Comment
By
S.K.T. Nasar
Vice-President, Maromi Human Resource Development Society, Kolkata
On
‘Are biotechnology degree courses relevant?’
(S.C. Lakhotia 2008 Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 10, 25 May 2008, 1244-1245)
This well-written, bold and timely opinion (1) invites all concerned with policy, implementation, education, R&D and future of biotechnology in India for a vigorous rethink. The opinari is largely acceptable but for its pessimism. The concluding suggestion that “It is high time that all school and undergraduate stand-alone teaching programmes in biotechnology/bioinformatics, etc. are stopped --” needs amendment.
Biotechnology, to use the simile of Swanson (2), can be likened to a river that “-- has its obscure and unpretentious beginning; its quiet stretches as well as its rapids; its period of drought as well as of fulness. It gathers momentum with the work of many investigators and as it is fed by other streams of thought; it is deepened and broadened by the concepts and generalizations that are gradually evolved. Along its course it may be tapped by other disciplines, and its waters made to irrigate large areas of experiment and practice. Eventually it ceases to become narrowly restricted in a channelized course, and its substance becomes part of a larger and more comprehensive body of thought –.”
Biotechnology concept originated noiselessly and remained unattended for the purposes of education, social development and business but got an unprecedented boost after the construction of plasmid pSC101 (3, 4). Businesses were attracted to biotechnology in the early eighties on the conclusion of Asilomar Conference (5) debates on recombinant DNA (rDNA) biosafety and after settlement of Diamond versus Chakrabarty suit (6). rDNA-based biotechnology took deeper roots at about this time. Unfettered developments in New Biology enormously expanded the scope of biotechnology. OECD (7), while biotechnology degree programmes began mushrooming, considered four main subfields of biotechnology - green biotechnology to do with agriculture, blue biotechnology concerned with aquatic uses, white biotechnology, also called grey biotechnology used in industry, and red biotechnology for medical purposes.
Kảroly (Karl) Ereky (8) coined the term “biotechnologie” (biotechnology) in 1919 which, to him, is an important engine for economic growth and social development through innovations in agriculture for higher food production.
Definition of biotechnology varies extensively. Many consider that biotechnology originated with the beginnings of domestication of life forms and organised agriculture while others trace the origins back to the advent of fermentation technology and the use of living organisms for extraction of medicines etc. Modern biochemists-turned-biotechnologists tend to restrict the definition based exclusively on rDNA, referred commonly by the media as ‘genetic engineering’. Nasar (9), in agreement with OECD (7), divides biotechnology into two broad categories: the "first generation non-rDNA" biotechnology and the "second generation rDNA" biotechnology. Over time, both non-rDNA and rDNA biotechnologies have enormously widened in knowledge, scope and application so much so that, at times, the distinction between the two categories is obliterated.
Biotechnology is a combination of biology and technology and, thereby, encompasses various societal needs. In view of neo-globalisation, biotechnology takes the centrestage in respects of research, education, intercontinental-to-domestic trade and business, community participation and national and global laws. The demand for biotechnologists is growing.
The last three decades have witnessed new discoveries in areas such as eDNA, biofilms, epigenetics, HGT, submolecular-to-supramolecular biology, subcellular-to-organ biology, production of designer cell, organ and organism, bioassay, bioaugmentation, biochip, biosensing, biodegrdation, bioremediation, synthetic biology, forensic science etc. that have revolutionised man’s world view. These discoveries, and much more to come in conjunction with revolutions in computer technology, automation, engineering, medicine, surgery, nanotechnology, astrobiology etc have altered the concept, scope and application of both non-rDNA and rDNA biotechnologies.
Newer paradigms in biotechnologies have opened innovative vistas in research, education, and production-value addition-consumption systems. Global trade and business are intricately linked with different forms of IPR regime, international protocols and instruments, and laws applicable to biologicals, environment and biotechnology.
Novel and worldwide job opportunities are becoming available in biotechnologies. The future will throw up new universal opportunities and challenges to the gen-next. India must cater to the world as it is and for the world as it will be. Both research and education should serve today’s needs and fulfill tomorrow’s obligations. India cannot afford to wait and watch.
It is in this context that research, teaching and application of biotechnology in the broadening sense are an imperative. The private sector took the lead in biotechnology business, investments, research and education. The public sector took off reluctantly but soon burst into activity to compete with the private sector enterprise. Curiously, most universities in the public sector took pride in their biotechnology endeavours in research and teaching for profit in the garb of ‘self financing’ the adventure. Here lay the downside of biotechnology development in India.
Public sector degree-awarding research-teaching institutions with the traditional departments such as of botany, zoology, and microbiology were loath to changing times. The faculty did not want to come out of their cozy niche and address new challenges. Curiously again, these departments introduced biotechnology in their syllabi at the cost of the new advances in their own subjects. The private sector had a wide-open field to operate. These institutions coordinated with biotechnology business ventures, reoriented their syllabi accordingly and, with the help of really effective placement cells, were able to find jobs for alumni. The public sector institutions lagged behind. As a consequence, the students of the public sector institutions put up a poker face and deservedly attracted the pessimism by Lakhotia (1).
Biotechnology failed aspirations in India for three major reasons; first, biotechnology is still considered by the academia as confined exclusively to rDNA biotechnology to the exclusion of new emerging areas such as mentioned above, second, lack of indispensable efforts to make available trained faculty for different facets of both rDNA and non-rDNA biotechnologies and, third, feeble investments in the infrastructure development. Biotechnology has a wide variety of career opportunities ranging from sales and marketing, to research and development, to manufacturing and quality control and assurance and more.
Nasar (9) holds that rDNA biotechnologies are the greatest gifts of the twentieth century to the humankind, but for the intellectual property rights restrictions on use by poor economies. The non-rDNA biotechnology is principally in the public domain and is, therefore, accessible to all. On the other hand, the rDNA biotechnology is basically and mostly in the IPR domain and, thereby, allows constricted accessibility to poor end-users in the developing and underdeveloped countries. Nasar (9) suggested a combination of both first and second-generation biotechnologies with emphasis on the former for research and development (R&D) and end use by developing and undeveloped economies.
The good news is that biotechnology laboratories have ‘mushroomed’ all around. Some may like, dislike, or even distaste the fact the beginning has been made. The task is to reorganise these institutions into skilled, forward looking and globally competitive organisations. India now has public-private sector institutions. Superior students are good in theory and need more practical training. Filling in this gap will raise standards. Each institution may be encouraged to undertake specialised approach to selected facet of biotechnology. Law colleges may provide specialised courses in areas pertaining to national and international laws, protocols and instruments concerning biology, biotechnology, biodiversity and the like. Universities may be cajoled to undertake studies in biotechnology management, business and futurology. Newer areas of biotechnologies will keep popping up at an ever-increasing faster rate. The National Policy on Biotechnology should continuously take into account such emerging areas and suggest strategic actions.
India can and should become a leader in biotechnology. That is a distinct possibility.
References
1. Lakhotia S.C. Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 10, 25 May 2008, 1244-1245.
2. Swanson C.P. In Cytology and Cytogenetics, Prentice Hall Inc., 1957, p.1.
3. Cohen, S.N., A.C.Y. Chang, H.W. Boyer and R.B. Helling, Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., (USA), 70(11): 1973, 3240-3244.
4. Cohen SN and Chang AC. Revised interpretation of the origin of the pSC101 plasmid. J Bacteriol 1977 Nov; 132(2), 1977, 734-737.
5. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R.O. III, Singer, M.F., "Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 72, 1975, pp. 1981-1984, also Science 188, 1975, p. 991.
6. United States Supreme Court June 16, DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY, 447 U.S. 303, 1980.
7. OECD, Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. National Experts on Biotechnology. Paris, 1986. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/54/1943773.pdf (Accessed on 28 August 2008)
8. Ereky, K. Biotechnologie der Fleisch-, Fett- und Milcherzeugung im landwirtschaftlichen Grosbetriebe. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin. 1919, 84p;
9. Nasar S.K.T 2007 FAO Forum Conf 14 (Water) - 5 March 2007 www.fao.org/Biotech/logs/C14/050307.htm (Accessed on 28 August 2008)
By
S.K.T. Nasar
Vice-President, Maromi Human Resource Development Society, Kolkata
On
‘Are biotechnology degree courses relevant?’
(S.C. Lakhotia 2008 Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 10, 25 May 2008, 1244-1245)
This well-written, bold and timely opinion (1) invites all concerned with policy, implementation, education, R&D and future of biotechnology in India for a vigorous rethink. The opinari is largely acceptable but for its pessimism. The concluding suggestion that “It is high time that all school and undergraduate stand-alone teaching programmes in biotechnology/bioinformatics, etc. are stopped --” needs amendment.
Biotechnology, to use the simile of Swanson (2), can be likened to a river that “-- has its obscure and unpretentious beginning; its quiet stretches as well as its rapids; its period of drought as well as of fulness. It gathers momentum with the work of many investigators and as it is fed by other streams of thought; it is deepened and broadened by the concepts and generalizations that are gradually evolved. Along its course it may be tapped by other disciplines, and its waters made to irrigate large areas of experiment and practice. Eventually it ceases to become narrowly restricted in a channelized course, and its substance becomes part of a larger and more comprehensive body of thought –.”
Biotechnology concept originated noiselessly and remained unattended for the purposes of education, social development and business but got an unprecedented boost after the construction of plasmid pSC101 (3, 4). Businesses were attracted to biotechnology in the early eighties on the conclusion of Asilomar Conference (5) debates on recombinant DNA (rDNA) biosafety and after settlement of Diamond versus Chakrabarty suit (6). rDNA-based biotechnology took deeper roots at about this time. Unfettered developments in New Biology enormously expanded the scope of biotechnology. OECD (7), while biotechnology degree programmes began mushrooming, considered four main subfields of biotechnology - green biotechnology to do with agriculture, blue biotechnology concerned with aquatic uses, white biotechnology, also called grey biotechnology used in industry, and red biotechnology for medical purposes.
Kảroly (Karl) Ereky (8) coined the term “biotechnologie” (biotechnology) in 1919 which, to him, is an important engine for economic growth and social development through innovations in agriculture for higher food production.
Definition of biotechnology varies extensively. Many consider that biotechnology originated with the beginnings of domestication of life forms and organised agriculture while others trace the origins back to the advent of fermentation technology and the use of living organisms for extraction of medicines etc. Modern biochemists-turned-biotechnologists tend to restrict the definition based exclusively on rDNA, referred commonly by the media as ‘genetic engineering’. Nasar (9), in agreement with OECD (7), divides biotechnology into two broad categories: the "first generation non-rDNA" biotechnology and the "second generation rDNA" biotechnology. Over time, both non-rDNA and rDNA biotechnologies have enormously widened in knowledge, scope and application so much so that, at times, the distinction between the two categories is obliterated.
Biotechnology is a combination of biology and technology and, thereby, encompasses various societal needs. In view of neo-globalisation, biotechnology takes the centrestage in respects of research, education, intercontinental-to-domestic trade and business, community participation and national and global laws. The demand for biotechnologists is growing.
The last three decades have witnessed new discoveries in areas such as eDNA, biofilms, epigenetics, HGT, submolecular-to-supramolecular biology, subcellular-to-organ biology, production of designer cell, organ and organism, bioassay, bioaugmentation, biochip, biosensing, biodegrdation, bioremediation, synthetic biology, forensic science etc. that have revolutionised man’s world view. These discoveries, and much more to come in conjunction with revolutions in computer technology, automation, engineering, medicine, surgery, nanotechnology, astrobiology etc have altered the concept, scope and application of both non-rDNA and rDNA biotechnologies.
Newer paradigms in biotechnologies have opened innovative vistas in research, education, and production-value addition-consumption systems. Global trade and business are intricately linked with different forms of IPR regime, international protocols and instruments, and laws applicable to biologicals, environment and biotechnology.
Novel and worldwide job opportunities are becoming available in biotechnologies. The future will throw up new universal opportunities and challenges to the gen-next. India must cater to the world as it is and for the world as it will be. Both research and education should serve today’s needs and fulfill tomorrow’s obligations. India cannot afford to wait and watch.
It is in this context that research, teaching and application of biotechnology in the broadening sense are an imperative. The private sector took the lead in biotechnology business, investments, research and education. The public sector took off reluctantly but soon burst into activity to compete with the private sector enterprise. Curiously, most universities in the public sector took pride in their biotechnology endeavours in research and teaching for profit in the garb of ‘self financing’ the adventure. Here lay the downside of biotechnology development in India.
Public sector degree-awarding research-teaching institutions with the traditional departments such as of botany, zoology, and microbiology were loath to changing times. The faculty did not want to come out of their cozy niche and address new challenges. Curiously again, these departments introduced biotechnology in their syllabi at the cost of the new advances in their own subjects. The private sector had a wide-open field to operate. These institutions coordinated with biotechnology business ventures, reoriented their syllabi accordingly and, with the help of really effective placement cells, were able to find jobs for alumni. The public sector institutions lagged behind. As a consequence, the students of the public sector institutions put up a poker face and deservedly attracted the pessimism by Lakhotia (1).
Biotechnology failed aspirations in India for three major reasons; first, biotechnology is still considered by the academia as confined exclusively to rDNA biotechnology to the exclusion of new emerging areas such as mentioned above, second, lack of indispensable efforts to make available trained faculty for different facets of both rDNA and non-rDNA biotechnologies and, third, feeble investments in the infrastructure development. Biotechnology has a wide variety of career opportunities ranging from sales and marketing, to research and development, to manufacturing and quality control and assurance and more.
Nasar (9) holds that rDNA biotechnologies are the greatest gifts of the twentieth century to the humankind, but for the intellectual property rights restrictions on use by poor economies. The non-rDNA biotechnology is principally in the public domain and is, therefore, accessible to all. On the other hand, the rDNA biotechnology is basically and mostly in the IPR domain and, thereby, allows constricted accessibility to poor end-users in the developing and underdeveloped countries. Nasar (9) suggested a combination of both first and second-generation biotechnologies with emphasis on the former for research and development (R&D) and end use by developing and undeveloped economies.
The good news is that biotechnology laboratories have ‘mushroomed’ all around. Some may like, dislike, or even distaste the fact the beginning has been made. The task is to reorganise these institutions into skilled, forward looking and globally competitive organisations. India now has public-private sector institutions. Superior students are good in theory and need more practical training. Filling in this gap will raise standards. Each institution may be encouraged to undertake specialised approach to selected facet of biotechnology. Law colleges may provide specialised courses in areas pertaining to national and international laws, protocols and instruments concerning biology, biotechnology, biodiversity and the like. Universities may be cajoled to undertake studies in biotechnology management, business and futurology. Newer areas of biotechnologies will keep popping up at an ever-increasing faster rate. The National Policy on Biotechnology should continuously take into account such emerging areas and suggest strategic actions.
India can and should become a leader in biotechnology. That is a distinct possibility.
References
1. Lakhotia S.C. Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 10, 25 May 2008, 1244-1245.
2. Swanson C.P. In Cytology and Cytogenetics, Prentice Hall Inc., 1957, p.1.
3. Cohen, S.N., A.C.Y. Chang, H.W. Boyer and R.B. Helling, Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., (USA), 70(11): 1973, 3240-3244.
4. Cohen SN and Chang AC. Revised interpretation of the origin of the pSC101 plasmid. J Bacteriol 1977 Nov; 132(2), 1977, 734-737.
5. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R.O. III, Singer, M.F., "Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 72, 1975, pp. 1981-1984, also Science 188, 1975, p. 991.
6. United States Supreme Court June 16, DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY, 447 U.S. 303, 1980.
7. OECD, Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. National Experts on Biotechnology. Paris, 1986. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/54/1943773.pdf (Accessed on 28 August 2008)
8. Ereky, K. Biotechnologie der Fleisch-, Fett- und Milcherzeugung im landwirtschaftlichen Grosbetriebe. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin. 1919, 84p;
9. Nasar S.K.T 2007 FAO Forum Conf 14 (Water) - 5 March 2007 www.fao.org/Biotech/logs/C14/050307.htm (Accessed on 28 August 2008)
