What stands in the way of the widespread and careful adoption of 'Genetic Modification (GM)' technology is an 'Intellectual Property Rights' regime that seeks to create private monopolies for such technologies. If GM technology is largely corporate driven, it seeks to maimi7e profits and that too in the. short run. That is why corporations make major investments for herbicide tolerant and pest-resistant crops. Such properties have only a short window, as soon enough, pests and weeds will evolve to overcome such resistance. This Suits the corporations. The National Farmers Commission pointed out that priority must be given in genetic modification to the incorporation of genes that can help impart resistance to drought, salinity and other stresses.
On the basis of the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
Assumption 1 is valid. The passage explicitly states that corporate-driven Genetic Modification (GM) technology prioritizes short-term profits, leading to investments in traits like herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. It contrasts this with the National Farmers Commission's recommendation to incorporate genes for resistance to drought, salinity, and other stresses, which are often consequences of natural calamities. This indicates that the current approach of GM technology companies does not adequately consider the long-term challenges posed by natural calamities on agriculture.
Assumption 2 is not valid. The passage does not assert that GM technology will inherently fail to solve agricultural problems arising from global warming in the long run. Instead, it criticizes the current corporate priorities within GM technology. By highlighting the National Farmers Commission's suggestion to focus on stress-resistant crops (e.g., drought, salinity), the passage implicitly acknowledges the potential of GM technology to address such climate-related issues if its application and focus were reoriented. The concern is about the direction and prioritization of GM research, not its fundamental capability to contribute to solutions for global warming-induced agricultural challenges.