Why in News?
- The Coalition for a GM-Free India accused ICAR of “scientific fraud” and data manipulation in field trials of two genome-edited rice varieties — Pusa DST-1 and DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala).
- These varieties were hailed as a global first in gene-edited rice by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan (May 2024), but activists claim ICAR’s own AICRP (All India Coordinated Research Project) reports for 2023–24 contradict the claims.
Relevance :
GS-3 (Science & Technology):
- Genome editing (CRISPR, SDN-1/2/3), agricultural biotechnology, and biosafety regulation.
- Ethical and scientific concerns over transparency, data integrity, and research governance.
GS-2 (Governance):
- Institutional accountability of ICAR and oversight mechanisms under India’s biosafety laws.
- Policy–activism interface in regulatory decision-making (GM mustard, Bt brinjal precedents).
GS-3 (Environment & Agriculture):
- Implications for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, and food security.
Basic Concepts
1. Genetic Modification (GM) vs Genome Editing (GE):
- GM Crops: Introduce foreign DNA (transgenes) from other species → regulatory approval under GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) required.
- Genome-Edited Crops: Modify existing genes (via tools like CRISPR-Cas9) without foreign DNA; regulatory relaxations possible if no transgenes remain.
- India allows SDN-1 and SDN-2 genome editing (small edits without foreign DNA) under a simplified regulatory pathway (2022 guidelines).
2. ICAR’s Role:
- ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) oversees agricultural R&D.
- AICRP on Rice conducts multi-location field trials across India to evaluate varietal performance under various agro-climatic zones.
About the Two Varieties
1. Pusa DST-1 (IET 32043):
- Developed by IARI (Pusa Institute).
- Claimed traits: drought, salinity, and alkalinity tolerance; higher yield than parent MTU-1010.
- Announced as a global first gene-edited rice (May 2024).
2. DRR Dhan 100 “Kamala” (IET 32072):
- Developed by ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR), Hyderabad.
- Derived from BPT 5204 (Sona Masuri).
- Claimed: 17% higher yield, early maturity (20 days), improved nitrogen-use efficiency.
Allegations by the Coalition for a GM-Free India
1. Data Contradictions:
- Pusa DST-1:
- 2023 AICRP report: No data on drought/salinity due to “limited seed quantity.”
- Showed same or 4.8% lower yield vs parent MTU-1010; underperformed in 12 of 20 sites.
- 2024 trials: No yield advantage in coastal/inland salinity; only 1.6% gain in alkaline soils.
- Yet summary table selectively highlighted “30% higher yield” from 8 sites in one zone.
- DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala):
- 2023: Underperformed in 8 of 19 sites; yield advantage (4.3%) limited to southern zone.
- 2024: Excluded several sites without reason; used 6 sites to claim 17.21% higher yield.
2. Accusation of “Scientific Fraud”:
- ICAR allegedly cherry-picked data to present exaggerated performance.
- Activists claim repetition of biotech lobby tactics seen in earlier controversies (e.g., Bt Brinjal, GM Mustard).
3. Lack of Transparency:
- No independent peer-reviewed validation of field results.
- Absence of publicly available biosafety and ecological risk assessments.
Policy and Governance Context
1. Regulation in India:
- Genome Editing Guidelines (2022):
- SDN-1 & SDN-2 exempt from GEAC oversight; handled by ICAR & Institutional Biosafety Committees.
- Critics argue this reduces regulatory scrutiny and increases conflict of interest.
2. Past Controversies:
- Bt Brinjal (2010): Moratorium after public opposition.
- GM Mustard (2022): Accused of insufficient biosafety review; Supreme Court cases ongoing.
3. Global Perspective:
- Genome editing accepted in US, Japan, Argentina with relaxed norms.
- EU (2023) considering differentiated rules for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
- India’s position: cautious optimism with “innovation–biosecurity balance.”
Scientific and Ethical Concerns
- Data Integrity: Potential manipulation undermines credibility of public research institutions.
- Environmental Risks: Gene-edited crops may still pose unforeseen ecosystem effects.
- Farmer Autonomy: Risk of corporate seed monopolies through IP protection on edited varieties.
- Public Trust: Erosion of confidence in scientific institutions if allegations proven true.
Way Forward
- Independent Re-evaluation: Multi-location, transparent field trials under third-party supervision.
- Public Data Disclosure: All AICRP raw data should be made open-access.
- Stronger Oversight: Strengthen Biosafety Authority to cover genome-edited crops.
- Stakeholder Dialogue: Farmers, scientists, and civil society engagement to build informed consensus.
- Science Communication: Clear differentiation between GM and GE crops for public understanding.
