Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

When Scientists Turn Against Science:Exceptionally Flawed Analysis of Plant Breeding Technologies


Affiliations
1 Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, University of Delhi South Campus, Benito Juarez Road, New Delhi 110 021, India
 

Kesavan and Swaminathan have written three articles in 2018 dealing with the issues of food and nutritional security, sustainable agriculture and climate change, and provided in their own words a ‘proactive analysis’ of the available breeding technologies to meet these challenges. Almost every important issue related to agriculture has been touched upon. However, these reviews neither accurately state the history of plant breeding nor make any evidence-based analysis of the new developments in the area of genomics and genetic engineering to meet some of the critical challenges in crop breeding. The authors’ averments on genetically engineered (GE) crops completely align them with the position of overzealous environmentalists and ideologues, who have been campaigning against the use of GE technologies in crop breeding. The authors have distorted the history of plant breeding, rejected emerging consensus on the safety of GE crops, and suggested solutions that are grossly inadequate to meet the challenge of low-input, high-output agriculture. I analyse here most of the themes that the abovementioned two authors have addressed and provide reasoning for a complete rejection of their analysis.

Keywords

Agriculture, Anti-Science Disposition, Climate Change, Genetic Engineering, Plant Breeding.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Swaminathan, M. S. and Kesavan, P. C., Science for sustainable agriculture to achieve UN SDG Goal 2. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 1585–1586.

  • Kesavan, P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S., Three decades of experience with genetically engineered crops: way forward in the Indian context. Sci. Cult., 2018, 84, 92–97.

  • Kesavan, P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S., Modern technologies for sustainable food and nutrition security. Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, 1876–1883.

  • http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

  • Simmonds, N. W., Bandwagons I have known. TAA Newsletter, Tropical Agriculture Association, 1991.

  • Bernardo, R., Bandwagons I, too, have known. Theor. Appl. Genet., 2016, 129, 2323–2332.

  • Murphy, D., Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal Context and the Future of Agriculture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007.

  • Kingsbury, N., Hybrid: The History and Science of Plant Breeding, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 2009.

  • Borojevic, K. and Borojevic, K., The transfer and history of ‘reduced height genes’ (Rht) in wheat from Japan to Europe. J. Hered., 2005, 96, 455–459.

  • ‘Norin 10 Wheat’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norin_10_wheat

  • ‘Norman Borlaug’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

  • IARI, IARI Wheats: The Path to Plenty, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 1996.

  • Khush, G. S., Coffman, W. R. and Beachell, H. M., The history of rice breeding: IRRI’s contribution. In Rice Research and Production in the 21st Century: Symposium Honoring Robert F. Chandler, Jr. (ed. Rockwood, W. G.), International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, 2001, pp. 117–135.

  • Wheat Research in India – A Successful Journey, A report, ICARIndian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal, India.

  • Li, J., Xin, Y. and Yuan, L., Hybrid rice technology development ensuring China’s food security. International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper, 00918, 2009.

  • Swaminathan, M. S., M.S. Swaminathan in Conversation with Nitya Rao: From Reflections on My Life to the Ethics and Politics of Science, Academic Foundation and M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, 2015.

  • Chen, F. et al., The sequenced angiosperm genomes and genome databases. Front. Plant Sci., 2018; doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00418.

  • Shao, Z.-Q. et al., Large-scale analysis of angiosperm nucleotide binding site–leucine–rich repeat genes reveal three anciently diverged classes with distinct evolutionary patterns. Plant Physiol., 2016, 170, 2095–2109.

  • Su, J., Spears, B. J., Kim, S. H. and Gassmann, W., Constant vigilance: plant functions guarded by resistance proteins. Plant J., 2018, 93, 637–650.

  • Meyer, R. S. and Purugganan, M. D., Evolution of crop species: genetics of domestication and diversification. Nature Rev. Genet., 2013, 14, 840–852.

  • Grover, A. and Pental, D., Breeding objectives and requirements for producing transgenics for major field crops of India. Curr. Sci., 2003, 84, 310–320.

  • Mayee, C. D. and Choudhary, B., Adoption and uptake pathways of Bt cotton in India, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): Ithaca, NY, USA, 2013; http://www.isaaa.org/programs/specialprojects/templeton/adoption/india/India-Adoption%20and%20Uptake%20Pathways.pdf

  • Chandrasekhara Rao, N., Pray, C. E. and Herring, R. J. (eds), Biotechnology for a Second Green Revolution in India, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2018.

  • Gould, F., Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1998, 43, 701– 726.

  • Bates, S. L., Zhao, J.-Z., Roush, R. T. and Shelton, A. M., Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nature Biotechnol., 2005, 23, 57–62.

  • Padmanaban, G., Relevance of modern technologies to Indian agriculture. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 2432–2433.

  • Ellis, J. G., Lagudah, E. S., Spielmeyer, W. and Dodds, P. N., The past, present and future of breeding rust resistant wheat. Front. Plant Sci., 2014, 5, 641; doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00641.

  • Krattinger, S. G. and Keller, B., Molecular genetics and evolution of disease resistance in cereals. New Phytol., 2016, 212, 320– 332.

  • NAAS, Resolution and report on GM mustard – National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, 2018; http://naasindia.org/Documents/GMmustard.pdf

  • Mariani, C., De Beuckeleer, M, Truettner, J., Leemans, J. and Goldberg, R. B., Induction of male-sterility in plants by a chimeric ribonuclease gene. Nature, 1990, 347, 737–741.

  • Mariani, C., Gossele, V., De Beuckeleer, M., De Block, M., Goldberg, R. B., De Greef, W. and Leemans, J., A chimaeric ribonucleaseinhibitor gene restores fertility to male sterile plants. Nature, 1992, 357, 384–387.

  • Pradhan, A. K., Sodhi, Y. S., Mukhopadyay, A. and Pental, D., Heterosis breeding in Indian mustard Brassica juncea (L. Czern & Coss): analysis of component characters contributing to heterosis for yield. Euphytica, 1993, 69, 219–229.

  • Jagannath, A., Bandyopadhyay, P., Arumugam, N., Gupta, V., Burma, P. K. and Pental, D., The use of a spacer DNA fragment insulates the tissue-specific expression of a cytotoxic gene (barnase) and allows high-frequency generation of transgenic male sterile lines in Brassica juncea L. Mol. Breed., 2001, 8, 11–23.

  • Jagannath, A., Arumugam, N., Gupta, V., Pradhan, A., Burma, P. K. and Pental, D., Development of transgenic barstar lines and identification of a male sterile (barnase)/restorer (barstar) combination for heterosis breeding in Indian oilseed mustard (Brassica juncea). Curr. Sci., 2002, 82, 46–52.

  • Swaminathan, M. S., Report of the Task Force on Application of Agriculture Biotechnology by Dr M. S. Swaminathan, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, May 2004.

  • The World Food Prize, 2013; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwd5A_WlSRE

  • Fredrickson, D. S., Asilomar and recombinant DNA: the end of the beginning. In Biomedical Politics (ed. Hanna, K. E.), Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, USA, 1991.

  • Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects. 2016, National Academies Press, National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2016, ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects.

  • AAAS, Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. American Association for the Advancement of Science, USA, 2012; https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

  • Genetically Modified (GM) Plants: Questions and Answers, The Royal Society, London, 2016; https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/

  • Declaration of the 9th Annual Meeting of African Science Academies, 2013; http://www.eas-et.org/AMASA9_Doc/English%20Declaration.pdf

  • EASAC Policy Report No. 21, The Science Advisory Council of the National Science Academies of the EU Member States, 2013, ISBN: 978-3-8047-3181-3; https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_FULL_REPORT.pdf

  • AMA, Policy H-480.958 Bioengineered (Genetically Engineered) Crops and Foods, American Medical Association, USA, 2013; https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/KIDdata/Tmy/2013HB-06527-R00-0305-AMA%20Bioenginerred%20Crops%20and%20Foods-TMY.PDF

  • Are There Health Hazards for the Consumer from Eating Genetically Modified Food? Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities, Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE), 2006; http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_are_there_health_hazards.html

  • A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research (2001–2010), Report of the European Commission; https://ec.europa.eu/research/bio-society/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

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

  • Nabhan, G. P. and Wilson, K., Where Our Food Comes From: Retracing Nikolai Vavilov’s Quest to End Famine, Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 2011.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

  • Sussex, I., The scientific ischolar_mains of modern plant biotechnology. Plant Cell, 2008, 20, 1189–1198.

  • Jiao, W-B. and Schneeberger, K., The impact of third generation genomic technologies on plant genome assembly. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 2017, 36, 64–70.

  • Smil, V., Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production, MIT Press, Boston, USA, 2004.

  • Marks, R. B., The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Environmental Narrative from the Fifteenth to the Twenty-first Century, Rowman & Littlefield, Maryland, USA, 2015.

  • Devereux, S., Famine in the Twentieth Century, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, 2000; https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/wp105.pdf

  • Global Hunger Index: The Inequalities of Hunger, Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA, 2017; http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/131422/filename/131628.pdf


Abstract Views: 276

PDF Views: 78




  • When Scientists Turn Against Science:Exceptionally Flawed Analysis of Plant Breeding Technologies

Abstract Views: 276  |  PDF Views: 78

Authors

Deepak Pental
Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, University of Delhi South Campus, Benito Juarez Road, New Delhi 110 021, India

Abstract


Kesavan and Swaminathan have written three articles in 2018 dealing with the issues of food and nutritional security, sustainable agriculture and climate change, and provided in their own words a ‘proactive analysis’ of the available breeding technologies to meet these challenges. Almost every important issue related to agriculture has been touched upon. However, these reviews neither accurately state the history of plant breeding nor make any evidence-based analysis of the new developments in the area of genomics and genetic engineering to meet some of the critical challenges in crop breeding. The authors’ averments on genetically engineered (GE) crops completely align them with the position of overzealous environmentalists and ideologues, who have been campaigning against the use of GE technologies in crop breeding. The authors have distorted the history of plant breeding, rejected emerging consensus on the safety of GE crops, and suggested solutions that are grossly inadequate to meet the challenge of low-input, high-output agriculture. I analyse here most of the themes that the abovementioned two authors have addressed and provide reasoning for a complete rejection of their analysis.

Keywords


Agriculture, Anti-Science Disposition, Climate Change, Genetic Engineering, Plant Breeding.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv117%2Fi6%2F932-939