Tags:
Journalism of Courage
S.M. Krishna has taken a courageous, and long overdue, step up the spiral staircase. With his government giving consent to large-scale field trials for genetically modified GM cotton in various parts of the state, the Karnataka chief minister has exhorted scientists to address the 8220;diabolical conspiracy8221; against biotechnology in India. The phraseology may sound unduly alarmist, but the idea is right. It is a lesson that can be gleaned from Europe8217;s sad experience with this new technology and from the terrifying visions of doom India8217;s own rag-tag band of GM critics periodically evoke. The lesson is this: any effective debate on biotechnology must be informed by a scientific temper, and it must also answer the seemingly irrational fears about genetic interventions harboured by various sections of society. Indeed, scientists can no longer submit detailed risk analyses based on extensive field data and consider their work done. If the dreams of plenty associated with genetically modified crops are to betranslated into reality, social perceptions too have to be changed. That is a task only well-informed, articulate scientists can undertake.
It is unfortunate then that, having made a start in this direction, Krishna lapsed into some highly confused geopolitical theory about foreign powers that do not want to see a strong India. Sorry, Mr Krishna, that is the language of the anti-GM lobby. Foreign powers may have strategic tussles with India, but to muster popular confidence in the field trials and possible commercial applications of Bt cotton, the issue has to be approached scientifically. And this requires transparency from the government and the scientific community. This may cut no ice with soulmates of Britain8217;s Prince Charles who view biotechnology as an untenable intrusion into the 8220;realm of God8221;, but most laymen have pretty pragmatic concerns. Firstly, they worry about agribusinesses enslaving Third World farmers. In order to recover the huge Ramp;D investments made in splicing genes to develop these wonder seeds, companies would like to recover costs by ensuring that farmers reinvest in seeds every year. Farmers routinely do so in theWest, but for their Indian counterparts this is a horrifying prospect. As the field trials progress, for instance, cotton farmers would like to know whether they will really be able to offset these investments by having to use less pesticide more than half of India8217;s total pesticide consumption, it is estimated, is accounted for by the cotton crop. Secondly, there is the very real concern about a slide towards monoculture: What dire consequences does the adoption of high yielding, pest-resistant crop varieties spell for this countries rich gene pool? Thirdly, can promiscuous genes in herbicide resistant crops hop over to render a new robustness to their weedy relatives? Lastly, scientists must make evident that they are compensating for India8217;s tropical climate in their field trials.
