An institution’s response to criticism is a good indicator of its ethics and professionalism. In India, we are accustomed to waffling, deflection and outright rejection of any charges of wrongdoing. Political organisations and individuals in power use these tactics to routinely deny accusations of malfeasance. But when a top-level scientific organisation does the same it reflects badly on the integrity of Indian science and raises questions about the institution’s principles. We are discussing here the unsavoury aftermath of the announcement by ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) that it had developed two varieties of high-yielding, climate resistant and saline tolerant rice through genome editing or GE. Pointed questions have been raised over these claims based on the institution’s own testing data. Instead of responding to these, ICAR has fallen back on the usual ploy of dismissing such criticism as anti-development.
This is a blanket denial, and it won’t wash. ICAR as a public sector research organisation needs to come up with a point-by-point rebuttal since the interests of millions of our rice farmers and the country’s food security are at stake. The gaps in information are pretty large and renders the claims it makes for its two GE rice varieties, Pusa DST-1 and DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala) questionable (see “Centre’s claims about gene edited rice varieties don’t match up, analysis of ICAR data shows” published on the Down To Earth website on October 30, 2025).
The first criticism came from within ICAR, and the response was instant and dramatic. Venugopal Badaravada, a member of the institution’s governing body and general body representing farmers, was summarily expelled after he said that the benefits claimed for the two GE rice varieties had not been established. “Resilience to drought, salinity, or heat stress can only be authenticated through at least five to seven years of rigorous, pan-India testing. Skipping this process is scientifically irresponsible,” he had said. ICAR removed him from its decision-making and governing bodies for “frivolous, baseless and materially unsupported allegations against various authorities of the government and ICAR”. While the expulsion order referred to his complaints over several months of the corruption and nepotism in ICAR, Badaravada was removed a day after his remarks on the GE rice. It was clear that he had touched a raw nerve.
If ICAR thought it had silenced a critic who was prone to going public with his views on the functioning of the organisation, it was clearly not prepared for a gimlet-eyed scrutiny of its testing data contained in the annual reports of the All India Coordinated Research Project on Rice (AICRPR). The result of this painstaking work was a detailed dossier put out by the Coalition for a GM-Free India, listing the serious lapses in testing, insufficient data and inaccuracies in the analysis presented by ICAR to make its claims of the development of super performing GE rice varieties. So detailed was the dossier that it demanded answers—clear, unequivocal responses. This did not happen. Instead, ICAR chose to come up with the dismissive reply that these were baseless allegations “motivated by an anti-development agenda that undermines the achievements of Indian scientists”. Not the most convincing of responses to serious allegations.
Should one take the charges levelled by the Coalition seriously when the country’s top agriculture scientists have spoken? After all, it is only an informal network of organisations and individuals across the country who are concerned about the environmental impact of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) as it campaigns for more sustainable farming methods. But remember, the Coalition for a GM Free India is a battle-hardened veteran of struggles against GM cotton, GM brinjal and GM mustard. It has unflagging energy and a reputation for putting science in the middle of the debate. By working closely with scientists, both here and in the developed world, it has developed a keen eye for spotting data discrepancies and oversights and a propensity for blowing holes in unfounded claims.
A clarification is necessary here. While GM crops are created by inserting genes from another organism, GE crops are developed by altering a plant's own traits through the use of sophisticated technology called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). Some scientists consider the latter a safer or a less risky proposition, although the anti-GM lobby is not convinced.
In a follow-up to its initial analysis released on October 30, the coalition’s co-convenor Kavitha Kuruganti sent another letter to the Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan, questioning the rationale for recommending the release of the Kamala variety when ICAR did not follow its own protocols. In her latest missive, Kuruganti says the number of test sites in each zone falls short of the norms laid down by ICAR. She also points out that a minimum period of three years of testing is laid down in the ICAR guidelines, a rule which has been skipped to put the two GE varieties in advanced trial without going through the initial varietal trait testing. Worse, Kamala is an underperformer, according to the Coalition, which says the checks —these are varieties used for comparison—have consistently outperformed GE rice except in a few instances. The Coalition’s conclusion is that data has either not been generated, or been ignored, or manipulated to push these varieties into a “recommendation for release” category.
It is inexplicable why ICAR has laid itself open to such controversy. Slapdash research is hardly the way to gain acceptance for a technology that is viewed with deep distrust in the country. What is even more difficult to understand is why it is flirting with a technology that it appears to have no understanding of. Chouhan described the development of GE rice as an “exceptional achievement”, completely unaware of the fact that it was developed by using the borrowed CRISPR CAS9 tool (see “India’s crispr feat, with borrowed tools” Down To Earth, June 1-15, 2025). India cannot release either of these rice varieties without entering into expensive licensing contracts with the company that holds the patent on it.
Undeterred, the ministry has just outlined a plan to achieve atmanirbharta (self-reliance) in pulses by developing 15 GE varieties of pulses during the next six years. Self-reliance by using foreign technology?