Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28497354›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2017

Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology.

Gigesh Thomas, Johan De Tavernier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gigesh ThomasFaculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Sint-Michielsstraat, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. jijeshtor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1571-0000
Johan De TavernierFaculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Sint-Michielsstraat, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indian Biotech opponents have attributed the increase of suicides to the monopolization of GM seeds, centering on patent control, application of terminator technology, marketing strategy, and increased production costs. The contentions of the biotech opponents, however, have been criticized for a lack of transparency in their modus operandi i.e. the use of methodology in their argumentation. The fact is, however, that with the intention of getting the attention of those capable of determining the future of GM cotton in India, opponents resorted to generating controversies. Therefore, this article will review and evaluate the multifaceted contentions of both opponents and defenders. Although the association between seed monopolization and farmer-suicide is debatable, we will show that there is a link between the economic factors associated with Bt. cultivation and farmer suicide. The underlying thesis of biotech opponents becomes all the more significant when analysed vis-à-vis the contention of the globalization critics that there has been a political and economic marginalization of the Indian farmers. Their accusation assumes significance in the context of a fragile democracy like India where market forces are accorded precedence over farmers' needs until election time.

Indexed as

AgricultureBiotechnologySeedsCrops, AgriculturalFarmersHumansIndiaPlants, Genetically ModifiedSuicideBiotechBt. cottonEthicsFarmer-suicideMonsantoNavdanyaVandana Shiva

Identifiers

PMID28497354
PMCPMC5427059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.