iDream: Philippine Science and Governance

Saturday, 15 October 2011 20:48

Written by Louie C. Montemar

If you had a child who dreams of being an astronaut, how could she realize her dream by just staying in this country? What would you tell her—Anak, mangarap ka ng gising? We are proud of how intelligent we Filipinos supposedly are. We pride ourselves for having produced minds like Rizal. We say we are a free country and that our children can dream and work for a better future; that the youth are the hope of the land.

But if your child wanted to be scientist in an advanced field like nanotechnology, where can she go to study for that? And if she does graduate, which industry or employer would employ her services?

We really should not wonder why more Filipino children now have only boxers, chefs and movie actors as icons (no offense to boxers, chefs and movie actors who do make a difference). We don’t see how scientists or science-inclined celebrities really make a difference, until someone like a Steve Jobs dies. The iPad developer dies and all that some of us can quip is iNaku, kinuha na ni Lord, sana si… na lang.

When I heard of Job’s passing away my reaction was, saying and to ask myself, when can we have our own scientists, intellectuals and science-minded entrepreneurs attain such celebrity status?

But then I remembered to ask once more, where is the real support for science and technology? One can certainly appreciate the DOST’s, CHED’s and DEPED’s attempts to make do with what they have, but what’s the direction, really?

I wish we could have more minds in government like that of Bernardo Soriano who has been referred to as the “Space Science Chief” of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services (PAGASA). He has supposedly retired as a government scientist in 2008. In 2007, one newspaper wrote of his dream to create “the Philippines’ first aeronautics and space agency that would bring much progress to Filipinos through science and technology.” This proposal for a Philippines Aeronautics and Space Administration (PASA) would be similar to the United States’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

NASA was established only in 1958 but has already accomplished much. It has already closed its space shuttle program, while we are only beginning to dream of ours. NASA’s creation is said to have been partially in response to the Soviet Union’s launch of the first artificial satellite. Our dream is stoked by even more strategic considerations.

With climate patterns changing fast, government is now pressured to give more support to science-related concerns, at least in terms of disaster mitigation and risk reduction. This is only natural as no amount of novenas will ever turn back a tsunami in the same way that no amount of chanting and candle-lighting can create a science education program which can turn a young dreamer into a Steve Jobs or a Raymundo Punongbayan.

What is needed is a deep interest in science, a lot of work, tons of perseverance, a rich imagination and, of course, public or government support.

Our students are very interested in science—as all children have an inherent curiosity for the natural world. Surveys show that the Filipino child wants more science learning, but with lack of support and a clear public direction, we have been turning out educands who are very weak in science and math.

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) show how lacking Filipino students’ are in math and science competencies. In the 2003 TIMSS, the Philippines was 34th among 38 countries in tests on high school mathematics, 43rd among 46 countries in high school science, and 23rd among 25 in science and math for grade 4 students. In the 2008 TIMSS where only our science high schools participated, we were lowest in the Advanced Math category.

Regarding the higher education level, a 2009 World Bank Philippines Skills Report shows that Philippine “university graduates have serious gaps in foundational skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, initiative and creativity. To a lesser extent, there are also gaps in job-specific technical skills.”

There are many reasons for this outcome. In one study done for the Senate in 2000, only 4% among all teachers surveyed in the City of Manila itself specialized in science and mathematics and only 8% have post-graduate degrees.

In terms of one key aspect of the teaching process, many are still debating on whether Filipino languages should be used as a medium of instruction when clearly there is, as one study put it, “strong evidence that using the mother tongue increases science achievement of students with varying abilities, provided other aspects for good science teaching would also be considered.”

But most important of all, this situation has a governance angle. One study done this year and which has yet to be released publicly concludes that the Philippine educational system may be suffering a fatal structural design flaw for “under a tri-focalized setting, no agency is engaged in the overall supervision of the entire education system that ensures that policies, programs, and projects of each subsector are dovetailed to national development plans.”

Beyond the educational system, clearly science is not being nurtured. Such neglect is most manifest in the fact that the Philippines has an extremely low number of scientists and engineers engaged in research and development. It has been reported that there are only 108 scientists and engineers per one million people in the country, whereas Singapore has 4,613 per one million.

For a child in this country who wants to be scientist, I say there is no freedom without science—there is no real freedom without a solid science program. And this country needs more scientists and real industries to nurture them.

There is your direction for your matuwid na daan. If, as Jose Diokno put it, our vision should be a nation for our children, we need to, among others, start seriously looking into Bernardo Soriano’s iDream—a proposed space program.