How DOST uses your money
Listening to an undersecretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) at the meeting of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) last month, I recalled Dwight MacDonald’s description of Ford Foundation: “an island of money surrounded by open palms.”It seems that DOST does nothing but give away money. On the face of it, the recipients are deserving: science high schools, teachers, graduate students, inventors, entrepreneurs, a gaggle of universities, national research councils.
What the undersecretary did not explain was why they deserved to be helped. There was no strategic reason except the scattershot goal of promoting science and technology.
A couple of examples DOST gives graduate students money to complete their theses or dissertations. Why? Is it to increase the supply of MAs or PhDs? Or are the subjects of their research useful to the country? Of course it can be argued that in science, knowledge for its own sake is valuable. Agreed, But tax money needs to be justified by a clearly stated policy to be spent.
Sending large groups of teachers back to college to hone their skills in science teaching is a worthy cause. But after their training, are they assigned to science classes?
My information is anecdotal but when I was with the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) I interviewed a teacher in Albay whose training was paid for by the National Science Development Board (NSBD)—the precursor agency of the DOST—who confessed that she was teaching not science but social studies. But it’s all to the good because she also said that since she returned to classroom teaching she had not updated her knowledge of basic science.
Perhaps DOST should investigate how the teachers they trained are being used and to organize regular updating courses for them. Even 2 years are too long in subjects like physics, chemistry and biology for someone to b left behind.
While I’m on the subject of teachers and teaching, has DOST examined the science and math textbooks that are being used in public schools? Are they as ridden with errors as the textbooks in literature and social studies?
I think it’s DOST’s duty to examine them to see if they need to be corrected. I did not hear the undersecretary talk about DOST’s role in textbook review or, better still, in textbook writing.
Next year, the DOST’s budget will go up by 51 percent, from the present P3.64 billion to P5.52 billion.
How will DOST spend it? According to Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, it will be for the same things that the undersecretary talked about in the NAST meeting. Scholarships will get P1.42 billion. The budget of the Philippine Science High School will increase from P434 million to P730 million. Three technology projects will be given P501 million. In addition, the University of the Philippines will get P1.29 billion for engineering research and its Technology Incubation Park will receive P500 million.
These are all in science education and technology development. Where’s science? Is there no money for physics, chemistry and biology? If there is, in what research areas will money be spent?
During the NAST meeting, I heard the undersecretary talk about research into material research. Are they in nanotechnology or in ferroelectrics? These are the fields in which new material technologies are being developed.
The DOST has shown no interest at all in mathematics. There is a national research council but none for mathematics. Why? Isn’t math foundational?
One reason Philippine universities rank poorly in international comparisons is their inability to break into refereed journals. Perhaps instead of uncritically accepting just any thesis or dissertation for funding, the DOST should help scientists develop papers that are good enough for peer-reviewed journals in the US and Europe.
I suggest that next year, a small part of the P5.52 billion be set aside for (1) objective assessments of the science education program; (2) investments in basic research; (3) assistance to individual scientists in biology, chemistry, physics; (4) greater attention on mathematics; and (5) promoting new technologies that are still not commercially viable.
DOST must think strategically and assert its leadership by setting the nation’s agenda in science and technology.
