In India first genetically engineered vaccine against HBV was developed by ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In India first genetically engineered vaccine against HBV was developed by

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Name the India's first indigenous genetically engineered Hepatitis - B vaccine?....

QA->In 1983;an American company Eli Lily; produced the first genetically engineered insulin. Name it?....

QA->A dengue fever vaccine developed by the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi has been approved for use by a North American country, the first approval in the world for any vaccine for the disease. Which is that country?....

QA->The colour of the centre square in the vaccine vial monitor in a well stored polio vaccine should be:....

QA->Name India’s first indigenously developed rota virus vaccine?....

MCQ-> The controversy over genetically modified food continues unabated in the West. Genetic modification (GM) is the science by which the genetic material of a plant is altered, perhaps to make it more resistant to pests or killer weeds, or to enhance its nutritional value. Many food biotechnologists claim that GM will be a major contribution of science to mankind in the 21st century. On the other hand, large numbers of opponents, mainly in Europe, claim that the benefits of GM are a myth propagated by multinational corporations to increase their profits, that they pose a health hazard, and have therefore called for government to ban the sale of genetically-modified food.The anti-GM campaign has been quite effective in Europe, with several European Union member countries imposing a virtual ban for five years over genetically-modified food imports. Since the genetically-modified food industry is particularly strong in the United States of America, the controversy also constitutes another chapter in the US-Europe skirmishes which have become particularly acerbic after the US invasion of Iraq.To a large extent, the GM controversy has been ignored in the Indian media, although Indian biotechnologists have been quite active in GM research. Several groups of Indian biotechnologists have been working on various issues connected with crops grown in India. One concrete achievement which has recently figured in the news is that of a team led by the former vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru university, Asis Datta — it has successfully added an extra gene to potatoes to enhance the protein content of the tuber by at least 30 percent. It is quite likely that the GM controversy will soon hit the headlines in India since a spokesperson of the Indian Central government has recently announced that the government may use the protato in its midday meal programme for schools as early as next year.Why should “scientific progress”, with huge potential benefits to the poor and malnourished, be so controversial? The anti-GM lobby contends that pernicious propaganda has vastly exaggerated the benefits of GM and completely evaded the costs which will have to be incurred if the genetically-modified food industry is allowed to grow unchecked. In particular, they allude to different types of costs.This group contends that the most important potential cost is that the widespread distribution and growth of genetically-modified food will enable the corporate world (alias the multinational corporations – MNCs) to completely capture the food chain. A “small” group of biotech companies will patent the transferred genes as well as the technology associated with them. They will then buy up the competing seed merchants and seed-breeding centers, thereby controlling the production of food at every possible level. Independent farmers, big and small, will be completely wiped out of the food industry. At best, they will be reduced to the status of being subcontractors.This line of argument goes on to claim that the control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor since the MNCs, guided by the profit motive, will only focus on the high-value food items demanded by the affluent. Thus, in the long run, the production of basic staples which constitute the food basket of the poor will taper off. However, this vastly overestimates the power of the MNCs. Even if the research promoted by them does focus on the high-value food items, much of biotechnology research is also funded by governments in both developing and developed countries. Indeed, the protato is a by-product of this type of research. If the protato passes the field trials, there is no reason to believe that it cannot be marketed in the global potato market. And this type of success story can be repeated with other basic food items.The second type of cost associated with the genetically modified food industry is environmental damage. The most common type of “genetic engineering” involved gene modification in plants designed to make them resistant to applications of weed-killers. This then enables farmers to use massive dosages of weedkillers so as to destroy or wipe out all competing varieties of plants in their field. However, some weeds through genetically-modified pollen contamination may acquire resistance to a variety of weed-killers. The only way to destroy these weeds is through the use of ever-stronger herbicides which are poisonous and linger on in the environment.The author doubts the anti-GM lobby’s contention that MNC control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor because
....

MCQ->In India first genetically engineered vaccine against HBV was developed by....

MCQ-> 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 multinational 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 unauthorised 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 ‘privatisation’ 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 are 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 materials, 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 privatisation 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 organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, 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. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm 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 germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? 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 (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual 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 organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations 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 statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ->Why according to the author is genetic modification of crops not an answer to the problem of hunger in the world ? (A)People being highly doubtful of the long term effects of genetically modified crops do not buy the products grown by such methods (B)The problems of hunger in the world is not due to inadequate production of food but due to unequal distribution of it (C)Many developing countries have banned genetically modified products as developed countries have been using these countries as dumping grounds for new genetically modified products....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.There are various sectors in India that are to be assessed for their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The total population is over 1 billion which will increase to 1.46 billion by 2035 to cross China. The huge population will result in higher unemployment and deterioration of quality. Literacy, in India is yet another factor to be discussed. According to 1991 census, 64.8% of the population was illiterate. The major downtrend of education is due to child labour which has spread all over India and this should be totally eradicated by way of surveillance and a good educational system implemented properly by the Government. Pollution is one more threat to the environment and for the country’s prospects. This has been experienced more in urban areas mainly in metropolitan cities. The water pollution by the sewage seepage into the ground water and improper maintenance will lead to various diseases which in turn will affect the next generation. In most of the cities there is no proper sewage disposal. The Government has to take effective steps to control population which, in turn, will minimize the pollution. Poverty questions the entire strength of India’s political view and minimizes the energetic way of approach. The shortfall of rains, enormous floods, unexpected famine, drought, earthquake and the recent tsunami hit the country in a negative way. The proactive approach through effective research and analytical study helps us to determine the effects in advance. Proper allocation of funds is a prerequisite. In developed countries like. U.S., Japan precautionary methods are adopted to overcome this, but it has to be improved a lot in our systems. Increased population is one of the major reasons for poverty and the Government is unable to allocate funds for basic needs to the society. India has nearly 400 million people living below the poverty line and 90% of active population is in informal economy. The children are forced to work due to their poverty and differential caste system. They work in match industry for daily wages, as servants, mechanics, stone breakers, agricultural workers, etc. To prevent child labour, existing laws which favour the Anti Child Labour Act should be implemented by the Government vigorously. More population results in cheap cost by virtue of the demand supply concept. Most of the foreign countries try to utilize this factor by outsourcing their business in India with a very low capital. According to U.S., India is a “Knowledge pool” with cheap labour. The major advantage is our communication and technical skill which is adaptable to any environment. The cutting edge skill in IT of our professionals helps the outsourcing companies to commensurate with the needs of the consumers in a short span. The major competitors for India are China and Philippines and by the way of an effective communication and expert technical ability, Indians are ahead of the race. The major Metropolitan states are targeting the outsourcing field vigorously by giving various amenities to the outsourcing companies like tax concession, allotting land etc., to start their businesses in its cities without any hurdles. Thereby most of the MNCs prefer India as their destinations and capitalize the resources to maximize their assets. Infrastructure is another key factor for an outsourcing company to start a business in a particular city. It includes road, rail, ports, power and water. The increased input in infrastructure in India is very limited where China’s record is excellent. India in earlier days gave more importance to the development of industry and less importance to other departments. But the scenario has quite changed nowadays by allocating a special budget of funds for security. This is because of the frightening increase in terrorism all around the world especially emerging after the 9/11 terror attack in U.S. In the last ten years, budget towards the development of military forces is higher when compared to others. It shows that the threat from our neighbouring countries is escalating. India has to concentrate more on this security factor to wipe out the problem in the way of cross border terrorism. Making India, a developed country in 2020 is not an easy task. India has to keep in check a variety of factors in order to progress rapidly. To quote China as an example is that they demolished an old building to construct a very big port to meet future demands, but India is still waiting for things to happen. The profits gained by India through various sectors are to be spent for the development and welfare of the country. India’s vision for a brighter path will come true not only by mere words or speech, but extra effort needed at all levels to overcome the pitfalls.Which of the following, according to the author, is/are a result(s) of increased population in India ? (A) Pollution (B)Poverty (C) Unemployment....