Don’t you trust Monsanto?” Pushpa Bhargava, the Supreme Court’s nominee on the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), was left speechless when the chairman of the committee, with a straight face, sought his response. The poser was thrown at the distinguished biotechnologist after an exasperating round of explanations during which he built a case for an independent testing lab, saying that banking on leaky studies by Monsanto on Bt brinjal was fraught with danger. All this, when Monsanto’s numerous run-ins with civil society over the years is well documented.

“The nexus between US multinationals and the US government, which is synonymous, a large section of the Indian bureaucracy, politicians, and rich businesses is clear,” insists Bhargava, who set up and steered the world-class Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad.

Little wonder then, that Nina Federoff, advisor to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and self-avowed lobbyist of GM crops, thought it fit to be in India on February 9—the very day Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt brinjal.

The Bt brinjal imbroglio has brought to the fore the state of Indian science and scientists, and the need for clear articulation on a host of issues that govern this vital space. “Scientists from within the Indian establishment prefer deep silence,” says

D Raghunandan, Secretary of the Delhi Science Forum, which works on the science and society interface. “They are circumscribed by numerous limits, and, of course, the Indian weakness for conformism and sycophancy.”

Scientists from the chain of labs that form the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are therefore expected to toe the line. Dissent is not taken kindly.

Even the extreme reluctance of MS Swaminathan, architect of the Indian green revolution, to participate in, and lend credence to the GEAC, is seen in this light. Both Bhargava and Swaminathan were nominated to the GEAC by the Supreme Court. While the former plunged in and attempted to battle the perfidy within, Swaminathan shied away.

Swaminathan says he saw a conflict between his role as a Member of Parliament and as part of GEAC “because as an MP sitting on a government committee, tomorrow I might like to ask some questions. Then, I would become constrained”.

Yes Men Preferred

Scientists have to face all kinds of pressure, overt and covert. GK Veeresh, former vice-chancellor of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, recalls that during the 1960s and 70s the mandate from above was to promote the use of chemicals, with higher agricultural production as the only motive. Companies often prescribed the quantum of fertiliser use.

“Testing was not done in different environments as we would have liked to, especially in rain-fed and dry lands,” says Veeresh, who was under the scanner for espousing traditional agri systems. “Contrarian views were completely obliterated.”

There are reasons why conformism is seen as a virtue, especially in the context of research on GM crops, not only in India but elsewhere too. In the early 1990s, Arpad Pusztai was asked by the UK government to set up a protocol for safety testing of genetically modified organisms. With a grant of $3 million, his team of 20 scientists set about testing GM food on mice.

The animals soon showed signs of pre-cancerous cell growth and damaged immune systems. He announced this to the world with the permission of his institute. Within two days, the pro-GM British Prime Minister’s office called his institute’s director. The next day Pusztai was fired, and his team dismantled. Pusztai was subsequently hounded by the establishment but the prestigious medical journal Lancet thought it fit to publish his research work.

Public funding of research will ensure that priorities are publicly determined. So, for social inclusion, it has to be a form of pro-small-farmer biotechnology. MS Swaminathan, Noted agricultural scientist

There are several others of Pusztai’s ilk: Irina Ermakova of the Russian National Academy of Sciences and Andres Carrasco of Argentina’s Ministry of Science. Voices against Pushpa Bhargava were getting shriller till the intervention by Minister Ramesh saved the day. There is a clear move to stifle opposition to GM.

Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw of Biocon would, however, like to believe civil society is the problem and attempts the oft-used science-versus-NGOs ploy. “Anti-GM lobbyists have always been better prepared and organised than the scientific fraternity, both in academia and industry,” she says. “Any research sponsored by industry always has a mercenary label attached and is an easy target for lobbyists.”

Not many buy this. “Such people, while hailing GM-related science, conveniently dismiss climate-change findings as voodoo science,” says D Raghunandan, Secretary of the Delhi Science Forum.

Even the “yield enhancement” plank and the “world will starve without GM crops” argument espoused by the pro-GM lobby is proving to be hollow with the recent release of ‘Failure to Yield’, the world’s first study on the performance of genetically engineered crops. The study has been conducted by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a coalition of independent scientists.

Fresh data indicate that average corn production per acre in the US over 2004-2008 was about 28% higher than from 1991-1995, an interval that preceded the introduction of Bt varieties. On the basis of extensive yield studies, the UCS concluded that only 3-4% of that increase can be attributed to Bt, which means an increase of about 24-25% must have resulted from other factors such as traditional breeding.

The UCS is certain that genetic engineering’s (GE) capacity to increase ‘intrinsic yield’ of crops is rather limited and that its importance to food security is highly misplaced. The report’s author, Doug Gurian-Sherman, has explained this to Minister Ramesh along with several other scientists who examined the GEAC studies.

GE Has Alternatives

However, it would be unwise to tarnish biotechnology per se. “We can’t stop science. But products like Bt brinjal shouldn’t be pushed right now, unless proven to be safe,” says Rajesh Krishnan, campaigner for Sustainable Agriculture at Greenpeace, the international campaign NGO. He adds that current GM crops are based on the old understanding of genetics: one gene creates one protein. “That science is 25 years old. Today we know one gene can create multiple proteins and multiple genes could lead to the creation of one protein.”

Modern breeding methods hold much promise. Quaintly, they have been done under the biotechnology umbrella. A distinction therefore has to be made between biotechnology and genetic engineering, which the high-decibel, pro and anti-GM lobbies failed to address. Biotechnology has tremendous potential, in medicine, et al. Genetic engineering in crops is a different ballgame. High-tech genomic approaches of recent times, often called marker-assisted selection (MAS), today use biotechnology—not genetic engineering—to hasten the process for desired traits in plants. They do this without actually inserting new genes from other species, as is done in Bt.

Dozens of scientists from all over the world, in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently, explained the potential of MAS. They cite the example of a novel up-land rice variety, Birsa Vikas Dhan 111 (PY 84), released in Jharkhand. It was bred using MAS and showed improved root growth and resistance to drought.

While a competing technology within the realms of biotechnology emerges, issues around funding of research and the inroads made by companies like Monsanto into institutions are under the scanner. “With public grants hard to come by, private companies see an opportunity to enter the funding scene in research institutions,” says a senior scientist from the Bangalore-based Indian Institute of Science.

A robust public funding mechanism is therefore vital. Swaminathan points to the Chinese model of public funding. “With public funding, priorities can be publicly determined,” he says. “So, for social inclusion, it has to be a form of pro-small-farmer biotechnology.”

Public funding also addresses the “who owns the seeds?” question. “I would certainly be worried if private players control seeds,” says Raghunandan of the Delhi Science Forum.