A private Television Channel had sought my comment the other day to the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) demand to let the contentious issue of genetic engineering be finally decided by the Supreme Court. The CII's suggestion was ostensibly in light of the recent uprooting of the genetically engineered cotton plants from a farmer's field in Karnataka in early January.

I did not quite understand the relevance of the question till I saw a news report in The Hindu the following day. The report stated that an American delegation of 10 judges and scientitsts met the Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice A.S. Anand to impress upon him -- to the judicial fraternity, the benefits of biotechnology. It quoted Dr.Franklin M. Zweig, president of Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the Courts in the United States, who spoke in favour of genetic engineering at the 88th session of the Indian Science Congress in New Delhi. Asked pointedly, Dr. Zweig denied that the two-hour meeting was to "influence" the judiciary, but said it was to "educate" the judge(s) about the basic principles of public information for use of courts and court systems.

The delegation, the report said, invited the Chief Justice to the US and offered to hold for the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court "workshops" in America for educating them about transgenics, and safety protocols in biotechnology research. The delegation, which also comprised some Indian-born US scientists, explained its intention to work out agreements between nations to set "ethical guidelines" on genetic engineering. Similar attempts had been made by the working groups of the Institute in the Philippines, South Africa, Israel, Italy, the UK, Netherlands, and Canada.

At the same time, the British Council had invited a team of six biotechnologists under its annual "bright sparks" feature. These scientists had travelled to various parts of the country trying to promote British biotechnology in the name of creating wider scientific awareness. Interestingly, faced with an unprecedented consumer backlash against genetic foods in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe, the British government is making desperate efforts to keep the biotechnology industry afloat. What better way then to push the untested and extremely risky technology onto an unsuspecting Indian bureaucracy and the illiterate polity?

At the recently concluded Indian Science Congress, a sophisticated methodology was deftly employed to provide a public impression that the scientific community was completely in favour of genetic engineering. The Congress had invited a host of biotechnologists, scientists and science administrators who are known to be sympethatic towards genetic engineering. With no scientist or an NGO known to be critical of the technology invited, the Science Congress obviously conveyed the political correct message: genetic engineering is the answer for India's food security.

Surprisingly, while the scientists think that genetic engineering, despite the risks involved for human health and environment, is essential for meeting the food requirements in the next quarter of the century, the Indian government has lately begun asking farmers to diversify from staple foods to other commercial crops. It was during the paddy harvesting season in September-October that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was reluctant to purchase surplus paddy flowing into the mandis in

Punjab, Haryana. western Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh. Already saddled with a record foodgrain surplus of about 50 million tonnes, the government is telling the farmers not to produce more.

It is, therefore, obvious that either the government does not know of the threat on the food front that lies ahead or the scientists are not aware of the ground realities. The fact is that it is the scientists, more importantly the biotechnologists, refuse to look beyond their research laboratories. Scientists have to understand that under the changing global economic scenario, biotechnology is being promoted as a tool to maximise production in the developed countries. Nowhere in the world is the focus of research directed to improve agriculture and food production in the developing countries. Given the pathetically small land holdings in the developing countries and with the mounting farm debt, it is futile to expect that the technology can rescue resource-poor farmers and rebuild their confidence in agriculture.

Food production will have to come from agricultural systems in countries with huge populations like India. Farmers are not only resource poor _ with no or little access to credit, and markets but also a majority of them live in arid and semi-arid zones or in steeply sloped areas. In the past, such farmers were bypassed by advances in agriculture known as the Green Revolution because their soil, water and labour methods were unsuited to the demanding and costly management practices of improved seeds and accompanying need for pesticides and fertilisers. Biotechnology will further exacerbate the problem.

Scientists have to understand that the needed food can be produced throughout India by small farmers using agro-ecological technologies. Larger investments in biotechnology on the other hand will not yield the desired results. Corporate legal rights to biotechnology is sure to affect the development of transgenic crops by public institutions. Moreover, the seed distribution channels and networks to reach farmers are being privatised, focusing on commercial farms rather than on poor farmers. Who will explain this to the learned judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts?

As genetic engineering has gone commercial, academics have followed, and today most senior science researchers have ties to biotechnology companies that would complicate any attempts to self-scrutiny. A disturbing evidence to this effect was recently provided by the Royal Society in UK. Obviously offended by media reports of the way a researcher in Scotland was suspended in 1998, and his results were publicly attacked by industry connected scientists, the Royal Society came to the rescue of the corporate interests. News editors were reminded that they should quote only certain scientists, whose names will be supplied by the Society!!

"Sound science" is a misnomer being used by politicians and corporations to distract public attention. The tragedy is that even distinguished scientists and science academies have begun to chant the mantra of "sound science". Any results that suggest unfavourable predictions are attacked and disputed, often by attempting to discredit the integrity of the scientist. "Good science" is in the process being gradually replaced by "sound science". And more often than not, the regulating agencies too join in to deflect public attention and gaze. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States (FDA), for instance, has often brushed aside the potential environmental effects from the genetically manipulated products, and there have been cases when appropriate specialists were excluded from the review process.

In India too, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has for the last three years been publicly stating that the genetically engineered cotton being produced by Monsanto-Mahyco is promising and needs to be immediately commercialised. Strange that these pronouncements have been made even before the research trials have been completed. But what is more worrisome is that not many of scientists and researchers, working in the public funded institutes and universities, have contested the claims being made. Scientists are refusing to stand up and be counted. And therein lies a grave danger for the future of science. #

(Devinder Sharma is a food and trade policy analyst)