Features
NPP and the AKD science policy
By Dinara S. Gunasekera
Dinara S. Gunasekera is a Sri Lankan-American industrial scientist and an entrepreneur who has received numerous academic and professional awards and authored multiple patents, and peer-reviewed publications. He co-founded Sri Lanka’s first science consulting company, dedicated to help S&M-scale local and international companies with their R&D efforts. He was instrumental in establishing Sri Lanka’s first and only GLP-accredited synthetic organic lab, molecular recognition lab, and active pharmaceutical ingredient plant.
The Jathika Jana Balawegaya (NPP) recently released their Science and Technology (S&T) policy framework which aims to serve as a “guideline for enriching scientific and technological knowledge, allocating resources, and establishing a regulatory framework for research and development (R&D)” in Sri Lanka. Despite such lofty goals, the actual proposal is lacking in substance, originality, and clarity, and its actual impact on scientific affairs in Sri Lanka is surprisingly insignificant. The framework was released amidst much fanfare and pomp at an event led by a team of NPP-backed academics and a few industrial scientists. The hype and anticipation surrounding this event created an atmosphere of grandeur and importance. For some NPP-backed YouTubers, it was absolutely thrilling to be graced by such a “dream-team” of academics and to be enlightened with their proposals, the so-called “quantum leap”.
The event was undeniably blown out of proportion, with every minute covered and amplified by Youtubers and TV channels. Modern science and innovation contributes to economic growth? Who would have thought?! It’s as if the Sri Lankan scientific community was just wandering in the dark, oblivious to recent advancements in R&D and ignorant of the country’s need for innovative solutions, until this dream team of academics showed up and turned on the lights. Despite all the hype and the fancy language, word among local academic and industrial scientists is that this is nothing but another one of NPP’s aliya kaapu divul gedi (the woodapple eaten by an elephant with just the whole empty shell ejected with the dung!
However, one cannot help but admire the initiative taken by the NPP to develop an S&T framework. This pioneering effort by NPP is truly commendable and represents an impressive level of commitment to addressing one of the most critical elements of our path to economic recovery. A key tenet of this proposal is the American governance model, which has led to significant socio-economic progress driven by science and technology. However, the foundation of the American governance model is capitalism, which directly opposes the socialist beliefs the JVP has been promoting for many years. So, does this mean that the JVP-led NPP has now fully embraced capitalism since it is more conducive to driving innovation?
This clearly represents an internal conflict that the NPP must resolve before moving forward. Moreover, implementing this S&T proposal requires systematic training of students on concepts such as discovery, innovation and product development. However, this has been difficult due to JVP-affiliated factions forcing teachers, university staff, and science/engineering students to participate in various protests, ragging, and student politics. Therefore, desisting university politics might be the most crucial step to take if the NPP aims to improve S&T in Sri Lanka.
The proposal astutely identifies potential applications of S&T in critical sectors such as agriculture, health, and education, among others. However, the scientific community of Sri Lanka has already identified many of these issues and discussions have been ongoing for a while on how to address these matters. Thus, the academics backing the NPP proposal lack an understanding of the ground-level science and technology situation in Sri Lanka. For instance, some innovations that have been highly publicized by the NPP (and gained significant attention on social media) either resemble existing products with no significant differentiation or face scalability issues that hinder cost-effectiveness. This could be the result of some prominent members of the NPP science team never having worked in Sri Lanka in either an official or voluntary capacity. Below are a few examples of this misalignment between the local and NPP scientific views.
Agriculture; The recommendations for improving the agriculture sector is eerily reminiscent of a list created by generative AI! Many of these suggestions, including breeding high-yielding crops, novel barn management methods, and crop diversification, have already been tested or carried out by farmers and agricultural scientists at various institutes. Moreover, methods for value addition to agricultural products are constantly being thought of by entrepreneurs and established consumables companies. Genetically modified crops provide a means of improving agricultural products both by improving yields and providing resistance to biological and environmental insults. However, the proposed framework does not clarify the NPP’s stance on genetically modified crops. On the one hand, they mention utilizing genome editing technologies, but they also mention conserving protected species and plants.
Health, education, and science: This section of the proposal includes many science buzzwords, such as AI, LLM, nanotechnology, ITO and genomics. It appears that every technology with a flashy name has been included in this proposal to create a high-tech facade. Probably with the goal of making the proposal more appealing to genZ voters. Even the figures in the proposal feature numerous arrows moving in various directions, reminiscent of complex biochemical pathways, seemingly to convey that scientific intervention is intricately complex and accessible only to PhDs. However, it’s important to note that most of these proposed technologies are typically seen only in well-developed countries with GDPs exceeding trillions of dollars. Even in financially prosperous nations, the private sector undertakes such projects. For instance, AI-based technologies are predominantly developed by companies known as the magnificent seven including NVIDIA, Google, and Apple.
Another area highlighted during the quantum leap proposal launch and in the proposal booklet is mineral exploration and how Sri Lanka has neglected existing resources such as thorium, gold, nickel, and other precious metals. Underutilization of Sri Lanka’s mineral resources has been a popular conversation among the general public as well. However, methods to utilize these resources have been studied extensively by our scientists for a long time. Thorium research was explored at the Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (SLINTEC) over a decade ago. However, this project was discontinued due to the high costs of excavating this material under UN regulations. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that mining and excavation of any mineral dramatically impacts the environment. Unfortunately for Sri Lanka, many of our mineral deposits are present in or near ecologically sensitive areas. The negative impact on the environment would likely outweigh any quick financial gains made through such means. For example, such activities may result in perturbations of the ecological balance in rainforests like Sinharaja or critical ecosystems in the southern seaboard.
Another buzzword gaining popularity among Sri Lankans is “value addition to products” (VAP). However, the NPP dream team has overlooked the efforts of Sri Lankan academic researchers, SLINTEC, ITI, and private sector scientists who are actively exploring ways to enhance the value of various products. Furthermore, the collaboration between the private sector and Sri Lankan scientists has already led to developing export-ready products, contributing to foreign exchange earnings. The NPP scientists are introducing this concept as if the Sri Lankan scientific community is unaware of such initiatives.
The lack of S&T application implementation in Sri Lanka is not because they have yet to be identified but primarily due to budget constraints and resistance to change. The proposal starts out by comparing GDP allocation for science and technology in Sri Lanka ((0.12%) versus neighboring countries. However, when considering GDP allocations to S&T, one must keep in mind that Sri Lanka provides free education and free healthcare with a GDP of just ~$75 billion. Although the proposal fails to mention the percentage that NPP would like to allocate, given the hype to this sector, they would probably allocate around 0.5 % of GDP. If so, one wonders which area they would compromise to achieve this: Healthcare or education?
If you do the simple math (assuming 20% as gov expenditure to GDP ratio), ~$75M/per year would be the amount allocated to S&T proposals. This amount is insufficient to achieve the NPP’s ambitious objectives such as establishing NRDMC, NIRD, drug discovery, mining and addressing reverse brain drain. These objectives also don’t align with the national priorities in a country experiencing economic difficulties, where scientists earn less than 60K rupees. One could argue that implementing these modern tools will eventually benefit GDP growth, but such outcomes typically require a minimum of 20 years to materialize. A significant drawback of these proposals is the lack of clarity regarding timelines and costing. Are these plans expected to be completed in a year, 10 years, or even 100 years? For instance, SLINTEC’s attempt to produce APIs (Application Programming Interface) already took nearly half a decade to achieve just two. Therefore, many of these proposals will likely require close to 20 years or more to realize their goals fully.
Conducting research in Sri Lanka is notably expensive and time-consuming compared to other regions. For example, a basic proof of concept (POC) experiment could easily span a year, and essential laboratory equipment like an GC/LC-MS would cost nearly five times more than in neighboring countries. If such instruments break down, it can take months or even years to find a qualified engineer for repairs. Importing chemicals can take up to eight months, and crucial chemicals and research consumables may be unavailable for import. Regrettably, the proposed framework lacks any strategy to reduce research costs or shorten timelines. In contrast, countries like China and India have numerous profitable Contract Research Organizations (CROs) due to lower research costs. Additionally, salaries for postgraduate and industrial scientists in Sri Lanka are so low that even a trishaw driver earns more. Consequently, many scientists must supplement their income by offering private tuition.
Furthermore, given Sri Lanka’s constrained funding for science and technology in the upcoming years, it is imperative that we prioritize research areas where Sri Lanka can excel. Otherwise, spreading limited funds thinly across various areas will dilute their impact and fail to make meaningful contributions to the economy. For instance, as Sri Lanka is a biodiversity hotspot, there should be a focused effort on natural product chemistry. Currently, Sri Lanka has only one modern NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) instrument and faces challenges acquiring resources for chemicals and consumables needed for such research.
Another significant area of research is the whole genome sequencing (WGS), which has the potential to uncover hereditary cancer variations in the Sri Lankan population. Studies such as the UK Biobank in England, the 1000 Genomes project in the US, and the OrigiMed study in China propel research into their populations and discover cancer variants among their respective demographics. WGS could lead to early clinical intervention, reduce the number of cancer-related deaths, and reduce healthcare costs significantly.
In conclusion, the NPP’s S&T proposal fails to address the root causes of slow development in this sector and the significant challenges faced by Sri Lankan scientists who operate with minimal resources. Sri Lanka must prioritize addressing larger issues with science and technology soon. Academics and scientists should exercise caution when aligning with political parties. Politicians often exploit your qualifications for publicity and votes, only to discard your concerns once they gain power. Many Sri Lankan academics learned a harsh lesson from their support of GR in Viyathmaga. It’s widely known that one of the science advisors to the former president faced significant backlash from the scientific community following the fertilizer ban and had to leave the country as a result. This situation seems like a heightened version of Viyathmaga under the NPP, suggesting a troubling repetition of history.
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
