The ₹41.47-lakh 2019 study, led by Dr. Sukesh Narayan Sinha and Dr. MV Surekha, examined Telangana farmers’ exposure to organophosphate insecticides, which are linked to serious nervous system damage
Published May 08, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated May 08, 2025 | 7:07 AM
Synopsis: Mumbai-based think tank CENTEGRO has accused ICMR’s National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad of conducting a fraudulent, taxpayer-funded study on pesticide health impacts. Based on RTI findings, the ₹41.47-lakh study allegedly used fake data and had scientific and financial irregularities. Conducted in 2019, it examined organophosphate exposure among Telangana farmers and was led by Dr. Sinha and Dr. Surekha
A Mumbai-based environment and agriculture think tank has allegedly accused the prestigious Indian Council of Medical Research’s (ICMR) National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) in Hyderabad of carrying out a fraudulent taxpayer-funded study on the impact of pesticides on human health.
The Centre for Environment and Agriculture (CENTEGRO), which investigated the case using Right to Information (RTI) queries, alleges that the study — meant to examine how exposure to certain insecticides affects farmers’ health — was filled with fake data, scientific irregularities, and financial lapses.
The ₹41.47-lakh study, funded by the Department of Health Research under the Union Health Ministry in 2019, was led by Dr. Sukesh Narayan Sinha and co-investigator Dr. MV Surekha. It focused on farmers in Telangana who are routinely exposed to organophosphate (OP) insecticides, known for their harmful effects on the nervous system.
However, according to CENTEGRO’s findings, the study strayed from its original objective, violated scientific ethics, and published misleading findings in at least six academic papers.
South First approached ICMR-NIN for the response, and will update the copy after receiving the reply.
1. Changing the research scope without approval
The study was approved to focus only on organophosphate insecticides. However, CENTEGRO found that researchers secretly included 14 other chemicals—fungicides and herbicides not approved under the project. These additions changed the nature of the study entirely, making its conclusions unreliable.
No records exist at ICMR-NIN to show who approved this change, and even the funding agency failed to notice it, said the CENTEGRO report.
2. Salami Slicing: Splitting one study into multiple papers
The report also flagged a practice known as salami slicing — where researchers slice one study into multiple papers to boost their publication count — a move that is frowned upon in academic circles for being misleading and unethical.
To artificially boost the number of publications, the researchers reportedly sliced the same dataset into several papers without declaring that they came from the same project. In doing so, they broke ICMR’s rules on research integrity.
One co-investigator, Dr. Surekha, who was officially part of the project, was left out of the published papers. Instead, outsiders who were not part of the original study were listed as authors.
3. Using expired chemicals and faking pesticide data
Perhaps the most alarming allegation is that the team used expired chemical standards—essential tools used to detect pesticide levels—making the results scientifically invalid.
Even more bizarre, the study reported finding pesticide residues of chemicals that are not even sold or used in India. Five such pesticides, including “Chlorpyrvinophos” and “Omethoate”, were reportedly found in farmers’ blood samples—an impossibility, according to CENTEGRO.
In some cases, the papers claimed that farmers in Telangana were using these pesticides, even though there’s no record of their legal import, sale, or registration in the country.
4. A flawed control group
To compare exposed farmers to those not exposed, the study claimed to use a “control group”.
But both the “exposed” and “control” participants were from the same pesticide-heavy villages in Telangana. As a result, almost everyone had pesticides in their blood, making any comparison scientifically meaningless.
5. Questionable use of funds
While the study was given over ₹41 lakh—including funds for buying new high-purity chemicals—the team allegedly used expired reagents. CENTEGRO has called for a forensic audit to investigate possible misuse of government money.
CENTEGRO began probing the matter in October 2024. When the institute refused to share raw data through RTI, the think tank appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Eventually, they received over 400 pages of documents, which exposed serious inconsistencies—fluctuating sample sizes, made-up statistics, and pesticide levels that defied scientific norms, said CENTEGRO
Only after CENTEGRO went public did the NIN quietly retract one of the six papers. But the rest remain in circulation.
CENTEGRO also said that despite submitting evidence to ICMR, NIN, and Osmania University—where junior scientist Dileshwar Kumar, a co-author of the papers, is pursuing his PhD—CENTEGRO says no action has been taken. In fact, Kumar had also received a fellowship from another government agency, CSIR, raising concerns that two major public bodies funded the faulty research.
CENTEGRO has formally appealed to Union Health Minister JP Nadda to order an independent investigation and take strict action against those involved.
Their demands include:
They’ve also written to the Governor of Telangana, who is Chancellor of Osmania University, asking him to personally intervene to ensure academic integrity is upheld.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
