Research and development: An election issue

Ours is not a high-trust society. We don’t easily give people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of being curious, we tend to be suspicious. Perhaps it is because of this lack of trust that our financial systems, including those in health research, are more punitive than supportive, discouraging rather than enabling.

For example, in one institution, travel reimbursements get disapproved if you don’t leave from the office even if it’s cheaper and more practical to go straight from home to the venue. Clearly, the system favors rules over reason.

Another example: meals are capped at P220, which includes morning and afternoon snacks and lunch. In today’s economy, that amount barely covers a healthy meal, let alone three.

There is also a capping fee for some research team members, and worse, people even question how efficiently a deliverable has been completed. Can’t speed and quality go hand in hand? But again, sometimes, we pay for expertise and experience not the number of hours it takes to deliver. Why do we penalize efficiency and professionalism?

These examples, though they may seem minor, have a significant impact on how we do research in the country. They reflect deeper systemic issues that quietly but effectively discourage innovation, efficiency, and local expertise.

There are certainly bigger challenges to address, but this is one that also needs national attention. We need more platforms to discuss these bottlenecks and more responsive solutions to address them.

I urge our lawmakers to consider research and development systems as a serious election issue. Failing to act fast not only delays much-needed reforms but risks losing the experts we need, many of whom are continuously drawn to more enabling environments abroad.

Reiner Lorenzo J. Tamayo,

Manila City