There is a two-way connection between science and society. Science is both shaped by the politics and the mores of society. A nation should not or cannot accept anything that goes against the interests of majority of its people. In a similar article titled "Agro-imperialism: Green Revolution to Biotechnology" published in this newspaper on 2 July 2004 I tried to give the genesis of Green Revolution and its pervasive impact on our agriculture, economy and ecology. The biotechnology is an extension of the Green Revolution and it's more destructive owing to a number of reasons.

Prof Haseena Khan mentioned about mutated mustard developed by gamma radiation in the BINA. We, the environmentalists, are equally and vehemently opposing all sorts of mutation and hybridisation, which initiated monoculture in agriculture posing a great threat to bio-diversity across the globe.

Any technology in food and agriculture needs addressing few concerns regarding environmental safety, health issues, social and economic effects, ethical and moral issues, and regularity issues. About environmental safety it was now proved that genetically altered organisms upset the balance of population in natural ecosystem. The large-scale landscape homogenisation with transgenic crops is causing ecological problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. The genetically modified organisms transfer their altered genes to wild relatives producing super weeds. Is it a hypothetical issue? Of course not. In plant world, transfer of genes from one species to another is a common phenomenon. We know hundreds of new strains of virus and bacteria have been developed with introduction of hybrid seeds. The characteristics of virus, bacteria and wild species is that they can easily attain resistant against any pesticide or herbicide. On food and health safety it was proved that the GM crops carry toxins and that's why no major cereal item (except maize) has so far been developed even in the USA under the technology.

Till now, MNCs are in the control of biotechnology. The MNCs have already exerted serious pressure on the WTO to pass the patent on agriculture. The real game will be started after getting passed of the patent law. The laws will give control of genetically modified crops to a few large companies. And the impact of such control was stated in my previous article. If genetic modification is a sound idea, why do its proponents avoid genuine scientific study of the processes? If their products are popularly accepted as safe, why do they hire lobbyists? If they favour an open market, why do they seek corporate welfare handouts and other special privileges? If the technology is so clean why is it taking so much time (two decades have already elapsed) in spreading?

Although our learned teachers stressed the need for involvement of public sector in the research process, it is a private company in association with an MNC has been playing the key role in introducing transgenic crops. As the private sector has exerted more and more dominance in advancing biotechnology, the public sector has had to invest a growing share of its scarce resources in enhancing biotechnological capacities in public institutions and in evaluating and responding to the challenges posed by incorporating private sector technologies into existing farming systems. Such funds would be much better used to expand support for ecologically based agricultural research, as all the biological problems that biotechnology aims at can be solved using agro-ecological approaches. Although there may be some useful applications of biotechnology, much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers located throughout the world using agro-ecological technologies. In fact, new rural development approaches and low-input technologies applied by farmers and NGOs around the world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Countries like Bangladesh will loss their genetic resources after introduction of biotechnology. Having been ranked the most corrupt nation four times, it's difficult to believe that we would not sell out our genetic resources to the MNCs. A VC of an Indian University was caught for his attempt to sell the genetic resources to an MNC two years back. On regularity issues, I can only say that ours is a country where nobody cares any regulation and so far my knowledge goes, we have no law which can give enough protection to our farmers, consumers, livestock and the environment!

Transgenic means an organism into which the genes of other genes have been engineered. Although outside of its cell, there is no distinction between a human gene, a cat gene, a wheat gene or a bacterial gene, should we accept random transfer of genes in crops from other organisms? For example, will a Muslim accept beef produced from transgenic cow in which gene of a pig is used and similarly a Hindu welcome mutton of a similar goat altered with cow genes? It's an ethical issue, not scientific. The biotechnology has torn the core ethical issues of living creatures bringing all in an identical horizon.

Our biological scientists are trying to reinvent drought-, flood- or saline-resistant crops. Having minimum link with traditional agriculture, who does not know that we had sufficient number of varieties those used to grow in extreme climatic conditions.

As a member of a peasant family and an agriculturist, I myself saw how some of our traditional rice varieties (broadcast aman) grow in deep water. Some of the varieties may grow 1/2 feet a day against rise of water level. There were some Aus varieties which could endure extreme drought. During the hot summer, the varieties remained dormant and with the first precipitation, the straw-like paddy plants immediately started sprouting their tillers and within a few weeks became ready for harvesting. Unfortunately, most of the varieties were lost with introduction of 'so-called' high yielding varieties and after losing all those, we are now trying to develop new varieties through a 'controversial' technology!

Yes, we are minority but not misinformed and misguided. We are doing our job compelled by our conscience. We also know that finally our voices and concerns would be sunk in the sea of lobbyists and vested groups. However, that does not mean that truth will remain hidden for long. When the truth will be surfaced as in the case of 'Green Revolution' the damage, which would be wrought would be irreparable.

Nazrul Isla is a journalist and an environmentalist.