No "scientific rigour" in GM crops report: Ramesh
|
COMMENTS 
Six top science academies favour the release of genetically modified brinjal in a report, which, according to an advocacy group has been plagiarised
Disappointed by a report by six top scientific academies on genetically modified (GM) crops recommending the immediate release of Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation, Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has said the report appears to lack “scientific rigour”.
“It doesn’t appear to be the product of rigorous scientific evaluation. There is not a single citation or reference in the report. So there is no way to know how the authors reached their conclusions. The report doesn’t even say who all were consulted in this exercise,” Ramesh said.
The six academies, including the Indian National Science Academy, the largest association of Indian scientists, were asked by Ramesh to produce a report on GM crops in the wake of the controversy surrounding his decision earlier this year to put the commercialisation of Bt brinjal on hold. The academies submitted their report last week.
The report -- the result of a combined effort by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Academy of Engineering, Indian National Science Academy, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, National Academy of Medical Sciences, and National Academy of Sciences (India) -- concludes that the safety of Bt brinjal for human consumption has been established “adequately and beyond reasonable doubt,” and that it is fit for commercial cultivation.
The report has attracted allegations of plagiarism, with the section on Bt brinjal allegedly being almost entirely copied from a magazine article by P Anand Kumar, a project director at the Delhi-based National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, and himself a developer of a variety of Bt brinjal. Kumar had explained that he was a member of one of the academies and was asked to submit his views. He said it shouldn’t be a surprise that his views were the same as the ones expressed in the magazine article in question.
Ramesh said: “There is no problem in incorporating the views of a scientist from a magazine or any other source that is already in the public domain. But it should be properly attributed.” Embarrassed by the revelation, a group of scientists owned up to the mistake but maintained that the recommendations remained “unaffected”.
Speaking on behalf of the scientists, M Vijayan, president of the Indian National Science Academy, admitted that copying from a magazine article without the mandatory attribution was “inappropriate” even if the author of the article belonged to one of the academies participating in preparing the report.
Vijayan said even the group’s conscious decision not to include references or citations in the report had been wrong. “In retrospect, and on the basis of the feedback subsequently received, we now feel that this (mention of references and citations) could have been done. We shall do so and make appropriate modifications,” he said.
“Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for the report to contain chunks of material from another article, even if it was authored by a fellow of a participating academy… We, the signatories of the report, take responsibility for the slip,” he said.
The advocacy group Coalition for GM-Free India was the first to level allegations of plagiarism against the academies. “It is a biased, political position paper by the science academies. Rather than a rigorous scientific review that it is supposed to be, it is absolutely scandalous that the six top science academies used plagiarised material in their attempt to promote Bt brinjal,” says Kavita Kuruganti on behalf of the coalition.
Source: The Indian Express, September 29, 2010
The Economic Times, September 28, 2010
Press Trust of India, September 26, 2010
Hindustan Times, September 26, 2010