New Delhi: From agriculture to healthcare and animal sciences, genome editing (GE) has received a determined push from the Centre over the last few years. But paving the way for this technology through new policies, investment, and research has come after pushback from groups across the political spectrum that are vigorously and ideologically opposed to gene editing.
In May this year, the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare released two GE rice varieties bred by scientists: DRR Rice 100 (Kamla) and Pusa DST Rice 1. They are improved gene-edited mutant varieties of the Samba Mahsuri (BPT 5204) and Cotton Dora Sannalu (MTU 1010) rice varieties, respectively.
The GE rice varieties immediately gained attention—not only for being the world’s first such varieties but also for signalling India’s first step towards new-age, climate-resilient crops that the Centre has been pushing for.
Scientists from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), the apex agricultural research institute, are working towards developing more such GE varieties of other crops.
“By next year, we will have a GE variety of mustard, as well. Currently, trials are going on. If the trials prove successful, this variety will come up as a pest and fungal-resistant variant,” a senior official of the agriculture ministry told ThePrint.
Going forward with GE in India, though, hasn’t been easy. The still-nascent technology is met with resistance, especially due to residual hostilities from earlier campaigns against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or GM crops, and confusion around how genome editing diverges from genetic modification.
Much of the controversy comes from within the BJP’s own extended ecosystem. Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor of the RSS-affiliated Swadeshi Jagran Manch—which has long opposed GM crops—said the Centre must clarify public doubts about GE, a relatively new technology. He noted that concerns raised about GM crops could also apply to GE crops, and urged the Centre to subject new GE varieties to the strictest safety standards to rule out health or environmental risks. “We have been opposing GM crops, but GE is new. We are getting experts to conduct more studies before a decision,” Mahajan told ThePrint.
Opposition made India miss the GMO bus, but this time, the Centre appears determined.
Experiments around the first GE crop varieties started in 2018. In the 2023-24 Union Budget, an amount of Rs 500 crore was allocated for GE research under the National Agricultural Science Fund.
According to IARI, its researchers are now targeting a list of traits in genome editing in major crops to enhance desirable traits—disease tolerance, high yield, drought tolerance, and pest resistance. Commenting on the advancements, a senior agriculture ministry official told ThePrint, “There are some 150-odd genes that have been identified in 24 crops. The genes will be located in a specific chromosome, then targeted, and edited.”
Government agricultural institutes studying genome editing are also investing heavily in training scientists. Nearly 20 such scientisits are studying advanced GE technology across various international institutes.
GE ‘less’ harmful. But how ‘less’?
Genome editing is a form of genetic engineering that focuses on directly editing or adjusting the host plant’s own genes, rather than modifying them with external genetic material/DNA. Researchers make targeted changes to the host DNA by adding, deleting, or altering sequences within the genetic material. No foreign genes are introduced; instead, naturally present genes are adjusted to create mutations in the DNA sequence.
In comparison, GM crops involve modifying the host plant DNA by inserting foreign genes. For a new plant variety, soil bacteria are mined for genes, and those genes are inserted into the host plant genome by genetic engineering. Bt cotton was the first GM variant to be introduced in India. Since then, agriculturists and scientists have raised health and safety concerns as well as ethical issues around inserting foreign genes into the host genome. In Bt cotton, two genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis—cry1Ac and cry2Ab—are inserted into the native cotton plant’s genome, helping it produce endotoxins that improve the plant’s resistance to pests and illness.
Therefore, GE crops in comparison to GM crops are considered safer, healthier, and more environmentally friendly.
According to experts whom ThePrint spoke to, GE is a more evolved and safe process. IARI ex-director A.K. Singh explained that ‘editing’ is carried out by protein enzymes, which act as scissors, cutting through the DNA, thereby modifying it and enhancing desirable characteristics.
To obtain the new rice varieties released earlier this year, scientists used CRISPR-Cas genome editing—a technology to make precise changes to a plant’s native genes without introducing foreign genetic material.
Genome editing of SDN 1 and SDN 2 via methods under the umbrella of Site-Directed Nuclease (SDN) technologies is now approved under India’s biosafety regulations for general crops. “The process is like editing a photo. You enhance certain desirable features in existing characteristics of the plant,” Singh said.
Taking a firmer stance, the Coalition of GM-free India, a civil society group, has argued that “gene editing is also genetic modification, as is apparent from the statutory definition in India of genetic engineering”.
In a statement issued after the release of the two GE rice variants, the coalition has said, “Government of India deregulated two kinds of SDN-1 and SDN-2, giving specious, unscientific rationale, and under a smokescreen of higher yield and drought resistance, has now released two gene-edited rice varieties without any safety testing at all.”
The statement of the Coalition of GM-free India has, additionally, alleged that “deregulated” techniques of SDN-1 and SDN-2 gene editing involve “foreign genetic material being used and unintentionally implanted in the host organism”. “Since SDN-1 and SDN-2 gene editing have been deregulated, there is no biosafety testing mandated at the moment in India to even check for the inclusion of such foreign genetic material,” the statement further read.
This underscores the biggest concerns haunting GE research—a lack of transparency and guidelines.
Since GE crops are free of any external introduction into the DNA, their research is currently not monitored under the biosafety regulations of the Union Ministry for Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). However, under the Environment (Protection) Act, the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms, or Cells (1989) govern both GE and GM crop varieties, starting from their entry into research to large-scale handling, and make institutional biosafety committees and environmental risk assessments mandatory.
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), a farmers’ body affiliated with RSS, voiced its concern with another argument. The DNA modification of seeds—in any process—would risk vanishing traditional Indian seeds, even those that originate and grow only in India, from nature. “Why do we need these crops? They are anti-farmer. The government must ban all research around it,” a BKS office-bearer told ThePrint on the condition of anonymity.
Gene editing technologies could lead to unintended mutations and larger genomic changes, the long-term effects of which are not fully understood. Senior environmental officials have clarified that GE crops are not entirely exempt from government scrutiny. But the examination might not be as intensive, as for GM crops, they said, attributing it to the fact that editing does not require introducing foreign DNA into host plants. “The Institutional Biosafety Committee regulates GE crops. The committee closely monitors that the crops that undergo gene editing do not introduce any foreign DNA,” an official told ThePrint.
Tech expansion into other fields
Genome editing as a technology is also gaining ground in other fields. In November, the CSIR–Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB) launched India’s first indigenous CRISPR-based gene therapy for sickle cell disease, named BIRSA 101, after the tribal freedom fighter Birsa Munda.
Sickle cell disease is a group of inherited blood disorders that causes red blood cells to become rigid and ‘sickle-shaped’ instead of flexible and disc-shaped. This is due to a mutation in the gene for haemoglobin, leading to distorted cells that can block blood flow, cause pain, anaemia, and organ damage. The newly developed technology works like a precise genetic surgery, capable not only of curing sickle cell disease but also of transforming treatment pathways for several hereditary disorders.
The government is now working to scale this technology to enable commercial use. IGIB has entered into a formal technology transfer and collaboration agreement with the Pune-based Serum Institute of India to transform the engineered enFnCas9 CRISPR platform into affordable therapies for Sickle Cell Disease and other critical genetic disorders.
“These gene therapies cost millions of dollars abroad. Since this is a homegrown technology, we will be making it affordable and accessible to everyone,” Umesh Shaligram, executive director, Serum Institute of India.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Great Andaman dweller, named after Steve Irwin—researchers discover a new species of wolf snake