. Most of the evaluations that I have done was based on their based on their seminars or the presentations that they did. So each evaluation was like divided into different stages. There was a preliminary stage and then the students get into the final stage. So the initials in the initial stage, we looked into their presentation skills. Their knowledge about the subject.

And how they handle the questions. So based on that, the evaluation was done. There were cases when we had to make the students redo the presentations in some cases. But it was easy for the students because before the presentation or before their assessments, a proper guide was given to them. The study material was already given to them. So that this it was easy for the students to prepare for the presentations. And the assessment was done according to the grading system.

Given by the university. So based on the assessment, based on the grading system from the university, the students were analyzed and based on their performance. So any student who was found to have like lesser grade were given the chance to perform again.

Thank you, Professor. Your evaluation process, based on a structured rubric and multi-stage assessments, reflects fairness and thoroughness. By incorporating elements such as presentation skills, subject knowledge, and the ability to handle questions, you provide a comprehensive evaluation framework that rewards both preparation and adaptability. Offering students the opportunity to redo presentations and providing study materials in advance demonstrates your commitment to fostering academic growth and ensuring that every student has the resources to succeed. This approach aligns well with the principles of constructive feedback and learning improvement. Professor, moving on, can you share your experiences guiding student research or projects? Specifically, how do you ensure that students not only complete their work but also gain meaningful insights and research skills during the process?

Sorry to interrupt, we're down to the last 5 minutes.

In fact, I had the privilege to, uh, mentor students from VIT when I was doing my PhD. So the approach I used to do is that I, I, I used to be with the students throughout the lab whenever they are working.

And before getting into the lab, I made sure that the students had a very good knowledge about the field they're they're going to work. That is the literature survey. So I made sure that the students completed the literature survey as well as write a review paper before they seriously get into their work. So when the students came into the lab for the for doing their masters project, I remember that the students were doing Mtech in pit. So before leaving from their work, they.

I made sure that they get at least one paper out of their work and the students had to come regularly to the lab and do the work. But throughout I've made sure that there there was a constant interaction between me as well as the students. So that was one, one thing I always made sure that they had the freedom to explain whatever they feel about the research because sometimes it might be stressful to complete the research on time and.

And weekly there was a meeting between the students as well as me and my mentor, and the students were given opportunity to present their work at least once in a month to the entire group. So based on the group suggestions, we would improve our work and.

Because of the students passion for research, one of them is right now doing PhD abroad and the other one is working in Australia and I do have further publications.

With both of the students I mentored from VIP. So this is the approach that I maintain not only with the students from VIT, but all students that get to meet that I I make sure that they have a publication with me before they complete their work.

Thank you, Professor. Your dedication to guiding students through literature surveys, fostering consistent interaction, and emphasizing the importance of publishing demonstrates a commendable mentorship approach. You’ve clearly prioritized active involvement in their learning journey and created opportunities for them to not only complete their projects but also contribute to the broader academic community. Weekly meetings and group presentations further reinforce collaboration and constructive feedback—a cornerstone of academic research. It’s impressive to hear how your mentoring has led to successful careers and further academic achievements for your students. Based on your experience, how do you typically handle challenges when students struggle to meet deadlines or research goals?

Personally, it's involved with motivating the students why they need to do the research and it's also related to how I spend my time with the students. I always make sure that I have fixed, timely fix it and as well as regular meetings with the students so that I can help them ease their task. And mostly the students will complete their work or if, if, if it, if, if it's necessary, we may extend for one or two days, but.

It's like a joint work. A research is always, I believe it's a combined work. So when there is a proper interaction between the mentor as well as the students, the students will be able to ease their stress and complete the research in proper time.

Thank you, Professor. Your emphasis on timely meetings, collaborative work, and motivating students towards the significance of their research reflects your supportive and empathetic mentoring style. By maintaining consistent communication and allowing for flexibility, you create an environment that helps ease student stress and ensures that research goals are met efficiently. Let us now shift focus to your ability to effectively communicate and structure your teaching approach. Could you share examples of how you incorporate clarity, organization, and effective communication in your lectures or mentorship sessions?

So, uh, there are students who belong to different category, uh, where when a student comes to us. So, uh, it's very easy to understand what the student needs. So based on the student needs, it's very important that I, uh.

I learn and will learn what I learned during my, uh, research journey. So it's like continuous preparation. I make sure that, uh, uh, before my class, I make sure that whatever I have to teach them, I, I am like, like well prepared for the presentation or well prepared for the lectures. And it's basically, uh, uh, taking feedback from the students if they are OK with my communication skill and the, and the approach I use. So it's like.

Regular feedback from the students will help us improve our skills also and.

Basically, it's like a continuous practice and continuous interaction with the students that help us to assess whether our communication and our teaching is.

Standard with, uh, what the university expect from us as well as what the students expect from us.

Uh, is.

Thank you, Professor. It's clear that your approach combines thorough preparation, continuous interaction, and responsiveness to student feedback to ensure effective communication and alignment with university standards. Your commitment to understanding student needs reflects your dedication to fostering a supportive and adaptive learning environment. You've provided substantial insights into your research expertise, teaching methods, and mentorship. Professor, is there anything else you would like to discuss or highlight before we conclude this session?

Uh, I feel so energized after, uh, this interaction and, uh, it was like, uh, it's it, it is in fact my privilege to be part of VIT and be part of this communication. Uh, I feel you also have a productive day ahead. Thank you.

Thank you, Professor. It was an insightful and engaging discussion. I appreciate hearing about your expertise and dedication to both research and teaching. Before we end, can you confirm if you'd like me to conclude the interview?

Yes, SPS.