My fascination with genetics began in school with N. Luchnik’s Why I Am Like My Dad (Mir Publishers), a book that posed the intriguing question, “What makes me resemble my father?” It introduced me to genes, heredity, and the significant role of environment in shaping traits. This early spark led me to pursue biological sciences, particularly in agriculture, where I was taught that genetics and plant breeding were central to food security and the Green Revolution’s success. Driven by this passion, I secured an ICAR Junior Research Fellowship in Plant Breeding in 1990. However, my path shifted toward agricultural extension, as working directly with farmers felt more meaningful than focusing solely on genes and plants.
Over time, my studies in psychology, sociology, and preparation for civil services exams deepened my understanding of the nature vs. nurture debate, including its implications in casteism, racism, and genetic determinism. This brings me to a critical question: Why do people prioritize genetics over the environment in which traits are expressed? Despite widespread agreement that all humans are born equal, why do some believe certain individuals or groups—based on caste, religion, or lineage—are inherently superior?
Genetic Determinism: A Flawed Paradigm
Genetic determinism, the belief that traits are primarily dictated by genes, underpins both modern science and traditional systems like the Indian caste system or Western racism. The Human Genome Project, for instance, was partly driven by this mindset, seeking to map traits to specific genes, often overlooking environmental influences. However, science has since shown that genetics sets boundaries, while the environment shapes the extent and expression of traits. Performance, whether in humans or crops, hinges on opportunities and conditions, not just genetic makeup.
In agriculture, the Green Revolution’s success is often credited to high-yielding varieties, but this narrative ignores the critical role of environmental factors—improved irrigation, nutrient supply, supportive policies like minimum support prices, and access to credit through bank nationalization. Attempts to replicate this model in rainfed areas without similar environmental support failed, revealing the limitations of genetic determinism. The fallout—chemical overuse, water depletion, and ecological damage in regions like Punjab—spurred the rise of agroecology, a science that integrates ecological principles and farmers’ knowledge.
Genetic Engineering and Reductionist Thinking
Genetic engineering operates on the same deterministic philosophy, assuming that traits can be precisely manipulated by transferring genes across organisms. For example, inserting endotoxin-producing genes from Bacillus thuringiensis into cotton (Bt cotton) was expected to replicate the bacteria’s pest resistance. Similarly, GM mustard and golden rice aim to boost yields or nutrition through gene insertion. However, these approaches often ignore how gene expression depends on the internal cellular environment and external conditions. The resulting biosafety issues, seen in Bt cotton and other GM crops, highlight the flaws in this reductionist mindset.
The Myth of Genetic Superiority in Livestock and Seeds
This deterministic thinking extends to livestock breeding, particularly in programs like artificial insemination, which assume foreign breeds will inherently improve yields. Conversely, the “desi cow” or “desi bull” movement romanticizes indigenous breeds as universally superior, disregarding their adaptation to specific local conditions. Indian breeds thrive in tropical climates not just due to genetics but because farmers selectively bred them over centuries for diverse purposes—plowing, transport, milk, or food. Preserving breeds in gene banks or goshalas risks disconnecting them from this dynamic, farmer-driven evolution.
Similarly, the obsession with “desi seeds” reflects genetic determinism. India, one of the world’s 12 mega-biodiversity centers, hosts over 45,000 plant species and 91,000 animal species despite occupying just 2.4% of global land. This diversity, shaped by farmers’ selections, is now threatened by modernization, with much of it confined to gene banks rather than fields. Both those who champion desi seeds and those who advocate modern hybrids often overlook that seeds are living entities, constantly evolving through natural and human-driven selection. The work of Dr. Richharia and countless farmers demonstrates that hybridization and selection, when guided by ecological and local needs, yield resilient crops. The belief that older seeds are inherently better—or that genetic purity is paramount—misses this dynamic reality.
A Broader Perspective: Beyond Genetic Purity
Living organisms, whether plants, animals, or humans, evolve through mating, intermixing, and selection by nature and humans. Genetic purity, whether in caste-based restrictions on marriage, eugenics, or the fixation on specific breeds or seeds, stems from the same flawed deterministic thinking. It fuels practices like khap panchayat opposition to intercaste marriages, the glorification of desi cows, or the overreliance on genetic engineering.
In my work, I encounter these ideas daily. My understanding is that traits and outcomes are shaped by a complex interplay of genetics and environment, not genes alone. Recognizing this can shift how we approach agriculture, society, and science—prioritizing ecological balance, equitable opportunities, and dynamic evolution over rigid, deterministic frameworks.
Recent Comments