ICAR's claims exposed by its own data

Why has ICAR flouted crop testing rules and ignored data red flags to push gene-edited rice strains that will not benefit farmers?

- 

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).