(a) What do you mean by mutation? What is the significance of induced mutation in plant breeding? 20

(b) Describe in brief the applications of genetic engineering for insect and herbicide resistance in crop plants. 20

(c) What is the need for prote

Question

(a) What do you mean by mutation? What is the significance of induced mutation in plant breeding? 20

(b) Describe in brief the applications of genetic engineering for insect and herbicide resistance in crop plants. 20

(c) What is the need for protection of intellectual property rights of traditional knowledge? Explain sui generis protection of traditional knowledge. 10

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The question demands descriptive-cum-analytical coverage across three distinct domains: mutation breeding, genetic engineering applications, and IPR protection for traditional knowledge. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, 35% to part (b) for its technical depth, and 25% to part (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part, and a concluding synthesis on biotechnology governance in Indian agriculture.
- Part (a): Define mutation (spontaneous vs induced) with types (gene, chromosomal, genomic); explain significance of induced mutation in plant breeding including creation of novel alleles, overcoming linkage drag, and specific achievements like disease resistance and quality improvement
- Part (a): Cite Indian contributions—gamma gardens at BARC (Trombay), development of Trombay Groundnut (TG) varieties, and rice mutants like Jagannath and Padma; mention international success stories like 'Golden Promise' barley and 'Sharbati Sonora' wheat
- Part (b): Explain Bt technology for insect resistance—Cry proteins (Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab), mode of action (binding to midgut receptors), and Indian examples like Bt cotton (MECH-162, RCH-2) and Bt brinjal controversy
- Part (b): Describe herbicide resistance mechanisms—EPSPS gene for glyphosate resistance (Roundup Ready), ALS inhibitors, and applications in crops like soybean, maize; mention India's regulatory stance on HT crops
- Part (c): Articulate need for TK protection—biopiracy concerns (turmeric, neem, basmati cases), preservation of indigenous knowledge systems, and equitable benefit-sharing under Nagoya Protocol
- Part (c): Explain sui generis protection—distinct from standard IPR, community rights over TK, documentation in TKDL (Traditional Knowledge Digital Library), and role of PPV&FR Act 2001 in protecting farmers' varieties

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	25%	12.5	Precisely defines mutation types (gene, chromosomal, genomic) with correct mechanisms; accurately describes Bt toxin mode of action and herbicide resistance pathways; correctly distinguishes sui generis from conventional IPR with accurate legal terminology	Basic definitions correct but conflates mutation types or oversimplifies genetic engineering mechanisms; vague on sui generis concept; minor technical inaccuracies in describing Cry proteins or EPSPS pathway	Fundamental conceptual errors—confuses mutation with recombination, misrepresents Bt as toxic to humans, or equates sui generis with standard patents; significant scientific inaccuracies
Quantitative reasoning	10%	5	Provides specific data where relevant—mutation frequency rates (10^-5 to 10^-6), LD50 doses for mutagens, percentage area under Bt cotton in India (~95%), or TKDL documentation figures (~3.5 lakh formulations)	Mentions approximate figures without precision; generic references to 'widespread adoption' or 'large database' without numbers; understands quantitative dimension but lacks specific data	No quantitative dimension; makes up implausible statistics; confuses units or orders of magnitude; completely ignores measurable aspects of mutation rates or adoption data
Indian context examples	25%	12.5	Rich Indian specificity—BARC's gamma gardens, Trombay mutants, Bt cotton adoption trajectory and socio-economic impact, specific biopiracy cases (turmeric US Patent 5,401,504, neem EU patent challenge), TKDL establishment, PPV&FR Authority functioning	Mentions Bt cotton and TKDL superficially; generic reference to 'Indian farmers' without specific varieties or cases; knows biopiracy exists but cannot name specific instances or outcomes	Entirely foreign examples (only Arabidopsis, only US/EU patents); no Indian context; or irrelevant examples from unrelated sectors; demonstrates ignorance of India's biotechnology trajectory
Diagram / process	20%	10	Includes well-labeled diagram of mutation breeding workflow (treatment-M1-M2-M3 generations) or Bt toxin mechanism (crystal protein-solubilization-activation-binding-pore formation); clear schematic of sui generis protection framework	Describes processes verbally without visual aid; attempts diagram but poorly labeled or inaccurate; mentions steps in genetic engineering without logical flow	No process description; chaotic explanation of breeding generations; completely misunderstands Bt mode of action or TK protection mechanism; no attempt at schematic representation
Policy / extension angle	20%	10	Critically engages with GEAC regulatory framework, Seed Act implications, farmer rights vs breeder rights tension, CBD and Nagoya Protocol obligations, and extension challenges in disseminating mutation-bred varieties to smallholders	Mentions regulatory bodies (GEAC, PPV&FR Authority) without analysis; notes moratorium on Bt brinjal without context; superficial treatment of policy dimensions	No policy dimension; ignores regulatory controversies; fails to connect technical content to governance, farmer welfare, or international obligations; purely descriptive without institutional awareness

Q3

Directive word: Describe

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Agriculture 2022 Paper II