Not just
agriculture and food production, in any area where technology is involved,
whether science and technology, is fraught with dispute.
The wrangling over GM mustard, which could become
India’s first genetically engineered food crop if the government has its way,
reveals the ongoing dispute in society on the suitability of GM crops. The
earlier engagement with Bt brinjal and the government’s efforts to release it
saw the same pros-and-cons discussions. Ultimately, Bt brinjal was not released
as scientists were unable to answer the questions raised by opponents or
provide safety data.
Not just agriculture and food
production, in any area where technology is involved, whether science and
technology, water management or land use, moving ahead is increasingly fraught
with dispute. The ideas and development paradigm are under
siege, with disparate viewpoints unable to find common ground. Policy
formulation faces confrontational interactions rather than dialogue. Part of
this stems from the old paternalistic formula for development that came from
the top (meaning government), which was accepted till some years ago, is not
acceptable any longer.
People aren’t willing to be placid consumers of a roadmap set by the powers that be, but are now informed by wider concerns about the environment, social equity and larger self-interest.Most new conflicts are arising in technologies and developments derived from or based on biology. Many are related to food, livelihood and ecological security. The 21st century is predicted to be that of biology, the time when fast-paced and radical breakthroughs will transform the science. Recent developments have led to transformative technologies like genetic engineering including Crispr, Nanotechnology, Stem Cell interventions, Genomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics.
The technology, with its
associated features like knowledge creation, intellectual property rights and
access to key resources like genetic resources, has raised a set of major
controversies with deeply entrenched views on both sides of the divide.Part of
the problem is increasing privatisation of science and the fruits of scientific
research and resultant sequestering of information going into the private
rather than public domain.
This is at variance with the
hitherto strong traditions of publicly-funded science and technology
development that was accessible to all. The Green Revolution, perhaps India’s
most visible technology, or at least one with the widest impact, was a technology
in the public domain, almost diametrically opposed to the current genetic
engineering, a purely privately-owned technology.
In addition to increasing privatisation, there are concerns over the safety and
ethical dimensions of the emerging transformative technologies like genetic
engineering, nanotechnology and the “omics” range of genomics, proteomics,
metabolomics, etc. All these will change the way that food production,
healthcare and drug delivery will be managed in future and the ways in which
the natural and human environment will be impacted.
Building consensus and finding common ground
Most discussions on genetic resources, genetic engineering and
other transformative technologies are characterised by a culture of
conflict and opposition, discouraging constructive dialogue between
opposing viewpoints. There are few efforts to find consensus and commonality;
rather there is escalating sharpness in divergence of views and suspicion among
the key stakeholders about “hidden agendas”. In India, the lack of transparency
on the part of government agencies, unwillingness to share biosafety data and
the exclusion of major stakeholders in decision- making is becoming a major
impediment to the adoption of technology.Not in India, but elsewhere in the
world, there have been attempts to scale down differences and find common
ground as a prelude to reaching some consensus on controversial issues.
Conflict resolution structures have been set up in the past on the issues of
Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), with
varying degrees of success. In all cases though, the issue has moved forward
from the original stalemate. IPR still remains a contentious issue but the
concept of farmers’ rights has moved forward, with India playing a pioneering
role.
The Keystone Dialogues hosted by the Keystone Centre in the United States are
carefully constructed deliberations that address the politically controversial
and technically complex aspects of an issue. Another example is the Crucible
Group supported by the IDRC (International Development Research Centre) of
Canada. This group was active in the field of Intellectual Property Rights
associated with Plant Genetic Resources. The Crucible Group discussions
produced rather divergent points of view on plant genetic resources but
managed to develop a consensus on some issues like joint conservation efforts,
including local communities and private companies, as well as sharing of gene
bank collections with local communities.
A transparent dialogue process must be initiated to exchange data and build a consensus acceptable to public, private, and civil society sectors. Diverse interest groups must be at the table so that a wide range of inputs are available for decision-making. The creation of a consensus-seeking platform should try to resolve differences among the main protagonists/stakeholders as a first step, rather than seek immediate solutions. The consensus process should try to make opposing parties aware of the nuances of the other positions, even as they disagree. If this starts to happen, the first steps in moving away from the all-black or all- white positions can begin, leading to some agreed areas of action.
Source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/240923/suman-sahai-we-must-build-a-consensus-on-technologies-which-we-need.html
No comments:
Post a Comment