The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Perspective

A Tribune Special
Food without choice?
We must know what we are eating, says Pushpa M. Bhargava

One of the important outcomes of the democratic traditions set up in many parts of the world in the second half of the last century is that people today do not want to be taken for a ride by the powers that be, within the country or from outside.

However, widespread ignorance, unethical and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, social and religious prejudices, deliberate creation of ever-increasing economic disparity between the top 20 per cent and the bottom 80 per cent, passing lies as truths, emphasis on form rather than function, division of society into a miniscule minority of exploiters and a vast majority of the exploited, and dominance of the selfish interests of a few over the legitimate interests of the vast majority, have created conditions where a small minority in our country is constantly attempting to take for a ride the vast majority.

An outstanding example is the attempt by a small but powerful minority to propagate genetically modified (GM) crops to serve their interests and those of multinational corporations (MNCs) (read the US), the bureaucracy, the political setup and a few unprincipled and unethical scientists and technologists who can be used as tools.

The ultimate goal of this attempt in India of which the leader is Monsanto, is to obtain control over Indian agriculture and thus food production. With 60 per cent of our population engaged in agriculture and living in villages, this would essentially mean not only a control over our food security but also over our farmer security, agricultural security and security of the rural sector.

Suffice it to mention, whosoever controls seed and agro-chemical production in the country, for all purposes, controls India.

The first step of Monsanto was to control cotton production as a test case and to ensure in the process that strategies for removing all barriers that may come in the way of the eventual objective of controlling food production through control of seed production by providing new types of seeds such as GM seeds are removed.

There is no doubt that Bt cotton has benefitted some farmers and, in the balance, there has been a rise in the production of cotton. There is also no doubt that many farmers have suffered because Bt cotton did not work in their case, or caused allergy, or led to the death of their cattle that grazed on the remnants of the cotton plants after cotton had been harvested.

However, all these problems have been pushed under the carpet by the powers that be, that too, in spite of the virtually uninterrupted record of Monsanto over four decades of breaking laws and engaging in unethical acts.

The two Committees, RCGM of the Department of Biotechnology and GEAC of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, that are responsible for the approval of GM crops for environmental release seem to have never questioned what Monsanto has done in the past or wanted to do now nor taken note of any of the numerous scientific research publications by well-known and highly credible scientists working in prestigious institutions and with no personal agenda, that have appeared in some of the world’s best known scientific journals.

Indeed, these publications sound a note of caution against indiscriminate release of GM crops which (like water hyacinth and parthenium that did not exist in the country when we became independent), once released, cannot be recalled, irrespective of the damage they might be doing. This writer has been a nominee of the Supreme Court on GEAC since last year.

No note has also been taken by the RCGM or GEAC of the fact that GM crops are banned in most parts of the world; they are largely confined to four countries: the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil. They are banned in most countries of the European Union and in the UK. Countries such as Greece, Austria, Germany, Switzerland and even small states such as Tasmania have banned them specially.

An important question that may be asked in regard to Bt cotton and now Bt Brinjal (the first GM food crop cleared by GEAC for environmental release is: Did we need them? We have already shown integrated pest management (IPM) and bio-pesticides that we have developed, to be eminently successful for both cotton and brinjal – in fact, for 85 crops.

The use of IPM is a part of the National Agricultural Policy passed by Parliament in 2001. We have not used it because it has been more rewarding for those in power to have Monsanto propagate its Bt cotton – and now Bt Brinjal.

Another question that we should ask is that if we do need any GM crop, why don’t we develop it on our own, as we did our nuclear energy and space programmes?

We made our own genetically engineered Hepatitis B vaccine which brought down the price of the product in the market 50-fold. Many of our laboratories, both in the private and public sector, have had the ability to develop Bt cotton, Bt brinjal or Bt-whatever.

When I was the Chairman of Avesthagen (the first plant biotechnology company in the country), I had offered to develop Bt Cotton for a couple of crores which would be 3 per cent of the cost that Monsanto had initially asked for giving its own Bt cotton technology to the Department of Biotechnology, when C.R. Bhatia was its Secretary.

In fact, the Cotton Research Institute has developed a variety (not a hybrid like Monsanto, for which seeds have to be purchased for every planting) of Bt cotton. Normally, it should replace Monsanto’s Bt cotton, but I would predict that if the present policy continues, this will not happen, in spite of the fact that when one uses a variety, one can use the seeds one produces himself.

A few words about Bt brinjal that has been in the news since the afternoon of October 14, 2009, when the GEAC cleared it for environmental release. When Monsanto’s dossier containing all the bio-safety tests that they had done was put in the public domain earlier this year, there were serious criticisms of it by many scientists from various parts of the world including me. This writer’s criticism centred around the following:

lA large body of concerned, knowledgeable and reputed scientists have agreed that some 30 or so tests need to be done before a GM plant is cleared for environmental release. Monsanto had done only less than 10 of these tests.

lEven these tests were done largely by Monsanto, and we have no facility in the country to even determine whether the tests were actually done, leave aside decide their validity. All attempts made by us to have such a setup in the country have been deliberately thwarted or put in a spin — as has been done by the GEAC recently.

lSome of these tests were done by accredited laboratories but on samples provided by Monsanto — a company which has proved itself to be most untrustworthy.

lThere were many scientific errors even in the tests that were done by Monsanto.

In view of these criticisms from within the country and abroad which were all made in writing, the GEAC appointed a committee (EC-II) to review the criticisms. Its report was circulated to the members late in the afternoon of October 9. October 10 and 11 were holidays on account of the week-end.

Consequently, we were essentially given just one day — October 12 (Monday) — for reviewing the 102-page fairly dense report.

The person most affected was this writer as most of the other members of GEAC were either a part of EC-II or already strongly committed to GM crops irrespective of any criticism. I had to travel to Delhi on October 13 to attend the meeting of the GEAC on October 14. I, therefore, did not have time to go through this report in detail.

However, with the editorial experience that I have had, a quick scan through the report made it clear that there were internal consistencies in the report, inconsistencies between the report and the earlier data that had been put in public domain and outright scientific absurdities.

My suggestion at the GEAC meeting on October 14 that as we were not given enough time to go through the report, discussion on it should be postponed for a month or so, and a meeting specially called to discuss it to which all those who had commented on Monsanto’s bio-safety studies earlier and whose comments EC-II had attempted to answer in the report, should be invited; this meeting should also be attended by members of the GEAC, members of the EC-II, and scientists from Monsanto. Those invited from outside India could be told that the Government of India will be unable to take care of their travel expenses.

This proposal was completely ignored. Besides this writer, the rest of the opposition to the approval of the report of EC-II came from two members of the GEAC who were not a part of the EC-II.

Dr Ramesh Sonti of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, who is a Bhatnagar Prize winner and a member of all the national science academies, even made the point that there was something fundamentally wrong with the technology used by Monsanto to generate its Bt brinjal. Another member of the GEAC said that we should first determine whether we need Bt brinjal from the socio-economic point of view — a very wise suggestion which was also ignored.

It is interesting that Monsanto has been saying all along with confidence that Bt brinjal will be ready for marketing after the October 14 meeting. But what happened after 2.30 pm on October 14 was what neither Monsanto nor the GEAC (nor I) expected. There was a huge reaction to it by the people and the media.

What was, perhaps, most satisfying was the statement that Mr Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Environment and Forests issued on October 15, that put off any decision on the recommendations of the GEAC till everyone concerned had enough time to comment on the report of EC-II and the required discussion had taken place.

I can understand the pressure Jairam Ramesh must have been under not to issue the above statement. If he had not done so, we would have had Bt brinjal on our table without knowing that what we may be eating could be injurious to our health. It was as much a personal victory for him as for democracy and sanity in the country.

In fact, it is perfectly possible that the increased health problems in the US in the last decade have been due to increased consumption of GM-corn and GM-soya. It took a long time to find out that smoking causes cancer, or Kesari dal causes lathyrism in our country.

Genetic engineering is one of the most powerful technologies in the world. However, like nuclear technologies or space technologies, we need to ensure that it is used not to fill the coffers of a few but for public good. For this, we would need to do the following:

lWe must set up our own laboratory which would have high public credibility and which could do all the required bio-safety and related tests.

lWe should determine whether we need Bt brinjal at all. In other words, we must do a socio-economic survey.

lWe must determine if there are alternatives to genetic modification for fighting pest attack on brinjal in the country. This writer will be happy to give anyone who asks, all the details that establish that integrated pest management and biopesticides work better than genetic modification for preventing or alleviating pest attack on brinjal.

lIf, in spite of all the above, we find that we need Bt brinjal, then we should set up an appropriate testing mechanism that would ensure that all the required safety tests can be done — and then make our own Bt-brinjal.

lWe must pass labelling laws according to which any product that contains more than 0.01 per cent of GM food material must be labelled as GM. We must know what we are eating.n

The writer is a former Director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, and Vice-Chairman, National Knowledge Commission

OPED

New light on job scheme
People happy with rural employment programme
by Raghbendra Jha, Raghav Gaiha and Shylashri Shankar

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) has had bad press. Each review adds to the gory details of how the funds are siphoned off by unscrupulous Sarpanchs, block and village officials, muster rolls are fudged, bribes are extracted, only a fraction of the wages due are paid, and work-sites do not show signs of any productive activity.

The official refrain is, of course, one of empowerment of the poor, rural transformation, and runaway success of social audits in checking corruption. The euphoria over the magic wand of the NREGP has remained intact despite near fatal body blows (i.e. the indictment by the Controller and Auditor General over implementation failures).

The problem is not the dearth of evidence but its use. Averages are useful but these often conceal underlying relationships. Marginal effects, by contrast, are more insightful as they capture the effects of a change in a characteristic or a variable while controlling the effects of other intervening variables.

Our analysis of participation in NREGP in three states (Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh), based on a large household survey conducted in 2007-08, throws new light on some aspects of its performance.

Let us first look at the averages.

In Rajasthan, about half of the participants were poor (49.78 per cent). Relatively low fractions of both poor and non-poor participants (20 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively) worked for more than 60 days in 2008.

Targeting was much worse in Maharashtra as the non-poor accounted for a little under three-quarters (about 72 per cent) of the participants. Negligible proportions of both the non-poor and poor participants (1.33 per cent and 0.60 per cent, respectively) worked for more than 60 days. In fact, large majorities (about 81 per cent and 67 per cent, respectively) worked less than 30 days.

Andhra Pradesh was a shade better than Maharashtra as the share of the non-poor was about 69.50 per cent. Just under 17 per cent of the non-poor and poor worked more than 60 days while under half worked for less than 30 days.

However, a more reassuring account emerges from econometric analysis of participation and duration of participation in NREGP.

In Rajasthan, participation in NREGP varied negatively with the educational level of the participant, relative to that of illiterates. The SCs, the STs and the OBCs were more likely to participate than others, with the STs as the most likely to participate. Land owned had no effect on participation.

However, the higher the degree of concentration of land distribution (measured by the Gini coefficient) in a village, the lower the likelihood of participation. So, in general, the more deprived were more likely to participate.

The duration of participation was lower for males. The higher the educational level of the participant, the longer was the participation. The SCs participated longer than all others. The higher the land owned, the lower was the duration of participation.

However, the higher the ratio of NREGP wage to agricultural wage, the longer was the duration of participation. Also, the higher the concentration of land distribution, the longer was the duration of participation. But these effects were weaker in villages where both were high (the so-called interaction effect). What these results suggest is that, while the deprived were more likely to participate, they were likely to participate for shorter spells.

The Maharashtra experience differs in some respects. There was no relationship between participation and educational attainment. The SCs and the STs were more likely to participate than all others, and, between them, the former were more likely to do so. Land owned and participation were negatively related.

The higher the ratio of NREGP wage to agricultural wage, the higher the participation. In contrast to the finding for Rajasthan, there was a positive relationship between land concentration and participation. Where both were high, their positive effects were weaker. The longer the distance to a work-site, the lower was the participation.

Males worked longer. Those with middle-level education worked longer while those with above Secondary level education worked less than the illiterates. The SCs, the STs and the OBCs worked fewer days than others, with the OBCs working the least. Land owned and days worked varied inversely. The NREG wage ratio and days worked were positively related, as also the degree of land concentration. But these effects were weakened by their interaction effect.

Two observations follow. One is that, while the deprived were more likely to participate in the NREGP, they worked fewer days. The second is that these outcomes are also influenced by certain village characteristics (i.e. the NREGP wage ratio, land distribution and distance to work-site).

To the extent that the latter restrict the benefits to the deprived, the areas of intervention identified warrant close scrutiny.n

Raghbendra Jha is Rajiv Gandhi Chair Professor of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra; Raghav Gaiha is Professor of Public Policy, Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi; and Shylashri Shankar is Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

Profile
The brain behind many IIT students
by Harihar Swarup

Super-30 is a philanthropic mission for uplift of talented students from underprivileged community and the moving spirit behind the initiative is Anand Kumar, a mathematician. He has, through his initiative, ushered in a silent reawakening in Bihar, having produced IITians out of students from underprivileged sections of society. In less than seven years, 187 students right from the son of a sweeper, rickshaw-puller and landless labourer to the progeny of a security guard or green grocer have made it to India’s premier institutions.

The initiative was named Super-30 because it started with short-listing of 30 poor but talented students. All of them were super in talent, says Anand. Initially, making arrangements for 30 students was not an easy job, but Anand’s family extended all help in his endeavour.

Anand generated finances by tutoring students of other schools while his mother, Jayanti Devi, cooked food for the students. For the students, there was only one goal — to study hard. What followed was rigorous training of the students and the results came as a big surprise in the very first year.

It motivated Anand to put in more and more efforts along with his team of dedicated teachers. In the last seven years, 182 students have made it to different IITs in the country.

In 2003, when Super-30 started its journey, 18 out of 30 students competed. They very next year, the number jumped to 22. In 2005, it improved further to 26. Continuing the trend, 28 students made it in 2006 and 2007. The magic moment came in 2008 when the result was an astonishing 30 out of 30.

Super-30 had hit the bull’s eye. It was a dream come true for Anand and his team. Super-30 has done it again in 2009. It has been 30 out of 30 for the second year in succession.

Anand says that the thrust would not be on developing inquisitiveness, so very important for science and mathematics education. From 2010 onwards, he has decided to increase the intake from the existing 30 to 60 students. Poor students from other states would also get an opportunity to be part of the programme.

The genesis of Super-30 has a lot to do with the hardship that Anand had to face when he was still a student. After the demise of his father, a postal employee, he got the offer for a clerical job on compassionate grounds, but he refused it. He wanted to continue his studies but faced heavy odds.

Later, his mother started making papads, called Anand papads, and other home-made products, which Anand sold from house to house. As days rolled by, some started calling him papadwala ladka. But for Anand, it was just a passing phase.

He worked hard to eke out a living and in the spare time studied mathematics. The struggle gave him an opportunity to feel the pains of likes of him. It was an urge from within that led to the birth of ‘Ramanujan School of Mathematics and Super-30’. As the work of Ramanujam School of Mathematics and later Super 30 became popular, it also created some serious obstacles for Anand. He started getting threats from coaching mafiosi.

Some hardcore criminals also threatened him with dire consequences if he did not stop his mission. Anand remained undeterred. He wanted to help more students from the poorer strata. It started giving him unparalleled joy to see his pupils get into the IITs. But for mafiosi, he was proving to be a thorn in their flesh.

In 2004, Anand escaped a murderous attack. He was stable and admitted to hospital in a serious condition. He survived to pursue his goal. There was another abortive bid to attack his centre but heavily armed criminals were caught. Such incidents, however, could not alter the course Anand had chosen for himself. The only thing that changed was that he was not able to move freely. He had to keep security guards for safety.

Anand had always dreamt of becoming a mathematician since early childhood. His love for mathematics came to the fore in 1992 when he formed the mathematics club — Ramanujam school of mathematics while he was still in graduation stage. His mathematical bent of mind was spotted by renowned teachers, who provided him encouragement.

In 1994, he got an opportunity to pursue higher education in Cambridge University, but his poor financial health came in the way. Having witnessed extreme financial hardship since childhood, he felt the pangs of poverty so much that he decided to do something for the poor students, who invariably fad away without getting right opportunities. This led to the birth of new form of Ramanujam School of Mathematics.n

Liberate science from babus: Lalji Singh
On Record by Suresh Dharur

THE scientific community in the country felt a sense of pride when Indian-origin scientist Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (or Venky) bagged this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribosomes. But what is it that prevents India from producing Nobel laureates?

“Our troubles start from childhood. Our teaching of science is very poor and our infrastructure in universities is also poor,” says Dr Lalji Singh, a renowned molecular biologist and former Director of Hyderabad’s Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB). Dr Singh’s pioneering research in DNA fingerprinting had brought the CCMB into national limelight.

After retirement, Dr Singh continues to work on research projects with the Bhatnagar fellowship offered by the CSIR.

In an interview to The Tribune in Hyderabad, Dr Singh spoke about a wide range of issues concerning scientific institutions in the country and what needs to be done to foster scientific temper.

Excerpts:

Q: Venky’s achievement is a matter of pride for all Indians. But why are we unable to replicate similar efforts in our laboratories? What prevents us from producing Nobel laureates?

A: Scientists are not machines. They are the products of society. When there is a struggle all around, how can we expect our scientists to make a mark globally? We need to nurture scientific temper from childhood.

Q: What are the implications of Venky’s work on ribosomes?

A: It is a remarkable work and his achievement will surely encourage Indian
students to take to science. He has resolved the structure of ribosome atom-by-atom which allows us to understand how they function. Ribosomes are molecular machines that make proteins. Every function of our body is carried out by the proteins.

Q: What systemic lacunae do you think are hindering our research efforts?

A: Our troubles start from the school level. Our quality of science teaching is very poor. Of late, the government has set up many central universities and research institutions and there is a healthy competition among them. But this is belated.

Q: The CSIR laboratories are often criticised. How can we make them truly global level research organisations?

A: The CSIR should work as a facilitator and not as a controller. We need to give more autonomy to the laboratories and introduce performance-based funding. We should move from a centralised power structure to decentralisation, whether it is universities or research institutions.

Q: What are the major problems in the administration of scientific institutions?

A: Bureaucratic control. The research organisations should not get strangulated by centralised power. The government has to make them autonomous and there should be no restrictions. Performance and merit alone should be the criteria. If a person is selected for political reasons, he or she will prevent excellence from coming up. It is unfortunate but true.

The scientific institutions should be run by their governing bodies comprising eminent scientists as in countries like the US and UK. These institutions have to earn their own money. The funding should be of global standards. You have to nurture talent and encourage youngsters.

Q: Are you in favour of forging partnerships between corporate companies and research institutions?

A: It is fine as long as they maintain excellence. But in India, many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have R&D units only to get tax benefits.

Q: Where does India stand in terms of biotechnology research?

A: India should lay emphasis on innovation. We are lacking in the area of transforming innovations into technologies.

There was a time when scientific research used to drive new technologies but today it is new technologies that are driving science. It is important to upgrade the infrastructure to be in tune with the latest developments. This allows the scientist to carry out research in the new areas.

Q: What do you think of the reforms in higher education proposed by Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal?

A: I support them as long as they lead to giving more autonomy and improving performance. We should not get bogged down by the bureaucracy.