Tread warily on go-ahead to GM crops

MY science teacher taught me that science begins by asking questions and then seeking answers. In other words, science has always remained open to questioning. This open-ended exploration in science offers a critical space to interpret available evidence and rectify glaring misconceptions that can lead to socio-economic upheavals and aggravate environmental destruction.

But when economic interests begin to shut out scientific enquiry in an attempt to muzzle voices that try to uncover the truth, it is clear that the evidence itself is shaky. So, whenever a debate erupts over a genetically modified (GM) crop variety, the call by a dominant class of scientists to go by ‘evidence-based’ research and thereby ignore public scrutiny of scientific data and claims tantamounts to bulldozing an inquest to find the truth. As has been seen, the evidence on which the claims are made are often weak, do not conform to the guidelines, are manipulated and even unscientific in some cases, to say the least.

At the time when Bt cotton — the first GM crop to be allowed in India — was to be commercially released (in 2001), I happened to be in that meeting called by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the inter-ministerial regulatory body. All members of the GEAC, the Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation and the Monitoring Committee were present along with senior executives from Mahyco Monsanto, the seed developer, and a few civil society representatives. To my surprise, the multi-location trial data for that particular year showed that the cotton crop was sown two months late, and yet the productivity achieved was 50 per cent higher, attributing the increased yield to the Bt variety.

Challenging the data and calling it unscientific, I asked the chairman of the Monitoring Committee, the then Deputy Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), to validate the data in any of the research institutes. In a crop, which takes normally five months to grow, it is practically impossible to sow the crop two months late and still get high productivity. Although the date of sowing is a very important aspect of agricultural research, and if an exception can be made for a private company, why can’t the university scientists in future be asked not to worry about the date of sowing? To the GEAC Chairman, my question was that two months’ delayed sowing can be a big saving for farmers, so why an advisory shouldn’t be sent to farmers to sow the crop two months late?

The same evening, a senior ICAR functionary informed me that Mahyco Monsanto had been asked, despite its assertion that it had completed the research as required, to conduct another year of research trials. That is how the commercial approval for Bt cotton was pushed by a year — to 2002. Imagine if the ‘evidence-based’ research that was presented had gone without questioning.

In 2010, when the then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium on Bt brinjal, he released a 19-page document titled: “Decision on Commercialisation of Bt brinjal”. Howsoever the scientific community may decry it, in my understanding it is a document that should be essential reading for every plant scientist. After elaborate research, consultation and interaction with distinguished scientists from India and abroad, the minister also took into consideration the views expressed by people at the seven public consultations he held across the brinjal-growing areas. This was the first time that such an extensive exercise had been held to gauge public perception of GM technology.

Using a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach, he emphasised the dire need to ensure that any new technology or innovation should conform to the socio-cultural values of the communities.

While a section of the media has dismissed public scrutiny of GM crops as the handiwork of ‘Luddites’, I am glad the minister had acknowledged the validity of serious points of objection raised by responsible civil society groups. He also referred to the problems with the protocol of the studies, analysis of the data submitted, interpretation of the results, procedures adopted and the reporting by the GM seed developers. Such huge gaps in ‘evidence-based’ research show the need to scrutinise scientific methodologies, modelling practices and the claims.

Markets have a tendency to limit scientific enquiry, and for the sake of protecting business interests they have often helped build up a scientific tirade drowning saner voices. Even in the latest case of GM mustard, which was accorded environmental clearance by the GEAC recently, and that too without the ICAR knowing what the actual yield potential of the genetically engineered DMH-11 variety really is, an attempt is being made to give the impression that this variety can reduce India’s dependence on edible oil imports. Considering that the GM variety is low-yielding, this claim has been repeatedly questioned.

Interestingly, as per information obtained under the RTI Act, all test protocols for GM mustard were drawn up by Delhi University itself. The institute that is expected to meet the scientific protocols is first allowed to frame them. It is like asking a student to set the question paper for an exam.

Further, this herbicide-tolerant mustard variety did not even undergo the limited tests that Bt brinjal was subjected to. With no health expert participating in GM mustard appraisals, and the impact on honeybees still not studied, wonder how the GEAC gave the green nod, including granting permission for seed multiplication.

Science is about searching for the truth. This is exactly what Italian-British Prof Michela Massimi said while delivering the 2017 prize lecture of the Royal Society, London: “I believe it is our job to contribute to public discourse on the value of science and to make sure that discussions about the role of evidence, the accuracy and reliability of scientific theories, and the effectiveness of methodological approaches are properly investigated.”