PM addresses scientists at 86th ICAR Foundation Day

• Two-fold objective for agricultural scientists – enable farmers to feed India and the world; and earn a good livelihood • PM gives ICAR mantras of "Kam zameen, kam samay, zyaada upaj" and "per drop, more crop" • Create talent pool of young, educated and progressive farmers, and agricultural research scholars

The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, has exhorted agricultural scientists to work towards a two-fold objective of enabling the Indian farmer to (a) feed India and the world; (rashtra aur vishva ka pet bhare) and (b) earn a good income in the process. (kisan ki jeb bhare). Addressing the agricultural scientific community on the 86th Foundation Day of ICAR, at the NASC Complex in Delhi, the Prime Minister – who was earlier greeted with a "standing ovation" – called upon the audience to give a "standing ovation" to the millions of Indian farmers, who, he said, have played a huge role in changing India`s fortunes. Speaking after giving away ten awards for excellence in agricultural research, Shri Narendra Modi asked the scientists to elaborate upon their research in simple terms, so that it could be understood by the farmers, and they could be convinced to try out new products and initiatives. Noting that farming in India is hereditary, and practices are difficult to change, the Prime Minister said that change can happen only when the farmer is convinced about its efficacy. Therefore, agricultural scientists must - in accordance with changing circumstances of climate, water and soil - help the farmer get convinced about their initiatives. The Prime Minister said that the water-cycle has to be managed according to the changing weather-cycle. The Prime Minister asked ICAR to set goals for their centenary, which is 14 years away. He said the work of ICAR should have two mantras: • "Kam zameen, kam samay, zyaada upaj" – Less land, less time, more crop • "per drop, more crop" He called upon ICAR to set its sights on achieving self-sufficiency in edible oil, and improving protein content and availability of pulses. Since demand is increasing, and land available will not rise, the focus has to be on soil fertility, the Prime Minister noted. Giving the example of Mahatma Gandhi, and his commitment towards water conservation, the Prime Minister asked ICAR to work for more efficient ways of water conservation and irrigation (jal sanchay se jal seenchan). Shri Modi also said that in the field of animal husbandry, special efforts need to be made to raise the level of milk productivity. To meet the challenge of "lab to land" – taking scientific research to successful interventions – the Prime Minister exhorted agricultural colleges to start radio stations. Noting that farmers listen to radio a lot, he said radio programmes run by college students would prove extremely beneficial. He called for a digitized database of all agricultural research in the country. He said young educated and progressive farmers; and agricultural research scholars can together form a talent pool in all districts of the country. The Prime Minister also called for a blue revolution that would extend the benefits of scientific research to the fisheries sector. He also called for greater research and promotion of coastal seaweed, and Himalayan herbal medicinal plants.

New urban development initiatives to address shortcomings of JNNURM

Smart Cities should aim at enhancing quality of urban life, says Shri M.Venkaiah Naidu Efficient service delivery through improved governance to be focus of Smart Cities Need for City specific long term strategic plans stressed

Learning from the experience of implementation of Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the new urban development initiatives should aim at improving the quality of urban life in the country by addressing the chronic urban problems and by going beyond provision of just infrastructure. This broad view has emerged at the two day long brain storming session chaired by the Minister of Urban Development and Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation Shri M Venkaiah Naidu. During the discussions that concluded today, various aspects of urban development including the Smart Cities initiative were taken up for critical examination. Union Minister of Power Shri Piyush Goyal, Members of Parliament – Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Shri Jyothiraditya Scindia, Shri Baijayant Panda and Shri Rajiv Chandrasekhar also shared their perspectives. Shri Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary (Urban Development), Smt Anita Agnihotri, Secretary (Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation), senior officials of the two ministries besides experts participated in the two day long deliberations. While reviewing the progress on conceptualization of the ‘Smart Cities’ initiative, Shri Naidu stressed that the focus of this project should be to enhance quality of urban life through an integrated approach to urban planning and execution besides ensuring ‘inclusivity’. Shri Piyush Goyal suggested that solid waste management, cleanliness etc., should be addressed on priority for immediate impact. Referring to development of smart cities, he said that four or five such projects could be offered to states which have ready land availability. Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy noted that the six dimensions of smart cities should be smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, smart ecology, smart people and smart living. He said based on the learnings of experience of some Asian and other developed countries, India specific model need to be evolved. Shri Baijayant Panda observed that emerging towns should be included under Smart Cities initiative aimed at energy efficiency, clustering of infrastructure and efficient management and governance ensuring inter-sectoral linkages. Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia suggested development of ‘counter magnet cities’ to spread urbanization to new areas. He noted that state governments need to play a pro-active role in addressing urban challenges. He suggested that small towns and cities that are not handicapped by ‘legacy’ issues like congestion and limited land availability could be chosen first to be developed as smart cities. Shri Rajiv Chandrasekhar said that though JNNURM had laudable objectives, it failed to develop a single ‘model city’ and this experience should be taken into account while devising new urban development schemes. He said, under JNNURM, central government ended up merely supporting asset creation. He suggested that the central government should play the role of a ‘catalyst’ in the new scheme of things. He stressed the need for city specific long term statutory development plans for assured outcomes. Shri Chandrasekhar also stressed the need to go beyond provision of infrastructure to ensure efficient delivery of public services to the urban people. He noted that the spirit of 74th Amendment to the Constitution empowering urban local bodies should be realized in full measure for urban development initiatives to be meaningful. As a starting point for the discussions, Shri Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary (Urban Development), in his presentation outlined that a ‘Smart City’ could be one with technology based governance that enables efficient public services and has 24 x 7 water and power supply, 100% sewerage, drainage and solid waste management facilities besides top class infrastructure. He further noted that to mobilize the required resources, funding through Public-Private Partnership, Multi-lateral agencies, Viability Gap Funding by the central government can be explored. After detailed deliberations, Shri Venkaiah Naidu directed the Ministry officials to prepare Notes for Cabinet at the earliest, based on the learnings of JNNURM implementation, inputs/suggestions received during the two day brainstorming session and from other sources. He suggested that there could be two different schemes – one for renewal of 500 urban habitations and the other for ‘Smart Cities’. The 500 habitations are to be provided with safe drinking water, sewerage management and use of recycled water, solid waste management and digital connectivity as mentioned in the General Budget for 2014-15.

Starting over

Swaraj’s message was clear: Delhi wants to depart from past practice of missing opportunities.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj chose not to make lengthy statements on her visit. But she emphasised at every meeting that India’s new government was determined to take the relationship with Nepal to a new level. As Swaraj left Nepal after 40 hours, she had earned enough trust in a country where the perceived “Indian high-handedness” is a matter of distaste. She was able to build a positive atmosphere and enough goodwill for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit, scheduled for August.

Apart from her oratory and ability to strike a chord in individuals, she has had a long association with prominent Nepali Congress leaders, including Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, given her past as a Socialist Party activist before she joined the BJP. She didn’t breach protocol while meeting Nepali dignitaries and leaders, in a welcome departure from the recent past. “India is not the big brother, it is just an elder brother,” she said.

Koirala praised India for its “generous and positive gesture”, while Kamal Thapa, chairman of the pro-monarchy and pro-Hindu Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal, made an appeal to make Modi’s visit free of controversy. The atmosphere on the eve of Swaraj’s visit was charged with distrust of India, especially because the draft agreement on cooperation in the power sector — that India had sent, suggesting 100 per cent investment by India or Indian entities — was viewed as New Delhi’s move to monopolise Nepal’s water resources. Barely eight hours before her arrival, Koirala, after consultations with three major political outfits, decided the challenge at the moment for Nepal and India was credibility, given their failure to execute past promises on development and hydro-power.

“Let India build a model and modest hydro-project, a road in mid-hill, and postal roads in the plains on a time-bound basis, instead of going for cost- and time-consuming mega projects, and that will create a situation for larger partnership in future,” Maoist chief Prachanda told The Indian Express. He recalled how the 250 MW Naumure hydro project, which India’s then external affairs minister and current president, Pranab Mukherjee, promised as a “gift” to Nepal in 2008, was dumped as “not feasible” subsequently. Swaraj took all of these into account, promised continuous high-level interaction at the political level henceforth, and the execution of promised projects at a pace Nepal desired. She also emphasised that India wanted Nepal stable, prosperous and secure.

With a slight deviation from the previous government’s stance, Swaraj said that while India wanted “an inclusive constitution acceptable to all sides”, the responsibility to decide upon theelements of the constitution, the structure of state and governance, etc rested solely with the people of Nepal. The message was clear: India had no favourites in Nepal, nor was Delhi going to be party to Nepal’s internal politics.

But messages and diplomatic gestures on such visits are usually made on a trial basis and reviewed when the two sides get down to business. A widely circulated post on social media in Nepal, with hostile comments, relates to a passage from Mission R&AW by R.K. Yadav, a former officer, which claims that Indira Gandhi as prime minister was planning to break up Nepal — separating the Terai — after she had successfully merged Sikkim with India. He further claims that her imposing of the Emergency and her subsequent electoral defeat got in the way. Aggressive slogans in the Terai, some political parties’ perceived proximity to the Indian establishment — some of them even claiming the Terai to be an “internal colony of Nepal” — and the issue of the power sector draft agreement dominated the political debate, with leftist groups, particularly the Maoists, raking up the question of “Indian designs”.

The sudden exit of the monarchy, without a credible alternative in place, created a big political vacuum and India’s involvement in Terai politics, China watchers say, created the pretext for China’s entry in Nepal on the current scale. In the absence of a stable institution, China found no ally to talk to about its real grievances and Terai politics, influenced by India, gave the north the reason to ask: “Why is India interested in having a buffer within a buffer?” After that, China developed its interest in many other areas, including water resources and power, which Beijing stayed away from earlier. From the Indian perspective, things will get clearer when Modi arrives in August. Swaraj has, meanwhile, created trust on the ground and shown interest in departing from the past of missed opportunities.

Balance of responsibility

in 2008, India and the US reached an agreement on nuclear cooperation that was hailed in many quarters — by nuclear suppliers and vendors in the US, India and across the world — as an opportunity to facilitate the rapid expansion of India’s civilian nuclear programme. India envisaged expanding its civilian nuclear programme from its current capacity of 4.8 GW to 30 GW by 2030. To fully engage with international nuclear suppliers, however, India needed to harmonise certain laws, particularly those addressing civil nuclear liability in the case of an accident, with international norms.

Internationally, the fundamental nuclear liability principles include: strict liability, relieving victims of the need to prove fault or negligence; exclusive liability, ensuring that the operator is the only entity liable to compensating for damage (even if caused by a supplier or vendor); financial protection covering the operator’s liability, ensuring that funds are available to compensate victims; limitation of operator liability in time and amount, enabling the operator to set up a cost-effective mechanism to cover the liability amount; a single court for victims’ claims, providing consistent treatment in the recognition and execution of judgments.

India’s nuclear liability law, enacted in 2010, contains elements that address each of the above principles.  However, Section 17(b) grants the operator the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors (only after the operator compensates victims) if the accident was the result of a patent or latent defect in equipment or substandard services. This provision is fundamentally different from those in nearly all other jurisdictions. It is a significant difference, at least from the perspective of the international nuclear industry.

From a policy perspective, sophisticated parties may agree to cap liability or provide a right of recourse under a contract. This is a perfectly acceptable mechanism when the only damage is economic harm to one or both of the parties to the contract (such as damage to a reactor in the event of an accident). In that case, there is no need for a legislation. The situation is different when the victim of an accidental release is not in a contractual relationship with either the vendor or the operator but is a member of the public. In that case, the transaction costs are prohibitive — the vendor and operator cannot negotiate with each potentially affected party separately. There is then a need for legislative action (for example, liability caps, financial protection, a single court) to reduce transaction costs to an acceptable level. The legislation should create proper incentives to ensure that the entity with the greatest ability to influence accident risk adopts an optimal activity level. For nuclear power, this full internalisation ofresponsibility occurs when the operator is exposed to the activity’s full costs. This is because the operator is responsible for selecting the supplier/ vendor, qualifying equipment, overseeing construction and the installation of equipment, choosing maintenance priorities, monitoring performance, repairing equipment and operating the plant.  In short, it is the operator who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.

In the context of India’s nuclear liability law, the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors has two significant implications. First, it increases the costs of nuclear projects. Second, it alters the operator’s incentives by shifting some responsibility for safety to vendors. The first implication is fundamentally a matter of price. Because India’s liability regime is different from the international regime, it creates more uncertainty (or risk) for the vendor that must be accommodated in the contract price. And, when choosing between a half-century-old approach used internationally and an untested liability provision, a rational company will demand a significant price increase to accommodate the unique provision. This dynamic, which is far from surprising, is a major reason why negotiations remain at an impasse.

Nuclear vendors are also concerned that the right of recourse fundamentally alters the balance of responsibility between the operator and the vendor. Not only should a regulator and the public be able to demand accountability from a single entity (the operator), but the operator must also take responsibility for the actions of its suppliers and vendors. The operator should, and must, uncover latent or patent defects before equipment is put into service. Anything less would be an abdication of its responsibility to protect public safety. Vendors, therefore, are justified in being concerned that a right to recourse creates the wrong incentive, by giving an operator a mechanism for shifting responsibility from its role in an accident to the vendor. This concern is probably compounded by the fact that the sole operator in India, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, is government-owned and therefore would have the bully pulpit and motivation to blame a foreign vendor in the unlikely event of an accident.

At a recent Nuclear Law Association meeting in New Delhi, a number of participants raised questions on the effects of the liability law on the expansion of nuclear energy in India and on public acceptance of nuclear power.  Some hailed the law as a paradigm shift in nuclear liability, ensuring that vendors have a stake in the safe operation of plants. But the benefits of vendors having a stake in safe operation are overstated. The international nuclear supply chain is transparent. Reputations matter. The loss of business associated with the discovery of a defect could cripple a company just as quickly as the financial effects of the right of recourse. And the right of recourse does not result in additional compensation for victims, so there is no direct “public” benefit. More importantly, providing a means for the operator to shift responsibility for an accident ultimately undermines safety by not exposing the operator tothe full cost of any failure to safely design, construct, operate and maintain a plant. This increases the risk, even if only in a small way, that operators will accept items of dubious quality and provenance, rely more heavily on the assurances of contractors and vendors without independent verification and treat the safety of systems, structures and components as someone else’s responsibility.

All of this does not mean that a change to India’s liability law is necessary, but it does suggest the contours of any possible solution. One solution, of course, would be to change the law to fully align with international principles. But it might also include a process for endorsing the absence of defects or confirming acceptable service. Or, though less ideal, the operator could purchase an insurance policy that would indemnify vendors in the event of a claim under Section 17(b). The last two options ensure that the operator is exposed to the full costs of generating nuclear power, though in a somewhat roundabout way.

Ultimately, the tangible benefits of nuclear power (efficient baseload power, climate, economic development) outweigh its costs, including the low probability of accidents. But broad nuclear development will only take place when there is a stable liability regime that all parties find acceptable. That will not happen until the economic and regulatory framework for nuclear power creates complementary and efficient incentives.

The stories we don’t see

With the world going crazy, I tried running away from the news. It didn’t work. I’ve been doing an eco-survey of Madagascar, the island nation off the east coast of Africa that contains the highest percentage of plant and animal species found nowhere else on earth — all of them now endangered to one degree or another. My tour guide is Russ Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International and one of the world’s leading primatologists. We saw something the other day that even Mittermeier, who’s been coming here for 30 years, hadn’t seen before.

We were trekking through the Berenty Reserve. This forest is home to Sifaka lemurs: white, fluffy primates, with very long hind limbs that enable them to bound from tree to tree like forest kangaroos.After walking through the forest for hours, spotting a lemur here and there, we came upon a particularly dense grove and looked up. There, about 30 feet off the forest floor, were nine Sifaka lemurs huddling together for warmth in two groups — four on one limb, five on another — staring directly down at us. “I’ve seen two or three huddled together,” said Mittermeier later that night, “but I’ve never seen a whole group like that. I didn’t want to leave.” None of us did.

But it wasn’t just because we’d never seen such a thing before. It was because we knew we may never see such a thing again — that no one would, particularly our kids. Why? Just look at the trends: Madagascar has already lost more than 90 per cent of its natural vegetation through deforestation, most of it over the last century, particularly the past few decades, said Mittermeier. And that brings me to the question: What is news? I’ve visited and written a lot about Ukraine and the Middle East lately. The tragic events happening there are real news, worthy of world attention. But where we in the news media fall down is in covering the big trends — trends that on any given day don’t amount to much but over time could be vastly more significant than we can now imagine.

Madagascar’s ecological challenge parallels the Middle East’s political challenge. The struggle here is all about preserving Madagascar’s natural diversity so its people will have the resilience, tools and options to ensure a decent future. A diverse system in nature is much more resilient and adaptable to change. Monocultures are enormously susceptible to disease. They can be wiped out by a single pest or weather event in a way that a poly-culture cannot. In the Middle East today, though, the last remnants of poly-cultural nation states and communities are being wiped out. Christians are fleeing the Arab-Muslim world. Islamist jihadists in Syria and Iraq are beheading those who won’t convert to their puritanical Islam.Jews and Palestinians, Shiites and Sunnis keep forcing each other into tighter and tighter ghettos. So a human rainforest once rich with ethnic and religious diversity is becoming a collection of disconnected monocultures, enormously susceptible to disease — diseased ideas.

Costs of an unequal war

For every operation that Israel launches on Gaza and the Palestinian people, the resistance becomes stronger and more determined

Over the last two weekends, demonstrators have been gathering at the Ferry Building in San Francisco. Young men wearing the keffiyah chant “Palestine will be free,” while others sing “Free Free Palestine,” holding placards, banners, flags and dummy coffins that demand an end to military aid to Israel, ask for the Gaza war to be over and ask that the leaders of Israel be tried for war crimes against Palestinians. During the first week, there were about 1,000 protesters. This past Sunday, the estimated number of people at the protest exceeded 6,000. As is the standard procedure in the United States, squads of police personnel walked alongside the protesters.

Anguished voices

The protests have been peaceful but the demands are made vociferously and with much anguish. The gathering on Sunday made its way down the Market Street and ended at the Civic Centre, one of the seats of power in San Francisco, which adjoins the United Nations Plaza. On the steps of the Civic Centre, young Palestinian women recited poetry in which they talked about trauma, hurt and anxiety. Students and professors made speeches telling people that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one between unequal powers. Some sections supported armed resistance, while others said that both states can coexist peacefully. However, there was broad agreement that not resisting would mean inviting the planned and painfully slow genocide of their people. The protesters were not shy about using the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.

 There is no longer any doubt that the Palestinian question needs more international attention and global deliberation. 

In pre- and post-protest discussions with some demonstrators, the sense of trauma was palpable. These are young people who have moved to different countries to escape the conflict. They have forged new lives and careers as students, caregivers, motel operators and technology professionals. The last two weeks have witnessed some of the biggest worldwide mobilisation for Gaza. The Palestinian diaspora in Europe and the United States, supported by people of various countries, have all rallied in favour of Gaza and asked for an end to the current assault on the Strip. The only protest that has turned violent so far occurred in Paris.

The most recent round of violence between Israel and Palestine has been precipitated by a number of factors. The immediate cause was the alleged kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in mid-June. Following the multiple abductions, the Israeli Defence Forces launched Operation Brother’s Keeper, under which over 300 Palestinians were rounded up and questioned. From the beginning, it was unclear who was behind the kidnappings. While Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused Hamas, the Palestinian Authority said there was no evidence of Hamas involvement. Hamas also denied that it had kidnapped the youths. The three youths were later found dead in a field near Hebron with conflicting reports suggesting that they had been killed soon after abduction or had been killed recently.

Operation Brother’s Keeper resulted in a massive manhunt for possible suspects with little evidence. Further, revenge attacks on Palestinian youths began to occur with botched kidnapping attempts and the burning of a Palestinian boy by Jewish extremists. Three weeks after the Israeli youth disappeared, Hamas fired 100 rockets into the Israeli territory. On July 8, Israel began responding by firing back in what is now called Operation Protective Edge.

Interestingly, Israel has somewhat agreed that the killings might have been perpetrated not by Hamas but by a Hamas splinter group called the Qawasameh clan that has often gone against the edicts of Hamas leaders. This begs the question: what is this current war really about?

The recent hostilities are not rooted in only the immediate tensions between Israel and Palestine; they are a product of recent changes that have taken place in the region. In June 2014, Hamas and Fatah, two groups politically at odds in Palestine, buried their long-standing differences, sending tremors through Israel which thinks that with the reuniting of these groups, terrorism will get a boost, i.e., Hamas will drag the more moderate Fatah towards extremism. The manner in which Operation Brother’s Keeper was initiated suggests that the main endeavour was not just to find the missing youths but to use the incident as a pretext to take out Hamas targets and their supporters. This would make the Palestinian Unity government seem weak and ineffective in combating Israeli aggression and controlling its own territory.

In Israel, both the Knesset and the government agree that resuming hostilities against the Palestinian territories best safeguards the interests of the Israeli state and people. The Knesset, with a strong presence of the Zionist right, has members who have made strong anti-Palestine pronouncements. Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Knesset representing the Jewish Home Party, stated that the conflict could not end until all Palestinians, including women and children, were “wiped out.” More recently, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, wrote strongly about a ground invasion with the entire capacity of the Israeli Defence Forces and bombing of Gaza with little warning as a ‘solution’ to the Gaza issue. Similarly, Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel Sharon, has suggested that Israel flatten Gaza like Hiroshima.

The Palestinian Unity government has a component of the right, but the presence of Fatah helps temper Hamas. However, peace deals and ceasefires have been a lot harder to negotiate. As it is, Hamas has repeatedly accused Israel of sanctioning settlements even though ceasefire norms were in place. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and a Fatah member, is also caught between a rock and a hard place, as he has been asked by Mr. Netanyahu to choose between a deal with Hamas or Israel.

Last July, former U.S. presidential hopeful John Kerry, along with Martin Indyk from the Brookings Institution, tried to restart peace talks between Israel and Palestine. The talks were supposed to take place over 10 months and reach a settlement on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The talks broke down several times. Mr. Netanyahu rejected the Palestinians’ right of return, while Mr. Abbas said they didn’t want a single Israeli settlement on Palestinian land. In January 2014, Israel approved 1,400 settlement homes in a move that sent a negative signal to the Palestinian Authority. This, combined with repeated failures to release Palestinian prisoners in Israel, led to a lack of confidence on the side of the Palestinian Authority.

Trust deficit

The United States has taken a measured stance on the issue by blaming both sides for the breakdown of the 2013-2014 talks. Mr. Kerry went on record that a third Intifada was in the offing if the current talks didn’t succeed. The recent round of hostilities suggests that talks are no longer working because both sides display a basic trust deficit.

For Israel, Hamas is more of a threat than the Palestinian Unity government and Israel is uncertain if the Palestinian government can strong-arm Hamas. It is, then, not surprising that personal protection of Israeli territory and Israelis in the settlements has taken priority over trying to build confidence and trust between the two states.

Operation Protective Edge has claimed over 600 Palestinian lives, while the Israeli death count stands at less than 50. Over the last two weeks, images have surfaced of Israeli people roosting atop a hill watching the bombardment of Palestinian targets. Flechette munitions have been used against civilians. Humanitarian groups report a grave crisis in Gaza with hospitals working at full capacity amid rocket attacks.

What is new about the Israel-Gaza conflict is that Israel seems to be losing much popular support internationally, as studies and reports establish that the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a lopsided one for many decades, that the Israeli state has practised segregation and influx control, not unlike the apartheid regime in South Africa, and that its means of fighting and adherence to a real lasting peace with Palestine are part of carefully-crafted doublespeak.

There is no longer any doubt that the Palestinian question needs more international attention and global deliberation. This is a slow genocide of a people who have struggled against occupation since 1948 or 1967, depending on the viewpoint people adhere to. Google images have accurately shown how the Palestinian territory has reduced over the decades. The paradox is stark and unavoidable — for every operation that Israel launches on Gaza and the Palestinian people, the Palestinian resistance becomes stronger and more determined.

Less than 10 per cent of human DNA useful: scientists

More than 90 per cent of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolution, Oxford researchers claim.

The scientists arrived at the figure after comparing the human genome with the genetic makeup of other mammals, from dogs and mice to rhinos and horses.

The researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable.

Gerton Lunter, a senior scientist on the team, said that, based on the comparisons, 8.2 per cent of human DNA was “functional,” meaning that it played an important enough role to be conserved by evolution.

“Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence that 92 per cent of our genome is contributing to our biology at all,” Lunter said.

Researchers have known for some time that only 1 per cent of human DNA is held in genes that are used to make crucial proteins to keep cells — and bodies — alive and healthy. The latest study, reported in the journal Plos Genetics, suggests that a further 7 per cent of human DNA is equally vital, regulating where, when, and how genes are expressed.

But if much of our DNA is so worthless, why do we still carry it around? “It’s not true that nature is parsimonious in terms of needing a small genome. Wheat has a much larger genome than we do,” Lunter said. “We haven’t been designed. We’ve evolved, and that’s a messy process. This other DNA really is just filler. It’s not garbage. It might come in useful one day. But it’s not a burden.