naraginti amareswaran asked:




Privatization of Professional Education in India

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION

Education is the process of instruction aimed at the all round development of boys and girls. Education dispels ignorance. It is the only wealth that cannot be robbed. Learning includes the moral values and the improvement of character and the methods to increase the strength of mind.

HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN INDIA

Higher education in India is gasping for breath, at a time when India is aiming to be an important player in the emerging knowledge economy. With about 300 universities and deemed universities, over 15,000 colleges and hundreds of national and regional research institutes, Indian higher education and research sector is the third largest in the world, in terms of the number of students it caters to.

            However, not a single Indian university finds even a mention in a recent international ranking of the top 200 universities of the world, except an IIT Kharagpur ranked at 41, whereas there were three universities each from China, Hong Kong and South Korea and one from Taiwan.

On the other hand, it is also true that there is no company or institute in the world that has not benefited by graduates, post-graduates or Ph.D.s from India be it NASA, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Bell, Sun, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Cambridge or Oxford, and not all those students are products of our IITs, IIMs, IISc/TIFR or central universities, which cater to barely one per cent of the Indian student population. This is not to suggest that we should pat our backs for the achievements of our students abroad, but to point out that Indian higher educational institutions have not been able to achieve the same status for themselves as their students seem to achieve elsewhere with their education from here.

While many reasons can be cited for this situation, they all boil down to decades of feudally managed, colonially modelled institutions run with inadequate funding and excessive political interference. Only about 10 per cent of the total student population enters higher education in India, as compared to over 15 per cent in China and 50 per cent in the major industrialised countries. Higher education is largely funded by the state and central governments so far, but the situation is changing fast. Barring a few newly established private universities, the government funds most of the universities, whereas at the college level, the balance is increasingly being reversed.

THE PRIVATISATION EXPERIENCE

The experience over the last few decades has clearly shown that unlike school education, privatisation has not led to any major improvements in the standards of higher and professional education. Yet, in the run up to the economic reforms in 1991, the IMF, World Bank and the countries that control them have been crying hoarse over the alleged pampering of higher education in India at the cost of school education. The fact of the matter was that school education was already privatised to the extent that government schools became an option only to those who cannot afford private schools mushrooming in every street corner, even in small towns and villages. On the other hand, in higher education and professional courses, relatively better quality teaching and infrastructure has been available only in government colleges and universities, while private institutions of higher education in India capitalised on fashionable courses with minimum infrastructure.

Nevertheless, successive governments over the last two decades have only pursued a path of privatisation and deregulation of higher education, regardless of which political party ran the government. From the Punnaiah committee on reforms in higher education set up by the Narasimha Rao government to the Birla-Ambani committee set up by the Vajpayee government, the only difference is in their degree of alignment to the market forces and not in the fundamentals of their recommendations.

With the result, the last decade has witnessed many sweeping changes in higher and professional education: For example, thousands of private colleges and institutes offering IT courses appeared all across the country by the late 1990s and disappeared in less than a decade, with devastating consequences for the students and teachers who depended on them for their careers. This situation is now repeating itself in management, biotechnology, bioinformatics and other emerging areas. No one asked any questions about opening or closing such institutions, or bothered about whether there were qualified teachers at all, much less worry about teacher-student ratio, floor area ratio, class rooms, labs, libraries etc. All these regulations that existed at one time (though not always enforced strictly as long as there were bribes to collect) have now been deregulated or softened under the self-financing scheme of higher and professional education adopted by the UGC in the 9th five-year plan and enthusiastically followed by the central and state governments.

This situation reached its extreme recently in the new state of Chattisgarh, where over 150 private universities and colleges came up within a couple of years, till the scam got exposed by a public interest litigation and the courts ordered the state government in 2004 to derecognise and close most of these universities or merge them with the remaining recognized ones. A whole generation of students and teachers are suffering irreparable damage to their careers due to these trends, for no fault of theirs. Even government-funded colleges and universities in most states started many “self-financing” courses in IT, biotechnology etc., without qualified teachers, labs or infrastructure and charging huge fees from the students and are liberally giving them marks and degrees to hide their inadequacies.

It is not that the other well established departments and courses in government funded colleges and universities are doing any better. Decades of government neglect, poor funding, frequent ban on faculty recruitments and promotions, reduction in library budgets, lack of investments in modernization leading to obsolescence of equipment and infrastructure, and the tendency to start new universities on political grounds without consolidating the existing ones today threatens the entire higher education system.

Another corollary of this trend is that an educational institution recognized in a particular state need not limit its operations to that state. This meant that universities approved by the governments of Chattisgarh or Himachal Pradesh can set up campuses in Delhi or Noida, where they are more likely to get students from well off families who can afford their astronomical fees. What is more, they are not even accountable to the local governments, since their recognition comes from a far away state. Add to this a new culture of well-branded private educational institutions allowing franchisees at far away locations to run their courses, without being responsible to the students or teachers in any other way. This is increasingly becoming a trend with foreign universities, especially among those who do not want to set up their own shop here, but would like to benefit from the degree-purchasing power of the growing upwardly mobile economic class of India. Soon we might see private educational institutions getting themselves listed in the stock market and soliciting investments in the education business on the slogan that its demand will never see the sunset.

The economics of imparting higher education are such that, barring a few courses in arts and humanities, imparting quality education in science, technology, engineering, medicine etc. requires huge investments in infrastructure, all of which cannot be recovered through student fees, without making higher education inaccessible to a large section of students. Unlike many better-known private educational institutions in Western countries that operate in the charity mode with tuition waivers and fellowships (which is one reason why our students go there), most private colleges and universities in India are pursuing a profit motive. This is the basic reason for charging huge tuition fees, apart from forced donations, capitation fees and other charges. Despite huge public discontent, media interventions and many court cases, the governments have not been able to regulate the fee structure and donations in these institutions. Even the courts have only played with the terms such as payment seats, management quotas etc., without addressing the basic issue of fee structure.

PRIVATIZATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

            “The destiny of India is now being shaped in her class rooms”. This is the opening sentence of the Kothari Education Commission report (1964-66). What kind of destiny has been actually shaped during the last sixty years? There are thousands of schools without primary needs. The position of teacher’s economic condition is also poor when compared to USA teachers. Majority of teacher educational institutions are under the control of private sector. The main aim of private organizations is to get profit.

It is not only students but also teachers who are at the receiving end of the ongoing transformation in higher and professional education. The nation today witnesses the declining popularity of teaching as a profession, not only among the students that we produce, but also among parents, scientists, society and the government. The teaching profession today attracts only those who have missed all other “better” opportunities in life, and is increasingly mired in bureaucratic controls and anti-education concepts such as “hours” of teaching “load”, “paid-by-the-hour”, “contractual” teachers etc. With privatisation reducing education to a commodity, teachers are reduced to tutors and teaching is reduced to coaching. The consumerist boom and the growing salary differentials between teachers and other professionals and the value systems of the emerging free market economy have made teaching one of the least attractive professions that demands more work for less pay. Yet, the society expects teachers not only to be inspired but also to do an inspiring job!

PRESENT STATUS OF TEACHER EDUCATION

            Permission is granted by the NCTE regional centres to number of teacher education institutions/colleges especially in the private unaided sector. Take for example, in Andhra Pradesh, there are more than 300 B.Ed Colleges in the private unaided sector and there are less than 20 B.Ed colleges in Government and aided sector. Is there any kind of supervision either by the university authorities or by the government officials or by the officers of NCTE with regard to availability of the staff during college days, proper attendance of the students, proper organization and running of different programmes of B.Ed Course? It is a doubtful validity. The first and foremost supervising authority for running B.Ed programme is the concerned University. The concerned officials of the university have to make frequent surprise visits to the B.Ed Colleges under its Jurisdiction. If any loopholes identified, necessary steps may be taken for rectifying them at the earliest possible time; then only the quality of B.Ed programmes can be improved.

In the most of the private B.Ed. colleges in the state of Andhra Pradesh, there are two or three teaching staff only. In some of the universities, there are no selection committees for these colleges. The managements will run the colleges according to their whims and fancies. In majority of the situations, they are charging Rs.6000/- for a set of B.Ed. records which cost about Rs.300/- in the market. They will pay less than Rs. 5000/- to the teaching staff. They are collecting huge amounts from the students under the heads; ‘practical examinations’, ‘study tours’, etc. they allow less than 20% attendance students to the examinations by collecting huge amounts from them. Some private management resort to all types of fraud activities. Then, who will set right these things? The first and foremost is the concerned affiliating university, then the state government and NCTE at the regional level and national level. Honesty persons with surprise visits can make the situation better.

CONCLUSION

            India is a developing country. Different types of religious people are living in the country. We have thousand years of tradition and culture. Now we are living in the technological and modern world. Because of globalization a lot of change occurring. Education is a primary need for all in the society. It is the duty of government to provide free education for all up to 14 years. All people have no opportunity to study higher and professional education. Now majority of professional educational institutions are under the control of private organizations. Especially all teacher educational institutions are in the private sector. The main aim of private sector is to get profit. How it is possible to expect quality education? It is not possible to study Medicine or Engineering course for a poor student in the society. It is necessary to establish more and more professional and higher educational institutions in the country. Teacher is a national builder. He has a capacity to change the world. There are some benefits and losses due to privatization of professional education. But India is a developing country. It is better to establish all professional educational institutions under the government sector. Then only it is possible to study all type of courses for poor section children and India will become developed country in the world.

*****

 

naraginti amareswaran asked:




Educational/School Psychology in the Pursuit of Human Well-Being

 

 

Introduction

 

            Now we are living in the technological modern world. With the help of science and technology we have developed in all fields. India is a developing country. We have lot of human resources after China. But the literacy rate is very low when compared to other developed and developing countries in the world. India is a rich country, but Indians are poor. With the help of science and technology and by utilizing all sources in the proper way it is possible to India to become a developed country in the world. In the modern world people living with high tension. The student in schools and colleges are also living with high tension because of heavy competitions. It is necessary to introduce psychology as a general subject in all the classes both at school and college levels. Yoga and meditation is also necessary for each and every one in the world.

Definition of Education

Ø      Education is the learning of human souls to what is best, and making what is best out of them?

–        John Ruskin

Ø      Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it is his hands and at whom it is aimed.

                                                                                                    – Joseph Stalin

The word education is derived from the Latin educare, meaning “to raise”, “to bring up”, “to train”, “to rear”. Education means the gradual process of acquiring knowledge. Education is a preparation for life. Education is also defined as the profession of teaching (especially at a school or college or university).

Importance of Education

India is a union comprised of twenty eight states and seven Territories. The Constitution provides directives regarding the development of education throughout the country. The areas in which the respective central and state governments have domain have been identified in the Constitution as the central list, state list and concurrent list. Until the late 1970s, school education had been on the state list, which meant that states had the final say in the management of their respective school systems. However, in 1976, education was transferred to the concurrent list through a constitutional amendment, the objective being to promote meaningful educational partnerships between the central and state governments. Today, the central government establishes broad education policies for school curricula development and management practices. These serve as guidelines for the states.

 

Generally, at the start of a very young age, children learn to develop and use their mental, moral and physical powers, which they acquire through various types of education. Education is commonly referred to as the process of learning and obtaining knowledge at school, in a form of formal education. However, the process of education does not only start when a child first attends school. Education begins at home. One does not only acquire knowledge from a teacher; one can learn and receive knowledge from a parent, family member and even an acquaintance. In almost all societies, attending school and receiving an education is extremely vital and necessary if one wants to achieve success.

Educational Psychology

Educational psychology is the study of how humans learn in educational settings, the effectiveness of educational interventions, the psychology of teaching, and the social psychology of schools as organizations. Although the terms “educational psychology” and “school psychology” are often used interchangeably, researchers and theorists are likely to be identified as educational psychologists, whereas practitioners in schools or school-related settings are identified as school psychologists. Educational psychology is concerned with the processes of educational attainment among the general population and sub-populations such as gifted children and those subject to specific disabilities

            Educational psychology can in part be understood through its relationship with other disciplines. It is informed primarily by psychology, bearing a relationship to that discipline analogous to the relationship between medicine and biology. Educational psychology in turn informs a wide range of specialities within educational studies, including instructional design, educational technology, curriculum development, organizational learning, special education and classroom management. Educational psychology both draws from and contributes to cognitive science and the learning sciences. In universities, departments of educational psychology are usually housed within faculties of education, possibly accounting for the lack of representation of educational psychology content in introductory psychology textbooks.

Uses of Educational Psychology

For finding Individual differences and Disabilities

            Each person has an individual profile of characteristics, abilities and challenges that result from learning and development. These manifest as individual differences in intelligence, creativity, cognitive style, motivation, and the capacity to process information, communicate, and relate to others. The most prevalent disabilities found among school age children are attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disability, dyslexia, and speech disorder. Less common disabilities include mental retardation, hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and blindness.

Although theories of intelligence have been discussed by philosophers since Plato, intelligence testing is an invention of educational psychology, and is coincident with the development of that discipline. Continuing debates about the nature of intelligence revolve on whether intelligence can be characterized by a single, scalar factor (Spearman’s general intelligence), multiple factors (as in Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence and Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences), or whether it can be measured at all. In practice, standardized instruments such as the Stanford-Binet IQ test and the WISC are widely used in economically developed countries to identify children in need of individualized educational treatment. Children classified as gifted are often provided with accelerated or enriched programs. Children with identified deficits may be provided with enhanced education in specific skills such as phonological awareness.

 For Social, Moral and Cognitive Developemnt      

To understand the characteristics of learners in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age, educational psychology develops and applies theories of human development. Often cast as stages through which people pass as they mature, developmental theories describe changes in mental abilities (cognition), social roles, moral reasoning, and beliefs about the nature of knowledge.

For example, educational psychologists have researched the instructional applicability of Jean Piaget’s theory of development, according to which children mature through four stages of cognitive capability. Piaget hypothesized that children are not capable of abstract logical thought until they are older than about 11 years, and therefore younger children need to be taught using concrete objects and examples. Researchers have found that transitions, such as from concrete to abstract logical thought, do not occur at the same time in all domains. A child may be able to think abstractly about mathematics, but remain limited to concrete thought when reasoning about human relationships. Perhaps Piaget’s most enduring contribution is his insight that people actively construct their understanding through a self-regulatory process.

Piaget proposed a developmental theory of moral reasoning in which children progress from a naive understanding of morality based on behavior and outcomes to a more advanced understanding based on intentions. Piaget’s views of moral development were elaborated by Kohlberg into a stage theory of moral development. There is evidence that the moral reasoning described in stage theories is not sufficient to account for moral behavior. For example, other factors such as modeling (as described by the social cognitive theory of morality) are required to explain bullying.

Developmental theories are sometimes presented not as shifts between qualitatively different stages, but as gradual increments on separate dimensions. Development of epistemological beliefs (beliefs about knowledge) have been described in terms of gradual changes in people’s belief in: certainty and permanence of knowledge, fixedness of ability, and credibility of authorities such as teachers and experts. People develop more sophisticated beliefs about knowledge as they gain in education and maturity.

Psychology and Teacher

            Teacher is a national builder. He has a power to change the world through education. According to our Indians teacher is a third god. Teacher plays a prominet role in the development of society. Educational Psychology is a main subject in  teacher education at D.Ed., B.Ed., and M.Ed. levels. It is necessary for each and every teacher to know about psychology. Becausse it is necessary to know the behaviour of the students in the class. Teacher has different roles  like father, advisor, councellor, administrator and well wisher. The future of any country is in the hands of teachers. So it is necessary to give importance for teacher education. So our government introduced psychology subject in teacher education curriculum.

After undergoing the course, the student teacher

1)      Explains psychology and its relationship with Education.

2)      Classifies different branches of psychology and explains their significance.

3)      Explains the importance of heredity and environment and its influences in educational process.

4)      Explains the different aspects of the development of the child.

5)      Explains the growth and human beings and their behaviour.

6)      Describes the individual aspects of the development of the child.

7)      Explains the primary needs of the children.

8)      Explains the secondary needs of the children.

9)      Explains the theories of learning and the factors influencing learning.

10)  Explains the concept of socialization.

11)  Explains the different types of learning.

12)  Understands the concept of motivation and the steps to be taken to motivate the children.

13)  Explains attention and its uses.

14)  Develops skill of observation, listening, responding and understanding.

15)  Describes memory, remembering and forgetting and identifies conditions of good memory.

16)  Describes the effects of different methods used for learning process.

17)  Explains thinking process and its uses-perception, conception, apperception for different ages.

18)  Explains the role of creativity and its development.

19)  Explains the meaning of intelligence and understands the changing concept of intelligence.

20)  Enhances personality development of pupils.

21)  Describes the mental hygiene and mental health.

22)  Understands exceptional children and their significance.

23)  Practices guidance and counseling for school pupils.

Conclusion

          Educational psychology is an application of the principles of psychology for effective learning and modification of behaviour on desirable dimensions.  Knowledge of educational psychology makes a teacher effective in motivating the pupils in their learning.  In short it is an inseparable part of strategy in education. Education gives knowledge, wealth and health. Education is a solution for all types of problems in the society. Through education only it is possible overall development of a person in the society. Through education it is easy to know about behavour of the students and persons in the society with the help of psychology. So it is necessary to study psychology all persons in the society in the modern world. Educational Psychology helps the overall development of the student.

References

1. Educational psychology a cognitive view by Asubel, D.P. 

2..Element of educational psychology by Bhatia, H.R. 

3. Psychology applied to teaching by Bichler, R.F. 

4. Educational psychology by Cole, E.C. and Bruce, W.F.

5. http:/ www.google.com

 

 

*****

 

Dr.Ashok Kumar Panigrahi asked:






BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOSAFETY

IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Dr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Balasore.

Techniques questioned:

Genetical modification of Agricultural Seeds- cotton, soya, maize, potato, rice and trees in the forest.

Prologue

The all encompassing big macabre issue discussed world wide today is the invasion of the good science, ‘biotechnology’ to virtually every nook and corner of the biosphere and practically turned to the bad science, ‘thanotechnology’ for every living element of concern and speeding up the rate to total annihilation of the biosphere.It all began with a little known episode in 1980, that is the US Supreme Court decision in the case, Diamond vrs. Chakrabarty, where the highest US court decided that biological life was legally patentable.

History

Anand Mohan Chakrabraty a microbiologist and employee of General Electric Company (GE) developed a type of bacteria that could ingest oil from oil spills. GE rushed for a patent in 1971 which was turned down as life forms were not patentable. GE sued and won. In 1985 the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruled that the Chakrabraty ruling could be further extended to all plants, seeds and plant tissues or to the entire plant kingdom.

US company W.R. Grace was granted 50 US patents on the Indian Neem tree which even included patenting indigenous knowledge of medicinal use of the Neem products (since been leveled ‘biopiracy’). In 1988 PTO issued patent on animal to Harvard Professors, Philip Lader and Timothy A. Stewart who had created a transgenic mouse having genes of the chicken and human being. In 1991, PTO granted patent to human stem cells and later to human genes. Biocyte was awarded European patent on all umbilical cord cells from foetuses and new born babies even without the permission of the ‘donors’. European Patents Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce GE proteins in their mammary glands.

Baylor University essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Attempts also were made to patent blood cells of indigenous people of Panama, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Within a decade the ‘Chakrabarty ruling’ of the US Supreme Court revolutionised the research and developments in biotechnology involving microbes to human beings which led it to be branded as bad science, “thanotechnology” in the following decade and hated world wide. Biotech companies engaged in biotech pharmaceuticals quickly moved to agriculture, obtained patents on seeds, buying up small seed companies, destroying their seed stocks and replacing the same with GE seeds. In the last decade several companies have gained monopoly control over such seeds world wide as soy, corn and cotton ( used in processed foods via cotton seed oil). As a result, nearly 2/3 rd. of such processed foods showed some GM ingredient in them.

However, even without any labelings, the concerned US consumers were aware of such pervasive food products of biotech companies. Immediately the companies knew that aware citizen kept away from GM foods and they organized to convince the regulators not to require such labelings. Somewhat shockingly the bureaucratic risk evaluators in the US turned a blind eye towards the ill motives of the bio-tech companies.

The point of concern

All genetical modifications are based on recombinant DNA technology. The present society is faced with unprecedented problems not only in the history of science, but of all life on earth. The GE technology enables the profit oriented biotech companies the capacity to redesign the living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution. In the words of Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (1967), Higgins Professor of Biology at the Harvard University, “potentially it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer and novel epidemics”.

On Record

In 1989, dozens of Americans died and over several thousands were afflicted and impaired owing to the ingestion of a genetically altered version of food supplement L – tryptophan. A settlement of $ 2 billion was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s 3rd. largest chemical company (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994)

In 1996, pioneer Hi-Bred spliced Brazil nut genes into soy beans. Some individuals are so allergic to this nut that they go into apoplectic shock which can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the peril and the product was soon removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. In the words of Marion Nestle, HOD Nutrition, New York University, “the next case could be less than ideal and public less fortunate.”

In 1994 US Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto’s r-BGH, a GE growth hormone, for injecting the dairy cows to enhance their milk yield in spite of experts warning that the resultant increase of IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, linked to 400 – 500 % higher risks of human breast, prostrate and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of University of Chicago, “ it induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells.” Studies on Rats confirmed the suspicion and showed damage to internal organs with r-BGH ingestion. Even FDA’s own tests showed a spleen mass increase by 46%, a state that is a prelude to ‘leukemia’. The argument that the substance get damaged by pasteurization was nullified by 2 of Monsanto’s own scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian Mc Bride who found only 19% of the hormone get destroyed after 30 minutes of boiling (pasteurization takes only 30 seconds). Inspite of Canada, EU, Australia, New Zealand and even the UN’s Codex Alimentarius refusing to endorse the GE hormone, the same is freely marketed in the US by Monsanto. It was found out that 2 US bureaucrats namely, Margaret Miller and Micheal Taylor in the US FDA who helped Monsanto’s r-BGH pass the risk factor barrier were in fact earlier Monsanto employees.

Several other GM products approved by US FDA involve herbicides that are commonly known as ‘carcinogenic’, viz – ‘bromoxiny’l used on Bt. Cotton and Monsanto’s ‘round-up’ or Glufosinate used on GM soy, corn and canola. Sharyn Martin, a researcher, has opined that a number of auto- immune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments which come with G M food that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestine. These DNA fragments absorbed into the blood stream mix with normal DNA through recombination and are, hence, unpredictable. Such DNA fragments have been found to be in GM soy and other GM products available in the market.

The fear factor

Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario said, ‘ Virus resistant crops are becoming the mainstay of biotech industries. These crops carry foreign virus genes which are genetically engineered to empower the plants to resist virus attacks. Most of the fruits, vegetables and baby food marketed in the US are of this category. Lab. experiments have shown that ‘the GE viral genes in food potentially give rise to new viruses – deadlier than the viruses that the crops are being protected from’, a fact that is quite alarming.

In 1986, it was reported that GE plants having TMV genes delayed the development of the disease and this report opened the flood gates to create resistance to a range of other viruses. But the fact is that viral coat protein production in GE crop does not block the virus entering into the plant cell rather the transgene is exposed to the nucleic acids of many viruses that are brought to the plant by insect vectors. A number of study results are there to show that plant viruses can acquire a variety of viral genes from GE plants through recombination.

For examples-

* Defective Red Color Mosaic Virus lacks the gene enabling it to move from cell to cell and hence is not infectious ,but recombined with a copy of that gene in GE Nicotina benthamiana plants, regenerated the infectious RCMVirus.

* GE Brassica napus and Nicotiana bigelovii containing “ gene- vi ”, a

translational activator from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) which

recombined with the complementary part of a virus missing that gene, and

produced new infectious virus in all GE plants.

* N. benthamiana expressing a segment of the Cowpea Chlorotic Mottle Virus (CCMV) coat protein gene recombined more frequently with the defective virus missing that gene.

* N. benthamiana was transformed with 3 different constructs containing coat protein coding sequence of African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV). The transformed plants were inoculated with a coat protein deletion mutant of ACMV that induces mild systemic symptoms in control plants. Several such inoculated plants of the transgenic lines developed severe systemic symptoms typical of ACMV confirming recombination had occurred between mutant viral DNA and the integrated construct DNA resulting in the production of recombined viral progeny with ‘ wild type ’ virulency.



The CaMV recombination, when and where ?

CaMV 35 s promoter gene, is the ubiquitous viral sequence in all the transgenic (GM) plants which are either already commercially released in the market or undergoing field trials. This gene is needed by all GM plant producers because it drives the production of gene messages from the genes inserted to provide herbicide tolerance, insect- pest resistance, antibiotic resistance and a range of other functions deemed to improve the commercial quality of the crop plant. In the absence of this ‘promoter gene’, the ‘inserted gene’ remains inactive, while in its presence the gene activity is maintained at a high level in all of the plant tissues irrespective of the changing environmental conditions which drastically affect the activity of ‘promoters’ native to the crop plant.

The 2 events which occurred in 1999 provoked Professor Cummins and other independent scientists to draw global attention to such alarming industrial scientific maladies that may have disastrous consequences. In fact Professor Cummins had in 1994 questioned the environmental safety of the release of CaMV 35 s promoter gene through the GM plants. Experimental evidences available indicated that the frequency of genetic recombination of CaMV 35 s promoter gene was much higher than those of other viruses. When recombinant CCMV was recovered from 3% of transgenic N. benthamiana containing CCMV sequences, recombinant CaMV was recovered from 36% of transgenic N. begelovii.

Event -1. Scientists of John Innes Research Institute published a paper showing that the CaMV 35 s promoter has a recombination ‘hot spot’ meaning it is prone to break and reassociate with other pieces of genetic material, may be of other viruses.

Event- 2. Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a senior scientist working in the UK govt. funded Rowett Institute in Scotland was sacked from his job because he revealed the results of feeding experiments suggesting that transgenic potatoes were unsafe. The lab. Rats fed with GM food showed increased lymphocytes in gut lining indicating damage to intestine from non specific viral infection.

Scientists Mae- Wan Ho and Angel Ryan published a paper in October 1999 issue of Journal of Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease warning that the CaMV 35 s promoter is interchangeable with promoters of other plant and animal virus and is promiscuous and functions efficiently in all plants, green algae, yeast and E. coli. Its recombination hot spot is flanked by multiple motifs and is similar to other recombination hot spots such as that of the Agrobacterium –T DNA vector, the other most commonly used gene, in making transgenic plants. They also claimed to have demonstrated in the lab. of the recombination between viral transgenes and infecting viruses.

In an article published in the online journal of European Food Research and Technology (2006) authors ( Marit R. Myhre, et. al. ) claimed to have constructed expression vectors with CaMV 35 s promoter inserted in front of 2 ‘reporter genes’ encoding firefly luciferase and green fluorescent protein (GFP), respectively and performed transient transfection experiments in the human enterocyte – like cell line, Caco – 2 and found that the CaMV 35 s promoter genes drive the expressions of both the ‘reporter genes’ to significant levels.

Super viruses

Promoter viral genes such as CaMV 35 s can mix with other genes, viral, bacterial and others including those of the retrovirus like HIV and Hepatitis B. CaMV is itself a para retrovirus. With retro transposons available on all plant genomes (which are mobile in nature) and a host of viruses together with CaMV 35 s promoters, possibility of super virus origin is quite certain.

In a Canadian study, a plant infected with a Crippled Cucumber Mosaic Virus (CuMV) that lacked a gene needed for movement between the plant cells, the crippled CuMV became active in less than 2 weeks – an evidence of gene mixing, having acquired the much needed activator from the surrounding – an evidence of ‘ horizontal gene transfer ’.

The international Biosafety Protocol signed by most independent nations at Montreal in January 2000 will be of no use if things continue to move in this direction.

Threat to Antibiotics via plants

Much of genetic implantation uses a ‘marker’ to track where the gene goes in the cell. GM Maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. The British Royal Society called for the banning of this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic’s use.

Resurgence of Infectious diseases

‘The Microbial Ecology in Health and Diseases’ Journal reported in 1998 that genetic modifications in food crops may cause resurgence of infectious diseases. It cited the cases of resistance to antibiotics, formation of new and unknown viral strains, lowering of body immunity through altered food etc. as the drastic fallouts of bioengineering with the genes. It also indicated the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. It cited the cases of bacteria of the mouth, pharynx and intestines taking up transgenic (viral) DNA in domestic animals through their food which can be passed easily to human beings through their milk and meat.

Increased food allergies

The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. Mass case studies indicate that our body cells and the immune system seems to reject excess ‘homogeneity of our

food’. Monsanto’s own analysis of glyphosate –resistant soya showed the GM line contains 28% more Kuniz – trypsin inhibitor, a known allergen and nutrient inhibitor.

Lowered Nutrition

A study made by Dr. Marc. Lappe in 1999 and published in the ‘Journal of Medicinal Food’ showed that GM foods have lower levels of nutrients – especially ‘phyto estrogen’ compounds which protect the body from heart disease and cancer. A study on the consumption of GM Vita Faba, a bean of the soy family, caused increase in estrogen levels. This is alarming since the same is used in baby food. Milk from cows injected with r-BGH (a GE growth hormone) contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria and fat cells.



Unnatural foods

Sometime back Monsanto announced it had found ‘unexpected gene fragments’ in their ‘round-up ready’ soybeans. It is a well known fact that modified proteins do exits in all GE foods , the proteins never before ingested by humanity. FDAs’ own microbiologist Dr. Louis J.Pribyl had in 1992 warned that pleiotropic (unintended and/or uncontrolled) effects do occur in GE plants at frequencies exceeding 30 % of known and unknown toxicants together with undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients which might escape breeders notice. FDA’s biotechnologist James Marayanski also had warned about lack of consensus among FDA’s scientists as to the ‘sameness’ of GM foods compared to non GM foods.

Environmental Impacts

Genetic modifications were sought in crop plants to increase production and reduce use of toxic agro chemicals. But nothing

could be further from truth. Professor David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University has rightly said, “ What has come out in the last decade from the GE crops are- increased sales of agrochemicals and production of nutrient devoid hazardous food.” Ontario(US) govt. study also showed that herbicide use was on the rise largely due to the cultivation of GM crops.

Soil toxicity

All GM crop plants are engineered to resist all types of toxins such as herbicides and pesticides etc. and these chemicals are sold by the same biotech companies who have developed such GE crop plants as if to boost their agrochemical product sales. Scientists like R.J. Golburg predicted long ago that GM crops will triple the sale of toxic agrochemicals and over the years he is found to be correct. According to US Fish and Wildlife Services, “Monsanto’s spray chemical ‘Round-out’ (a herbicide) already threatens 74 endangered species in the US. It attacks other plants’ photosynthetic activities”. Malcolm Kane (former Head of Food Safety for Sainsbury’s chain of Super markets) revealed that the US govt. in order to accommodate Monsanto, raised pesticide residue limits in food form 6 ppm to 20 ppm. According to a study report published by the University of California, “glyphosphate (the active principle of ‘round-up’) was the 3rd leading cause of farm workers’ illness. At least 14 persons died of ingesting ‘round-up’.”

Soil-sterility and pollution

In Oregon, scientists found out that GM bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, engineered to breakdown agri wastes to produce ethanol and the residual waste component as compost material – rendered the soil sterile. It eliminated essential soil nutrients like nitrogen and killed the nitrogen capturing fungi. A similar result was also found with the GM bacteria, Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of New York University found out that the same toxins that eliminated the Monarch butterflies were also released by the roots of GM plants and polluted the soil which lasted up to 18 months and depressed soil microbial activity. An Oregon study also showed that GM soil microbes killed wheat plants in the lab. when added to the soil.

Loss of seed sovereignty

Some time back the US ‘Time’ magazine referred to the massive trend by large seed corporations to buy up small seed companies, destroying their seed varieties and replacing the same with their GM seeds of patented and control brands as ‘ the death of birth’. These GM seed companies additionally get the farmers sign contracts not to save their seeds – forfeiting their sovereign rights to seeds.

Super weeds

It has been shown that GM Bt. endotoxins remain active in the soil up to 18 months (Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating super weeds that are resistant to pests – thus offsetting the balance of nature. Studies in the UK ( National Institute of Agricultural Botany ) and Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) showed the growth of super weeds nearby in just one generation. US and UK studies also showed that the super weeds were resistant to glufosinate ( a herbicide). Another US study showed 20 times more genetic leakage with GM plants through horizontal gene transfer. A French study showed that GM canola could transfer genes to wild radishes. According to ‘New Scientists’, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, between year 1997 and 1999 planted 3 fields with different GM canola seeds only to produce 3 different mutant weeds which were resistant to Monsanto’s ‘Round-up’, Cyanamid’s ‘Pursuit’ and Aventi’s ‘Liberty’, all patented herbicides.

GE super trees, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse

GE super trees are being developed to withstand high doses of herbicide sprays from the air to kill all surrounding life except the GE trees. These trees are mostly non flowering and sterile. Monsanto’s super trees even exude toxic chemicals from its leaves to kill not only caterpillars but all visiting insect life. In 2002 China planted millions of ‘poplar’ super trees to combat deforestation, creating monoculture forests. Such flowerless toxin oozing trees will end up in eliminating all flying insects (bees and butterflies included) reducing the insect world to only booklice and earwigs. Its plantation in the wild will not only cause collapse of the forest ecosystem comprising of fungi, insects, earthworms, birds and mammals but also cause intensive genetic contamination through gene flow of transgenes to the wild and affect animal and human health. The reported case study of transgene flow and transgene introgression from cultivar to the wild (J.R. Reichman and L.S. Watrud, Molecular Ecology, 2006) may be cited which established the existence of transgenic plants in wild in Oregon, USA. The case involved glyphosate – resistant ‘creeping bent grass’ (Agrostis stolonifera L.) plants expressing CP4 EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium spp. Strain CP4, conferring resistance to herbicide glyphosate, transgenes were found in non agronomic habitats outside of the experimental test plots in the central Oregon study.

Super pests

Lab. tests indicate that the cotton bollworms, a common plant pest is getting resistant to the Bt. sprays . The stink bug epidemic reported from North Carolina and Georgia is suspected to be linked to the GE plants, loved by the pest. GE company Monsanto recommended spray of one of the deadliest chemical, ‘Methyl parathion’ to control the pest. Transgenic Bt. Cotton and the other GE crops failed in the US, India and elsewhere due mainly to pest problems besides their desired and expected production failures. Bt. Cotton was engineered to kill its pests like American bollworms, pink bollworms and bud worms but it ended up in eliminating these pests’ natural predators and turned these pests into super pests.

Killing beneficial insects

Several field studies showed GM products do kill beneficial insects such as the Monarch butterflies larvae (Cornell, 1999). Bt. Crops killed the Lace wings which are the natural predators of the cotton worms. Honey bees are killed when they feed on the proteins in GM canola flowers and Bt. Cotton flowers.

Poisonous to mammals

GM potatoes, spliced with DNA from Snowdrop plant with the viral promotor (CaMV 35 s) was found to be poisonous to mammals (as rats) damaging their vital organs and immune systems. Scientist since have demanded that all GM products using CaMV – 35 s promotor gene be with drawn from commercial production.

Genetic pollution

Some GM crops are flowerless but not all. GM pollens carried by wind, rain, birds, bees & other insects, fungus and bacteria causesevere genetic pollution. Pollen from GM canola, GE oilseed rape and Bt. cotton can move several hundred meters and pollute the non GM varieties as well as the wild varieties even across species barriers causing horizontal gene transfer. It is postulated that ubiquitous promotor, CaMV 35 s, in fact enhance

horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

A US study showed that 50% of wild straw berries growing within 50 meters of GM straw berry acquired GM gene markers and another study showed 25-38% of wild sunflowers grown close to GM crop had GM gene markers. Similar studies made in Germany with respect to GE Oil seed rape and in Thailand with respect to Bt. Cotton have confirmed the American findings.

A study in England showed that a small GM planting contaminated wild honey

which meant that bees carried the GM pollens to organic plantings and the

wild, which must show transgenic elements in them.

A new revolution the ‘ the blue revolution’ in aquaculture is growing rapidly in

which commercial fishes as salmons, trouts and cat fishes are genetically

modified to grow fast in size (up to 39 X). This will, in turn, wipe out their

cousins in the wild. There is no regulation for the safety of the non GM and

native/wild species biodiversity as of now.

Decline and Destruction of family farms and small land holders

In the US, the population engaged in agriculture was 60% in 1850; 4% in 1950 and less than 2% now. In 1935 there were 7 million farms which now stands at less than 2 million. More or less similar declines have occurred everywhere in the world. But the fact remains that these family farms and the small land holders between them produce more than 60% of our foods. This decline takes its root in the new GATT – WTO regulations. The economic strength and legislative powers have been taken away by the new agri corporations through the GATT – WTO dominated new world order. Promotion of GM products in food is the business of these agri corporations. A large number of native paddy varieties numbering around several thousands have already been lost in India through the two agri revolutions. The new world order may wipe out 1,00,000 traditional vanilla farmers of Madagascar and Comoros Islands through GM vanilla; several lakh sugar cane farmers in the third world through GE fructose. Sudan has long lost its export of gum arabic. A modest estimate puts the figure at least $ 14 billion of synthetic substitutes for the natural farm products of the third world. There are attempts to grow food in big laboratories eliminating the need for seeds, soil and even the plants thus shifting the task of food productions from the farming communities to the GE laboratories.

Control and dependency

Terminator Technology:-

GE seed companies have ensured through legislations that farmers would not be eligible to save and exchange patented seeds. To fail the farmers in seed collection and seed saving, they have developed and introduced a technology, broadly called ‘Terminator technology’ to ensure that the seeds are rendered sterile after harvest. These seeds contain ‘suicide’ genes in both male and female lines. The male sterility is caused by a gene (US patent no. 5,750,867 owned by Aventis) from bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefeciens called ‘barnase’ coding for a ribonuclease that renders pollens ‘dead’ by failing the pollen cells from undergoing meiosis to halve their chromosomes. Besides, a pollen lethality gene is also used which is expressed late in the development of male flowers, in pollen cells after meiosis that prevents the pollens being formed. The female sterility gene (US patent no. 5,633,441 owned by Aventis) is linked to a selectable marker gene with its own promoter, so that the female sterile plants can be selected. The terminator genes, besides barnase, include papain active protein, or the A- fragment of diphtheria toxin, Marker genes used include herbicide resistance gene, or a gene conferring a disease or pest resistance, a GUS gene for glucuronidase, or a gene encoding Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) endotoxin. The major problem associated with the process of use of different genetic constructs is that there occurs a lot of gene scrambling as they are integrated and genetic engineers cannot control either their integrations or their multiplications which, in turn, would multiply the uncertainties and unpredictabilities of the GM crops. Many of the genes currently in use in GM crop productions such as recombinase and the terminator lethal genes are harmful to the cells including mammalian cells. The recombinase cause recombination at non- specific sites there by causing large scale genome scrambling (ISIS News 7/8 ). Besides, the synthetic genes and other GM constructs can spread by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species which cannot be controlled. This will cause large scale destruction of the existing biodiversity so evolved in the nature by the forces of evolution.

Traitor technology:-

This is another patented bad technology released to the market by the modern agro corporations by which some GM crops have technologically controlled stages in their life cycles – when to leaf, flower and bear fruit – under the influence of certain triggering chemicals. Thus, a farmer is forced to use these chemicals if he/she is to yield a harvest, thereby pushing him/her to deeper levels of economic dependence or debt.

Less diversity, quality, quantity and profit

The most misleading hope raised by the GM technology firms is that only the GM crops will solve the world’s hunger. World wide studies have proved beyond doubt that monoculture of any crop any where has always less yields per acre as compaired to polyculture of several crops – different seeds interplanted between the rows, in the fence or in different patches within the same area. In a study of 8,200 field trials, Round up ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of soy than non GM cousin( Charles Benbrook, former Director, Board of Agriculture, National Academy of Science). The average yield for non GM soybeans was 51.21 bushels per acre; for GM variety it was 49.26. This was again confirmed in a study at the University of Nebraska’s Institute of Agricultural Resources. Monsanto’s 5 different strains of soya was planted in 4 different locations of varied soil environments. Dr. Elmore found that on average more expensive GM seeds produced 6% less than non GM varieties and 11% less than good yielding conventional crops. Even where the yield was higher( Bt. Cotton in some field study in the US.), the cost of seeds and fertiliser used reduced the net profit substantially thus decreasing the depleted cost-benefit(B:C) ratio further. In agronomy, the cost-benefit ratio is the all important factor that signifies the farmer’s sustainability. A decreasing B:C ratio indicates a farmer’s declining economy; that he is not making any profit and that he cannot continue for long in such agriculture.

Fragility of future agriculture:-

Loss of agro biodiversity makes agriculture fragile. The case of Irish potato famine of 1840s is a glaring example of the importance of the crop diversity factor. When Irish farmers cultivated a few varieties, Peruvian farmers had thousands of varieties and this diversity provided the constant resource for blight resistance in potato crop. In the recent past a similar situation arose in Russia where a more virulent strain – potato late blight – threatened the Russian potato crop, broadly having the ability to withstand the harsh Russian winter. Citrus cancer blight threatened Florida’s $ 8.5 billion citrus fruit industry in 2000. Coca plants, mono cropped and nearly all identical, are also endangered by an international blight. Thus, the destruction rather than conservation of crop diversity seed stocks by GM agro corporations create a very dangerous situation and make the future of agriculture extremely fragile.

More pesticides and diminishing yields:-

Contrary to tall claims of GM companies field studies show that the best of organic farming techniques – using rich natural resources can always produce better resistant crops with higher yields and higher B:C ratios than the GM crops. GM crops, over the years, demanded 2 – 5 times more pounds of biocides per acre than non GM crop varieties and this leads to drastical environmental deteriorations.

Economic, political and social factor

Monopolisation of food production:-

There are approximately 1500 seed companies worlds wide but about a dozen of these control 50% of the global commercial seed market. Big seed corporations are buying up smaller seed companies and using clandestinely their market faith. By the year 2000, 5 corporations controlled 40% of soy seed market; 3 corporations controlled 90% of corn seed market; 2 corporations controlled 75% of cotton seed market and thus the company numbers diminishing and monopolistic market control increasing. Competing against the new GATT- WTO norms not only the number of farming families are diminishing abruptly but also the net annual farm income. Average annual income from small family farms in the US/ Europe plummeted in the last decade rendering the families to survive below poverty level.

Impact of food dependency:-

When the food production is monopolised, the future of its supply becomes dependent on the decisions of a few companies and their effective seed stocks. The crop diversity is waning – lost in the developed world and is in the process in third world countries except a few pockets – like the Peruvian potatoes and Indian paddy varieties, all in the third world. Food scientists indicate that if these indigenous territories are further disturbed by biotech’s advances, the long term vitality of all of the world’s food supply will be lost for ever.

Leading Agro Biotech Corporations & their Agribusiness,1999.

Corporations Total

Sales Agribusiness Sales Seed

Production Ranking (global) Agro-

Chemical Sales Ranking (global) Pharmaceutical

Sales (their

Original business.) Research &

Development Investments

A. ‘Life Science’ Group (involved mainly in genetic modification of various crop

plants)

Aventis $20.5 billion $4.6 billion n/a 1 $13.9 billion $3 billion

Novartis

(Syngenta) $20.3 billion $4.4 billion 3 2 $9.8 billion $2.2 billion

Monsanto(98) $8.6 billion $4 billion 2 3 $2.8 billion $1.3 billion

Astra Zeneca

(Syngenta) $18.4 billion $2.7 billion 6 5 $14.8 billion $2.9 billion

B. ‘Industrial Science’ Group (involved mainly in production of various

agrochemicals)

Bayer $27 billion $3.1 billion n/a 6 $5 billion $2.1 billion

DuPont $26.9 billion $3 billion 1 4 $1.6 billion $1.6 billion

Dow $18.9 billion $2.3 billion —— 8 —— $0.85 billion

BASF $29.5 billion $1.7 billion —— 9 $2.5 billion $1.3 billion

Biocolonisation:-

Colonisation in the past was through technologically superior armies. But the newest weapon in the hands of a few superpowers is a biological one and that is the GM seed. When a person loses food sufficiency he gets entangled in food dependency. This is why 5,00,000 alert Indian farmers staged a protest against new GATT in 1993 and are now opposing the GM seeds , GM agro products. Recently the European communities have launched the Slow food movement which is fast growing into a global movement essentially aimed at curbing the GM crops and save the diminishing biodiversity and

indigenous knowledge on farming techniques, biodiversity based organic farming.

Dependency and slavery:-

The new regulations which have come through the new world orders, GATT – WTO etc., the autonomy of the local economies can be wholly overridden. Foreign companies can buy and own all local companies, seeds, water, land and natural resources, converting them to exported cash, thus pushing the local economies to dependency and slavery.

Where does the future lead us to?

Long ago philosopher Descartes postulated that the space may be universally

or infinitely separated. Not long ago Einstein devised the famous formula, E =mc2, which led to the annihilation of 2 Japanese cities that brought the end to the 2nd world war. Now is the time of genetic engineering or gene splicing, the recombinant DNA technology, introduction of foreign DNAs – promoters and markers – genetic modification of all life forms – not for the betterment of the mankind but using thanotechnology for making bad money. Global sense prevailed to destroy or restrict the nuclear weapons once owned by the 2 super powers. But insanity is spreading fast in the form of recombinant DNA technology applications in the living world threatening its existence. Is it a Cartesian approach in a different form?

Is it better to be safe than sorry ?

In response to the rapid developments in genetic engineering and its

applications to life forms, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated and it entered into force from September, 2003. The Protocol

sets up a regime governing the international movement of GMOs with the

aim to protect global biodiversity from the adverse effects of the GMOs. The

WTO covers only the trade in GMOs, thus has a different aim i.e., to prevent

limitations on the free movement of GMOs. Thus, the Protocol in a sense

clash with the WTO. Hence, harmonisation of these two agreements is highly

desirable. The suggestion is that the Protocol be used by the WTO as

evidence of internationally accepted standards in relation to GMOs. But it is

unlikely that the WTO would accept such a proposal. Is there a solution?

By 1999, about 28 million hectares were under GE crop plantations world wide under the claim that they were pest, disease resistant and would provide enough food to end world hunger.

The other opinion was that such crops were released without enough tests and questioned their long term safety with respect to human beings and environment.

Governments world over were in dilemma, to allow it or not allow it, a decision most likely heavily influenced by the bureaucrats in view of the lack of adequate scientific consensus on the issue of threat to biological world.

Based on the convention on Biodiversity, the Cartagena Protocol that entered into force from 11 September, 2003 set up a regime that dealt with the international movement of all living modified organisms (LMOs) which included GMOs and other organisms created through cell fusion of different taxonomic categories – in accordance with the precautionary principles.

The Protocol applies to 2 categories of LMOs:-

1. LMOs intended for release into the environment such as fish, plants and

seeds etc. covered by the operational sections.

2. LMOs intended for use in food or feed or for processing such as cornflakes,

soya milk etc.

All LMOs that are pharmaceuticals for humans are excluded from the Protocol,

which was objected to by the European Union States but US vetoed this objection.

Under the Protocol, trade in LMOs with non parties ( such as the US ) must be carried out in the same manner as with the parties.

Articles 7 – 12 of the Protocol, the Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) described as its backbone requires an exporting country to obtain the consent of the importing country before shipping living LMOs for the first time by informing its national authority. The importing country must then acknowledge receipt of the notification and decide whether to or not to accept the shipment within a certain period of time. Under the Protocol, a risk assessment must be carried out for all decisions made in relation to the acceptance of LMO shipments. A party can accept the shipment with certain condition, prohibit the import or request additional information from the exporter. In addition the Protocol establishes a “Biosafety clearing house” to which the importing country must inform its decision on the import of a particular LMO within 270 days of the original notification. However, under the Protocol a failure to notify does not imply consent.

The US even though not a party to the Protocol exerted considerable influence on the scope of the Protocol by participating in negotiations. Its intentions were to ensure that the Protocol had as limited an effect as possible, in order to protect the US biotech industry. The primary objective of the US was to make the Protocol subordinate to the WTO rules so that international trade in GMOs would not be disrupted.

Consequent upon the US involvement, the 135 member countries soon became divided into 2 groups viz. “ Like Minded Group” mostly of the developing countries except Argentine, Chile and Uruguay and “Miami Group”comprising of countries like Australia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the U.S.,the GMO exporting and importing countries. Miami Group favoured a weak Protocol that would not disrupt international trade in GMOs.

The US continually sought to have the issue of trade in GMOs shifted to the WTO’s mandate. Only lack of support from the EU forced the WTO to decline addressing the GMO issue which, in turn, lent greater weight to the Protocol.

Under US insistence the draft Protocol included a ‘savings clause’ in the ‘preamble’ not in the ‘operative part’ and the US with reference to the 2nd paragraph and ignoring the 3rd paragraph claims that treaty does not alter the rights and obligations of governments under the rules of the WTO.

Any conflict between the Protocol and the WTO would most likely be referred to the WTO Disputes Panel if one side to the Dispute has not signed the environment agreement (as the US). For example if India, acting consistently with the Protocol banned the import of certain GMOs from the US, the US may take the conflict to the WTO Disputes panel claiming that India had breached WTO rules and in such a case the result may be well predicted since the Dispute body’s only role is to interpret the WTO agreement and not the Protocol.

Hence, the question – Is it better to be safe than sorry? And the answer may be, ‘sorry, it is perhaps too late’. We are mid way through globalization. We have already decided our fate through legislations and policy decisions from which perhaps we can not backtrack. Yet we have enough biodiversity which we have to sustain no matter how and at what cost.

degree authority asked:




 

There are some of the popular online information technology bachelor degree programs. One can find more by visiting an online directory like DegreeAuthority.com. You can select an IT program out of a host of online information technology bachelor programs enlisted in a directory. IT students can access the leading IT universities like Westwood College, DeVry University, Utah Career College , Kaplan University and Keiser UniversityOnline through DegreeAuthority.com and others.

Bachelor Degree programs:



Information Systems Security

Web Design and Multimedia



Bachelor of Science Programs:



Information Technology

Networking Technology

Software Development

Information Technology Management

Information Technology Database

Information Technology Multimedia and Animation

Information Technology Network Administration

Information Technology Programming

Information Technology Web Development



Advance Start Bachelor of Science Programs:



Software Development

Information Technology



Each enlisted university on a directory has separate request to information form. The students can choose a university and fill its form for drawing detailed information regarding its online information technology bachelor degree programs. You will be contacted by an admission counselor after the processing of your request form. DegreeAuthority.com and others also give a brief introduction about the enlisted universities. You can go through that information for selecting a university before filling its request to information form.

The services of an online directory like DegreeAuthority.com do not end here. It helps students in borrowing private student loans too. You can find private student loan application on the pages of a directory. Students are just required to fill the loan application form and leave rest of the task on the student loan providing company. They will get the required amount after their application is processed.

Although there are conventional colleges conferring information technology bachelor degrees but students prefer online universities over conventional due to following factors.

The online universities provide flexible learning to students. You decide your study hours and get the opportunity to earn online information technology bachelor degree in a few months. If you are unable to spare much time for study then you can extend your online information technology bachelor program to few years.

The classes are arranged online in night so that students can attend them without any disturbance. You can communicate with fellow students in an online class through chat. Students get proper online guidance from Professors, whenever they require. They can ask questions to their teacher

and get answers through e-mail.