Talk:Sunil Kumar Verma

Sunil Kumar Verma has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2014 Articles for deletion Deleted November 10, 2014 Deletion review Endorsed January 28, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed March 3, 2015 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 23, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sunil Kumar Verma was co-inventor of Universal primer technology, which allows identification of any unknown biological sample and its assignation to a known species source?" Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in March 2015.

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Educationtemple (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Crisco 1492 has kindly userfied this article with a view to recreation after addition of appropriate new additional references that were discussed in detail in DRV for this Article. Please refer to the DRV and the Talk pages of Crisco 1492 (talk) and  Philg88  (talk)

Now the article has been developed according to the discussion held at deletion review, and it is ready now with all new noted information, I request the experienced editors to please move it into "article space" after review. Please help. Educationtemple (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am baffled that this was re-created and even made DYK, without a more thorough review, after having been deleted at AfD and deletion having been endorsed at DRV... There has been some re-writing, so this is not CSD eligible, but I predict another AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear

• DNA barcoding seems to be a broader definition than UPT. The latter uses a primer for just one gene. DNA barcoding does the same, but with different genes. So it looks pretty clear to me that UPT is a special case of the class of techniques now known as DNA barcoding. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then this historical perspective of DNA barcoding must be mentioned on top at DNA barcoding article on wiki since UPT was described and documented much before than DNA barcoding; however, I still feel that this claim (that UPT and DNA barcoding are synonym) need more support from independent reliable sources and that it should not be highlighted on wiki until more supports/citations are available on this issue from independent sources. At present entire world know UPT as UPT and DNA barcoding as DNA barcoding. Educationtemple (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say they are synonymous, I said that UPT seems to be a special case of the more general class of techniques known as DNA barcoding. AS for priority, Verma and Singh obtained a patent in 2001, but didn't publish until 2003, as far as I see. The first article on DNA barcoding also appeared in 2003, I don't know whether they filed for a patent (which would also have been well before publication). There's no patent info in our DNA barcoding article, but that is not too surprising, as we rarely use patents as references (because they are primary sources). --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPT was published online in Oct 3 2002 itself. See This. Moreover, when it comes to scientific invention, the priority date of the patent compared to date of submission of an article is taken as a proof of priority. Priority date for UPT is March 28, 2001 as per this info. That's why I wrote that let the secondary sources discuss this issue first rather than we doing these analyses. Educationtemple (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, i got it. What I am saying is that we don't know anything about possible patents for DNA barcoding and when they were filed. If such patents exist, they were filed before 2003, too, but we don't know how long before 2003, so we cannot settle any priority claims. --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no patent filed for DNA barcoding by them before March 2001, then this would mean that the UPT, a version of DNA barcoding was invented by Verma and Singh with the name universal primer technology much before than the known inventors of DNA barcoding! It would change the history. Educationtemple (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement in the Lead does not appear to be sourced in the Lead or elsewhere: "This technology has revitalised the field of wildlife forensics and is now routinely used across India to provide a species identification service in cases of wildlife crime." It appears to be his primary claim to notability and is a bold claim that requires really good sourcing. The article also has a lot of awards cited to primary sources, both in a dedicated section and in the bio. Besides that, it looks good at-a-glance. Nice work! CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ref #19 is what you are looking for. w.carter-Talk 23:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, Verma initiated a controversy around Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine award to Tu Youyou for the discovery of the chemical artemisinin and her work on malaria. In his social media post, Verma claimed artemisinin was a variant of artemisin that was already known to Indian scientific community. The post gained significant attention and reported by various news papers^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

According to Outlook India's article, "Questions in A Petri Dish: The Nobel for medicine has gone to a Chinese researcher. Has the work of Indian scientists been overlooked", Verma stated “If a minor variant of a well-known compound extracted from a plant found around the world can be given the Nobel, poorer countries will be the losers, as scientists from technologically advanced societies can always find plants with similar chemical compounds elsewhere and extract the ingredient from them ^[6]. Communities with traditional cures will lose out”. After the article was published, Secterary General of Noble Assemble for Physiology and Medicine also responded.

The controversy abruptly ended when in contrast to Verma's claims, it was realised that artemisinin is not a minor variant of artemisin and the two are entirely different chemicals.

Raising a controversy around Nobel prize should be incorporated in a scientists biography. Details of the events are provided in Dr Verma's website^[7].

Amrev (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A short version

A short version that in my opinion covers the topic adequately. Added to article: "In 2015 Verma claimed that the malaria treatment drug artemisinin (initially extracted from Artemisia annua, later synthesized), the discovery of which earned Chinese scientist Tu Youyou the Lasker Award in 2011 and the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, has roots in older traditional medicine from India under the name artemisin, extracted from a different plant species (Hindi: Ajwain) and previously identified as fever-treating.^[1] The controversy ended when it was confirmed that the compounds were not chemically related."

— David notMD (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further amendments required in the controversy section

Further amendments are required to tell the main reason for this controversy - confusion between the two names. This is evident from the newspaper articles. Below I quote and cite what exactly the newspapers said. The title has an external link for editors to recheck the statements. They are already inserted as a references but sorry but I don't know how to reinsert already used references. Please take note, that since the discussion on this topic has been started here, the original inflammatory Facebook post (that is mentioned in all news papers cited below) and the page from Sunil Verma's own website has disappeared.

Hans India Hyderabad-based Sunil Kumar Verma has fuelled a debate on the basis of this year's Nobel Prize in medicine awarded to scientist Youyou Tu for the discovery of artemisinin,...... Verma, in his Facebook post, has said artemisinin was a variant of artemisin and it was mentioned in scientific literature published over 100 years ago.....

To buttress his claim, Verma uploaded a snapshot of the book titled "Indian Medicinal Plants" published in 1918 by Lieutenant Colonel K.R. Kirtikar and Major B.D. Basu, which documents the use of artemisin to cure "intermittent and remittent fever", the common phrase for malarial fever, till 1880.

Challenging the grounds, Verma, principal scientist at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), questioned: "If the above knowledge is documented in the book named 'Indian Medicinal Plants' written a hundred years ago, how come artemisin became a traditional Chinese medicine and not Indian traditional medicine?"

International Business times In his Facebook post dated 7 October, Sunil Kumar Verma, a Hyderabad-based senior scientist has said that artemisinin -- a form of artemisin -- was stated in scientific literature published more than 100 years ago.

Zee News Senior scientist from Hyderabad, Dr Sunil Kumar Verma has challenged the basis of giving the Nobel prize to Youyou Tu for the discovery of Artemisinin..

In his Facebook post, Verma, has said artemisinin was a variant of artemisin and it was mentioned in scientific literature published over 100 years ago.

Yahoo News Verma, in his Facebook post, has said artemisinin was a variant of artemisin and it was mentioned in scientific literature published over 100 years ago.

Challenging the grounds, Verma, principal scientist at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), questioned: "If the above knowledge is documented in the book named 'Indian Medicinal Plants' written a hundred years ago, how come artemisin became a traditional Chinese medicine and not Indian traditional medicine?"

Outlook Dr Sunil Kumar Verma, a senior molecular biologist from Hyderabad, raises a question as a practitioner of science. Was Tu really the first to discover artemisinin as a malaria cure? His view is that artemisinin is a variety of artemisin,…….. A 500-year-old Indian book mentions these plants. And in 1918, B.D. Basu’s Medicinal Plants of India described the plant as curing remittent and intermittent fever- what we now call malaria, says Verma. Something more should have been achieved by Tu Youyou so that her discovery didn’t fall within the domain of previous knowledge. Right now, the award going to China seems like a political rather than a scientific move. ….. Says Verma, “If a minor variant of a well-known compound extracted from a plant found around the world can be given the Nobel, poorer countries will be the losers, as scientists from technologically advanced societies can always find plants with similar chemical compounds elsewhere and extract the ingredient from them. Communities with traditional cures will lose out,” he says……

Based on these sources, it is evident Verma's stirred this international, though short lived, controversy and questioned intentions of Nobel Committee, just because he got confused between the two chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrev (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit -> insert Verma's claim that "artemisinin was a minor chemical variant of artemisin"

Suggested edit ->

• In 2015 Verma claimed that the malaria treatment drug artemisinin (initially extracted from Artemisia annua, later synthesized), the discovery of which earned Chinese scientist Tu Youyou the Lasker Award in 2011 and the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015, has roots in older traditional medicine from India under the name artemisin, associated with a related Indian plant species (Hindi: Ajwain) and previously identified as fever-treating. Verma's incorrectly claimed that artemisinin was a minor chemical variant of artemisin but produced conclusive evidence that the latter was discovered in 1918 by Indian scientists. Verma's argument was that no single person or country may take credit for a plant-based medicine that arises based on the traditional knowledge on the usage of the specific plant or closely related plant species, that previously existed in many countries.^{[citation needed]}

should also provide structures of both chemicals for comparison.

Original

• In 2015 Verma claimed that the malaria treatment drug artemisinin (initially extracted from Artemisia annua, later synthesized), the discovery of which earned Chinese scientist Tu Youyou the Lasker Award in 2011 and the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015, has roots in older traditional medicine from India under the name artemisin, associated with a related Indian plant species (Hindi: Ajwain) and previously identified as fever-treating. Verma's argument was that no single person or country may take credit for a plant-based medicine that arises based on the traditional knowledge on the usage of the specific plant or closely related plant species, that previously existed in many countries.^{[citation needed]}
• Julian rich (talk)

Setting the facts right about the concern of Verma on 2015 Nobel to China that Violated the International treaties such as Article 10 of Nagoya Protocol

I humbly submit the following facts which are fully supported by reliable secondary sources as cited with every statement. I strongly feel that some editors are not neutral and just trying to misrepresent Verma's concern over 2015 Nobel to China that violated the International treaties such as Article 10 of Nagoya Protocol of CBD.

I suggest that the concerns in the center of of Verma's objection to 2015 Nobel Prize were not unfounded. I would rather add that Verma was a visionary to visualize the issues much ahead of time, that the scientific communities are now realizing!

Though, it is not in the purview of this encyclopedia to do primary research, but it be worthwhile to cite here this most recent (June 2018) open source publication entitled, "A phylogenetic road map to antimalarial Artemisia species" wherein the authors described that of the 244 Artemisia species found around the world, at least 23, which are used by traditional folks for treatment of fever/intermittent fever including those found and used in India (Artemisia maritima, Artemisia Indica and Artemisia vulgaris) for centuries for this purpose have anti-malarial activity (see this figure from the paper). In this figure, Artemisia species with symbol of mosquito was now found to have proven antimalarial activities as documented in modern literature.

The authors conclude with concern statement that:-

"If novel biological resources are identified, to whom may intellectual rights be assigned? This is a complex ethical issue when knowledge from several cultures is advised, like in the present study. Although creating interdisciplinary bioprospecting efforts can safeguard the ethical aspects of bioprospecting we call for the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and policy makers to formally discuss this issue, in order to be able to fully acknowledge the power of traditional knowledge from local communities."

This is what exactly Verma wrote much ahead of time in his 2015's official letter to CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), which I could find uploaded on the official website of CBD.

In this purview, I suggest to set right the scientific facts from this discussion as follows and correct the "Controversy" section as below:

Controversy

In 2015 Verma claimed that the malaria treatment drug

In a written official letter to (Convention on Biological Diversity), Verma argued that in order to fairly implement the provisions of Article 10 of Nagoya Protocol on equitable sharing of benefits derived from the utilization of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with the genetic resources (such as a plant-based medicine that arises based on the traditional knowledge on the usage of the specific plant or closely related plant species), no single person or country must be allowed to take credit for a genetic resource, or associated traditional knowledge if that previously existed in many countries, merely due to absence of proper documentation, or the inability of a specific country to claim rights on its traditional knowledge due to various reasons such as absence of legal framework. ^[7], ^[8], ^[9]

Notably, the concerns of Verma on fairly assigning the ownership of traditional knowledge and associated benefit sharing under international treaties such as Nagoya Protocol of CBD are now getting attention of scholars. ^[10] It is worthwhile to mention that both, India and China are Parties to Nagoya Protocol of CBD along with other 105 Countries. ^[11]