Why science alone cannot save RP

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,” and several Star Science articles 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 Technology 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 inequities 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 four elected presidents, the growth of per capita GDP has been one of the lowest in Southeast Asia. Walden Bello and co-authors offer valuable insights in their book “The Anti-development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines” (Anvil Pub., 2009). While acknowledging that corruption in high places is a problem, Bello and co-authors 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 “The Erap Tragedy. Tales From the Snake” Pit (Anvil Pub., 2002), 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, four 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 (Phil. J. of Third World Studies 21: 55-74, 2006) 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.” All the above is consistent with Jared Diamond’s observation that the elite, because they are insulated by their wealth and power from the consequences of their actions, can lead society to self-destruction (“Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” Viking Press, 2005). 

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.

* * *

Raul K. Suarez is a professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, California and an editor of the Journal of Experimental Biology, Cambridge, UK. E-mail him at [email protected].