COMMENTARY CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 114, NO. 8, 25 APRIL 2018 1604 few, but those that do exist seem to be among the most outstanding courses of- fered. For example, I was among the four founders of what is called Bio-X at Stan- ford University that supports, organizes and facilitates interdisciplinary research in the biosciences that includes faculties from the School of Medicine, the School of Engineering, and the School of Humanities and Sciences. The idea for this programme came from the faculty; the ability to implement the same and make it a reality could only have hap- pened with the support of the university administration. In my own department at Stanford University I serve as one of the members of an undergraduate curriculum commit- tee. We receive input from teaching staff, students, other faculty members, and from the university administration. We also worry about whether any change can have a life beyond one particular faculty member who may want to offer the course. We also face the problem that many faculty feel that they ‘own’ certain courses, a practice that often causes the course to become stale with the particu- lar faculty teaching the course in the same way for too many years in a row. I must add that university intervention is sometimes fully needed. For example, it was only with the promise of various benefits to the department did mine agree to offer some biological chemistry track to major in this discipline. Yet, the suc- cess of this new track is not simply be- cause of some university administrator, in this case the Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, asking for this programme, but by a number of faculty deciding it was in the interest of the de- partment and the students to have such a programme. Many faculty initially oppo- sed this new way to major in chemistry. If the plan had not been thoroughly dis- cussed, it certainly would have failed and at best would have had only a short life. Presently, it is a positive way we attract students to major in chemistry. Freedom is the ability to set your schedule, to decide on the work you do, and to make decisions. Responsibility is being held accountable for your actions. To have exclusively either one or the other is a recipe for disaster. Freedom and responsibility go together. At the same time, as more autonomy is granted I believe more accountability is also required. This accountability can be achieved in many different ways, for ex- ample, periodic outside reviews by pan- els of experts. An intriguing question is whether national academies can be encouraged to play an important role in upholding standards and certifying suc- cesses. It is the true challenge to univer- sity administrators to effect the right balance between prescribed and overpre- scribed. This challenge of how to make autonomy succeed is not exclusively the provenance of university administrators. All stakeholders need to voice their con- cerns and aspirations. 1. http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/ columns/the-anatomy-of-autonomy-ugc- hrd-ministry-prakash-javadekar-5116607/ 2. https://scroll.in/article/873128/granting- autonomy-to-universities-now-is-like- giving-power-to-khap-panchayats-says- jnu-professor 3. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/ 102/01/0009.pdf 4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/anie.201201011 Richard N. Zare is in the Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stan- ford, California 94305, USA. e-mail: zare@stanford.edu Is export-oriented and currency dynamics-based Indian soybean revolution environment-friendly? Siddhartha Paul Tiwari and S. P. Tiwari Export orientation, market liberalization and currency dynamics have significantly promoted agricultural and industrial growth in export commodities. Rapid spread of soybean in South America and India is a glaring example of this. The saga of Indian soy revolution has been told 1 and ramifications of the Indian soy- bean industry have been documented 2,3 . Soybean expansion in South America has been associated with environmental loss. The Indian soy revolution needs to be viewed from this angle. Emergence of the South American soy- bean industry has been associated with the rise in global prices for protein meals in the 1970s (ref. 4). This was also the period of phenomenal growth in Indian soybean area and export of soymeal. A favourable exchange rate as well provided for re- lated developments and expansion of soybean 5 . The profit from export was an incentive in itself for making soybean production and the industry boom in India and South America. India normally ex- ported soymeal plus other soybean prod- ucts valued at around US$ 2.5 billion annually till 2013–14. After 2013–14, the exports declined due to instability in pro- duction, stiff global competition and currency dynamics. Domestic use of a sub- stantial amount of soymeal and almost the entire soy oil produced (~1.7 million tonnes per year) is also appreciable. Soybean spread and deforestation in South America Soybean spurt in South America was held responsible for neotropical defores- tation 6–8 . Brazilian cerrado, the Atlantic Forest and the Amazon in particular were affected. In Mato Grosso, Brazil, soy- bean displaced pastures further north into the forested areas, causing indirect de- forestation. In South Brazil, soybean production has been accounted for severe shrinkage of the Atlantic Forest. In Ar- gentina, soybean spread was associated with the loss of 2.7 million ha of forest between 1972 and 2011, the major loss occurring after 2002.