Dr. Channa Prakash is the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Tuskegee University. Tuskegee University is a private historically black land grant university. Dr. Channa Prakash has been a leading biotech and genetics researcher, educator, and social media personality.
He has spent time with Pope Francis, was friends with Dr. Borlaug, and teaches where George Washington Carver did research.
As you will see through the conversation, Dr. Prakash is a history nerd too.
His X/Twitter account is very entertaining and he is an expert at science advocacy and communications.
His lab was among the first to develop genetically modified sweet potato and peanut plants and conduct pioneering genomic studies on the peanut. He has been actively involved in enhancing the societal awareness of food biotechnology issues around the world. Dr. Prakash is winner of the prestigious 2015 Borlaug CAST Communication Award.
Most importantly, Dr. Prakash is a lifelong learner, is willing to experiment with new ideas and new ways to communicate, and is very passionate about the use of research, science and technology for human betterment.
Dr. Channa Prakash, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Tuskegee University
Summary of the Conversation
Dr. Channa Prakash shares his journey from childhood experiences in agriculture to becoming a prominent advocate for biotechnology and genetic engineering. He discusses the impact of the Green Revolution, the differences between genetic modification and gene editing, and the public's perception of these technologies. Dr. Prakash emphasizes the importance of innovation in agriculture to address food security and climate challenges, while also highlighting the role of AI in education and farming. He reflects on the moral imperative to advance agricultural technologies and the need to balance tradition with scientific progress. He talks about his learnings from his association with Dr. Norman Borlaug, and his experience of working at the same university where George Washington Carver did his research.
Inspired by Dr. Borlaug
Rhishi Pethe: Tell us a bit about your background.
CHANNA PRAKASH: I was born in the city of Bangalore. My grandfather, a retired deputy director of agriculture, started a farming business that required him to spend summers in a small nearby town. He worked closely with farmers as a middleman. He gave them money to grow produce, collected the harvest, and then shipped it to the factory for processing.
As a child, I spent every summer with him, surrounded by farmers and the rhythm of farm life. That experience sparked something in me. When it came time to choose a college and a major, I knew I loved plants. I had always been fascinated by nature and spent hours growing things in our backyard.
During my first year studying agriculture, I had the incredible luck of hearing a lecture by Dr. Norman Borlaug. Back in the 1960s, India produced about 10 million tons of grain. This year, that number reached 330 million tons. That transformation started with the Green Revolution, driven by Dr. Borlaug in collaboration with Indian leaders like Agriculture Minister Subramaniam and scientist Dr. M.S. Swaminathan.
That lecture deeply shaped my thinking. I decided to major in genetics and plant breeding, to focus on developing new crop varieties.
In the mid-1980s, I went to Australia for my PhD. At the time, agricultural biotechnology was just being born. Scientists from Monsanto, Washington University, and Belgium had just announced the creation of the first genetically engineered plants in a lab. I was captivated by the potential and decided to specialize in this new field.
In 1989, I started my career at Tuskegee University. I built the university’s first biotechnology lab and began working on sweet potatoes and peanuts, two crops of major importance in the developing world. I became one of the first scientists to develop genetically modified versions of both crops, and I conducted early genomic research on them as well.
Over time, my work expanded beyond the lab. As genetically modified crops became increasingly controversial, largely due to orchestrated fear campaigns by certain opposition groups, I felt compelled to act.
Governments started banning the technology, often based on misinformation. A few scientists, including myself, stepped into the public arena. We engaged with the media, the public, and online platforms to advocate for science and correct the narrative.
That’s how I developed a parallel career in science advocacy and communication, alongside my work as a scientist, speaking around the world to help people understand the promise and realities of agricultural biotechnology.
Fears of GMO technologies
Rhishi: You talked about advocacy and how GMO products have developed a bad reputation in many parts of the world. What’s the gap between what scientists like you understand, what the public fears, and what governments are actually afraid of?
CHANNA PRAKASH: I think people naturally fear anything new, especially when it comes to food. Throughout history, we’ve seen a long lag between the introduction of new foods or food technologies and their widespread acceptance.
Take pasteurization, for example. Louis Pasteur developed the process in the mid-19th century, but it wasn’t widely accepted until the mid-20th century. Even though we now know it saved millions of lives, there was significant opposition to pasteurized milk at the time.
We’ve seen this pattern before. Even the tomato faced suspicion when it was first introduced from the New World, Europeans feared it for nearly 200 years.
But that kind of general caution toward new food doesn’t fully explain why genetically modified (GM) crops have been feared, especially because the U.S. hasn’t seen the same level of opposition.
The fear around GM crops has been much more pronounced in Europe, parts of Asia, and some countries in Africa. And that fear didn’t arise organically. It was fueled by coordinated campaigns, particularly on social media and in popular media, where the technology was painted as dangerous, unnatural, and driven by corporate greed. It was framed as a “Frankenstein” technology, imposed on unwilling people by large multinational companies. That narrative shaped public perception.
But in the U.S., the reaction has been very different. Here, GM crops have not been nearly as controversial. One key reason is that Americans tend to place a high level of trust in federal regulatory agencies like the FDA. The FDA is known for its vigilance, routinely recalling unsafe food and blocking problematic technologies from entering the market. That consistent oversight builds public confidence.
In contrast, regulators in Europe don’t enjoy the same level of public trust. And in many developing countries, including India, regulators are often seen as corrupt or politically compromised. That perception makes people much more skeptical of new technologies, regardless of their scientific merit.
Rhishi: Emma Kovak at the Breakthrough Institute who works on genetic policy is advocating for a shift in focus, from asking how a product was created to assess the actual risk of the product itself.
For example, if one product is made using GM technology, like introducing a foreign gene, say Bt, we subject it to far more scrutiny than we do with a gene-edited product, even if the outcome is functionally similar.
Do you think that difference is still rooted in fear?
CHANNA PRAKASH: Let me first explain the difference between genetic modification and gene editing.
Genetic modification involves transferring new genes into a plant, genes that don’t naturally exist in that plant. A well-known example is the use of Bt genes. These genes come from a bacterium, and when inserted into a crop like cotton, they help the plant produce a protein that repels pests. As a result, farmers don’t need to spray as many pesticides. It’s a widely accepted technology, especially for commodity crops like cotton, soybean, and corn here in the U.S.
However, genetically modified crops haven’t made much headway in produce, fruits and vegetables that we eat directly. That’s not because the technology is unsafe, but because of public perception. For instance, in the late 1990s, McDonald’s announced it wouldn’t use GM potatoes for its French fries. That decision alone shut down significant research on GM potatoes, simply because McDonald’s is one of the largest buyers of potatoes in the world.
Gene editing, on the other hand, is a more recent technology. It doesn’t involve transferring genes from another organism. Instead, it involves making precise tweaks to the DNA that’s already there. In fact, it’s not much different from traditional plant breeding methods like mutagenesis, where we’ve used radiation or chemicals to induce mutations for decades. Gene editing simply allows us to make those changes in a much more targeted and controlled way.
Because gene editing doesn’t introduce foreign DNA, it usually faces much lower regulatory hurdles. It doesn’t require years of approval processes or hundreds of millions of dollars in testing. That’s why we’re seeing more global adoption. Just last month, for example, the government of India, typically very skeptical of GM crops, announced the release of a gene-edited rice variety with great fanfare.
I believe gene editing represents the future of plant breeding. There’s tremendous innovation happening in biomedicine, and much of that knowledge can be translated to agriculture. And because gene editing is less costly and less tightly regulated, smaller institutions like ours, universities and public labs, can also develop and release products. This isn’t just the domain of big companies like Bayer or Syngenta anymore.
Gene editing is also deeply knowledge-driven. Every day, we’re learning more about crop genomics, proteomics, and plant biology. Gene editing gives us a powerful tool to act on that knowledge, to make specific, science-informed changes that can improve crops.
And with the challenges agriculture is facing today, whether it’s climate change or food security, we need all the tools we can get. Gene editing is one of the most promising tools we have.
Rhishi: You said gene-edited crops haven’t solved pest management to the same extent that some GM technologies have, like the original Bt application.
Do you think that if gene-edited crops eventually do solve the pest resistance challenge, we’ll start to see GM products fade out? Could their use drop significantly in the future?
CHANNA PRAKASH: Right now, we still don’t have a very good solution for insect resistance through gene editing. So we continue to rely on genetic modification, and I believe that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.
Down the line, as our knowledge base grows, especially since scientific understanding tends to expand exponentially, we may be able to address insect resistance through gene editing. But that will likely be very crop-specific and trait-specific.
In contrast, Bt technology is much more broadly applicable. A Bt gene developed for corn, for example, can also be used in potatoes. It’s a transferable technology that works across multiple crops and target pests.
So for now, and probably for some time ahead, I expect insect resistance to remain in the domain of genetic modification rather than gene editing.
R&D for small and medium value crops
Rhishi: You mentioned McDonald’s and how they chose not to use GM potatoes because they didn’t want to deal with consumer backlash. But potatoes are a major crop. If McDonald’s had accepted them, others likely would’ve followed. That kind of buy-in could’ve encouraged companies to invest in R&D for the crop.
But when we think about smaller crops, like sweet potatoes, for example, it’s a different story. I visited some sweet potato growers in Merced County, California, just a couple of weeks ago. The total dollar value of the sweet potato crop in the U.S. is maybe one or two billion dollars.
And that’s often not enough to attract serious investment from large companies. Even for researchers, there’s a career tradeoff. Do I spend years working on sweet potatoes, or do I work on corn, where there’s more funding and visibility?
(Note: The LSU AgCenter Sweet Potato Research Station in Louisiana is the only research station in the United States dedicated solely to sweet potato research and development, focusing on new varieties, virus-free foundation seed, and various aspects of production.)
CHANNA PRAKASH: I see this as analogous to the issue of orphan diseases in medicine. Big pharmaceutical companies typically focus on major, high-return diseases, while hundreds of lesser-known infectious diseases, especially those prevalent in the developing world, receive little attention.
The same dynamic plays out in agriculture. Crops like sweet potato, cassava, sorghum, and millet feed a large portion of the world’s population, particularly outside of Western countries. In India, and among economically disadvantaged communities, people rely heavily on crops like finger millet, pearl millet, and sorghum. Across Africa, it’s similar, cassava, sweet potato, and cowpeas play a vital role, especially for those who can’t afford maize.
I believe that large companies like Bayer may not be able to invest heavily in these so-called "orphan crops," but that’s where public sector institutions step in to fill the gap. Often, they do so with the support of the private sector. Many major companies have donated technology, free of cost, for use in developing-world crops, and they don’t charge royalties.
Golden Rice is a prime example. Developed to address Vitamin A deficiency, it was originally invented by Dr. Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer and further developed by public institutions. It’s royalty-free, and farmers can grow it without triggering patent issues. The development was led by universities and later advanced by international and national agricultural research centers.
That’s the model I believe will carry gene editing forward for these critical, underrepresented crops. Scientists like Dr. Jennifer Doudna, co-inventor of CRISPR alongside Emmanuelle Charpentier, have created nonprofit foundations to ensure CRISPR technology reaches the developing world. These efforts aim to support both gene therapy for inherited diseases and agricultural improvements.
I think that’s a powerful model, combining philanthropic technology sharing with public research infrastructure. And I believe we’ll begin to see the real impact of this collaboration in the next few years, especially in the crops and communities that need it most.
Role of AI in education
Rhishi: You’re an educator and dean of the college. And right now, with AI transforming so much of how we teach and learn, I’ve been thinking a lot about this personally. I have two kids, one’s 15 and the other is 12, and I find myself wondering: What are the right skills they should be learning that will serve them well over the long term?
What do you see as the role of AI in education? And what kinds of skills should students coming through your college focus on, skills that won’t just help them next year, but will remain valuable for years, even decades, to come?
CHANNA PRAKASH: That’s a very important question.
Like all educators, I’m confronting the rise of AI. Personally, I’m very excited about the opportunities it offers, especially as a supplementary educational tool. A great example is Khan Academy’s Khanmigo, which shows how effectively this technology can be used to bring tutoring to learners around the world.
I’ve been challenging myself and my faculty to explore the possibilities AI offers and to think deeply about how we can use it thoughtfully, while also being mindful of its risks. One of the biggest concerns we face in higher education is the potential for plagiarism and academic dishonesty. But I believe this challenge is not unlike others we’ve faced before.
I’m old enough to remember when calculators first became widely available. Initially, we resisted them in the classroom. But eventually, we recognized calculators as important tools, and figured out how to integrate them into math education. We still taught the fundamentals, but we also embraced calculators for advanced work. Today, computers and digital tools are essential for learning math. I see AI following the same trajectory.
AI is going to become a fundamental tool in education. Insightful educators will recognize that and work to integrate it into the curriculum in a way that complements what we do in the classroom. It won’t replace the core of our teaching, which is critical thinking and problem solving, but it will enhance it.
I see AI as a co-pilot. It’s already becoming part of the professional world our students are preparing to enter. Whether they realize it or not, AI is embedded in nearly every industry today. That’s why I believe AI won’t necessarily replace jobs, but the jobs will go to people who are proficient in using AI effectively.
At our university, I formed a club shortly after ChatGPT emerged. I spent time learning how to use it, researching its implications, and creating a space for discussion. Now, we meet weekly, sometimes twice a week, to talk about AI openly. We also host public forums in our community to understand people’s concerns, especially given our context.
I work at a predominantly Black university in a rural area, and there are very real concerns about AI’s negative impacts. We already know that Black Americans are more likely to be audited by the IRS, or that Black homes are appraised at lower values. These biases are deeply rooted in society, and AI often reflects them.
That’s why I’ve been leading a project funded by the National Institutes of Health to address AI bias, especially in healthcare. We’re exploring how to ensure that AI benefits underserved and minority communities, while actively identifying and mitigating risks.
Ultimately, AI is a mirror of humanity. It will only be as just, equitable, and useful as we make it. And that’s where our responsibility as educators, and as citizens, comes in.
AI and Biotech for smallholder farmers
Rhishi: I’ve been thinking about farmers in India, Africa, and elsewhere. One of the things I find especially promising about tools like generative AI, is how democratizing the technology can be. If someone has a phone and a basic internet connection, they can suddenly access an enormous amount of information that used to be out of reach.
Nonprofits like Digital Green are already taking advantage of this. They’re working with farmers in India and Africa and building chatbots trained on locally relevant agricultural data.
How are you thinking about those kinds of developments?
CHANNA PRAKASH: Absolutely. I believe AI is driving a transformative shift in many ways.
In my own research on gene editing, I now see much greater use of AI. We’re developing chatbots specifically trained on genetic and DNA data, because so much genomic information is now available. These tools are enabling us to design highly specific gene edits that would have been unimaginable just five years ago. Now, we can make custom edits for virtually any trait in crops like rice or corn. The only limits are our imagination and our science.
That’s just one area, basic science, where generative AI is making a major impact.
Beyond that, AI is changing how we breed crops. We're entering the era of phenomics, using sensors, drones, robotics, and AI-powered equipment to collect massive amounts of data on plant traits. With these tools, we can accelerate what we call speed breeding, developing new crop traits far faster than before.
Generative AI, combined with machine learning, is helping us process and act on this data quickly and meaningfully. That’s revolutionizing how we approach crop development.
In places like India, smallholder farmers are already using generative AI bots to diagnose plant diseases. A paddy farmer in a remote part of southern India can simply take a photo of a diseased plant with a mobile phone, and instantly get a diagnosis, treatment suggestions, and even real-time market information about where to sell the crop.
This kind of decision support, available on demand, was previously impossible.
Here in the U.S., we already use precision agriculture. But until now, that level of decision-making support wasn’t available in much of the developing world. AI is changing that. Even small farms now have access to insights on soil fertility, fertilizer recommendations, irrigation planning, and short-term weather forecasts.
In the past, farmers relied on tradition and intuition, often with limited or no data. Now, they can make informed decisions based on real-time, high-quality information. That’s all made possible by the explosion of data and the ability of AI to process it at scale.
Rhishi: You’ve framed biotechnology as a moral obligation to smallholder farmers. You’ve also described technology as the new Green Revolution.
Why do you call it a moral obligation? Why not frame it purely as a business opportunity?
CHANNA PRAKASH: I see this as a moral imperative, because I grew up in India during the 1960s and 1970s. I experienced firsthand what food scarcity means. I remember standing in ration shop lines for two hours just to get a small amount of rice. At the time, we survived on a very limited salary, my mother was the sole breadwinner, and we spent nearly 50% of our family income just on food.
And we were the fortunate ones. Many people around us were literally starving.
Those early experiences shaped me deeply. But I’ve also witnessed India’s transformation. By investing in food research, agricultural science, infrastructure, and market reforms, India managed to become one of the world’s largest food producers. The open market system helped bring in agrichemicals, fertilizers, processing capabilities, and expertise to support farmers. Today, India is exporting over $50 billion worth of food annually. It’s an incredible turnaround for a country that was once known as a “begging bowl” in the 1960s.
That’s why, when I hear critics argue that we don’t need new technologies, or that traditional methods alone are enough, I push back. There's often a romanticism around the past. People say, “Africa or India can feed themselves the old way,” but that ignores the hard realities.
You see this same nostalgia everywhere, even in slogans like “Make America Great Again.” But the past wasn’t as idyllic as we imagine. In 1900, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was just 43 years. For African Americans, it was 27. Most of that difference came from infectious diseases and childhood mortality, seven out of ten children didn’t make it past age five.
The progress we've made, especially in the last 150 years, has come from scientific discovery and the application of knowledge. Sanitation, antibiotics, vaccines, better food systems, all of these have contributed. Today, the average lifespan in most developed countries is around 80 years. Even many countries in Africa have reached life expectancies above 70.
So we have a moral duty to keep that progress going. Roughly a billion people still go hungry every day. Food insecurity persists across many parts of the world, and it's often tied to low agricultural productivity.
Globally, we only have enough food reserves to feed the world for about three to six months. Food cannot be taken for granted, we have to keep producing it, reliably and sustainably.
But producing food today is even harder than it was 50 years ago. Climate change, deforestation, urbanization, and salinization have all reduced the availability and quality of arable land. That means our only viable path forward is to grow more food, better quality, nutritious food, on the land we already have.
Back in the 60s and 70s, food production increased not just because of the Green Revolution, but also because of the expansion of farmland. In countries like Brazil and Indonesia, agricultural land grew dramatically. But today, we no longer have that luxury. In fact, we should not cut down one more acre of native forest. Instead, we must learn how to farm more efficiently, more sustainably, with the land already in use.
To achieve that, technology will be essential. Genetic tools like gene editing, AI, and innovations we haven’t even imagined yet will all play a role.
But we must also build public policies that support innovation and market systems that help translate scientific discoveries into real-world solutions. That’s how we’ll meet the challenges ahead, and fulfill our responsibility to feed the world.
Make America Healthy Again
Rhishi: You’ve been pretty critical of the MAHA movement. I think most people would agree with that goal. Who wouldn’t want a healthier country? What are your main points of disagreement with the current MAHA movement?
And if you had the chance to redesign the system, what would you change? What would your version of a healthier America look like?
CHANNA PRAKASH: The Make America Healthy Again movement, or MAHA, was started by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who currently serves as the U.S. health secretary. Now, conceptually, there’s nothing wrong with the goal of making America healthy again, it’s a noble aspiration. But in practice, it’s often used as a buzzword. And when you look at how Kennedy and his team are trying to achieve that goal, it’s clear they rely on pseudoscience and misinformation.
In many ways, his movement reflects what I’ve described earlier, a romanticism for the past and a rejection of technological progress. While the vision of a healthier America may sound good on the surface, the methods are deeply problematic.
Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccines is one of the clearest dangers. Vaccines are among the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the last century. Their impact is undeniable, just look at the data on diseases like measles, polio, and smallpox before and after the introduction of vaccines. The difference is like night and day.
And yet, this movement has attacked vaccines and proposed cutting funding for vaccine research. Just recently, they proposed cutting U.S. support for Gavi, the global vaccine alliance, which has saved an estimated 19 million children since it launched in 2000. Undermining that kind of public health infrastructure poses a serious threat, not only to the health of Americans but to people around the world.
America has long been a global leader in innovation and science-based progress. If the U.S. retreats into pseudoscience, it sends a dangerous signal to the rest of the world.
We’ve seen how damaging this path can be. After World War II, the Soviet Union embraced a pseudoscientific ideology under Stalin. He elevated a man named Trofim Lysenko, an agricultural scientist who rejected genetics and promoted ideas that aligned with communist ideology but were scientifically baseless. Stalin shut down real genetic research, imprisoned scientists, and steered Soviet agriculture off course.
The result? The Soviet Union, despite having more arable land than any other country, faced chronic food shortages. In the 1970s and 80s, people stood in long bread lines across the USSR. It took decades to recover from that damage.
We're seeing similar warning signs here, particularly when it comes to food policy and public health. When you promote ideas like bringing back asbestos or banning fertilizer imports, things that have been scientifically discredited, you risk repeating historical mistakes.
Another tragic example is Sri Lanka. Despite its history of civil war, Sri Lanka had achieved a higher standard of living and better GDP than India just a few years ago. It was progressing well. But in 2021, under pressure from anti-development activists, the government made a drastic decision: they banned all chemical fertilizers. Almost overnight, crop yields collapsed. A country that was once food-secure suddenly became food-insecure. Tea and rice production plummeted. Exports dried up. The economy fell apart in a matter of months.
These are powerful lessons.
We cannot afford to play politics with food or health. The consequences are too serious. Our policies must be grounded in science, reason, and data, not ideology. That is the only responsible path forward.
Role of tradition
Rhishi: You’re at a historic university with a deep tradition. Farmers often speak the same way. They take pride in saying, “I’m a fifth-generation farmer”, which is incredible. It means their family has managed to stay in farming successfully for generations.
We’ve talked a lot about science and the scientific method, but where does tradition fit in? Is it something that inspires? Is it a burden at times? How do you think about tradition in the context of the work you do, especially at a university so deeply rooted in history?
CHANNA PRAKASH: Yes, I believe tradition matters deeply. We must stay mindful of our legacy, take pride in it, and look to the past as a guiding light. I often think of the past like a rearview mirror, you glance at it to understand where you’ve been, but your focus must stay on the road ahead. The rearview mirror gives you peripheral vision, not your full direction.
So I don’t reject the past at all, in fact, I emphasize it. I’m a history buff. Even though I’m a scientist, most of the books I read are about history. I believe history is essential for enlightenment. It helps us make better decisions about the future.
I hope America remembers what happened in Germany in the 1930s as it reflects on what’s happening in our country today. History may not repeat itself exactly, but it certainly rhymes. We must never forget it.
We can and should be proud of our culture, our heritage, and our traditions. But when it comes to public policy, especially in critical areas like agriculture, food, and health, those decisions must be guided by science.
Science and innovation are what move us forward.
Science isn’t perfect. It doesn’t claim to have all the answers. I remember when COVID-19 emerged, even the best scientists struggled at first because we simply didn’t have enough data. And yes, in hindsight, some decisions may have gone too far or fallen short. But that’s part of the scientific process, it's self-correcting.
Science allows us to reflect, revise, and improve. It gives us a foundation for making better choices as we go forward. And that’s what we need right now, decisions rooted in evidence, guided by the past, but focused firmly on the future.
Rhishi: You’ve had some interesting encounters over the years. You met the Pope and blessed the golden rice, and have interacted with many Nobel laureates and leading scientists. It’s clear you deeply believe in the scientific method, in being data-driven, and in thoughtful analysis.
What are some of the key learnings you’ve taken away from those interactions? What have you tried to carry into your own life or leadership from those experiences?
CHANNA PRAKASH: When I interact with great leaders and thinkers, or even when I read about them, I’ve noticed a common thread: the most visionary among them aren’t boxed in by rigid ideologies. They tend to remain open-minded.
That’s something I found refreshing when I met Pope Francis. Compared to many of his predecessors, he struck me as remarkably open, even though, as the Pope, he’s bound by doctrinal constraints and can't always make revolutionary pronouncements. Still, I sensed an openness in his thinking, and I see that in the new Pope as well.
When I look back at history, I find the same quality in transformative leaders, thinkers, and scientists. They were guided by the past, but never imprisoned by it. They kept their eyes on the future and focused on how to shape it in ways that would benefit humanity.
Here at Tuskegee University, we had one such remarkable scientist: Dr. George Washington Carver. Many Americans grew up reading about him, but for me, the connection has been personal. I conducted my biotechnology work in the very building he built. My lab was in the same space as his. When I came to Tuskegee, I met people who knew him personally, some were even his former students, despite his passing nearly 40 years prior.
Dr. Carver developed over 300 new products from sweet potatoes and peanuts. His work transformed Southern agriculture at a time when it had been devastated by over-reliance on cotton, the boll weevil infestation, and the deep scars left by slavery. He brought new life and direction to an entire region.
And he didn’t just stay within the borders of the U.S. He corresponded with Mahatma Gandhi, though they never met, and we have archives of their letters here in this very building. It’s deeply inspiring to know those conversations happened where I work today.
I also had the privilege of personally knowing Dr. Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution. He visited me at Tuskegee University and spent several days here. We had many rich conversations. I read his writings, listened to his speeches, and came to admire his belief in the power of the human mind to solve humanity’s greatest challenges.
He wasn’t just a scientist. He was an advocate and, in many ways, an activist. When he came to India, he didn’t simply deliver dwarf wheat seeds. He worked closely with our agriculture minister, C. Subramaniam, and with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. He helped India create the infrastructure needed for agricultural modernization. Under the PL-480 program, he helped introduce the land-grant university model to India. He supported the establishment of fertilizer factories and the broader systems required to sustain a productive agricultural system.
That’s what I see in truly visionary leaders: they remain rooted in science and reason, guided by an open mind, and committed not only to discovery, but to action. They don’t stop at ideas. They build the systems and coalitions necessary to move the world forward.
Future of Technology in Agriculture
Rhishi: What excites you most about the future of technology in agriculture? What are some of the most promising areas you’re seeing right now?
CHANNA PRAKASH: With the global population nearing 9 billion, and countries like India at 1.5 billion and China at 1.4 billion, we’ve done a reasonably good job feeding people so far. But when we look ahead to the next 10, 20, or 30 years, food production will face increasing challenges. Climate change is a major factor, especially with its growing unpredictability.
Today, one of the most important questions for agricultural leaders is: How do we make our agriculture more resilient? How do we climate-proof our food systems?
In countries like India, losing a crop can be a matter of life and death. The same is true in Bangladesh and other nations. At the same time, we’re also facing a labor shortage. Even with our massive population, fewer people are willing to do the hard manual work required in agriculture, especially in scorching heat over 100°F, which is becoming more common.
If I were a cotton picker in India today, I wouldn’t want my children following the same path. I’d want them to move to Bombay or Bangalore, earn a degree in IT, and work for Infosys or IBM. That mindset is spreading, and it’s pulling people away from farming.
So we’re heading toward a future where we won’t have enough people willing to farm. That means farming itself will need to change.
We’re likely to see more cooperative models, contract farming, and a shift away from one- or two-acre plots, India’s current average farm size, toward larger, professionally managed operations. The Amul model comes to mind as a successful example. Larger collectives can bring technology into the fields in ways that smallholders simply can’t. On a two-acre farm, it’s hard to afford tractors or advanced equipment. But a professionally managed farm of hundreds of acres can operate scientifically and efficiently.
India, despite producing over 330 million tons of grain annually, still suffers from low productivity per acre. The same is true for crops like cotton. We’ll be able to improve yield by applying scientific tools and technology that already exist, and by accelerating access to them in places like India.
This shift will also require agricultural policy reforms, especially around marketing and subsidies. In India, subsidies have distorted the system. For example, farmers often receive free electricity, which encourages overuse and waste. That’s driven more by politics than by agricultural logic, and it must change.
Farming will become more market-based and market-driven. And with that shift will come the kind of efficiencies and innovations that markets tend to deliver, especially in developing countries.
This trend isn’t limited to India. I see it unfolding in Africa as well. Africa is three to four times the size of India and holds vast amounts of arable land. Right now, though, much of it is underutilized. Scientific agriculture hasn’t yet taken root in many parts of the continent, and access to high-yielding seeds remains limited.
But that’s going to change. I believe many African countries that currently import food will become food exporters in the future. Africa has the potential to become a global breadbasket.
Rhishi: In the way you communicate, you seem to enjoy experimenting with different formats. You’re active on Twitter, and I even came across a rap video from a few years ago. I think it was by someone named Rohan Prakash, is he related to you?
CHANNA PRAKASH: Yes, that's my son. When he was 11 years old in 2003, I was celebrating Norman Borlaug's birthday (90th). And his sister had just passed away, so he didn't want to celebrate in a very big way in person. But I thought I'll use this opportunity to help publicize his name as he is not a common name.
I asked myself, What can I do to bring some street cred to the name Borlaug? And I thought, why not rap?
Norman Borlaug Rap
At the time, I was working at a historically Black university, and I saw rap as a powerful medium for communication. So I asked my 11-year-old son to create a rap about Dr. Norman Borlaug. He recorded it, and we called it “The Norman Rap.”
Even today, on Borlaug’s birthday, schools still play that song. When I was in Iowa for the World Food Prize, one of the schools there played it during the event. That gave me such a thrill.
To me, this is the heart of what we must do: learn to communicate science in ways people can truly connect with. And if that means using rap to tell the story of a Nobel laureate who helped feed the world, then so be it.
Rhishi Pethe: Thank you Dr. Prakash for a very inspiring conversation!