I spoke at the EU parliament...

I just returned from Brussels after a seminar at EU parliament on “The impact of EU GMO-regulations on biotechnology research for the public good”. I had very little time to indulge in Belgian chocolates but listening to the experienced and prominent speakers made up for it. What more, when given an opportunity to make an intervention... When did I ever imagine that I would speak at the EU parliament?

This seminar was organized by the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) and the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel (STOA) of the EU Parliament to address the constraints the public research sector face due to the stringent regulatory situation in many countries, particularly in the EU. The seminar discussed how current regulations and policies impact the potential for the public biotechnology sector. It was chaired by Prof. Antonio Correia de Campos, who is the STOA Vice-Chairman and a Member of European Parliament (MEP), jointly with Prof. Marc Baron van Montagu, the chairman of PRRI. Prof. Dr. El-Beltagy, Chair Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) gave a very comprehensive account of climate change and how green biotechnology can help in producing plants and crops that can survive the adverse effects of the climate change.

Ms. Maive Rute, Director for the Biotechnology, Agriculture and Fisheries and Food Directorate, European Commission (EC) gave a very positive account on how biotechnology, especially GM technology can benefit Europe. Dr. Emilio Rodriguez from EC’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) presented the experiences with GM crops in Europe, its economic and productivity impact. Dr. Piero Morandini from University of Milan gave a very emotional and passionate presentation on the many case studies where potential research is halted at the laboratory level due to restrictions on field trials in Europe. He presented the difficult experiences being faced by European public researchers due to the GMO regulation in Europe.

I commented on the need for EU to be mindful with the regulations and policies on GMOs as the rest of the world, especially emerging economies perceive EU as a role model when drafting their own regulations, Acts, and policies. Debates and decisions made in EU parliament is echoed in many part of the world, thus, EU should lead in the right direction based on scientific consensus. It was heartening when Dr. Beltagy acknowledged my views and further strengthened the points made. NGOs made intervention on why they oppose GMOs, but the speakers and chairpersons were quick to rebut their negative comments with facts and data. An activist from a well-known NGO said that they oppose GMOs as these are monopolised by MNCs. The strange thing is that the same NGOs press governments for heavy penalties and stringent law that only MNCs with deep pocket could effort, leaving the public sector researchers out of the game. How then, the public sector could compete with MNCs and break the monopoly? What are their genuine reasons for opposing GMOs... only they know!

The seminar was attended by industry representatives, MEPs, NGOs, scientists, and regulators. The STOA committee members who are also MEPs and European Commission representatives made presented very balanced views on GMOs based on scientific facts and evidence. PRRI certainly created a milestone in EU with this seminar. Hope we see wind of change.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

New wave of adoption of GM crops

GM crops once again proved to be the fastest adopted crop technology with an 80-fold increase in hectarage from 1999 to 2009. 134 million hectares of GM crops were planted around the world compared to 125 million hectares in 2008. The number of countries growing GM crops remained the same at 25, with Costa Rica joining in and Germany discontinuing the planting of GM corn. Whereas, the number of farmers growing GM crops continued to grow with 14 million farmers around the globe in 2009. Out of this, 13 million are from developing countries. This proves the notion that GM crops only benefits the rich nations wrong.

A landmark decision was made by the Chinese government in approving biosafety certificates for insect-resistant Bt rice and phytase corn. It is worth mentioning here that both these crops are entirely products of public sectors. The decision will have great impact not only in China, but the rest of the world as rice is the most important food crop in globally. Phytase corn allows efficient meat production as livestock animals will be able to digest the phosphorus in this corn easily. This would also mean reduction in the pollution level as there will be lower phosphate waste from the livestock industry.

The highlights of the new ISAAA report:

- More than three quarters of the 90 million hectares of soybean grown globally were GM.

- Almost half of the cotton grown globally was GM.

- More than a quarter of the 158 million hectares of corn grown globally was GM varieties.

- 21 percent of the 31 million hectares of canola were GM.

The countries that grow GM crops in descending order are: US, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Philippines, Australia, Burkina Faso, Spain, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Poland, Costa Rica, Egypt, and Slovakia.

For detailed information visit: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/default.asp

The international Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) publishes this report yearly and this is one of the most cited publication in the field of plant biotechnology.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Do our scientists communicate?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak launched Malaysia Inovatif 2010 last week. Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi launched the National Biotechnology Policy in 2005. Another former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohammad championed science and technology and aspired to have one Nobel Laureate by 2020. Lots of incentives and fund are channelled to promote science and technology in Malaysia and various policies ranging from agriculture, biotechnology to ICT has been in place. But how much effort is taken to communicate science to the public and to create a well-informed society who is science literate? Who champions this effort?

According to UNICEF, our literacy level stands at 98%. It is something to be proud of, since I am sure being literate in our country does not just mean the person is able to write his or her name. This is the definition of literate in some countries. However, we are lucky to have higher standards. Nevertheless, we should take one step ahead and strive for science literacy. How literate is our population in terms of science? There are various studies done in UK and US to gauge their science literacy level decades ago. The House of Lords in UK has come out with reports like the Bodmer report on “Public Understanding of Science” and suggested strategies to improve science communication in as early as 1985. This was done because a science-ignorant public might fear and disfavour science. Ten years later, in 1995, the Wolfendale report strongly recommended that scientists should specify their communication activities with the public in their research proposal to get public funds. And in year 2000, again the House of Lords continued to call for more dialogue, discussion and debate between scientists and the public. These initiatives have led more than half of UK scientists to communicate with the public on their research activities.

How many of our scientists in the public sector communicate with the public? How many of us have heard a scientist talk about his or her work? Are there any special grants for public awareness allocated to the scientists? Is there any special institute assigned to champion this effort? It must be acknowledged that there are pockets of activities carried out by various agencies such as MOSTI and its agencies, and various research institutes and universities. However, these activities are sporadic and the impact might not be great. There should be a bigger roadmap for this with clear indicators.

Scientists generally do not see the need to communicate to the public. This is coupled with the fact that they are not the best communicators to start with. The public does not understand their mumbo-jumbo language laden with scientific jargons and most often scientists fail to repackage their research news into stories that are appealing and relevant to the public. Nevertheless, there are a hand full of scientists who are interested to reach out to the public, however other constraints such as time, grants, and approval by the institute hinders their efforts. It must be accepted that the scientists have duty to inform the public on their research activities and how public fund is spent. The public has all the rights to know that funds allocated to R&D are spent on research work that brings benefits to them and the country. This is one way to gain trust from the public and their acceptance of new technology.

Public understanding of science is crucial for developing countries like Malaysia and efforts in this area should not be taken lightly. High level involvement is important to ensure we reap the benefits of all the science policies that are in place.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Let the Genes Cross Borders

I read this interesting article from India and thought of sharing it with everyone. Thanks to Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan for making the arguments on Access Benefit Sharing of genetic resources loud and clear. Enjoy reading – Mahaletchumy Arujanan.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes the sovereignty of countries over their biological resources and their authority to determine access to genetic resources through national legislation. The treaty was adopted in 1992 after developing countries bargained for a deal with developed countries that were demanding intellectual property protection. But their strategy has turned out to be self-defeating. With a gap in demand and production of food, developing countries should have argued for open access and free exchange of genetic resources, or the germplasm. A major snag of the CBD was a shift in focus from the ecological and scientific value of biodiversity to its commercial value. Developing countries’ strategy was to check corporate patenting, control the germplasm and ensure equitable sharing of benefits from their commercial use in biotechnology, pharma and seed industries. But their notion that the Western biotech and pharma industries are highly dependent on the genetic resources of developing countries is fictitious: together, the industries deal with not more than nine species and are said to be self-sufficient with breeding material for most commercial crops.

The argument of developing countries has its roots in the ignorance of the world’s interdependence on genetic resources. For instance, all revolutions—green, white and blue—that salvaged India from hunger and made it self-sufficient in food would have been impossible without exotic genetic resources. Even today Indian farmers introduce and domesticate foreign plants and animals for commercial utilization. In fact 60 per cent of modern rice varieties released in India have exotic progenitors; in the case of industrial crops it is 92 per cent. Such transfusion is essential to maintain productivity and mitigate eventualities like pest and disease epidemics. But with the introduction of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which restricts availability of genetic resources from India to the rest of the world, we have sent an unsolicited invitation for equal and opposite reactions. We stand to lose the moral authority to use exotic biological materials without the formal permission and benefit sharing with the respective countries of origin. Such parochial measures are becoming ubiquitous all over the world.

Even small countries like Bhutan and Sri Lanka with limited native diversity of crops have erected iron curtains around their national biological wealth to prevent biopiracy. This could only lead to disputes over genetic resources between nations, as in the case of basmati rice between India and Pakistan. Moreover, the high hopes of equitable sharing of benefits from the commercial use of genetic resources are turning out to be unrealistic. In India, the national biodiversity authority set up in 2003 has neither delivered benefit to the stakeholders, like rural communities, nor has contributed to the conservation of biodiversity. Nationalization of biodiversity to counter corporate patenting is thus quite a suicidal move. The historic treatment of biological resources as a common heritage has benefited humans. Countries have gained more than their individual contribution from germplasm exchanges through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The international seed treaty on major food crops, which came into force in 2004, was a major step in this direction.

Unlike oil, coal or timber, genetic resources are truly renewable. Their use in a system does not affect their availability elsewhere. Man carried his livestock and crops all through his voyages and migrations to facilitate his existence. As human biology is no way determined by national boundaries, tags of nationality cannot be attached to the plants, animals or the genetic diversity he has been conserving over generations. They are bound to be distributed just as ideas in politics, literature or science. India should take the lead in the next Conference of Parties of the CBD to correct the historic aberration and allow open access and free exchange of the life supporting heritage.

Source: Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan works with non-profit ATREE, Bengaluru. K D Prathapan is with Kerala Agricultural University

Pior Science

It has been very long since I posted my last article. November was an extremely hectic month with three consecutive major conferences. I was also travelling within the country to conduct a seminar and a workshop. Though this month is expected to be a little quite, we are still going to be busy with all the reports and planning for next year. Come 2010, MABIC will be ten years old, and that will make us busier.

Something else is also making me very busy this month – hiring an additional staff to take care of our publications. By the way, anyone interested can look out for our advertisement at Jobstreet.com. It is certainly tough to come across someone with excellent writing skills and proficiency in English language.

So, that brings me to the title of this article. I know I have written not long ago on the quality of our graduates and the blunders they make in their CVs. Today, I received an application for the Publication Officer position from a University Malaya graduate who majored in “Pior Science”. Since I know many lecturers at UM, I wanted to call them to find out if they are offering a new field in life science. Can someone enlighten me please? Is there a new science field called “pior science”. I need to know and keep myself updated being a science communicator and the head for an Information Centre. So, please help me here.

It is frustrating to see the standard of English today in Malaysia. I am not really for teaching science and mathematics in English, though I do not oppose it either. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. These two important subjects should be taught in a language that the students feel most comfortable. A student can lose interest in these subjects if he or she does not understand the language. And this does not mean the student is not good in these subjects. The rural students will certainly be affected most. The other key issue is – are all our teachers equipped with the language skills to teach these subjects in English? This approach is not the only option we have to improve our standard of English.

The English language syllabus in school is of very low standard to start with. Good students can just stroll through it. It is way below compared to many countries. I always have another unanswered question – why is the Bahasa Malaysia and English language syllabus different for the Chinese and Tamil schools? It is mind boggling why the Chinese and Indian parents, teachers and NGOs have never asked the government to streamline these syllabuses. Most students enter Year One with the same level of English and Malay proficiency, no matter they go to SK or SJK schools, so what drives the need for different syllabuses.

We really have to beef up our efforts now to improve the standard of English language among the younger generation. It is not too late to do this. It is good to hear that the government is increasing the time for this subject. The syllabus has to be revamped and more activities need to be conducted in this language.

What has this got to do with biotechnology? English is the lingua franca for science and technology and the corporate world.

And just a reminder – I am looking forward to more applications for the vacancy at MABIC. But apologies – I do not need those who majored in “pior science”. I feel threatened by a subordinate who knows a field that I don’t.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Resume and Interview Blunders

I receive at least five resumes every week seeking jobs and placement for internship. However, finding one good candidate among them is the most difficult task. Increasingly, I feel graduates these days have the slightest idea about resume writing and applying for a job.

These are some of the things that get to my nerve when reading their emails:

1. Almost all emails are written using SMS lingo with no proper salutations. You can hardly find one full sentence.

2. Some take the liberty to write on behalf of their fiancés and friends. I interpret it as the person is not serious and takes no initiative in looking for a job.

3. Hardly any candidate sends a cover letter. It is difficult to judge a person with just all those bullet points. Whoever told these graduates that cover letter is a thing of the past.

4. Most don’t do their homework before preparing their resumes. I had an application from a top student from a local university who said his skills in laboratory techniques and equipments will help him to serve MABIC well. Didn’t he check MABIC website before sending the application? We don’t do research!

5. Once I called a candidate to fix an interview appointment. Two days before the interview, she called to say she will not be able to make it. And guess what the reason is: she has to meet her friend! She asked for another appointment and obviously I did not entertain that request.

6. There was another time when I called a candidate who has sent his application to MABIC to fix an appointment and the conversation went like this:

MABIC: Hello.

Candidate: Ah?

MABIC: Good morning. Is the XXXX?

Candidate: Ah.

MABIC: I am calling from MABIC and I received your application for the position of XXXX.
Candidate: Ah.

MABIC: Are you still interested in the position?

Candidate: Ahhhhh..... Taklah kot... tapi.... (ahhhhh.... maybe not.... but....)

MABIC: Oh, it is okay. Thank you.

His telephone etiquette simply beats me. I remember when I was applying for jobs, every phone call is attended to with full of anticipation, thinking it could be from one of my potential employers.

7. Finally need I say the level of the graduates’ English proficiency? You can hardly find someone who can write and speak well in the language. The standard of English among graduates really worries me.

These are just a few points. I have yet to discuss their general knowledge, attitude towards work, knowledge on current issues, etc. Where are we leading to? What is wrong with our education system? I rest my case.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan