#dnaEdit: Lack of scientific temper

There should be an informed debate about genetically modified (GM) crops. Instead, we have controversies, and the pro- and anti-GM crops lobbies arguing in a fiercely partisan manner and tone. It is not year clear whether the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) is close to giving a green signal for the commercial use of GM Mustard, known as ‘ Dhjara Mustard Hybrid 11’. The GM Mustard has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants of the University of Delhi. The project has been supported by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). There should be no room for rumours of this kind, especially where scientific research is involved. Secrecy in science goes against the democratic spirit of modern knowledge. One of the boasts of science is that it is not based on mumbo-jumbo and that it can be tested by anyone. If that be the case, the best way to refute apprehensions against GM Mustard, in particular, and against GM crops in general, should be to place the research data in the public domain. The debate should be based on information and not on the basis of prejudice and sentiment. What gives the GM crops a bad name is the obnoxious secrecy that the scientific institutions and the concerned government departments maintain about these matters. Neither the scientists nor the bureaucrats are building the case for GM crops.

It seems to be the case that Europe, China, Japan and the Gulf countries have banned GM crops as such. And that farmers and farmers’ organisations in mustard-growing areas in the country, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, have voiced their protest against GM Mustard. The developers of GM Mustard have a moral obligation to explain their case not just to those who are objecting to GM Mustard, but to the public at large, about the new GM seed that they have created. They are also bound to clarify that there are no ill-effects flowing from it. On the other hand, the conscientious objectors against GM Mustard, including the environmentalists and the scientists, must make their case based on information, and they must resist the populist temptation to paint apocalyptic outcomes which they believe would be the case if GM Mustard is allowed. Unfortunately, scientists on both sides of the debate are playing to the gallery, and indulging in what can only be described as cheap politics.

The scientists and the policy-makers who are pushing for GM Mustard must put forward the argument as to why it is necessary to choose the manipulated version in the first place when natural varieties are available, and there does not seem to be any danger of mustard becoming extinct. It is also necessary to prove that the hybrid varieties which are possible through natural grafting of different strains are not sufficient to meet the consumers’ demand for mustard. The objection that the GM variety would destroy all other natural variants and reduce the diversity of mustard strains need to be answered in a satisfactory manner by those pushing for GM Mustard. There is, of course, the need to ignore the hysterical tone of the environmentalists and the so-called green scientists and understand the issue in a more dispassionate manner, in a matter-of-fact tone. It looks that both in India and elsewhere, scientists seem to display all the detestable irrational traits that they deplore so much in the majority of people. It is possible, and it is necessary, that the pro- and anti-GM Mustard scientists should sit across the table and discuss the issue, and they should in turn explain to the public at large. There is a crying need for a show of scientific temper while discussing GM crops.