Question Direction for questions : Read the passage below and

solve the questions based on it.

By many measures, the problem of poverty is no more

severe anywhere else than it is in India, which still has
the world’s largest number of poor people in a single
country. Thirty five per cent of its billion plus population
lives on less than US $ 1 per day and around 86 per cent
of Indians, more than 900 million people, manage
to survive on incomes of less than US $ 2 a day.
Although the much-heralded economic reforms of
recent years have led to impressive levels of economic
prosperity and the creation of a middle class, the
distribution of wealth in India continues to be highly
uneven. Furthermore, despite reductions in India’s
poverty level during the 1970s and 1980s, when
farmers prospered, poverty reduction efforts stagnated
during the 1990s, along with declines in agricultural
growth, a slowing of growth in agricultural incomes and
price rises of basic food staples.
The causes of these setbacks, according to
the World Bank, lie in the nation’s fiscal crisis,
which reduced the ability of the government to
underwrite technological change for agriculture
and development of the non-farm economy, and in
over-regulation of agriculture, forestry products,
agro-industry, and the non-farm economy, which
benefits neither farmers nor the poor.

Others point to high rates of illiteracy, enduring

social exclusion, population growth rates that exceed
economic growth, and protectionist policies that
inhibited foreign investment.
Poverty reduction in India will clearly
remain a very long-term goal. Yet India’s poverty
statistics reveal a paradox: its huge population,
estimated at 1.05 billion in 2003, along with that
of China, at 1.29 billion, means that when these
two countries achieve reductions in poverty,
which they have done since 1990, it seems that
the global goal of halving poverty by 2015 from
its 1990 levels, expressed in the internationally
agreed and ambitious Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs), may soon be reached. A relatively

modest reduction in the proportion of poor people in
these countries registers as a huge
reduction globally. Consequently, the scale of
poverty in India (and in China) makes it possible
to use the numbers simultaneously to commend
as well as criticize the progress that has been
made. This also means that, although poverty levels
have fallen, with growing income disparities that exist,
many rural Indians feel they have become worse off. In
fact, India’s urban residents were twice as rich as their
rural counterparts in
the 1970s, but they are now eight times as rich,
prompting one observer to note that poverty is
now a case of relative deprivation.

Additionally, pervasive as poverty is in

India, it is becoming more concentrated in the
country’s lagging states, its rural areas and
among its disadvantaged people. As of the time
of the study, more than half of India’s poor lived
in four states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa
and Uttar Pradesh, with more than two-thirds in
rural areas, where the poverty incidence is highest
amongst agricultural workers, many of them

small-scale farmers or casual labourers. People

of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who
together make up around 24 per cent of the total
population of India, or 252 million people, are
far more likely to be poor than those of other
social groups, because low status and gender
barriers still operate as social obstacles that
exclude them from opportunity.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Income

poverty is central but it is just

one aspect. There are also other aspects such

as powerlessness, lack of voice, vulnerability
and fear (especially for women) as well as the
deprivation of basic capabilities and the lack of
access to education, health, natural resources,

employment, land and credit, political participation,

services and infrastructure. Solutions to

these conditions imply a level of social restructuring

that goes far beyond economic opportunities and
increases in incomes.

Governments and international agencies

seem to agree that poverty reduction and sustainable

development require a wide range of

mechanisms including: sound macroeconomic

policies; open trade relations; increases in
 human and physical capital; good governance;

sound legal, incentives and regulatory frameworks; an

adequately regulated and supervised

financial sector; health, education and social

services that reach the poor, women and girls

effectively; quality infrastructure and public services to

promote rural development and liveable

cities; and policies to promote environmental

and human sustainability. India’s progress in
applying these processes to poverty problems
during the last decade of the 20th century has
been mixed, with sluggish rates of reduction and patchy
improvements across the nation.
Relieving India’s poverty requires substantial
and sustained efforts in all these areas, as well
as new approaches and novel techniques if gains
are to be substantial and irreversible.

Which of the following can best fit as a

suitable title for the passage?
Type multiple_choice
Option Poverty in India: A correct
study
Option Poverty: A multi- incorrect
dimensional
phenomenon
Option Poverty: A universal incorrect
phenomenon
Option Poverty Vs Economic incorrect
 growth
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction for questions : Read the passage below and

solve the questions based on it.

By many measures, the problem of poverty is no more

severe anywhere else than it is in India, which still has
the world’s largest number of poor people in a single
country. Thirty five per cent of its billion plus population
lives on less than US $ 1 per day and around 86 per cent
of Indians, more than 900 million people, manage
to survive on incomes of less than US $ 2 a day.
Although the much-heralded economic reforms of
recent years have led to impressive levels of economic
prosperity and the creation of a middle class, the
distribution of wealth in India continues to be highly
uneven. Furthermore, despite reductions in India’s
poverty level during the 1970s and 1980s, when
farmers prospered, poverty reduction efforts stagnated
during the 1990s, along with declines in agricultural
growth, a slowing of growth in agricultural incomes and
price rises of basic food staples.
The causes of these setbacks, according to
the World Bank, lie in the nation’s fiscal crisis,
which reduced the ability of the government to
underwrite technological change for agriculture
and development of the non-farm economy, and in
over-regulation of agriculture, forestry products,
agro-industry, and the non-farm economy, which
benefits neither farmers nor the poor.
Others point to high rates of illiteracy, enduring
social exclusion, population growth rates that exceed
economic growth, and protectionist policies that
inhibited foreign investment.

Poverty reduction in India will clearly

remain a very long-term goal. Yet India’s poverty
statistics reveal a paradox: its huge population,
estimated at 1.05 billion in 2003, along with that
of China, at 1.29 billion, means that when these
two countries achieve reductions in poverty,
which they have done since 1990, it seems that
the global goal of halving poverty by 2015 from
its 1990 levels, expressed in the internationally
agreed and ambitious Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs), may soon be reached. A relatively

modest reduction in the proportion of poor people in
these countries registers as a huge
reduction globally. Consequently, the scale of
poverty in India (and in China) makes it possible
to use the numbers simultaneously to commend
as well as criticize the progress that has been
made. This also means that, although poverty levels
have fallen, with growing income disparities that exist,
many rural Indians feel they have become worse off. In
fact, India’s urban residents were twice as rich as their
rural counterparts in
the 1970s, but they are now eight times as rich,
prompting one observer to note that poverty is
now a case of relative deprivation.

Additionally, pervasive as poverty is in

India, it is becoming more concentrated in the
country’s lagging states, its rural areas and
among its disadvantaged people. As of the time
of the study, more than half of India’s poor lived
in four states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa
and Uttar Pradesh, with more than two-thirds in

rural areas, where the poverty incidence is highest

amongst agricultural workers, many of them

small-scale farmers or casual labourers. People

of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who
together make up around 24 per cent of the total
population of India, or 252 million people, are
far more likely to be poor than those of other
social groups, because low status and gender
barriers still operate as social obstacles that
exclude them from opportunity.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Income

poverty is central but it is just

one aspect. There are also other aspects such

as powerlessness, lack of voice, vulnerability
and fear (especially for women) as well as the
deprivation of basic capabilities and the lack of
access to education, health, natural resources,

employment, land and credit, political participation,

services and infrastructure. Solutions to

these conditions imply a level of social restructuring

that goes far beyond economic opportunities and
increases in incomes.

Governments and international agencies

 seem to agree that poverty reduction and sustainable
development require a wide range of

mechanisms including: sound macroeconomic

policies; open trade relations; increases in
human and physical capital; good governance;

sound legal, incentives and regulatory frameworks; an

adequately regulated and supervised

financial sector; health, education and social

services that reach the poor, women and girls

effectively; quality infrastructure and public services to

promote rural development and liveable

cities; and policies to promote environmental

and human sustainability. India’s progress in
applying these processes to poverty problems
during the last decade of the 20th century has
been mixed, with sluggish rates of reduction and patchy
improvements across the nation.
Relieving India’s poverty requires substantial
and sustained efforts in all these areas, as well
as new approaches and novel techniques if gains
are to be substantial and irreversible.

According to the passage, which of the

following is not one of the reasons behind
the problem of poverty in India?
Type multiple_choice
Option Technological change in incorrect
the field of
 agriculture
Option Fiscal crisis of the correct
country
Option Over-regulation of incorrect
agriculture
Option High rates of illiteracy incorrect
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction for questions : Read the passage below and

solve the questions based on it.

By many measures, the problem of poverty is no more

severe anywhere else than it is in India, which still has
the world’s largest number of poor people in a single
country. Thirty five per cent of its billion plus population
lives on less than US $ 1 per day and around 86 per cent
of Indians, more than 900 million people, manage
to survive on incomes of less than US $ 2 a day.
Although the much-heralded economic reforms of
recent years have led to impressive levels of economic
prosperity and the creation of a middle class, the
distribution of wealth in India continues to be highly
uneven. Furthermore, despite reductions in India’s
poverty level during the 1970s and 1980s, when
farmers prospered, poverty reduction efforts stagnated
during the 1990s, along with declines in agricultural
growth, a slowing of growth in agricultural incomes and
price rises of basic food staples.
The causes of these setbacks, according to
the World Bank, lie in the nation’s fiscal crisis,
which reduced the ability of the government to
underwrite technological change for agriculture
and development of the non-farm economy, and in
over-regulation of agriculture, forestry products,
agro-industry, and the non-farm economy, which
benefits neither farmers nor the poor.

Others point to high rates of illiteracy, enduring

social exclusion, population growth rates that exceed
economic growth, and protectionist policies that
inhibited foreign investment.

Poverty reduction in India will clearly

remain a very long-term goal. Yet India’s poverty
statistics reveal a paradox: its huge population,
estimated at 1.05 billion in 2003, along with that
of China, at 1.29 billion, means that when these
two countries achieve reductions in poverty,
which they have done since 1990, it seems that
the global goal of halving poverty by 2015 from
its 1990 levels, expressed in the internationally
agreed and ambitious Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs), may soon be reached. A relatively

modest reduction in the proportion of poor people in
these countries registers as a huge
reduction globally. Consequently, the scale of
poverty in India (and in China) makes it possible
to use the numbers simultaneously to commend
as well as criticize the progress that has been
made. This also means that, although poverty levels
have fallen, with growing income disparities that exist,
many rural Indians feel they have become worse off. In
fact, India’s urban residents were twice as rich as their
rural counterparts in
the 1970s, but they are now eight times as rich,
prompting one observer to note that poverty is
now a case of relative deprivation.

Additionally, pervasive as poverty is in

India, it is becoming more concentrated in the
country’s lagging states, its rural areas and
among its disadvantaged people. As of the time
of the study, more than half of India’s poor lived
in four states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa
and Uttar Pradesh, with more than two-thirds in

rural areas, where the poverty incidence is highest

amongst agricultural workers, many of them

small-scale farmers or casual labourers. People

of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who
together make up around 24 per cent of the total
population of India, or 252 million people, are
far more likely to be poor than those of other
social groups, because low status and gender
barriers still operate as social obstacles that
exclude them from opportunity.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Income

poverty is central but it is just

one aspect. There are also other aspects such

as powerlessness, lack of voice, vulnerability
and fear (especially for women) as well as the
deprivation of basic capabilities and the lack of
access to education, health, natural resources,

employment, land and credit, political participation,

services and infrastructure. Solutions to

these conditions imply a level of social restructuring

that goes far beyond economic opportunities and
increases in incomes.

Governments and international agencies

seem to agree that poverty reduction and sustainable

development require a wide range of

mechanisms including: sound macroeconomic

policies; open trade relations; increases in
human and physical capital; good governance;

sound legal, incentives and regulatory frameworks; an

adequately regulated and supervised

financial sector; health, education and social

services that reach the poor, women and girls

effectively; quality infrastructure and public services to

promote rural development and liveable

cities; and policies to promote environmental

and human sustainability. India’s progress in
applying these processes to poverty problems
during the last decade of the 20th century has
been mixed, with sluggish rates of reduction and patchy
improvements across the nation.
Relieving India’s poverty requires substantial
and sustained efforts in all these areas, as well
as new approaches and novel techniques if gains
are to be substantial and irreversible.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author

would consider which of the following as the complete
solution to poverty:
Type multiple_choice
Option Social restructuring correct
that goes beyond
economic opportunities
to the
impoverished.
Option Social restructuring incorrect
that goes beyond
economic opportunities
to the
impoverished.
Option Social restructuring incorrect
that goes beyond
economic opportunities
to the
impoverished.
Option Social restructuring incorrect
that goes beyond
economic opportunities
to the
impoverished.
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by

questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely
successful research was almost entirely done in public
research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
 compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.

Which of the following statements describes an

important issue, or important issues, not being raised in
the context of the current debate on IPRs?
Type multiple_choice
Option The role of MNCs in the incorrect
sphere of
biotechnology and
agriculture.
Option The strategy and correct
policies for establishing
an IPR regime for
Indian agriculture
Option The relative roles of incorrect
public and private
 sectors
Option Wider concerns about incorrect
‘privatization’ of
research.
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by

questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely

successful research was almost entirely done in public

research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.
 The fundamental breakthrough in deciphering the
structure and functioning of DNA has become a public
good. This means that:
Type multiple_choice
Option Breakthroughs in correct
fundamental research
on DNA are accessible
by all without any
monetary
considerations.
Option The fundamental incorrect
research on DNA has
the characteristic of
having beneficial
effects for the public at
large
Option Due to the large scale incorrect
of fundamental
research on DNA, it falls
in the domain of public
sector research
institutions.
Option The public and other incorrect
companies must have
free access to such
fundamental
breakthroughs in
research.
Solution

Marks 2 1
Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by
questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely

successful research was almost entirely done in public

research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
 protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.

In debating the respective roles of the public and

private sectors in the national research system, it is
important to recognize
Type multiple_choice
Option that private companies incorrect
do not produce new
varieties and inputs
entirely on their own
 research.
Option that almost all incorrect
technological
improvements are
based on knowledge
and experience
accumulated from the
past
Option the complementary correct
role of public and
private sector research.
Option that knowledge incorrect
repositories are
primarily the scientific
community and its
academic publications.
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by

questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely

successful research was almost entirely done in public

research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
 and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.

Which one of the following may provide incentives to

address the problem of potential adverse consequences
of biotechnology ?
Type multiple_choice
Option Include IPR issues in the incorrect
TRIPs agreement.
Option Nationalize MNCs incorrect
engaged in private
research in
biotechnology
Option Encourage domestic incorrect
firms to patent their
innovations.
Option Make provisions in the correct
law for user
compensation against
failure of newly
developed varieties.
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by

questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely

successful research was almost entirely done in public

research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
 without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.

Which of the following statements is not a likely

consequence of emerging technologies in agriculture?
Type multiple_choice
Option Development of newer correct
and newer varieties will
lead to increase in
biodiversity.
Option MNCs may underplay incorrect
the negative
consequences of the
power technology on
environment.
Option Newer varieties of incorrect
seeds may increase
vulnerability of crops to
pests and diseases.
Option Reforms in patent laws incorrect
and user compensation
against crop failures
would be needed to
address new
technology problems.
Solution

Marks 2 1

Question Direction : Passages given below is followed by

questions. Choose the best answer for each question

The current debate on Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic
national agricultural research system, the relative roles
of public and private sectors, and the role of
agribusiness Multi-national Corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay
Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring
innovations in agricultural technology under a new
worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along
with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part
in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are
necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole
right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them
against unauthorized copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were
influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The
current debate on TRIPs in India—as indeed
elsewhere—echoes wider concerns about
‘privatization’ of research and allowing a free field for
MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
The
agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded
faith in the power of science to overcome all likely
problems, point to the vast potential that new
technology holds for solving the problems of hunger,
malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation
of this potential should be encouraged and this
is best done by the private sector for which patents are
essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this
optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination arc
exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products
only if they decisively outperform the available
alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to
introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging
private sector research are apprehensive that this will
work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them
more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A
different, though related apprehension is that extensive
use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties
might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to
outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger,
longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that
may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are
also another cause for concern. Moreover,
corporations, driven by the profit motive, will
necessarily tend to
underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse
consequences, especially those which are unknown and
which may manifest themselves only over a relatively
long period. On the other hand, high-pressure
advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private
companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties
without being aware of potential adverse effects and
the possibility of disastrous consequences for their
livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no
provision under the laws, as they now exist, for
compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material
has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind
ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own
experience, some of the early High Yielding Varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to
widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve
these problems. This largely

successful research was almost entirely done in public

research institutions. Of course, it could in principle
have been done by private companies, but whether
they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of
the loss in market for their original introductions on
account of the above factors and whether the
companies are financially strong enough to absorb the
‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies
and recover the lost market. Public research, which is
not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective
action. Research for improving common pool resource
management, maintaining ecological health and
ensuring sustainability is both critical and also
demanding in terms of technological challenge and
resource requirements. As such research is crucial to
the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment
in the farmer’s field, private companies should be
interested in such research. But their primary interest is
in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and
other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and
techniques for resource management are not
‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their
application to land, water and forests has a long
gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving
difficult problems-such as designing institutions for
proper and equitable management of common pool
resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions
informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do
such work. The public sector must therefore continue
to play a major role in the national research system. It is
both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in
terms of public sector versus private sector or of
privatization of research. We need to address problems
likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research
system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in
implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not
produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of
their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience
accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and
applied research in public and quasi-public institutions
(universities, research organizations). Moreover, as is
increasingly recognized, accumulated stock of
knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also
widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local
communities all over. The deciphering of the structure
and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of
modern biotechnology. But this fundamental
breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the
public domain and usable free of any charge.
Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge
can however be, and are, patented for private profit.
Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and
without any charge, on germ plasm available in
varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by
now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as
well as new varieties bred by public sector research
stations can also be used freely by private enterprises
for developing their own varieties and seek patent
protection for them. Should private breeders be
allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries’! Should
the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ
plasm be collected which arc maintained and improved
by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be
made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what
should be the basis of compensation? Should the
compensation be for individuals or for
communities/institutions to which they belong? Should
 individuals/institutions be given the right of patenting
their innovations? These are some of the important
issues that deserve more attention than they now get
and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably
satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the
tendency to equate the public sector with the
government is wrong. The public space is much wider
than government departments and includes
co-operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Giving greater autonomy to research organizations
from government control and giving non-government
public institutions the space and resources to play a
larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an
issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public
research system.

The TRIPs agreement emerged from the Uruguay Round

to
Type multiple_choice
Option address the problem of incorrect
adverse consequences
of genetically
engineered new
varieties of grain
Option fulfill the WTO incorrect
requirement to have an
agreement on trade
related property rights
Option provide incentives to correct
innovators by way of
protecting their
intellectual property.
Option give credibility to the incorrect
innovations made by
MNCs in the field of
pharmaceuticals and
agriculture
Solution

Marks 2 1