Reforming Philippine Science Raul K. Suarez Flor Lacanilao NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS IN SCI-EXPANDED DATABASE 6000 5000 4000 THAILAND MALAYSIA 3000 2000 1000 INDONESIA VIETNAM PHILIPPINES 0 1979 1984 1989 1994 YEAR 1999 2004 2009 Reforming Philippine Science Raul K. Suarez Flor Lacanilao Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center AQUACULTURE DEPARTMENT www.seafdec.org.ph DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SEAFDEC/AQD, the publisher. Reforming Philippine Science Raul K. Suarez and Flor Lacanilao ISBN 978-971-511-98-5 Published by: Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department Tigbauan 5021, Iloilo, Philippines Copyright © 2010 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department Tigbauan 5021, Iloilo, Philippines All Rights Reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher For inquiries: Fax E-mail Website SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department Tigbauan 5021, Iloilo, Philippines (63 33)511-8709 aqdchief@seafdec.org.ph http://www.seafdec.org.ph Cover graph kindly provided by Dr. Katherine Develos-Bagarinao. To young graduate students, junior researchers and future generations of Filipino scientists. Acknowledgements RKS offers profound thanks to his family for sharing the burden of his chosen career, to those who taught him critical thinking and served as his role models in science and in life. Support of his early research by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged. The Philippine Department of Science and Technology supported his Balik Scientist visit to the Philippines in July 2008. The U.S. National Science Foundation has funded his research in the U.S. for more than a decade and, in recognition of the need for scientists to have broader impacts on the world stage, has also agreed to fund the publication of this book. All of RKS’s articles, with the exception of Chapter 18, are reprinted with minor edits from the Philippine Star with the kind permission of Mr. Kevin Belmonte. FL owes his learning how to do science properly and the awareness of his social responsibility to his mentor, Professor Howard A. Bern, at University of California Berkeley. He thanks the University of the Philippines for the opportunity to promote science education and public science literacy, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center in the Philippines for more experience in science administration, and to family, close friends, and former students who inspired and challenged him to pursue a personal crusade to improve Philippine science. Dr. Katherine Develos-Bagarinao kindly provided Figure 3 in Chapter 3. Contents Dedication Acknowledgements Preface 1 Introduction 2 Science and the essentials of development 3 Doing research for development 4 Straight talk to Filipino scientists 5 50 years of DOST, 30 annual meetings of NAST 6 Nonscientists run Philippine science academy 7 Celebrating the UP centennial 8 Research as the principal criterion for faculty recruitment 9 Problems preventing academic reforms 10 Adapting to climate change through research and education 11 Philippine science as world science: the case of milkfish reproduction 12 Food for thought: feast or famine in Philippine science? 13 Asking good questions 14 Airing laundry: the value of critical evaluation in science 15 Myths in Philippine science 16 Realities in Philippine science 17 What good is science education? 18 Happy birthday Darwin: lamentations on science and religion 19 Philippine deforestation: a national Spoliarium 20 Why science alone cannot save the Philippines About the authors v vi ix 1 3 7 15 19 21 29 43 47 53 59 61 65 69 71 75 79 83 87 93 95 Preface While studying bats in Mexico, one of us (RKS) received an email message from a friend in Singapore who called attention to a series of FL’s newspaper articles concerning Philippine science. This catalyzed the restoration of long-lost ties between RKS, who had studied at University of the Philippines Diliman for his masters degree, and FL, who was his graduate supervisor. In their correspondence, FL invited RKS to also write newspaper articles. But, instead of just writing about specific scientific subjects, he suggested that articles concerning the nature of scientific inquiry, the process of doing science, peer review and publishing might be of benefit to the general public as well as to the scientific community. This book is an edited collection of our articles, previously published in newspapers or posted in web sites, on the subject of reform in Philippine science. We cover a wide range of issues and target readers ranging from researchers, students (advanced undergraduate, M.S., and Ph.D.), university administrators, faculty, government bureaucrats and technocrats, to non-scientist citizens motivated by curiosity or concern about the state of science in their country. In writing these articles, we hope to contribute to public understanding of the relevance and importance of science to Philippine society. Another book was recently published with several of our articles included (Selected Essays on Science and Technology for Securing a Better Philippines, edited by Gisella Concepcion, Eduardo Padlan and Caesar Saloma, UP Press, 2008). Our present work differs from that edited by Concepcion and colleagues in that we more explicitly address the nature of dysfunctions in Philippine science. Readers will find, however, that rather than offering only “criticism and negativism”, concrete solutions to the problems identified are proposed. A recent World Bank report revealed that most of the wealth of nations lies in “intangible capital” (e.g., education, skills, quality of social institutions, quality of governance, etc.). Indeed, there is much societal dysfunction in the Philippines that has held back development, caused much poverty and suffering, depleted natural resources, and degraded the environment. Once regarded as second only to Japan (among Asian countries) in various measures of development, the country has been overtaken by most of its neighbors. Science alone will not save the Philippines. But we know from the experience of developed countries, as well as from the neighbors that have left it behind, that the Philippines cannot be saved without science. An eminent Filipino scientist has said that “There is a lot that needs to be fixed in Philippine science.” Common sense suggests that fixing what’s broken requires a good understanding of how it works and what’s wrong with it. However, misconceptions abound concerning the nature of scientific inquiry, the scientific enterprise, what should be expected of scientists and what problems Filipino scientists face. Thus, many obstacles to scientific progress — including structural problems already apparent three or four decades ago — remain unresolved even today. That “a lot… needs to be fixed” casts doubt upon the current, much lauded approach of simply throwing more taxpayers’ money at the scientific enterprise. In science, as in other aspects of national life, the country is at a crossroads in its history. A “perfect storm” of missteps can plunge it irreversibly into the abyss of even greater dysfunction. It is time for change. Solutions to complex problems are never simple and, in the case of Philippine science, multiple agents and a comprehensive approach are essential. The older generation of administrators, funding agency officials, professors and researchers need not be threatened by change. Instead, they can show wisdom and generosity, bequeath dynamism and reform — not stasis and conservatism — to future generations. A life in science must again become the goal of the best and the brightest among the youth. Among them are brave souls who, having drawn from the same pool of genes that gave rise to Rizal and other revered heroes, combine youth and a sense of adventure with nationalism, intelligence, imagination, and a burning desire for discovery. They must be cultivated to flower and to offer the bountiful fruits of their labors to a hungry people. Raul K. Suarez Flor Lacanilao 1 Introduction The Philippines should be grateful to you if you would write a complete history of our country from an impartial point of view... But don’t expect thanks and laurels — crowns of flowers and laurels are the inventions of free people. But perhaps your children may gather the fruit of what the father planted. —Jose Rizal (Letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt, 13 April 1887) We argue in this book that science can offer great benefits to Philippine society, that the development of a scientific culture is essential to democracy and to national development. If we are asked whether a single theme to this book could be identified, it is perhaps that “Whereas science alone cannot save the Philippines, the Philippines without science cannot be saved” (Chapter 2). However, our message is incomplete unless it is also said that to save the country, science must be reformed. When these articles were first published and read, there were certainly those who still did not accept the claim that Philippine science needs fundamental change. Although some say they share our aspirations (presumably for national progress, the alleviation of poverty, an environmentally friendly, sustainable economy, etc.), they maintain that “progress has been made”, prefer to “quietly do their work” and chastise those who “air dirty laundry” by openly discussing the problems of Philippine science. How much progress has been made? Available data concerning scientific productivity show that the Philippines has been left behind by smaller countries such as Taiwan and Singapore; recently it has been overtaken by Indonesia and Vietnam. Admittedly, the underlying causes are complex: science is done in a political, social and economic milieu. However, no one seems to deny the fact that with few exceptions, professors continue to be underpaid, are expected to teach too many courses and are burdened by excessive red tape. Most science professors in the country do not actively contribute to the advancement of knowledge by doing research. Research projects funded with government grants often do not lead to peer-reviewed publications; this has not been considered a problem by funding agency officials who are often unpublished scientists themselves. National Academy of Science awards often go to unpublished or poorly published individuals. The scientific community remains silent when awards are given to unqualified scientists whereas in the arts, the nomination of those considered unworthy as National Artists arouses protests. In many graduate programs, students are trained by faculty who do not conduct publishable research themselves (the “unpublished leading the unpublished”). “Too much emphasis on publications — what the Filipino people care about is that they benefit from research!” — some say. We are now in the 21st century, and individuals in positions of power and influence, as well as many scientists, still do not understand or refuse to accept the use of objective, internationally-accepted criteria for evaluating the quantity and quality of research output. 2 Reforming Philippine Science We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling. —Henri Poincare There have been calls for greater support of science and, in response, the Philippine government has increased funding, investing billions of pesos into infrastructure, science education and research. Clearly the expectation is that more money for buildings and equipment, more masters and doctoral degrees, and more research grants will lead to more and better science. But if the intended recipients are mostly overworked, underpaid and have become part of a largely “non-researching”, nonpublishing scientific culture, what outcomes can be expected of such massive investment? Already, there are institutions in which expensive, sophisticated equipment sit, under-utilized for scientific research. Yet, a commonly heard complaint is that research is made difficult or impossible by the lack of such equipment. Most research on ecology and biodiversity, requiring mainly binoculars, fishnets and computers, is of unpublishable quality. Funding agency officials complain of the inability of the scientific community to “absorb” large increases in funding. So is it really a simple lack of money and equipment that impedes progress in Philippine science? Throughout Philippine history, many voices have been heard and a wide range of approaches to social change have been seen. While it is true that, over the decades, there have been public servants who quietly served their country with diligence, competence and integrity, Filipinos are well aware that there were also reformists and revolutionaries. There were those who wrote articles for La Solidaridad to call attention to the need for reform and others who plotted the violent overthrow of unjust oppressors. In more recent years, protest movements brought down a dictator as well as an elected president. We do not recall hearing it said that it would benefit the country if reformists and protesters were to mute their voices under circumstances that cry out for change. Even national newspapers publish articles using harsh language directed at politicians accused of despotism, nepotism, corruption, incompetence, economic mismanagement, vote-rigging, or condoning violations of human rights. Despite the country’s rich history of protest, reform and revolution, there are those who find our analysis of the state of Philippine science offensive. It is difficult to imagine that those who take offence might actually deny the existence of the dysfunctions we characterize in this book. They are based on our own experiences and observations, the testimony of Filipino scientists, and hard data. It is possible that some take offence because they feel they are among those cast in a negative light. If so, do they not want to contribute to the advancement of science in the country by at least welcoming, rather than resisting change? Others may feel offended because they are accomplished scientists themselves who have done world-class research and have contributed to the emergence of productive institutions. Such individuals are truly worthy of the country’s thanks and admiration. However, it is not a triumph, but a tragedy, that they are so few. When they are no longer the exceptions but, rather, the rule in Philippine science, the task of reform can be considered complete and the “children may gather the fruit of what the father planted.” 2 Science and the essentials of development Flor Lacanilao We have been blaming various causes for our failure to move forward. Some point to graft and corruption; others, to the decline in the ability of Filipinos to speak the English language. Meanwhile, national problems are getting worse. Developed countries have shown that progress is made against poverty, rapid population growth, and poor public education as a nation achieves real growth through science and technology (S&T). For example, “America’s huge economic success comes from innovation, which is fuelled by its research enterprise. And this in turn is driven by graduate education” (1). They reiterate the tested essentials of development — research, science, and technology, or the R&D process (2). Relying on these development requisites, the Philippines created a science development board in 1958, transformed it into an S&T authority, and finally elevated it to the Department of Science and Technology. Yet from being second to Japan in Asia in the 1960s, we are now behind no less than 10 Asian countries. Why? Here is one answer: The rapid growth of China “is not surprising because so many Chinese leaders are scientists and engineers by training” (3). By comparison, in our country, even leading officials of the national research council, national S&T academy, and S&T department have been largely nonscientists (see Chapter 6). We have overlooked the crucial role of research, which fires development. Research should be done properly, or it will not contribute to scientific knowledge (science), the source of intellectual materials for producing useful technologies (innovations). Research should be published in international journals. This requirement ensures expert review of the manuscript and allows verification of published results (two norms of science) by international peers, whose expertise we lack. Verification (e.g., by replicating experiments) certifies that the data support the conclusions. Hence, the published article (called a scientific paper or a valid research publication) is mainly addressed to fellow scientists for verification, not yet for the public to use. Only such properly published papers contain valid information that is potentially useful for the growth of science (4). Make no mistake, only those with such research publications, most importantly as sole or lead author, may be called scientists. They have contributed to science. The first version of this paper was posted at the website of the University of the Philippines Diliman on 18 December 2007 4 Reforming Philippine Science Research publications on a given subject are used by scientists for developing an appropriate technology. Scientists also gather them and write review articles (found in review journals or in magazines like Scientific American). Whether in the form of technology or as review articles, the integrated information is ready for public use. It is disseminated through various forms of media and books for education, training, development programs, and decision-making. These are the roads that lead to development, but only if research is correctly done as described above. There is no shortcut to progress (5). While we can use foreign-made technologies, we cannot get the full benefits from them since they still need to be properly understood and adapted to local conditions, which only trained scientists can do. This explains why our insistent use of technologies from developed countries has not yielded the expected benefits or hardly made ours a developing country (by UNDP’s Human Development Index). A major culprit is our system of graduate education, in which most programs don’t require the publication of the thesis, when this is meant as training for research, and research is not completed until it is published properly. PhDs with no publications produced by such programs don’t get faculty positions or research grants in developed countries. In the Philippines, they are given both; then, they publish unrefereed papers (papers not subjected to expert peer-review) that do not count, and they don’t contribute to the growth of science. Hence, the wrong research concepts and practices are prevalent in the country. And this is the main reason we are being left behind by an increasing number of neighboring countries. Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia (since 1995), and Vietnam (since 2004) have more scientific publications than the Philippines (see Chapter 3). Smaller Taiwan had 30 times and tiny Singapore had 10 times more scientific publications than the Philippines in 2006. Further, in university rankings using objective measures of academic performance, no university from the Philippines has yet made the top 100 in the Asia-Pacific or in the world’s top 500 (6). With the poor state of science & technology in the Philippines, what will save us from the dangers of spreading disease and the consequences of global warming which threaten all countries? What was said of Africa applies to our own country: Whereas science alone cannot save the Philippines, the Philippines without science cannot be saved. Suarez & Lacanilao 5 References (1) Bhattacharjee, Y. How to hone U.S. graduate schools. ScienceNOW Daily News, 26 April 2007. Accessible in Science 316 (27 April 2007) at http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ full/2007/426/4 (2) More discussion appears in “Public understanding of science” by Flor Lacanilao, published in The Philippine Star, 19 & 26 May 2005. Accessible at http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=278303 (Part 1) http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=279170 (Part 2) (3) Alan, I., A. I. Leshner, and V. Turekian. 2007. Chinese science on the move. Science 318:1523. (Editorial) (4) Day, R. A. and B. Gastel. 2006. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6th ed. Cambridge University Press (5) See also discussion in FL’s article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “No shortcut to progress,” 19 February 2008. Accessible at, http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view_ article.php?article_id=119740 (6) Academic ranking of world universities, http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/EN2008.htm 3 Doing research for development* Flor Lacanilao All scientists have an unwritten contract with their contemporaries and those whose work will follow to provide observations honestly obtained, recorded, and published. — CBE Style Manual Committee Perhaps you are wondering why I should be speaking of Research and Development (R&D) at a meeting of systematic biologists. One reason is that knowing R&D is as important to biological research as is systematic biology. If I am only able to persuade 10% of you to publish your papers in peer-reviewed international journals, I would have done my job. And if that 10% is raised to 20 then 30 in your succeeding meetings, then in a few years you would be one of the leading science organizations in the country. And you can aim to be the first with an all-published membership. This will be the clear indication of a changed research environment in the Philippines. My second reason is to remind you that your presentation in this meeting is not the last phase or conclusion of your research work. A scientific meeting is a chance to present your manuscript for comments (preliminary peer review), before it is subjected to formal peer review when you submit it for publication in a primary research journal. Thirdly, I hope my manner of presentation (e.g., how slides and accompanying handouts were prepared) will suggest to you how to present a paper orally. This is important because your way of presenting a paper, like in international meetings, will determine whether or not you get useful comments from scientists in the audience to improve your manuscript. My talk starts with how research should be done; then I show some symptoms of the wrong research practice in the Philippines and their two major causes (the lack of funds is not one of them, but it is often made the excuse for poor performance). Finally, I give examples of how neighbor countries, which have done better in research, have moved ahead of the Philippines in national progress, or are on their way to leaving us behind. I use established objective indicators here to show the country’s performance in research and development. Our failure to use them has been a major cause of the poor state of Philippine science. *Keynote address at the 27th Meeting of the Association of Systematic Biologists of the Philippines, National Museum, Manila, 29-30 May 2009 8 Reforming Philippine Science Doing research properly The established process of research has undergone over three centuries of development since the publication of the first two scientific journals in Paris (Journal des Scavans) and in London (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London) in 1665 (1). It requires publication in a research journal that is adequately peer-reviewed and accessible for international scrutiny and verification of results (Fig. 1). The review and verification processes help ensure the integrity of the published paper. Examples are journals covered in Science Citation Index or Thomson ISI. The output is called a scientific paper or valid publication, as opposed to gray literature (information produced without adequate peer review). As a noted physicist says, Just printing results doesn’t validate them (2). Data gathering Proposal Publication (Adequate peer review) Project report or thesis International journal article (Ve rificatio n) Articles in newsletters, institutional reports, most proceedings, etc. (Gray literature) Figure 1. The correct (blue) and wrong (red) ways of doing research. Many studies end as project reports or graduate theses. In the Philippines, this is often the accepted point of completion of research or graduate training. If published, in most cases it appears as gray literature. Examples are papers in newsletters, institutional reports, most conference proceedings, and nearly all local journals. They have doubtful scientific value. Up to this time, only a small fraction of research papers we produce is published properly as scientific papers. Symptoms and major causes of wrong research practice Most of Philippine research publications show clear indications of wrong research practice and they do not count in international rating of research performance when ranking nations, universities, or individuals; nor do they help in national progress. They are cited in the Reference Section of books, training manuals, bibliographies, extension publications, and review articles (3). In “Bibliography of Philippine marine invertebrates” (1994), for example, only 7% of the 1,032 references listed are ISI-indexed or valid publications (4). In “Bibliography of Philippine seaweeds” (1990), only 8% of the 780 listed references are valid publications (5). And in “Biology of milkfish” (1991), only 19% of the 298 cited literatures are valid publications (6). Since there are now over 200 such ISI-indexed, peer-reviewed articles on milkfish, the book is overdue for revision. You may have seen training manuals or extension publications by local authors without a single, valid publication in the bibliography. I have yet to see a scientific book by Filipino authors with a reference list dominated by publications covered in Thomson ISI’s major indexes (e.g., Suarez & Lacanilao 9 Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index), which are used in ranking nations and universities. We have been told, as far back as graduate training, that the integrity or reliability of a publication, primary or not, depends on the quality of the bibliography attached to it. The widespread practice of wrong research in the country continues because authors get promotions, recognition, or even awards for the publication of gray literature. You see them supervising graduate students, writing science commentaries, and holding administrative positions in scientific institutions. Worse, you see them invited to speak in recognition and commencement programs or as recipients of awards or professorial chairs. Surely we can easily use valid publications as a minimum requirement for such functions. A simple change like this will guarantee the presentation of more useful information rather than entertainment and contribute to scientific literacy among the public as well as the proper training of graduate students who can be the future leaders of our academic and science institutions. Distinguishing “good” science from “good enough” science For a developing country, which is short of adequately published researchers, an objective evaluation of performance is more reliable. The indicators often used are the number of valid publications (quantity) and the number of times these publications are cited (a measure of quality). Both can be obtained in the widely used Science Citation Index or any of Thomson ISI’s major indexes. See, for example, “The scientific impact of nations” (8). The rare use of such objective indicators and the prevalent use of personal judgment by nonscientists (who lack valid publications) are the two major causes of the poor state of Philippine science and higher education. Personal judgment is the common way we evaluate research proposals and output when giving grants, appointments, promotions, and awards. Expert peer-review is possible in developed countries where scientific communities are large enough that “expert peers” can be found to review manuscripts in almost every discipline. In such countries, the goal is to go beyond just counting and to evaluate quality by other means. But in the Philippines, even the counting of valid publications as an objective indicator of performance has not begun in many institutions. While some reforms have been ongoing at the University of the Philippines, especially in the use of journals covered in Thomson ISI’s major indexes, elsewhere, attempts to practice peer review by nonscientists are widespread. How research leads to development R&D and S&T are commonly used acronyms. But many hardly know their relation with each other -- research to science to technology to development. These relations can explain how the two kinds of research output (gray literature and scientific paper or international journal article) are responsible for underdevelopment or development (Fig. 2). Depending on the quality of the information disseminated (through review articles, books, or extension materials), it will harm or help development programs, education, and policy-making. And these in turn determine a country’s state of development (More discussion of this in Chapter 2). 10 Reforming Philippine Science Research Gray literature Journal article Extension materials Underdevelopment Development programs Science Technology National progress Figure 2. The R&D process showing how research output affects development and its relation with science and technology Using Science Citation Index Expanded, Dr. Katherine Bagarinao reviewed the publication performance (number of indexed articles) of five ASEAN countries from 1980 to 2006. Her graphs show that Thailand and Malaysia were already ahead of the Philippines in 1980 (Fig. 3A), but the Philippines was then still ahead of Indonesia and Vietnam. The Philippines, however, was overtaken by Indonesia in the mid 1990s and by Vietnam in 2004 in number of publications (Fig. 3B). The Philippines is not only behind in publications, but it has also shown the slowest growth rate among the five countries throughout the covered period. In assessing national progress, UNDP employs economic and social indicators -- the Human Development Index (HDI). Using the data from the UNDP’s Human Development Index Trends for 1980-2008 (9), I plotted the HDI of five countries to visualize their growth trends (Figure 4.) The performance of the five countries in research (Fig. 3) matches or corresponds with their performance in development (as measured by HDI). The Philippines, with its lowest scientific productivity, has also the lowest growth rate in development. From 1980, only Malaysia was ahead of the Philippines (its continued lead may be explained by its being an oil country). Then Thailand followed and surpassed the Philippines in 1992 and has been moving faster since. Although Indonesia and Vietnam are still behind the Philippines, the trend of their HDI growth rates has been increasing faster and, as shown by their growth curves and that of the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are headed to overtake the Philippines in a few years. Note that Indonesia and Vietnam had left us behind in science in mid 1990s and 2004 (Fig. 3B). Further, UNDP’s Human Development Reports show a nation’s development compared with those of other countries’ ranking. Among 177 countries and territories, the Philippines’ ranking has been going down in the last 10 years. In 1997 and 1998, the Philippines ranked 77, but this dropped to 8385 in 2000-2004, and to 102 in 2006. As director Peter Meyer of graduate studies in physics at Princeton says, You need to know how to do research properly before you can begin to think about commercializing discoveries (10). 25000 20000 (A) 15000 10000 5000 0 1979 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1979 1989 (B) 1989 1999 1999 Suarez & Lacanilao 11 TAIWAN SINGAPORE THAILAND MALAYSIA INDONESIA VIETNAM PHILIPPINES 2009 THAILAND MALAYSIA INDONESIA VIETNAM PHILIPPINES 2009 Figure 3. Comparison of total publications (SCI-Expanded Database) of ASEAN countries from 1979 to 2009. (A) shows performance of 6 countries. Taiwan and Singapore are so highly productive that, in the expanded view, data at the bottom for the 3 least productive countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines) are compressed. (B) shows expanded view of these data. The Philippines was marginally ahead of Indonesia and Vietnam in 1980, but this was reversed by 2009. Note the exponential increase in publications from Malaysia and Thailand (Figures courtesy of Katherine Develos-Bagarinao) 12 Reforming Philippine Science Human Development Index 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 MALAYSIA THAILAND PHILIPPINES INDONESIA VIETNAM 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Figure 4. National progress of five ASEAN countries as measured by their Human Development Index. Note the slower growth rate of the Philippines compared with the other four countries I am glad (but sad for our country) to see that poorer Africa has been, in recent years, establishing research universities and developing strong science academies to solve poverty (11, 12). Note that Africa is getting to the bottom of poverty (a symptom) by attending to a basic cause of underdevelopment -- poor S&T. Conclusion Development depends on the quality of the research output, which in turn relies on correct research practice. Two ways to improve research: (a) by leaving to scientists the job of performance evaluation and (b) by using the established and objective indicators (e.g., journals and publication citations in Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Citation Index). Suarez & Lacanilao 13 References (1) Day, R. A. and B. Gastel. 2006. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6th ed. Cambridge University Press (2) Friedlander, M. 1990. Just printing results doesn’t validate them. Scientist 4 (23): 13 (3) Lacanilao, F. 1997. Continuing problems with gray literature. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49:1-5. (Invited editorial) (4) Ganzon-Fortes, E. T. 1994. Bibliography of Philippine marine invertebrates. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Quezon City (5) Ganzon-Fortes, E. T. 1990. Bibliography of Philippine seaweeds. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Quezon City (6) Bagarinao, T. U. 1991. Biology of Milkfish (Chanos chanos Forsskal). Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Iloilo, Philippines (7) Feist, G. J. 2000. Distinguishing ‘Good’ Science from ‘Good Enough’ Science. Scientist 14 (14): 31, 10 July 2000 (8) King, D. A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316 Accessible at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997 full/430311a.html (9) UNDP’s Human Development Index Trends for 1980-2008: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ data/motionchart/ (10) Kaiser, J. 1995. A business blueprint: how to build a better Ph.D. Science 270:133-134 (11) Muchie, M. 2008. Africa needs research universities to fight poverty SciDev.Net at http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/africa-needs-research-universities-to-fight-povert.html (12) Africa’s academies. Nature 450: 762, 2007. (Editorial) 4 Straight talk to Filipino scientists Flor Lacanilao I am addressing this to Filipino scientists in the country and abroad. Bato-bato sa langit... You are already aware that the growth of science in the Philippines remains slow, despite efforts by various concerned groups. And we remain behind in the regional race for development. It is a subject recurring in my four papers published in Star Science. I still think that a major reason is our failure to focus on basic problems -- how to do research properly and how to evaluate research performance. These are discussed in my fifth paper, submitted to Star Science in August last year but not printed (1). The editor informed me “many highly respected and productive scientists” have noted the adversarial, critical tone of my articles, which can be counterproductive when conveyed repeatedly. You may have received a copy of my reply. Here I show the problems resulting from our failure to evaluate research properly with four examples (1 and 4 are excerpts from my unpublished Star Science paper). Examples Performance indicators always reveal how we are left behind An evaluation of world universities based on academic and research performance is being done by a leading Chinese university (2). In its fourth year (2006), no university from the Philippines has yet made it in the top 100 in the Asia Pacific, or in the world’s top 500. Originally sent as email to some academic communities and science organizations in the Philippines and abroad in February 2007 The top universities are: ♦ Tokyo University ♦ Kyoto ♦ Australian National Univ. ♦ Osaka ♦ Tohoku ♦ Melbourne ♦ Tokyo Tech ♦ Nagoya ♦ National Univ. of Singapore ♦ Queensland Note: Ten tied for no. 10, including National Univ. of Singapore and Queensland 16 Reforming Philippine Science The study uses the following indicators: (30%) (20%) (20%) (20%) (10%) alumni and staff winning prizes and awards articles covered in major citation indexes highly cited researchers articles published in the journals Nature and Science per capita academic performance Sources of published articles and citations are the following indexes of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI): Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Worldwide, the top ten are: ♦ Harvard ♦ Cambridge ♦ Stanford ♦ UC Berkeley ♦ MIT ♦ Caltech ♦ Columbia ♦ Princeton ♦ Chicago ♦ Oxford Note that they use the usual measures of research performance, which are accessible in the Web. Other university rankings, however, use information obtained through questionnaires. For example, in the ranking of Asian universities by the defunct Asia Magazine (1997-2000), 35 Asian universities, including Tokyo University, withdrew participation because of such subjective measures. Four from the Philippines (University of the Philippines, De La Salle University, Ateneo de Manila University, University of Santo Tomas) made the list of the remaining 77 universities in Asia. The most commonly used measure of research and S&T activities is the number of published papers indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and, recently, the SCI Expanded, as in the above ranking of universities. Articles on evaluation using SCI have appeared in top science journals and magazines. Scientific American used SCI in 1995 and ranked the Philippines’ S&T performance as number 60 worldwide (3). Yet the DOST placed a 33-page advertisement in the Scientific American (February 1996) under the banner “Globally Competitive Philippines.” It claims “pioneering efforts in metals technology, materials science, electronics and information technology, and, most especially, biotechnology.” Evaluation problem in science organizations When considering someone for membership, our science organizations usually ask for a copy of the curriculum vitae or CV. Why not just ask for a list of five primary publications? From the list, the membership committee can tell whether one is qualified to be a member. The CV is more useful for assigning members to various programs of the organization. At Harvard, hiring of assistant professors was decided on the basis of five published papers only. And promotion to full professor is based on just ten publications (4). Suarez & Lacanilao 17 The practice of examining the CV instead of publications diverts the attention away from the essential requirement for membership in a science organization. The result: no science organization in the Philippines has an all-scientist membership. This includes the National Academy of Science and Technology, National Research Council of the Philippines, and the local membership of the PAASE (Philippine-American Academy of Science and Engineering). “Scientist” is defined here as one with research papers published in journals that are counted in established evaluations of research or S&T performance. They are ISI-indexed journals (Example 1). Evaluation problem even at the highest levels “Silliman University Wins CHED Best Research Award.” This is the title of a news report (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 3 February 2007). It says the evaluation committee is composed of the following: Emil Javier (President of NAST and National Chair of AGHAM), Saturnino Ocampo Jr. (CHED commisioner), Filimon Uriarte Jr. (Academician, NAST), Fortunato de la Peña (DOST Undersecretary), and Mario Lamberte (USAID). I wonder how they evaluate research output. Not one of them has primary publications as the sole or lead author in international, scientific, refereed journals. This can be seen by computer search through Google Scholar, if they have research publications in journals covered in Science Citation Index, which is the established, objective indicator of research performance. Since the problems concerning evaluation occur at the highest level, how do you begin to address the problem? You would perhaps first ask, is it a cause or a symptom of our poor science and underdevelopment? No matter what, I think failure to act will make the situation worse. In fact, you may already be aware that this is happening. The UP answers the call for reform and addresses a basic problem The most glaring R&D problem is the widespread production and use of gray literature in the country (5, see also examples in Chapter 3). Examples are research papers in newsletters, institutional bulletins, most proceedings books, and almost all local journals. Because we lack qualified referees in many areas of science, most locally published papers are not adequately peer reviewed. Further, they are inaccessible for scrutiny and verification of results. These two factors make them of doubtful validity. Yet, they are the main source of information for decision-making, technology generation, development programs, and education in the country. A proven way to encourage proper publication in some developing countries is to reward researchers. This is done at the University of the Philippines, which gives cash incentives for papers published in ISI-indexed journals (Chapter 7). After only three years (1999-2002) of research incentives, the number of such published papers from UP increased from 26 to 40% of the national total, which was 478 in 2002. On the other hand, the combined publication output of La Salle, Ateneo, UST, and San Carlos, during the same period, increased from 7.8 to 8.0% only of the national total. Most of the remaining publications were from IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). 18 Reforming Philippine Science Imagine the impact of giving such incentives nationwide. The DOST has enough money for this purpose. A lot of its research funds are already spent producing gray literature, which are of doubtful validity and don’t count in performance evaluation using established objective indicators. But why has the DOST not implemented a proper-publication or research-incentive program? One reason perhaps is the problem shown in Example 3. This is one problem that only you can help solve. That is if you think that proper research evaluation is a major factor for the growth of science in the Philippines. I hope you do. References (1) Lacanilao, F. RP scientists to blame for poor science (19 March 2007). Available at http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=274 http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=50 (2) Academic ranking of world universities 2006, http://www.arwu.org/rank/2006/ranking2006.html (3) Wayt Gibbs, W. l995. Lost science in the third world. Scientific American (August): 76-83 (4) Cullition, B. J. 1988. Harvard tackles the rush to publication. Science 241: 525 (5) Lacanilao, F. 1997. Continuing problems with gray literature. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 1-5. (Invited editorial) 5 50 years of DOST, 30 annual meetings of NAST Flor Lacanilao There is nothing wrong with wanting heroes in science, but we should understand the criteria used to select those whom we are asked to revere. — Robert Marc Friedman 5 July 2008. Next week the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) will again celebrate S&T week. DOST is also celebrating its 50th year and the NAST is on its 30th Annual Scientific Meeting. But through these years, as I have shown in previous articles, Asian countries have left us behind in science & technology and national progress. Our S&T performance has hardly improved in 1981 to 1995; and this poor performance would have continued if not for the publication increase from the UP in the last 10 years. The basic cause of our failure to move forward is poor evaluation of research performance (recall the essentials of the development — research, science, and technology, where research is the basic component). DOST and NAST continue to rely on peer review or personal judgment, when we don’t have enough expert “peers” to do the job. Most of those evaluating research performance in the country lack sufficient research publications in peer-reviewed international journals (simply defined as those covered in Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Citation Index) to qualify as “experts”. For example, “Silliman University Wins CHED Best Research Award” is the title of a news report (Inquirer, 3 February 2007). Note that the evaluation is at the highest levels of our research enterprise, yet none of those in the panel can be considered a well-published scientist as defined above. How then do they evaluate research output? Similarly, the DOST’s “50 great men and women of science” selected in connection with its 50th Anniversary are mostly nonscientists (1). How could it be possible that those in the panel didn’t know what the term “men or women of science” means when they established the criteria for selection? I wonder how our true scientists in the list feel being honored with such company. I would like again to call on our scientists to do something about our problems in science, first by studying carefully their basic causes in the Philippine context. (For example, is peer review, which is a common practice in developed countries, working for us?) Then they should know the adverse consequences of poor scientific practices. This will lead them to think about our poor children still suffering from malnutrition or dying of hunger and disease. What the above statement is saying is First emailed to senior officials and faculty members of the University of the Philippines, science organizations and institutions in the Philippines and abroad, columnists and other media people, and the Philmarsci yahoogroups in July 2008 20 Reforming Philippine Science that it is one thing to be a scientist and another to be a literate scientist. As one physicist asks, How can we have science literacy without literate scientists? (2) Perhaps it is appropriate to quote (in relation to Philippine science) Bruce Alberts, the new editor-inchief of Science: Why did I accept this position? In many ways I see it as an extension of my 12 years as president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). . . I soon became painfully aware of the many opportunities to spread science and scientific ways of thinking that are being missed -- in our failure to teach science as inquiry to most students, in our overly narrow definition of scientific careers in universities, and in the inadequate recognition of the truly international nature of science (3). Let me remind again our scientists, particularly the members of NAST, of what Dan Koshland, editor-in-chief emeritus of Science, said: Scientists who mute their voices to avoid irritating colleagues do not help the overall science program (4). Who else are to blame for the presence of non-scientist members and officers in our national science academy? This challenge is aimed at our NAST, which must strive to be like the US National Academy of Sciences where, “Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research” (5). This is only the first step. Then the NAST can work to become like the academies of science elsewhere in the world where, “such bodies serve to sustain excellence within the scientific community itself, to foster informed public discourse on science-related issues and to provide policymakers with sound advice on these issues, encouraging rational decision-making” (6). I think with such changes in the NAST, the DOST will be able to improve its ways of science administration. An important result of these changes shall be the beginning of an improved research environment and increased scientific knowledge to provide the raw materials for generating technologies, for improving education, and to serve as the basis for rational decision-making. Then we can look forward to catching up with neighbor countries that have left us behind. One indicator will be fewer children dying of hunger and disease. Isn’t this reason enough why you are doing or have done research? References (1) Philippine 50 great men and women of science, http://www.science.upd.edu.ph/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemid=1 (2) Perkowitz, S. 1990. How can we have science literacy without literate scientists? Scientist 4(17): 12, 3 September 1990 (3) Alberts, B. 2008. A new editor-in-chief. Science 319: 1307 (4) Koshland, D. E. 1993. Basic research (III): Priorities. Science 259:1379 (Editorial) (5) Alberts, B. and K. R. Fulton. 2005. Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership. PNAS 102: 7405-7406 (6) Africa’s academies. Nature 450: 762, 2007. (Editorial) Accessible at http://www.nature.com/ nature/journal/v450/n7171/full/450762a.html 6 Nonscientists run Philippine science academy Flor Lacanilao There is no scientist or social scientist in the seven-member Executive Council (EC) of the country’s National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST). The EC is composed of the organization’s president, vice-president, secretary, and four members. None of them has enough properly published work in science or social sciences. The same is true of past officials. No wonder the state of science in the country is so bad. And no less than 12 Asian countries have in the last 50 years left us behind. The Department of Science and Technology is 50 years old. This explains what I have been trying to point out in my papers (some of them the media would not print) — that the NAST is the major cause of the poor state of science in the country. This paper reviews what I have written about the state of Philippine science and reports the lack of valid publications among the NAST officials. The stories have been published in the Philippine Star (1), the Philippine Daily Inquirer (2), posted in websites (3), and sent by email. After four articles in the Philippine Star, the column editor informed me that many of our respected scientists found my articles adversarial and counter-productive (my fifth paper was not printed), which I argued can come only from those who do not know their science (4). Their comments partly reinforced my doubts about those running our science agencies and organizations. The papers discuss how science should be done, how science leads to national progress, how the Filipino scientific community has failed in its social responsibility, and explain the main causes of the stunted growth of Philippine science. A major culprit is the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), but the crucial proof to support it was lacking. Still, its shortcomings on the job have been evident. Unlike science academies in other countries, NAST failed to promote excellence within the scientific community, to encourage informed public debate on science-related issues (e.g., biofuels, climate change, and population control), and to provide policy-makers with sound advice for rational decision-making on such issues (5). The conclusion above was arrived at after gaining access to and evaluating data concerning scientific publications, the established indicators in evaluating performance in the sciences. In my UP Centennial paper, I started showing why NAST has not been able to do its job (6). The paper reports that most of the members and all officials of NAST did not have enough scientific publications in 1981-1997 to be in a science academy. Developments in internet technology now make possible webbased searches in international journals. This is a slightly revised version of an earlier message sent to some officials and faculty members of the University of the Philippines, science organizations and institutions in the Philippines and abroad, columnists, and other media people in September 2008; and posted at the philippinestoday.net on 10 October 2008 and bahaykuboresearch.net on 13 November 2008 22 Reforming Philippine Science Hence, on 12 September 2008, I showed that only three of eight new NAST members are internationally published scientists (7); the year before, two of four members elected could be considered nonscientists. And the following week, I presented data showing that only eight of the 27 Academicians and National Scientists in biology have at least three publications in peer-reviewed international journals as sole or lead author. And only these eight made it to a list of 58 Filipino biologists with at least three such publications (8). The list of published scientists is dominated by scientists from SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center) in Iloilo and the Marine Science Institute of the University of the Philippines who are non-NAST members. Who they are “The general administration and direction of the affairs of the Academy are vested in seven members appointed by the President of the Philippines for a three-year term. They comprise the NAST Executive Council. The officers of the Academy are elected by the general membership from the members of the Executive Council consisting of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary. They are referred to as the Executive Bureau. The Executive Council Meeting is held every second Thursday of the month. In between meetings, the Bureau meets to consider urgent matters which will be subsequently confirmed by the Executive Council.” An analysis of their publications [using Google Scholar, and only those covered in Science Citation Index (SCI) or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)] to determine their capability in science or social sciences (9) reveals that only two of the seven NAST Executive Council members have more than six publications; the rest each have 0-2. All the seven are each sole or lead author of only 0-2 publications. If one would look at the publication records of past officials of NAST, largely the same results would be obtained. The same situation is true for past and present officials of the DOST (Department of Science and Technology). Such nonscientist personalities have achieved authority, social status, and/or political power not only in the scientific and academic communities but in the country. Whenever a science-related position is to be filled, they are the first to be consulted. And when media people want a scientific opinion on important national issues, they are first to be called. Fortunately, the influence of such elements is temporary and, as more revelations are made, they will eventually be weeded out of the scientific and academic scenes. This, however, is long overdue. Culprits or victims Such publication records of the officials of our national science academy and S&T department raise serious questions concerning their ability to debate scientific issues, promote science literacy, and provide sound policy advice. These are evident in what has become of the NAST and science in the country (1 & 2). How then can we fight poverty and disease or move the country forward? Suarez & Lacanilao 23 In contrast, membership in the US National Academy of Sciences is a “widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research” and where “each member should serve as a role model for defining excellence in science for the next generation of scientists in his or her field” (10). Publication data, especially in international journals, of everyone are now available by internet search for public use. Publications in peer-reviewed international journals are important objective indicators for assessing research performance. And this tells one’s range of capability in doing science-related functions-training graduate students, disseminating scientific information, writing books, evaluating research proposals and output (e.g., for giving grants and awards), evaluating medicinal products, science administration, science policy making, participating in debates on national issues, etc. All of these are important in advancing science for national progress. The data can tell if one can properly do the job. On a national scale, this is seen in a country’s state of development or underdevelopment (9). To further illustrate the problem, examine, for example, books on great Filipino scientists or medicinal plants, but first check the publications or citations of the authors. You will find the same quality and integrity in the content. But who are really to blame? The problem is complicated and has 50 years of degenerative history. I tried to explain some circumstances, the symptoms & causes, the culprits & victims (4 & 6) — the main suspect is the Filipino scientist. For how else could a science academy have members and officials lacking a significant number of peer-reviewed, international scientific publications? But as in the nature of science, whatever problems scientists cause can also be solved by scientists. Time for a new start The Science Citation Index (SCI) covers over 3,750 journals and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), over 2,300. The SCI-indexed journals are the elite or best cited journals indexed by ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). ISI covers more than 8,000 journals, which are used in evaluating research or S&T performance that are published in the leading journals Nature and Science (e.g., 9). In top universities like Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and Cambridge, scientists use peer review to rate research performance. And the results have almost entirely been confirmed by the objective indicators — publications and citations — using Science Citation Index. Similar confirmation has also been shown for Nobel laureates in science. Those who have run our academic institutions and national organizations and agencies in science in the last 50 years have also been using peer review or personal judgment for such evaluation. But the outcomes of such evaluations are usually refuted by the same SCI-indexed indicators, because the evaluations are conducted by nonscientists (6, 7, 8, and this paper). SCI-indexed publications are the minimum requirement for doing any science-related work mentioned above. Perhaps our institutions aiming for excellence should consider shifting to SCI (publications and citations) in evaluating performance in science, engineering, and math; and for social and behavioral sciences, SSCI. They can never go wrong in the sense that these are quantitative indicators of the 24 Reforming Philippine Science quality and quantity of scientific output. No journals from the Philippines have yet met the SCI’s standards for coverage (I have seen four from the University of the Philippines Los Baños in SCI Expanded, which covers more than twice as many journals). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (De La Salle University, Manila) and Philippine Political Science Journal (University of the Philippines Diliman) are covered in SSCI. Using SCI as the standard for evaluation will enable us to begin to achieve the state of science we need for generating useful technologies and, together with technologies from developed countries, harness them for national progress (11). In university rankings, the UP can then aim to make it to the top 100 in the Asia Pacific and to the world’s top 500 (12). African countries have been establishing a strong research base through research universities and advancing science through science academies (5). If we don’t move fast, some African countries will follow Indonesia and Vietnam and leave the Philippines behind in number of scientific publications. Media’s role When a noted scientist was once asked when scientists should take a stand on an issue, he said, Correcting misleading information in the media would be a good start. It isn’t enough to do good work in the laboratory or in the field only to have it distorted in the press, he added. Such actions can only result from media and public ignorance of science caused mainly by the science academy, and reflected in our educational system. Hence, most people fail to take a scientific approach when confronted with problems or making judgments based on evidence. Instead, the public just accepts simple answers to complicated problems given by popular talk-show hosts or politicians, without any evidence. In addition, failure of science organizations and agencies to promote the public’s understanding of science has made the media people incapable of commenting on anomalies in Philippine science. This situation is unfortunate because despite the importance of some fields to national progress, only science is essential to saving the Philippines. These two — the scientists’ silence and media’s inability to report science anomalies — enable nonscientists to escape public criticism and to continue holding important science and academic positions to the detriment of Philippine science and education. Under these conditions, media people can still play an important positive role in helping disseminate scientific information to the public. Reliable sources of such information are available. Journalists have only to learn how to get them. For instance, they should start by knowing the difference between a scientific paper and an article published in the gray literature, the difference between scientists and charlatans. The scientific paper or research publication in SCI-indexed journal distinguishes the scientist from the nonscientist, not the doctoral degree. Suarez & Lacanilao 25 Journalists who are properly educated and not pressed for deadlines will have more time to search for important references (e.g., 5, 9-12). Such references, for example, will enable columnists to distinguish between symptoms and causes of national problems. They can then include in their commentaries the needed “transition from a crisis/symptom mode to a prevention/cure mode” of problem solving (13), which can have a lasting influence on government leaders. Or they can get information from review papers in international journals. Scientific review articles show which subjects have been adequately studied. They also tell which studies have been adequately verified. In science, only such verified studies are useful to the public. As a former chairperson of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission observes, The public will remain uninformed and uneducated in science until the media professionals decide otherwise, until they stop quoting charlatans and quacks, and until respected scientists speak up (14). Final word I have said enough about our problems in science (and I thank the support of many). But some say, in response, Paulit-ulit, nakakamanhid, adversarial, counter-productive, sabi ng iba. From their comments, I can judge their value to Philippine science. Let me close this by quoting Raul K. Suarez (15): We learned from Rizal’s life that it should not be considered a bad thing to write of darkness, foul air, and dirty water. Filipinos shot the messenger in 1896 and his message was censored for decades afterwards by the Church and banned in some of the best universities in the country. It is in this light that I view negative reactions to objective analyses of the state of Philippine science. How sadly counter-productive! How contrary such reactions are to the interests of the Filipino people! But for every Filipino in Rizal’s firing squad in 1896, there were thousands of others who joined the revolution. Today, for every person who does not want to read or hear of dysfunction in Philippine science, there are many more who realize that it is time for change. To our young students of science, I hope this review of the state of science in the Philippines will move you to think of it always as you pursue your career, and help the country to move forward. To my former graduate students, assistants, and colleagues at University of the Philippines (UP) Institute of Biology, UP Visayas, UP Marine Science Institute, and SEAFDEC, huwag kayong bibigay (don’t give up or go with the current). 26 Reforming Philippine Science References (1) Philippine Star R&D process (19 May 2005 & 26 May 2005) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=236 (Part 1) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=237 (Part 2) Research on medicinal plants (2 February 2006) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=238 Training graduate students (16 March 2006) http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=48 Problems with media and scientists (27 July 2006) http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=49 (2) Philippine Daily Inquirer A scientist’s thoughts on the approaching UP Centennial http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=78831 (Part 1, 26 July 2007) http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=79052 (Part 2, 27 July 2007) A jolt from the true state of science in the Philippines (11 May 2007) http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view_article.php?article_id=65347 Only science can solve poverty (21 June 2007) http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=72442 True cause of poor S&T (30 July 2007) http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view_article.php?article_id=79417 Key to real growth no longer a secret (19 January 2008) http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view_article.php?article_id=113398 No shortcut to progress (19 February 2008) http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view_article.php?article_id=119740 3) Websites Straight talk to Filipino scientists (1 March 2007) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/557 Measuring research performance (19 March 2007) http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=51 Research as principal criterion of faculty recruitment (16 June 2007) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=388 Essentials of development and the UP Centennial (15 December 2007) http://www.ovcrd.upd.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=462&Itemid=81 Straight talk 2: What more can scientists do? (15 February 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/763 Problems with writing science for the public (20 March 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/778 50 years of DOST, 30 annual meetings of NAST (5 July 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/821 Suarez & Lacanilao 27 Biofuels are as carbon-unfriendly as gasoline (13 July 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/824 The real issue in the botanic garden proposal or debate (25 July 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/838 More on UP as a research university (15 August 2008) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/857 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philmarsci/message/862 (4) RP scientists to blame for poor science (19 March 2007) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=274 http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=50 (5) Africa’s academies. Nature, 6 December 2007 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7171/full/450762a.html (6) Celebrating the UP Centennial (20 July 2007) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=479 http://www.ovcrd.upd.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=461&Itemid=81 (7) Only 3 of 8 new academicians are scientists (12 September 2008) http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=1179 http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=79 (8) Philippine science: Time for a new start (19 September 2008) www.seafdec.org.ph/news_rp_science_fresh_start.htm http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=1204 http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net/index.php?module=article&view=80 (9) The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 15 July 2004. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/430311a.html India’s R&D: Reaching for the top. Science, 4 March 2005. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5714/1415 Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market. Nature, 2 January 2008 http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080102/full/451006a.html (10) Election to the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS 102: 7405-7406, 2005 http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.full.pdf+html (11) S&T for sustainable well-being. Science, 25 January 2008: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5862/424.pdf (12) Academic Ranking of World Universities 2008 http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/EN2008.html (13) A populist movement for health. Science, 3 October 2008 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5898/15 (14) Ray, D. L. 1990. Who is to blame when the public misunderstands science? Scientist 4 (8): 17-19, 16 April. (15) Suarez, K. R. International Science: Function, dysfunction and flowers in a grassy field, Philippine Star, 5 & 12 April 2007 http://philstar.com/archives.php?aid=310356&type=1 (Part 1) http://philstar.com/archives.php?aid=311191&type=1 (Part 2) 7 Celebrating the UP centennial Flor Lacanilao If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor. —Albert Einstein The University of the Philippines is celebrating its Centennial next year. What can we say about its contribution to knowledge and to national progress, two major functions of a university? The University has produced recognized leaders of government, industry, the scientific community, and other sectors of Philippine society. Some private universities would be proud of such graduates because these would attract more students. But I think UP would be proud of its graduates if they have contributed to knowledge or national progress. When I entered UP as a freshman in 1954, there was only one UP with the main campus in Diliman, Quezon City. The Philippines was second only to Japan in Asia, we were told. UP has since grown into a system of seven constituent universities on 12 campuses, 5,000 teaching and research staff, 360 graduate programs, and 50,000 students all over the country. Now no less than 10 countries are ahead of us in Asia, in science and technology and national progress. Is the State University partly to blame? Where has UP failed? I will review the last two decades and limit myself to some blunders in science, their consequences, and the revival of academic excellence at UP. They give some simple lessons and signs of hope to help reverse what happened to our country in the last five decades. Developing capability Leaders of developed countries have long reminded their counterparts in poor countries that the best route to development is through science and technology. “America’s huge economic success comes from innovation, which is fuelled by its research enterprise. And this in turn is driven by graduate education” (1). They emphasize the sequential relations between research, science, technology, and development — the R&D process — where research is the basic component. First emailed to senior officials and faculty members of the University of the Philippines, science organizations and institutions in the Philippines and abroad, columnists, and other media people in June 2007; and posted at the philippinestoday.net and bahaykuboresearch.net on 27 July 2007, and University of the Philippines Diliman website 30 Reforming Philippine Science I think the University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD) established the College of Science in 1983 along these ideas. This will be one focus of my discussion. The College objective, often repeated by its first dean, was to have an all-PhD faculty. The problem here is that the PhD degree, under existing conditions, merely reflects capability (promise) and does not guarantee performance (contribution to knowledge). By 1993 over 70 PhDs were added to the faculty of UPD College of Science, making a total of 101 PhDs or half of its teaching force (College of Science General Information, 1993-1994). Most of them were products of the UP’s own graduate programs. Further, the College granted over 500 advanced degrees, including 133 PhDs, from 1985 to 1994. Other major colleges of UP have greatly increased these figures, thus boosting the University’s and the country’s R&D capability during the 90s. At the national level, the National Science Development Board, established in 1958, was transformed into the National Science and Technology Authority in 1982, and elevated to the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in 1987. The University’s graduates and staff have dominated the management of this national agency. The DOST launched the Science and Technology Master Plan 1990-2000. Its 1991 budget doubled to P1.7 billion in 1992, went up to P2.4 billion in 1993, and to P3.2 billion in 1995 (The S&T Post, October 1995). These are other means of improving capability. Some of our neighbor countries also launched their development programs to advance S&T. When Singapore was developing its industrial base in the ’60s and ’70s, for example, its government relied much on the country’s scientists (internationally-published researchers, not to be confused with unpublished PhDs) and focused on developing S&T. Measuring performance Meanwhile, over the last 50 years, a revolutionary indexing system for the S&T literature was being developed and refined through the initiative of Eugene Garfield, founder of the Institute for Scientific Information or ISI (2). It was later enriched with the help of a few others, notably Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg of molecular genetics fame. Citation indexes were issued and “led to wholly new ways of searching the literature and understanding the structure of scientific knowledge.” An example is the Science Citation Index (SCI). The SCI introduced new ways to evaluate research. The number of publications indexed in SCI later evolved into a common indicator of research and S&T performance. Using this indicator, for example, the Scientific American ranks the Philippines in 1995 as number 60 in the world (3). With publication data from the same influential index, the journal Science reports in 1995 and 2005 the rapid progress of science in China and India (4, 5). And the journal Nature compares in 2004 the quality of research in 31 countries using ISI’s publication and citation data (6). Suarez & Lacanilao 31 The national total of listed papers in the SCI has been widely used to assess a country’s research performance and estimate the productivity of its scientists. This has been widely accepted to show the state of science and technology and economic development or underdevelopment. The database of the ISI expanded into other fields, like social sciences, arts, and humanities, leading to other ISI indexes — SCI Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). These major indexes of ISI have become the preferred sources of information (publications, citations, etc.) for searching the literature and measuring research performance in all fields, not only of countries but also of universities, other institutions, and individuals. They transformed the way researchers work. They also made it easier to define what an international refereed or peer-reviewed journal is, especially in poor and developing countries; i.e., those covered by SCI, SCIE, SSCI, or AHCI. With this development, it has been easier to search the literature backward and forward and evaluate research performance with objective indicators. Sadly, many continue to use “reputable” or “prestigious” journal in rating publications without a useful definition of these terms. Capability vs. performance . During its first 10 years, the number of papers produced per PhD in the UPD College of Science increased to a yearly average of 4.7 in 1991-1993 (Table 1). Only a third of this was published, however. And the percentage that appeared in ISI-indexed journals was reduced through the years to 15 in 1991-1993 - only 5% of the total number of papers produced. Two academic institutions abroad, with related disciplines like those of the UPD College of Science, had SCI-indexed publications consisting of 52% and 83% of published papers. They are the Faculty of Science of the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the University of California at San Diego (NUS Bulletin of the Faculty of Science 1988-1993 and Scripps Annual Reports 1990-1992). The average yearly publications per PhD from NUS were more than 10 times those of the UPD College of Science, or 2.53 against 0.24. UP Diliman produced 27 ISI-indexed publications in 1995. All of these were from the College of Science, 15 of them from the Marine Science Institute. The outputs of UP Los Banos, UP Manila, and UP Visayas were 16, 14, and 3, respectively. Note that UP had nearly 4,500 teaching and research staff during this time, more than half of them with graduate degrees. On the other hand, with only about 60 PhDs, the Los Baños-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) produced 106 ISI-indexed publications in 1995. The big difference is partly explained by the teaching load at UP. But how many more are in the research staff? 32 Reforming Philippine Science The main reason is of course the numerous papers that UP produced but do not count because they are unpublished papers and gray literature (published papers without adequate peer review and not widely accessible for international scrutiny and verification of results). In the UPD College of Science, they constituted 95% of the total (Table 1). Production of such papers continued because the University rewarded their authors. One of the most outstanding Filipino scientists who has done his work in the Philippines was produced by IRRI. Dr. Bienvenido Juliano is the only Filipino listed in the ISI Highly Cited Researchers since 1981. These consist of 6,520 scientists worldwide in 21 categories in life sciences, medicine, physical sciences, engineering, and social sciences. Singapore is the only other ASEAN country included, with four highly cited researchers from NUS. (See: http://isihighlycited.com.) Since the UP Diliman College of Science had the highest college output (27 publications against 33 for the rest of UP in 1995), representing only 5% of papers produced, the College could also have spent the most amount of time and money for unpublished papers and gray literature. Yet in 1997 when my professorial chair was up for renewal at the UPD College of Science, I filled out the appropriate blanks for international publications, got rid of the rest of the form’s pages that I considered irrelevant, and submitted only that one page with two to three lines filled out. I lost my professorial chair (which I don’t recall how I got). The problems described above were prevalent throughout the University. The major cause was the failure to use objective indicators to evaluate research proposals and output. The common way of evaluation was peer judgment or expert opinion, despite the lack or complete absence of expert, wellpublished “peers” in many areas of science. Table 1. Number of papers produced by PhDs in the College of Science faculty, University of the Philippines Diliman (Yearly mean per PhD) Period Number of PhDs Total of papers produced Number of papers published ISI-indexeda Percentb 1985-1987 42 2.60 1.23 0.30 24 1988-1990 67 3.74 1.68 0.31 18 1991-1993 89 4.74 1.60 0.24 15 Data from the Dean’s Office. An earlier version of this table was published in Diliman Review 47(2):11-18, 1999. aIn journals covered by the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information. bOf published papers. Suarez & Lacanilao 33 Poor rating in university rankings? In the ranking of world universities, the criteria used may be grouped into expert opinion, capability indicators, and performance indicators. Two rankings that widely attracted the attention of policy makers, the academic community, and the media are the THES-QS World University Rankings from 2004 and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s “Academic Ranking of World Universities” from 2003. The THES-QS rankings used largely: (40%) expert opinion (20%) faculty/student ratio (20%) other non-performance indicators (20%) research citations which are the only objective indicator of academic performance (7). Four Philippine universities made it to the world’s top 500. Their rankings: University of the Philippines 299, De La Salle University 392, Ateneo de Manila University 484, University of Santo Tomas 500. Expert opinion has been shown to have no correlation with bibliometric scores. “We criticize the recent expert-based rankings by showing that the correlation of expert score and bibliometric outcomes is practically zero. This finding casts severe doubts on the reliability of these expert-based rankings” (8). The rankings done by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003-2006, on the other hand, used only objective indicators of academic and research performance (9). The study used the following: (30%) alumni and staff winning prizes and awards (20%) articles covered in major citation indexes (20%) highly cited researchers (20%) articles published in the journals Nature and Science (10%) per capita academic performance of an institution. The source of publication and citation data was ISI’s database and major indexes — Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index. In these rankings, no university in the Philippines has yet made the top 100 in the Asia Pacific or in the top 500 in the world. The above examples show the general weakness in academic or research performance of Philippine universities compared with their academic capabilities. 34 Reforming Philippine Science Philippines’ S&T performance The national publication output would be a reflection of that at UP. Among seven nations in the region — Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines — we had the least progress in S&T between 1981 and 1995 (10, 11). Our Asian neighbors had 37-300% increases in ISI-indexed publications in 1994-1995 over their 1981-1992 average figures; the Philippines performance increased by only 7%. Smaller Taiwan had 23 times and tiny Singapore had 6 times more publications than the Philippines, which had 20 times more people than Singapore in 1995. Recent ISI data show that Vietnam has already passed the Philippines in number of publications. Whereas we relied mainly on internal peer judgment, the countries above, which have left us behind, used the established indicators — publications in peer-reviewed international journals — to measure performance and progress. Despite its poor S&T performance in 1981-1995, the DOST placed a 33-page advertisement in the Scientific American in February 1996 under the banner “Globally Competitive Philippines.” It claims pioneering efforts in metals technology, materials science, electronics, information technology, “and, most especially, biotechnology.” Who were we kidding? Using SCI-indexed publications, the same science magazine ranked the Philippines’ S&T performance a poor number 60 in the world in 1995, below all the countries mentioned above except Indonesia (3). The advertisement must have cost the country millions of pesos and worldwide embarrassment. Resorting to publicity and claims of achievements will not improve performance. UP and national progress The crucial role of science and technology in economic transformation was again shown by the rapid growth of China, which has become the fifth leading nation in terms of its share of the world’s scientific publications (12). On the other hand, the Philippines performance in S&T, which was partly the fault of the University of the Philippines, demonstrates the Philippines’ lack of the requisite research ability and political leadership such a transformation needs. UNDP’s Human Development Reports using social and economic indicators show a nation’s development compared with those of others. Among 177 countries and territories in 1997 and 1998, the Philippines ranked number 77, but this dropped to number 83-85 in 2000-2004. Other indicators may show the Philippines to be in a worse situation. For example, “We could abandon gross national product (GNP) as an indicator of economic wellbeing; it suggests to the consumer that our economies need take no account of sustainability. In the United States, per capita GNP rose by 49% during 1976-98, whereas per capita ‘genuine progress’ (the economy’s output with environmental and social costs subtracted and added weight given to education, health, etc.) declined by 30%” (13). Suarez & Lacanilao 35 Why has NAST failed? The foregoing sections show that UP’s poor S&T performance in the 80s and 90s must have influenced national progress. Here I show the nature of that influence. Crucial to a country’s economic transformation is the role played by its national academy of science. In the Philippines this is the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), which is mandated “to advise the President and the Cabinet on matters related to science and technology.” Hence, it is mainly responsible for the DOST’s administration of science in the Philippines. As a national academy of science, the NAST should not only provide extensive policy advice to the government, but must also be active in policy debates related to science-based programs. It should play a major role in economic reform and social transformation. It should promote science literacy, especially among government and industry leaders, and ensure that scientific research is incorporated into all of the country’s development strategies. With UP graduates and staff dominating the NAST membership and officers, why has it failed in its national functions? Perhaps the best way to explain this is to look at the individual performance of its members in science and social sciences. Note that the number of ISI-indexed publications is the established measure of research and S&T performance, not only of countries and organizations but also of individuals. For example, only seven of NAST’s 50 members in 1998 have enough ISI-indexed publications in 1981-1997 to be considered scientists (Table 2). None of its presidents is among them. Over a third of its members have had no publications during these 16.5 years. Neither can publications in the ‘60s and ‘70s of most of its older members, including national scientists, compare with those of the top seven NAST members. For a national science academy, this profile is indeed a very sad reflection of its criteria for electing members. The good news is that our most outstanding scientists are its members; seven of them are shown in Table 2. Foremost are BO Juliano of the International Rice Research Institute, LJ Cruz and ED Gomez of the UP Diliman Marine Science Institute, who continue to publish after retirement. Other scientists and nonscientists have since 1998 been elected to NAST. The outstanding scientists among them are C Saloma of the UP Diliman National Institute of Physics, AC Alcala of Silliman University, and CC Bernido of the Research Center for Theoretical Physics at Central Visayas Institute in Bohol. They strengthen the organization, but there are not enough of them to make a difference. In making decisions, they are outnumbered by the dominant unpublished and poorly published members and officers. We often hesitate to speak of serious problems, especially if the problems are people, because we don’t want to offend anyone. We forget that problems will remain and give rise to other problems if we don’t talk and do something about them. Are we more concerned about the feelings of culprits rather than the persistent poverty in our country? As an editor-in chief emeritus of Science says, Scientists who mute their voices to avoid irritating colleagues do not help the overall science program (14). 36 Reforming Philippine Science Table 2. Published members in international refereed journals in 1981-1997 of the 50 members of the National Academy of Science and Technology in 1998 Academician Year elected Number of publicationsa Total As sole or lead author 1. Juliano BO 2. Cruz LJ 3. Gomez ED 4. Domingo EO 5. Fabella RV 6. Garcia EG 7. Encarnacion J 1979 1987 1993 1992 1995 1987 1979 107 40 28 27 14 30 8 30 10 13 9 14 6 8 Of the 50 members in 1998, 25 had less than six published papers as sole or lead author, 18 did not have any published paper in ISI-indexed journals in 1981-1997. SaPouubrclies:hNedatpioanpaelrsCwitiatthioPnhRiliepppoirnte(1a9d8d1re-sJsuense 1997), Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia We have other outstanding scientists who have not been elected to NAST. No less than 15 of them have scientific publications in 1981-1997 within the range of the best seven of the NAST members shown in Table 2. Two of the four members elected in 2007 were among them. Two others, however, were poorly published — raising more doubts about NAST’s criteria for electing members. Consider how the U.S. National Academy of Sciences elects new members (15). “A formal nomination can be submitted only by an Academy member. Each nomination includes a brief curriculum vitae plus a 250-word statement of the nominee’s scientific accomplishments — the basis for election — and a list of not more than 12 publications. The latter limit helps to focus on the quality of a nominee’s work, rather than the number of publications”. The reason why members are carefully chosen is to ensure that “each member should serve as a role model for defining excellence in science for the next generation of scientists in his or her field.” “Scientific accomplishment” as the basis for election to the U.S. academy of science does not necessarily include science administration. In developed countries, a science administrator may also become a member of a national science academy. In those countries, they are well-published scientists first before they become science administrators. This is rarely seen in the Philippines. Yet past heads of the DOST are among NAST members. “From global terrorism and the spread of disease to the dangers of global warming, we are increasingly facing the sorts of threats for which governments everywhere will need to turn to their scientists” (6). But with the above picture of NAST membership and leadership, how can we rely on this important national science organization to effectively address these threats? The NAST is the basic cause of the country’s poor state of S&T. And UP is partly responsible. Suarez & Lacanilao 37 Reviewing poor performance A lot of money has been spent for funding research proposals, research honoraria, professorial chairs, and faculty grants to researchers without published papers in international peer-reviewed journals. They have hardly taught recipients how to do research properly. They led instead to continued production of unpublished studies, institutional publications, and other gray literature, earning promotion or even awards for the authors. An example is the award given by NAST to authors of winning papers published in Philippine journals. International scientists searching the literature don’t find most of these papers because they are largely not covered by widely used indexes. If they ever find them, these are largely ignored by established scientists and institutions around the world. The papers are largely of doubtful scientific value or contribution to knowledge. Their manuscripts have not passed adequate peer review, and published results are not easily accessible for peer verification. Hence, a former editor-in-chief of the leading journal Nature says, only international publications are taken seriously (16). Authors of many local books cite such unpublished papers and gray literature (from project reports, institutional publications, conference proceedings books, and local journals), which often dominate the list of references (17). In some of these books, not a single international journal paper by the author is cited. Some training and extension manuals by local authors don’t have a single ISI-indexed reference listed. The quality and integrity of a publication depend on the quality of the bibliography (18). An even worse practice is to use unpublished data for policy-making and development programs. Totally ignoring the established procedures of scientific research (which has over three centuries of developing tradition), the practice is common in local projects because of contractual demands from the government funding agencies. Some seekers of high positions even include a long list of “unpublished research” among their achievements. I remember two candidates for the UP presidency who included this in their CVs published in the UP Newsletter sometime in 1993. The causes of poor practices are the following: (a) PhD students are not required to publish their theses, when working on the thesis is meant as training for research, and research is not completed until it is published properly, (b) government research honoraria require only progress or final reports, (c) peer judgement is the main basis for funding research proposals and rating output, and (d) gray literature earns for the author recognition and benefits. These four causes of poor performance continued with hardly any changes. Faculty members became full professors without any indication of contribution to knowledge or publication in international peer-reviewed journals. This is despite the fact that ISI’s indexes have been out there and have been used by progressive countries for many years. If only part of the nearly P2 billion increase in the budget of the DOST from 1991 to 1993 was used as incentives (e.g., for research proposal and output), the state of S&T at the University of the Philippines and in the country would have been different. And economic growth would have taken a different turn. “The alternatives are clear: keep up or be left behind.” 38 Reforming Philippine Science Table 3. Number of ISI-indexed papers produced by the UPD College of Science (yearly averages) Year 1994 2000-2001 2005-2006 Physics (25) 8 20.5 18.5 Marine Science (17) Institute or Department Geology Chemistry Biology (18) (32) (20) 11 0 2 3 19 9.5 8.5 2.5 15 13 6 6.5 Others (47) 0b 7c 6c Totala (159) 24 62 65 Data from Science Citation Index (1994 figures) and College of Science Annual Report SY 2006-2007 (2000-2001 & 2005-2006 figures). cb(aMCM)o,aarnttrhhueeemcmmtebaadettriitccoosstf,aapEln,rndosvifnMeircsoeesnotpemrouse,rbonaliltscoasalgotyScio.icanitesencpcoerao&ufethsMsooreertsde,obarynodltowagsoys,iisnMtsatoniltteupcteursolafaerrseBsoieonrlstoeigrneydth&tewBsiecicoeot.encdhnseomloegsyte, ranAdYNa2t0u0r6al-2S0c0ie7n. ce Research Institute. Renaissance The revival of scholarship in UP had to come. A major development was the proper use of research funds. And this was focused on funding only properly published researchers and rewarding authors of valid publications. The beginning of the 21st century was also the start of the revival of academic excellence in UP. The number of UP’s scholarly publications covering all fields increased two-fold in 2002 to 190. This was 40% of the national total, up from 25% in 1997-1999. The increase was largely due to the P50,000 reward given for every ISI-indexed paper published from 1999. On the other hand, the combined publication output of De La Salle University, Ateneo de Manila University, University of Santo Tomas, and University of San Carlos during the same period increased from 7.8 to 8.0% only of the national total. Sooner or later, they are likely to join UP in this scientific revolution. In the UP Diliman College of Science, the increased number of publications is seen in more detail in Table 3. All the constituent units greatly increased their number of publications over the 1994 figures. Note the College total of 62 valid publications at the turn of the century. As noted earlier, the entire UP in 1995 produced only 60 such publications. Given the difficulty of sustaining creativity on an empty stomach, the cash incentive brought some relief and made a significant change in the evaluation practice — the key to better performance. It also ensured that money spent for research produced scholarly publications. Let me quote a former colleague about rewarding researchers: Suarez & Lacanilao 39 UP professors are very much underpaid and the general public does not realize how difficult it is to raise a family on a UP salary alone. Why would young people aspire to become publishing UP professors if they see that their mentors can barely make ends meet? What role models would they have if most professors do not publish and recite ‘science lessons’ from textbooks, rather than doing it themselves? It is in this context that ‘financial inducements’ for doing research of an international caliber and publishing in peer-reviewed international journals make sense. “You shouldn’t have to bribe people to be researchers; however, human nature being what it is, most people will put their energy into rewarded rather than unrewarded activities” (19). At the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, the requirement of ISI-indexed publication for promotion was introduced in 1986 and for a cash incentive — 50% of the researcher’s annual salary — in 1989 (3). By 1993, the average number of publications per researcher increased seven-fold. The all-Filipino staff consisting of 50 researchers, with only 9 PhDs, published an average of 0.77 papers per researcher per year. Among Philippine R&D organizations and academic institutions, only UP Diliman Marine Science Institute achieved comparable performance at the time. There have also been increased publications in international journals from Latin American countries, whose government funding agencies gave research incentives (3). Incentives were in the form of increased salary (e.g., Mexico) or lucrative fellowships (e.g., Brazil) to scientists who published in international peer-reviewed journals. As much as four-fold increase in publications has been reported in Brazil. Three universities (Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina) have made the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s (SJTU) top 200 in the world in 2006. Three others (Brazil, Chile) are in the top 500. None from the Philippines has yet made it to the SJTU’s top 500. Another significant development in the University was the inclusion in 2001 of UPLB’s Philippine Agricultural Scientist (PAS) among ISI’s nearly 6,000 journals indexed in SCI Expanded. A part of UP’s publication increase in 2002 was through this journal, which is the Philippines’ only ISIindexed journal in science since 1984. The Philippine Journal of Science could have joined the PAS as the Philippines’ second international journal and boosted the revival of science. Through the initiative of some scientists from UP Diliman, the new PJS was launched with 35 international scientists in the editorial board headed by Dr. Lourdes Cruz. Some 15 Filipinos in the board were based in the country. The journal could have easily been ISI-indexed with three or four issues. But after two issues in 1999, the editors gave up in frustration with the DOST, which did not give the support expected of a national agency for science. The Philippines used to have three ISI-indexed journals, all from UP — Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Philippine Journal of Internal Medicine, and Kalikasan — until the early 80s. They could not maintain the required standard for ISI coverage. The research incentives have proven to be a more effective way of learning and doing research properly. There are thousands of journals out there that can publish our papers — SCI Expanded covers nearly 6,000 journals; Social Science Citation Index, over 1,700 (including one from the Philippines); and Arts & Humanities Citation Index, over 1,100. There are more than enough journals in one’s field to choose from, without page charges. 40 Reforming Philippine Science Papers published in ISI-indexed journals are assured of superior quality, of reaching more scientists for verification of results, and a permanent place in the scientific literature or in those of the social sciences and humanities. Only research output published in such journals should be considered useful for policy-making, education, development programs, and generating useful technologies. There is no shortcut for an underdeveloped country. We cannot get the full benefits of technologies from developed countries without knowing how to do research properly. Otherwise using foreignmade technologies would have made ours a developed country by now. But we never seem to learn our lessons. Now that UP has shown it can do science, the NAST should review its criteria for membership, and the DOST should change its ways of science administration. The tax-paying public is entitled to the benefits of science and reducing poverty is long overdue. Was there a golden age? If there was a Golden Age, it would have been sometime during UP’s first 50 years. At the end of this period we were second to Japan in Asia. I don’t know how they measured UP’s performance and what criteria were used for developing academic excellence. A golden age could not have been in the second half of the last century as this was the time some Asian countries left us behind. At the conference to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Nature in 1994, the speakers agreed on the conditions for excellence (20). Among them are the following: First, excellence should be the primary criterion in decisions on appointments and funding. Second, excellence in research is not an excuse for mediocrity in teaching. Third, regular and objective assessment of research and teaching is essential. There are four other conditions including networking internationally, which is crucial. The development of objective indicators of academic performance in all fields was established over the last 50 years. When these indicators (e.g., number of ISI-indexed publications) are used to assess our recognized scholars and academic leaders, including national scientists, most of them fail to measure up to their status and reputation. Their absence in Table 2 is an example. Another commonly used indicator of performance is the number of publication citations (6, 21, 22). When divided by the number of publications, it gives some measure of the quality of the average paper. It is a widely used objective measure of quality. Citation analysis gives an estimate of one’s contribution to knowledge. Using the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index, I found only two past UP presidents from the 80s and 90s who can be considered scholars and academic leaders — Dr. Jose Abueva and Dr. Francisco Nemenzo. The revival of scholarship at UP actually started in 1993, when President Abueva launched the incentive program, which gave P30,000 for outstanding publications. It was timely because the DOST had increased its budget three-fold from 1991 to 1993. And UP could have easily asked DOST for additional support for rewarding researchers and making scientists out of them. Suarez & Lacanilao 41 But the innovative program was stopped when Dr. Emil Javier assumed the UP presidency in 1993. The revival or beginning of true scholarship at UP had to wait 6 more years. So did the UP’s national impact at the time when DOST had plenty of money — four-fold increase in its budget from 1991 to 1995. The research incentive was restored only in 1999 when President Nemenzo took over and raised the amount to P50,000 (later further raised to P55,000) per published paper in ISI-indexed journals. What better way is there to use research funds effectively than to ensure the desired output and achieve academic excellence? Perhaps the government saw that the increased funds for S&T in 1991-1995 did not bring about the expected results, the DOST budget started declining from 1996. But now increased S&T funding would be justified because of the changes happening in research and development programs started by UP. It took the social scientists Abueva and Nemenzo to see the importance of proper research publication to promote scholarship and advance scientific knowledge essential to national progress. The setback in the growth of UP’s academic performance from 1993-1999, and a lost opportunity for national impact, will be recorded in a properly-written history of UP, archived for future scholars who will make objective assessments of academic leadership and excellence in the University of the Philippines. Acknowledgment I thank Dr. Gil Jacinto of the UP Marine Science Institute for helping in the ISI data search and Dr. Jurgenne Primavera of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center in the Philippines for reading the manuscript. 42 Reforming Philippine Science References (1) Bhattacharjee, Y. How to hone U.S. graduate schools. ScienceNOWDaily News, 26 April 2007 (2) Arunachalam, S. 2005. Fifty years of citation indexing. Current Science 89: 10 (3) Wayt Gibbs, W. l995. Lost science in the Third World. Scientific American (August): 76-83 (4) Mervis, J. and J. Kino. 1995. Science in China: a great leap forward. Science 270: 1131-1152 (5) Mashelkar, R.A. 2005. India’s R&D: Reaching for the top. Science 307: 1415-1417 (6) King, D.A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316 (7) http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/faqs/ (8) The challenges of university ranking, International Symposium, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 16 February 2006 (9) Cheng, Y. and N.C. Liu. 2006. A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using Scientometrics Scientometrics 68: 135-150. Also posted at http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking 2006.htm (10) Garfield, E. 1993. A citationist perspective on science in Taiwan, 1981-1992. Current Contents 24(17): 3-12, April 26 (11) ISI’s Science Citation Index, 1994 & January-November 1995 (12) Zhou, Z. and L. Leydesdorff. 2006. The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy 35: 83-104 (13) Myers, N. 2000. Sustainable consumption. Science 287: 2419 (14) Koshland, D. E. 1993. Basic research (III): Priorities. Science 259: 1379. (Editorial) (15) Alberts, B. and K.R. Fulton. 2005. Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership. PNAS 102: 7405-7406 (16) Maddox, J. 1995. Center for research excellence replicates. Nature 374: 403 (17) Lacanilao, F. 1997. Continuing problems with gray literature. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 1-5. (Invited editorial) (18) Kochen, M. 1987. How well do we acknowledge intellectual debts? Journal of Documentation 43: 54-64 (19) Johnston, T. D. 1991. Evaluating teaching. Science 251: 1547 (20) Maddox, J. 1994. How to pursue academic excellence. Nature 372: 721-723 (21) May, R. M. 1997. The scientific wealth of nations. Science 275: 793-796 (22) Warner, J. 2000. Research assessment and citation analysis. Scientist 14: 39 8 Research as the principal criterion for faculty recruitment Flor Lacanilao It is doubtful that great progress can be made at the primary and secondary levels until a higher standard of science learning is set at the post-secondary level. — Carl Wieman, Nobel laureate in physics The concept of research and teaching under one roof was envisioned by the Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who founded the University of Berlin in 1810 (1). It gave the students direct access to the leading researchers and thinkers of the time. The scientists, in return, would benefit from the critical inquiries of their students. Humboldt’s idea proved to be so successful that the University of Berlin changed its name to Humboldt University in 1949 to honor its founder. The university quickly became a renowned institution, which attracted many internationally known influential thinkers and scientists. Hence, the relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness has led to the development of research universities. And studies from this development have shown that (a) the two are positively correlated — teaching effectiveness benefits from research productivity (b) research and teaching as complementary activities is central to the idea of the modern university (c) these two activities are so mutually reinforcing that they must coexist in the same institutions The University of the Philippines has recently been mandated as the National University. This is timely in view of the significant improvement in its research performance in recent years. And to truly function as such, it has to develop into a research university. This would require some changes in academic programs like faculty development and recruitment. Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University, says that research is no longer an ancillary function of the university and that it is the principal criterion for faculty recruitment to major universities (2). It is also the most objective and reliable criterion for faculty promotion. Assistant professors are typically hired without teaching experience — this is learned on the job! A shorter version of this paper was sent to the director and faculty of the Institute of Biology of the University of the Philippines Diliman, and selected officials and faculty members of the UP system in June 2007. It was later posted at philippinestoday.net on 16 June 2007 44 Reforming Philippine Science In our hiring practice, however, teaching remains the principal criterion, even when there is hardly an established measure of teaching performance. We often consider length of teaching experience more important than research track record, not knowing whether candidates for faculty positions may have been bad teachers. But even if they could give good seminars at job interviews, would such faculty recruits meet the requirements of proper science education? Will they give students a deeper understanding of the world around them? Will they be able to make sound recommendations on critical matters of public policy? Can they make the students more creative and effective in their future work? According to Carl Wieman, a Nobel laureate in physics, Science education research clearly shows that a true understanding of science, as demonstrated by how it is practiced, is not merely about learning information. Rather, it is about developing a way of thinking about a discipline that reflects a particular perception of how ‘knowledge’ is established, its extent and limitations, how it describes nature and how it can be usefully applied in a variety of contexts (3). Wieman continues, that developing such a way of thinking is a profoundly different experience from learning a set of facts — as what students learn from our current way of teaching science — and requires very different teaching skills. This is the reason why research and teaching, which are so mutually reinforcing, must coexist in the same institutions. The lack of emphasis on research is the reason why we don’t make it in academic rankings of world universities if indicators for research performance are used. In a respected university ranking being done by a leading Chinese university since 2003, for example, using publications in journals covered in the major ISI indexes — Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index — none from the Philippines has yet made the top 100 in the Asia Pacific or in the world’s top 500 (4). Another common practice at our universities is to choose the needed field of specialization over research track record. We prefer the major field of the applicant based on the graduate thesis over his or her research experience and published work. Overlooked is the scientist’s creativity and ability to teach a related undergraduate course, as long as this is within the same major field (e.g., biology). Some famous scientists changed fields to maintain their creativity. Darwin, for example, worked on unrelated disciplines — including psychology, geology, genetics, taxonomy, and ecology — to continue being productive (5). He wrote books on origin of coral atolls, geology of South Africa, pollination of orchids, ecology of earthworms, evolution, human emotions, taxonomy of barnacles, and movement in plants. The following paragraph from Craig Loehle makes the point (5): The current system seeks to fill all the square holes with square pegs.The biology department wants one geneticist, one physiologist, and one ecologist, but they don’t want three generalists who would work in all three areas. In what department would one put Darwin: genetics, geology, taxonomy, or ecology? Should Goethe be in the literature, biology, physics, or philosophy department? He actually was most proud of his work on optics, though that work was largely flawed. Would Newton and Fisher find comfortable academic niches today? The current rigid departmental system is confining to the truly creative person and discourages the vitally important cross-fertilization of models, data, techniques and concepts between disciplines. Suarez & Lacanilao 45 The Institute of Biology at UP Diliman made the first step towards reform in 2005 and 2006 when it hired two well-published PhDs. They are among the best published members of the faculty not only in that institute but in the entire College of Science (6). There are more of their kind out there who may be willing to serve as faculty members at UP. I suggest you don’t wait for applicants; instead, actively search for them. Now that UP is rewarding those who publish in peer-reviewed international journals, making research the chief criterion of hiring will be consistent with this development. Hiring a PhD without primary publications in peer-reviewed international journals should therefore be avoided. References (1) Arai, K., T. Cech, J.L. Chameau. 2007. The future of research universities. EMBO Reports 8: 804-810 (2) Lederberg, J. 1989. Does scientific progress come from projects or people? Current Contents ABES 20(48): 4-12 (3) Wieman, C. E. Reinventing science education requires a scientific approach. Taipei Times, 15 February 2008. Available at http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/ editorials/archives/2008/02/15/2003401383 (4) Cheng, Y. and N.C. Liu. 2006. A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using Scientometrics. Scientometrics 68: 135-150. See also an updated “Academic ranking of world universities” at, http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/EN2008.htm (5) Loehle, C. 1990. A guide to increased creativity in research — inspiration or perspiration? BioScience 40: 123-129 (6) Lacanilao, F. 2008. Philippine science: Time for a fresh start. Available at http://www.seafdec.org.ph/news_rp_science_fresh_start.htm and http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=1204 9 Problems preventing academic reforms Flor Lacanilao And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. — John 8:32 Academic excellence has always been the dream of every UP official and faculty member. Effort has been directed to improve teaching and research as far back as many alumni can recall. Programs include curriculum revision, institution or abolition of academic degrees, providing incentives through honoraria and chairs, policy reform, opening of campuses throughout the country, and giving equal opportunities for admission of students from all sectors of society. Finally, at the start of this century, UP realized that an essential component of real academic reform is significant improvement in research performance — vital to UP’s role as the National University. Some improvements have been brought about by cash incentives given for publications that meet internationally accepted criteria. As mentioned in Chapter 7, incentives in the form of increased salary and research fellowships abroad have also been effective in increasing research publications in some Latin American countries. And in China, young talents are attracted into science by providing them with an environment that brings out the best creative ideas in them (1). The cash incentive resulted in UP’s publications increasing to 40% of the national total in 2002, up from 25% in 1997-1999. (The combined publication output of La Salle, Ateneo, UST, and San Carlos during the same period increased from 7.8 to 8.0% of the national total.) The rest was largely contributed by IRRI. The incentive program for publications was accompanied by the introduction of a reliable and objective method of evaluating research performance. Foremost is the use of peer-reviewed international journals as the standard for research publications; in particular, journals indexed by Thomson ISI. The incentive also reduced the waste resulting from research funds being allocated to support projects that generate only gray literature. Such reduction in waste would justify an increase in research funding. An earlier version of this paper was sent to selected officials and faculty members of the University of the Philippines, Filipino science organizations here and abroad, local R&D institutions, and posted at several websites in June-July 2009 48 Reforming Philippine Science While reform in performance evaluation is ongoing, other problems that continue to hold back UP’s academic growth are still awaiting determined action. Major problems, true also in all universities in the country, are discussed and important references to proposed solutions are provided in “Celebrating the UP Centennial” (Chapter 7). I will review some of the important problems. I see these as a hindrance to developing a research university, crucial if UP is to function as a true National University. Let me again quote this, America’s huge economic success comes from innovation, which is fueled by its research enterprise. And this in turn is driven by graduate education (2). This reminds us of a university’s role in economic transformation. The ongoing reform in research, which is toward this end, should be pursued relentlessly and should focus on some practices that obstruct the overall program of change. Such practices are still prevalent in the University, and they cancel out most of the gains. Let me first sum up some vital features of doing research designed for developing countries. Properly done research is published in adequately peer-reviewed journals, which are widely accessible for international scrutiny and confirmation of published results. The important ones are covered in Science Citation Index, SCI Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. These indexes have been the recognized sources of publication and citation data, which are used in evaluating academic performance when ranking nations, universities, and individuals. In a developing country, there is hardly any better alternative measure of academic performance than publications in such journals. “Getting scientific papers published in international journals is essential for researchers from Boston to Beijing” (3). The number and quality of publications are important indicators in rating performance. One way of assessing quality is the number of times research articles are cited. (Note that in research universities of developed countries, the preferred way to assess the merit of a paper is peer review or personal judgment, since they have enough experts in all fields.) The number of publications and citations obtained from the indexes mentioned above would also serve as measures of competence to do other academic work — training graduate students, reviewing manuscripts, evaluating research proposals & publications (for giving grants, promotion, or awards), disseminating information (as in writing books and extension manuals), administrating, policymaking, and participating in debates on national issues. They also measure the transparency in evaluation, funding, recruitment and promotion policies, and assess national frameworks for science policy (4). All of these are important means of advancing and showing academic excellence and nation building. The publication and citation data are also effective tools for periodic checks of a university’s performance or for monitoring progress. The data will also show a country’s state of human development (5 and Chapter 3). Suarez & Lacanilao 49 Counter-productive practices A common practice in many poor countries is to judge a graduate degree as an achievement. Although a graduate degree is an indicator of qualification or capability, a holder of a graduate degree with an unpublished thesis is poorly prepared for research and training of graduate students. The thesis is meant as training for research, which is completed only when published properly. Hence, a graduate degree with unpublished thesis implies an unfinished graduate training. Such unpublished degree holders, even PhDs, don’t get faculty positions or research grants in leading universities abroad. Whereas a PhD degree is an indicator of qualification or capability, what is important is performance, as indicated by valid research publications. Such confusion between qualification and capability (e.g., based on possession of a degree) and performance (based on the objective measures outlined above) continues at UP and in other universities. It is often seen in performance reports. Indicators of qualification or capability include advanced degrees, coworkers, counterpart funds, support facilities & equipment, curricular reform, and improved ways of administration & financial management. Academic performance, on the other hand, is measured by indicators like valid publications, citations, and major prizes. An international research grant is sometimes listed as an indicator of performance. In a UP Centennial lecture, the speaker kept referring to academic performance and excellence, but these were based only on improved capability or qualification for academic functions like those given above. No indicator or measure of performance was mentioned that would clearly show academic progress in the institution. Another serious problem is faculty recruitment. It has to change to facilitate UP’s development into a research university. Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University, says Research is no longer an ancillary function of the university; it is the principal criterion of recruitment to our major universities (6). In another UP Centennial lecture, the speaker said (in connection with faculty recruitment) to choose the best among the applicants, but he failed to give any indicators on how to pick the best. While members of selection panels believe they decide on “the best” when going through the process of hiring, they often give more weight to length of teaching experience and to being graduates of the same university (inbreeding) than research track record. Years of teaching experience or institutional origin do not necessarily distinguish a good from a bad teacher, whereas research track record can be reliably measured by objective indicators. Even in the College of Science of UP Diliman, which has the best academic capability and performance in the country, practices concerning faculty recruitment can be hostile to applicants and harmful to the University. For example, new recruits with the best track record in research, and easily among the best published in the entire College, were not given graduate teaching loads (because they were new); neither were they given their tenure in due time. Whatever the reasons may be, they cannot be relevant to academic function. 50 Reforming Philippine Science UP has lost many good scientists because of such policies, which also drive away promising applicants. These are also some of the reasons why most members of the graduate faculty are hardly prepared to properly train our future scholars. Similar problems are also seen in other academic positions. They are clearly a result of poor hiring and promotion policies. Since important decisions are made by the same people, radical changes in policies and practices will challenge the UP leadership at all academic levels. This suggests that the principle of democratic governance within the university may not be enough. Instead, strong, visionary leadership from above may be necessary to bring about real change. Where and how to start will be an important step. Setting up a few guidelines will help. At the conference to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Nature in 1994, the speakers agreed on the conditions for excellence (7). These are the following: First, excellence should be the primary criterion in decisions on appointments and funding. Second, excellence in research is not an excuse for mediocrity in teaching. Third, regular and objective assessment of research and teaching is essential. Fourth, flexibility is essential in responding to changing circumstances and in seizing research opportunities (especially across disciplines). Fifth, an institution or department largely relying on internal appointment is unlikely to become or remain a center of excellence. As far as possible, foreign staff should be treated on the same terms as nationals. Sixth, networking internationally is crucial. Seventh, institutions need to be free to decide how the bulk of their income is to be spent on research and teaching, with external funding bodies interfering only to the extent required to ensure the public money is properly spent. Note that these have been largely ignored in the UP and in other Philippine universities. As a research university, UP can concentrate on graduate training and leave most of its undergraduate teaching to other universities. It will then be the national training center for the country’s future leaders and teachers in higher education. This, in turn, will improve instruction, particularly in science, at the undergraduate level and produce better prepared teachers in the primary and secondary levels. As Carl Wieman, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, said progress at the primary and secondary levels depends upon a higher standard of science learning at the post-secondary level (8, 9). It is important that those with valid publications — especially as sole or lead author — should make up the majority of the members of decision-making bodies. However, opposition to every step in this kind of reform program is expected. It will come largely from those without research publications in peer-reviewed international journals. Such opposition has been seen in the past and will further delay achieving the desired objectives. Suarez & Lacanilao 51 Bold actions will decide UP’s development into a functional National University that will make important contributions to new knowledge, education, and nation building. It can still aim to be counted among the top 100 universities in the Asia Pacific and the world’s top 500. And we can hope to hear again that Centennial catchphrase -- this time not as propaganda from some UP constituents, but an honest, well-deserved acknowledgment from the entire nation -- UP, ang galing mo! References (1) Jiabao, W. 2008. Science and China’s modernization. Science 322: 649 (2) Bhattacharjee, Y. How to hone U.S. graduate schools. ScienceNOW Daily News, 26 April 2007. Accessible in Science 316 (27 April 2007) at http://sciencenow. sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/426/4 (3) Time for a fresh start. Nature 449:507, 4 October 2007. (Editorial) (4) A crisis of confidence. Nature 457: 635, 5 February 2009. (Editorial) (5) King, D.A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316 (6) Lederberg, J. 1989. Does scientific progress come from projects or people? Current Contents ABES 20 (48): 4-12 (7) Maddox, J. 1994. How to pursue academic excellence. Nature 372: 721-723 (8) Wieman, C. E. Reinventing science education. Taipei Times, 15 February 2008 Available at http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/02/15/2003401383 (9) Wieman, C. 2009. Galvanizing science departments. Science 325: 1181. (Editorial) 10 Adapting to climate change through research and education Flor Lacanilao The devastation expected from climate change within this century is on top of every country’s agenda. In the Philippines, it will dwarf the combined fury of the recent typhoons that caught the country unprepared. Some climate scientists believe that with the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, global warming will continue even if carbon emission is cut to currently-proposed levels. Among verified results of global warming are extreme weather events and record temperature rise, receding glaciers, and rising sea levels — together known as climate change (1). This will impact on biodiversity, agriculture, fisheries, diseases, human settlements, and cause more misery in poor countries. High population density, archipelagic condition (many coastal communities), and widespread poverty make the Philippines even more vulnerable. Climate change & poverty are “The two defining challenges of this century.” The world is concerned with two things: mitigation and adaptive measures. Both require political will and technological know-how. The poor condition of these two is the main cause of poverty in the country. There is hardly anything the Philippines can do to prevent climate change. But we can increase our chances of survival by reducing poverty through improvements in research and education. Philippines’ poor adaptive potential The ability of the Philippines to adapt to the impacts of climate change can be shown by its S&T performance and state of economic progress. The established measure of S&T performance is the number of papers published in peer-reviewed international journals — valid scientific publications. Only such publications are used in international rating of S&T or academic performance when ranking nations or universities. The state of national progress can be measured by the UNDP’s Human Development Index or HDI based on economic and social indicators. Plenary Lecture, CHED National Conference on Research in Higher Education, Davao City, Philippines, 12-13 November 2009 54 Reforming Philippine Science For example, Katherine Bagarinao has shown, with data from Science Citation Index Expanded, that Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia (since mid 1990s), and Vietnam (since 2004) have passed the Philippines in number of valid publications per year. Smaller Taiwan had 30 times and tiny Singapore had 10 times more such publications than the Philippines in 2006. In assessing national progress, I used data from the UNDP’s Human Development Index Trends for 1980-2008, and plotted the HDI trends of the countries above to visualize their growth trends. The publication performance of the countries above matches or corresponds with their performance in development as measured by HDI. The Philippines, with its lowest scientific productivity and growth rate, had also the lowest national development and growth rate (see Chapter 3). UNDP’s Human Development Reports show the nations’ relative development or ranking. In the last 10 years, the Philippines’ rank has gone down from number 77 in 1997-98, to an average 84 in 2000-2004, 90 in 2005, 102 in 2006, and 105 in 2007. Further, Mahar Mangahas of Social Weather Station says (Inquirer, 7 November 2009), the Philippines’ poverty level has not improved in the last 26 years (despite a roller-coaster trend) between 55% in 1983 to 53% in 2009, which “are statistically the same.” The Philippines performance in education has also been poor. A UNESCO report, for example, has shown that the Philippines ranked 76th in the 2006 ranking of the Education Development Index, below Vietnam (67th) and Indonesia (60th). And in university rankings using objective academic indicators — like research performance in terms of number of valid publications and publication citations — no Philippine university since a 2003 ranking has yet made the first 100 in the Asia Pacific or the world’s top 500 (2). The above review of the Philippines poor performance in S&T, national progress, and education shows that we are hardly prepared to adapt to climate change. It shows a sad picture of the magnitude of groundwork we have to do, but it can also be a useful guide to direct the various actions needed to achieve our goal. Improving research and education Our best bet to survive the impacts of climate change is to reduce poverty. This is best done by changing our ways of doing research to advance S&T and to improve education. It means a “transition from a crisis/symptom mode to a prevention/cure mode” of problem solving. Our Asian neighbors, following developed countries, have adopted these approaches earlier; and some African countries have been pursuing the same way out of poverty (3). These are indications that some African countries may follow Indonesia and Vietnam in leaving the Philippines behind. Suarez & Lacanilao 55 Improving research performance The established process of research has undergone over three centuries of development, since the publication of the first two scientific journals in London and Paris in 1665. It requires publication in a research journal that is adequately peer-reviewed and accessible for international scrutiny and verification of results. The review and verification processes help guarantee and safeguard the integrity of the published paper. Many studies in the Philippines end as project reports or graduate theses. These are the widely accepted points of completion of research or graduate training in the country. If published, in most cases the outcome is gray literature — published papers without adequate peer review. Examples are papers in newsletters, institutional reports, most conference proceedings, and nearly all local journals (see Chapter 3). They have doubtful validity, are not taken seriously, and don’t count in international ranking of nations, universities, and in the evaluation of researchers. Such practices that waste time, energy, and money should stop. Personal judgment or peer review by those without valid publications is prevalent and it is the main cause of the poor state of research and education. The use of reputable or prestigious journals without a useful definition of “reputable” or “prestigious” is just as bad. These evaluation practices should stop. Instead, only those with valid publications are really qualified to receive research grants and only valid publications should be given merit points for promotion, recognition, or awards. There is no sense in going through an elaborate evaluation process with guidelines that don’t guarantee the desired result for reform or excellence. The simplest and most reliable way is to make valid publication the criterion — for the evaluator to do the job, for the proponent to get research a grant, for the researcher to be promoted or recognized, for the graduate student to obtain a doctoral degree, etc. In a developing country, an effective way of improving research performance is to give incentives for valid publications. This has been shown in some Latin American countries, by giving increased salaries or research scholarship abroad (4). At the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and at the University of Philippines, the requirement of valid publication for cash incentive — 50% of annual salary and P55,000, respectively — has increased the number of publications (see Chapter 7). Reforming education Educational reform can be done in two ways. First, by recognizing the observation of Nobel laureate in physics, Carl Wieman, that progress is made at the primary and secondary levels as a result of a higher standard of learning at the tertiary level. The second way is by developing some leading universities in the country into research universities. New teaching methods have already been ongoing in the US for an innovative teaching of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) at the university level (5). In this reform of STEM teaching, “a majority of the faculty in a given university department must become collectively 56 Reforming Philippine Science engaged in implementing new curricula and teaching methods. In other words, an entire department must be the unit of change.” This has shown improved learning and can ultimately replace the traditional model. In the EU, the inquiry-based science education at the primary and secondary levels is gaining popular support (6). The method encourages students of 5-16 years old to “develop a sense of wonder, observation, and logical reasoning.” The program includes interactions with scientists and periodic assessment of progress. As a result, teachers gain confidence and a better understanding of science as a process, rather than as a collection of facts. The e-textbook is revolutionizing the online teaching and learning throughout the world at all levels of education (7). The textbook boundaries have been stretching for some time now. Many books already come with a CD, or they include links to a website where updates can be found. “The printed textbook will not vanish anytime soon — but a generation from now; it could be just a memory.” Developing some research universities will be needed to accelerate changes in research and teaching practices. It will also be important in training the faculty of other universities, which in turn will provide better prepared teachers at the secondary and primary levels. The concept of research and teaching under one roof was envisioned by the Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who founded the University of Berlin in 1810 (8). The university quickly became a renowned institution, which attracted many internationally known influential thinkers and scientists. The relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness has led to the development of research universities. And studies from this development have shown that: (a) the two are positively correlated — teaching effectiveness benefits from research productivity (b) research and teaching as complementary activities is central to the idea of the modern university (c) these two activities are so mutually reinforcing that they must coexist in the same institutions The University of the Philippines has recently been mandated as the National University. This is timely in view of the significant improvement in its research performance in recent years. And to truly function as such, it has to develop into a research university, the first to become one in the country (see Chapter 9). This would require some changes in faculty recruitment, in performance evaluation, and in academic programs. The principal criterion of faculty recruitment and promotion should be research. Valid publication should be the main basis of rating qualification and performance rather than possession of an advanced degree by the applicant or the personal judgment of unpublished members of search committees. Emphasis of the university should be graduate education, where valid publications become part of the requirement for doctoral degrees. Suarez & Lacanilao 57 Final conditions for successful adaptation The frightening impacts of climate change, particularly on agriculture, spread of diseases, and biodiversity are likely to be the most crucial for us. Fortunately, many studies on them are available; climate-related ones are being intensified in many countries. Our scientists conduct follow-up studies and investigate how technologies can be adapted to minimize harmful climate effects. Graduate students will have many thesis topics relevant to climate change to choose from. This is also true for social scientists. It is important for all studies to be published properly, as valid publications; that is, in peer-reviewed international journals to ensure verification of published results. Educators at all levels will have to implement the needed curricular changes and innovative teaching methods. We should not just wait for new technology from other countries. We have to develop the ability to adapt and implement them. And we can only do these with reformed research practices and improved S&T performance. Developed countries have been advised: “You don’t just go and helicopter-drop a new technology into a country. You need that country to have developed the ability to have identified the technology they need, to adopt it, and to implement it.” This explains why we have not been able to move forward even after decades of implementing foreign technologies. We must maximize our technical know-how, continue our development, and use our limited resources in preparing and implementing climate-adaptation programs. These include stopping the ill-advised actions related to carbon emission, like the biofuel programs (which, some studies have shown, do more harm than good) and attending international meetings to campaign for a fair deal on carbon emission. Our best bet to survive climate change is to use a combination of all available energy sources while focusing on our development to reduce poverty (9). It is ironic for poor countries that have contributed the least to climate change to suffer the most from its impacts. But let us do our part and replant our forests because they absorb carbon dioxide we produce in the course of our economic development. References (1) (a) The IPCC Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report; (b) The IPCC Assessment Reports; (c) Closing the Gaps: Disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Report of the Commission on Climate Change and Development, 2009 (2) Academic Ranking of World Universities 2003-2008. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (3) (a) Editorial. 2007. Africa’s academies: Robust scientific institutions won’t be built in a day. Nature 450: 762; (b) Muchie M. 2008. Africa needs research universities to fight poverty. SciDev.Net, 1 August 2008 (4) Wayt Gibbs W. l995. Lost science in the Third World. Scientific American (August): 76-83 (5) Wieman C. 2009. Galvanizing science departments. Science 325: 1181. (6) Léna P. 2009. Europe rethinks education. Science 326: 501 (7) Editorial. 2009. Clicking on a new chapter. Nature 458: 549-550 (8) Arai K, Cech T, Chameau JL etc. 2007. The future of research universities. EMBO Reports 8: 804-810 (9) (a) Bierbaum R.M. and Zoellick R.B. 2009. Development and climate change. Science 326: 771; (b) Pachauri R.K. 2009. India pushes for common responsibility. Nature 461: 1054 11 Philippine science as world science: the case of milkfish reproduction Raul K. Suarez The milkfish sold in many Asian stores all over North America are bought mainly by Filipinos. Most Caucasians have never heard of it, while other ethnic groups do not seem to consume it with the same enthusiasm as do Filipinos. The low international demand for milkfish was one factor that led the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada to fund milkfish research in the Philippines. As they put it, bangus is “protein for the Filipino masses”. In the 1970s, I worked as a research assistant while studying for my masters degree at UP Diliman. My masters supervisor, Flor Lacanilao, had just returned after earning his Ph.D. in comparative endocrinology from the University of California at Berkeley. Our project to study milkfish reproductive physiology was funded by the National Science Development Board (NSDB) and the UP Natural Sciences Research Center (UPNSRC). Some of Dr. Lacanilao’s lectures were about how environmental factors provide sensory inputs that are processed by the nervous system which, in turn, regulates the production of hormones by the pituitary gland. Among several hormones produced by the pituitary are those involved in reproduction. It is known that changes in the environment, via this pathway, affect the production and secretion of hormones that regulate the maturation of testes and ovaries. These gonads produce steroid hormones that are also involved in reproduction. The cocktail of pituitary and steroid hormones, under the right environmental conditions, stimulate sexual maturation and spawning, i.e., the release of sperm and eggs into the water, allowing external fertilization to occur. A problem the Philippines still faces is the reliance of the milkfish aquaculture industry on the seasonal supply of wild-caught baby fish (fry) for stocking ponds. Although earlier studies had shown that large, meter-long milkfish could be caught and induced to spawn by hormone injections, this procedure is traumatic and usually fatal, and cannot be relied upon to supply fry to the entire aquaculture industry. So an important question was how milkfish could be grown, induced to mature and to spawn in captivity. What was required was the application of the scientific method - the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The resulting increase in the understanding of milkfish reproductive physiology would lead to successful captive breeding. This may seem reasonable, but imagine applying for a cash advance worth a few hundred pesos, waiting more than a week for the money, spending it all in one afternoon to buy supplies, submitting receipts, then applying for the next cash advance. Originally published in the Philippine Star on 10 January 2008. Edited and reprinted with permission 60 Reforming Philippine Science This involved spending more time and energy satisfying the demands of bureaucrats than doing research. We often ran out of fish food, so I bought sliced bread to feed our fish. At one point, an auditor called me to his office to accuse me of eating the bread myself. The interrogation lasted half an hour but I never confessed. This was in the 1970s when theft of more than sliced bread was happening in high places. To make a long story short, our project failed. By the early 1980s, Clarissa Marte (also a UP faculty member) and Flor Lacanilao had both moved to the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) in Iloilo where they tried a different approach: they kept milkfish in floating cages in their natural, marine environment and let nature take its course. Subjected to natural, seasonal changes in environmental factors, the milkfish spontaneously matured and spawned; external fertilization followed and baby fry were produced. Flor Lacanilao’s dream had finally come true! In subsequent years, they showed that the results were reproducible and studied the underlying hormonal mechanisms. This was a truly Filipino success story: the first case of spontaneous sexual maturation and spawning of milkfish in captivity, followed by research to decipher the underlying causal mechanisms. One might be led to think that research concerning milkfish would be of interest only to Filipinos and publishable only in local, Philippine journals. However, the breakthrough article authored by Marte and Lacanilao was published in the international, peer-reviewed journal, Aquaculture, in 1986 (1). This shows that when the scientific method is applied to address worthwhile questions, research concerning this “fish that no one cares about” (except us) becomes worthy of publication in international scientific journals. Indeed, my quick search for titles bearing “milkfish” using the ISI Web of Science yielded 227 articles published over the past 31 years, authored by a wide range of nationalities. Scientists publish papers to report discoveries, describe phenomena, to explain new knowledge and understanding to the world. So, it must have been with great pride that Drs. Marte and Lacanilao announced to the world their truly Filipino achievement. When they did, their peers were other scientists in the international community - specialists in aquaculture, fish physiology, and fish reproductive biology. The publication of their paper in 1986 meant that it was judged to be of sufficient quality to merit publication by the journal’s reviewers and editors. The visibility gained and access to the article provided by the journal allows, even today, the evaluation of the quality and significance of their work by the international community. It was not my intention to write a complete history of Philippine research concerning milkfish reproduction. Rather, I call attention to this breakthrough article, as well as others published in international journals concerning milkfish, as examples of how Philippine Science and World Science are one. References (1) Marte, C.L. and F. Lacanilao. 1986. Spontaneous maturation and spawning of milkfish in floating net cages. Aquaculture 53: 115-132 12 Food for thought: feast or famine in Philippine science? Raul K. Suarez An important question asked in all countries, rich or poor, is ‘how should science be done?’ This question can be asked at two levels. At one level, how should governments determine and implement science policies? At another level, how should individuals conduct themselves as scientists? A common belief among the public is that scientific research, like most other things, is under-funded in the Philippines. This leads to the notion that not much can be expected of the Filipino scientific community, given the circumstances in which they work to advance knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena (basic research) or to come up with discoveries that may lead to practical benefits (applied research). In my first article in the Philippine Star (1), I gave readers a glimpse of what it is like to do science in the U.S. and how this compares with other countries. I wrote that although the U.S. is a rich country, the investment in scientific research falls short of actual needs, so even U.S. scientists find themselves operating in a fiercely competitive, funding-limited system. I have worked as a scientist in the Philippine, Canadian and American systems and have interacted with scientists from many countries. It is remarkable how some of the answers that emerge concerning how to do science are common to both rich and poor countries. Bang for the buck Having just made the somewhat useful distinction between two types of research, I should now add that it is more fruitful to distinguish between good and bad science than it is to dwell on the differences between basic and applied research. The famous biochemist, Efraim Racker, once said that if you conduct applied research and proceed logically, you will soon be doing basic research (2). Conversely, the history of science shows many examples of how curiosity-driven studies of natural phenomena led to discoveries that spawned huge industries, generated employment and tax revenues, or saved millions of lives. It is therefore more fruitful to discuss whether the enterprise has contributed new knowledge, advanced understanding, or yielded new and useful technologies. There are widely accepted, objective criteria for making this assessment; Flor Lacanilao’s articles (3-6) are excellent introductions to the subject, written in the Philippine context. It is not in any country’s interest to squander taxpayers’ money in support of bad science, whether it is basic or applied. This is even more so in developing countries where tax revenues are partly Originally published in the Philippine Star on 6 September 2007. Edited and reprinted with permission 62 Reforming Philippine Science generated from the blood and sweat of the masses. Even in rich countries, it is argued by some that tax money is better spent on health-care, education, and other social services than on research. Such public discourse is healthy; to many people, it is more obvious why there should be garbage collectors than why there should be scientists. In developed countries, government officials and practicing scientists find that they must actively promote science, justify public spending on research, and educate people about how it benefits society. The newspaper and web-based articles cited above as well as previous chapters document how, according to objective and widely accepted measures (e.g., the Science Citation Index), scientific productivity has lagged behind despite large increases in funding from the Philippine government and despite large growth in the number of Ph.D. degree holders. As a result, the Philippines has been overtaken by many other countries in the region. More important than just the loss of national prestige is the failure of the scientific enterprise to contribute significantly to economic growth and to the alleviation of poverty. Of course, the health of science as a publicly-funded endeavor is linked to the health of the country’s economy and political system. Dysfunction in science goes hand-in-hand with dysfunction in governance and economic mismanagement. Although good science is not a cure for all ills in society, the positive contributions of Research and Development (R&D) to national economies and human well being are well documented. Economists still debate the magnitude of financial returns from R&D spending. For example, a recent report tabulating such estimates (7) shows that U.S. investment in health-related R&D may yield as much as 240% in economic returns. In addition, there are social payoffs that include healthier, better workers and increased life spans. More money spent on university research leads to more money and effort spent by companies to learn the new knowledge generated, which then leads to greater innovation and more patents. Given the size of the investment and the promise of positive, long-term, multi-dimensional outcomes, the time, energy and money wasted on bad science should lead to analysis of what has gone wrong as well as corrective action, just as it would in other areas such as garbage collection, public education, and health care. In western, industrialized countries as well as in the developing world, an important feature of science policies that work is accountability on the part of both the givers and the receivers of public funds. In rich countries, scientific funding agencies are under pressure to give taxpayers the most science for their money. They, in turn, put scientists under even greater pressure to ensure that taxpayers get their due in terms of both the quality and quantity of the science done. As I pointed out in a previous article (1), no system is perfect. Nevertheless, a system lacking accountability, where majority of publicly-funded research projects end with reports filed away in government offices (rather than as papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals) is doomed to promote mediocrity among scientists and the waste of public funds. To show that radiation causes developmental abnormalities in plants or animals when this has been known for more than half a century, or to develop seedless fruits at a time when other countries are already selling these does not advance the cause of either basic or applied science. An effective peer-review system would not allow such work to be funded. Even if funded, a proper system of evaluation would have revealed that the results of such work are not publishable in peer-reviewed journals because the science is of poor quality. Suarez & Lacanilao 63 Using bucks for bigger bang At the level of individual scientists, the question of how to do science takes me back to 1976, when I became a graduate student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. One day, my major professor, Peter Hochachka, pointed out of his office window and across the street to where a professor named George Drummond conducted research. Drummond worked in the same research area as some well-funded investigators in the U.S., a number of whom were Nobel Prize winners. Despite a relatively small laboratory and modest funding, Drummond remained competitive with the best in his field by performing well-conceived, novel experiments yielding results that moved the field forward. In other words, he threw more brains than money into his research. Peter Hochachka did the same, became recognized as the founder of an entire field of study, and stayed at the top of this field until his death. An important lesson I learned from him is that anyone can learn techniques and the use of fancy instruments; what is more important is to learn to ask good questions. The lack of expensive, sophisticated scientific instruments is a common complaint. Peter Hochachka’s main tool in the early 1970s was a spectrophotometer, which we also had in our zoology laboratory at U.P. Diliman, and was common in biology and chemistry departments across the Philippines even during this period. Also during this period, the U.P. Natural Sciences Research Center in Diliman had an electron microscope and various instruments for chemical analysis that put it on equal footing with major research centers across Asia. That good science necessarily costs more than bad science is a myth. Famous ecologists all over the world publish influential papers based on research that requires binoculars or fish nets and a personal computer. Such world-class, hypothesisdriven, ecological research costs just as much as descriptive work that yields project reports and no peer-reviewed scientific publications. Research that involves the use of instruments to address important, fundamental questions costs the same as a lot of work labeled ‘research’ that involves measurement for the sake of measurement but yields nothing new or useful. The care of flowering plants There are those who argue that lower standards should be applied to Filipino scientists and the work that they do, that research of an applied nature should be the primary focus of Philippine science and, given this, that publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals is an unrealistic expectation. Those who so condescend may not realize that the International Rice Research Institute in Laguna is the place of work of one of the most highly published and distinguished of Filipino scientists, Bienvenido O. Juliano, whose body of work straddles both basic and applied science. Lourdes Cruz, based at U.P. Diliman, has done world-class, award-winning research. The Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center in Iloilo, despite its roller-coaster history and dysfunctional times, enjoyed periods of rejuvenation when it was home to Filipino scientists who were the first in the world to breed bangus in captivity and who regularly publish in international, peer-reviewed journals in the field of aquaculture. The Marine Science Institute at U.P. Diliman has established a culture of publication in peer-reviewed international journals. Flor Lacanilao, in his article on the U.P Centennial (6), lists 7 internationally-published members of the Philippine National Academy of Science and Technology. Clearly, some Filipinos can do world-class science in the Philippines. The tragedy of Philippine science is that they are so few. 64 Reforming Philippine Science We are told that democracy has returned to the Philippines. If so, Filipinos are no longer the subjects of a monarch who sits in a palace and rules from above. Rather, they are citizens whose responsibility is to be well-informed, to discuss, debate and to question the decisions and policies of the public servants they elected. It is not just their right to hold politicians, technocrats, and the researchers themselves accountable – it is their duty. In my previous article (1), I referred to “flowers in bloom” in the grassy field of Philippine science. This was a reference to Filipino scientists capable of research of an international caliber, who want the system to change for the better so more scientists can truly serve the people by doing proper science. Have elected or appointed officials failed in their responsibility to provide an environment conducive to the blooming of Filipino scientists? Have members of the scientific community been unwilling or unable to take on the challenge of doing science of an acceptable standard that is truly worthy of public support? If so, what science policies might help solve this problem? The Philippine government is poised to increase science spending by billions of pesos, beginning in the year 2008 (8). A legitimate question to ask is whether there has been feast or famine in Philippine science. A farmer does not sow seed indiscriminately on good and bad soil, only to complain later that his yield was low because he had insufficient seed. Whether the increased investment will lead to the flowering of Philippine science or will involve much sowing of seed upon infertile ground is a good question that citizens of a democratic republic should ask. References (1) Suarez, R.K. International science: function, dysfunction and flowers in a grassy field. Star Science 5 July 2007 (http://www.philstar.com/article.aspx?articleid=393237) (2) Racker, E. 1976. A new look at mechanisms in bioenergetics. Academic Press, p. 197 (3) Lacanilao, F. R&D Process. Star Science 19 May 2005 (4) Lacanilao, F. Problems with media and scientists Star Science 27 July 2006 (5) Lacanilao, F. Measuring research performance (available via the internet at www.bahaykubo research.net) (6) Lacanilao, F. Celebrating the UP centennial” (available via the internet at www.bahaykubo research.net) (7) Gerns, K. 2007. An economic gamble. The Scientist, vol. 21, pages 28-34 (8) Romero, P. Budget for S&T gets shot in the arm. Philippine Star 6 August 2007 13 Asking good questions Raul K. Suarez At the end of a lecture I gave at the UP Visayas in Miagao, Iloilo, in July 2008, an insightful student asked “What is a good question [in science]?” I had said in my talk (and in some articles published previously in the Philippine Star) that it is important to ask good questions in doing scientific research. But the student’s question requires a somewhat complicated answer. In his seminal work entitled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn (1) explains that scientists, at most times in history, do “normal science”. What this means is that they conduct scientific investigations in the context of existing conceptual frameworks or ways of thinking, called “paradigms”. Today, inheritance is understood in terms of DNA sequences encoding the traits in all living creatures that are handed down from one generation to the next. The diversity of living things is understood in terms of the mechanisms underlying evolution. The earth is understood in relation to the solar system and the rest of the universe in terms of astrophysics. But heredity was once a complete mystery, the idea that species evolve was heretical, as was the suggestion that the earth orbits around the sun. So in the past, existing paradigms were different from the ones now accepted, and “paradigm shifts” result from new observations and new ideas that lead to the abandonment of old ones, fundamentally transforming our view of the natural world. Paradigm shifts are often turbulent processes because communities often prefer to remain stuck in old ways of thinking even when confronted with empirical observations contrary to them, and violently resist alternative perspectives. Galileo, for example, was forced to retract his writings on astronomy when presented with an invitation to a church barbeque. Today, doing normal science means applying the scientific method, as defined by existing paradigms, to test hypotheses experimentally or to analyze observed patterns in nature. In modern science, the process of doing research includes subjecting results and observations to peer review by submitting manuscripts to scientific journals. To support the endeavor requires the writing of research grant applications that are scrutinized by other scientists who determine if the applicant and the project are worthy of public funds. This is all done in the context of existing paradigms that define what it means to do good or bad science in a current historical context. So to ask good questions requires an understanding of the scientific method, as defined by current paradigms. It requires an awareness of the current state of whatever field the scientist is in. These requirements make it much more challenging to ask good questions when doing science in isolation, Originally published in the Philippine Star on 5 February 2009. Edited and reprinted with permission 66 Reforming Philippine Science as compared with doing it as part of an active, prolific scientific community with a well-developed scientific culture, well-versed in the current literature. Doing science as part of such a community makes it possible to identify new and exciting questions and to distinguish them from those that may be considered boring and a waste of time. But even in communities in the mainstream of scientific culture, learning to ask good questions is not easy. In response to hearing research ideas from students, my late Ph.D. supervisor was known to say, “Why would you ever want to do that? This is like hypothesizing that the sun will rise tomorrow morning!” Given all this, readers can easily imagine why scientific communities that do not have easy access to international scientific journals, are unable to engage in active, large-scale participation in international scientific meetings, do not receive constant feed-back from international journal referees and editors concerning the quality of their work, and do not get a regular dose of research seminars, can be severely disadvantaged and “left behind”. In their evolution, they may develop their own cultural practices that may deviate from the mainstream culture of “normal science” of the time. Good scientific questions, framed in the context of existing paradigms, should address fundamental issues, whether the research intended is basic or applied. I shall give the following examples to illustrate. Example 1 One problem with current aquaculture practices is the feeding of farmed fish with pelleted food containing protein derived from wild-caught fish species. If humans deplete marine ecosystems just to feed farmed fish, then aquaculture cannot be legitimately called “sustainable” and shall only contribute further to the current, global mass-extinction event that humans are already causing. An alternative is to use plant protein as fish food, but the growth of aquacultured fish is retarded when they are fed pellets containing mainly plant protein. A recently published paper describes the adverse effects of feeding plant protein to salmon as well as the mechanisms underlying these effects (2). But salmon are carnivorous fish and bangus (milkfish, Chanos chanos), being more of a herbivore, might be a better candidate for aquaculture using plant-derived protein. This problem presents the opportunity to do research that would address fundamental questions concerning the physiological and biochemical differences between carnivorous and herbivorous fishes (which are the products of evolution), as well as being of great potential benefit. Example 2 A year or two ago, I received a message reporting that a Filipino had discovered a method for the waterless transport of fish. It was claimed that fish can be induced to go into suspended animation, transported without water, and then revived afterwards. The usual method of transporting live fish in water is very expensive and much of the cost, of course, involves transporting large volumes of water weighing more than the fish themselves. From internet articles and news media accounts, it appears that the method involves cooling down the fish in a salt solution and transporting them without water at low temperature in oxygen-filled containers. Although it has not been published in the scientific literature, the method is now used commercially and a patent application has been filed. Certainly, cooling down a warm-water, tropical fish such as lapu lapu would be expected to lower its metabolic rate and reduce its rate of oxygen consumption. Whether (and how much) the metabolic rate drops is relatively straightforward to determine. However, the mechanisms by which change in temperature alters metabolic rates at the cellular level are not completely understood. In fact, an American research group has published high-profile papers claiming they have developed a mechanistic model Suarez & Lacanilao 67 for temperature effects on metabolism (3). There are those who consider this claim to be false (e.g., 4). Therefore, a study concerning the waterless transport of cold lapu lapu can potentially yield fundamentally important information that can help resolve a hotly disputed scientific controversy. Example 3 Even in the 21st century, there is great value to descriptive natural history, especially in the Philippines where biodiversity is both rich and rapidly disappearing. It is important for biologists to venture out to see what lives where and how much remains of their subject of study. Only by doing so can they directly investigate ecological processes, as well as contribute to species conservation and to habitat restoration. But ecology and its applied offshoot, conservation biology, have become rigorous and highly sophisticated disciplines in which hypothesis testing is like bread to Westerners and rice to Asians. For example, as logging occurs, large, contiguous forests are broken up into smaller fragments. How this affects the number of animal species and their population sizes is considered a good question to ask by ecologists world-wide. Fragmented forests and their edge effects may benefit some species and not others, so given what forest areas and what animal species remain, what should be the goal of conservation efforts in the Philippines? Obviously, basic research in ecology is required to guide conservation efforts in the Philippines. Even in wealthy countries, papers are published that ask the question of how money available for conservation should be spent to maximize benefit. Some of them make use of complex mathematical models that incorporate data concerning species distribution and abundance (e.g., 5). These would appear to be relevant questions to ask in a country where funds for conservation are more limited than in wealthy countries. In response to the Iloilo student’s question, one researcher suggested that good research should be original. Although this is true, “original” means different things to different people. One could sequence a stretch of DNA from a plant or animal from which DNA has not been extracted and examined before. This would be “original research” in one sense. But in the absence of a good question to ask, would this be good science? Measurement for the sake of measurement falls under the same category: when their students propose to measure something, good mentors ask “What fundamental scientific question do you want to address?” According to the philosopher Martin Heidegger, we [humans] are the ones in whom things come to light (6). This is why data by themselves mean nothing. Data have meaning only when considered in the context of paradigms. The formulation of good research questions should be guided by the understanding of paradigms. This is the way of normal science. And when things come to light in those who see things that others don’t, there can be a period of turbulence, a “scientific revolution” leading to the rejection of old paradigms, and their replacement with new ones. 68 Reforming Philippine Science References (1) Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, p. 210 (2) Hevroy, E.M., A. El-Mowafi, R. Taylor, B. Norberg, and M. Espe. 2008. Effects of a high plant protein diet on the somatotropic system and cholesystokinin on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 151A: 621-627 (3) Gillooly, J.F., J.H. Brown, G.B. West, V.M. Savage, and E.L. Charnov. 2001. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293: 2248-2251 (4) Clarke, A. and P.P. Fraser. 2004. Why does metabolism scale with temperature? Func. Ecol. 18: 243-251 (5) Murdoch, W. W., S. Polasky, K.A. Wilson, H.P. Possingham, P. Kareiva, and R.M. Shaw. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biological Conservation. 139: 375-388 (6) Heidegger, M. Being and time. (English translation by J. Stambaugh, SUNY Press, 1996) 14 Airing laundry: the value of critical evaluation in science Raul K. Suarez The productivity and the quality of work performed by individual scientists, research groups, departments, universities, countries and continents is evaluated by the number of papers published in international peer-reviewed journals, by their citation rates (the number of times these papers are cited by others over time) (Chapters 2-9), and through peer review. Evaluation processes, though imperfect, make use of such quantitative measures as well as the qualitative assessments provided by experts. Evaluations might include a site visit, called an “external review”, wherein scientists from other institutions visit a laboratory or institute and work as a team to conduct an in-depth analysis. A report is written and external reviewers provide recommendations that may range from increased funding and support to the disestablishment of units that are unproductive or dysfunctional. In certain countries, this process is considered so important that external reviews are conducted at regular intervals and costs are borne by the institutions whose academic or research units are under scrutiny. The critical evaluation of the quality of scientific work is widely accepted as being both desirable and beneficial. Science cannot be done well and would not advance if scientists were not skeptical and if they believe everything they read or hear. For example, to properly train a bright graduate student from China, a British professor instructed her to disagree with him on a regular basis and to question whatever she read in scientific journals. Such healthy skepticism is part of scientific culture; scientists expect seminar speakers to support their claims with data and to discuss how hypotheses, whether implicit or explicit, have been subjected to empirical test. How could a series of unsupported assertions be considered a scientific seminar? Several years ago, when a prominent scientist finished his seminar, my Ph.D. supervisor (now deceased) stood up and challenged his claims, starting with the words “There are at least five reasons why you are wrong.” Such exchanges among scientists are not unusual in many countries. On the other hand, the absence of even more polite versions of this in certain cultures can make way for the acceptance of nonsense. The importance of critical evaluation also explains why acceptance for publication in international, peer-reviewed journals serves as a test of the quality of scientific work. But because, sometimes, erroneous papers do get accepted, good scientists are skeptical even of published work. Letters to the editor that challenge published papers are common. The discovery of errors or fabricated data by other scientists leads to the publication of either embarrassing corrections or potentially careerending retractions by the authors. Originally published in the Philippine Star on 16 April 2009. Edited and reprinted with permission 70 Reforming Philippine Science It is not uncommon for experiments to be replicated by others to verify results or to take the work in a new direction. In seminar classes, graduate students are trained not just to look for flaws in published papers; they are trained to evaluate quality - what these papers add to what we already know and whether what is added is trivial or important. Given the critical nature of scientists and the need to do science well (if it is to be done at all), scientific journals often publish articles concerning science policies, practices, productivity, and quality in various countries. In the prestigious journal Science, Ismail Serageldin comments (1) on science in Muslim countries, stating With more than a trillion dollars in cash and a population of over a billion people, the Muslim world should be poised for a remarkable scientific explosion. But then, he asks …even where funding for science has been available, the results in terms of output research papers, citations, and patents - are disappointingly low. Why? In Nature News, an article concerning plans to funnel support for African science, technology and education into a single fund (2) quotes Hakim Elwaer, head of the science directorate of the African Union, as having said The lack of a transparent mechanism for African funding is a key reason why many millions of dollars pledged for science…have been slow to reach African researchers. In the journal Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Zenteno-Savin and coauthors (3) describe how, in Latin American countries, the number of scientific publications from Latin American institutions in the last decade increased at a much faster rate than publications from the USA and Canada despite the challenges presented by unstable funding, shortage of positions, and the brain-drain to North America. In the same journal, Hermes-Lima and coauthors report (4) that growth in visibility of Latin American science - determined by ratio of citations per paper - has not kept pace with the increase in number of publications. Further, they report dissatisfaction among Latin American scientists concerning government funding policies, lack of jobs, lack of improvement in the quality of graduate students, and poor paper-writing skills of recent Ph.D. graduates. There are many other examples in international scientific journals of articles expressing views, opinions, and discussions critical of science policies, funding priorities, hiring practices, research directions, publication rates, waste, mismanagement and corruption. Critical evaluation at all levels, from the quality of seminars and papers to the scientific performance of countries and continents, is part of how science is done. The international airing of dirty laundry is an accepted part of scientific culture. References (1) Serageldin, I. 2008. Science in Muslim countries. Science 321: 745 (2) Nordlin, L. 2009. Single fund for African science aid. Nature 457: 14 (3) Zenteno-Savín, T., R.O. Beleboni, and M. Hermes-Lima. 2007. The cost of Latin-American science. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 146A: 463-469 (4) Hermes-Lima, M., C. Polcheira, M. Trigueiro, and R.O. Beleboni. 2008. Perceptions of Latin American scientists about science and post-graduate education. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 151A: 263-271 15 Myths in Philippine science Raul K. Suarez Much has already been written concerning the low productivity of the Philippine scientific community. A quantitative measure of this, for example, the number of papers published in journals indexed by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), reveals that the Philippines has already been overtaken by Indonesia and Vietnam. Of course, there are efforts to improve the state of Philippine science: • the government has increased the level of funding for research • more scholarships for graduate studies are available from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) • a science complex is under construction at UP Diliman The DOST’s Balik-Scientist program, which supports visits of expatriate Filipino scientists and engineers to allow them to help in “capacity-building,” has been rejuvenated and its funding increased. All these involve providing more money, but are the impediments to scientific progress well understood? Sponsored by the DOST, I visited the Philippines in July 2008 to give a series of lectures at three UP campuses, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC/ AQD), and the Ateneo de Manila. Although I gave mostly scientific seminars, my last lecture at UP Diliman was about the Filipino scientific community’s role in contributing to the “intangible capital” that, according to environmental economist Kirk Hamilton (1), makes up three-fourths of the wealth in the Philippines. I spoke of five widely held beliefs and proposed that their widespread acceptance retards scientific progress. Each should be regarded as a testable hypothesis, to be accepted or rejected, based on evidence. Below, I list these beliefs, referring to them as “myths”, and question their validity. Myth 1 Basic research does not yield useful outcomes. This is often heard as either a sweeping generalization or as a comment concerning a specific study. As a generalization, it is easily disproved — consider the long history of science and where many cures for disease, improvements in agriculture, and technological advances come from. Here is a specific example: imagine an application for funds Originally published in the Philippine Star on 9 October 2008. Edited and reprinted with permission 72 Reforming Philippine Science to characterize the venoms used by Philippine marine snails to immobilize their prey. There are many species of such snails and they hunt different prey species, so it is proposed that the venoms should vary in their structures and mechanisms of action. There are those who would consider this to be irrelevant, esoteric research that is unworthy of support. But, in fact, this is the highly acclaimed research done by Baldomero Olivera, Lourdes Cruz and colleagues. In addition to yielding wonderful biological insights and outstanding articles published in some of the world’s best scientific journals, this research has led to the discovery of new molecules that can alleviate pain in human patients. But they did not begin this research with the thought of searching for pain killers. Instead they were asking basic, scientific questions. This is just one of many examples of where curiosity-driven, basic research can lead. Myth 2 Applied research does not yield high-quality, peer-reviewed, international publications. This is often used as an excuse by those who write progress or terminal reports for their funding agencies and do not publish at all, or by those who submit their work to local journals that often do not subject manuscripts to expert peer review. But why are there hundreds of international, peer-reviewed journals that publish the results of applied research, and why can one read so many scientific papers originating from IRRI and SEAFDEC/AQD? In reality, doing research, basic or applied, includes publication in peer-reviewed journals as part of the process. “Publishability” in such journals serves as a measure of the quality of the work, makes the results available to the international community, and makes possible replication of the study and verification of the results. Many “completed” projects never see the light of day as international journal publications because it is said that the work is “applied,” rather than “basic.” Another possible explanation is that the work is simply not good enough to be published in a reputable journal, raising the question of whether such work is worthy of funding to begin with. Myth 3 World-class research always requires expensive, sophisticated equipment. This belief is contrary to what I knew even as a young biology student in the 1970s. Even today, there are many papers published in top international journals based on work done using binoculars and personal computers. Much world-class science is still done by measuring trees or by identifying and counting fish caught in nets. In many areas of research, what matters more than the use of fancy equipment is whether the questions are good and the methods are appropriate. Myth 4 Lack of expensive, sophisticated equipment prevents publishable research from being done. At the Natural Science Research Institute at UP Diliman, SEAFDEC/AQD and the Ateneo de Manila, one can find expensive, sophisticated equipment for research in chemistry, molecular and cell biology, including DNA sequencers and electron microscopes. Of course, not all institutions have such equipment. But when I hear a scientist from an especially well-equipped institution ask, “How can we do research when we don’t have equipment?” I am left wondering whether lack of equipment is really the problem. Suarez & Lacanilao 73 Myth 5 There is not enough money for scientific research in the Philippines. The Philippine government has funded research for decades. In his article concerning the UP Centennial (Chapter 7), Lacanilao states that the DOST’s 1991 budget doubled to P1.7 billion in 1992, went up to P2.4 billion in 1993, and to P3.2 billion in 1995. This almost four-fold increase in the science budget in four years was accompanied by an increase in the number of papers published in ISI-indexed journals from about 250 to 300 per year (data courtesy of Katherine Develos-Bagarinao). Therefore, a 20% increase in scientific productivity resulted from an almost 400% increase in the science budget. A possible argument against this imperfect analysis is that much of science spending goes into manpower training and the development of infrastructure, so the effect on productivity may occur much later. However, at the DOST in early July 2008, an official complained that although the budget for science had been increased even more, the capacity of the scientific community to “absorb” the increase was too limited and the DOST was having trouble giving money away. This is not what one would expect to hear in a country that does not have enough money for science. The scientific enterprise is subject to the influences of social, economic and political factors. The true nature of the impediments to scientific productivity must be understood; such understanding should serve as the basis for effective solutions to real problems. It is better to be late in doing so than to never discard myths. References (1) Hamilton, K. 2006. Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st century, World Bank (http://go.worldbank.org/2QTH26ULQ0) 16 Realities in Philippine science Raul K. Suarez During my recent Balik Scientist visit to the Philippines in July 2008, a very dear scientist friend said she had gotten tired of reading articles such as this because, after issues have been debated and so many words exchanged, nothing ever changes. But even Marx, who pointed out the need to change the world, analyzed it first. In my previous Star Science article entitled “Myths in Philippine Science,” I wrote about the apparent lack of clear understanding of what limits scientific productivity in the Philippines. Such understanding is necessary if problems are to be properly addressed. For example, if providing more funding for science is necessary, is this, by itself, sufficient? Or, given current conditions, should certain changes precede or accompany an increase in government funding for science? I think our dear friend would agree that such questions are worth asking, especially in a poor country where science competes for funding with education, health care, and other national programs that are starved of funds. The importance of rejuvenating science in the Philippines cannot be underestimated. Environmental economist Kirk Hamilton’s work (1) reveals that about three-fourths of each country’s wealth lies not in natural resources or industrial production, but in “intangible capital” (quality of social institutions, education, skills and know-how, stable rule of law, honest elections, etc.). The intangible capital available to each Filipino is worth about 10 times less than what is available to each Singaporean and 20 times less than what is available to each Japanese. Research, done by a healthy and productive scientific community, is an important component of the engines that drive the economies of all countries. So, let us consider the problems faced by those who do research and train scientists. Here are several problems identified by some accomplished Filipino scientists with whom I spoke: The brain drain Many scientists have left academia or left the country. Graduate students and young faculty members suffer from lack of mentors. Thus, although there is an abundance of raw talent among Filipinos, the national investment in manpower training is lost when scientists leave or give up doing science. In addition, the scarcity of highly published senior scientists, who can train students and serve as role models, creates new generations of scientists who are improperly trained in the culture and practice of science. Originally published in the Philippine Star on 16 October 2008. Edited and reprinted with permission 76 Reforming Philippine Science Low salaries Researchers and scientist/professors who have trouble living on their salaries must find other ways to make ends meet and cannot do research with the commitment, passion and intensity required to be productive and to achieve excellence. This situation, along with other factors, contributes to the brain drain. Too much teaching University students refer to their professors as “teachers” and university administrators view teaching as the primary responsibility of their faculty. Research is considered an optional activity, done “on the side.” These are symptoms of the widespread failure to recognize that universities must contribute to the advancement of knowledge to be considered as true universities. Professors who write poetry teach poetry; those who teach science must do science. Excessive red tape A UP Los Baños faculty member says that her research assistants spend 30% of their time dealing with red tape, rather than performing research. Instead of administering research grants to facilitate and streamline research activity using modern financial management and accounting procedures, the goal seems to be mainly to catch cheaters and to follow outmoded procedures in a system wherein researchers are expected to serve the needs of accountants, and not the reverse. Misguided priorities and policies of granting agencies I am told that major government funding agencies refuse to fund applications that do not spell out practical applications. This is contrary to the history of science, which shows that practical applications come from basic, curiosity-driven research. In contrast, much research does get funded because it is said to be “applied.” The more important question should be whether the quality of the proposed work is high and whether the applicant is capable of carrying it out. For decades, researchers have submitted progress and terminal reports to funding agencies without publishing peer-reviewed papers in international journals. Then, in the absence of these indicators of the quality and quantity of the work previously done, investigators are able to secure more funding. In many scientifically productive countries, highly published scientists are the ones who become institutional directors and heads of granting agencies. This is based on the idea that only real scientists understand the needs of scientists, know from experience what conditions are necessary to do good science, and know how to evaluate quality. It seems clear that the minimal requirements for progress include: (1) raising the salaries of professors/scientists involved in research (2) reducing (but not eliminating) the teaching loads of active researchers (3) modernizing financial management procedures in the administration of grants (4) overhauling funding priorities and policies Suarez & Lacanilao 77 Such changes will help create conditions conducive to scientific productivity and, in the long run, help control the brain drain. But the low productivity of Filipino scientists is the consequence of multiple, interacting problems. This means that, as a solution, more money is necessary, but not sufficient. From recent personal experience, I know that one of the consequences of the above problems is the emergence of a culture in which seminars completely lacking in scientific content are better-attended and better-appreciated by audiences than those presenting hypotheses, data, and complex findings (where real science is discussed). Even the well-intentioned, well-funded Balik Scientist program will be for naught if the intended beneficiaries are unwilling to learn, if they shy away from doing hypothesis-driven science, and if they continue to question the value of publication in peer-reviewed, international journals. Cultures can change as the old die and are replaced by succeeding generations. Progress is made as new generations do better than the previous ones. Given the availability of more funds from the DOST for graduate studies and postdoctoral training abroad, young Filipinos are in a position to seize these opportunities, to learn to do proper science and to transform the country’s scientific culture. They need to come back to a system made conducive (by their elders) to lives in science. References (1) Hamilton, K. 2006. Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, World Bank (http://go.worldbank.org/2QTH26ULQ0) 17 What good is science education? Raul K. Suarez In his book The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark (1), the astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996) says a survey revealed that 95% of Americans are scientifically illiterate. An example of the kind of illiteracy referred to can be seen in a video made available through an internet link from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (2). The video shows newly-minted Harvard and MIT graduates, still gowned for graduation, being asked where trees (and the material in wood) come from. Every single person interviewed did not know. At the end of the film, a scientist asks, if graduates from the best and most prestigious universities in the U.S. do not know that trees are made mainly from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what about the rest of Americans? Here is another example: despite the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, a recent Gallup Poll revealed that 61% of Americans do not accept that evolution occurs and 46% believe that humans were created in their present form. The U.S. is different from other western, industrialized countries with respect to widespread rejection of evolution. Ignorance concerning science, in general, and evolution, in particular, leads to unending debate in U.S. society as well as in legal battles concerning the teaching of “Intelligent Design” (creationism in disguise) in schools. If citizens don’t even know that trees are made from carbon dioxide, how can they be expected to understand the processes that lead to global warming, to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, to vote for politicians who pledge to protect the environment, to let tax dollars be used to support environment-friendly government programs? In Sagan’s view, the appalling degree of ignorance of science among Americans is because popular culture, the educational system, and the communications media have failed them. As citizens, he argues that they, in turn, fail their country. His message (1) rings true today: Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. Originally published in the Philippine Star on 20 August 2009. Edited and reprinted with permission 80 Reforming Philippine Science Because the U.S. is so wealthy, it seems reasonable to conclude that money can’t buy scientific literacy - a “way of thinking.” Rather, it is something that societies must work to achieve. That citizens should be informed and guided by scientific understanding is not a uniquely western aspiration. Filipino scientists, as those elsewhere, work for the development of a scientific culture. Let us consider what this means. Science is what scientists do, and a popular notion is that to do science is to collect facts - the more facts are collected, the more science is advanced. This is a widespread myth. Although the collection of data is usually required to do research, to do science is to attempt to gain an understanding of the natural world. Facts, by themselves, mean nothing unless collected and interpreted in the context of scientific world-views called “paradigms.” The scientific process involves constantly testing these world-views, modifying or replacing them with others if they are found to be inadequate. A person could count the number of bird species on Mount Makiling. Let us suppose that 45 species of birds are counted. What determines whether this is a useless, uninteresting number or one rich in meaning is determined by what scientific questions are addressed. Jared Diamond counted birds in the mountains of New Guinea to study community structure and used his data to test the Theory of Island Biogeography. He then used the fundamental scientific knowledge he gained as the basis for providing advice concerning conservation to the Indonesian government. A statue in memory of the pioneering ecological physiologist Knut Schmidt-Nielsen (1915-2007) now stands at Duke University. Recalling how he became a scientist, he wrote (3): A sarcastic soul once observed that the primary function of our schools is to impart sufficient facts to make the children stop asking questions. Those with whom the schools do not succeed become scientists. I never made good grades in school, at times I nearly failed, and I never stopped asking questions. When I was an undergraduate at the Ateneo de Manila University, learning biology was mainly an exercise in brute memorization. So, as a young man, I felt that the biology I learned by reading science magazines in the library was far more valuable than all the facts that got crammed into my head. Memorized facts are easily forgotten. On the other hand, the critical evaluation of scientific information and the understanding of concepts that give the facts meaning are based on skills that, once gained, are not easily lost. They become part of one’s being, as much a part of daily life as the ability to read and write. To be educated is to be transformed and to see the world in a different light. Science education should therefore help citizens to see a world illuminated by science. As a professor, I see much evidence of our collective failure to properly educate students. There are far too many with heads crammed full of facts, not understanding their significance, unable to explain what they mean. Accustomed to the mere regurgitation of information, they object to the novelty perceived in a course rich in concepts and requiring understanding. It almost seems that many science courses offered have become impediments to learning. Suarez & Lacanilao 81 If money can’t buy a scientific culture, how should a scientific community go about fostering the emergence of one? The goal of mass education cannot and should not be to turn all citizens into scientists. Nevertheless, a certain level of scientific literacy and the ability to critically evaluate information are required to make informed decisions and to participate productively as citizens in a democracy. If popular culture, the educational system, and the communications media have failed majority of Americans, what is the situation in the Philippines? One could argue that Filipinos are in as much (if not greater) need of a scientific culture as Americans, given the nature and magnitude of problems concerning population growth, environmental degradation, food production, poverty and disease in the Philippines. A better understanding of the nature of science on the part of the scientists, themselves, is essential. Then, perhaps more would teach science courses that place critical thinking and understanding above the parroting of facts. Why the emphasis on critical thinking? People hold beliefs for various reasons. Certain beliefs are accepted, not because they have been subjected to critical evaluation or empirical verification, but because they have become part of popular culture, or because believing them feels good, or because someone in authority declares them to be true. Some beliefs are claimed to be immune from challenge and guarded with threats of physical harm or eternal damnation. In contrast, beliefs based on the application of the scientific method are mostly tentative answers arrived at by the constant testing and refinement of ideas. As we know from the history of science, as testing continues, the answers change over time. Our entire world, once considered flat and occupying the center of “everything”, is now known as a planet orbiting around a star in an immense, expanding universe. The process by which questions are answered - the scientific method - is as or more important than the answers themselves. Scientists and non-scientists alike are bombarded with information that they use to formulate worldviews and on which they base decisions made in daily life. Among scientists, one measure of the current validity of a scientific claim is whether it has been published as an article in a peer-reviewed journal in the appropriate discipline. It does not contribute to the development of a scientific culture when scientists themselves accept claims that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. Nor is it productive to continue to reject the idea that the publication of scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals is important and essential to the process of doing science. The ecologist Angel Alcala observed (4) that out of 131 biodiversity-related projects funded over a period of several years in the Philippines, only a small fraction (17%) generated publications and an even smaller fraction of these (7%) were submitted to peer-reviewed journals. A necessary goal in the work toward a scientific culture is for the scientific community itself to consider this unacceptable. Even non-scientists need a basic understanding of the scientific method; it is a tool with which to discriminate between what is likely to be real and what is not. There are those who claim to perform surgery without making incisions or using anesthetic. There are those who believe in such ‘psychic surgery’, pay to have their diseased chicken livers extracted, and then feel they have been cured. The widespread inability to filter information resulting from lack of understanding of science is 82 Reforming Philippine Science exploited in other ways, for example, to perpetuate the notion that humans are not major contributors to global warming, or that this is still a controversial theory. Uncritical thinking cannot only lead to widespread inaction in the face of impending environmental catastrophe. It can even lead to public support for a foreign invasion based on false claims. One wonders whether it is the same kind of uncritical, “unscientific” thinking that leads some Filipinos to ignore overpopulation and others to claim it is not a problem because natural resources are plentiful and food production can be increased. The scientific method reveals that fisheries are crashing, forests are mostly gone and coral reefs are disappearing. The further expansion of aquaculture is ruining mangroves. The average yearly production of rice per hectare in the Philippines already greatly exceeds that in Thailand - but, in case you wonder why Thailand exports while Philippines imports rice: there are 26 million fewer Thai and they have more arable land per capita than Filipinos (5). Given all these, consider what citizens would do – if, let us suppose, they were scientifically literate - when elected officials block the implementation of population control programs, all the while ignoring the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state? Next, consider what scientists should do, given their scientific culture and responsibility for its transmission to others? What good is their science education? Perhaps it was a combination of western colonization and religiosity that led Filipino parents to wring their children’s ears while accusing them of being “pilosopo[s].” As I recall, the intended lesson was to not question authority. There have been periods in history when the light of science was extinguished, critical thinking was prohibited, and unquestioning belief in various dogma was imposed. Even today, there are those who try to suppress critical discussion. In various countries, this is done in the name of fundamentalist versions of either Islam or Christianity. In Sagan’s rich metaphor, science should be a candle that illuminates the darkness. Scientists in the Philippines and elsewhere should hold it high. References (1) Sagan, C. 1997. The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Ballantine Books, p. 480 (2) http://hsdvl.org/video.php?record_serial=80 (3) Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1994. About curiosity and being inquisitive. Ann. Rev. Physiol. 56: 1-12 (4) Alcala, A.C. Biodiversity research in the Philippines from 1998-2003. ASEAN Biodiversity, January-December 2004, pp. 26-31 (5) http://www.irri.org/science/cnyinfo/philippines.asp 18 Happy birthday Darwin: lamentations on science and religion Raul K. Suarez A recent Gallup Poll comparing the religiosity of people of different countries reveals that Filipinos, although not the top-notchers, are among the most religious people on earth. As I write this article, the world celebrates the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (12 February 1809), the British biologist who gave the world what is now recognized as one of the most important ideas in scientific history: a mechanism for evolution (1). As I ponder the significance of these, I am led to consider the relevance of science to the Philippines as well as the influence of religiosity on Filipinos. It is useful to begin by considering the essential difference between science and religion. Religion is a system of beliefs concerning the supernatural (meaning “beyond nature”) and provides guidance concerning values and ethical behavior. In contrast, science involves proposing and testing ideas to gain an understanding of natural phenomena. The scientific method cannot be used to formulate or test hypotheses concerning the existence, intentions or actions of supernatural beings. A scientific explanation for electricity, gravity or atomic fission says nothing concerning the ethics of punishment by electrocution, hanging, or the slaughter of civilians using an atomic bomb. However, whether the world is only several thousand years old, whether it took just a week for all species of living things to appear, and whether a wooden ship could accommodate and save all animal species during a global flood (as claimed by certain types of creationists) are questions that can be subjected to scientific investigation. Scientific investigations in the fields of geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology have yielded a wealth of evidence that refutes literal interpretations of the biblical account of creation. This is not a controversial statement (except to creationists and pseudo-scientists) and is the outcome of more than a century of scientific research. Neither is such a statement controversial to modern Christian theologians (e.g., ask any member of the Ateneo de Manila’s Theology Department) among whom there is consensus that the biblical account of Genesis is not a historical document. But even today there is much public misunderstanding concerning Darwin’s theory and disbelief in the idea that species evolve at all. The recent Gallup Poll reveals that only about 39% of Americans accept evolution. The U.S. is atypical among western, industrialized countries with a citizenry 46% of whom believe that God created humans in their present form. In contrast, a recent Angus Reid poll shows that 58% of Canadians are evolutionists. Posted in Bahay Kubo Research (http://www.bahaykuboresearch.net) on 23 April 2009. 84 Reforming Philippine Science In covering Darwin’s birthday, television shows and media articles almost always refer to Darwin’s “theory of evolution”. But Darwin did not propose that organisms evolve – this was already known to biologists before his “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. Rather, Darwin proposed a mechanism, called “natural selection”, that explained how evolution works. The process of natural selection makes use of the variation in traits or features of individuals of the same species as the raw material for evolution. Some individuals may possess traits that make them more fit than others to survive and reproduce in a given environment. If, over many generations, more of their babies also survive and reproduce, their descendants will make up an increasingly larger proportion of the population than the descendants of those less fit. Among the animals that Darwin studied in the Galapagos Islands were finches that varied in the shapes and sizes of their bills. In habitats or under conditions where various kinds of seeds were plentiful, natural selection favored finches with bills suited for feeding on seeds of different sizes and hardness. But other finches had bills better suited for feeding on insects. Over many generations, about a dozen groups of finches with differing bills, ‘adapted’ to different diets, had evolved and could no longer interbreed. This illustrates how multiple species could arise from a common ancestor. One requirement for this to work is that traits must be heritable, meaning they must be handed down from one generation to the next. Darwin, of course, did not know about DNA or the role it plays in inheritance and evolution. Despite this, he proposed a mechanism that has withstood 150 years of scientific testing and is now supported even more firmly by evidence from molecular biology. As DNA sequences from more and more species become available, support for the concept of a Tree of Life, linking existing species to each other by descent from common ancestors, continues to grow. Natural selection, as an evolutionary mechanism, is so well supported that it has been elevated to the status of a theory in the same sense that there is a body of theory concerning gravity. In discussing evolution, the news media almost consistently fails to distinguish between the lay person’s use of the word “theory” vs. its scientific usage. Juan de la Cruz can read the morning newspaper and tell his wife he has a “theory” about something he read. In contrast, gravity as a theory is supported by a large body of accumulated scientific knowledge resulting from over two centuries of mathematical and experimental physics. We do not question whether the phenomenon called “gravity” is real or not because the underlying mechanisms constitute “just a theory” or because physicists continue to investigate the nature of the forces that give rise to it. This public misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories results in the claim that because evolution is “just a theory”, creationism (or intelligent design) is an equally valid “theory” that should be taught in classrooms as science. That a supernatural being performed the miracle of creation is not even a scientific statement. It is certainly not a scientific theory and cannot be tested, accepted or rejected, based on the methods of science. Evolution is different because it is falsifiable. DNA sequence data could have led to its rejection if, for example, the gene sequences of species proposed to have descended from common ancestors were found to be completely unrelated. Instead, gene sequences reveal quantitative evidence (degrees of homology) that further supports evolution as part of a large body of accumulated knowledge. Darwin gave us a scientific paradigm by which we can understand the origins of the biodiversity that sustains our own species. Filipinos live in a country known throughout the world as both a center of biodiversity and, sadly, as an ecological disaster. Overfishing, the massive destruction of mangroves and coral reefs, and the felling of most forests constitute an unfolding catastrophe that is extremely difficult to stop and perhaps impossible to reverse. Science tells us that human population growth is a major cause of this. Uncontrolled population growth is not just bad for Philippine flora and fauna – most Filipinos, including those who don’t care about nature, will suffer from floods, unproductive farmland, water-shortages, power-outages, and pestilence. They will leave their children a barren archipelago into which lumber for housing will have to be imported, where seafood will become food for the rich. Suarez & Lacanilao 85 In a public lecture, Jared Diamond, scientist and author of the book Collapse (2), listed the Philippines as one of the countries headed for collapse. To illustrate how societal collapse has occurred in the past, Diamond used Easter Island as one of several examples. Centuries ago, the Easter Islanders cut down trees as part of their effort to make stone monuments; they did this until none were left. Surely, they should have seen the end of their forests coming. But the Easter Islanders completely destroyed the rich biodiversity that sustained their way of life. With no wood for boats, they could no longer catch enough fish nor leave their island. The consumption of fish diminished, as did the consumption of wild birds as their nesting sites were destroyed. So, the cuisine shifted to chickens and rats, and may have ultimately included humans. Now consider how, for decades, the funding and implementation of government-sponsored birth control programs have been opposed by religious politicians and the Catholic Church in the Philippines. A group of pious Catholics once even said to me that the birth, baptism and death of babies, followed by the birth of even more, was preferable to the use of contraceptive devices by their parents. They said high infant mortality rates are preferable to birth control because the babies (born of poor families, not theirs) would go to heaven after they died of disease or starvation. In his studies, Diamond found that societal collapse is catalyzed when powerful, influential decision-makers in a society insulate themselves from the consequences of their own actions, so that the adverse consequences of their policies are experienced only by the obedient majority. In choosing between survival and collapse, Filipinos can draw important lessons, not just from science, but from their own history. The strong anti-clericalism that characterized the revolution against Spain was not a rejection of religion; rather, it was a reaction to a religious hierarchy and government that, together, conspired to use religion to oppress Filipinos. Unlike the tree-cutting monument-builders of Easter Island, Filipinos can still choose a path that avoids collapse. There are still forests, reefs, mangroves, fisheries and farmland that can be saved and managed sustainably, using tools available from the natural and social sciences. Another tool is their hard-won and valued democracy; Filipinos can invoke the Philippine Constitution that states (Article II, Section 6) “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” They can insist that elected officials recognize that population control is essential to the common good, with confidence that such insistence is consistent with the law. As a religious people they can support government-funded population control programs based on the love of others preached by both Jesus and Muhammad. The Philippine government spends billions in support of science and science education. Filipinos can demonstrate that this has been money well-spent by telling their government that they have learned what is, perhaps, the most important of all science lessons: that biodiversity - the product of billions of years of evolution – is essential to the survival of their nation. References (1) Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Murray, London (2) Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Press, pp. 592 19 Philippine deforestation: a national Spoliarium Raul K. Suarez … the Philippines is nothing more than a real Spoliarium with all its horrors. — Graciano Lopez Jaena (1884) Filipinos worldwide are shocked and saddened by recent devastating floods and landslides, by the death, suffering, and economic problems brought upon their countrymen by recent typhoons. Distant memories of the roar of chainsaws and the crashing of trees resurface. It was the summer of 1973. We heard these while camped for a month on Mt. Apo in an area designated as a National Park. Forests are supposed to help prevent floods and soil erosion. So these recent events should not just horrify and sadden. Among other things, they should cause people to wonder how much forest the Philippines once had and how much remains. Although there is a large body of literature concerning deforestation in the Philippines, data from all the years before 1946 have been difficult to find. Apparently, Spanish forestry records in Manila got burned in a fire in 1897 and American records were destroyed during the fighting in 1945. Thanks to a recent article by Greg Bankoff (1), the following picture emerges: 16th century 1903 1950 2010 During the early phase of Spanish colonization, 90% of the total land area was said to be forested and the population consisted of less than a million people. There were 7.6 million inhabitants and 70% of forest cover remained. The population had risen to 20 million and forest cover had gone down to 50%. So the islands lost 20% of forest cover during three centuries of Spanish colonial rule, lost another 20% during the half-century of American and Japanese occupation, leaving 50% cover for the newly independent, postwar Republic. Since independence from the Americans, the population has grown almost five times to more than 90 million Filipinos. Forest cover is down to less than 20% of total land area (2). Given how little remains, the Philippines competes with countries such as Burundi, Togo, Honduras and Nigeria for the title of “world’s highest rate of percent loss of forest cover”. If the current rate of deforestation is maintained, no forest cover is expected to remain within the next decade. More than 10 million hectares of virgin forest, present at the time of independence, will have been completely lost. Originally published in the Philippine Star on 3 December 2009. Edited and reprinted with permission 88 Reforming Philippine Science What processes led to postwar deforestation in the Philippines? One might think that habitat loss and its consequences are purely scientific questions or issues that can be addressed by using only the tools and approaches of the “natural” sciences. However, certain questions, such as those posed in this article, cannot be answered by the natural sciences alone. In addition, many of the problems confronting Filipinos - as well as the rest of humanity - cannot be solved by technology (the application of natural science) alone. To answer the question why the new Republic cut down its forests at such a high rate, to explore the consequences, and to determine what can be done about the problem has required the combined application of the natural and the social sciences by researchers in the Philippines and abroad. History, economics, sociology, and political science provide, along with the natural sciences, the colors required to paint the canvas of Philippine deforestation. The picture that emerges is as dark, violent and disturbing as Juan Luna’s masterpiece, the Spoliarium. Perhaps the earliest written record of a change in Filipino attitudes toward forests is cited by Bankoff who states that whereas “previously old trees were revered as sacred and a person would ask pardon before felling one”, by the late 1800s, Sebastian Vidal y Soler, a Spanish forester, recounts how “there is no lack of those [here] who see the tree as the enemy of man”. As a child in the 1950s, I became conscious of such attitudes among those in older generations who considered forests and grasslands to be the unsightly and unpleasant vestiges of a primitive past. If there was money available, people thought backyards, grasslands and forests should all be paved over to construct courtyards, roads and buildings. These would show progress and modernity; land that was not “put to good use” was said to be “wasted”. Attitudes concerning nature, progress and land use are likely to be at the root of the “War Against Nature” and “Engineering without Understanding” that Francis de los Reyes discusses in his timely article concerning the flooding of Manila and suburbs (3). But people’s attitudes toward trees, forests, progress and modernity are but one color on the national Spoliarium. What can be said of the process of deforestation itself? A valuable source of information is David M. Kummer’s book entitled “Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines” (4). Although published almost two decades ago, it is likely that the essential features of the process remain unchanged (see, for example, 5). In the book, Kummer carefully documents his numerous sources of information. When appropriate, he tests alternative hypotheses by performing statistical analyses of quantitative data. He is careful to identify shortcomings of both data and analyses. Those motivated to read the book would be struck by how thoroughly the author analyzes the process of deforestation and how he does so in the context of socioeconomic conditions and politics in the country. That economic growth in the Philippines has not benefited the majority of its citizens has been well characterized by Filipino as well as foreign researchers. As the population grew after the Second World War, so did the gap between the rich and the poor. Political power, economic wealth and access to resources became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a minority elite. The highly valued dipterocarp trees that accounted for much of the 50% forest cover remaining in 1950 were in great demand overseas. The largest landowner in the country, the Philippine government, established a system wherein logging by the rich and powerful was considered legal, while logging by the poor was not. With this system in place, the government granted the right to log primary forests to a limited number of wealthy forest concessionaires. In effect, this gave the right to use a public resource for private gain to a limited number of individuals. On top of this, government regulation of logging by the concessionaires was plagued by corruption and inefficiency. So, in addition to legally conducted logging, there was rampant illegal logging, improper logging practices, and the smuggling of logs for export. Thus, access to primary forests became virtually unregulated. After logging roads were constructed and dipterocarp tress harvested, the poor migrated into the secondary forests left behind. There they settled, cut down secondary growth, harvested wood for fuel and practiced agriculture. Suarez & Lacanilao 89 Such migration into degraded forests was encouraged to make unnecessary much needed socioeconomic reform. Forestry data were deliberately manipulated to give Filipinos (and foreign researchers) a misleading picture of what was occurring; this gave the opportunity to focus blame on the poor. Others get rich on nature while we get nature’s revenge. — Bukidnon Peasant, quoted by R. Broad and J. Cavanagh (6) One could suppose that deforestation was inevitable as the country traveled merrily along the road to progress and prosperity. After all, other Asian countries have also wreaked havoc upon nature (see, for example, 2). So let us consider what was gained and what was lost as a consequence of postwar Philippine deforestation. While concessionaires logged primary forests to generate wealth for themselves, the poor who followed them and destroyed the secondary forests did it simply to survive. The highest rates of deforestation are said to have occurred during the years of the Marcos dictatorship. It was during this period that, in Walden Bello’s words, “institutionalized looting” on a grand scale occurred and the entire economy was manipulated to benefit a few families. Deforestation is seen by researchers to have been part of this process. It enriched a few and, by almost completely depleting a valuable resource, impoverished an entire nation. To put this in perspective, consider the Haribon Foundation estimate, quoted by Broad and Cavanagh, of the income of just one of loggers with concessions in just one province. This person’s income in one year of $24 million was, at the time, 24 times greater than the entire provincial government’s annual budget. Here is a statement from a Haribon representative, quoted by Broad and Cavanagh: In the past 15 years we have had only 470 logging concessionaires [in the Philippines] who [have been given the right to exploit] all the resources of the forests ... The average profit on logging is 100,000 pesos per hectare after you’ve paid all expenses. When you total this, it would amount to about $42 billion, more than our foreign debt, that came from the forest and this money went to 470 people. The process created poverty for 17 million people around the forest areas. In the long run, I believe that 17 million is likely to be an underestimate because people do not need to be near forests to be impoverished by their destruction. According to a FAO report published in 2000, the Philippines became a net importer of wood in 1994 and, within a few years, Filipinos were paying 778 million pesos a year for imported wood and wood products. Although the amount of flooding and landslides attributable to deforestation is difficult to determine, typhoon Ondoy alone is estimated by Assad Baunto and Yasmin Arquiza as having caused 23 billion pesos in damage and lost revenue. In a FAO report published in 1998, Hermina Francisco and Marian de los Angeles value losses due to erosion of agricultural land at several billion pesos per year. About 5-10% of rice harvests are typically lost to rats. It is estimated that what rats consume is enough to completely eliminate hunger in some Asian countries. One wonders whether the loss of predators, perhaps because of loss of forest habitat or some other related ecological process, might contribute to the rat problem in Philippine rice agriculture. But the problems caused by deforestation are not just about money. Habitat loss is a major cause of species extinctions. When plant and animal species become extinct, they are lost forever. Future generations are denied their existence and whatever benefits can be derived from them as food, medicine and, most importantly, the roles they play in the complex web of interactions that maintain the health of Philippine ecosystems. Because forests play a major role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, deforestation is the Philippines’ main contribution to global warming. Deforestation is a crime of plunder committed against nature and against man. It may ultimately contribute to the crime of global genocide. 90 Reforming Philippine Science In his book entitled “Collapse” (7), Jared Diamond describes how the ancient inhabitants of Easter Island completely deforested their island in the course of building huge stone statues. Centuries later, archeologists discovered a sharp drop in fish and bird bones found in ancient islander trash that occurred along with the loss of forest cover. This meant that, unable to make boats for lack of wood, the Easter Islanders could no longer fish. Destruction of nesting and roosting habitat led to a decline in bird abundance. So the Easter Islanders’ diet shifted to rats and chickens, and may have eventually included humans before their society collapsed. When he lectures on the subject, Diamond points out that surely, the Easter Islanders should have seen their forests disappearing as they cut them down. Yet, they continued. When I heard him give this lecture, he included the Philippines as one of the countries headed for collapse. But there are various roads to collapse and, from the work of researchers, it is now possible to understand important elements of the process in the Philippines. It is this understanding that, I hope, shall lead to realization that the road to collapse is not the only one available to Filipinos. When the Tokugawa Shogunate in 17th century Japan, for example, became aware that deforestation had become a serious problem, they implemented a successful nationwide program of forest conservation and replanting. Today, despite having one of the highest population densities among developed countries, 67% of Japan is forested. In China, floods that killed 4,000 and displaced 18 million people led to a total ban on logging in 1998. In interviews, Diamond says he remains “cautiously optimistic” because there are examples in human history of societies that recognized the problems they faced and chose to solve them. Diamond points out that societies that chose the path to collapse did so either because they failed to recognize the problems they faced or because they thought the available solutions to be against values they held deeply. In some societies that collapsed, the elite did not see clearly what was happening because they were insulated by their wealth and power from the adverse consequences of their decisions, policies and actions. Let us consider a couple of Philippine examples: We have seen how Philippine deforestation is best understood in a socioeconomic and political context. There are now more than 90 million Filipinos to feed, many of whom live in a degraded environment, depleted of natural resources, in an economy that cannot provide enough jobs. Child poverty, malnutrition, school drop-out rates, illiteracy, child labor and child prostitution are serious problems. Yet, even now, when condom vending machines have been installed in high schools in the province of Rome, government support of birth control programs in the Philippines continues to be opposed by the leaders of the Catholic Church as well as by religious politicians. At a recent (July 2009) conference of the Philippine-American Academy of Science and Engineering at the Ateneo de Manila University, the mangrove ecologist and conservationist Jurgenne Primavera publicly asked why everything being presented was about technology and engineering; why, she asked, was there no mention of environmental problems and the need to address them? An official who had just presented the government’s program to increase investment in research and development answered that they had to be able to sell the program – in other words, make it attractive - so it would receive political support. Luna’s Spoliarium won a gold medal in Spain in 1884. It served as a symbol of Filipino excellence. Its brutal images helped inspire Filipinos in the Propaganda Movement to action. Among them was Rizal who, through his writings, inspired a revolution. Again, there is a need for the revolution of the mind that Rizal so passionately promoted. Societies that survive are those able to recognize the challenges they face and able to correct their self-destructive behavior before it is too late. While there are forests, reefs, mangroves, rivers, lakes and fertile fields left to save, Filipinos must be careful to choose the right path. Suarez & Lacanilao 91 References (1) Bankoff, G. 2007. One island too many: reappraising the extent of deforestation in the Philippines prior to 1946. Journal of Historical Geography 33: 314. (2) Sodhi, N. S., L.P. Koh, B.W. Brook, and P.K.L. Ng. 2004. Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 654. (3) de los Reyes, F.L. 2009. Waging war against nature: the folly of engineering without understanding. Philippine Star, October 15, 2009. (4) Kummer, D.M. 1992. Deforestation in the postwar Philippines. (University of Chicago Press). (5) Remollino, A.M. 2004. Desertification in the making – Philippines has lost 80% of its forest cover. Bulatlat, December 12-18, 2004. (6) Broad, R. and J. Cavanagh. 1993. Plundering paradise. The struggle for the environment in the Philippines (University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles). (7) Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse - How societies choose to fail or succeed (Viking Press). 20 Why science alone cannot save the Philippines Raul K. Suarez Science is an essential component of the engine that propels national development. This can be seen in many countries, including some in Asia. So it has been written that “while science alone cannot save the Philippines, the Philippines without science cannot be saved” (Chapter 2), and several Star Science articles and chapters in this book have discussed the relationships among science, technology, and national development. The government has recently increased its investment in science. There is now more money than before for research and graduate scholarships. At the July 2009 meeting of the Philippine American Academy of Science and Engineering at the Ateneo de Manila, programs to fast-track the funding of collaborative research projects involving Balik Scientists and local scientists were announced. There is a new Science Complex at UP Diliman. This is all welcome news to Filipino scientists, although the fraction of GDP invested by the Philippine government in research and development (R&D) is still low compared with the investments of its Asian neighbors. Readers will no doubt agree that supplying more gas to an engine that falters and stalls will not necessarily make it run better or go faster. The engine that propels national development is complex and gassing up science with more money, by itself, will not necessarily lead to better economic performance. As any competent mechanic knows, a tune-up or even an overhaul may be necessary if an engine is afflicted by multiple, serious ailments. As just one example, consider the relation between scientific research and progress in aquaculture. The Philippines is home to the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center’s Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC/AQD) where, years ago, an important scientific breakthrough occurred: the breeding of milkfish in captivity. When the technology for milkfish breeding was sufficiently well developed by SEAFDEC/AQD scientists, it was handed over to the Philippine government which launched a National Bangus Breeding Program. However, the government has been ineffective in its implementation of this program. Filipino scientists can offer many other examples in areas such as forestry, agriculture, and public health, wherein knowledge gained through their efforts could be better used to benefit the country. Natural scientists and the general public often tend to overlook the valuable work of social scientists when trying to understand what ails the engine of national development. There is a substantial body of literature demonstrating that growing social inequity kept majority of Filipinos from benefiting from the country’s economic growth during the postwar period. After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship and during the subsequent terms of 4 elected presidents, the growth of per capita GDP has been one of the lowest in Southeast Asia. Walden Bello and coauthors offer valuable insights Previously published in the Philippine Star on 13 May 2010. Edited and printed with permission 94 Reforming Philippine Science into the roots of post-Marcos underdevelopment in a recent book (1). While acknowledging that corruption in high places is a problem, Bello and coauthors cite studies showing that it is not the main problem. Rather, corruption is part of a larger set of problems. As a rule, presidential elections involve elite factions battling for supremacy. Candidates come from the ranks of the elite and, as victors, represent the interests of the elite. The central government, rather than regulating the private sector, is controlled by it. How this happens is illustrated by Aprodicio and Eleanor Laquian in a book entitled The Erap Tragedy: Tales from the Snake Pit (2), also written from a social science perspective. While business is good for crony and monopoly capitalists, adherence to neoliberal policies dominates the government’s economic agenda. During the entire post-Marcos period, 4 presidents gave priority to the repayment of the national debt and scrimped on investment in development. Trade liberalization starved the government of revenue from imports. The flow of cheap goods into the country decimated local industry, while lack of government investment in infrastructure contributed to declining foreign investment. As the economy was being undermined by deregulation and financial liberalization, the government borrowed more money from foreign lenders. The influx of borrowed money was accompanied by capital flight. Economist Edsel Beja, Jr. estimates that $16 billion left the country in the 1970s, $36 billion in the 1980s and $43 billion in the 1990s and comments, Since capital flight is typically undertaken by elites, we infer from the results that the majority of Filipinos bear a disproportionate burden of the adverse impacts of capital flight and external indebtedness (3). All the above is consistent with Jared Diamond’s observation (4) that the elite, because they are insulated by their wealth and power from the consequences of their actions, can lead society to self-destruction. Social scientists study the workings of human societies. In the Philippines, their work has revealed the systemic problems that incapacitate the engine of national development and keep people poor. This means that while it is necessary to address problems in Philippine R&D, it is important to understand the milieu in which it is done and the conditions required for it to benefit the country. Science alone cannot save the Philippines. References (1) Bello, W., H. Docena, M. de Guzman, and M.-L. Malig, M. 2009. The Anti-development State. The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines, Anvil Publishing, pp. 360 (2) Laquian, A.A. and E.R. Laquian. 2002. The Erap Tragedy. Tales from the Snake Pit, Anvil Publishing, pp. 372 (3) Beja, Jr., E. 2006. Capital Flight and the Hollowing Out of the Philippine Economy in the Neoliberal Era. Phil. J. of Third World Studies 21: 55-74 (4) Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking Press, pp. 592 About the Authors Raul K. Suarez obtained his B.S. in Biology from the Ateneo de Manila University, M.S. in Zoology from the University of the Philippines (UP) at Diliman, and his Ph.D. (specializing in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology) from the University of British Columbia. He was a postdoctoral research scholar at Stanford University, a research associate at the University of British Columbia, and is now a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara as well as an editor of the Journal of Experimental Biology. Over the years, his work in connection with Philippine science included service as a research assistant at the Natural Science Research Center at UP Diliman, a position as an Instructor in the Department of Zoology at UP Los Baños, and an appointment as a Researcher at the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC/AQD) in Iloilo. While funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, he visited UP Diliman in 1992 to give seminars and to perform research. In 2008, he returned for a brief visit under the Balik-Scientist Program of the Philippine Department of Science and Technology, and gave lectures and research seminars at the Diliman, Los Banos and Iloilo campuses of UP, at the Ateneo de Manila, and at SEAFDEC/AQD. In recent years, in addition to his teaching, research and editorial work, he writes articles to contribute to the development of Philippine science and scientific culture. Flor Lacanilao obtained his B.S. and M.S. (both in Zoology) from the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman, and his Ph.D. (specialization in Comparative Endocrinology) from the University of California at Berkeley. He served as professor and chairman of the Zoology Department at UP Diliman and chancellor of UP Visayas. He is known for his pioneering discoveries in neuroendocrinology and for leading the research group that was the first to achieve the spontaneous breeding of milkfish in captivity. During his stint as chief of the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center in Iloilo, Philippines, he encouraged publication in peer-reviewed international journals, providing incentives that propelled research output to world class level and making the 50 all-Filipino research staff, with only 9 PhDs, one of the most productive in the country at the time. After retirement from the Marine Science Institute at UP Diliman, Dr. Lacanilao went on a crusade to improve Philippine research publications in science. His exposure of the poor publication records of faculty members, science administrators and award-winners in the country has elicited strong reactions, including words of admiration and support from the young generation of Filipino researchers and graduate students. About SEAFDEC The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) is a regional treaty organization established in December 1967 to promote fisheries development in the region. The member countries are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The policymaking body of SEAFDEC is the Council of Directors, made up of representatives of the member countries. SEAFDEC has four departments that focus on different aspects of fisheries development: • Training Department (TD) in Samut Prakan, Thailand (1967) for training in marine capture fisheries • Marine Fisheries Research Department (MFRD) in Singapore (1967) for post-harvest technologies • Aquaculture Department (AQD) in Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines (1973) for aquaculture research and development and • Marine Fishery Resources Development Management Department (MFRDMD) in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia (1992) for the development and management of fishery resources in the exclusive economic zones of SEAFDEC member countries AQD is mandated to: • Conduct scientific research to generate aquaculture technologies appropriate for Southeast Asia • Develop managerial, technical and skilled manpower for the aquaculture sector • Produce, disseminate and exchange aquaculture information AQD maintains four stations: (top to bottom at left): the Tigbauan Main Station and Dumangas Brackishwater Station in Iloilo province; the Igang Marine Station in Guimaras province; and the Binangonan Freshwater Station in Rizal province. AQD also has a Manila Office in Quezon City. SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department Tigbauan 5021, Iloilo Philippines Tel/Fax No.: (63-33) 511- 8709 Email: aqdchief@seafdec.org.ph www.seafdec.org.ph