Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Preaching Objectivity – Practicing Obfuscation


Affiliations
1 Centre for Ge-netic Manipulation of Crop Plants, Uni-versity of Delhi South Campus, Benito Juarez Road, New Delhi 110 021, India
 

This is in response to a Commentary by Gutierrez et al.1 on my review article2 that was written as a critique of some very flawed analysis of plant breeding technologies and their impact on food security and the environment by Kesavan and Swaminathan3–5 . So far, the debate on the use of GM* technologies, at least in India, has been mostly in the newspapers, television and social media. Barring some exceptions, there has been very little investigative journalism on the GM crops. In most of the debates on the television and I have participated in some, the anchors put anti-GM activists and scientists together and let them quarrel – a scene very similar to the way Ideologues and party spokespersons get at one another every evening on the major news channels of India. The other site for the debates has been the social media where invectives are used freely, and prejudices are flaunted without any restraint; any in-depth analysis on this platform is simply not possible. It is a welcome change that a scientific journal of considerable historical relevance is devoting pages to a very critical issue – whether we should use some of the new tools of genetic manipulation to breed better crops for meeting the avowed goal of low-input, high-output agriculture? Hopefully, this will bring some objectivity and a sense of responsibility to the discourse.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Gutierrez, A. P., Kenmore, P. E. and Rodrigues, A., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117, 1422–1429.

  • Pental, D., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117, 932– 939; doi:10.18520/cs/v117/i6/932-939.

  • Swaminathan, M. S. and Kesavan, P. C., Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 1585–1586.

  • Kesavan, P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S., Sci. Cult., 2018, 84, 92–97.

  • Kesavan, P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, 1876–1883; doi: 10.18520/cs/v115/i10/1876-1883.

  • Jagannath, A., Arumugam, N., Gupta, V., Pradhan, A., Burma, P. K. and Pental, D., Curr. Sci., 2002, 82, 46–52.

  • Sodhi, Y. S. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2006, 114,93–99; doi:10.1007/s00122-006-0413-0.

  • ‘Falsehoods perpetrated by GM technology bashers on GM mustard’ – a report by NAAS scientists. Available at http://naasindia.org– in the scrolling News section as – ‘Resolution and Report on GM mustard’.

  • Bhargava, P. M., Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2016, L1(44 & 45), 40–43.

  • Jat, R. S., Singh, V. V., Sharma, P. and Rai, P. K., Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids, 2019, 26, 8; http://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2019005.

  • Vavilov, N. I., Chron. Bot., 1949, 13, 1–364.

  • Srivastava, A., Gupta, V., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2001, 102, 193–199.

  • Yang, J. et al., Nature Genet., 2016, 48, 1225–1232; doi:10.1038/ng.3657.

  • Yang, J., Zhang, C., Zhao, N., Zhang, L., Hu, Z., Chen, S. and Zhang, M., Mol. Plant, 2018, 11, 512–514; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2017.11.007.

  • Pradhan, A. K., Sodhi, Y. S., Mukhopadyay, A. and Pental, D., Euphytica, 1993, 69, 219–229.

  • Pradhan, A. K., Gupta, V., Mukhopadhyay, A., Arumugam, N., Sodhi, Y. S.and Pental, D., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2003, 106, 607–614; doi:10.1007/s00122-002-1083-1.

  • Ramchiary, N. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2007, 115, 807–817; doi:10.1007/s00122-007-0610-5.

  • Yadava, S. K., Arumugam, N., Mukhopadhyay, A., Sodhi, Y. S., Gupta, V., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2012, 125, 1553–1564; doi: 10.1007/s00122-012-1934-3.

  • Dhaka, N., Rout, K., Yadava, S. K., Sod-hi, Y. S., Gupta, V., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2017, 130, 293–307; doi:10.1007/s00122-016-2811-2.

  • Jagannath, A. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2011, 122, 1091–1103; doi:10.1007/s00122-010-1515-2.

  • Rout, K., Yadav, B. G., Yadava, S. K., Mukhopadhyay, A., Gupta, V., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Front. Plant Sci., 2018, 9, 1448–1463; doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01448.

  • Gupta, V., Mukhopadhyay, A., Arumugam, N., Sodhi, Y. S., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2004, 108, 743–749; doi:10.1007/s00122-003-1481-z.

  • Ramchiary, N. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2007, 116, 77–85; doi:10.1007/ s00122-007-0648-4.

  • Bisht, N. C. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2009, 118, 413–421; doi:10.1007/s00122-008-0907-z.

  • Rout, K., Sharma, M., Gupta, V., Mukhopadhyay, A., Sodhi, Y. S., Pental, D. and Pradhan, A. K., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2015, 128, 657–666; doi:10.1007/s00122-015-2461-9.

  • Panjabi, P.-M. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2010, 121, 137–145; doi:10.1007/s00122-010-1297-6.

  • Bhayana, L. et al., Front. Plant Sci., 2020, 10, 1690; doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01690.

  • Arora, H. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2019, 132, 2223–2236; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-019-03350-z.

  • Punia, S. S., Indian J. Weed Sci., 2015, 47, 170–173.

  • Savary, S., Willocquet, L., Pethybridge, S. J., Esker P., McRoberts, N. and Nelson, A., Nature Ecol. Evolut., 2019, 3, 430–439; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0793-y.

  • Lynas, M., Seeds of Science: Why We Got it So Wrong on GMOs, Bloomsbury Sigma, 2018.


Abstract Views: 426

PDF Views: 121




  • Preaching Objectivity – Practicing Obfuscation

Abstract Views: 426  |  PDF Views: 121

Authors

Deepak Pental
Centre for Ge-netic Manipulation of Crop Plants, Uni-versity of Delhi South Campus, Benito Juarez Road, New Delhi 110 021, India

Abstract


This is in response to a Commentary by Gutierrez et al.1 on my review article2 that was written as a critique of some very flawed analysis of plant breeding technologies and their impact on food security and the environment by Kesavan and Swaminathan3–5 . So far, the debate on the use of GM* technologies, at least in India, has been mostly in the newspapers, television and social media. Barring some exceptions, there has been very little investigative journalism on the GM crops. In most of the debates on the television and I have participated in some, the anchors put anti-GM activists and scientists together and let them quarrel – a scene very similar to the way Ideologues and party spokespersons get at one another every evening on the major news channels of India. The other site for the debates has been the social media where invectives are used freely, and prejudices are flaunted without any restraint; any in-depth analysis on this platform is simply not possible. It is a welcome change that a scientific journal of considerable historical relevance is devoting pages to a very critical issue – whether we should use some of the new tools of genetic manipulation to breed better crops for meeting the avowed goal of low-input, high-output agriculture? Hopefully, this will bring some objectivity and a sense of responsibility to the discourse.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv118%2Fi6%2F863-867