The obverse side of this coin (usually unrecognized) is that, as scientists, we need to acquire social literacy : that is, to recognize our social responsibility

in clearly presenting scientific and technological aspects for public understanding of public issues

in separating scientific and technological from societal aspects of these issues

in clearly understanding the scientific AND societal imperatives that drive us to develop, and apply, new technologies.

This conviction, that we need to promote the social literacy of scientists, drives aspects of my teaching and other professional activities.  I believe that we need consciously to think about the path by which we come to hold the opinions that we do: how do we construct our opinions?

As a step toward this,  my students analyze and discuss some societal implications of biotechnological applications by learning to carefully to separate the biological from the societal aspects of these complex issues in a class discussion.

Similarly, I try to familiarize myself with developments in biotechnological applications in order to better understand some of the socio-political controversies and ethical issues involved in such applications, communicate this understanding to other scientists, and encourage, and participate in, discussions of these issues.

One of the objectives of my undergraduate course on Plant Diversity is to enable students to integrate information derived from different levels of organization.  While this theme runs throughout the course, students apply this approach explicitly in a class discussion on aspects of genetic engineering.  The aim is to have students carefully analyze a particular technology (e.g., "terminator technology", "pharming") so as to clearly distinguish its molecular biological, organismal, and ecological (including agricultural) features.  This exercise leads to discussion on societal issues (e.g., intellectual property rights, regulatory measures) associated with that technology.   These issues directly lead to aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  In a graduate seminar in Spring 2003, we will examine the biological and social issues and rationale behind the establishment of the CBD, and will try to analyze specific case studies to acquire more direct understanding of some of the issues.  

The application of molecular genetic engineering for the improvement of crop plants has become highly controversial.  The genesis and development of a specific controversy, the introduction of cotton genetically modified (GM) to contain Bt, a protein toxin derived from a bacterium, is a very complex issue.  A preliminary assessment of the issues in India was presented at a symposium¹, written up in a paper², extended to a comparative analysis of India and the USA and presented as a poster³. The continuing story is kept upto date here.  A natural extension of this work was a co-authored chapter⁴ in a book on bioethics for scientists.  Similarly, thinking and teaching about the CBD has led an investigation of the institutional affiliations of taxonomists⁵, a matter that has policy implications at the national and international levels.

3.  Bharathan, G., and Chandrasekharan, Shanti. 2000. "Genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton: perspectives on a controversy." Poster presented at:

TERI sponsored "Stake holders' Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology: Biosafety and Economic Implications," Gurgaon, Haryana, India, August 14, 2000;
GRC sponsored "New Frontiers in Science and Technology Policy," Plymouth, NH, USA, August 20-24, 2000.

2.   Bharathan, G.  2000. "Bt-cotton in India: anatomy of a controversy." Current Science 79:1067-1075.

1.  Bharathan, G. 1999. “Genetically engineered seeds: a perspective from India.” Symposium on Ethics and Risks in Plant Biotechnology, XVI International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, USA.  August 4.