MS
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
November
26, 2013
I can’t think of a better way to wrap up
my research than visiting the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in the
southern coastal city of Chennai. Almost
since the beginning of my time in India, I had been hoping to meet and
interview Dr. MS Swaminathan himself. He
is known as the “Father of the Green Revolution in India” and worked with the
original “Father of the Green Revolution” (American Norman Borlaug), as well as
the late and former prime minister Indira Gandhi in the 1960s to double India’s
grain production, transforming the hungry nation from food insecure to a
self-sufficient net exporter of food. I
should note that the Green Revolution in and of itself is controversial for a
variety of reasons including:
·
The
development of high yielding varieties of hybrid wheat demanded increased
inputs of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation to maintain
performance, which has environmental ramifications (e.g. degraded soil,
diminishing water table, resistance in pests and weeds)
·
The
health consequences such as increased rates of cancer from exorbitant chemical
applications
·
The
social effects of causing indebtedness among farmers who were forced to adopt
HYVs and rely on expensive external inputs from the market, thus exacerbating
the issue of farmer suicides
·
The
nutritional consequences in that people were consuming less traditional/coarse/nutritional
grains such as millet and instead began consuming more wheat and rice
·
The
consequences on biodiversity and a reduction in the crop gene pool as a large
number of farmers stopped saving indigenous seeds and after adopting HYVs, many
these traditional seed varieties have since disappeared (and biodiversity of
seed is crucial for resilience in the era of climate change)
By no means is this an exhaustive
list. However, we cannot ignore that the
Green Revolution probably saved India from widespread famine. As stated though, we must consider the entire
picture when assessing its status.
Needless to say, Dr. MS Swaminathan is a bit of a foodie/ag celebrity in
my mind, so I was shocked and exhilarated when his secretary was able to
arrange an interview. In fact, he
doesn’t usually meet or do interviews with students, so I was elated. Especially because I made the big trip all
the way to Chennai just to see him! According
to Wikipedia, “From 1972 to 1979 he was director general of the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research. He was minister of Agriculture from 1979 to 1980. He
served as director general of the International Rice Research Institute
(1982–88) and became president of the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources in 1988.
In 1999, Time magazine placed him in the 'Time 20' list of most
influential Asian people of the 20th century.”
He just celebrated his 88th birthday but is still very much
young at heart.
I had originally submitted an 8-page list
of questions for the interview, which I have been compiling since
Tanzania. Slowly, the pieces of the
puzzle seem to be coming together, albeit in a complicated and convoluted
manner. However, when I discovered that
he could only spend 15 minutes with me, I had to quickly trim my questions and
choose the most important. So here goes:
Sunday,
November 24, 2013
Interview
with Dr. MS Swaminathan
MS
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai
To
what degree should agriculture become mechanized and large scale?
Dr.
MS Swaminathan: The story of mechanization in India is that
it is taking place according to the need.
You see now labor is becoming short.
We have a program called Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Program (MNREG), which guarantees employment for 100 days. So many of the workers who used to be in
agriculture are taking advantage of this program because the payment is prompt,
it’s a government program and so on. As
a result, farmers are finding it difficult to get adequate labor at the time of
planting and harvesting, therefore, more and more tractors. And also, with an increase in irrigated area,
the intensity of cropping is going up.
With the whole of Punjab, wheat and rice rotation. So the rice has to be harvested quickly or
else wheat sowing becomes delayed and if it’s delayed, yield goes down. So they use combined harvesting, Punjab
started. Then take a place like Kerala
or Karnataka where workers were against mechanization in the past, but now that
labor is not available, they don’t mind.
So all the crop is harvested by combined harvesting, so the tractor
industry in India is growing. The
leading tractor company is here in Chennai and a very good training center to
train farmers in mechanization. And
secondly, India’s population is predominantly young people, more than 50% of
our population is below the age of 30.
And those young people, don’t want to do the farming in the old way with
bullock cart and buffalo. They want to
have more mechanizing. For example,
look at Punjab, when young people took agriculture only when tractors and
combines all came. So the predominance
of young people in agriculture necessitates relevant [mechanization]. The third very important reason for
mechanization is the increasing role of women in agriculture. Nearly 50% of our workforce is women. For example, rice transplanting, a very
tedious job, therefore transplanters are necessary since women have multiple
burdens on their time: housekeeping, child rearing, and other economic
activities. Therefore, they need
relevant mechanization. So India’
agricultural future depends upon mechanization.
But I don’t mean very large horse power tractors, also what the Japanese
call Kiboko – walking tractors and small for women, 10-15 horsepower. Our mechanization will be according to our
own socioeconomic circumstances based on the three reasons I gave you: labor
shortages at critical times, increasing youth in agriculture, and increasing
role of women in agriculture.
Do
you think organic farming can feed the world and if so, how do we “scale up”
organic?
Dr.
MS Swaminathan: Organic
farming, see it depends on the soil conditions.
The plant does not make a difference if the nutrient is organic or
mineral fertilizer. You may give nitrogen
through urea or cow dung, animal waste.
The problem is that the majority of farmers are small farmers, holding 2
hectares (5 acres) or below or 2-3 acres.
They do not have many animals, so how will they replenish soil
fertility? You have to give back to the
soil what you take out of it. And if you
are large farmer with a large number of farm animals, then it is easier. You can use all the animal dung for the soil. So organic manure, to produce 3 billion tons
of food grains, which is what we need in the world, is not very easy. This is why we’ve been advocating integrated
nutrient supply. Use whatever organic
matter you have: animal refuse, plant refuse, compost, green manure crops (put
one nitrogenous/leguminous fodder [and plow it in]). For example, Prince Charles in the UK has a
7-year rotation with 5 years of clover and 2 years of wheat or barley to build
up the soil fertility. So essentially
there are two major challenges in organic farming. One is soil health management and the other is
plant health management. How are you
going to control against pests and diseases?
How are you going to improve soil fertility? So
organic farming is not the panacea for everything because when nations were
doing organic farming, India for example, until 40 years ago when fertilizer
first came, it was all organic farming and we were mostly starving because
productivity is so low. If I want one
ton of rice, it requires 20 kg of nitrogen.
If you want 5 tons of rice, it requires 100 k of nitrogen. 100 kg of nitrogen to give through organic
manure is very difficult for a small farmer.
And you have to make it clear that the plant itself doesn’t make a
distinction – organic or inorganic – it requires nutrients.
Are
hybrids and GMOs necessary to feed the world’s growing population or can we
relying on traditional open pollinated varieties of seeds?
Dr.
MS Swaminathan: GMO
is only one more technology. Ever since Gregor Mendel announced Mendel’s
Laws of Inheritance in 1865, the science of genetics has been progressing. We have methods for doubling the chromosome,
for altering patterns of chromosomes. In
1953, Watson and Crick identified the double helix structure of the DNA model
and the chemical substance of heredity.
From that time onwards, the science of molecular genetics – we have two
periods 1900-1953 – Mendelian genetics and 1953 onwards is molecular genetics. A combination of the two, Mendelian and
molecular genetics, is what we use in breeding.
Normal breeding: Mendelian breeding, plus some. For example, you must have seen upstairs, the
gene from mangrove for salt water tolerance.
This is part of our program on anticipatory breeding to meet the
challenge of sea level rise. Today, the
Warsaw negotiations of the climate convention have not made any progress. The
richer countries do not want to cut down on emissions. Therefore there is no way, so with higher
temperature, there will be sea level rise.
And both sub-Saharan Africa and South Asian will be the worst sufferers
because they have the least coping capacity against these kinds of
calamities. Therefore, I think the GM
technology or the transfer of genes across sexual barriers - what is important
is now that the old concept of Linnaeus, of species, was based on sexual
isolation. One species will not cross
with the other. But today, we can cross
all species, we can more parasexually the genes. It is a pretty powerful technology but it can
be used effectively for certain purposes when you don’t have a gene. For example, if I don’t have a good gene for
sea water tolerance, then I can take a gene from a helophyte like
mangrove. There is now what is called
marker-assisted selection, so from molecular markers, we can take a precise
gene you want and transfer it. So
molecular genetics has opened up completely new opportunities. It’s
a scientific evolution. I wouldn’t put
GM versus Mendelian genetics, it’s a continuation. We should use both. There is no need for recombinant DNA unless
it is necessary. For example, in
medicine it is being used extensively because new vaccines and so on. And we have no concern about medical
biotechnology because people want vaccines against Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and
so on, but with the case of food crops, there is fear. And environmental damage.
How
do you distinguish between your vision for a new “Evergreen Revolution” with
the first “Green Revolution”?
Dr.
MS Swaminathan: The first Green Revolution, the term was coined
by William Gaud of the United States.
Suddenly there was a quantum jump in yield, from 1 ton to 4-5 tons. It was not a small increment. And with the shorter variety, you can apply
more fertilizer and get more yield. So
he called it. Indira Gandhi released a
stamp called the wheat revolution. Green
Revolution was criticized by environmentalists saying too much harm to the
soil, too much fertilizer, too much pesticide.
And there was a famous book in the United States by Rachel Carson “The
Silent Spring.” That created a lot of
awareness. She was criticizing DDT and
the discoverer of DDT was given the Nobel Prize, and within ten years, Rachel
Carson produced that book. And with
science, no one can ever know, so one has to do some anticipation or
action-reaction. I want one action, but
reactions may be many. So with the Green
Revolution, there are 2-3 criticisms.
One is that groundwater was going down from over exploitation of
aquifers. Secondly, soil was getting
salinized. Thirdly, pests were getting resistant to the pesticides. That is well known everywhere, whether it is
human disease, tuberculosis, leprosy, they become drug resistant. And that is
one of the problems with medicine, agriculture, or animal husbandry, you will
find there is a problem with the resistance to drugs.
[[Then I added that another critique is
farmer indebtedness and reliance on external inputs from the market; he
replied]] Farmers have to depend on inputs.
You can’t have output without inputs.
When we were having no inputs – farmers were doing natural farming – the
yields were only half a ton. When we
became independent in India, we were only 300 million people. Today we are 1.2 billion people and today
there is no famine. There is under
nutrition. It is not like the Bengal
famine, which occurred when our population was 300 million. Therefore, you have to produce more. Land is going out of agriculture. Every day, land is going out, new buildings
in Chennai. The same is true in
Massachusetts. Land is a shrinking
resource for agriculture.
So
I coined the term “evergreen revolution” about thirty years ago. In fact, both the Agronomy Society of the
United States and the Crop Science Society had 50th anniversary
about 7-8 years ago in Salt Lake City and the theme was “From Green to
Evergreen Revolution” and I was the keynote speaker. And the book is also there. Evergreen
revolution means an increase in productivity in perpetuity without ecological
harm. You have to mainstream ecological
factors in technology development and dissemination. Today you can all it sustainable agriculture. Green Revolution has a specific connotation:
yield. Sustainable agriculture can also
be organic agriculture, but we want more yield because we have increased
population and many are undernourished, therefore we need to produce more. That can be done only by integrated pest
management, integrated nutrient supply, improved post harvest technology,
improved soil and water management and so on.
Now people accept this. Even
president Obama, when he addressed the parliament of India, he said we need an
evergreen revolution. Therefore,
everyone recognizes that increasing yield should not be at the cost of the
environment, because then we can’t have it forever. That’s why evergreen, in perpetuity,
sustainable agriculture.
Any
advice for a young person like myself who is aspiring to make positive change
in this area?
Dr.
MS Swaminathan: My advice would be don’t go by slogans or
because somebody says, “this is bad.
That is bad.” Apply your own mind. Ask yourself, what is the end point, what do
you want to reach? For example, we want
to reach a hunger free India. This first
requires an adequate supply of food at an affordable cost, which is what our
government aspires with the Food Security Act.
But the food security bill would not have been possible without the
green revolution because we have so much grain because the yield of wheat and rice
has been improved. So my advice would be that young people should not just go by emotions
or slogans. You must be
compassionate and have a mind of compassion and helping others, but our aim
should be to ensure the first among the human requirement: adequate food and
food for all, forever.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--
I think that Dr. Swaminathan is known for
his balanced approach to issues, however, he is also critiqued for giving
conflicting messages (e.g. on GMOs).
Regardless, it was an honour speaking with him and I appreciate his
advice. After this quasi-celebrity
encounter, I was able to spend a bit of time with some of the directors and
principal scientists of the other divisions at MSSRF.
According to their website, “MS Swaminathan Research Foundation is a
non-profit research organization and was established in 1988. M S Swaminathan
Research Foundation (MSSRF) has all along been developing and following a
pro-nature, pro-poor, pro-women and pro-sustainable on-farm and non-farm
livelihoods through appropriate ecotechnology and knowledge empowerment.
MS Swaminathan Research Foundation is carrying out research and development in
six major thematic areas such as:
•
Coastal Systems Research
•
Biodiversity
•
Biotechnology
•
Ecotechnology
•
Food Security
•
Information, Education and Communication”
I was able to spend time with the
biodiversity, ecotechnology, and biotechnology divisions. In the biodiversity interview, I learned that
they are focusing on a “4C model” approach to conservation, which pays
concurrent attention to:
•
Conservation
•
Cultivation
•
Consumption
•
Commerce
One of the main points of this division
is the recognition that tribal communities often hold traditional varieties,
which necessitates in situ (on-site) conservation, as well as gene/seed/grain
banks and participatory plant breeding (PPB) that directly involves the
farmer. MSSRF has facilitated 25
community-managed village seed banks, which also serve as storehouses for
surplus grain in times of need (farmers have to return 2x as much grain as they
borrow as a sort of interest). Mill
technology for local varieties can address the issues of hidden hunger. They are also doing work on ex situ
conservation and have 1,134 accessions in their seed bank with an emphasis on
Prior Informed Consent (PIC), which ensures that farming communities will
receive recognition if their varieties are used in any new developments. In my interview, the principal biodiversity
scientist explained that the progression of seeds is usually:
Wild type à land race à farmer
variety à traditional à modern seed
I am still trying to understand the
difference between various accessions including: varieties, land races, modern
cultivars, traditional cultivars, wild types etc., so I will continue to ask
about this and attempt to read up. The
scientist explained that the Indian state of Orissa is perhaps one of the
birthplaces of rice worldwide, and this can be figured out by the vast number
of varieties found in this one area (i.e. biodiversity hotspot). Therefore, we need to support
traditional/tribal communities that are working directly with wild-types. In-situ conservation, however, has inherent
limitations; for instance, these community-level programs can only be scaled up
to a certain extent to remain economically viable and also because local seed
is intrinsically place-based. In-situ
conservation is also important because it promotes knowledge development of the
people alongside seed preservation (so this indigenous wisdom isn’t lost once
local seeds are put into a far off gene bank).
The scientist has doubts if in-situ conservation will survive alongside
the commercialized seed production industry, which has a bit of a choke hold
around India (as well as other parts of the world). He believes that marginal areas that are
biodiversity hotspots should be excluded from markets to protect the genetic
resource base, which requires strong policy (could be subsidizing people who
maintain biodiversity through seed). He
doesn’t necessarily support GMOs and believes that hybrids also have their own
problems.
According to the director of the
eco-technology centre, “it’s about taking technology from the shelf
to the grassroots level. It’s knowledge
transfer.” I learned about their
efforts to balance conserving natural resources and also utilizing them for
livelihood development in a sustainable way.
They are working on eco-friendly microenterprises (e.g. food processing
of oils, coconut, cashew) and allied sectors such as livestock. For this, communities require knowledge,
skills, finance, and markets. MSSRF is
operating using a SSSHG model – self-sustaining self-help group (precursor to a
cooperative) and the bio-village scheme.
These bio-villages are human centered but also focus on environmental
conservation (e.g. promoting vermicompost, raising on and off farm incomes,
intensive integrated farming system (IIFS), integrated pest management, etc.). The bio-village model is 20 years old and
looks at natural resources and rural poverty concurrently (e.g. tapping into
mushroom cultivation and floriculture for generating women’s incomes). They have 50 villages with 3,000 women
beneficiaries, the majority are landless laborers and small/marginal
farmers. The importance of technology
transfer involves: on farm technologies (e.g. productivity, post-harvest,
marketing etc.); off-farm/related technologies (e.g. dairy, vermicompost),
which present a major challenge because they want to generate jobs and income
here; and non-farm technologies (e.g. vocational skills). The director noted that to promote youth
retention in agriculture, we need ABC – attitudinal behavior change. Farming is still largely traditional, but we
are linking it to the information and communications technology sector (ICT),
biotechnology, and climate-smart technology to name a few. For instance, the MSSRF scheme of
bio-industrial watersheds is a good example of linking watershed development
with job creation. The key is that
unlike government schemes, these watershed projects are driven by community
participation and interests, which generate work in storage, harvesting,
recycling to the farms etc.). They are
going above and beyond traditional water management and scaling up, creating
producer-owned companies, women’s groups etc.
MSSRF takes a “rights-based approach” and through sensitization and
mobilization, it is possible to make farming lucrative. In terms of technology and mechanization, the
director noted how we need to examine village-level assets and for that, it
might involve 3-4 villages coming together and utilizing tractors or SRI
transplanters on a custom-hire basis, with funds recycling back into the ICT
center, monitored by the producer company.
As part of the ICT initiative, MSSRF has
rural knowledge centers, which help bridge the digital divide and provide
location specific information to local communities (e.g. weather data, disaster
management). I was able to go to one of
these village resource/rural knowledge centers when I was in Vidarbha and I saw
how computers and available information were really an asset to the
community.
I wanted to meet with someone from the
Food Security division, but time did not allow.
Fortunately, my interview with the biotechnology department was by far
the most fruitful and useful. Here are
some notes from my interview with the director of the Biotechnology Division:
•
Biotechnology
is the western sense usually involves molecular biology and GMOs. Biotechnology in India also includes
molecular level science, but also a large number of techniques practiced by the
people. We are interested in how to
marry traditional wisdom and modern techniques, alongside many other
institutions in India.
•
We
are currently conducting anticipatory research for impending issues such as
climate change, nutrient deficiency, salinization, sea level rise, etc. For example, developing shielding crop
varieties for salinity and drought tolerance and bioremediation in times of
contamination.
•
In
terms of address nutrient deficiencies through biofortification, we are not
allowed to experiment with Basmati rice per a restriction from the department
of biotechnology, since the majority is exported abroad and the EU demands
GM-free products. But for non-basmati
rice varieties, we are developing salt tolerance through genetic engineering
(taking a gene from a mangrove). In our
contained trials, GM salt tolerant varieties are outperforming traditional and
once this ban on large scale field experiments on transgenics is lifted, we can
better test for long-term health and environmental impacts, which we will then
put this info in the public domain.
Currently, we are collaborating with independent labs to test for
biosafety under animal models, which have shown no adverse effects over more
than three years of testing.
•
Most
notably, MSSRF operates and conducts research using public funds, so we do not
have vested interests and are accountable first to the general population. We must research and understand these
technologies very well. The problem is
that in most developing countries, only corporations have access to GM
technology, but at MSSRF, we are neither pro nor anti GM-technology but realize
that it must be pursued in a safe and precautionary manner from a scientific
perspective, looking at benefits and risks.
We also promote capacity building within PhD and post-graduates, so they
can further independently assess this technology (rather than corporate
sector). Moreover, MSSRF has generated our
own genetic material. That is, we didn’t
buy a gene from Monsanto and insert it.
We are using defensive patents to safeguard our claim on these genes and
afterwards, we have every right to transfer this technology to any like-minded
organization and to make the product available at a cheaper price. Remember, we are a not for profit and our
focus is abiotic stress, so we aren’t dealing with BT-cotton or Monsanto. The problem is that early on, biotechnology
entered into the hands of the private sector, who in the name of profit, often
exploit people. Remember that Golden
Rice was a private endeavor pursued by a Monsanto-affiliated company. Now GMOs have become an emotional issue and
many people are not working with completely independent organizations under
public funds, so of course there are vested interests.
•
A
huge problem is that the general public does not often understand advanced
science and technology and this lack of comprehension spawns fear. I feel that this is true with GMOs. GMOs are a matter of sensitizing people and
also not letting it become an issue of emotions or ideology. Science needs to be ideology-free and
instead, data driven.
•
People
are taking a stand based on flimsy arguments – they say there is no data, it’s
imprecise etc. and throwing it are in the dustbin technology prematurely. We need to research it thoroughly instead of
just “beating the drum.”
Investment in biotechnology is very high, especially in the
government. Malnutrition is such a
complex issue that needs to be tackled from multiple approaches. Not saying that biofortification through GM
technology is the cure-all. But consider
that we used to think that pesticides were the panacea, but now people are
realizing that integrated pest management is key. Similarly, we need to look at integrated
approaches to issues such as malnutrition, which may involve GE but also diet
diversification, traditional crops etc.
In biotechnology, now we have marker assisted plant breeding (plant
molecular technology) in which scientists can identify exact areas where genes
are located.
•
Attempts
to demystify technology, promote ecological and genomic literacy among children
through school programs etc.
•
BRAI
– now it’s about biosafety regulatory authority – it should be a completely
autonomous and scientific body that can independently scrutinize a technology
with vested interests rather than an administrative and politicized body. For example, in the USA, the FDA says yes or
no and people generally accept the response without blinking an eye. However, India does not have this kind of
body, which is necessary. Furthermore,
BT Brinjal was recently approved in Bangladesh and has the potential to quickly
enter into Indian soil, so we need a regulatory body to screen this.
•
Biofuel
– food versus fuel debate?
o
MSSRF
does not support transforming food stuffs into biofuel, which is why research
is concentrated on crops such as jatropha, which are non-edible oil plants.
Genetic mechanisms exist to increase oil yield, so we are looking at
options to promote over expression of this gene. Moreover, jatropha prefers to grow on wasted
drought affected soil (e.g. rainshadow regions, areas becoming desertified
etc.), so there is no need to convert fertile soil into biofuel cropping area. And at MSSRF, we feel that in India, feeding
people is the priority. Regarding
multi-use crops such as sweet sorghum (grain, fodder, and fuel), this is a good
idea in principle, but eventually private companies will get involved and push
for their vested interests, which may potentially hurt the “food” component.
•
We
also need to examine everything under the issue of climate change – how to best
conserve fuel, water, soil etc. We
cannot just take a fragmented approach.
Everything is changing and therefore, we must use adaptive research.
•
In
terms of bringing youth back to the land, we need to make farming
intellectually rewarding (through our programs like biotechnology,
ecotechnology, ICT, which work for people) and infuse young minds with the idea
of critical thinking and finding creative solutions to maximize production; most
importantly, farming needs to become economically viable (intellectual stimulation may also
involve teaching farmers about markets etc.)
•
“Technologies
not technology” – we should view this as a multi-pronged approach. The singular phrasing gives it an ideological
connotation, whereas “technologies,” plural, implies a range and combination of
appropriate solutions.
•
It’s
all location and problem specific – cannot simply say how much traditional
knowledge should be preserved as it will depend on the specific conditions:
water, land, soil etc. and these must all be considered both independently and
collectively at the same time.
•
MSSRF
can create models (e.g. how to effectively use ICT, where to sell product etc.)
and these models have been adopted by Government of India and are being
implemented as national programs.
•
The
case with India is even more difficult since the country is heavily divided
based on language, caste, creed, etc. further exacerbated by the growing gap
between the rich and the poor and the technological/digital divide.
•
A
huge part of MSSRF is empowering women.
For example the “Empowering Women Farmers Program” under the Food Security
division is in direct response to the farmer suicides in Vidarbha.
In essence, I feel like my time at MSSRF
was useful because of the overall balanced approach to these issues. The biotechnology director and Dr.
Swaminathan summed up very well the point that everyone has to devise their own
thoughts on new developments and technologies, but it should not be based upon
emotions, ideology, whims, or other people’s flimsy opinions but rather
data-driven, independent science. This
especially holds true for GMO technology, which demands extensive testing,
biosafety measures, application of the precautionary principle, and
education/sensitization among many things.
Furthermore, again there is no magic bullet solution to the agrarian
crisis – as Dr. Swaminathan said, “organic is not the panacea for everything”
(and neither are GMOs). Yes, sustainable
agroecological farming may hold the answer to many of our problems, but perhaps
it really does entail some integrated approaches (i.e. not ruling out external
inputs, chemicals, and hybrid seeds all together) – honestly, I really don’t
know. And as stated before, I’ve spent
my fair share of time with conspiracy theorists and ideology-driven people on
both ends of the spectrum: comparing the March Against Monsanto protest with
the corporate-laden World Agricultural forum is a stark contrast. However, I finally feel like neutral voices
are coming through. This weekend reminds
me of many conversations I had with Ginny, the Post-Graduate Fellowships
Coordinator at my alma mater Hamilton College.
Frequently, Ginny would remind me to take a balanced approach, remove
biases from my application, and quote – “don’t beat the drum.” Naturally, my background and involvement with
Slow Food, Real Food Challenge, and other progressive movements render me
somewhat biased, but slowly I am trying to let them go.
No comments:
Post a Comment