The man known as the "father of the green revolution," agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, has died at the age of 95.
Many probably have never heard of Norman Borlaug, but he arguably did more to increase crop yields and reduce hunger in developing countries than any other individual. His research and activism in bringing the benefits of that research direct to the farmers both here and abroad led to a movement that came to be known as the "green revolution." And because of it, world food production more than doubled in the thirty years between 1960 and 1990. In two countries that benefited most from the new crop varieties, Pakistan and India, yields of wheat and other grains more than quadrupled over that period.
While most scientists toil without recognition for most of their careers, Borlaug was one of only five people who have won all of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. To that he can add the Padma Vibhushan, which is awarded by the President of India to "recognize exceptional and distinguished service to the nation in any field..." According to his Wiki article, Borlaug's discoveries have been estimated to have saved over 245 million lives worldwide (others estimate the green revolution averted global famine during the second half of the 20th century, which saved perhaps 1 billion lives worldwide). His work in India and Mexico are well known in agricultural, scientific, and humanitarian circles.
Needless to say, with an impact that large there were also criticisms. The green revolution, and Borlaug's programs involving genetic cross-breeding of plant species, were seen by some as being unnatural. In addition, large scale monocultures (picture a large expanse of wheat or corn fields) tend to reduce biodiversity, in addition to often increasing the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used, which can be damaging to the top soil and the subsistence farming of rural families in under-developed areas. Another concern is that these techniques create large profits for agribusiness and agrichemical corporations while widening social inequality in the recipient countries. While these concerns may be valid, Borlaug felt that keeping people from starving more than compensated for any of these drawbacks.
Scientists who speak out for the science (even if it's just to correct the misrepresentations that others make of that science), are sometimes looked on with disdain both by those for whom the science is ideologically inconvenient and by pure scientists who feel the scientist should remain in the lab and let others handle policy. Borlaug had a different philosophy. According to a wonderful article just published about him:
Equal parts scientist and humanitarian, the Iowa-born Borlaug realized improved crop varieties were just part of the answer, and pressed governments for farmer-friendly economic policies and improved infrastructure to make markets accessible.
We should remember that without scientists informing our policy-makers, our rivers would still be catching fire, our neighborhoods would still be exposing us to toxic waste, our country would have never made it to the moon, our air would still be thick enough to see (and kill), and our existence and that of many other species on this planet would come into question.
With that in mind, can you name any scientists?*
*Hint: Al Gore and Bill Gates are NOT scientists.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Thank you for the information David. This was very educational.
Absolutely. I would rather see scientists and other pioneers on the late night talk shows than most of those that they do interview. Men & women that allow the blind to see, the deaf to hear, etc. are deserving of more recognition.
Nothing is totally perfect and detractors are mostly personal opinion.
Monsanto is the big concern now with the public and GM products and the chemical fertilizer it takes to produce the yields as well as producing much hardier weeds. We feed more people but destroy our environment doing it.
I am not an end timer or gloom and doom but it sure looks like their is going to be a drastic reduction in world populations as the populations continue to increase and our ability to feed people diminishes. Water is a big concern now as well and we are using up our clean water supplies faster than they can be replaced.
I hope one day before its to late we can come together and work for the good of people worldwide and stop this greed that is destroying our ability to live in peace, harmony, and goodwill.
Some of the concerns are legitimate. Others not so much. Not all innovations are good for the environment or culture, but without them we might not be able to deal with other problems. The trick is to be aware enough to find the best combination of environmentally-, socially-, and cultural accommodating innovations that help us move forward effectively and efficiently. That's not an easy task, and it's made harder by various parties not representing the facts honestly.
World populations will continue to increase. It might behoove those xenophobes out there to realize that population growth is variable. Some countries/cultures won't grow, and others will grow quickly. And the most rapid growth is often where the carrying capacity of the ecosystem is most likely insufficient to absorb the resource demands. It's something we need to be thinking - and doing something - about.
I agree. Water is a major concern. And like oil, it has become a cherished commodity. Lack of sufficient water in one place has a (pardon the pun) ripple effect throughout the planet.
That's a good question. I can name Eric Steig, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann - but that's only because I visit RealClimate regularly.
And, of course, there are the scientists on Gather - David K., David Evans, Stephanie B., Mark Y., Sy G., James B., and Roy Shastid. At least, that's all I'm aware of.
But, strangely, as much as I have kept up with environmental issues, I have never heard of Norman Borlaug. It sounds like his life was a magnificent contribution to the well-being of his fellow man. That is a truly successful life.
Question: "...genetic cross-breeding of plant species..." - that's GM plants, right? But GM plants also include cross-breeding animal and plant species, a phenomenon known in environmental circles as "franken-food". The problem with these "creations" (among others) is that they're highly invasive. It's difficult to keep them from taking over traditional strains in the fields. And when they do, farmers cannot produce their own seed. A Canadian farmer, a few years ago, had his crop invaded by GM plants, and when he saved the seed, as he was used to doing, he was sued by (I think it was) Monsanto. The farmer lost the case, and was ordered to pay GM a huge amount of money in damages. That, IMO, is a cross-breeding of horror stories - Orwell and Frankenstein.
The only protection we have from GM products is to buy ORGANIC products. Even then, the agribusiness industry has attempted to water down the organic label, by creating loopholes, which would effectively allow GM products to be labeled "organic". So far (as far as I know) they have not succeeded.
Of course, some would argue that agribusiness has effectively rendered the family farmer extinct, anyway. Somehow, we have to begin to reverse this trend toward uniformity. Diversity is the natural way of things. Whenever you can, buy organic....
That said, he was still active and speaking at conferences right up to this past few years, before complications from cancer finally took him.
The concerns about the economic dependencies related to some GM crops are more warranted, since these break the historical ability of farmers to hold back enough seed to plant next season. That said, Monsanto has made some changes its "terminator" seed system. And lest people think Monsanto lost market share by the EU ban on GMOs, the company has been very successful and still focuses on GM-based technology. And they still dominate the market and make loads of money off of it. They just do so more quietly these days.
You touched on the big question mark - the possibility of strain migration and cross-breeding, as well as development of resistance. I believe the jury is still out on those issues, which probably would have the most actual real adverse impact.
I have no doubt that industry is making mega-bucks on GM products. That's the purpose of corporations - the sole purpose. As with health care, we have to decide whether the priorities are to protect corporate profits - or the well-being of the population.
Industry is pretty much against labeling in general. They feel that if you label things it automatically suggests they are somehow bad (otherwise, why would it need a special label). They see it from their point of view, whereas the public sees it from a "right-to-know point of view." Is it bad faith? Industry thinks it's being reasonable and is trying hard, the public thinks not. Definitely not on the same page.
Agree also on the priorities. That difference in ideology is the root of most of the major issues we have in the US today. In some cases the differences cannot be reconciled, but at the very least we need to be honest with the facts if we want to have an honest conversation. That is the biggest reason why I'm so picky about rooting out dishonesty.
thanks again for commenting, Steve. You always seem to see the real focus.
Amazing man, someone we actually read about in grade school (yeah I'm old enough to be from the times that had non sports heroes) and one who impacted tens if not hundreds of millions of lives. It's impossible to quantify the good this man has done.
Sadly his work in bio engineering rice today would get him in hot water with many people pretending to care about the poor. God grant others like him have the courage to work despite today's semi Luddite atmosphere in some circles.
And like all new technologies, there are sometimes unintended consequences. We tend to focus on the things that seem most important to us, and lose track of how others view the same situation. It's not a matter of one side being right and the other wrong, but of both sides having a point and a need to find a workable path forward.
No matter whether people think he was on the side of the angels or not, there is no question that the man had a major impact on the world. And given the number of people who didn't starve, anyone would be hard pressed to not to appreciate his efforts.
But then, I'm biased towards scientists. :)
And I agree that scientists have to be more in tune with the policy side of their work. Great ideas don't help the masses if they sit in a flask on the shelf. We need to help educate the policy-makers so that they can make good decisions, not decisions based on fear and distortions.
Most scientists work their entire careers without ever being recognized on the street or even by name. They get recognition from their peers, of course, and are sought after at scientific meetings. But very few are able to successfully cross the divide between doing science and talking to the public about it. That void gets filled with pseudoscientists and non-scientists who muddle the science more than enlighten it. Unfortunately.
Thank you for sharing...