(This article was written by Dr. Flor Lacanilao, noted marine biologist, and a faculty member of the prestigious Marine Science Institute of UP Diliman. This article was sent by newsletter to members of a mailing list, which includes me.)
Next week DOST and 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, no less than 10 (now 12) 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 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 experts in science and social sciences, or scientists, to do the job. Most of those evaluating such performance in the country lack research publications as sole or lead author in peer-reviewed international journals (simply defined as those covered in Science Citation Index or Social Science Citation Index).
For example, "Silliman U Wins CHEd Best Research Award" is the title of a news report (Inquirer, 3 Feb 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 Pena (DOST Usec), and Mario Lamberte (USAID).
Note that the evaluation is at the highest levels of our research enterprise, yet none of those in the panel is a 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 (http://www.science.upd.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemid=1). How could it be possible that those in the panel simply didn't know what "men or women of science" mean when they made their own criteria of selection? Worse, could they have not known that they were making a mockery of the process? 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 under Philippine context. (For example, is peer review, which is a common practice in developed countries, good for us?) Then they should know the consequences or symptoms of poor RP science to society. And this will lead them to our poor children still suffering from malnutrition or dying of hunger and disease.
What the above is saying is that it is one thing to be a scientist and another to be a literate scientist. As one physicist says, "How can we have science literacy without literate scientists?"
Perhaps it is appropriate to quote (while thinking of RP science) from Bruce Alberts, the new editor-in-chief 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" (Science 319:1307, 2008).
How is the Star Science column addressing these concerns? For example, are the articles of Ed Padlan on science literacy educating the public to be science literate? Are they helping train our graduate students to do research properly? Ed is a highly published scientist in international peer-reviewed journals.
Let me remind again our scientists, particularly the members of NAST, with the following: "Scientists who mute their voices to avoid irritating colleagues do not help the overall science program" (Dan Koshland, editor-in chief emeritus of Science). Who else are to blame for the presence on non-scientist members and officers of our national science academy?
This challenge is aimed at being able to say that our NAST will be like the US National Academy of Sciences where, "Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research" (PNAS 102: 7405-7406, 2005). This is only the first step.
Then the NAST will be like the academy of sciences 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 policy-makers with sound advice on these issues, encouraging rational decision-making" (Nature 450: 762, 2007. Editorial).
I think with such changes in the NAST, the DOST will be able to improve its ways of science administration. An important result of which is for scientific knowledge to provide the raw materials for generating technologies, for improving education, and 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)