CUET UG Biology Booster Test 3-Ethical Issues & Biopiracy

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEA C) is tasked with two primary duties: assessing the validity of research involving genetically modified (GM) organisms and evaluating the safety of releasing these organisms into the environment for public use. Statement III is incorrect because compensation for biopiracy is a matter of international law and national patent policy, falling outside the administrative scope of a biosafety committee.

The core justification for the GEAC is the potential for ecological disruption. Because genetic modification alters the biological nature of an organism, its performance in a wild, complex ecosystem cannot be guaranteed, necessitating a rigorous safety evaluation before any commercial or public release.

The NCERT text argues for the establishment of ethical standards to guide how we manipulate living organisms. It does not suggest that all research should stop; rather, it suggests that the power to manipulate life must be tempered by moral and biological responsibility.

First, society must set ethical standards (2). Then, scientists recognize that genetic modification is unpredictable (1). This unpredictability leads to the need to assess potential ecosystem harm (4). Finally, this assessment is managed by regulatory bodies like the GEAC (3).

Biopiracy refers to the act of exploiting bio-resources (stealing/piracy) without providing authorization or compensation. The "Patent controversy" arises when companies leverage these acts to secure legal ownership (patents) over that stolen traditional knowledge.

The core of the anger is the disconnect between the long history of communal development of a resource (like Basmati or neem) and the sudden, exclusive claim of ownership by a private corporation. People feel that knowledge developed collectively should not be monopolized for profit by a single external entity.

The 200,000 rice varieties illustrate that India is a treasure trove for genetic resources, which multinational companies naturally seek to exploit for commercial gain. Simultaneously, the documentation of 27 distinct Basmati varieties proves that the crop's development occurred over centuries, invalidating the claim that an American company "invented" a "novel" rice variety.

The strategic use of history in the text is to demonstrate that Basmati is not an invention of the 20th century. By proving its ancient roots, Indian advocates successfully challenged the US Patent Office to recognize that the company's "discovery" was not original, thereby negating the patent claim.

A patent claim on "functional equivalents" is a mechanism for market consolidation and exclusion. It has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the original developers of the base resource. In fact, it is the exact mechanism that excludes those farmers from the profit of the "new" product.

The company exploited the existing diversity by performing a cross-breed (semi-dwarf + local Basmati). They argued that this specific combination produced a "new" variety that was worthy of a patent, a claim that the Indian government and scientists successfully challenged as being based on pre-existing resources.

The NCERT text highlights that indigenous knowledge is a valuable resource. When foreign organizations attempt to patent this knowledge, they are essentially trying to "cash in" on work they did not perform, effectively privatizing communal assets for their own exclusive profit.

By citing multiple categories (grains and medicinal herbs), the NCERT text emphasizes that biopiracy is not a niche problem. It proves that India's entire portfolio of natural and cultural wealth is susceptible to exploitation by parties seeking to claim legal ownership over collective knowledge.

The text outlines a clear geopolitical divide. The "exploiters" are typically industrialized nations or corporations based there that possess the legal and financial tools to file for patents. The "victims" are the developing nations that house the biological diversity and traditional knowledge.

Biopiracy occurs because current international legal systems have historically allowed entities to claim "invention" over communal knowledge without the consent of the original owners. Therefore, it is a structural failure of equity, ethics, and law, not a failure of biotechnology or science itself.

The disparity is defined by exploitation without adequate benefit sharing. Statement A suggests that compensation is already occurring "adequately," which contradicts the very problem the NCERT text is highlighting.

The power dynamic is based on financial reach. Wealthy nations use their economic resources to survey, patent, and monetize the biodiversity found in developing nations, turning public/communal wealth into private, monopolized commodities.

Commercial R&D typically starts with identification and testing. Traditional knowledge already encompasses centuries of observational testing. When a company uses this knowledge, they skip the initial "trial-and-error" period, effectively fast-tracking their path to a commercial patent.

The cycle begins with the indigenous community's long-term identification of a resource (3). Multinational corporations then extract this knowledge (4). This extraction provides the company with research efficiency (2), which ultimately leads to the filing of a patent and the monopolization of the market (1).

The Indian Patents Bill amendment is a legal response to the specific issue described in the passage: the unauthorized exploitation of bio-resources and the lack of fair benefit sharing. It is designed to empower India to protect its interests against global entities that have historically engaged in biopiracy.

In the context of the passage and biotechnology policy, "benefit sharing" is a technical term referring to the equitable distribution of financial and technological rewards that arise from the commercialization of a biological resource back to the people who originally preserved that resource.