3rd PNHRS proceedings

3RD PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH SYSTEM WEEK 2009
DAVAO: AUGUST 12-14, 2009
(CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS)
1
3RD PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH SYSTEM WEEK 2009 ..............................................................1
DAVAO: AUGUST 12-14, 2009 ..................................................................................................................... 1
(CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS) ................................................................................................................ 1
DAY 1, PRE-CONFERENCE, MINDANAO FORUM ON HEALTH RESEARCH ..........................................................5
WELCOME REMARKS ................................................................................................................................ 5
KEYNOTE MESSAGE .................................................................................................................................. 6
ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH SYSTEMS: MINDANAO REPORT ................................. 9
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF THE MINDANAO HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................... 13
OPEN FORUM .......................................................................................................................................... 15
WORKSHOP GUIDELINES: MINDANAO RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND PROPOSALS .. 17
WORKSHOP REPORT: OPEN FORUM ...................................................................................................... 19
CLOSING REMARKS ................................................................................................................................. 21
MINDANAO RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND PROPOSALS ............................................ 22
DAY 2, PARALLEL CAPACITY BUILDING SESSIONS ............................................................................................30
MARKETING RESEARCH TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND POLICYMAKERS .............................................30
MARKETING RESEARCH TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS......................................................................... 30
OPEN FORUM .......................................................................................................................................... 36
COMMUNICATING RESEARCH TO POLICYMAKERS ................................................................................. 38
OPEN FORUM .......................................................................................................................................... 42
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH: INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT.................................. 44
PARTICIPANT'S EXPECTATIONS .............................................................................................................. 45
ORIENTATION BRIEF: STRATEGY MANAGEMENT FOR CLIMATE ............................................................. 48
CHANGE AND HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA ........................................................................................... 48
WORKSHOP OUTPUT ............................................................................................................................... 50
GROUP 1 PRESENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 50
GROUP 2 PRESENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 53
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION ..................................... 56
WELCOME REMARKS .............................................................................................................................. 56
KEYNOTE MESSAGE (AND UPDATES ON THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BILL) Prof. Fortunato T. Dela Peña
Undersecretary for Science and Technology Services, Department of Science and Technology ........................ 57
PANEL DISCUSSION: KNOW YOUR IP, A RESEARCH ASSET ................................................................... 62
2
SAFEGUARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF RESEARCHERS .............................................. 62
PROTECTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES‟ RIGHTS ....................................................................................... 64
LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION................................... 66
EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................................... 68
INSTITUTIONALIZING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICIES IN ACADEMIA ............................................. 71
PANEL DISCUSSION: TECHNOLOGY MATCHING, FAST TRACKING TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION
................................................................................................................................................................ 75
DR. CORAZON D. VILAREAL ..................................................................................................................... 75
DR. JOEL L. BACUSMO............................................................................................................................. 77
DR. OLGA M. NUÑEZA .............................................................................................................................. 81
DR. FRANCIS WADE Z. GOMEZ ................................................................................................................ 83
MS. MA. ANTONIA ODELIA G. ARROYO .................................................................................................... 85
OPEN FORUM .......................................................................................................................................... 88
CLOSING REMARKS ................................................................................................................................. 92
NATIONAL UNIFIED HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA IMPLEMENTATION AND TRACKING ........................... 93
HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA: THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE ................................................................. 93
NUHRA SHORTLISTED PRIORITIES FOR 2009-2010 ................................................................................. 96
PNHRS RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION ............................................................................................... 99
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 101
TRACKING HEALTH RESEARCHES ........................................................................................................ 103
HEALTH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION NETWORK (HERDIN) .................................... 106
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 108
RESEARCH PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 111
RESEARCH PUBLISHING AND E-TOOLS FOR COLLABORATION ............................................................ 116
JOURNAL PUBLISHING .......................................................................................................................... 116
JOURNALS GOING ONLINE .................................................................................................................... 122
INTERNATIONAL VISIBILITY FOR RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 126
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 128
CHED JOURNAL ACCREDITATION ......................................................................................................... 134
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 136
HERDIN NETWORK-OF-NETWORKS OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 137
EXPLORING HERDIN NEON.................................................................................................................... 139
3
FREE/OPEN SOURCE COLLABORATION TOOLS .................................................................................... 140
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 144
DAY 3, PLENARY SESSION ON CAPACITATING AND EMPOWERING REGIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH
SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 146
WELCOME REMARKS ............................................................................................................................ 146
MESSAGE AND INTRODUCTION OF KEYNOTE SPEAKER ...................................................................... 147
KEYNOTE MESSAGE .............................................................................................................................. 149
RESPONSE FROM THE PNHRS CORE AGENCIES: POSITIONING PNHRS TO BETTER SERVE THE
REGIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 152
CHED's RESPONSE ................................................................................................................................ 152
UP NIH's RESPONSE .............................................................................................................................. 153
DOH's RESPONSE .................................................................................................................................. 154
PCHRD - DOST's RESPONSE.................................................................................................................. 155
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 157
RESPONSE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: REFINING RESEARCH AGENDA IN RESPONSE TO HEALTH
NEEDS, ACCESSING RESOURCES FOR HEALTH RESEARCH ................................................................ 159
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 162
PANEL DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 163
DR. FE B. BARQUIN ................................................................................................................................ 165
DR. RUSTICO B. SANTOS ....................................................................................................................... 167
OPEN FORUM ........................................................................................................................................ 170
AWARDING ............................................................................................................................................ 172
MESSAGE FROM THE NATIONAL WINNER ............................................................................................. 173
SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................................................................ 174
CLOSING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................... 177
4
DAY 1, PRE-CONFERENCE, MINDANAO FORUM ON HEALTH RESEARCH
WELCOME REMARKS
Dr. Warlito C. Vicente
Chair, Region XI Health Research and Development Consortium
I would like to welcome all of you to Davao City. I would also like to personally welcome the participants from the
Mindanao area.
It is an honor for Region 11 to host the 3rd PNHRS Week. It is a privilege, and when we were asked to host it, our
initial response was, maybe it was too much for us. It is indeed an overwhelming honor but we thought that maybe
it‟s about time that we put forward Mindanao. And while today is a pre-conference symposia for Mindanao, we have
to welcome also those who have took their time to join us from the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), Regions
1, 2, 3, 5 and 8. It is basically a learning situation for all of us. We would like to learn from what the others are doing,
how Region 11 has been working for the past 11 or 12 years. Even if the times are changing, somehow we have
been able to survive.
Therefore today, I welcome all of you in this pre-conference workshop. On behalf of the conveners, welcome!
5
KEYNOTE MESSAGE
Dr. Paulyn Jean B. Rossel-Ubial
Assistant Secretary, Department of Health
Good morning to all of you; to my colleagues at the presidential table, Dr. Johnny Nañagas and Dr. Warlito Vicente;
to the members of the regional health research consortia or teams; to my colleagues in public health; participants;
guests; ladies and gentlemen, good morning to all of you.
It is a distinct pleasure and an honor for me to address this gathering of men and women involved and the prime
movers of health care research in our country. Health research is a vital component of ensuring the steady and
steadfast upgrading of the quality of health services and the improvement of our collective goals for better health
outcomes, financial risk protection for the vulnerable and more responsive health systems. These are the universal
goals of our health sector reform agenda which we started to frame in 1999 and have continued to this time, needed
and essential in ensuring continuous quality improvement and in our quest for excellence. It ensures that our policies
and guidelines as well as key decisions in the health sector are evidence-based and not anchored on perception,
whims and caprices, especially in the health sector of this country. We, at the Department of Health (DOH),
recognize the importance of finding and discovering new and better ways of doing things. We must be attuned with
the development of the times and ensure that our health interventions are the best we can offer with our scarce
resources, especially for those who cannot afford to pay for health care.
The institutions you represent today are very important partners in our collective quest for quality health care. United
there are so much we can do. Therefore I would like to get your all out support for the DOH health sector reforms and
for health researches in this country that we have espoused since the turn of the century.
The landscape of health in the country has gone through a lot of transformations during this period. Overall, the
health of the common Filipino has significantly improved over the last 50 years, with life expectancy at its highest and
child mortality at impressively low levels considering our present level of income and growth as an emerging
economy. That is why this year, we, as a country, has been cited by Save the Children International as the best
performing country among 50 developing nations globally to have made significant and sustained improvement in
child health. We share this accolade with you as our partner in the delivery of health services to the Filipino people
and in the promotion of health to communities throughout the nation. While we can look to a more positive level of
health among Filipinos in the coming years, we must work exceedingly hard to achieve and maintain this goal.
Presently, the rate of improvement of our level of health has experienced a slowing down in recent years. The decline
in infant as well as in mortality rates have decelerated in the last decade, leaving the Philippines behind many
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Moreover, there is a large variation in health status
across geographic areas and across income classes and population groups. Inequities remain in our country and is
our paramount challenge. At the same time, we must continue with the unfinished battle against infectious diseases
while also facing the challenges of globalization, climate change and the dread from degenerative diseases. There is
a global industry of fast food, soft drinks, cigarettes, alcohol, which is fast moving into our markets. They are
accelerating our collision course with major chronic diseases. We also have a growing obesity epidemic even as we
desperately try to lift the problem of hunger. Tobacco use will ensure more victims among our youth and will
effectively kill half of its users in our lifetime. Diabetes will rise to more than double by 2030 as the leading cause of
death and disability among Filipinos. Many of them too poor to pay for the expensive chronic care that they can least
afford.
We must also prepare for other escalating health emergencies. Our nation is now at risk for climate crisis, for
instance, which we now experience in Central Mindanao. This will create millions of refugees, right now about half a
million people were displaced because of the conflict and the floods in Central Mindanao. In this millennium alone,
from the disruptive powers of the worst disasters and epidemics among the poorest countries which can least bear its
6
damaging effects, the Philippines has seen its destructive power in recent years. With more severe and frequent
typhoons and floods which have damaged thousands of lives and livelihood and billions worth of crops and
investments and critical infrastructure. Given the scale of the challenge that we collectively face in public health, we
must effectively and efficiently work together as stewards and protectors of our nation‟s health.
Our theme, “Regional Health Research Systems at the Helm of the PNHRS: Convergence in Divergence,”• brings the
Philippine National Health Research System into a higher level of responsibility to collaborate and synergize efforts of
all member organizations and agencies to make better health achievable and within reach of all. The Department of
Health deeply acknowledges its leadership role in fulfilling the right of every Filipino to the highest attainable standard
of well-being and health. Thus, we continue to aim at the most effective and efficient delivery of health care services
to our communities through the overall framework of health sector reforms, which we have implemented in the last
three years.
The Fourmula One for Health during the administration of Health Secretary Francisco Duque has reached out to 37
provincial health governments and extended targeted aid that will boost the performance of local health systems.
This year, through the leadership of the Field Implementation Management Office (FIMO), which I and Dr. David
Lozada head, we aim to go nationwide. We target 44 additional provinces as we extend the opportunity for greater
quality and effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health services through an essential package of health
interventions that are most needed by our communities and our people.
Since 2005, we have also dramatically increased investments in health, both from the national government budget
and from official development assistance, coming from international and local partners. Today, the total budget of the
DOH and its attached agencies stands at PhP 33 billion, up from its 2007 budget of only PhP 11 billion. This fund is
critical to address major health problems such as maternal and child health, control of infectious diseases such as
tuberculosis (TB), malaria, schistosomiasis, and other emerging and re-emerging diseases such as the Influenza,
H1N1 that we are now facing.
The control of non-communicable diseases and the hiring of more doctors and nurses, the provision of low cost
medicines, which we will be implementing by August 15, and rest assured that we have exhausted all means so that
the cheaper medicines law will be implemented according to schedule. And the establishment of more than 15,000
botika ng barangays (BNB), today we are having the BNB Summit for Luzon, next week for the Visayas, and the
week after that, on August 27-28 will be the BNB Summit for Mindanao. And the expansion of the National Health
Insurance Program, we are now at 80% of our target, and we hope to attain 85% coverage, which is universal
insurance coverage, by 2010. And as I have articulated earlier, the nationwide implementation of Sec. Duque‟s health
sector reform which has now on its agenda the next joint appraisal committee meeting on September 8-10 which will
review the province-wide investment plan for health, hopefully, of the last remaining 23 provinces.
While current investments in health may still be not enough to match actual needs, we are confident that we are
gradually getting to the level that we desire. If approved by Congress, the 2010 budget of the DOH will remain at PhP
33 billion. This will be the largest infusion of government funds to the health sector in history.
As we open the Philippine National Health Research System Forum on the third year that we are celebrating the
PNHRS Week, I would like to outline to this body the priority health research agenda of the DOH, and this includes a
focus on health sector reforms, documenting its gains, identifying what works and what does not work in our 17 years
of implementing devolution of health services as well as looking at innovative strategies and interventions to ensure
the attainment of our national objectives for health and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are among our
highest areas of interest in health research. Specifically, I would like to mention, the MDGs that have been identified
by this government as the least likely to be attained are the attainment of better health outcomes for maternal and
child health, particularly universal access for reproductive health services, and in terms of sustainable development
and sustainable environmental health, attainment of access to sanitary toilets and safe water supply.
7
With large investments in the DOH, we can now boldly engage our partners, you, in the health research sector and
set the direction and priorities because we have the resources to invest in this. But of course, we recognize the
importance of working together, and bringing in partners who can complement. Although our resources are bigger, it
is still scarce for a more lasting and effective outcome for the benefit of the Filipinos. For this, we will need links and
partnerships, consortia and working together. We will need your help as our country‟s health research champions in
building healthy and empowered communities.
Once again, thank you for gracing this Forum. Let us work together. Kayang-kaya kung sama-sama (We can do it if
we work together). Mabuhay kayong lahat (Long live everyone)!
8
ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH SYSTEMS: MINDANAO REPORT
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo C. Nañagas
Chair, PNHRS Structure, Organization, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
Good morning! And once again, we would like to thank the people of Region 11 for hosting the 3rd PNHRS Week,
the first celebration outside Metro Manila.
I think it is fitting that it is being held here in Davao because almost one year ago, when we started evaluating the
regions, we started with Region 11; fitting that we are now giving this report here in Region 11. Also at the onset, let
me say that this is not my report; this is the report of the Committee on Structure, Organization, Monitoring and
Evaluation (SOME) of the PNHRS.
We hope that Mindanao will also be the first to show that our theme, “Regional Health Research Systems at the Helm
of the PNHRS: Convergence in Divergence,”• will be given light here in Mindanao. We chose Mindanao because we
feel that Mindanao is the region which can do it, not the Visayas nor Luzon, and it will come out in our report why we
feel that Mindanao can do it and show the rest of the Philippines how it should be done. Hence, you also have
responsibility and you should not fail.
We assessed the performance of the regional health research and development consortia. First of all, our working
assumption is that it is the regions which are at the helm of the PNHRS. Many of you have listened to us talk in your
respective regions and we have always emphasized that it is not the national leadership that leads the PNHRS but it
is the regions guiding the PNHRS. Another assumption is that active participation in health research and
development is crucial for the attainment of the PNHRS vision. If the regions do not become active, PNHRS will not
succeed. And we feel that there is an urgent need to re-focus and re-channel energy and resources to high priority
issues and concerns, particularly to local settings and we must re-position national support for maximum
effectiveness, efficiency and impact.
When we did the assessment, we wanted to find out the various models of regional health research and
development. We wanted to identify the strengths, gaps and areas for improvement of regional research committees.
We want to recommend measures to strengthen regional capacities for research and development and to
recommend ways to make PNHRS more responsive to the needs of the regions. We are advocating radical changes
to the PNHRS to better help the regions.
What did we do? Most of you here know the methodology because this is what we did in your respective regions. We
had this structured and semi-structured meetings and interviews with stakeholders at the regional level, with both
researchers and members of the regional research consortia. If you remembered the meetings that we held in your
regions, it was always in two parts, one part was for the researchers and the other part was for the council members,
the decision makers. We also reviewed relevant documents like the Regional Unified Health Research Agenda
(RUHRA), and I am sure everybody is familiar with the RUHRA, your strategic and operational plans, budget
utilization reports, accomplishment reports, and reports on regional research projects. The assessment results will
look at your strengths, areas for improvement, opportunities, challenges and the way forward that Mindanao can
take. By the way, we will be presenting a national assessment and it will be very similar with some peculiarities.
We saw that the state of Mindanao‟s peace and order problem, the socio-economic development concerns were
driving forces for changing the status quo. This means that people in Mindanao feel that because of the conditions in
Mindanao, the more they had to work for health and development. Another strength in Mindanao is that you and I
know that international and local funding agencies are tripping over each other just to provide support for social
services, health research and development here in Mindanao. Also, we found out, by going to the various regions in
Mindanao, that there are individual and institutional champions for research and development. Like Dr. Vicente here
in Region 11 and we feel that it is very important for health research. You have highly skilled and motivated research
9
human resources. I think, for example, in the Department of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of the Philippines
(UP), you have one person from Mindanao who is now training in clinical epidemiology. You have varied experiences
in the management of research activities and you allow opportunities for the region to share their experiences and
expertise. You have some veterans like Region 11, and that is one of the reasons why we chose Region 11 to host
this Forum. Their experience in research goes for more than 20 years, but there are neophytes, for example, the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) consortium has just been for one or two years in existence. Lastly,
there is a strong desire to collaborate and to address the priority health needs of the region. We did not dictate this,
this came out that people in Mindanao need to work together to address priority health needs of the region.
We also noted some areas for development. One area for improvement is, as we mentioned, your councils are at
various levels of development, if that is not addressed, if that is not improved, other councils might be left behind. But
as we said, since you are willing to share expertise, the older councils can share their experience with the newer
councils. There is a need for organizational development support, there is a need for strategic planning and we have
to change our mindsets. This may be due to bureaucratic experience, for instance, you are given a budget for one
year, so your planning is for one year as well, which is really not strategic but short term. You have to improve that.
People in Mindanao have to think in the longer run. Think of the budget later, we will address that later. But do not be
limited by the one year lifetime of your budget. There is ineffective and highly inefficient management structure. And
again this goes back to available funds. If the fund available is only good for one year, they always go for research
that is good for one year. You know that in health research, that may not be the best timetable. The research projects
funded in the research consortium are too small and too isolated to make a difference. For example, if you are
thinking around a budget of PhP100,000, and you have three researches to fund, giving each research a budget of
PHP30,000, what can PHP30,000 do? So, think out of the box. Don‟t think about the limit because there are other
sources of funds. I was just talking to DOH Asec. Paulyn Jean Ubial and she said that DOH has a budget of PhP 33
billion, part of that goes to the regions. Asec. Ubial was saying that even the money that goes to local governments
can be used for research. She has in fact advised some of the personnel that their department set aside a certain
percentage for research. PCHRD is not the sole source of fund for health research. The way to go about it is to think
about the research, what should be done, how it should be done and worry about the funding later. It is more difficult
if you have the funds, then you do not have research concepts. The PhP100,000 support of PCHRD is just one of the
sources of funds.
Now, I will show you the variety in the Mindanao region. In Region 9, the lead agency is a state university. The
consortium was established in 2007. In Region 10, the lead agency is DOH; consortium was established in 2008. In
Region 11, the lead agency now is RECORD Foundation, Inc.; consortium was established in 1985, so this council
has been in existence for 24 years. In Region 12, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) is the lead
agency; consortium was established in 2007. In ARMM, DOST is the lead agency as well; consortium was also
established in 2007. And in CARAGA, it is the Center for Health Development (CHD) that is at the lead; consortium
was established in 2008.
What are the other areas for development? The absence of a unifying theme of the different sub-committees is a
challenge. We are working at the committee level but the committees are not working on a central theme. We feel
that it should be changed to better help research in this region. And we found out that there is minimal collaboration
among researchers, institutions and across regions that share the same priorities and health problems. But we are
taking steps to address that. Mindanao as a whole has already shared interest in certain health concerns, for
example, maternal and child health. And we feel that this is not just true for Mindanao, this is true all throughout the
country. We are already taking steps to address this. Your status might be ahead in other areas in the country.
What are the opportunities? There is strong bias for PNHRS to strengthen regional capacity for research and
development. We, at the SOME Committee, firmly believe this. In all the regions that we have been through, we have
been emphasizing this. As I said, I talked about availability of funds for research; PNHRS now have a bias for
regional research proposals because we are saying that it is the regions which should be at the helm so we should
put our money where our mouth is. PNHRS will now try to back the regions. And probably not in health but in other
10
sectors, there will be examples of successful models for collaboration. I think agriculture is one of them, where
different sectors have worked together for research.
What are the challenges to Mindanao region? We want to make a difference for equity in health. You have realized
that your need for economic development make it necessary for you to work together so you can attain equity in
health in this region.
What are the challenges? First of all, what needs to be done is to facilitate the collaboration of institutions and
regions in Mindanao to address priority health problems and issues. Now is your chance to get together and find the
common ground to address the Mindanao-wide development concerns.
Working island-wide across regions will require, and this is part of the challenge, maybe new terms and means of
engagement. It is not just a matter of various sectors in the region working together but regions working with other
regions. You are now thinking of Mindanao as an island and you have to work together, a paradigm shift is
necessary. Part of that paradigm shift, for example, will be to think of health research not in the traditional way that
research is done by doctors and nurses but to include all other sectors in health research. We have been
emphasizing in our visits to the regions that social scientists may contribute a lot in health research as we have said
before but why have we not solved the problem of malaria or of TB, for example. Maybe because it‟s not that we lack
the technology because we do have diagnostic tools, we have knowledge of how to treat, but maybe it‟s the behavior
of the people, maybe it‟s the behavior of the health providers that prevent us from solving health problems. For
example, in TB, some patients take the medication as cough medicine; when the cough is gone, they will stop taking
medicines. That is why you have the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) system because of things like that. We need
to have paradigm shift, we have to have innovative responses, and again, timely and adequate support from the
national level. And we have been talking to the leaders of PNHRS, trying to sell them the idea that we need to
change the structure of PNHRS to better address the needs of the regions.
Now, part of the challenges, we said what has to be done to facilitate the collaboration of institutions and regions in
Mindanao, you have to find common ground to address Mindanao-wide concerns. Mindanao also throws a challenge
to Metro Manila. As we said, the monopoly of Metro Manila over national research funds can be surpassed if
Mindanao will design good research protocols. In fact, Metro Manila is one of the newest consortia because people in
Metro Manila do not work together. We can tell you that in the meetings of the National Capital Region (NCR)
Consortium, most of us do not attend. We would rather work with people who feel that they can help; with people who
feel that they should work together. That is the challenge of Mindanao to Manila.
Another challenge for you, I think this is not just a challenge for you but for all the regions, is to advocate for the need
for research among the various stakeholders. This is related also to funding because if the non-government
organizations (NGOs), private sector, other government agencies and especially local government units (LGUs) see
the value of research in creating policy, they might also provide some funds. That is a challenge for you. You have to
advocate for the need for research among the various stakeholders but that‟s not enough. You will tell them that you
will make good policy if we have good research but it does not end there. You have to provide good evidence to
develop responsive policies. Your research will provide the evidence that will make good policies. After all, if you
recall, in our visits to the region, we have been saying that one of the purposes of the PNHRS is to provide research
as a basis for policy and health laws.
Looking at other challenges, can the existing program of assistance to the regions be restructured to allow more
equity and more support to those who need it more? Again this is on the part of the PNHRS. The SOME Committee
has been advocating that the PNHRS support the regions. We have been saying that the PNHRS should re-organize
itself to be more responsive to the needs of the region. So we may even be advocating our self-destruction; to
abolish the committees, and instead have an executive director who will be in charge, backed up by competent staff
and the ball is back to the region for support. The region should tell that director what they need. We feel that the
experts in the various committees will be made into a pool who will address your needs, as the need arises. If one
11
region needs help in crafting their unified regional health agenda, we will have people who can help you do that. If
you feel that what you need is an ethics group, we have the experts who can help you. If you feel that you need
experts in advocacy, we will have the people who can help you in advocacy. We want to be able to respond as
quickly as possible to your needs.
In essence, what is the way forward for Mindanao? It is localizing global and national health issues because it‟s very
nebulous if you look at national goals, national issues, global health concerns. What is more important for you is,
what is the health concern of Mindanao and how can we solve them. You have to localize global and national health
issues. And the pressure from below, you are part of that; there is pressure from the community, from the people of
Mindanao, there is a pressure for us to improve health. So the pressure from below must be coupled and this is the
challenge to PNHRS, it should be coupled with a creative response from above, which is the national level.
I am ending the presentation here and these are the members of the SOME Committee. As I said this is not my
report, this is the report of this Committee and it is composed of Dr. Joe Rodriguez, who is not here because he will
be leaving for a five-year stint in Pakistan; Dr. Mila Viacrusis who is also from Region 11; Dr. Noel Juban who is the
head of the Clinical Epidemiology Unit of the UP College of Medicine; Dr. Josefino Alvero; Dr. Beth Matibag of the
DOH; Dr. Christopher Santiago, who is not yet here but is arriving; Prof. Nina Castillo-Carandang, a dynamo in
SOME, she is a social scientist, she is a driving force here; Ms. Remy Birondo of Congress, the PNHRS is a bill
which has not yet been passed so we are asking you, if you have friends in Congress, to tell them to approve the
PNHRS bill, what we want to achieve is to have funding for research; Ms. Merl Opeña of PCHRD; Ms. Annie
Catameo; Ms. Belle Intia; Ms. Ron De Leon, who is now on study leave; and Mr. Mark Tano, who is running the fork
in Manila. This is the Committee on SOME and this was their report.
Thank you.
12
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF THE MINDANAO HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRAM
Dr. Warlito C. Vicente
Chair, Region XI Health Research and Development Consortium
Good morning! I hope that our guests from the other regions will not feel that they are not part of the conference
today. Instead, I hope that we will all be inspired to work because at the end of the day, we should not end our talk by
just talk.
As I‟ve said in our meetings with the rest of Mindanao, we said that after a meeting we feel good but then, nothing is
accomplished. But this time, I think, the group has been so obsessed that they have been working non-stop. In fact,
two days ago they conducted a writeshop. We had a meeting about two weeks before and we were not content about
what we came up with and we said let‟s work again and sit down and so I like to congratulate our group from
Mindanao, from Region 9, Region 10, Region 11, Region 12, CARAGA, and ARMM.
Welcome to all the participants from Regional Health Research and Development Consortium (RHRDC) 11. As you
know Davao is the home of the Philippine Eagle and the home of the world famous Waling-Waling. I think while it
looks nice to be known as the home of the Waling-Waling, I think it is also unfortunate that Waling-Waling right now is
being cloned and manufactured in Singapore and Thailand and it is the basis for the so called new varieties and it is
only found initially in the mountains of Mt. Apo. I think this is indeed a real challenge for all of us.
Twenty years ago, Region 11 consortium had a website that was hosted by DOST Region 11. But since the
webmaster left DOST, the website has also not been updated. As a group, I feel that we really could not function
individually. One is useless without the other. The first regional chairman of our group was Dr. Paraan, a pathologist,
a very dynamic person and one of those who worked with her was Dr. Mila Viacrusis. She is part of the SOME
Committee but she has been working with Region 11 since its birth. Initially, we call the group “committee”• but we
opted for “consortium”• instead. If you want things not to be done, you create a committee and nothing gets done.
Initially, we were composed of 16 members, now we‟re about 21 and we would like to expand our membership to
include NGOs, community leaders and LGUs. I think it‟s unfortunate that they have not been included in the initial
design because the LGUs now are the stakeholders of the things that we are doing. Our mandate is to create and
promote a healthy health research environment. I am happy that SOME, through PNHRS, have felt and pushed for
strengthening the regional groups because I think that the strength of the PNHRS will depend on the strength of each
member region. The success of PNHRS, to a large extent, will be dependent on how strong its region is.
We had a lot of consultations, all the way from Regions 9, 10, 11, ARMM, 12, and CARAGA. And as an island
grouping, Dr. Johnny Nañagas mentioned something like having a paradigm shift; I think the paradigm shift is not
only in our minds but also in the actual movement of people. Initially, when we reviewed the policies of RHRDC, we
should not have meetings of more than three times a year because of budget constraints. But so far, what we have
had 20 meetings, and the year has not ended yet.
What is the strategic direction of Mindanao? We have agreed among ourselves that we will focus on four critical
areas: (1) maternal and child health, although in our subsequent discussions, we included nutrition and more
specifically, neonatal and children‟s health; (2) herbal and traditional medicine; (3) tropical diseases, especially
emerging diseases; and (4) environmental issues, such as global warming.
There are special concerns of certain regions, for example, ARMM is more concerned on how you address the issue
of internal refugees, the victims of the conflict in ARMM. That‟s a special area of concern and while it is true that we
have focused on the four critical areas, we‟re not saying that we‟re not going to do other areas of research.
What is the context in which we in Mindanao decided that we will be focusing ourselves on maternal and child
13
health? This is the context of why we felt that our number one priority is maternal and child health. The scenario is
that we have a booming population; about 45% of all pregnancies are unwanted or mis-timed. There are about
400,000 abortions per year and the Philippine dream is to reduce total fertility from 3.7 to 2.7. I think it‟s still a dream.
Our population program is mainly public driven. From 2001 to 2006, the estimated maternal mortality ratio is
162:100,000; way off from the goal of reducing it to 52:100,000 by 2015. I think the scenario in Mindanao is even
worse. The under-five mortality ratio is 31:100,000 and the target is 21:100,000. To worsen the situation, 85% of our
health professionals are now abroad.
What is the Mindanao focus? After several consultations, we said that the Mindanao-wide proposals should be on
two specific areas, at least for the moment: (1) better information pathway for healthy mothers and babies; and (2)
saving mothers and the newborn in Mindanao, harmonizing evidence-based protocols in three free service academic
programs, including regional concerns.
How did we go through, deciding among ourselves that these are our priority areas? To be honest with you, the initial
impetus was from PNHRS. While we among ourselves thought that we will continue doing what we think what we
thought was good for us. And because of that initiative, we felt that maybe it‟s about time to ride the tiger and the
tiger is the PNHRS. And we hope that we will not be left behind especially when it comes to determining research
proposals in the arena of the academe. We had the strategic planning sessions, started at Region 11, during that
strategic planning session, we felt that that the things that we thought we should address cannot be addressed
without involving the rest of Mindanao. During that meeting, we said, why don‟t we invite them and we‟re happy that
the PNHRS, through the initiative of Dr. Joe Rodriguez and Dr. Johnny Nañagas and Ms. Merl Opeña, we had a lot
of consultative meetings and we thought that it is time for collaborations and complementation. We had agenda
setting, we went into prioritization and right now we are at the stage of project development.
We have not reached the visioning stage yet, as Mindanao, but as Region 11, we had visioning among ourselves
which was the basis for our planning. During that planning, we said that we need to invite the whole of Mindanao.
And then, we started developing the concepts, the proposals, also with the support of our friends, Dr. Cecilia Acuin
and Dr. Pilar Jimenez, whom I like to thank for facilitating the work. You made it easier for us.
We are not yet at implementing stage since we need at least one more year for that. Our work is expanding but at the
end of the day, you will realize that there‟s never enough time for you. After implementing, we need to reinforce
ourselves, we have to monitor, we have to evaluate and see where we can improve and once again, back to
committing ourselves.
In our situation, we already have committed ourselves and we have even decided for a mechanism through which we
will continue our collaboration and we said that temporary secretariat for the Mindanao-wide strategic program or
movement is Region 11, it will be based at the Davao Medical School Foundation, through the leadership of Vicky
Lupase, Bobby Lindo and Lani Joaquin. They are more than willing to help you, assist you in seeing to it that what is
needed is actually done. But we cannot really do it without the support of DOST Region 11, Dr. Anthony Sales has
been very supportive, thank you very much. Cora Vergara and the rest of the team, thank you.
The zone of comfort is the zone of extinction. We don‟t want to continue staying in our comfort zone. Maybe, that's
the reason that we have existed for the past 20 years because we have never been comfortable with what we have
been doing. Last year, we have about 7-10 proposals, out of the 7 proposals that we have submitted, the technical
working group felt that only 2 would qualify even if the other five would have qualified. There was no push; the
environment was not really ripe to support the new ones who need some coaching and nurturing. And we said that if
our organization should continue doing what we are doing, there has to be a mechanism in which the young ones
would be nurtured. Without that mechanism, I don‟t think we can really go forward.
Maraming salamat po (Thank you very much)!
14
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Marilyn Martinez: I noticed that you did something about the capability building here in Mindanao. I noticed that
you sent somebody to train in clinical epidemiology, maybe to do some clinical trials. But I noticed that there should
be training also that should have been done like pre-clinical training, for example, training on bio-assay, toxicity
studies, mutagenecity and carcinogenicity. I think that the institute that should be developed is the Davao Herbal
Research and Processing Plant. They have a very good animal laboratory building there. They were doing bio-assay
and toxicity studies some years ago but I don‟t know why it stopped. I think this should be resurrected. Out of the four
herbal processing plants, the only one that is viable at the moment is that of the Cagayan Valley. I hope that the
Davao Herbal Research and Processing Plant be resurrected for students who are doing bio-assay researches, or
pre-clinical trials so they won‟t need to go to UP Manila, Department of Pharmacology to do these researches. The
problem here is that the Philippine Institute for Traditional and Alternative Health Care (PITAHC) lacks funds, hence
the DOH and DOST should come to the rescue in resurrecting this laboratory of the Davao Herbal Research and
Processing Plant.
Dr. Nina Castillo-Carandang: Just a correction, the doctor that we have now, studying with us in the Department of
Clinical Epidemiology, is actually studying on her own funds, plus a scholarship from the Philippine Heart
Association. She has not been sponsored really by the DOH or DOST. And then we have another trained clinical
epidemiologist who is here and he is doing randomized control trials. Now for your question on the plants, I am
turning you to Asec. Ubial.
Asec. Paulyn Jean Ubial: I think the issue of herbal plants and PITAHC is the frequent change of management.
When I was regional director here in Davao, we really supported the herbal plant here but I think the main issue at
that time why they cannot continue the bio-assay and all their full-scale activities as herbal processing plant is that
they were trying to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Until they get that, they said that they cannot
do what they have been doing. What we did at that time was to get the title of the land and the building and then
improve the building because there are a lot to be changed in terms of the GMP standards. I don‟t know right now
with the current executive director on how the herbal processing plant can be revitalized.
Dr. Marilyn Martinez: I think the director general right now, Dr. Jovencio Ordona, is amenable in resurrecting the bioassay laboratories of the three plants in Tacloban, Davao and Cotabato. But we lack funds, that‟s why we said DOH
and DOST must come to the rescue through the PNHRS.
Question/Comment: Hearing the Mindanao report brings challenge and insecurity especially to us in CAR who are
neonate in this regional health consortia. One of our comments, actually it is more of a reaction, is that the reason
why we have this Forum being conducted is that we want to give light, we want to put the regions at the center stage
because of the differences of the health priorities in each region. Looking at the health priority in Mindanao, which is
the maternal and child health, will there be duplicity or will you prohibit duplicity in setting the health priority. Like,
what if CAR would likewise prioritize maternal and child health, will you be prohibitive in setting up duplicity or
redundancy in priorities?
Asec. Ubial actually mentioned that one of the priorities is universal access in family planning methods or universal
access. But how can we have universal access when changes in management or management from the central or
national will have different priorities or will have prohibitions like they will actually silently say that condom will not be
allowed as a family planning method. We will all be prioritizing and give preference to natural family planning
methods. Why are we advocating for this universal access when the management themselves will have their
personal preferences. When you say universal, it is universal, regardless of your personal opinion or beliefs.
Asec Paulyn Jean Ubial: You know we have policies and guidelines but how they are implemented in the field is
really the call of the head of the unit. We cannot influence that. Although we have standards that we implement, we
15
know that personal position and beliefs influence the way we implement the program. I don‟t know how we can
probably address that but then, that is a subject for research. I think we have been implementing family planning for
30 or 40 years yet universal access to reproductive health and family planning services still remains a major issue in
Philippine setting.
16
WORKSHOP GUIDELINES: MINDANAO RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND
PROPOSALS
Dr. Pilar Ramos-Jimenez
Consultant
Maayong buntag sa inyong tanan (Good morning to everyone)! I am very happy that I am in Davao. I am back in my
hometown, I grew up here and I am very proud to be part of this province and the whole of Mindanao.
We have about one hour to do the workshop. It‟s 11:30AM so we will work until 12:30PM. This workshop is supposed
to obtain immediate feedback from the regions about the assessment report made by Dr. Johnny Nañagas and the
proposed Mindanao health research and development strategy. It‟s very interesting. It‟s one of the conferences
where you draw feedback very quickly about what was presented to you by the entire delegation.
Next, we are going to have a set of guidelines as a reference in this discussion.
The other thing that we will have to do is we have to break into groups by regions. I understand that Region 11 has
more than 10 participants, so we will have to break that group also into groups of 10, so if you are from Region 11
and the group exceeds 10, we will have to break you further into several groups. The discussion groups will be led by
the consortium chair and if the consortium chair is not here, we will have to designate a chair.
A rapporteur is going to be assigned for each group and she/he will take down notes to be submitted to the drafting
committee. The drafting committee is supposed to synthesize all the reports that are coming from the different
regions and then this will be presented after this session or in the afternoon. The Mindanao response may form the
basis for crafting a call for action on the Mindanao health research and development strategy.
We have a set of guide questions, which are as follows. Each group should consider the following:
1. Does the Assessment Report reflect the situation of your region?
- If yes, what are your plans to address the areas for improvement and the challenges posed?
- If no, what points were missed?
2. Does the proposed Mindanao health research and development strategy respond to the health challenges
of the island of Mindanao?
-
What are the enabling factors you feel will move the proposal to fruition?
What are the impeding factors?
Who are the other stakeholders who should be involved?
What regional or Mindanao resources can be tapped to support the research program?
3. What would you like to happen after this Forum?
So this is not the end, there is a way to move forward and I think that was raised by Dr. Nañagas.
We also have a matrix that will be provided to each team, outlining the strengths, areas for improvement,
opportunities, and challenges
Strengths
17




Presence of individual and institutional champions for research and development
Highly skilled and motivated research manpower
Considerable experience in the management of research activities
Strong desire to collaborate and address the priority health needs of the regions
Areas for Improvement
 The work of the research committees is not agenda-driven
 The research projects funded by the consortium are too small and too isolated to make a difference
 Absence of unifying theme in the work of the different sub-committees
 Absence of strategic direction; too short planning horizon
 Minimal collaboration among researchers, institutions and across regions that share the same priorities and
problems
 Ineffective and highly inefficient management structures
Opportunities
 Strong bias within PNHRS for strengthening regional capacity for research and development
 Availability of funds for research
 Presence of successful models of collaboration in other sectors
Challenges
 Can the institutions and regions in Mindanao work together to address priority health problems and issues in
a more comprehensive and strategic manner? Will the regions and institutions in Mindanao challenge the
monopoly of Metro Manila over the national research funds?
 Can the PNHRS reorganize itself to be more responsive to the needs of the regions? Can the existing
program of assistance to the regions be restructured to allow for more equity and more support to those who
need it more?
We will have the groups in this room. We will divide the groups into six groups, six regions but it may go beyond six,
again because representatives from Region 11 might be more than 10.
We will do the discussion for an hour and then the rapporteur will give the report to the committee who will synthesize
all the reports which will be presented in the afternoon. We are going to have a working lunch.
18
WORKSHOP REPORT: OPEN FORUM
Dr. Agapito Hornido: There was a question or an issue on intellectual property rights (IPR) presented earlier. May I
ask if there is an intellectual research property rights in research?
Ms. Merlita Opeña: In terms of intellectual property rights, the DOST has already come up with guidelines on that.
And tomorrow, if you can attend the session on intellectual property rights, all the important people who can talk
about IPR are there. Please come. There is a session tomorrow from 9:00AM to 5:00PM. The enhanced answer will
be there; but to answer your question, IPR are assets in research. IPR and research go hand in hand. So if you are
talking about IPR, you are talking about research. And it is important that research institutions come up with their IPR
policies to guide the researchers within institutions.
Dr. Agapito Hornido: One of the common practices is that research institutions from Manila get funding from foreign
donors or any other donors and do their job of survey and research in the province. Up to this time, these funding
institutions from Manila still utilize people from Manila and do not use local talents or local resources in the region.
Can you comment on this?
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: If we can strengthen the regions, there is no reason why researchers from Manila
cannot utilize the regions. In fact, we finished a survey in Surigao, Sorsogon and Western Samar, and the actual
people who conducted the research were local educational institutions, local research institutions. There is no reason
why regions cannot be utilized. Even the regions themselves can propose research that they feel needs to be done.
Research does not necessarily have to come from Manila then contract out local people; the local institutions can
propose research.
Dr. Agapito Hornido: Do you have an existing policy on this?
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: No. It‟s not a strict policy but in the PNHRS, the driving thought behind this now is that
it is the regions which will drive or steer health research in the Philippines. We are committed to that.
Dr. Agapito Hornido: Is the PNHRS strong enough to recommend some policy in Manila, for example, to observe this
kind of policy.
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: What PCHRD can do, at least for example in the PNHRS, through Dr. Antonio Ligsay
who stated that unless the research in NCR is aligned with the NUHRA, PCHRD will not fund it. We do not want to
prioritize Metro Manila; we want to prioritize the health research needs of the regions.
Dr. Agapito Hornido: Thank you Dr. Nañagas. I am asking this because in the province, our common experience is
that people from Manila are still doing their research in the province and still do not recognize or utilize local people.
And unfortunately, they conduct the research in the province without even giving some feedback on what happened
to the research.
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: The research that we did, for example, in Surigao del Sur, we tapped the Surigao del
Sur Polytechnic University, they were the ones who did the research. We were just the ones who came there to train
them on how to use the survey form but we even have them translate the English forms into the local dialect and then
re-translated it to English just to test if it was accurate.
Mr. Gil Dureza: Seldom do I see the industry or maybe the research institutions sending titles to universities to run
research. Davao Doctors produce about a thousand nurses in a year. All of these nurses are doing researches in a
form of thesis; they are well guided with statisticians, among others. But these are not well correlated with the
industry. What/s my suggestion is to try to link the industry‟s practices versus the resources we have. I think we don‟t
19
need big amount on researches; we already have this big pool of researches and it‟s only the Davao Doctors which
produces over a thousand graduates, how much more with the rest of the universities then. In the entire Philippines,
we are producing around 70,000 nurses in a year. So if this pool can be tapped, there is no need to get big funds.
Let‟s try to look at the model of the Silicon Valley. Around the Silicon Valley information technology (IT) park are the
big universities. What they did is that the industries that are investing in the Silicon Valley pass on their titles to the
universities. The university students conduct researches, and the companies finance these researches. If the
research has its commercial value, it will be bought by the industry from the student researchers. Then it could either
apply for IPR or patent so the companies can readily use the innovation. I think, in the case of that scenario, that can
be also be applied here. It‟s not a question of strategic planning but coming up with a good business model.
Ms. Merlita Opeña: Thank you for your comment. In fact, in the Science and Technology Committee, we encourage
strong academe and industry linkages so that people who are doing research which has potential commercializable
outputs work with industry right at the start. So that there is a possibility of coming up with spin off, the way you
described the Silicon Valley.
Dr. Exaltacion Lamberte: I would like to share our experience at De La Salle University with respect to IPR, which I
think should be discussed in the Forum tomorrow. There are sensitive issues here: Who owns the research thesis,
dissertation outputs of the students? Is it the university or the student? Who owns the research outputs funded by the
universities? Who owns the research outputs funded by the PCHRD-DOST and DOH? Is it a joint authorship? And
be careful with industry linkages. Before you go into linkages, we should be very clear on the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) in terms of ownership of discovery or knowledge, especially if they transformed that into what we
call incubation period. In other words, if you have the research output, they put that in an incubation unit, meaning
they want to refine, re-develop the product for commercialization. You have to be very sensitive about this, like
authorship. Don‟t allow ourselves to be data collectors, not only for Metro Manila but for international universities as
well. US-based institutions like to collaborate with us. Then, they will ask us to be the data collector then they will
analyze it then we won‟t even know what will happen. Our names are not even in the report. The same way with
global forum type of conferences; you do country studies, and in the end, they come up with a report wherein your
names are not even mentioned. We have to be vigilant. Lastly, the CHED requires all universities now and colleges
to have policies governing IPR. We, in De La Salle University, engaged on that since it can create tension among
faculty.
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: Dr. Lamberte mentioned something about university IPR policies. I think it really
depends on the university. For example, in UP, if you were able to invent a device while you are employed as a
faculty member of UP, it is UP who will help you get a patent, but you will only get 25% of royalties. The thinking of
the university is that, you were able to invent that while you were employed by the university. On the other hand,
when you sign a contract with a funding agency, take a careful look at it. It has happened to us that we cannot
disseminate our paper because it was stated in the contract that the results are the property of the funding agency.
So take a look at the contract and maybe you can haggle about that.
20
CLOSING REMARKS
Dr. Anthony C. Sales
Regional Director, Department of Science and Technology Region XI
It has been a long day and I can see on your faces that you are tired so I won‟t take much of your time.
First, let me commend the conveners of this session, in particular, I would like to mention Dr. Mila Viacrusis of the
Department of Health, CHD-11; Dr. Vicky Lupase of the Davao Medical School Foundation, with the able assistance
of Ms. Lani Joaquin; and from the PNHRS, Ms. Belle Intia. They did a very good job in organizing this session.
I would also like to thank each and everyone of you for participating in this pre-conference. I am heartened by the
good turn out of participants, not only in terms of number, we were expecting only 150 but this ballooned to about
300; that‟s a big accomplishment for RHRDC-Davao, PCHRD and all other partners. Also in terms of the quality of
participants as evidenced by the good outputs that were presented earlier, so I think that deserves a big round of
applause to all of us.
Today is just the first leg of the 3rd PNHRS Week celebration. Tomorrow and on Friday, we will be convening a
series of panel discussions on IPR and technology commercialization, ethics and ethics review, marketing research
to health care providers and research registries, among others. We enjoin you to be here tomorrow and on Friday to
further explore and answer some of the key issues that need to be addressed and to bring more voices into the
discussion. From what I gleaned into today‟s Forum, we had very extraordinary productive set of discussions and
generated a wealth of information which I hoped all the consortia will be able to translate to tangible and specific
research programs and projects.
So with that, once again, maayong hapon sa inyong tanan (good afternoon to everyone)!
21
MINDANAO RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND PROPOSALS
Region 9
Does the
Assessment
Report reflect
the situation
of your
region?
What are your
plans to
address the
areas for
improvement
and the
challenges
posed?
--
Region 10
Region 11
Region 12
RESPONSES TO WORKSHOP GUIDE QUESTIONS
-Yes
No
--
--
--
--
--
--
- Localization of
the national health
issue on maternal
mortality and
neonatal mortality
through regional
multisectoral
collaboration and
coordination
--
CARAGA
ARMM
- Address lack of
funding for
research
* Encourage and
support pre-clinical
researches in the
in the academe
(Students can fund
their own
research; If
research proposal
is promising,
mentors should be
able to request
funding assistance
from PCHRD
and/or DOH)
* Improve
research output
from
students/academe
by training more
mentors
* Bring down the
cost of research
by reactivating
PITAHC as center
22
for research
development
(laboratory studies
for pre-clinical
trials)
- Strengthen
collaboration
between
academe, NGOs
(researchers) and
LGUs on research
areas
- Improve
dissemination of
research results;
and bring down
research results to
LGUs for
implementation
- Improve baseline
data banking
- Need to unify
research thru IEC,
commitment and
incentives
- Assess what has
been done before
and evaluate if
researches have
addressed the
agenda
- Determine the
usefulness of
research output to
LGU
- Localize
research
participants (area
based)
* Stakeholders
23
* Local academe
* NGO
* LGU
- Cluster of
consortia in
Mindanao for
convergence
- Better
understanding of
IPR as a tool for
participation and
sharing of
information without
mental reservation
- Capacity building
of consortia and
strengthening of
laboratories
- Apprenticeship of
young researchers
to develop more
and timely
research
- Reach out from
top to bottom
- Conduct value
formation on IPR
- Implement the
User‟s Fee
principle
- Adopt twopronged strategies
by combining both
pro-active and
reactive strategies.
For example:
* Pro-active: Invest
in water supply
system; IEC;
24
improve sanitation
What points
were missed?
Does the
Mindanao
health
research and
development
strategy
respond to
the health
challenges of
Mindanao?
What are the
enabling
factors?
--
--
* Reactive: Hire
more medical
practitioners; build
more hospitals
--
--
--
Yes
Yes
--
--
- Issues identified
- Identify what we
have
--
- A unifying theme
has been
identified
- Greater
consciousness Collaboration
of the history
and culture of
- Commitment
Mindanao; that
the cultural
diversity of
Mindanao must
be considered
on what
priorities for
research
should be
pursued for
Mindanao;
what are the
things the we
need to be
sensitive about
with respect to
the
communities of
Mindanao
- Greater
consciousness
of the
developments
and dynamics
of time (e.g.,
climate
change,
- Interest
generated
- Manpower and
technical
capabilities
available
- Linkages with
other
organizations
- Consolidation of
funds
--
--
--
- Involve all
stakeholders
- Collaborate
through
complementation
of efforts
- Encourage
investment from
LGUs, etc.
- Institutionalize
the consortium
- More accessible
funds
- More capability
building to less
experienced but
eager/highly
motivated
researchers
- Capacity building
for research
management (i.e.,
training of
mentors)
- Collaborative
efforts among the
different
stakeholders
- Strengthening of
information
exchange system.
Make use of the
25
What are the
impeding
factors?
environmental
conditions led
to differences
in the
behaviour of
health disease
causing
agents;
 changing
policies that
have been
legislated such
as clean air
act, cheap
medicines act,
reproductive
health act)
- Competing
priorities
(research not a
priority)
- Lack of
funding
- Lack of
research
competencies
Information
technology, for
example GIS,
teleconferencing
using Skype, etc.
- Time
- Logistics
- No full time
researchers
- Doctors
overloaded
- Limited
resources
- Need for overall
coordinator
- Cultural
differences
- Limited
accessibility to
government
services
- Political will
(e.g., change in
leadership during
election)
--
- Peace and order
situation
- Slow evaluation
of proposals, thus
delayed approval
- Frequent
change of
administration
and change of
management
priorities
- Geographic
distance
- Lack of
coordination and
collaboration from
different agencies
or member
institutions
- Turnover of
position and
administration
- Capability
building is not
26
strong (in relation
to the issue that
only 2 out of 7
proposals were
approved)
- Human resource
to train people on
research writing
Who are the
other
stakeholders
who should be
involved?
- International
NGOs
- NGOs
- NGOs
- LGUs
- No localized
policy on health
management
- LGUs
- LGUs
- Professional
organizations
- Civil society
organizations
- Pharmaceutical
industries
- Communities
--
- POs
- POs
- Academic
research
institutions
- Private
sector
- POs
- LGUs
- NGOs
- Private sectors
- Universities
- Academe
- NGOs
- Community
leaders
- Industries
- Communities
What regional
or Mindanao
resources can
be tapped to
support the
research
program?
What would
you like to
happen after
this Forum?
- Strong
regional
consortia
- Better
collaboration
- Strong
- Other
regional
consortium in
the region
and in
Mindanao
- More budget
- Capability
building
(seminar/
-Other civic
organizations
- 1% of GAD
budget to go to
research on
maternal health
- Local
(indigenous)
experts to train
more people to be
mentors to others
- Industries to be
tapped as they
have a program
under the
corporate social
responsibility
- 5-year program
system research
on maternal/
neonatal mortality
- Quality human
resources
--
- Indigenous
natural resources
- Member
academic
institutions can
provide facilities
and manpower
- Collaborate with
other health
consortia
- Financial
resources of
stakeholders and
member
institutions of
consortium
- Laboratories
Address the gaps
- Implement
recommendations
--
- Work on ARMM
strategic plan to
address issues
and concerns of
27
consortia
- Interinstitutional
collaboration
workshop/
writeshop)
- Networking
among
Mindanao
Health
Research and
Development
Consortium
for common
researchable
areas
- Mindanaowide
database of
experts and
completed
and ongoing
researches
(online) and
other relevant
data
- Policy for
two or three
Mindanaowide research
to be
undertaken
by the
different
regional
consortia
- Policy for
the utilization
of research
results
(should be
included in
the structure)
- Divide up the
work (during
implementation)
- Identify project
activities for
implementation
- Address all the
identified areas for
improvement
- Come up with
strategic plan
- Reactivate
PITAHC as
laboratory center
for clinical studies
for Mindanao
- Concrete plan of
action
- Close monitoring
and evaluation
scheme for all
approved research
grants
the consortium
- Act upon the
recommendations
of SOME such as:
* Revision of
ARMM RUHRA
* Long term
human resource
development
program based
on health
research agenda
* Conduct
assessment of
health manpower
and facilities
- Establish better
linkages
* Develop
resource
mobilization
strategy
- Allow the region
to have its own
screening
committees for the
proposals
* Make available
biostatistician to
assist health
researchers on
research designs
- Immediate
follow-up of the
research output
- Creation of
Mindanao Health
Research and
Development
Council
- Study of existing
policies on health,
research, etc.
- Strengthen
partnership (local
level) among
academe-LGUs28
NGOs
29
DAY 2, PARALLEL CAPACITY BUILDING SESSIONS
MARKETING RESEARCH TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND POLICYMAKERS
MARKETING RESEARCH TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
Dr. Luis C. Tongco, Jr.
Professor, School of Communication, University of Asia and the Pacific
Ms. Ma. Luisita T. Suarez
Marketing Consultant and Lecturer, School of Communication, University of Asia and the Pacific
What is marketing?



Marketing is about providing value for your chosen customers.
You choose a market and provide them with a value.
Value = Benefit - Cost
The 4-Step Marketing Process
1. Audience - Who do I want to talk to?
How well do you know your audience? What are their varying needs, their motivations, and their
backgrounds?
Some categories to help you know your audience:
 Demographics
 age, income, gender, educational level, socio-economic class, occupation
 geographic - region (NCR, Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), urban vs. rural
 Psychographics / Lifestyle
 values and motivations: family, career, spirituality, camaraderie, status oriented, hedonistic, costsensitive
 User Status
 current user, non-user, competitive user, lapsed user
 Usage Rate
 light, medium, heavy
 Benefits sought
 quality, image, function, price
 Loyalty
 none, moderate, high
 Attitude towards your research services
 dissatisfied, indifferent, moderate, delighted
Audiences only recognize what is meaningful to them. What significant value will you add to their lives?
2. Content - What do I want to tell them?



What makes your product different from its competitors?
What specific benefit will address the audience‟s need?
What unique value can you provide them that others cannot offer?
30

What are you “The Best”• in?
For example: Our (brand) is the only (product category) that (uniqueness).
Being different means providing a meaningful value proposition to your customers that competitors cannot
easily replicate.
3. Channels - How will I reach them?
 How would your prospects prefer to receive information about your service?
 Which channels do they give importance to?
 Which channels would leave a more positive impression on them?
 Talk to your customers and prospects when and where they want to hear from you (not at your own
convenience).
 Which channels will your audience be most receptive to?
People are most receptive to products when they either have a current or latent need to make a decision or
solve a problem.
Which marketing stage is your audience in right now?
 Cognitive: He is aware of your product but he‟s not really excited about it. He has never tried it and
he doesn‟t see the personal relevance yet.
 Affective: He is upbeat about the product, heard great reviews, but wants to know more details
about it.
 Behavioral: He has tried your product and may have customer satisfaction issues; he might need to
be convinced to re-purchase, given an upsell / cross sell.
The 4-Stage Buy In Process
 Awareness: from unaware to knowledgeable
 Interest: from knowledgeable to liking
 Desire: from liking to conviction
 Action: from conviction to commitment
4. Results - What results do I expect? How shall I measure success?




Level of engagement / participation of the end users of health research
Number of health products in the market
Level of awareness of health products in the market
Number of health / health related policies / ordinances, health actions affected by research
Case Study Examples
Bonamine ”Biyahe Tayo” Campaign
Audience



A, B and C markets who can afford to travel
Government: Needed support for the campaign to work
Profile includes the Filipinos who travel locally for vacation purposes (long weekends, summer destinations)
Insight
 Motion sickness is a common experience across various markets (ranging from A, B, to C) and can be a
hindrance to enjoying a pleasurable vacation.
31
Content
 Bonamine is the only effective medicine for motion sickness. We are the average Filipino‟s partner in
comfortable and enjoyable travel.
 Bonamine is your partner in increasing local tourism and travel

Channels
 Music video (similar to “We are the World”)
 Bonamine‟s character Bonito: taking part in local festivals
 Music video: aired in TV stations, buses, ships, ferries, Department of Tourism‟s website, downloaded and
passed on to friends
Results
 Bonamine‟s sales increased by 5%
 Local tourism increased by 27%
Enervon “Be Happy” Campaign
Audience
 Males and females in the broad C and D market aged 27 to 40, who belong to the working class and they
need more energy to carry out their tasks
Insight
 Target audience relates vitamins as essential for energy; and having sustained energy is associated with
pleasure, fulfillment, and a sense of self-worth.
Content
 More Energy = Mas (More) Happy
 Product benefit: Enervon gives you the ability to do more
Channels
 TV commercials: employing local celebrities including Toni Gonzaga, Cesar Montano, Michael V., Winnie
Cordero, Pia Guanio
 “Be Happy”• song launch
 Merchandising: Gondola‟s sampling packs and price tags
 Results direct sales growth
 Reversed sales decline
Sample Case Study for the Workshop
A Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Virgin Coconut Oil compared with Zinc Oxide in the Treatment of
Diaper Dermatitis in Patients 0-24 months old
Sheryl Joy E. Gracilla, MD, Tondo Medical Center
Background:
Diaper dermatitis, commonly known as diaper or nappy rash, is considered the most common dermatological
problem of infancy. Zinc oxide is the active ingredient in many diaper rash creams. Nowadays, so much attention has
been given to the use of virgin coconut oil (VCO) not only as a food supplement but also for dermatological purposes.
The significance of this study is to know if virgin coconut oil, possessing many health benefits and potentials, is
comparable to zinc oxide being one of the most commonly used and effective topical agent for diaper dermatitis.
Research Questions:
32
Is virgin coconut oil as effective as zinc oxide in lowering the baseline severity scores and global assessment of
clinical response scores? Is virgin coconut oil as safe as zinc oxide in the treatment of diaper dermatitis?
Objective:
To determine the efficacy and safety of virgin coconut oil compared with zinc oxide in the treatment of diaper
dermatitis in patients 0-24 months old and to determine their demographic characteristics such as age, sex, type of
diaper used, frequency of diaper change and methods of cleaning.
Design:
Open label, prospective randomized-controlled trial conducted for three months from August to October 2008
Setting:
Tondo Medical Center - Pediatrics Ward and Out Patient Department
Participants:
Patients 0-24 months old with diaper dermatitis
Methodology:
The patients were randomly assigned either into Topical A (virgin coconut oil) or Topical B (zinc oxide). Patients who
have initially been started with any topical medication for diaper dermatitis were excluded. Twenty patients received
Topical A, likewise 20 patients received Topical B. Baseline severity scoring was done at Day 0 and the patients
were reassessed on Day 3, Day 5 until Day 7 using both the severity scores and the global evaluation of clinical
response scores. Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables.
Results:
Majority of the patients (70%) were less than five months, being most common among the neonates (37.5%). Almost
equal number of males (22) and females (18) had diaper dermatitis. Diapers are being changed 3-4 times a day with
the use of soap and water in almost half of the patients (52.5%). Majority (72.5%) uses disposable diapers and cloth
alternately. Majority of patients (95.5%) had moderate (47.5%) and mild (45.0%) type lesions. Both were effective in
decreasing the severity scores and global evaluation of clinic response scores. On the other hand, there was no
significant difference noted between VCO and zinc oxide treated groups. Both were comparable in decreasing the
severity scores and global evaluation of clinic response scores. Although there were two (10%) subjects in Treatment
A with milk hypo-pigmentation, however, it was not significant.
Conclusion:
Virgin coconut oil is as effective and safe as zinc oxide in treating diaper dermatitis.
Recommendation:
The researcher recommends another study to include more subjects with severe diaper dermatitis. Follow-up of
patients one week after the treatment is also recommended to document recurrence of dermatitis.
Keywords: virgin coconut oil, zinc oxide, diaper dermatitis
Sample Competitors in the Market
1. DESITIN® Diaper Rash Cream
Diaper rash is a common and easily treatable part of a baby‟s life. Trusted by more pediatricians and moms
than any other brand, DESITINA creates a barrier to relieve the discomfort of diaper rash on contact and
establish the ideal soothing, healing environment. Nothing works faster than DESITINA at providing diaper
rash relief.
33
DESITIN®. The trusted expert on diaper rash relief for 80 years.
Ingredients: zinc oxide 40%, BHA, cod liver oil, fragrance, lanolin, methylparaben, petrolatum, talc.
2. Babecology Diaper Balm
This luxurious diaper cream is made with organic ingredients and essential oils. As a result, it smells divine.
Ingredients include lavender, chamomile, mango butter, jojoba oil and more. The lotion itself feels light going
on. It's not oily or hard to get out of the tube, and it glides onto baby's skin easily. If you like a scented diaper
cream, this one is a perfect choice.
Ingredients: purified water, sorbitol, stearic acid, glycerine (vegetable source), mango butter, glyceryl
stearate, n-lauroyl l-lysine, natural fragrance (pure and genuine essential oils of lavender, chamomile and
tea tree), green tea extract, aloe vera gel, lecithin, primrose oil, jojoba oil, polysorbate 20, panthenol,
coconut oil, caprylic/capric triglyceride, tocopherol (natural vitamin E), sodium hydroxymethylglycinate,
retinol (vitamin A), trace minerals (Mg, Sn, Zn).
3. Grandma El's Diaper Rash Remedy and Prevention
It is a patented, pediatrician recommended, healing ointment. Used with each and every diaper change, it
will help to protect, prevent, and heal diaper rash.
Ingredients: Grandma El‟s is manufactured by an FDA and GMP compliant skin care product manufacturer.
The formulation of Grandma El‟s is comprised of ingredients which are derived from natural and organic
origin, and contains no preservatives. Grandma El's only contains ingredients on the FDA GRAS (Generally
Regarded as Safe) List and is Hypo-Allergenic so you can be assured your baby is getting the safest
therapy. It contains:





Anti-oxidant Natural Vitamin E, derived from Wheat Germ Oil (D alpha tocopherol acetate)
Natural active derivatives of the plant Balsam of Peru, a known healing agent
Salicylic Acid, derived from Willow bark and Wintergreen; this ingredient acting with Vitamin E can
promote the growth of new skin
Yellow Petrolatum, derived from naturally occurring mineral oil
Insecticide-free Anhydrous Lanolin, a naturally occurring, allergy-free protecting and healing agent
4. Boudreaux's Butt Paste®
The name of this popular diaper cream is inelegant, but this remedy works fast and is easy to find in Stores.
Boudreaux's Butt Paste® comes in a jar or tube. The tube size is really handy for tossing in a diaper bag.
Many moms who use this diaper cream say that Boudreaux's Butt Paste® is also good for soothing other
skin irritations or skin dryness.
Boudreaux‟s Butt Paste® was specifically formulated by a pharmacist with direction from a respected
pediatrician to provide effective diaper rash care. Among its advantages include:
 Goes on and cleans off easily
 Available in convenient sizes
 Flip top cap (tubes)
 Handy travel size
 Pleasant scent
 Skin protectant
 16% Zinc Oxide
 Peruvian Balsam
34


Treats diaper rash and soothes irritated skin
Featured on the Oprah Show, Tonight Show, Today Show, People Magazine, ESPN and While
You Were Out TLC
5. Mei Mei Baby Diaper Cream
Mei Mei Baby products are all natural, safe and absolutely do not contain any petrochemicals, parabens or
SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfates). All products are 100% Australian made and have been specially formulated
using only the highest quality ingredients so that it is gentle enough to use on even the most sensitive skin.
Mei Mei Diaper Cream protects babies' delicate skin from chafing and treats diaper rash by leaving moisture
repelling protective film on the most sensitive areas of the skin. This protective film helps protect baby's skin
from excess moisture and help protects the skin's natural protective barrier. Mei Mei Diaper Cream contains
Calendula Oil, known for its soothing and antiseptic properties. Suitable for babies, infants, and adults to
protect against chafing and to help preserve the skin's natural protective barrier.
6. Nature‟s Baby Organic Diaper Cream
Pamper baby with the incredible ingredients of Nature's Baby Diaper Cream. Our soothing rich cream
promotes healthy, smooth skin, keeping your cherished little one in cooing comfort. The extra mild formula is
enriched with Organic Cocoa Butter and Vitamins A and E so you'll love the way it makes baby feel
naturally.
 Preservative Free and Fragrance Free
 100% Vegetarian, Paraben-Free, Gluten-Free
 Ingredients: 100% Vegetarian, Paraben-Free, Gluten-Free, Organic* Helianthus Annus (sunflower)
seed oil, Organic* Ricinus Communis (castor) seed oil, Zea Mays (corn) starch, Zinc Oxide,
Organic* Theobroma Cacao (cocoa) seed butter, Cera Alba (Beeswax), Ceteareth-5 (Vegetable
Emulsifying Wax), Hydrogenated Castor Oil Aloe Barbadensis leaf extract, Retinyl Palmitate
(Vitamin A), Tocopherol (Vitamin E)
*certified organic ingredient
35
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Dindo Asuncion: Looking into the components you presented, I think there is something missing. It is the ethics
point of view. I would like to give a background on the advertisements that I see like herbal medicine. It is making a
lot of money. If you noticed, they only flash a second of the note, “no approved therapeutic claim.”• When they go to
the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), they register the product as a food supplement. But when they start
marketing it, the product seems to cure almost everything. So, where is the truthfulness, the ethics?
Dr. Luis Tongco: Ethics should cut across all components. I acknowledge that. In our university, we teach that in our
future advertising professionals. We can‟t stress that enough. I hope maybe we can partner, looking at the ethical
implications.
Question: In relation to the previous comment, I also like to point out that most of the endorsers of these food
supplements are doctors. Would it be ethical for doctors to endorse products like that? I came across doctors who
are endorsers. They give lectures and they are really doctors.
Dr. Jesson Butcon: This is not a question but more of a recommendation or suggestion. What I see is the gap
between what the researchers are doing and what the marketing people are doing. Researchers stop at doing
research and they leave it to the marketing people to market whatever it is they have come up with. I think, a
recommendation to the PNHRS, is to provide a venue where researchers can come in and be skilled in converting
research into policy briefs, for example. Or help us develop skills in making our research very palatable and useful to
health care providers. I came into this without expectations because I think it is essential for us doing research to get
the skill of converting our research materials into something useful and also to those going to develop products later
on.
Dr. Warlito Vicente: First, I think, precisely, this session is here to make researchers market-conscious and not
allowing the marketers to drive the content of what we are trying to come up. Second, maybe we can ask Dr. Paulyn
Ubial, as regulatory mechanism of the Department of Health (DOH), what is being done about these so-called
testimonials by doctors.
Dr. Paulyn Ubial: I know that it has been a nagging issue being faced by the DOH, time and again. I think it is the
Philippine Medical Association (PMA) that has come out with the ethical standards for medical doctors. I just saw the
news last night, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) is going around dental clinics right now in Davao
City and looking into the advertisements in the clinics. So, not all health problems are addressed by DOH. It is really
the societies, policing their ranks. We tried to approach it through the BFAD law but it is still gray for the DOH.
Dr. Ricardo Guanzon: Doctors are now forbidden to endorse. If you have to have articles in the newspaper, you
cannot put your affiliation.
Dr. Warlito Vicente: How much does it cost to make a 30-seconder advertisement? Second, how much and how long
does a market research take?
Dr. Luis Tongco: It is very expensive.
Ms. Luisita Suarez: It depends if you have a celebrity. That is five to ten million pesos. Kris Aquino, at one point, was
charging five to seven million for one commercial. Sharon Cuneta, Kris Aquino and Aga Muhlach are the top
endorsers.
Dr. Luis Tongco: With respect to market research, you are familiar with the focus group discussions (FGDs) with
target market, they get insights. Normally, for a campaign, they have to do eight to ten FGDs, costing anywhere
36
between PhP50,000 to PhP80,000 per session. If you are doing survey research nationwide, PhP500,000 to
PhP800,000. Obviously, these companies have big money. But there is actually a way to market on a shoestring
budget. You don‟t need a 30-second TV advertisement to make a difference. We can go community level. We don‟t
need to target the whole Philippines. We can just zero in our barangay. We can have more cost-effective strategies.
It just requires more creativity. We are with an academic institution but we are closely tied with the advertising
industry. Actually, a lot of advertising agencies do pro-bono work. If they are passionate about it and they believe that
your product can make a difference. I mean, it is just a matter of pitching the idea to them and pulling the right
strings. I know of several advocacy campaigns that the big advertising firms have done for free.
Dr. Edgardo Tulin: I am a researcher and I have this product. The reason I attended this session is to know more
about marketing because I am planning to make a startup venture for a product which I derived from root crop. This
is a good product because it is addressing specific issues on hypertension and diabetes. We are now working to get
our license from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), DOH and BFAD. From my experience, there are
so many regulations in doing this. As a researcher, it is very taxing to go through these regulations. It is not very
easy. The process is long. Maybe it is good for us to partner with other agencies.
37
COMMUNICATING RESEARCH TO POLICYMAKERS
Dr. Cecilia S. Acuin
Assistant Professor, University of the Philippines Manila - National Institutes of Health (UPM-NIH)
What is the purpose of policy? Policy as a statement of belief/ position/ value: No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws
(Philippine Constitution, Bill of Rights).
Policy as a method of risk management: All applicants must have passed the entrance examinations and the
qualifying interview to be conducted by the Program Coordinator/Director. All cases must be referred to the Research
Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) for diagnostic testing. Policy as a rule: Grants are good for one year and are
reviewed every calendar year for satisfactory performance.
Policy as an aid to program effectiveness: Reporting and supervisory requirements Work load conditions Policies on
hiring, promotion, renewal, etc.
Step 1: Problem Analysis.
 How do issues arise?
 How do issues get on the agenda?
 How do issues get prioritized?
 Who sets the agenda? the priorities?
 Is it a problem relating to risk factor, disease or condition? the intervention? service provision? program
implementation?
 Whose perspective? Whose values?
 Which framework?
o Technical or scientific
o Economic
o Social
o Political
o Others
 Defining the problem: whose perspective?
Step 2: Assemble the Evidence
 Nexus of research and policy
 Looking for and/or generating relevant data o Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
o Operations Research
 Assessing the quality of data - explicit and comprehensive
o Systematic reviews: Cochrane
 Synthesizing the data
o Meta-analysis HTAs, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
 Health Technology Assessment - systematic assessment of the technical properties, effectiveness, safety,
applicability as well as economic, ethical, legal, and societal effects of drugs, devices, health care
procedures, programs or systems
 Systematic Review - overview of primary studies that used explicit and reproducible methods to estimate
treatment effectiveness
 Meta-analysis - mathematical synthesis of the results of two or more primary studies that addressed the
same hypothesis in the same way
Advantages of Systematic Reviews
38





Explicit methods, pre-digested information
May reduce delay between discovery and implementation
Assesses generalizability and consistency issues.
Heterogeneity may raise issues for further research
Quantitative summary (meta-analysis) increases precision of results
Types of Questions for Systematic Reviews*
 Effectiveness
 Screening and diagnosis
 Exploring risk or protective factors
 Observational associations between intervention and outcomes
 Questions about prevalence
 Questions about meanings and process
 Methodological questions
 Economic questions *From Petticrew & Roberts, 2005 Hierarchy of Evidence when evaluating
Effectiveness Level Type of evidence
1) Systematic reviews of all relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs)
2) At least one properly designed RCT
3-1) Well-designed non-random control trials
3-2) Well-designed cohort or case-control trial preferably from >1 research group or center
3-3) Multiple time series with or without intervention; dramatic results from uncontrolled trial
4) Expert opinion, consensus statement
Inferring from the Evidence
 Strength
o Biological plausibility
o Other forms of evidence
o Concordance with related reviews
o Applicability
 Biological differences
 Economic and cultural differences
 Differences in baseline risk
Grade Scores for Quality of Differences





High - further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate - further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of
effect and may change the estimate
Low - further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of
effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very Low - any estimate effect is very uncertain Look for differences, not just similarities among studies
Systematic reviews usually bring together studies that were performed
o by different people
o in different settings
o in different countries
o on different people
o in different ways
39









o for different lengths of time
o to look at different outcomes
o and these are not only the differences
Clinical diversity
Methodological diversity
Statistical heterogeneity Trade-offs
Evidence is not enough
Adverse effects
Costs
Unintended consequences
Avoid value statements
Uncertainty rules. Beware of accepting the alternative hypothesis instead of rejecting the null.
Concluding from the Evidence
 Does the intervention work at all? In which patients? In what circumstances?
 What have we learned from this review that can be applied to clinical practice?
 What have we learned from this review about the need for further evaluation and research?
Beware
 Absence of evidence of effectiveness vs. evidence of absence of effectiveness
 Mismatch between evidence and solutions
 More research is needed
Step 3: Potential Solutions
 Are there options or alternatives?
o Include “do nothing”• or status quo
 Context is paramount
 Start comprehensively, end up focused
 If possible, limit to 2-3 options
Step 4: Define Criteria for Evaluating Outcomes
How will you decide which option to select (or recommend or support)?
 Technical/Scientific: safety, efficacy, effectiveness
 Economic: costs, cost-effectiveness, efficiency benefits vs. risks/consequences
 Ethical: autonomy, non-maleficence, justice
 Social: equity, norms, weigh values
 Administrative/Organizational: feasibility
 Legality: consistency with existing rules/standards
 Political acceptability: too much or too little support
Step 5: Define Outcomes
 Project costs (include system or management costs)
 Consider risks and consequences
 Use evidence
 May need to develop outcomes matrix
Step 6: Confront and Reconcile Trade-offs
 Compare to “do nothing”•
 Use evidence to project outcomes and scenarios
 Rank alternatives or options based on your willingness to accept trade-offs “Win-win”• scenario is possible
40
Step 7: Decide
 If you are the decision maker, how will you decide?
 Consider plausibility (are outcomes plausible? are the scenarios logical or based on reliable evidence?)
 Ask “Why not?”• (can counter-arguments be overcome? at what cost?)
Step 8: Report and Promote (telling your story)
Challenges in research use (Lavin J, 2009)
 Research not valued as source of information (Environment)
 Research is not relevant (Production)
 Research is not easy to use (Translation) Challenges in Translation
 Research is not communicated effectively (Push)
 Research is not available when policymakers need it and in a form that they can use (Facilitating Pull)
 Policymakers lack mechanisms to prompt them to use research in policymaking (Pull)
 Policymakers lack fora where policy challenges can be worked through with key stakeholders
(Exchange)
Writing Policy Briefs
 Who is your audience?
 What “hook”• will capture their attention? Use this as your opening statement.
 Suggested format
o 1 page of key messages
o 3 to 4 pages executive summary
o 25 page technical brief
 What is the problem?
 How the problem is currently characterized? (indicators, comparisons, alternative framings)
 Describe the three policy options.
 Characterize what can be reasonably expected from these options.
 Describe barriers to implementation.
 In the 25 page technical summary, include:
o characterization of the harms, benefits, costs, cost effectiveness
o description of the evidence
o description of applicability and equity considerations, including stakeholder perspectives
o list of references, literature review
Merit Review of the Policy Brief
 One researcher and one policymaker
 Assessment form (handout)
 Revise if needed
 Prepare for policy dialogue Policy Dialogue
 An off-the-record deliberation of the policy options involving the five most crucial persons, fairly
representative of the stakeholders involved with the outcome, informed by a pre-circulated policy brief
 Discussion is about full range of factors (criteria for outcomes), not just research findings
 Skilled facilitation - Chatham House Rule
 Not aiming for consensus, but to raise issues
Chatham House Rule
 “Participants are free to use the information received during the meeting, but neither the identity nor the
affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”•
 Revise policy if necessary then Implement, Monitor and Evaluate the policy.
41
OPEN FORUM
Question: When we score the quality of evidence, are we going to score each evidence or all evidences at the same
time?
Dr. Cecilia Acuin: Based on each study, and the study itself may have several kinds of evidence available. But it is
the way they did the study that will tell you of the quality. If it is a good study, then you can probably rely on each of
the pieces of evidence that they present there.
Dr. Lulu Bravo: This is such an important topic. I really chose to come here because, and we agreed upon this, there
are many researches that do not really translate to the community, the grassroots. I would want to cite a case that we
can actually use in order to focus on that research going to policymakers. I was reading this health policy on mothers,
newborns, and children. One of the policy stated here is for mothers to go into the facility to give birth. It is proven
that it will decrease maternal mortality. Research has shown that one of the basic barriers for mothers to come to the
facility is the attitude of the health personnel in the birth facility. Mothers would rather risk their lives in home delivery
rather than be insulted and suffer the humiliating atmosphere in a birth facility. Given this scenario, and you are a
researcher, you know that this is happening, how do we translate this to the policymakers?
Dr. Cecilia Acuin: There are several ways to address that concern. First, you have to tell the policymaker that there is
overwhelming evidence. Second, it is to address the concerns of the quality of care in birth facilities. This is an
operations issue that I think the DOH has also been trying to address. At the policymakers‟ level, you can tell them
that there are efforts being exerted to improve that. At the local level, you can encourage them to look at their own
institutions and assess the quality of care there. The burden is actually on DOH. But to make it happen, DOH needs
all our help. Local implementation is at the hands of health providers at the local level and researchers at the local
level are in the best position to give feedback about the quality of care in their areas. Challenge your policymakers to
fund a research to assess the condition in your health facilities.
Question: Is it possible to tell the policymakers to increase the salary of the personnel in the birth facility? Or is there
a study to show that increase in the salary will increase the quality of service?
Dr. Cecilia Acuin: Yes, there is evidence for that. Incentives for health providers, not just salaries, is a good topic for
systematic review.
Dr. Jesson Butcon: What do you think can be done with the current setup with the universities producing research?
The researches that are being generated are not necessarily translated to policy largely because, based in our
context, of the debate between the academic requirement vis-a-vis what the policymakers would want to look at and
utilize. On second thought, I am also having problems with externally funded researches that are being run by our
organization. The donor organization would have some hand on the findings and now it is going to be utilized. Is
there a current mechanism that is being developed by DOH to optimize the role of university as producer of
knowledge and expand it later on to more active role? You mentioned that CHED is now part of the System. How do
we capitalize on the strength of the university and the System to really make sure that we produce research for its
real purpose and not just to sway the market towards a certain product?
Dr. Cecilia Acuin: DOH has also no control over the universities. If we want to change university policies, the more
appropriate venue for medical schools would be PRC or maybe the professional societies. They would have more
influence on the university. About externally funded researches vis-a -vis more academic kinds of researches, that
strikes very close to home because I‟ve had that argument with our personnel board. Some of the researches that I
do are externally funded and therefore, the funding agency put some constraints on the publication. You go through a
lot of hoops to get your research published. So, I do other researches that are more academic so that I would comply
with the minimum requirements for accreditation in my institution.
42
Dr. Lulu Bravo: I would like to ask Mike. If you were a media person, what are the channels to come up with the
results that will improve the utilization of the birth facility? I look at this as marketing your research. How do media
help?
Mr. Mike Gomez: Your response or interventions may need to be localized. Media is certainly valuable but maybe not
on a national level. It would have to be explored with local groups. The way to get to the policymakers to do things is
to actually write the bill for them. We can‟t expect them to think and we tell them the problem and ask them to solve it
by writing a bill. We write the bill for them. Show them what‟s in it for them and for you.
Dr. Rowena Yu: I think no amount of laws will be effective if the policymakers themselves are not committed. What
we did to address our problem on maternal and infant mortality in Cagayan de Oro, our City Health Officer made an
advocacy to the mayor, bringing the data on mortality cases so that we have a policy that no „hilot‟• will be allowed to
attend home deliveries without the presence of our health personnel in the area.
Dr. Cecilia Acuin: The challenge is not just for the policymakers but also for researchers and implementers. We need
to do our share.
43
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH: INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo C. Nañagas
Chair, PNHRS Structure, Organization, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
First, we want to find out what each of you have and what each of you on the ground needs so that we can tell the
higher-ups; because they may be wasting their efforts on making plans that are not applicable to the conditions in
your regions to begin with.
Why is there a need for this workshop?
 Climate change: a matter of action or inaction and the risks involved
 Proactive health adaptation strategies are needed to protect the world‟s most vulnerable people from the
effects of climate change on human health and well-being. (The Commission on Climate Change and
Development, April 2009)
 There is a strong, global, scientific consensus that warming of the climate system is a fact and is affecting
human health. (World Health Organization, November 2008)
 Climate change: a cause for national concern / national security
 A recent Department of National Defense workshop on “Strengthening the Philippines' Institutional Capacity
to Adapt to Climate Change”•
 There are many meetings and workshops, but how are we focused?
 systems and methodologies
Strategic Management
The set of decisions and actions that result in the formulation and implementation of plans designed to achieve a
company‟s (organization‟s) objectives• (Pearson and Robinson)
What is different about this workshop?
 Scenario based - what climate change will happen most probably that will affect us most?
 What areas in Mindanao will probably be affected and the timing of its occurrence?
 What will happen to those areas and how will it affect health? (i.e., national well-being)
What strategies can we adopt to address these scenarios?
 Strategies can lead to plans and performance appraisal down to the barangay level
 Strategies and plans will determine what capabilities are needed to address the scenarios
 Strategies will define effective collaboration with other agencies and create a competitive advantage
Where does research come in?
 Identify knowledge gaps needed for scenario setting, strategy formulation and planning; for example,
monitoring of health status due to climate change
 Identify capabilities required - before it happens, when it is happening, after it happens (capability
assessment)
Expected Output
 A familiarity with the process of strategic management and its value to research agenda and other
government programs
44
PARTICIPANT'S EXPECTATIONS
Dr. Cynthia Cordero (University of the Philippines Manila): I am here because I was threatened by the movies I've
seen where people neglect climate change and its consequences, the loss of lives.
Ms. Daisy Sinaulog (Brokenshire College, Davao City): My intention why I joined this workshop is to get as well as
drop some ideas because I am planning to conduct a research on climate change focusing on health status.
Dr. Cecilia Amoroso (Central Mindanao State University): Our University conducts biodiversity researches and I
would like to know the correlation of climate change and health.
Ms. Alma Macahia (De La Salle University, Cavite): I chose this topic because I am active in doing researches in
marine environment and our institution would like us to develop a research on climate change. Unfortunately, I don't
have any idea how to do it. I am now doing some internet research and I encounter several topics about climate
change but I am still in the dark. Thanks to Dr. Nañagas' introduction, now ideas are starting to come in.
Dr. Inoray Osop (Mindanao State University, General Santos): My field of study is Doctor of Technology, Major in
Energy. There are several causes of climate change but I am most bothered with its health effects. We need to have
a policy on the detrimental effects of this energy and hopefully this can stop people from suffering in this kind of
environment. This is a very good opportunity for us to show the people up there that we're destroying our
environment and indeed we have to stop it or otherwise we will increase the morbidity. This is a lifetime vocation for
me and I'm very glad to be a part of it.
Ms. Julie Otadoy (Ateneo De Davao University, Davao City): Our research thrust is all about biomedical and I hope
that this venue will strengthen not only our university but also our research and extension services in Mindanao.
Ms. Elma Neyra (Southern Christian College, Cotabato): I work with the Community Education, Research and
Extension, and Administration Division of our college, and right now climate change is one of our research thrusts.
Ms. Elvie Diaz (Sultan Kudarat Polytechnic State College): I work with the Division of Extension and I am here to
know if there is something that can still be done by our division to disseminate information on the research outputs
that will be generated from this workshop.
Mr. Manuel Pacana (Eastern Visayas State University, Tacloban): I am with the Research Unit of our university and I
am here to hear some of the strategic management approaches which we can also adopt in case we have climate
change issues in our region.
Dr. Leonardo Quitos (National Economic and Development Authority Region I, Ilocos): Just recently, the Regional
Health Research and Development Council in Region 1, where we serve as secretariat, created three task forces
which are tasked to study the causes of climate change in the region. These task forces will deal on agriculture,
health and environment sectors. Putting this exposure will bring in a broader favor on the activities that we are doing
in the region. We are the first region that came up with the regional action agenda on climate change. Our activities
though, have several gaps in terms of knowledge, especially on the adverse effects of climate change. So hopefully,
the strategic management can really provide the framework where we can be more coordinative and provide various
actions to act on this.
Mr. Ronnie Dumale (Cagayan Valley Health Research and Development Consortium): I am with the Committee on
Environmental Health. I joined this group so that I would be able to learn details which are still hazy to us. I would like
to correlate environmental health and human health and understand the whole concept of climate change.
45
Dr. Franco Teves (Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology): The reason why I am here is because I
have an ongoing project being funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Region 10 particularly
on the growth development and population dynamics of the Aedes aegypti which is the vector for dengue. One of the
things that we would like to do is to validate the results of studies done in Mexico between the relationship of
decreased service temperature and incidental dengue.
Ms. Inday Mallonga (DOST, CARAGA Region): I am assisting the Regional Health and Development Consortium
(RHRDC) in CARAGA and environment and climate change is one of the core areas that the consortium is trying to
work on and I am here to learn.
Ms. Mary Jane Balawag (Notre Dame University, Cotabato City): The reason why we are here is mainly because it is
related to our work as health care providers. Also, because recently we experienced flood in our area and so we
expect that this workshop will enlighten us.
Ms. Noraisa Nor (Notre Dame University, Cotabato City): I am also a clinical instructor from Notre Dame University. I
am thinking, maybe as a clinical instructor, we can help disseminate information through our students and even to
our patients, on how to combat climate change. We are awakened because not only other countries are endangered,
our own country too. Just like what Ms. Karen Davila said, “kahit walang ulan sa Navotas, buong taon may baha”
(even if it is not raining in Navotas, there is flood all year round). Sadly, this is also true in some areas in Cotabato.
Ms. Miriam Sumail (Notre Dame University, Cotabato City): Actually, we should be aware that climate change affects
everybody, even our children. My son even said to me, that if he becomes Mayor someday, he will not permit the use
of cellophanes and other plastic products because he sees it scattered everywhere and we all know that it is nonbiodegradable. So really, it's everybody's concern.
Ms. Carmelita Martinez (RECORDS Foundation, Davao City): I am here because I feel the significance of this topic
and also because I am into environmental health.
Dr. Benjamin Dy (Ateneo de Zamboanga University): I am not a medical doctor but I work with the Public Health
Program of the university. I am here because of one particular incident last weekend with my community health
nursing class which prompted me to join this workshop. During an activity with my community health nursing class
last Saturday, I asked them how they teach kids about proper nutrition. And they answered that one of their activities
is to educate the parents on feeding their children vegetables such as broccoli and asparagus; vegetables which are
quite expensive for an ordinary Filipino family. They also use styrofoams which are not environment friendly. There, I
saw a big knowledge gap. They may be nurses but there are still a lot that don't know about environmental issues
and climate change. That is why I am here, to hopefully address that knowledge gap.
Dr. Grace Rebollos (Western Mindanao State University): I am here because I have seen three films which stirred in
me an interest in this topic. First is “Inconvenient Truth”• by Al Gore, which I felt is still very far away because of its
Western views, but admittedly the statistics are clear. Also, “Panahon Na,”• a material which is being distributed by
the Philippine Information Agency, it is an eye opener and it really has Philippine focus. I consider it a very good
material for the young people because it was delivered by Dingdong Dantes and Nikki Gil and other actors, which is a
good social marketing strategy for climate change. Ms. Nur mentioned a particular episode in “The Correspondents”•
which I also saw; that all the more hit the point dramatically. Dr. Quito mentioned that Ilocos is vulnerable; I come
from a place which is just as vulnerable. Zamboanga is at the tip of the peninsula, we're facing the Basilan-SuluTawiTawi archipelago so it makes us more vulnerable and climate change adds to the vulnerability. I would like to
see how we can address that. Without meaning to sound messianic about it, we need to hold hands in trying to
address climate change. With the work that I do, I would like to see how strategic as well as tactical enough we can
do it.
Dr. Nina Castillo-Carandang (University of the Philippines Manila): We actually want to spend a little bit time to know
46
who you are and also some expectations setting because when we were discussing the preparations for this, we had
a hard time deciding what level of approach we were going to use. But from what I've heard, if you actually want to
learn what it's all about, what the fuss is all about, and apparently climate change is felt in Cotabato, it's also felt in
the other areas where there are actual floods. We also want to deal with current environmental problems. What
messages do we actually tell to people because we ourselves are not equipped with the correct messages? And of
course interface between health and environment, and we are all vulnerable.
Just my own personal story; this morning at 4:00AM, we had an earthquake. Did you feel it? I woke my roommate
and told her that we might have to evacuate. Dr. Nañagas meanwhile heard that his roommate, who happens to be
the Department Chairman, did not try to wake him. The point is, it can happen very fast.
We were saying a while ago that Prof. Cornejo actually made a Mortality Prediction Model. It is the probability of
survival if you are admitted to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Intensive Care Unit. Number one is the
probability that you won't be bitten by mosquitoes; and if you survive the mosquito bites, next problem will be how
you are going to survive the disease. We are a very trans-disciplinary group.
I live in Los Baños, Laguna, and I would like to share that the use of plastic bags is not allowed in Los Baños. It is
being enforced by Mayor Cesar Perez and he has been going around the country for this advocacy. If you are going
to Los Baños, please bring your reusable bags. The Mayor goes to the market everyday to ensure that it is strictly
being followed, plus the smoking ban is also there. He has an environmental land-fill and a lot of local government
units actually come to see what he's been doing in Los Baños. He's been asked to help in Boracay but I don't think
he wants to get enmeshed with troubles in Boracay with all its problems. So if there is political will, it can be done. If it
can be done in Los Baños it can also be done in your place, it's just a matter of enforcing it.
47
ORIENTATION BRIEF: STRATEGY MANAGEMENT FOR CLIMATE
CHANGE AND HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez
Philippine Marines
Introduction
 Prime requirement to focus and direct health research agenda with a defined strategy
 Research strategy formulation satisfies national security requirement for a coherent, strategy-driven,
concept-led, and transparent capability development program
 Defines an adaptive strategy framework that connects health research with the requirement for capability
development program
 A research strategy that facilitates transition from traditional to capability-based perspective
Steps in the Development of a Strategic Framework
1. Elucidate preferences for strategic emphasis (also called “themes”).
2. Link ”themes”• to force postures and special capability packages.
3. Test constructs against “drivers”• of health environment.
4. Develop illustrative portfolios (refined constructs).
Strategy of Multi-Agency Health Research Engagement while Enhancing and Transforming Research Organizations
Themes
 are preferences for strategic emphasis
 cover a broad spectrum of strategic objectives, rationales and potential contingencies based on higher level
guidance and strategic assessment
 cover a wide range of choices about national interests/well-being, and future health environment
Strategic Themes (Health Security Issues)
 Increase in diseases
 Economic recession
 Conflict on resources
 Political-social issues
 Convergence of health issues with security concerns
 Disaster response and other contingencies
Force Posture
 how to best structure, deploy and position entities and how to use those entities for effective research
Special Capability Packages
 support health systems in all countries, in particular low- and middle-income states and small island states,
in order to enhance capacity for assessing and monitoring health vulnerability, risks and impacts due to
climate change
 identify strategies and actions to protect human health, particularly of the most vulnerable groups
 share knowledge and good practices
 combine systems and equipments and tasks
 combine sets of resources that are necessary to accomplish particular types of tasks and other activities
Key Issues
 Alignment of mindset
 Shift of traditional and strategic planning method: PNHRS and other agencies (system and methodologies)
48

Follow on strategic and planning sessions
49
WORKSHOP OUTPUT
GROUP 1 PRESENTATION
Dr. Franco Teves
We have chosen the following strategic themes: 1) increase in diseases and; 2) convergence of health issues with
security concerns. In the short time that was given to us, these are the scenarios that we have identified. We have
two per theme.
One is outbreak of diseases. Actually we were instructed to exclude the strategy in our presentation but we would
just like to present our initial outputs. As a consequence of the increase in population of insect vectors, we can use
the following strategies: 1) use biological control agents; and 2) implement a mosquito or vector surveillance.
Because this is one of the things that are not being implemented in the regions and if there are, the surveillance is
done sporadically.
The other scenario that we identified is the scarcity of medicines. Remember; when there is an outbreak, there is
always a projected scarcity of medicines, personnel and medical facilities. The strategy that we identified for this
particular scenario, since the resources are limited, is to apply an effective information dissemination program. And of
course to come up with people who are very good in modeling, like population dynamics, projecting the percentage of
a population that will be affected whenever there is an outbreak, the resources that would be needed and how much.
So that they can say that we have identified an issue in convergence with the health issues and security concerns,
mainly focused on food supply, we also identified food security. We project that there will be scarcity of agricultural
food supply and immobilization of key manpower as a result of this disturbance. So one of the strategies we have
identified was to promote alternative crops such as root crops and banana crops because Filipinos are rice and corn
eaters. When there is depletion of rice and corn supply, what's going to happen if we don't promote other sources of
food like root crops or banana? Again effective information dissemination is the strategy.
OPEN FORUM
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: The process tells us the developed scenarios based on the perceived problems at hand.
Components of scenarios are drivers, the causes, or trends. The purpose of that is for you to intervene decisively.
One of the purposes of the orientation brief is to share transition from traditional to scenario-based. So your loop
became a double loop. You are still in the loop of traditional because you stated the solutions right away. The
scenario-based approach is all about looking into the scenario, the whole environmental condition by the concept of
drivers and driving forces. Another point, the environmental strategizing is a learning environment. If we
compartmentalize it, we won't be able to get the key point. We will not be able to address the driver. What I'm saying
is, in strategic planning, there are several perspectives but the only challenge is to get the most of the volume. We
just need the process; the road map should be straight. We should not go straight to the solution if we haven't
understood yet what caused these driving forces. At the end, you will see that one issue is just another product of
another major issue. Choosing an issue is part of the whole process. If you fail to identify an issue, there is no task,
no mission, there is no defined organization and support. Therefore you have no options.
The gap, the reason why we do not understand this will be addressed; will be the agenda of health research. Based
on the context of climate change, one very important research construct is that weather forcing causes climate
change. What we always see is the water-level, but weather forcing happens all over the world. We haven't found
anything to connect to it and that is why one of the special capability packages for research is network. Because your
efforts may be put to waste if you do not have a network. Your research may be overlapping with other similar
50
researches outside. That is what scenario planning means, internal and external. I was listening to the discussion
and most of what I heard are internal; you haven't coped yet with the outside world.
Now you see? It's not difficult as long as you know the process. There is already a checklist in our minds, if I heard
this, I will relate to this. There are many causes, for all you know it may not even be the cause of climate change.
How can you know? It's a knowledge gap. We are looking at research to serve immediate, mid and long-term and we
continue to study. It serves the end of strategy. You continue to build up the scenario.
On security concerns, it may not only be food security. Actually, you should have defined security. There are many
aspects of food security, which aspect are you pointing at in terms of the broader concept of climate change?
Because you will hold those drivers against the postures or the way you want the organization to be. In the start of
our slide, you saw that it is a system. A problem happens because it went through some sort of a system before it
took place. It didn't just spring up, it didn't just happen, and there are causes. And most of the causes can be
undertaken by just content, that is real research, intervening concept. It is easy to remedy, because that is the frame
of mind, this is the concept; you were the one who researched it so you know the whole picture. That is the purpose
of identifying drivers and driving forces. We always fail to consider this very important process. You have to dig
deeper. That can only be uncovered by a very aggressive discussion. And those data cannot be covered and
validated, that is the subject of research agenda. Some of this will be going to “assumption”•, the assumptions are
information that need to be assumed to be true for strategic planning to go on, but backed up by research so that at
the middle, go or no go, it will be validated.
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: Remember that the objective of the PNHRS is to produce research-based policies
and law. So everything that you are doing should be research-based.
Dr. Franco Teves: The comments are very well taken, however, we would also like to inform the body that we have
identified some drivers that we did not include in the presentation.
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: It's an endless loop. If we look at all the issues, it is possible that there are only three.
And that is the requirement of this strategy; you will master all resources to attain a strategic objective because after
this, you can rundown your strategic objectives. We do a bottom up approach, because our audience is from the
bottom to middle, we are not dealing yet with the top management. And that is the grand design of this organization,
they meet with the top management, so when they come to gather you, the audience is complete, from top to bottom.
The discussion should be very effective because everybody has mastered the process of strategy development. The
drivers are very important because if you jump again, you will find yourself back at the interstate again. What we want
first and foremost is to see the issue. That should be everybody's mindset. That is the issue in my last slide, the
alignment of mindset. If our mindset is not aligned, even if you develop a good strategy, nobody will benefit from it.
When you come out of this room and go home to your regions to execute the functional strategies, there is a likely
chance of disconnection because the correct process was not followed. It was mentioned in my first slide. That is why
we counted the slides, because the slides will determine how we will damage-control the output. It is not right to just
add slides, no matter how we write it, if we can't serve the ends, it will all be for nothing. Our mission is to conduct an
effective workshop, that is our mindset. Because if something happens and there is a certainty, we know where to go
back. You will know because there is a table, a matrix, it will be easier.
In other language, those are factors, but the factors have its causes, how it drives the events and how it develops the
trend, you need to see that because it is all part of a system. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We just
put it in a sequential manner. We need to see the inter-relationship and the way to understand it is to know the
causes, the driving forces. In normal strategic management they call it internal and external analysis. That was
mentioned by Colby, the learning loop, “if it is effective, you will find a series of discoveries.”
51
Dr. Franco Teves: Is it okay to put the theme in a proper perspective? Because, for example, in number 1, increase
in diseases is too general and we just assumed that it's diseases that are infectious and are related somehow to
global climate change. Because as it is, it's very general.
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: That item is already a fact. What we're asking, in your own understanding, since you
have your own scenario, where is the task? In the organization? How can we cope up? That is the construct of
strategy, the model. We situate ourselves at the bottom first. Check the posture. Will the organization's mission and
vision be able to cope up with the issues? This is very simple, logic-driven.
52
GROUP 2 PRESENTATION
Ms. Dominga Mallonga
Good morning! I am tasked to deliver the collaborative effort of the leftist group. We are composed of Lina Mondejar,
Elvie Diaz, Rowena Caro, Miriam Sumail, Angelita Bugnanin, Lucy Rico, Dr. Inoray Osop, Linda Makalalat,
Caremencita Aquino and Madel Morados. As we went through the exercise, we were still feeling our way because
this is a new thing for us. This is our output.
Although we know things about strategic planning, this is still a fairly new concept for us. We worked on two strategic
themes: 1) increase in diseases; and 2) disaster responses and other contingencies. As we were building the
scenario on the first strategic theme, we tried to link the cause and effect, but we see climate change as the main
driver or the main cause. But we looked at the details and identified the drivers that trigger climate change. So first is
the rise in temperature. We identified the various factors, we categorized it and first in our list are man-made
economic activities. The scenario is based in Mindanao, although we do have participants from Baguio and we
learned much from the situation in Baguio. We looked at economic activities related to logging and mining. I presume
you are all aware about the mining activities in Samungkayo and CARAGA.
Also in our list are the industries. We already have a growing industry, especially in the growth centers in Mindanao,
namely, Davao, Cagayan De Oro, Zamboanga and even in CARAGA. Agricultural activities like mono-cropping is
also included, specifically we referred to agricultural plantation. As you know we have banana and fruit plantation in
Mindanao that uses fertilizers and chemicals, and that activity has adverse effects because it can generate methane.
Because of these man-made economic activities, there is also an increase in energy use.
Another category we identified is waste management, I think that's self-explanatory. And increasing population in
Mindanao is also directly linked with the increase of man-made activities. It is like a loop because as the population
grows, we also progress in our economic activities.
Due to these drivers that cause climate change, there is increase in diseases and we identified three categories: first
is the vector-borne diseases consisting of dengue and malaria. We tried to look into the characteristics of dengue.
According to Ms. Martinez from Baguio, dengue cannot thrive well in cold places. That is why the incidence of
dengue in Baguio and Mindanao, which usually enjoys cold weather, increased over the years, because of the rise in
temperature. Second are the water-borne diseases. We have typhoid, cholera, dysentery, among others. Third are
the communicable and respiratory diseases. The upper respiratory tract infections, pulmonary diseases like asthma
and the like. As was mentioned this morning, we have increasing incidence of adult asthma.
The next strategic theme we have identified is disaster response and other contingencies. These are driven by the
same factors we have identified on the first theme. As we classified the effect of these into two, which are natural and
man-made? Natural disasters include floods, earthquakes, storms. Man-made disasters, meanwhile, are improper
solid waste management which will lead to the clogging of our sewage system, kaingin (slash and burn) and
agricultural systems of farming. The gaps between the vulnerabilities are the researchable areas.
OPEN FORUM
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: The second group is right in this area. The main task to do is to develop the scenario.
Where are the drivers? What are the driving forces? This is one issue that doesn't have to be the driver, if you
include this, it is just like short-circuiting the system. This is what I've been saying, to take the time to discuss the
issues because it might snowball on to the other issues. The strategic process wants to cover the overlapping
concerns through the appreciation of drivers and driving forces through building of scenarios. The other issues can
be a sub-issue because of the limited resource constraint. Within resource constraint management, you must make
strategies based on this because of the scarce resources. And much of it will be dedicated to research.
53
The drivers should be interconnected but we cannot see it here yet because if you see the example, generally there
is a driver of the disaster. Why are there floods, earthquakes and drought? What causes climate change? What
causes weather forcing? Will that be applicable in the Philippines? One of the causes of weather forcing is that the
earth's orbit revolves slower. How will that affect the Philippines in terms of the broader context of climate change?
That is the subject of research. We already know what will cause the disease, you will give feedback about that, but it
is disconnected here, in disaster. The agencies will be overwhelmed and that itself is a disaster because they have
no plans. If you don't face the issues squarely, you will never understand. The solution can be taken from the
scenarios. That is the process, you know where to start and where to end. If you classified it as driver, that is wrong.
Where are the trends? Where is the pattern? Where is the structure? And one perspective of strategizing will be to
target first the capacity for disaster and contingencies in relation to climate change.
What I mean when I talk about logical framework is its sequential manner in which the process is undertaken; the
intertwine of process and concept; the very elementary input-process-output (IPO) feedback. If the scenario is
complete, you will see the whole picture, you will be able to see that one whole scenario may pick up a number of
strategy issues. This is the scenario that I will do because it provides me with more decisive solutions. The climate
change is the bigger event, you may go back to it if you get dead-locked; it is there in the higher context. The
tendency of the organizations might be to address the issues that they are not capable to tackle. Even research, they
may not be able to do, so we zeroed in on the smaller issues. That is why Dr. Nañagas said that what naturally
follows is the ranging of objectives. The objectives will zero in on diminishing the drivers then you may then go back
to the scenarios. If I get the objective using the organization posture that I have, if I decide to use research systems
and its networks, how many can I get out of these issues that the scenarios validated? Because the strategy is
resource-informed decision, you want to capture more in less, notwithstanding the fact that the boss has to be
convinced that your strategy has to be effective. If the boss says “no,”• then you lose your chances. If you have
strategic objectives, as an organization, how can you approach the attainment of the objective? That is the missionvision; it captures the objectives based on the validated scenarios. You will be doing the research that will serve the
ends of strategy in the long term. That is the work of the research agenda. One very important concept of climate
change is weather forcing, that is the heart, the main driver; it either slows down climate change or it accelerates it.
These are all very scientific and that is part of your job.
Dr. Franco Teves: I really appreciate the effort, however, if we are belonging to different regions, we can only work at
the regional level, and given that it is a system-wide approach, that would mean the entire country in our case. I don't
know whether there is a national research agenda for climate change where the different regions can fit in because it
is very difficult for us to come up with our own themes, our own scenarios.
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: When you go back to your regions, try to see the significant scenarios. What is the whole
event? What is the whole scenario? We look at it strategically, by island group. The top management looks at
successive scenarios so it is not politically driven. The strategic choice, the option to intervene by the top level is
driven by the urgency presented by the stakeholders either by region or by hierarchy. That is top to bottom and
bottom up. If you integrate everything into one, you can come up with the intent of the priority then you can now
measure that. Then proceed to performance management, modified balanced scorecard and race against time. Part
of the strategy is how to empower higher power decision makers to create a paradigm shift from traditional to
sequential.
Dr. Franco Teves: Will this be now the basis for evaluating our research proposals on climate change whenever we
submit one for PCHRD funding? Who's going to give us the mandate or empower us in the implementation of the
research?
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: There are significant points of consideration. Just what Dr. Nañagas and I said, the
research product should serve the end of strategy. Because the strategy will facilitate or help us address health
issues.
54
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: If you will look at the priorities of the PNHRS, environment is part of it. But environment
is a very broad term. So we can recommend, first of all, that government at the national level should also be doing
this so that they have prioritization, but it should not stop there because it may not be a priority at the national level
but it may be critical at the regional level. So do not be bogged down. This should help you in proposing research;
you can clearly show them why you are doing this research. You can show through the drivers that you are doing
research because you want to know why things are happening. You will be able to show the critical value of your
research. If we are able to enlighten the higher ups, then they should know the value of your research.
In terms of Mindanao's research priorities, this is one of the research concerns of Mindanao, which is common
among the regions. It was just the basis, but it was not very specific, that is why there is a leeway. As an example,
they found out that maternal and child health is very common in Mindanao, and why is this so? They said that it may
be caused by cultural differences and other factors. So in Mindanao, research on climate change is part of the
priority. We are even saying that researches should be National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) and
Regional Unified Health Research Agenda (RUHRA) driven. It is there, so if you are able to justify, and this is one
way of justifying why you are doing the research, you are addressing a knowledge gap that will allow you to create
strategies that will address the health effects of climate change.
This approach is used by the military but it came from corporate strategic planning. And even the defense
departments of several countries have already adopted it. This is only an orientation; we don't expect you to do
everything. This is capability building for you, to teach you how to think strategically; strategic management. This is
just one of the tools, you may have your own and we just provided you with another tool. We chose climate change
because this is the issue. So if you look at the Philippines, and you ask what can I do to address this issue? That is
what we hope you will be able to do after this workshop.
Comment: For me using this scenario building approach, when we build scenarios, we can see the importance of our
research and development budget in health. So we will be able to have solid evidence to show whether it is really
relevant or not, whether your research proposal is significant or not. That is the value of this strategic management
tool for me.
Lt. Col. Eugene Martinez: Actually, there are several scenarios that can arise; there are near-term, mid-term and
long-term scenarios. The challenge is how to identify the interconnectivity of the scenarios across time frames.
Comment: I consider the relevance of this scenario building in terms of identifying our research priorities. I came here
just to orient myself on climate change. In the educational institution, we rely on the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) to issue or list the research priorities or agenda; we call it the National Higher Education Research Agenda
(NHERA). So what we do is we align our research thrusts and priorities according to the NHERA, with a little
consideration of the mission and vision of our institution. Let me just say that what Dr. Nañagas said a while ago is
true; that it is the ground level that is aware of our needs.
Dr. Juan Ma. Pablo Nañagas: This orientation just orients you where to go, but hopefully, that will be the start of
something that is well-run. This may be the reason why we are not successful in solving our health problems like
malaria, tuberculosis, among others; because our strategies are wrong.
Thank you very much for attending and I hope you carry that thought till you get back to your regions.
55
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION
WELCOME REMARKS
Dr. Anthony C. Sales
Regional Director, Department of Science and Technology Region XI
Undersecretary Fortunato De La Peña, distinguished guests, our speakers, participants, ladies and gentlemen, good
morning! Maayong buntag sa inyong tanan (Good morning to everyone)! It is my great honor to welcome you this
morning to this session on intellectual property rights (IPR) and technology commercialization as part of the PNHRS
Week celebration.
Yesterday, there was a question regarding IPR and in our desire not to burst the bubble, we asked him to wait and
join us in this session. I hope he is here.
The objective of this session is to create awareness among health researchers on the patent systems and
procedures, intellectual property (IP) and institutional policies, IP registration, among others. We also hope to orient
you on certain mechanisms on technology commercialization. At the end of the day, we need to understand how the
IP system works to be able to capitalize on new opportunities and how to negotiate access and how to wield
partnerships and linkages, in particular with the private sector.
With that, again I greet you welcome and wish you an interesting session and productive discussion. Thank you and
once again, maayong buntag (good morning).
56
KEYNOTE MESSAGE (AND UPDATES ON THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BILL)
Prof. Fortunato T. Dela Peña
Undersecretary for Science and Technology Services, Department of Science and Technology
Good morning everyone! I must say that I am very proud to be invited here in Davao for this very important
conference. I have been receiving invitations separately from Dr. Sales and Dr. Montoya and I have not seen the
entire program. I have been confused on which conference I would be going to. It turned out that there are several
parallel sessions. I am happy to see very familiar personalities here. Dr. Jaime Montoya who is in the helm of the
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD); Dir. Carmen Peralta who represents the IPR
Office, with whom the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) has been working very closely with; Atty.
Carmelita Sison who is from Mindanao, a long time colleague at the University of the Philippines (UP), where she
was the University Legal Council and now she is with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED); Dr. Wade
Gomez, who has always been very generous to share his time whenever we have activities pertaining to technology
commercialization, IP and planning activities. I cannot mention all of the names of the people I know here. Dr.
Anthony Sales is our new director of DOST Region 11.
I come here on different roles. At one time, I was here to turn over the helm of the Philippine Science High School
System to Dr. Filma Brauner. But here today is a very pleasant task to share with you basically updates on the
Technology Transfer Bill.
First of all, the initiative is timely because your efforts significantly contribute to creating greater awareness on
intellectual property and technology commercialization, particularly at the regional and local levels. Timely because
the national government is about to adapt significant changes in how we manage, protect, and disseminate results of
government funded research.
I understand that part of my task this morning is to update you on the Technology Transfer Bill. However, I believe
that I should also take this opportunity to inform you of other related policy development specifically those being
initiated under the Presidential Coordinating Council on Research and Development (PCCRD).
On the Technology Transfer Bill, may I report that the Multi-Sectoral Review Panel which I headed, this is the
Technical Working Group (TWG), has recently completed our task of drafting both the harmonized versions of the
Senate Bill and the House Bill? The House version of the Technology Transfer Bill has been passed on third reading
of the House of Representatives. At the Committee level, at the Senate, they deliberated on the Technology Transfer
Bill and later they asked that a TWG be created to harmonize the two versions. We have been hoping and we were
made to understand that after the harmonization it will now be taken up for deliberation at the Senate. Hopefully,
before the closing of the 14th Congress in 2010, this will be passed as a law. This has been an initiative of the DOST
and has very close resemblance to the Bayh Dole Act of the United States which has been in effect since the early
1980s.
With the unified version, we aim to achieve the right balance between IP protection and technology dissemination or
transfer. You may wish to note that science is additionally based on the principle of freely exchanging scientific
research results and materials. Scientists build on one another‟s work and the return is in the form of academic
recognition and prizes. This has been the reason why most researchers, particularly those from the universities, have
to publish. Comparatively, proprietary research builds on the principle of controlling the appropriation of knowledge.
Research results are protected by IPR, exchanges only as agreed, and returns could be in the form of financial
profits. I must stress that both systems are needed to make our national innovation system work. But, we need to
device a policy to achieve a balance between them. This Bill has been crafted basically to address research coming
form public funds.
57
I don‟t know if Atty. Sison remembers that we initiated the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) at the University of the
Philippines in as early as 1985 or 1986. But we were somehow disappointed to find out, during that time, that there
was not a single patent at UP Diliman, and that there was only a handful, not even to exceed your fingers, from UP
Los Baños. It‟s very difficult to find out exactly why it was like that because research has been going on since time
immemorial. No patents in the name of faculty members coming from campuses have registered, applied for or
approved except for a few. Come to think of it, maybe there was not enough motivation for them to come out with
research results. Basically, the motivation was to be able to publish.
In UP for example, this was already done after our stint in the administration, they introduce a financial reward
system for every international paper and that has motivated people. So, there was an increase in terms of number of
internationally published papers and that has a price tag. Something equivalent of USD1,000 for every paper
published. I remember one time that there was one faculty member who has six internationally published papers in
one year, she had the equivalent of USD6,000.
However, we suspect that part of the reason why they are not coming out is probably the system, the conditions that
were given. For example, when a grant is given, cite the example of a DOST grant because DOST gives grants for
science and technology (S&T) and there is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that you have to sign when you
accept the grant; part of the conditions will be sharing royalties whenever there will be something commercialized out
of the research results. I don‟t know the exact sharing but it is something like 40% goes to DOST and the remaining
to 60% will go to the institution and a certain portion will go to the researcher. So, after deducting what goes to the
funding agency and implementing institution, the share that goes to the researcher is very small. We were thinking
that this is one of the reasons why they don‟t come out and exert effort to commercialize.
Now, this Bill is being proposed, saying that the rights to IP and sharing of revenues will be between the
implementing institution and the researcher. No more to the provider of the grants. No more for DOST. If it‟s UP
Diliman and Los Baños, then the sharing is between researchers and the research development institution (RDI). But
remember that we have a law, Magna Carta for scientists and researchers, this has been passed in the late 1990s,
that also has revision that whatever royalty will be generated, what will go to the researcher should not be less than
40%. We have to work along that figure.
The Technology Transfer Bill, when approved or adopted, will be called the Technology Transfer Act, an act
promoting the transfer of technologies and knowledge from research and development (R&D) funded by government.
Its objective is to promote and facilitate the transfer, dissemination, effective use, management and
commercialization of IPs, technology and knowledge resulting from government funded R&D. If your funding source
is funded by government, it is not covered. If it is funded partly by government and non-government, it is covered.
The first important aspect will be the ownership of IPR. The ownership of IPR derived from research funded in whole
or in part by government funding agency (GFA) shall be assigned to the RDI that actually implemented the research.
In case of collaborative research, where two or more RDIs conducted the research funded by the GFA, the RDIs
shall own the IPR jointly or as otherwise stipulated in the research agreement between them. We believe that if you
have certain collaboration, you have to have an agreement.
On revenue sharing, all revenues from the commercialization of IPR shall accrue to the RDI, unless there is a
revenue sharing provision in the research funding agreement. I must say that it was not easy to convince other
government agencies of giving up ownership of IPR and sharing of revenues. DOST was all for it, but in other
departments, we encountered resistance. The only way we can proceed is to include a revenue sharing provision.
But in no case will the total share of the GFA(s) be greater than the share of the RDI.
In case of joint funding, where research is funded by a GFA in part, and by other entity or entities in part, the RDI
may enter into contractual agreements with the other entity or entities providing funding.
58
On sharing of revenues between RDI and researcher, this shall be governed by an employer-employee contract or
other related agreements; provided, that nothing in this law, research funding agreement or research agreement shall
diminish the 40% share in royalties of scientists, engineers, and researchers under Section 7(b) of Republic Act (RA)
8439 or the “Magna Carta for Scientists, Engineers, Researchers, and other S&T Personnel in Government”•. In
other words, RDIs or government funding agencies may have different versions of the agreement but in no case shall
the share of researcher be affected as provided for in the Magna Carta.
Next is the commercialization of IPRs by the researcher. An RDI may allow its researcher-employee to create/join
(detail/secondment) a spin-off company, provided that the researcher-employee takes a leave of absence without
pay for a period of one year, renewable for another year. It will not constitute of a service. This is sort of a
breakthrough. If an employee will join a private company, there is conflict of interest.
On the use by government and compulsory licensing, there are certain instances when the government can come in.
The grounds, terms and conditions of the use by government and/or compulsory licensing stated in the IP Code shall
be adopted for all IPR generated under this law. The GFA and/or parent agency may assume ownership of any
potential IPR in cases of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency. There are no details
provided here. Basically, if there is national emergency or any situation that will involve national security and use of
IP is involved, the government may come in. This is not new. There are also instances, if there is evidence that the
RDI has not taken any move or has not been successful in commercializing the technology or research results, then
the government can come in as well.
Next is the establishment and maintenance of revolving fund for R&D and technology transfer. We proposed that all
revenues from IPR commercialization shall accrue to a revolving fund established by the public RDI, provided, that a
portion of it shall be remitted to the Bureau of Treasury and according to a schedule of remittance to be established.
The only institutions not covered are the State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) which by nature and charter has
fiscal autonomy.
A continuation of this, public RDIs shall be allowed to use revenues derived from transfer of IPR for, but not limited
to, the following: (a) defray IP management costs/expenses; (b) fund R&D, S&T capacity building, and technology
transfer activities; and (c) operation of Technology Licensing Offices (TLOs).
In case the revenues, after payment of all costs and expenses for IPR management, including the payment of
royalties to other parties, shall exceed 10% of the annual budget of the RDI, then a minimum of 70% of the excess
revenues shall be remitted to the Bureau of Treasury, provided, that the GFA has solely funded the research.
However, this shall not apply to SUCs by virtue of their fiscal autonomy.
There are also other institutional mechanisms. DOST shall establish, and all RDIs and GFAs shall promote and
facilitate, the cost-effective sharing of and access to technologies and knowledge by developing appropriate public
access policies and procedures which shall be made known to the public. All RDIs and GFAs shall develop and
maintain archival facilities for their IPR in connection with the implementation of their public access policy.
The DOST shall call for a regular national conference of all GFAs and RDIs in order to: (a) promote multi-disciplinary,
joint and cross collaboration in research and development; (b) coordinate and rationalize the research and
development agenda; and (c) harmonize all research and development agenda and priorities.
All RDIs are encouraged to establish their own TLOs in whatever form, including consortia and regional groupings as
they deem appropriate, and to adopt their own policies on IPR management and technology transfer, in accordance
with existing laws and in support of the policies of the IPO and the national policy and the mandate of their parent
agency. In other words, if your institution is too small to warrant the establishment of an IPO, you may cluster yourself
with another national government agency, within a consortium, among universities. You may join hands to make the
establishment of a TLO viable.
59
The DOST, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and IPO, in consultation with GFAs such as CHED,
Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and Department of National Defense (DND), shall undertake activities
geared towards building the capacity of GFAs and RDIs in commercializing IPs. These are agencies with top budget
for R&D.
The DOST, DTI and IPO shall jointly issue the necessary guidelines on IP valuation, commercialization, and
information sharing, which may include, but not be limited to, the following considerations: public benefit and national
interest, market size, cost and income.
The last item will be on dispute resolution. The IRR shall provide for the administrative procedure for resolving any
disputes on the determination for government ownership. To protect the integrity of the IPR, confidentiality of the
process of determination and dispute resolution shall be maintained, insofar as it does not prejudice the rights of the
RDI or researcher to due process.
This is to really share with you the contents of the PCCRD. Sometime in late 2006, there was lobbying from scientists
and researchers for a coordinated R&D agenda. Within the DOST, we have the research councils that prioritized
agenda for health, agriculture, marine resources, industry and energy, and advanced S&T fields. But coordination
has been very difficult. Even if there is a National Science and Technology Plan (NSTP), it is still difficult to
coordinate. The President created in early 2007 the PCCRD. In fact, it has been working now, even if it still lacks
one member. The Office of the President screens and the appointment is from there.
What are the directives? Formulate a national R&D priorities plan. The DOST Secretary as Vice-Chair of the PCCRD
to draft a national R&D priorities plan for adoption by the PCCRD and issuance by the President as an Executive
Order (EO) as a guide for resource allocation and decision making. The CHED Secretary shall ensure that the R&D
efforts of SUCs are aligned with the national R&D priorities plan. Within the DOST, this preliminary task has been
assigned to me. We have constituted an inter-agency committee, actually involving as many as 30 agencies. We had
two meetings and we have formulated sectors. There were 10 sectors. Health is one sector. They are now the
TWGs. The agencies were organized in such a way that there will be a group assigned to each of the 10 sectors.
We should have a first draft by October 15 and a second and last draft by November 15; this will be presented to
stakeholders through national conferences. The first draft will be presented in a national conference. The second
draft, after incorporating changes in the first draft, will be presented to stakeholders sometime in the middle of
November because our target is to submit by end of the year. The coverage of the priorities plan is 2010 to 2016 with
a mid-term review in between 2013. It will depend now on the next President whether he/she will follow this one. As
far as the President now is concerned, she wants it before the end of the year.
Next is developing accessible and shared R&D database. This is somehow related to the proposed Technology
Transfer Bill. DOST shall oversee the development of a comprehensive database of all publicly funded R&D projects
to be used for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The DOST Secretary shall draft the pertinent Presidential Directive.
Next is a directive to remove the barriers and facilitate the importation of R&D equipment and materials. The DOST
Secretary as Vice-Chair of PCCRD together with members of the R&D community is supposed to dialogue with the
Commission on Audit (COA) on rules that constraint the importation of R&D equipment and materials. The
Department of Finance (DOF) and DOST to implement measures to reduce red tape in the implementation of
schemes for government imports of R&D equipment and materials. The DOF and Bureau of Customs to develop
shorter timelines for the importation of R&D equipment and materials.
The fourth directive tells something on how to make our country an attractive R&D location. DOST and DTI to
conduct an in-depth study on the possibility of maximizing the Philippine potential as an attractive location for R&D
60
centers, units and organizations. CHED was also instructed to rationalize all domestic and foreign scholarships to
maximize R&D linkages.
In this case, one of the issues raised in the initial meeting of the Coordinating Council without the President was that
the Philippines‟ foreign direct investments (FDIs) is not that big compared with other countries. Many of the
companies located here are actually operating using relatively new and advanced technologies and yet the
Philippines is a very passive recipient. We do not benefit from new technologies in terms of know-how.
Establish R&D trust funds. The DOST Secretary encourage R&D community to expressed moral support for the
national government‟s unwavering assistance. The Arroyo administration shall maintain its commitment of 30%
government counterpart of the 70% of R&D funding from the private sector.
Recent statistics show that 70% of R&D expenditures are provided by the private sector based on survey results. It is
a good indication. A very successful Filipino-American entrepreneur, in the person of Diosdado Banatao, started
donating to the University of the Philippines‟ R&D institutes. The institutes are not organizations; they are actually a
name only for specific R&D program. He made an initial donation of USD500,000 to UP College of Engineering for
research in his area which is electronics. He said that he hopes that more people will follow his example of putting up
a R&D trust fund. We are now studying the mechanics of how to sustain such trust funds.
Maraming salamat (Thank you very much)!
61
PANEL DISCUSSION: KNOW YOUR IP, A RESEARCH ASSET
SAFEGUARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF RESEARCHERS
Atty. Ferdinand M. Negre
Senior Partner, Benzon-Negre-Untalan Intellectual Property Attorneys
Maayong buntag sa inyong tanan (Good morning to everyone)!
Invention disclosure is a confidential document written by a scientist or engineer or researcher to determine whether
patent protection should be sought for the described invention. The purpose is to determine if your solution
technology or invention is patentable.
Description of the Invention
 Purpose (What is the invention used for?)
 Drawings (drawings, sketches, or photos of the invention with parts labeled)
 Description of the Parts (Describe the invention using the drawings to point out each of the invention‟s parts)
 Use (How is the invention used?)
 Novel Features (What features of the invention are different from the prior art? How do these features
provide superior results?)
 Advantages (What advantages does the invention have over the prior art?)
Invention Disclosure (source: http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/index.html)
 Signed and dated by the inventor
 Signed by two trustworthy friends (not family) under the words “Witnessed and Understood”
 The inventor and the witnesses to initial every page
 The Invention Disclosure should be kept in a safe place in the event the need to prove the date of
conception ever arises
We have another form of protection called invention patent. A patent can be a product or process providing a
technical solution to a problem (like cost, efficiency, performance, new feature, pioneering product, etc.). There can
be other solutions but are not technical in nature, for example, a purely software program, logic or flow of a software,
that is not by itself a technical solution. It should be incorporated in a machine to make it patentable. It could add a
new feature to an existing product or a pioneering product. Someone who can address that problem, that‟s a
pioneering product.
Invention is patentable only if it is novel or new, involves inventive step (not obvious) and has industrial applicability.
It must be new all over the world. Not in public existence. if your product or process is already in existence or there‟s
a research already done and in reliable review, that‟s prior art already. Inventive step is a difficult concept. The term
they use is “mosaic”•; if you combine two or more documents, then that is not patentable. The industrial applicability
is the easiest to meet in terms of patentability as long as it can be duplicated and used industrially.
The patent right is for 20 years. It‟s an exclusive right to exclude or prevent others from using the process or selling
the product for a period of 20 years. Why is that? For example, cure of H1N1, it doesn‟t mean that if you find a cure,
you have the exclusive right to use that already. Why? You have pre-clinical and clinical tests to undergo through.
If it‟s improvement, what if the original or pioneering product is patented? The portion you improve is patentable but
you don‟t have the right to use the product because of the earlier patent. That‟s why it is not a right to use but a right
to prevent others from using your patent. It‟s 20 years from the date of application. It used to be 17 years from the
62
date of registration or grant. There is also another one called the Utility Model or “petty”• patent. It has no inventive
step required and the term is seven years only.
The RA 9502, “The Universally Accessible, Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008”• allows parallel imports of
drugs and medicines (patents and trademarks). Next is non-patenting of known substances (new use). If it is a known
substance or molecule, it is not patentable. Next is non-infringement of use for regulatory approval. You can go to
BFAD and ask for Certified Product Registration (CPR) even before the expiration of the patents. Then, granting
emergency power to the President to regulate prices of medicines.
Who owns the patent? IP Code‟s general rule is that it is the inventor or researcher. What if there is employeremployee relationship? If the employee finds the technical solution during his employment, in his capacity as
employee, meaning it‟s a regularly assigned duty, then it‟s the employer‟s patent. However, if I‟s not his regularly
assigned duty but used the facilities of his employer, the employee owns the patent. What about commissioned
work? This is relevant to granting or funding agencies. The commissioning agency could be the government or R&D
institute who will own the patent because you are paid to do that. The commissioning party owns the patent.
However, this is subject to contract relationship or agreement.
To apply for patent or not? If you meet the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, should you patent? It‟s
a business decision. Is it worth it? Some inventions are not worth patenting.
To publish or to apply for patent? What is the issue here? By publishing, inventor has grace period of 12 months to
file a patent in the Philippines. Why? Because in other countries, novelty is lost. It is only the Philippines and US that
we have a 12-months grace period. What do I mean by publishing? Does sharing your invention with peers through
the internet qualify as publishing? It depends if it‟s with inscription and all the safeguards and notices, it could not
qualify as publishing. By publishing, you prevent others from patenting (prior art); this is defensive publication.
If you decide not to file a patent, what is your fallback? It would be trade secrets. What is a trade secret? It‟s an
information where you take reasonable steps to keep certain information secret and it has commercial value by virtue
of being secret. It is not limited to inventions. In commercial activities, it can be your pricing schemes. There is no
specific law in the Philippines. It‟s protected mainly through contracts and other practical means. There‟s a small
portion of Art. 292, Revised Penal Code, “Revelation of Industrial Secret”• but it applies only to employees. How?
Through employment contract, office memo, labels and water marks, locks and codes/passwords, access on need to
know basis, and non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements.
What is copyright? It is a protection granted to authors, composers, artists, painters, programmers, among others, on
their works of art. In the eyes of the law, researchers are also authors. Work must be original and with minimum
amount of creativity or “expression”•. Originality is subjective. In research, publications, reports, case studies,
experiment results, newsletters, manuals, product literature, labels or packaging, among others can be subject for
copyright protection. Protection attaches from the moment of creation. There is no registration or formalities required.
Copyright “registration”• is not necessary.
Who is the owner of the copyright? The author or creator is the owner. If there is employer- employee relationship,
this is similar with patent. For commissioned work, the author owns the copyright; the party who is commissioned.
Copyright is seen as an extension of the person. Copyright means exclusive right to reproduce/copy and it comes
with the right to prevent.
In summary, on research output, you have invention, disclosure, patents, and trade secrets. And then on expression,
we have copyright to protect your research output.
Salamat po (Thank you).
63
PROTECTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES‟ RIGHTS
Atty. Basilio A. Wandag
Director, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
I wish to convey first the greetings of the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) who are in this beautiful place. I hope that we will
be able to help you with some guidelines, especially relative to research because now and then the cultural and
indigenous knowledge systems and practices of IPs become the object and subject of research.
Let me start by defining the terms. First is IPs, they are called Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) in the
constitution. But under international agreement, they are also called IPs. They are interchangeably called IPs or
ICCs. In the Philippine law, there is a definition of IPs. They are homogenous societies of Filipinos identified by selfascription or ascription by others. They continuously lived as a community on communally bounded and defined
territory called ancestral domain (AD), sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive
cultural traits and historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. There are IPs/ICCs who are no longer living
in their ADs. There are 110 ethno-linguistic groups; about 14 million in population who lives in Mindanao (around
61%), in Luzon (around 35%), and in Visayas (around 4%).
These people are the subject of national policies by our state government. There was a time that the state policy was
to civilize or Christianize them and then came assimilation and integration. The present policy is recognition and
respect (self-determination). The protection of IPs‟ rights is now provided in the constitution and the implementing
law, such as in Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA), RA 8371 and other laws.
What are the IPs/ICCs rights? Just like any other Filipino, they are entitled to all the rights guaranteed under the
constitution and international law. In addition, they are guaranteed baskets of rights under IPRA, including: (a) Right
to Ancestral Domains and Lands; (b) Right to Self-Governance and Empowerment; (c) Social Justice and Human
Rights; and (d) Right to Cultural Integrity. I believe that the greater focus is the fourth right. Even that right has a
place.
We have to understand the rights to ADs, which include: (a) ownership (concept of native title/selfdelineation/Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)/Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT); (b) develop and
manage lands and natural resources; (c) stay in territory; (d) in case of displacement, claim reservation; (e) safe and
clean air and water; (f) resolve conflict through customary law; and (g) transfer or redeem ancestral lands.
Rights to self-governance and empowerment means that IPs can feely pursue economic, social and cultural
development; use commonly accepted justice system, conflict resolution institutions, peace-building
processes/mechanisms, customary laws; participate in decision making that may affect their lives; maintain and
develop their own political structures, mandatory representation in policymaking bodies; determine their own priorities
for development; formulate and implement their development plans; organize; and organize tribal barangays.
Rights to social justice and human rights: (a) equal protection and non-discrimination during armed conflict; (b)
employment, equal opportunity and treatment; (c) basic services; (d) women, children, youth; and (e) integrated
system of education.
Rights to cultural integrity: (a) protection of culture, traditions, institutions; (b) access to cultural opportunities through
the educational system; (c) cultural diversity; (d) community intellectual properties; (e) educational and learning
systems; (f) right to name, identity and history; (g) protection of religious, cultural sites and ceremonies, spiritual
beliefs and traditions; (h) protection of indigenous knowledge and practices (IKSP), ethno science and technology; (i)
biological and genetic resources; and (j) programs of government affecting IPs/ICCs must be culture-sensitive.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is composed of the Commissioners representing the seven
64
ethnographic regions, namely: Region 1-Cordilleras; Region 2; Rest of Luzon; Island Groups and Rest of the
Visayas; Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao.
Some programs being pursued by NCIP to protect the rights to promote self-determination and empowerment, social
justice and human rights are as follows: (a) national and local orientation on IP rights and issues with other
government agencies; (b) rapid field assessment and consultations with the local government units (LGUs) on human
rights situations of IP children, youth and women, in coordination with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF);
(c) capability building for IP women in peace and development with support from the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP); (d) area-based
activities empowering IP communities for development with support from the Government of the Philippines (GOP)United Nations (UN) Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for peace program; and (e) capability training for NCIP
and Indigenous. Peoples Consultative Body (IPCB) for the documentation of IP- International Confederation of
Authors and Composers Societies (CISAC).
To enhance cultural integrity, we have conducted studies and documentation of IKSP in agriculture, health education
and life long learning, environmental protection and natural resources management, customary laws and conflict
resolution mechanism; undertook health programs and services; promote indigenous health practices and the use of
traditional medicines; Educational Assistance Program (EAP) to deserving IP students; and indigenization of school
curriculum.
For basic social services, we provide programs/projects that support and sustain income generating activities;
traditional craft/production which aim to revive, practice and preserve IP customs and tradition; livelihood and
entrepreneurship; and special concerns such as support to disaster and relief operations.
In terms of legal and adjudicatory services, we provide counseling on community-interest cases; IP legal assistance
fund; issuance of advisories and opinions; exhaustion of informal dispute resolution (IDR) through Council of Elders;
exercise of jurisdiction by RHOs and CEB; and documentation of customary law and conflict resolution
mechanisms/tools.
65
LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ms. Josefina L. De Leon
Officer-in-Charge, Wildlife Resources Division, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
Magandang umaga po sa ating lahat (Good morning to all of us)! My segment is on “Laws, Rules and Regulations
Governing Biodiversity Conservation” but I was informed to focus on one important policy which is the Wildlife Act in
relation to research conducted by the health sector.
What does wildlife means? It refers to both plants and animals in wild state. It includes plants and animals found in
the forests and seas. The Philippines has a very diverse wildlife. We have about 579 species of birds; of which, 197
species are endemic. We have about 105 species of amphibians; of which, 82 species are endemic. We have 258
species of reptiles; 20,000 species of insects; and 80,000 species of flora.
The use of these resources is governed by Republic Act 9147 or the Wildlife Resources, Conservation, and
Protection Act of 2001. It aims to conserve and protect wildlife, promote ecological balance, enhance biodiversity as
well as update the collection of wildlife and pursue, with due regard to national interest, our commitment to national
community including protection of wildlife and their habitats and initiate or support scientific studies on the
conservation of biological diversity. It applies to all wildlife species found in all areas of the country. It also applies to
exotic species, meaning foreign species.
Related activities under the Act include: (a) collection, which means the act of gathering or collecting wildlife, its biproducts or derivatives (means any product or substances taken, raw or processed); (b) possession of wildlife; (c)
transportation should be regulated, it can cause health problem; (d) exportation and importation of wildlife; (e)
introduction, reintroduction, and stocking of wildlife; (f) introduction of exotic wildlife; and (g) bioprospecting, this is
commercial research, when you intend to produce a new product or try to test a new technology, for example,
production of medicinal products.
Section 15 of the Act states that all collection and utilization of biological resources for scientific research, and not for
commercial purposes, shall be allowed upon execution of an undertaking/agreement with and issuance of a
gratuitous permit by the Secretary or the authorized representative; provided, that prior clearance from concerned
bodies shall be secured before the issuance of the gratuitous permit. It also states that section 14 should likewise
apply if the applicant is a foreign entity or individual, a local institution should be actively involved in the research,
collection and, whenever applicable and appropriate, in the technological development of the products derived from
the biological and genetic resources. We seek consent of a local collaborator. The requirement is to pay a minimal
fee of about PhP100. In the absence of those clearances, we cannot process a gratuitous permit.
For local scientists, or Filipino scientists affiliated with foreign institutions, they need to have local agreement before
that foreigner can undertake research. A letter of consent from the three identified local research collaborators is also
needed.
For local institutions, you have options. For example, if you are a DOST affiliated scientist, you can issue affidavit of
undertaking. Meaning, if you are a researcher, tell us what you are going to do and how you are going to safeguard
the research results and share to the Filipino community. Try to notarize it with a Filipino lawyer. It can be an affidavit
or a MOA with DENR and your institution.
These are the standard requirements or conditions that are indicated in the permit: (a) you are required to coordinate
with the local DENR office in the area prior to the collection activity; (b) you can only collect species at quantities you
specified; (c) you should ensure that collection methods are not detrimental to the community and biological
resources other than the target specimens; (d) you must use the specimens solely for the purpose indicated in the
permit; (e) destructive sampling is not allowed; (f) you must present the collected specimens to the DENR office for
66
inspection and issuance of local transport permit; (g) you are required to submit collection reports and results of your
activity; and (h) acknowledge the department in all your publications. If you have affiliated researches, for instance,
the UP system must be responsible in ensuring compliance of foreign affiliates with the terms and conditions.
If exportation is required, you have to apply for an export permit or export certification. For other specimens, our
DENR regional offices are authorized to issue export certification. The fee is only PhP150 for inspection and the
permit fee is PhP250-300.
Who implements the Act? We have three agencies authorized under the law to implement the provisions of Republic
Act 9147. The DENR is authorized to issue permits or regulate exploitation of all terrestrial plants and animal species,
all tortoises, reptiles, amphibians, among others. Marine and aquatic specimens other than “dugong”• (whale shark)
have been designated to the Department of Agriculture. Within the province of Palawan, the Palawan Council for
Sustainable Development (PCSD) can allow or disapprove a research undertaking.
For bioprospecting or commercial research, please visit the DENR website.
Thank you very much and magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat (good morning to everyone)!
67
EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Ms. Carmen G. Peralta
Director, Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau,
Intellectual Property Philippines
Maganda umaga po sa inyong lahat (Good morning to everyone)! I will not be talking about the IP Code of the
Philippines because that was excellently presented by my friend and former colleague, Atty. Ferdinand Negre. I think
I will jump start from what my good friend Usec. Fortunato De La Peña mentioned in his keynote address. He said
that as early as 1986, he was with Atty. Sison, starting an IPO office in UP Diliman; and after several years, they
found out that it has not really attained its objective of upgrading the IP office or the technology licensing office of the
campus. Probably because, at that time, not everybody understands the value of IPR.
In fact, If I may refer again to the keynote address, the mindset pervading in most academic institutions from then
and until now is the “publish or perish”• because publication gives you a tangibility instantly. If I understand it right, if
you publish, you earn points. When you publish, those points are counted for promotion purposes. When you publish,
you increase your status in the academic or scientific community. Normally, you publish in scientific and technical
journals whether locally or internationally. You become known for being a scientist in your own right. These are very
good incentives. But there‟s another mindset among academicians, they said, “we are here to educate, so we share
the information that we have learned from our research.”
When you espoused a culture of IPR, you are not really forgoing this noble objective. What we are trying to do is to
develop a culture of IP, especially among IP generators such as universities and RDIs. We share the information and
educate the public and at the same time protect our own. We have heard a lot of what I call horror stories of Filipino
research or local researches protected by entities outside the Philippines. When you make a presentation, that‟s
already disclosure or publication.
The objective of IP Philippines is to promote better understanding of the IP system and its role in stimulating creativity
and innovation. Previously, filing patents and trademarks is a business decision. It is not mandatory in the office to
protect your inventions or your trademarks. But in a borderless society, this has become an imperative border of the
day.
In IP Philippines, we don‟t just go through the process of conducting seminars; it has become a strategic plan to
develop an IP culture in the country. What are the common objective for advocacy and education on IP? At least at
the end of the day, we should be able to say that IP is a catalyst of industrial development. Because if you create IP,
you create the industry, you increase employment, you increase the taxes that these industries pay to the
government. You may not believe it but the Coca-Cola trademark alone is worth USD 67 billion. Its basic ingredient is
a trade secret. They say that only two to three persons know the formulation of Coca-Cola.
One of the functions of an IP system is that it serves as an incentive for those who create IP to go on inventing,
innovating and creating because of the reward system. In the country, IP is not seen as a tool for encouraging our
scientists and inventors to go on inventing. But, that should be a vision that we have to attain.
There should be incentives to foster the most innovative and inventive activities. Hopefully with the passage of the
Technology Transfer Bill, more institutions will be encouraged going into R&D and commercialization, an avenue to
improve the quality of life of the people. What is the ultimate goal of a patent? Its ultimate goal is to improve the lives
of the people. Through your technology, you have to mainstream it so that the society will benefit. The next thing is
for you to commercialize your inventions. Not all inventions through will be commercializable.
This mandate to propagate knowledge on IP has forced us to rewrite our vision and mission. Before the
developmental charts, we said, “We want to be the best IP Office in the region.”• But the new vision now states,
68
“Fostering a creative and competitive Philippines using IP as a strategic tool for national development.” So, all of our
activities are aligned with this equation.
Having said that, it‟s not just organizing seminars, workshops, and training courses, we have to look at the entire
spectrum of our operation as well as at what is happening out there. We have to look at our policies, procedures and
processes. Are they user friendly? It is difficult to sell a product that is not at par with good products.
We also have the Human Resource Development (HRD) Program for both internal and external clients. We have to
make sure that our client examiners are updated on new technologies. We invested in capacity building activities.
What happened in our public education and outreach? You must begin with the creators. Who are the creators? They
are the academic researchers, scientists, inventors, and even the companies. You won‟t believe that a
semiconductor company located here, employing thousands of employees, does not know what IP is. When they do
improvements on their products, these are not protected.
We also have to improve on the service delivery mechanisms. What are our experiences? We went by our strategic
objective that IP Philippines is a listening and learning organization that focuses on the needs and expectations of its
employees, clients, and other stakeholders to continuously improve the delivery of its products and services. As I
said, it‟s very hard to sell a product when it‟s not working. Based on our internal search, we were able to reduce the
average turn around time of granting patents. We reviewed our internal policies and procedures. It is still long; 18
months of that you wait for publication before the substantive examination begins. So, you take advantage of the
opportunity to improve your technology or to determine whether to pursue the application or not. Patenting and
licensing is a commercial transaction, a business decision.
For utility model, we were able to cut down the processing time from 2-3 years to 10-11 months; for the patent
design, from 1.5-3 years to 5-6 months. Patents‟ back log was reduced to 98%. Be aware that under law, whoever
has the first filing date is presumed to be the owner on record. For trademarks, the processing time was cut down
from 3.5-4 years to 9-10 months. You‟ll be surprised that UP has registered its logo. Baguio State University (BSU)
has also registered its trademark because they produce preserved strawberries and they found out that there are
products in the market that they did not produce but contain the BSU logo. For the IP cases, processing time was
reduced from 3-4 years to 2 years.
From 2005, we have 168 training opportunities availed by 196 IP Philippines personnel and 129 external
stakeholders. The training were not only done here but also held outside of the country to expand the horizon of the
participants.
We attempted to penetrate the educational system by introducing the institutionalization of IP policies in Higher
Education Institutes (HEIs). We conducted 26 activities involving 56 educational institutions. We conducted 16 IP
policy workshops involving 96 HEIs. We began in 2007. We had seven activities that we called TREK IP because it‟s
done in the office and we walk them through the process. We introduce how patents and trademarks are processed.
A breakthrough or milestone in this initiative is when we merged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CHED
to propagate IP in the HEIs.
General public awareness was also conducted for the same period. About 226 seminars and workshops all over the
Philippines were held. In fact, last year when we were counting all the advocacy and seminars that we conducted, on
the average, we have done two seminars a day last year. These days, we are being deluged by requests for IP
seminars. That‟s a good indication on the awareness and understanding of IP.
We did not rely on public awareness activities solely but we made use of the free tri-media. Because of press
releases, media exposures, we were able to derive PhP29.8 million.
We were also very busy on trade exhibits. We would like to say thanks to DOST for always inviting us to the national
69
inventors‟ exhibit and science and technology exhibit. Also, we‟ve been organizing activities geared towards
inculcating knowledge to the youth. We dedicated two exhibition spaces where we invited artists to display their
works. Filipinos are very talented.
We have Executive Order 737 establishing the IP research and training institute. The institute takes care of advance
learning and education in IP. We have a course on patent search. I think for those RDIs, it is mandatory that you
require a patent search even in the academe. We have about two million patent documents to refer to and check on
whether the things that you have in mind were already invented or patented. We aggressively use our IP facilities; we
give information through the website. We have now the facility for online filing of trademarks. In the future these two
facilities will be available for patent filing. Before you file, make it a habit to search, at least look at what has been
patented in the Philippines.
We were made secretariat for the National Committee on Intellectual Property. It is an inter-agency committee
including the Department of Justice (DOJ).
We are enhancing customer service. We have a pool of speakers to effectively convey messages on IP. Information
materials have been developed and we are forging partnerships with both public and private organizations.
Let me end with this quote, “Marketing IP is not as simple as selling a bar of soap. Back it with awareness and
education programs that are integral part of a comprehensive educational strategy as what we have done in IP
Philippines.”•
70
INSTITUTIONALIZING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICIES IN ACADEMIA
Atty. Carmelita Yadao-Sison
Director, Legal Affairs Services, Commission on Higher Education
Magandang tanghali (Good afternoon)! I am from Davao so I‟m very at home. I‟m very impressed with all the
speakers. I‟m very excited because what they said is what we in the Commission mean and we will certainly utilize
their expertise and everything that they cover.
Our collaboration with IP Philippines started a long time ago. We have always been together even in our advocacies.
Ms. Carmen Peralta talked about education and advocacy. I think that it has been long time that the Commission has
not really been very vigilant in undertaking the steps that should be taken concerning IP protection and technology
commercialization. CHED, like all other agencies, has a mandate. We are governed by RA 7722. All of those in the
academe know what we cite when we say all of you are regulated by our agency. We cover both public and private
Higher Education Institutions, degree programs, and all post-secondary educational institutions; and this will include
state universities and colleges as well as local community colleges and universities. We have the Department of
Justice that checks the private and public schools, SUCs on whether they are complying with all the standards,
policies and guidelines of the Commission.
Specific to IP protection and technology commercialization, the powers and functions of the Commission are very
clear in Section 8 of RA 7722, which is to formulate and recommend development plans, policies, and priorities
programs on higher education and research. Also, to formulate and recommend development plans, policies,
priorities and programs on research. Further, to recommend to the executive and legislative branches, the priorities
and grants of HEIs and research. We are also directed to meet the needs of agro-industrialization and development. I
think we haven‟t yet internalized that as an important mandate. Relevant to that is the administration of the Higher
Education Development Fund which is supposed to promote the purposes of the higher education, particularly
research.
There is an important law, the RA 292, “Higher Education Modernization Act.”• Why is that important? It makes the
governing boards of all state universities and colleges uniform. It is the Commission that chairs all the Board of
Trustees or Boards of Regents of these SUCs. That is how CHED is able to direct and express its preferences for
policies, standards, and guidelines.
What has CHED been doing concerning IP in recent years? We had a very successful conference on IP and
technology commercialization on May 21-22, 2008, which was undertaken as pursuant to a MOU that we crafted.
Because of that, the joint circular was issued by the Chair of the Commission for HEIs to participate in that national
conference. There was also another joint circular that is directed on private and public HEIs to develop their
respective policy guidelines on IP with the assistance of IP Philippines. They are the agencies, the institutions that
has the expertise and we at the Commission are concerned that our HEIs do the correct polices and guidelines on
this matter. Why? Because it is encouraged in the universities that IPs are created. It is the breeding ground of
intellectual protection.
There were basic orientation seminars that were conducted and a lot of our HEIs and SUCs were able to participate
there and started the ball rolling for coming up with policy guidelines. I‟m very glad with the numbers mentioned by
Ms. Peralta because that means that they are growing. We are moving forward.
The very important development is the establishment of our Zonal Research Centers (ZRCs). I think you are all
familiar with this. This is the result of the Commission en banc resolution to plan and manage research activities in
the regional centers in line with what you call the national research agenda and the zonal research program. We
would like to think that the ZRCs are our IP advocacy units. We are very much aware that this will be our potent
venue by which we can advocate, as CHED, for the creation of IP policies in schools and for the creation of culture of
71
research and understanding of IP. It is important because this will now be a factor to consider if you are compliant for
the grant of centers of excellence and centers of development categories. We have those kinds of awards as part of
our mandate.
Our main research thrusts are two. The first is the National Health Education Research Agenda (NHERA) which
covered the period from 1998 to 2007. Research is supposed to support efficiency and effectiveness and because of
this, the Commission funded some researches from 1998 to 2008. But, if you look at the researches undertaken
since 1998, these are the kinds of researches that were undertaken because of limited funding, not the kind that
would spur scientific technologies or IPs.
The second component is the Medium Term Development Plan for Higher Education (MTDPHE) which covers a five
year period from 2005 to 2010. It is important because research is a function of higher education, in addition to
teaching. One cannot exist without the other.
We have identified these issues that hampered the development of research. The faculty does not have the proper
necessary qualifications, the credentials, and adequate training. Those who are qualified have no time sufficiently
given to them. Infrastructure and equipment are also inadequate.
We have to focus on capacity building. There are training needs that have to be filled. There is a need to establish a
database because you do not even know what institutions are creating. Who are the experts? The purpose is to
address the development requirements of the country and the focus should on what will become globally competitive.
We need to do purposive research, not just paper and pencil service.
Given the enormous human and resource constraints, what do we have here? First, we have to develop a culture of
research; we have to do more advocacies on this. Then we have to also look at where we are good at. There might
be institutions that might have niches already and focus on that so that we can move forward in an area where we
are experts or an area where we have some form of precedence. Now, the other thing is that there are instances that
our institutions remain to be non-research intensive but instruction intensive. I will show you later how we are going to
address that.
It also important for us to stress that all researches should have relevance to national development needs. You just
cannot come up with researches because it seems interesting; there must be focus. In CHED, there is what we call
the priority disciplines and we try to see that the researches that we would fund are aligned to priority disciplines.
We need generous grants for students and also we need a faculty development program, especially, to increase the
capacity for researches. In the programs and projects of CHED on research and technology commercialization
covering the five-year period, there is a summary of policies and strategies for the targets.
Because of the lack of funds and resources, what you do now is to enter into consortium agreements. What are
CHED‟s plans concerning any income it has generated from an IP created from a project? There are issues here like
how do you deal with the issue on the commercialization of education? It is not commercialization of education but
commercialization of access to support the purposes of education. The 500 hectare land of UP Diliman Campus has
gone to squatters. Why do I know that? I was the first female general consul of UP and we battered all of these big
time syndicates. All those cases went to litigation. When I left UP, UP got a Supreme Court decision that said that the
land belongs to UP. That was when they were able to implement the Ayala Techno Hub Project.
What am I saying here? We should really be careful about saying, “are we commercializing education when we do
these things?”• No, we are not, because it is unforgettable that you have access even by the legislature executive,
you are not using it, and you are just depending on the yearly appropriations. The HEIs must be creative. UP has
already gone a step further because of the Republic Act 9500.
72
In the Commission, we attempted a commercialization project, the CHED Call Center Project. But what happened?
Before it even took off, it was hounded by anomalies. Now, we have to terminate it and turn it over to the six SUCs.
We will just see how they are doing. That is a big source of income for them. They will be charged for developing
standards for benchmarking the curriculum for the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry.
As I mentioned a while ago, you have to enhance the databases on information because how can you commercialize
or offer if you don‟t know what you have. As I have said, we have our ZRCs. We have defined areas of advocacy on
IP as stipulated in our MOU, the development and enhancement to include IP. We are developing modes of
technology commercialization for public academic institutions that is compliant with the government rules and
regulations. I‟m talking about RA 9184 because we are hampered by the procurement law. We are stuck with the
provision of the Technology Transfer Law. We have been brainstorming about that. How do you commercialize and
not go to the public bidding requirements?
There is a need to decentralize the promotion and management of research, to broaden outreach and provide
research support to HEIs, and promote higher education research in the respective zones. This is the mechanism for
coming up with a ZRC. There is a designation-based leadership, strong research division, accredited graduate
program, and center of excellence and development. Is it any wonder that UP will always be there as the head; or
Ateneo or La Salle? If your determinant is excellence, then you have to be true to that. If you don‟t want it, then just
say equity; then that‟s it.
The ZRC functions in that guidelines are as follows: (a) assess the research capacity and productivity of HEI; (b)
formulate the Zonal Research Program (ZRP); (c) implement the ZRP; (d) monitor implementation of the ZRP
components; (e) evaluate, recommend, support research output dissemination activities relevant to the thrust of the
zone; (f) submit to CHED periodic assessment reports, other expected deliverables, and unexpended funds so that it
can be realigned.
This is the distribution of the ZRCs or the program implementers. You will see that the Visayas area and National
Capital Region (NCR) have at least two. There are currently 13 ZRCs and six program clusters. All together, there
are 19 areas.
The following are the accomplishments of CHED: (a) the Long Term Higher Education Development Plan (LTHEDP);
(b) the Medium Term Higher Education Development Plan; (c) the Higher Education Research Agenda (HERA); (d)
issuance of the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education; (e) policies and standards for various disciplines;
and (f) the creation of the Presidential Taskforce for Education.
What have we done? We have operated the 13 ZRCs and six program clusters. We have funded 3,900 researches
from 302 HEIs through the ZRCs. We have 110 grants-in-aid projects supported, 240 thesis and dissertation grants,
28 commissioned research supported, 124 paper presenters in international conferences supported, and 81 recipient
schools for the Best HEI Research Program and Republica Awards.
Research and development is seen by the Commission in this manner. Institutions should seek ways in increasing
research and innovation through multi-stakeholder private-public partnerships including small and medium
enterprises.
What is our action plan? We have to identify ZRCs for regions 4B, 6, 9, Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR),
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and CARAGA. We have to identify five more ZRCs per region and
strengthen the research and development capabilities of 102 HEIs.
What are the indications for that? The funding requirements per year for 17 ZRCs is PhP300 million, and PhP700
million for the 85 sub-ZRCs. This is the projection of our new Chair. This is aligned with the Higher Education
73
Modernization Program in view of the recommendations of the Presidential Taskforce on Education. So what is the
requirement? We need PhP1 billion per year.
In CHED, I heard the Chair saying that in coming up with all these guidelines for these new funding requirements and
spreading it out, we will also have the HEIs to share their counterpart. It is not only CHED who will be giving the
money. The HEIs both private and public shall be required to devote at least 5% of their total operating budget to
research and development in their respective institutions. I think this should be put in a guidelines form. There is no
way that we cannot partner together. The Commission cannot handle this alone. The government cannot handle
everything alone. There must be a partner for this.
For the proposed third batch of ZRCs from July 2008 to 2011, there is also a program clustering and defining of the
regions and areas where we will be concentrating on.
This is the funding requirement that the Chair is willing to send to Congress this year. We are pushing for the Higher
Education Modernization Program. Budget is as follows: PhP14 billion for student scholarships for the next five years;
PhP8 billion for faculty development; PhP5 billion for research and development; PhP4 billion for facilities upgrading;
and PhP4 billion for quality upgrading. He is going to recommend a Philippine Center for Engineering S&T, that is still
in the works, and that is supposed to cost PhP5 billion. Total budget is PhP40 billion.
It is good to have a plan. It is good to present to the legislatures what we want to do and why we want to do it. In our
vision, in 2015, there will be borderless education; in 2020, professionals will come and go and we have to be
prepared in terms of research. We have to institutionalize mechanisms here. Each of the agencies has an important
role to play, especially in research and development, because we have to focus and partner with all of you in this
respect. Atty. Basilio Wandag was talking about how we will be able to institutionalize the understanding of
indigenous cultures, that should be done by the institutions, the HEIs. I would like to inform Atty. Wandag, when I was
in UP, we were the first approve the commercial research agreement of an academic institutions in the country. We
have to go through the proverbial eye of the needle. With respect to commercial research agreement, that was done
with the Marine Science Institute with the University of Utah. Those were researches concerning marine products as
possible cure for breast cancer. With respect to agencies we are partnering, especially DOST, I understand that there
is already a MOA for the Balik Scientist Program and we are collaborating with the DA concerning the National
Agriculture and Fisheries Act. There are a lot of researches going on in that area. I think close to PhP60 million has
been expended for that.
In the conference attended by our Chair, it was emphasized that, “Higher education as a public good and a strategic
imperative for all levels of education and the basis for research, innovation and creativity, must be a matter of
responsibility and economic support of all governments.”• This is what the UNESCO espoused during the latest 2009
World Conference on Higher Education in Paris.
HEIs through their core functions of research, teaching and service to the community, should increase
interdisciplinary focus and promote critical thinking and active citizenship for sustainable development, peace, well
Sbeing development, human rights and gender equity.
Thank you very much.
74
PANEL DISCUSSION: TECHNOLOGY MATCHING, FAST TRACKING TECHNOLOGY
COMMERCIALIZATION
DR. CORAZON D. VILAREAL
Director, Research Dissemination and Utilization Office,
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development,
University of the Philippines Diliman
Good afternoon! Maayong hapon sa inyong tanan (Good afternoon to everyone)! I am representing the University of
the Philippines in Diliman, specifically the office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Development.
We have here the generators of IP from the UP Science and Technology, College of Engineering, College of
Science, and College of Home Economics, from which we get inventions and food processes. We have the sources
of literature and artworks, the College of Arts and Letters, College of Fine Arts, and College of Music. UP is home to
36 out of 57 national artists and 30 out of 31 national scientists.
You can see that many of our units are centers of excellence, in particular the UP Diliman Campus of the UP System
holds the distinction of having the most centers of excellence among the country‟s educational institutions.
We are fortunate that we have been granted scholarships to develop talents in S&T. We also have top of the line
facilities, especially, library resources in various areas of engineering and sciences. We have the rise of the National
Engineering Complex and the National Science Complex. If you time, we are inviting you to come to UP.
We have the engineering research and development technology updates, where we have gotten scholarships for our
students. Considering that we are the innovation hub, the order is how to convert such innovations into commercial
products.
The university has launched its technology transfer program. Our vision is to swiftly bring to public use university
generated intellectual property while respecting academic freedoms and ensuring financial rewards for the university
and these inventors.
The touchstones of our program are IP protection, IP commercialization, creating an entrepreneurial environment,
and IP advocacy and education.
What is our IP protection and commercialization process? Originally, we would begin with the invention disclosure
form; it contains description, market potential, among others. We found out that we don‟t have the IP climate in the
university. I think scientists will rather innovate than pay attention to protection which is a tedious process. We have
inaugurated the process of making “sundo”• (to fetch). We have to send our technology transfer consultants to
scientists with promising inventions and interview them. Better to do that than to wait. We asked one of our technical
consultants to do prior art search. If the invention is judged to be novel and has market potential, we have an IP
committee meeting. This is a case to case basis. Here we would have the dean of the college where the inventor
comes, the chair of the unit, in-house legal consultant, and technical consultant and we also invite a business
consultant in that particular field. We ask him or her to render the marketability.
If the IP Committee judged the invention as novel and has potential for commercialization, we select a law firm to
handle the case. Usually, the basis of choosing the law firm is the presence of expertise in that particular area of
invention. Being a government agency, we have to make sure that the law firm offers the lowest cost. Then after
choosing the law firm, there‟s a patent claims, filing a patent application, and monitoring of IP applications. You would
note that the commercialization process almost runs parallel to the IP protection process.
75
We also survey the best licensing strategy; we identify potential licenses, the cost of developing the invention and
also detailing the possible return of investments.
We have here the invention disclosures; we note that there has been a sharp rise in 2009. We have listing of books,
documentary films which we have given copyright assistance. We have trademark assistance.
Our first application was filed in 1996, a seaweed air freshener gel. However, the utility model was awarded only six
years after that. The filing application for a coating process using Titanium Nitrite was filed in 2002. This was the
most mature invention. Taiwan patent was awarded to it in 2007, US patent was awarded in 2008, and just last
month, we received news that allowances has been granted for Singapore, China, and the Philippines. From the
timeline, you would see how long it takes for applying for patent.
What we have done in terms of commercializing university intellectual property is that we engaged in collaborating
activities, especially, research service agreements. The research service agreement is an agreement between UP
and a potential investor. The inventions usually come straight from the laboratory. Some adjustments need to be
done to meet the specific industrial needs. We need to have these agreements in which the company tries out the
technology and tells us how the technology can be improved further. This is preparatory to licensing.
Examples of various products that have been transferred to industry are Lagundi from UP Manila; fertilizer from UP
Los Baños; and rice technology from UP College of Home Economics.
Various patents available for licensing include a semiconductor integrated circuit, which already has US and
Philippine patent, seaweed-based air freshener gel, and a time keeping device.
We feel that we have to go beyond. It is difficult to develop an entrepreneurial climate among senior scientists. We
joined various initiatives like the tech boot camp. A tech boot camp is where young inventors with their advisers
present their inventions to a panel of business investors; they are given about 10 minutes to describe their inventions
and their market potential and convince them to adopt the technology. This was sponsored by UP with the Ayala
Foundation.
We have a focus on technology business incubators (TBIs); this will provide venue for our scientists to develop the
business potentials of their invention. Originally, there was UP-Ayala TBI, the UP-Ayala Tehcno Hub over at
Commonwealth, and then just last month the Advanced Science and Technology Institute (ASTI) opened its TBI.
What we are particularly excited about is the second generation TBI that is going to be housed at the National
Engineering Center where our students, our young scientists, would be given support to create assistance, network
with investors, and to learn the roles of commercializing technology.
Thank you.
76
DR. JOEL L. BACUSMO
President, Visayas State University
Good afternoon everyone! I am going to present our experience at the Visayas State University (VSU) in
commercializing IP.
This is the “Search for Truth”• of VSU. We have the nude gigantic figures with the inscription tablet which reads: “Let
search for truth prevail as a dominant activity of university life. For truth is the guiding light in our paramount mission:
the pursuit of excellence”
We are focused on agriculture. The Philippine agricultural R&D situation are as follows: (a) decreased government
subsidy for SUCs adversely affecting SUC‟s R&D; (b) demand for speedy transfer, use and commercialization of
information and technology from R&D; and (c) increased orientation towards product as output of R&D.
The importance of IP is to hasten sharing of knowledge, accelerates use/commercialization of technologies, provide
incentives for technological innovations (both for researchers/creators and investors), and attract investments on
R&D. IP is the currency of research. It was the DOST- Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural
Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) who opened our eyes to IP.
VSU was the second SUC to have established a university IP Policy. In 2001, the VSU Technology Management Unit
(TMU) was organized to facilitate evaluation, protection and commercialization of VSU inventions and creations.
Coverage of VSU IP Policy include: (a) all units of the university and its component institutions; (b) university‟s entire
faculty and staff, undergraduates students, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows; and (c) all intellectual
property matters such as inventions, original works of authorship, trademarks, plant varieties, microorganisms and
non-biological and micro-biological processes. In all aspects where university resources are involved in the
technology development, creation or invention, VSU will claim ownership.
In terms of ownership of faculty on creations/ inventions, a joint ownership is created between the creator/inventor
and VSU on IPs realized in the course of the official duties of the creator(s) or produced with the financial assistance
of the university and the deed of assignment in favor of the university is executed.
For ownership of jointly funded R&D results, joint ownership of VSU and co-investor(s) of R&D is enforced and the
ownership is pre-agreed and considers investment share (monetary and technical).
Royalty Sharing
 University-Financed Work/Research
o 35% to the inventor for personal use
o 25% to Technology Management Unit
o 40% to the university for academic and research use

Collaborative Work/Research
o 35% to the inventor for personal use
o 65% to be shared by the University, TMU and outside entity subject to the agreement prior to the
conduct of the activity
77
Protected/ Registered Technologies
CLASS
Patent
TITLE OF TECHNOLOGY
 Cara Flakes
 Arrowroot Breakfast Flakes
 Food Products from Carabeef
REGISTRY NUMBER / YEAR ISSUE
 Patent # 28920/ 1995
 Patent # 29128/ 1995
 Patent # 28928
Copyright
 ViCARP Teknopinoy CD Vol. 1,1999
 Environmental Songs
 Copyright Reg. # L-99-186/ 1999
 Copyright Reg. # P2004-085
Utility Model
 Portable Power-Driven Abaca Spindle Stripping
Machine
 Improved Abaca Spindle Stripping Machine
 Abaca Twisting Machine
 Food crops chips flour mill




UM Reg. # 2-1993- 12752/ 2000
UM Reg. # 2-1997-15460/ 2000
UM Reg. # 2- 2001-00155
UM Reg. # 2- 2002-000172/ 2006
Filed Applications
CLASS
TITLE
STATUS
Patent
Embryo culture Technique for Hybrid
Macapuno/September 4, 2001
Curing Process Applied in Sweetpotato for Pickle
Production/ October 16, 2002
Fiber Twining Machine/October 16, 2002
Baked snacked food from boiled cassava
Preparing Jackfruit Juice
Vacuum Fryer /Feb 2006
Macapuno Delight
Macapuno Leather
Macapuno Meat Burger
Macapuno Meat Loaf
Cassava starch cake
Cassava palitaw
Cassava crisp
Cassava waffle
Multiple Stranded Yarning Machine
Leyte State University seal
Search for Truth
Under substantive examination
Utility Model
Trademark
Plant Varieties registered at NSIC
CROP
NO.
Sweetpotato
32
Cassava
50
Taro
4
Yam
8
Coconuts
3
Under substantive examination
Pending
Pending
Under formality examination
Under formality examination
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
For revision into VSU
Published
CENTER
PhilRootcrops/NRCCTP
PhilRootcrops/NRCCTP
PhilRootcrops
PhilRootcrops
NCRC-V
78
Abaca
8 (potential)
NARC
It is a common misconception that IP protection is pursued so that the university can commercialize the products of
technologies. The commercialization schemes are used when startup company is managed by business
professionals; for licensing/franchising of the IP assets; and for outright sale of the IP assets.
Basic Steps in Commercializing IPs
1. Valuation of IPs
 Data collection (market, technology attractivity , risk)
 Valuation of technology
2. Identification of Potential Buyers
 Promotion of technology
 Identification of potential buyers
 Contact potential buyers
3. Technology Transfer
 Working out use/commercialization strategy
 Negotiation and firming up agreements
 Technology and IP transfer
The reality is that commercializing new technologies is difficult, complicated and risky. Also, most of researches of
Philippine universities are not attractive or intended for commercialization. Researchers need to be aware of
international trends and real local needs. There is a need to progress from technology development to innovation
(technology + use).
An example of translating technology to income for the university is the SP Juice. It is a juice from sweet potato that
was developed by VSU in the 1980s. SMC was starting a facility for puree and juices in San Fernando. An
agreement was drawn up for access to the technology (no exclusivity), in return SMC donated food processing
equipment to VSU.
Another example is the commercialization of VSU-designed vacuum fryer by accredited fabricators, from which VSU
will receive 5% royalty from gross income.
Other examples of technologies translated to income include:
 Processing Vacuum Fried Ripe Jackfruit
 Processing Sulfite-Free Dehydrated Jackfruit
 Commercializing Portable Power-Driven Abaca Spindle Stripping Machine
 Propagation of tissue-cultured macapuno coconuts (PCA project).
The Technology Business Incubator is a catalyst in commercializing IPs. It is an organization that supports the
entrepreneurial process, helping to increase survival rates for innovative startup companies. TBI is a business
incubator which focuses on businesses which own or have exclusive rights to proprietary technology that makes up
the core of the business.
Resources and services open to an entrepreneur could include:


Provision of physical space (offices, display area)
Access to processing and laboratory equipment
79








Access to production area (in the case of Agri-TBI)
Business management coaching (by professors and practitioners)
Help in preparing an effective business plan
Administrative services (phones, computers, photocopying, meeting rooms)
Technical support (from technology developers and experts)
Advise on managing intellectual property
Assistance in finding sources of financing
Business networking
To most of the SUCs in the country, especially those in agriculture, protecting their creations and inventions is new
but the number of SUCs with IP Policies and Licensing Offices has increased significantly. The focus this time is on
building IP assets but there is a need to shift from simply developing technology to coming out with innovation. Also,
there is a clear need to enhance the capability of universities in commercializing IP assets.
VSU is young in the IP business but at least it has crafted its IPR Policy and established a modest technology
licensing unit, laying the foundations for effective and efficient IP management.
Thank you very much.
80
DR. OLGA M. NUÑEZA
Vice Chancellor for Research and Extension,
Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology
Good afternoon! This presentation on technology matching, fast tracking, technology commercialization is from the
prospective and experience of the Mindanao Institute of Technology-Iligan State University (MSU-IIT).
MSU-IIT is a flagship campus in science and technology of the Mindanao State University System. It is located in the
industrial city of Iligan, Lanao del Norte, Northern Mindanao. It is a member of the DOST network of accredited HEIs.
MSU-IIT hosts one of the three CHED Zonal Research Centers in Mindanao. It has one of the highest concentrations
of PhDs outside of Metro Manila and Los Baños. It is also a CHED Center of Excellence/Center of Development in
several academic programs such as engineering, natural sciences and mathematics.
What have we done? We had four steps. Step 1 is setting up an IP Policy for the university. Prior to 2004, research
outputs and technologies generated have lost protection in terms of IPR, except for copyrights of in-house
publications. We had IPR guidelines set up in 2005 and became a university-wide policy in 2008. There is continuous
training of personnel in IP management facilitated by the IPO of the Philippines (attendance to national/international
workshops).
Step 2 is technology generation. We generated technology based on needs of local and regional industries and
outputs based on faculty specializations. We had recent prioritization based on convergence of national R&D agenda
of different government line agencies.
Step 3 is technology matching. At MSU-IIT, we have this Bamboo Technology Resource Center (BTRC) responsible
for bamboo craft novel designs, processes and products. We have a Ceramics Training Center which makes use of
local clay materials. And we have applied Earth Technology Center which makes use of earth architecture.
BTRC is a unit engaged in bamboo craft production as well as in the promotion of the sustainable utilization of
bamboo in the community through the transfer of technology. It was established in response to the felt need for a
facility that could serve as a resource center that integrates major concerns on the utilization of bamboo in terms of
research and development, production, technology transfer and commercialization of technologies. Bamboos are
crafted into modern, innovative functional and decorative pieces for the home. Bamboo products are the result of
technological innovations, blending modern technology with traditional craftsmanship. The bamboo pieces are hand
painted with Mindanao‟s ethnic designs, the Maranao “okir”• consisting of spiral and geometric forms and the
Higaunon “kianoko”• or geometric designs. Its utilization is promoted in the community through techno-transfer
activities, to foster livelihood opportunities and income generation.
BTRC activities include R&D as well as production and product technology and promotion. For R&D, specific
activities include: (a) generation of appropriate technologies and process innovations to enhance product
marketability and acceptability; (b) product matching of bamboo species; and (c) product design and prototype
development of decorative and functional items using “kawayan tinik”• (Bambusa blumeana) incorporating new
designs or design innovations.
The products developed are distinct in design and of high quality, mostly directed for high end markets. Products are
mostly made from “kawayan tinik”• (Bambusa blumeana)
BTRC products were adjudged in the following: (a) Mindanao Trade Expo International 2005 as Best Product Design;
(b) Mindanao Trade Expo International 2005 as Best Product Collection; and (c) Mindanao Trade Expo 2002 as Best
Product Design.
81
The Ceramic Training Center was established in 1982 because Iligan City and its environs abound in rich clay
minerals viable for a ceramic industry. The development of clay resources could greatly provide employment
possibilities to enhance the economic growth of the area. The center produces a variety of functional and decorative
pieces for the home, office or garden using local mineral resources, promotes the development of indigenous
ceramic technology as well teaches skills in ceramic technology and encourage the development of ceramic cottage
industry in the area.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) promotes the application of alternative cost-efficient
technologies for the building industry. The ATTC, at present, collaborates with the Habitat for Humanity Philippines
and Habitat for Humanity International Asia-Pacific in addressing housing problems. ATTC‟s main objective is to
facilitate technology transfer of emerging technologies resulting from research and development works of the
institute.
ATTC‟s objectives are as follows: (a) to coordinate the implementation of existing technology transfer programs on
housing development; (b) to initiate and conduct project studies on appropriate building technologies; (c) to provide
technical assistance related to promoting transfer and commercialization of alternative building technologies; and (d)
to establish linkages with other agencies in relation to building technologies.
Current commitments of ATTC are adoption and development of alternative construction technologies such as microconcrete roofing tiles, ferrocement, concrete interlocking blocks, interlocking compressed earth blocks, and
reinforced masonry design and construction.
At the information and communications technology (ICT) side, we have the registration and payroll management
system softwares; software support system for tropical diseases; and Natural Log Processing (NLP)-based Tagalog
spell checker. On the biology side, we have new screening strategies for bioactive metabolites which are undergoing
validation. We have new applications of natural products as well as predictive molecular markers for breast cancer,
also for validation.
We are now on step 4, fast tracking technology commercialization. I will cite an example, the software we developed,
the financial management information system (FIMS). The system includes budget management, student records
management, registration, procurement system, curriculum, and cashiering. This was so attractive and applicable
that about nine HEIs from Mindanao and one HEI from Visayas have procured it.
In the process of commercialization of results, problems encountered were lack of policies on income generating
projects, lack of support staff, and there was a question on who will capitalize. Responses that we found useful are
the provision of support structure; provision of start-up capital; provision of help lines from Mindanao; and
coordination with other agencies. Next step is to put up a TBI and to set up a Technology Licensing Office for the
university.
What are the major concerns on technology commercialization? One is premature disclosure of IP due to demand for
publication, thus becoming a public domain. Another is rigid government auditing and accounting rules, and nonuniform interpretation of guidelines by government auditors; and too bureaucratic procurement system affecting R&D
operations. Lastly, protection of IP of research proposals submitted to funding agencies.
Daghang salamat (Thank you very much)!
82
DR. FRANCIS WADE Z. GOMEZ
Chief Operating Officer, New Marketlink Pharma Corporation
Good afternoon! This will be the practical side of the commercialization of technologies. I have gone through six
licensing agreements with the DOST. We are currently under negotiations with two more licensing agreements with
PCHRD-DOST. My presentation is my practical take on this whole business of commercialization.
I divided my inputs into five practical considerations: (1) relevance of the technology is value driven from customer‟s
perspective; (2) compliance with currently accepted standards and procedures; (3) marketing of the technology at
various stages of development; (4) need for “technology brokers”•; and (5) legal flexibility. I just have to warn
everybody that there is a limitation on what I am going to say because this is based on my personal experience.
Hence, this is limited to the pharmaceutical perspective.
On the value driven relevance of the technology, as we all know, technology will only have technology value if the
customers will find the value that they need. Hence, we need to understand that there are dual considerations when
we talk about the customer. When technologies are developed, they are offered for commercialization. There are
sometimes two conflicting views, the private sector licensee which is profit oriented and the public sector licensee
which is service oriented. However, based on my experience, these two should not be mutually exclusive or
opposing. It‟s just a matter of entering the two and navigating the two together. Immediate customer of these
technologies to be licensed could either be a private or public entity. The end user/customer, in my business, is the
patient. Whatever the intermediate interest of these two sectors, it should always be the greater benefit for the
patient.
The value that is put into the technology should also be based on the realistic understanding of the market. There
should be a reasonably thorough market study. We have to consider a realistic allocation of limited resources. When
we do prioritization, we look into the limited resources, degree of difficulty (technical/operational and financial) and
availability of relevant human resources. Third, we have to look into product market mix consideration. For example,
Akapulko is highly effective for fungal disease. Being a topical product, it is exposed to society. This product has a
brown discoloration. Filipinos don‟t want to be brown; because of the color, it did not fly.
Another is compliance with current acceptable standards (quality issue). It must be defendable evidence-based. One
of the most important aspects of evidence base is proof of concept to Phase 3 clinical trials. It must be compliant with
Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) standards and Current Good Laboratory Practice (CGLP) standards.
There are also useful product specific limits/standards such as bio-availability, microbial limits, and pricing.
The third component is marketing the technology at various stages of the development process. If a technology or
product is at various process of a proof of concept, it might be good to hold a techno gallery or marketplace where
stakeholders can come. Involve/expose stakeholders from all segments of the value chain including suppliers of
materials, intermediate processors (component suppliers, testing facilities, academe, RDIs), venture capitalists,
GFAs, toll manufacturers, marketers and distributors (pharmaceutical companies), and intermediate users (hospitals,
health facilities and institutions, medical doctors, medical technologists, other researchers).
Then, there is a need for a technology brokerage house. Based on my experience, it would make our work in the
industry a lot easier. For example, a community bulletin board of sorts, technology trading outpost, and actual or
virtual trading house. We need to put together institutions. The role of the technology broker is vital for us to be able
to fast track technology commercialization.
On legal considerations, one cause of delay in the end stage would be the negotiations of the contract. I think we
need to be more flexible in the provisions of the contract. You cannot standardize all contracts. You need to
customize a contract.
83
On a personal note, the current set-up is working, but we are hopeful that we will continue to improve as we move
forward. As Dr. Sherwin Nuland said, “Not the expectation that things will turn out right based on our expectations,
but the expectation that things will eventually make sense in the end.”
Thank you very much.
84
MS. MA. ANTONIA ODELIA G. ARROYO
Chief Executive Officer, Hybridigm Consulting, Inc.
I will be talking about fast tracking technology commercialization.
Let‟s review if you actually listened this morning. What is a patentable technology?
A.
B.
C.
D.
A great idea
A solution to a problem
Both of the above
None of the above
The answer is D, none of the above. As far is patenting is concerned, they only care about three things: that it is
novel, non-obvious, and useful. There are multiple layers of protection; you have trade secret, copyright and
trademarks, utility model, and patent.
What is the profitably marketable technology?
A. A great idea
B. A solution to a problem
C. Both of the above
D. None of the above
The answer is B, a solution to a problem. Your time, great genius, patenting effort and expense are useless to the
producer/seller. It doesn‟t have to be a great idea, it just has to sell.
A common problem is that most innovators approach “marketing”• from the perspective of “How do I get people to
buy the technology?”• instead of “How do I create something that people will buy?”•
In Biotechnology, the more high tech you go, the less involved the private sector is. If you look at all our research
biotechnology, on the left of the graph is the development.
Technology transfer usually works like this. You usually have an inventor, some great idea, and you have a
Technology Licensing Officer (TLO). You document. Then the TLO find someone like me or technology brokers.
Hopefully, it gets commercialized and the royalties goes back to the university because you assigned the IP to the
university. The inventor gets 40%. Not all research is commercializable.
An initial target market is a limited, discrete subset of companies or individuals whose pain is so great without the
product/service that they will readily buy it. Key market validation activities include: (a) identification of research
contacts; (b) obtaining of progressively more useful research; (c) structuring of the research; (d) contacting of people;
and (e) lather, rinse, repeat.
Opportunity
 Forced Brain Gain
o Seasoned Management
 Health and Wellness Trend
o Agriculture-Derived Processing
 Ecological Consciousness
o Industrial Biotechnology
85

o Conserve and Capitalize on Biological Diversity
Technology Transfer Act
o Enabling Framework for Public-Private Partnership
Pounding on Opportunity
 Manage R&D from its inception
o 80% = public
o 20% = private
 Pursue sponsored research
 Forge closer ties with industry
 Focus on mitigating risk
 Develop turn-key technology that can be cash flow positive in the near term (3 years or less)
 Trade sales are the way to go
 Government incentives are nice, but the primary incentive is survival
If you look at the Philippine Natural Ingredients Industry (PNIC), the following are what we found out: (a) 63% of
Filipino scientists have research interests that will impact the natural ingredients value chain; (b) 58% of the existing
R&D in the Philippines is relevant to the natural ingredients industry; (c) 60 international companies responded to our
online survey to quantify global market demand for Philippine ingredients (including 10 out of the top 20 companies in
the world); (d) while certification and quality standards are barriers to entry, DA, DOST, DTI, and DOH-BFAD are
developing policies and incentives; and (e) local chambers of commerce such as Chamber of Herbal Industries of the
Philippines, Inc. (CHIPI) and the Chamber of Food Manufacturers are enthusiastic.
According to Kerry Ingredients Asia Pacific, they have two separate criteria when it comes to selecting novel
ingredients: scientific evidence and quality standards. Some of the ingredients in your selection present here have
solid basic research in international publications (e.g., corosolic acid) or your country is one of the world's quality
suppliers (e.g., carageenan). Seldom do you see both, especially in the more exotic ingredients. They added that by
assuring them of rigorous data and quality standards, they would be happy to consider accreditation of any Philippine
company as a vendor.
Multinational companies (MNCs) that seek to purchase technologies and/or joint venture seek local companies
preferably with Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patents; product whose effectiveness is supported and validated, for
example, by clinical studies; and has established supply chain, ready to be marketed or already in the market but still
has limited distribution network.
Local firms, when adopting a product, are looking for its market base, cost/benefit or risk/reward ratio, costeffectiveness of end-product, scalability, portfolio fit, and environmental safety.
What we do? We do consulting for feasibility studies/business plans and investment facilitation. We offer Executive
Entrepreneurial Education (EXCEED) such as management of technology and innovation and competitive technology
intelligence as well as science communication.
Our impact include the following: we taught 15,758 aspiring entrepreneurs such as scientists, businessmen, overseas
Filipino workers, students, lawyers, policymakers, among others; we have facilitated USD 3.5 million in private equity
investment; we are acknowledged as pioneer by the media (for example, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star,
Business World, Entrepreneur Magazine, Enterprise Magazine, Philippine Business, Biolife, Ernst and Young (SGV
Review), ABS-CBN News Channel, Asian Wall Street Journal, Financial Times); we are adviser to the Philippine
government; and we have a large multisectoral network.
86
Our mission is to harness our microbial biodiversity; to discover, express, extract, collect and turn them into
something that will benefit everybody. Our mission is to change the world using Philippine ingenuity and biodiversity,
one company at a time.
We are happy to be part of your success. I wish I could give you practical examples, but the problem of being a
consultant is that you always have a confidentiality agreement. But I can help at least with practical tips.
Thank you very much.
87
OPEN FORUM
Question: I have isolated a compound. I have been presenting my research to conferences with the hope of meeting
a person who will commercialize my discovery. How will I present my discovery in such a way that it will be utilized
with my personal benefits? I did not disclose all in my presentations. Will you help me?
Ms. Ma. Antonia Odelia Arroyo: Well, I was a bit concerned when you said that you have been presenting it.
Technically, whatever you present in a scientific conference becomes a public domain. By presenting, you may have
actually started a block. Here in the Philippines, you have one year to file a patent from the date you presented your
research so you can protect your idea. I suggest you talk with someone from IP Philippines or a lawyer if you can
have an IP protection. After that, I suggest that you email me. Sometimes we go to different schools and we teach
the faculty on tips and tricks on how to commercialize your ideas. We can train you to do that.
Dr. Warlito Vicente: I would like to know how you handle a product that is locally discovered and identified, but in
reality it has been used worldwide, however, there is no data in the Philippine setting.
Dr. Francis Wade Gomez: What you are saying is that there is already a product in existence, commercialized and
widely used in the world, and we have a similar product in the Philippines. There is no primary data for the local
product. What is being cited is what is in the international literature. Is the product being commercialized all over from
the Philippines?
Dr. Warlito Vicente: It comes from another country. It is a product of a plant. A typical example is the noni juice. It has
been marketed, they have all the data. You are sure that it came from the same plant that we have here in the
country.
Dr. Francis Wade Gomez: Even for a synthetic drug coming from Germany that you brought, you are required to do a
clinical trial. It is not unique to a country. There might be a short-cut because it’s a natural product. What we can
do is do a HPLC on our variety and compare it with the international variety and show that the chemical profile is the
same.
Dr. Joel Bacusmo: We have to learn to protect our technologies and evaluation. When it comes to cooperation
between the industry and the government, I mentioned in my presentation, it goes back to the design of our
experiments and researches. If our researches are not really meant to come up with products that will solve
problems, that would generate profit, no industry will come to help us.
Dr. Corazon Vilareal: When you go into commercialization, you have to prepare yourselves. It‟s not a romantic
interlude. You need to have the proper preparation. Also, you should be careful because some technology buyers will
buy a technology because they want to suppress its commercialization since it will compete with their existing
products. Read the contract carefully.
Comment: This came from a father who is in politics. He said, “Remember, business is like marriage without love.”•
Always be careful on who and what you are getting into. Not all private businesses are there to love you. Also, from
the private business perspective, not all SUCs are head over heels for you. The worst thing you can do in a
negotiation is to come with a close mind because you will leave with an empty pocket. Try to be open. Trust but
verify.
Dr. James Pamayte, DOH ARMM: This is the problem, I am the Chief of the Regional Technical Division. We have
distributed toilet bowls to a community and we have received several complaints after distribution, saying that the
toilet bowls are rough. This is the reason for the low community acceptance. It needs so much water to clean it. Many
of us do not have toilet. The DOH already provided us with a toilet bowl mold; the problem is its inside is rough,
88
hence, it gets dirty easily. Can you give us advice or recommendation on how to smoothen the inside of the toilet
bowl? This would increase utilization of toilet bowls and we would attract politicians to help us. This would also help
in our problem on diarrhea and fetal oral diseases.
Dr. Olga Nuñeza: I can also see potential income in that scenario. Let‟s discuss it thoroughly after this session.
Dr. Vicente Belizario: Are you talking about indigenous ceramics?
Dr. James Pamayte, DOH ARMM: Yes.
Question: Way back in 1994, we had a study on an anticancer agent. Surprisingly, after several years, in 2007, we
saw in the internet that there are a lot of publications about the clinical studies on the same compound that I isolated
in 1994, which I presented during the ASEAN meeting on natural products. This was in China and India. Now, they
are manufacturing and commercializing it. Can I still commercialize it in the Philippines? I also have another study; I
have isolated a compound against tuberculosis. This has also not been commercialized yet.
Dr. Vicente Belizario: Have you sought assistance outside Angeles?
Question: Yes. I have connected with the IP Office.
Dr. Francis Wade Gomez: I will go back to whether you want to commercialize the product as a supplement or as a
drug. It would be easier to commercialize if it were a supplement. If it is a drug and you are confident that regular
structure is the same as the one which is already available, then do a bioavailability or bioequivalence. I think you
have Dr. Alvero from La Salle who is in-charge. She can help you with the right direction.
Dr. Vicente Belizario: Collaboration is the key. You are welcome to network with the individuals mentioned by Dr.
Gomez to push this forward and faster.
Comment: My reaction to that problem is that there are cases in natural products where we were able to isolate a
compound but the quantity is so scarce, hence, it becomes very expensive. So, what‟s the use if it is very
expensive? It would be better to just synthetically produce it.
Dr. Dorothy Dimaandal, Davao Doctors College: I just want a clarification. Why does BFAD place a “no approved
therapeutic claims”• statement in VCO products? Why will I buy products with no therapeutic effect?
Dr. Francis Wade Gomez: Do you remember in the presentation that there is a need to comply with currently
accepted standards? In this case, there is a need to comply with three randomized clinical trials. For ampalaya, there
were already two clinical trials comparing it with a synthetic drug. Both studies showed that ampalaya is comparable
with the two synthetic drugs. However, BFAD cannot register the drug, as it still has to undergo a third clinical trial.
You can launch it as a food supplement; you will be asked to place “no approved therapeutic claims”•. For example,
you have a lot of anecdotal reports on VCO, but not until BFAD sees three randomized clinical trials that you can
claim its therapeutic effect. There is a small exception that allows traditional herbal medicines to actually put
therapeutic claim.
Ms. Ma. Antonia Odelia Arroyo: Another problem is the policymakers. The government helps promote their own
natural products and medicines. In 2004, DOH actually said that ampalaya is worthless; hence, this killed a lot of the
ampalaya industry. If our own policymakers do not believe in our research, then nothing could happen. This is a case
where you should not patent your research. If its safety and efficacy like clinical trials you should tell everybody
because it affects the entire industry. This is the case where you should publish immediately. If you try to sell it to
Charantia, they will pay for it because it will benefit their competitors. That is why collaboration is vital.
89
Dr. Vicente Belizario: I have a question for our resource persons who are representing the HEIs. I‟m sure that there
are those in the audience who are representing the HEIs who would like to reach the level of which these HEIS now
exist in terms of technology commercialization. Would you give us two to three pointers on how to move forward a
little further towards technology commercialization?
Dr. Joel Bacusmo: I think in the case of VSU, a very important ingredient is that we invested in research. We have
historical data on how much we spent on research. Even when the funding from the government went down, we
maintain that. Then, we deliver results and call the attention of partners in Germany and so they linked with us.
Second is we focused on designing research. Focus money on developing something, on coming up with a product.
Industry will not be attracted to SUCs unless the research agenda is relevant. Third, develop capability in protecting
technology and commercialization. We‟ve done our part. That is why we have started with a Technology Business
Incubator. Hopefully, we can do it even though we are far from Manila and the concentration of the population.
Dr. Corazon Vilareal: Just like what Dr. Bacusmo said, continuous sustained investment in R&D is the key. Then,
give incentives to scientists and research staff so that they can continue in their excellent work. Create an
entrepreneurial environment because this is largely absent even from UP. Let me ask a question to our business
resource persons, Dr. Gomez and Ms. Arroyo, how would you price a consultation expertise? Most universities are
so stiff in research but we lack technology brokers. How will you value your technology brokerage expertise?
Dr. Olga Nuñeza: I think it would be good if the research or technology is demand driven. Hence, you are just
answering a problem. You just found a solution to a problem. It would be good to disseminate perhaps a tool you
developed. It would be good if you have an illustration of the project so you can show to the community if it is viable
and acceptable for the community. Our staff, our faculty, and the academe are not just technology generators but
also technology entrepreneurs. Also, IP protection is very important.
Dr. Francis Wade Gomez: On my side, I‟ve got a technology broker. I do it for the love of doing it. Second, it also
gives me a sneak preview, as an entrepreneur, to what‟s cooking inside. I think you should look at our presentations
of our technologies, not just for raising money but for national development.
Ms. Ma. Antonia Odelia Arroyo: First, I would like to say to our three HEI members here at the panel that one of the
key successes to have a technology licensing office is to have a champion. Inside the university, they are the ones
who are persistent; the one who is pushing this crazy idea. You must have a crazy person who is seeing the value of
technology commercialization; who will not be demoralized, who will not get tired. That is the key to have a TLO. Like
Dr. Gomez said, commercialization is another form of public service.
To answer your question on how do I price my service? Hybridigm I think is the only business in the country, possibly
in the world, whose primary goal is to self-destruct. Our primary goal is that at some point, you will not need us at
anymore. You want to make money in other ways. For example, you want to go into investing into startup and small
business. Why do we go into consulting and why do we push the Technology Transfer Act? Because you need
someone who knows how to do evaluation. Most universities have business schools, most of those business schools
have Alumni; some universities have law schools, some of the graduates specialized in Intellectual Property Law.
Technically, you don‟t have to call me at Hybridigm. You can just cross the campus. The true success of technology
commercialization is in the network and the different expertise of the people involved.
In our company, we are really dedicated to training people to commercialize for themselves. You just pay us the
money and point us to a faculty who needs the training. It depends on what you want us to teach. Sometimes, our
training program is in the idea generation or idea evaluation stage. When we do the training, we can help isolate and
identify where the problems are. We can also hold your hand, which cost more money, while fixing the problem. The
training program cost much less. However, for the consulting work, we don‟t ask for a front fee. What we do is we ask
that when we succeed, you pay us a little. It‟s the same way with licensing. Once you reach a certain month, you pay
90
us a little. If it‟s a really good technology, we might even say, we might forgo some of this. And then when the
company gets our payment in shares, we just ask 5%. We always ask for a win-win situation. We survived with that
policy and it works.
91
CLOSING REMARKS
Dr. Vicente Y. Belizario, Jr.
Deputy Director for Research Management and Development,
University of the Philippines Manila - National Institutes of Health
I would like to summarize. First, we heard excellent models for technology commercialization from our HEI
representatives from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. We heard about the good news of what‟s happening from their
institutions; fantastic models of development towards technology commercialization. Some really is seeing benefits,
not only in terms of utilization of technology, also even in providing employment to the people of the community.
We are pleased that they also raise challenges. This is where the other players in the field, like the PNHRS, can
come in. Challenges that need to be dealt with will certainly need to be faced with stronger networking collaboration
and more support for these initiatives.
Then we heard about practical considerations in the development of technology and its commercialization; the
importance of marketing technology at various stages of the development process. Important learning here is that we
need to make use of marketing technology early on and not when the technology is already developed.
Clearly, the bottom line is a need to collaborate and network to push technology commercialization forward. With
that, we would like to thank our panelists, our resource persons for giving their time.
92
NATIONAL UNIFIED HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA IMPLEMENTATION AND TRACKING
HEALTH RESEARCH AGENDA: THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE
Dr. Fe B. Barquin
Head, Health Research, Facility Development and Hospital Assistance Cluster,
Center for Health Development Region VIII, Department of Health
Research agenda, research priority setting for 2006 to 2010; many of the people were amused of the timetable being
set, meaning it will coincide with an executives‟ tenure of office in 2010. This is practical because usually when there
is a turn over of national executives, there will also be changes on the political breadth not only in the executive office
but also in the different line agencies. There will certainly be changes when there is a change of tenure.
We would want to categorize priorities based on our framework. We have several major areas. These include: (a)
health financing; (b) health service delivery that consist of public health and hospital concerns; (c) health governance;
(d) health regulations; (e) environmental issues and concerns; and (f) traditional medicine and herbal plants.
At the regional consultations, not only will they identify the research gaps or problems, they will also include the
particular research design that would directly address the priorities. We collected the outputs of the consultations and
then prepared the working paper before we conducted the regional consultative workshop.
By the way, I want to assure to everyone here that the activity was cost efficient. We spent not so much money in the
whole process. The value we have at the Department of Health (DOH) is that an activity must be cost efficient. It is
equitable. When we had our regional consultation, we made sure that all sectors would be represented during the
activity; that is very important. Our insight in the line agencies might be different from the different sectors, like the
fisher folks, the farmers, and the non-government organizations (NGOs). Even the academic sector would have
different insights from us.
We based our different priorities on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The health sector is focused on
MDG1, reducing the number of malnourished children; MDG4, reduction of infant mortality; MDG5, reduction of
maternal mortality; and MDG6, reducing communicable diseases and emerging diseases as well as lifestyle
diseases.
Second, we also want to conform to the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan. We also have at the regional
level a Medium Term Regional Development Plan. I think all of us in the region have this plan. Third, we wanted to
conform to the National Objectives for Health (NOH). Fortunately, all of these frameworks agree with each other.
Also, one of the technical frameworks we decided to focus on is the four pillars of the DOH or the Fourmula One (F1)
of the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA).
Each Committee was assigned to work through the different technical frameworks. The Ethics Review Committee
was also in-charge to review vital statistics of the region, their data on the incidence of malnourished children and
prevalence also of below normal children, and other health indicators. Naturally, we had a long list of research
priorities because of the different sectors involved. Also, we had a zonal consultation, and the long list of regional
priorities was shortened to include the zonal research priorities. For the Visayas, we had regions 6, 7 and 8. We met
together and went through the long list of research priorities per region.
This is now the working paper that we worked on the Research Agenda Committee, formerly the Research
Management Committee of the PNHRS. So, we were confident that the research priorities at the regional level are
integrated in the document that the PNHRS came about, which is the National Unified Health Research Agenda
93
(NUHRA).Even Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao would be confident that their research priorities, aimed to respond to
the health needs of the communities, are integrated in the document called the NUHRA.
In 1997, we had our first consultation, we also had other health concerns that we have maintained at the national
level. Meaning, if you have this list of research priorities we would need to have a pool of researchers that would
implement these particular priorities. Our agenda did not include only these research priorities but also a list of needs
in the various fields that would complement these research priorities.
We had short-course training, to improve the capability of those interested in health research to implement the
priorities, particularly on research methods. We even went to different types of research methods. In fact, Dr. Antonio
Ligsay was invited to be one of the facilitators in the meta-analysis research training. We went through training in
health anthropology and health economics. We even had these set of training to enhance capability of our
researchers on the various research methods. We identified certain disciplines for doctors‟ training. These were fields
on epidemiology and MS in Mathematics. We want to have an expert in clinical pathology in our region but problem
on logistics prevented this. We need an expert on medical statistics to implement our research priorities.
This is a long range plan for us to develop some of our people. The PNHRS is offering scholarships for postgraduate, masters and doctorate degrees. The different committees are offering mentoring consultations to all these
research proponents.
Yesterday, I heard that financing of research studies or grants would be necessary. The question was raised, on
whether there is funding in the Regional Health Research and Development Consortium (RHRDC). We generate
funds of course. I think Dr. Ligsay will be discussing financing the NUHRA later on. We will be going through this
particular topic. There must be sharing of resources among the different members of the RHRDC. Lastly, we also
sourced out funds to support our research priorities in the region.
I have mentioned already that we had a zonal consultation. Finally at the macro level, the Research Agenda
Committee consolidated/prepared a long list of research priorities from the regional, zonal consultations; went into
several consultations with multisectoral/representatives of national government organizations, NGOs and political
organizations on re-framing, shortlisting and editing health research priorities.
Let me just go through a brief orientation of the PNHRS. The NUHRA consists of health financing, governance,
health regulation and health service delivery. It now includes the health technology development, wherein, alternative
medicine and herbal plants would be integrated. We have health research ethics and health information system.
When there was an opportunity for me to attend an international conference in Orlando, Florida; this focused mainly
on the research studies on health research ethics. This is a big opportunity in the NUHRA to work on the studies on
health research ethics.
Likewise, it includes now the health information system, because in the developing country we need to have this. I
think the Mindanao group is working on improving its database on maternal health services in the different regions in
Mindanao. This is important.
Dr. Ligsay mentioned earlier that there are different committees responsible in the NUHRA: Research Agenda
Committee (RAC); Health Research Resources Committee (HRRC); Health Research Ethics Committee (HREC);
Health Research Utilization Committee (HRUC); and Structure, Organization, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
(SOME). SOME is responsible in the organization of the different consortium.
Advocacy will also be implemented at various sectors and at various levels, particularly at the regional level, the
Regional Health Research and Development Consortium. The strategies utilized in the advocacy are as follows:
94





Celebration of the PNHRS Week
Health Research Forum
Distribution of copies of the NUHRA
Evaluation of research proposals
Publishing the NUHRA in agency and academic newsletters
Lastly, the statement that they want us to remember is this, “the experience we had in 1997 and 2006 will definitely
help us prepare the National Unified Health Research Agenda beyond 2010.”•
95
NUHRA SHORTLISTED PRIORITIES FOR 2009-2010
Ms. Rosa G. Gonzales
Chief, Research Division, Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau, Department of Health
Good morning everyone!
Essentially, my presentation will touch on the question, “what are the shortlisted topics?”• As mentioned by Dr.
Barquin earlier, the guiding policy frameworks for the NUHRA are these key policy documents: Medium Term
Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2004-2010, the poverty reduction programs of the government as we know
that health is a key factor in social development. Supporting the MTPDP is the NOH, Fourmula One, Health Sector
Reform Program and the National Health Plan. The National Health Plan consists of the National Health Investments
to carry on the reform programs of the DOH for the health sector. We also have the Millennium Development Goals,
particularly focusing on the five MDGs. Further, we have the National Science and Technology Thrust which is
embodied in the National Science and Technology Plan (NSTP). The NSTP supports the development of a
knowledge-based economy for a country to be competitive in terms of knowledge production and commercialization
of research products. There were other national and local initiatives or guidelines and other gender documents that
were also included in the formulation of the NUHRA.
At the start of the formulation of the NUHRA in 2006, we have identified 281 topics. Last year, that was streamlined
to 202 topics. Some of the topics identified in the original version were already carried out and some, after several
deliberations, were no longer considered a priority. Now, it‟s 35.
Why shortlist the NUHRA? One major reason was we had a very modest accomplishment rate as far as the original
version (NUHRA 2006-2010) is concerned. Two years ago, we had an accomplishment rate of 28% in the original
version. Why the low accomplishment rate? We have different capacity in terms of funding and human resources.
Not all research institutions can accommodate the demands listed in the NUHRA. So there is this imperative to
increase funding support from partners, from PNHRS core agencies such as the DOH, the Philippine Council for
Health Research and Development (PCHRD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED). As far as DOH is concerned, we made it a point to earmark funds for the shortlisted NUHRA and
imposed on accomplishing the zonal and regional agenda, making it a commitment from the Centers for Health
Development (CHDs). Donors and other partners, like other government agencies, are encouraged to support both
the revised and the shortlisted NUHRA.
I would just like to share with you what has been done by DOH as far as supporting the NUHRA implementation is
concerned. There have been initiatives done by our other core partners but I can only speak for DOH. We issued a
Department Order No. 2008-0086 last year, institutionalizing the PNHRS in support of Health Sector Reform efforts in
DOH. This is stated in the Operational Guidelines, c2-3. Major provisions are to implement the NUHRA or the Zonal,
Regional Research Agenda and ensure the essential technical and administrative support, including the maintenance
and other operating expenses (MOOE) or funding support.
When we were preparing operational plans for 2010, we issued an order that all offices/ agencies/ bureaus/ hospitals
shall allocate at least 2% of their MOOE to research and development. This will form part of the performance of the
region. At the end of the planning year we will be requesting the offices to submit to us what were the research
activities done as far as the memo is concerned.
96
As far as the Health Policy Development Planning Bureau is concerned, being the lead unit in the DOH in terms of
tracking researches, we entered a Memorandum of Agreement with PCHRD. This has been done since 2003. We
increased our funding to support NUHRA shortlisted priorities to 100%.
Shortlisting the NUHRA took a process and criteria. We did validation with key stakeholders and several
consultations were done last year which resulted to the Updated NUHRA 2008-2010. Recently, we had a shortlisting
done with the Research Agenda Committee, wherein we came up with the shortlisted NUHRA. What did we do? We
defined and clarified further research topics that were too general in scope. Another thing was we agreed to secure
more engagements/ support from our PNHRS partners. For instance, CHED has already come up with a system as
to how they will support the NUHRA implementation. Then we defined the process for accessing research grants
through PNHRS which will be tackled by Dr. Ligsay.
We prioritized on the achievement of health goals and targets, for example, MDGs, F1 implementation, NOH targets.
Also, we look into the least-researched topics with significant impact on the poor and critical to operational efficiency
and policy change.
This is the shortlisted NUHRA. For health financing, there were two topics identified. This major area deals with drug
price index and the diagnosis related groups. First on the drug price reference index, it has to do with supporting the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Cheap Medicine Act. This would somehow lead to the development
of a formula or a costing analysis. The diagnosis related groups, this had to do with the plan of the Philippine Health
Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to do capitation. Instead of a key provider system, it might be more cost-efficient
to adapt capitation scheme. Another is the use and access of the poor for health services and programs. This might
entail going into benefit incidence analysis wherein it will really give us a picture on how many of the poor are
benefiting from the programs/services of the government. The end view of this topic is to bring about equity in health.
In terms of governance, we focused on the assessment of technical efficiencies and leadership of the local
government units (LGUs) in health governance and the functionality of health programs and management systems
including financial management systems and health information systems. We also focused on donor assistance,
looking into the rationality or contribution in the health reforms and documentation of best practices, the use of health
information in decision making. This is one area that we want to put across - the strength of using evidence in
decision making among our LGU partners.
In terms of health regulation, these are mainly supporting MDG4 and MDG5. MDG4 is about reduction of infant
mortality rate and MDG5 is about maternal mortality rate reduction. As to how the DOH regulatory standards of
primary health services and birthing facilities will relate to cost and health outcomes, that is being investigated. Also,
we want to assess the implementation of the Milk Code.
In terms of health service delivery, there are a lot of topics; so we divided this into several areas. On disease control
and prevention, we are talking about mapping and assessment of sexually transmitted infection (STI), HIV and AIDS
initiatives in the Philippines. Again, this is rationalizing the investments or programs on HIV and AIDS because there
are possibilities that there is overlapping or duplication. We are also looking at tuberculosis (TB) in vulnerable
populations, focusing on prisoners and children. Then we have prevalence surveys on risk factors for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and mental illness.
Health service delivery includes occupational health. The incidence of disease conditions (cancer, musculo-skeletal
diseases, infections, asthma, hypertension, occupational dermatitis) in specific occupational cohort populations and
documentation of good practices in implementing Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) policies and programs for
productivity (MDG1).
97
For nutrition, topics include: best practices on child care for well-nourished children 0-5 years old from poor
households; effective mix of nutrition strategies for behavior change; factors affecting the reduction of prevalence of
under nutrition among 0-5 years old children; nutrition and health surveys (anthropometric, biochemical, clinical,
dietary); development of nutrition tools and reference standards; and relationship of nutrition and lifestyle related
disorders/conditions (NCDs).
Family health includes economic evaluation of LGU contraceptives program to respond to unmet need of family
planning.
On environmental health, focus would be on protecting the environment, conserving biodiversity, and managing
natural resources to prevent the eventual loss of the remaining biodiversity and its environs and ensure food and
environmental security; and study on the relationship between physical, geographical features, for example, climate,
hazes, flood, among other to occurrence of endemic diseases.
Other public health concerns under health education include poverty alleviation studies (causes and measurements
of poverty to include among others the children, the disabled, elderly, people in depressed communities, etc.);
studies on the reintegration process of migrant workers (including health workers/professionals); effect of
urbanization (influence of education) on health; manpower demand and supply studies (including those in health);
comprehensive review of the regulatory function affecting higher education sub-sector (including health education);
evaluation of graduate education program (including health education program); analysis of the higher education
performance indicators (including health education program); and impact of the international practicum training
program on employability of graduates (to include practicum program for health-related programs).
Lastly, in terms of health technology development, topics include development of vaccines - influenza and rabies;
development of diagnostic kits for priority diseases; development of functional foods (virgin coconut oil, yacon,
malunggay, coconut flour, ginger); development of herbal drugs for priority diseases; and virgin coconut oil for
antimicrobial and antifungal properties.
For odds and opportunities, there is a sustained or increased funding support (Global crisis, new GAA guidelines,
efficiency in budget utilization and disbursements). There is competing research priorities (new or unexplored
research areas - sin taxes for health, trade in health services, new/emerging diseases, AH1N1, mental health, etc.).
And there is a need to continue advocacy for the PNHRS Fund Bill.
98
PNHRS RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATION
Dr. Antonio D. Ligsay
Chief, Research Management and Development Division,
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Research proposals that are aligned to:
 NUHRA 2009-2010 shortlisted priorities
o National health issues and concerns
 Regional Research Agenda
o Regional health issues and concerns
o Unique to the region
Sources of Funds
 PCHRD-Department or Science and Technology (DOST)
o technology development, health service delivery, research ethics
 DOH
o Fourmula One
 CHED Zonal Research Centers (ZRCs)
o health education
Requirements
 Detailed research proposal
 Ethics approval
 Endorsement of the chair of RHRDC
 Format downloadable from the PNHRS website (www.healthresearch.ph)
Where to Submit
 Online (www.healthresearch.ph)
 By mail (PCHRD-DOST, Gen. Santos Ave., Bicutan, Taguig City)
 Regional researchers
o Submit to the RHRDC in your area
o RHRDC will process and endorse the proposal to PCHRD
Proposals received at PCHRD will be initially screened as to the priorities being addressed
 NUHRA
o CHED research priorities
 will be forwarded to CHED for processing and funding
o PCHRD and DOH priorities
 will remain at PCHRD for processing and funding
 Regional Research Agenda
o Same for PCHRD and CHED priorities
o DOH priorities
 will be processed at PCHRD but will be forwarded to the Health Policy Development and
Planning Bureau of the DOH for funding by the concerned CHD
Proposal Review
 Preliminary screening
o Alignment to NUHRA
o Duplication
 Technical review
99

Final approval
Proposals addressing the Regional Research Agenda but with budgetary requests of more than PhP100,000 will go
through another round of proposal review process at PCHRD.
Status of Research Proposals
 Verify status of submitted research proposal (www.healthresearch.ph)
 Email ( [email protected])
 Letter (PCHRD-DOST, Gen. Santos Ave., Bicutan, Taguig City)
100
OPEN FORUM
Question: What is your policy on the liquidation of expenses in the regional set-up?
Dr. Antonio Ligsay: Liquidation is done at the national level only.
Dr. Fe Barquin: Before we release the initial research grant, we have it notarized. The contract specifies the
agreement with regard to publishing and responsibilities of each contracting party. That‟s the document that we need
to have before releasing the grant. There are rare instances when the proponent who receives the full grant is not
able to liquidate. With regard to authorship, one of the inputs in our training is the requirements of authorship and
publication. Before we give grants, they have to go to a particular training for them to understand their responsibility
as proponents and to enhance their capability to liquidate funds. Hospital residents are required to come with
research projects, residency level 1, 2, 3 and 4. Since we know the proponent very well, we trust their integrity. We
have decided to give the fund directly to the proponent. The problem of administrative cost and disbursing funds
through the agency is already solved because we do not want to impede on the policies of the different hospitals or
agencies even the University of the Philippines (UP) system. The experience of one proponent, a faculty of a state
university, required only PhP98,000.00 for her study. She needed to travel to different parts of the region to interview
her subjects. It happened that the school charges 50% of the total research grants. We do not want to interfere with
those policies. We gave the grant to the proponent with signed contract of service. At this time, we also study the
honorarium for the proponent. We pegged already the rates depending on the professorial level of the proponent. We
encourage faculty members and residents of the hospitals to conduct studies. We start them young because if you
start them at 60 years old, it is too late for them. Also, we provide all the technical assistance. We are researchers,
meaning that the study should have integrity. We facilitate the liquidation while providing them technical assistance
on how to liquidate government funds.
Dr. Antonio Ligsay: Dr. Barquin comes from the oldest RHRDC. Dr. Barquin, I think it depends on the RHRDC if they
will allow to give the money to an individual. I think this is on a case to case basis only. At the national level, it has to
be an institution. I got a question also from La Union, “can we include insurance?”• The RHRDCs do not allow
insurance. For the national level, it can be done, to be placed within the Line-Item-Budget (LIB) and our
administrative fee is 7.5%.
Dr. Marlina Lacuesta: It is good to know that PCHRD can be a little bit flexible on matters like that. That makes the
relationship more judiciary based on trust and confidence.
Dr. Theresa Yap, UERM Graduate School: My question is about researches that are ongoing. How can we access
them because it‟s possible that we may be duplicating researches in different parts of the country? This might not be
cost-effective. Essentially, I was listening to the turmeric researches of Ateneo. Unfortunately, some of our
researchers who are in the graduate program or under the PCHRD scholarship are also thinking about researches
along that line. So, if they do the same researches, because we do not have access to the ongoing projects, it might
be a waste of resources. How do we access ongoing researches so that there is no duplication?
Dr. Marlina Lacuesta: This will be covered by Dr. Feranil on research tracking.
Dr. Antonio Ligsay: There is an initiative right now within PCHRD to create a clinical trials registry similar to MBA‟s
www.clinicaltrials.com but this will only be for clinical trials. It was decided that it should be initiated by the DOH and
the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) so DOST is offering technical services. Only clinical trials should be within
DOH. For observational trials, we don‟t have plans yet.
Dr. Fe Barquin: Can I just share an experience in our region? I‟m also involved in the review of proposals of
residents. Some of the medical experts in the hospitals would have the same comments, meaning there may be a
duplication of the study. As an epidemiologist, I encourage these kinds of research studies to our residents since it is
as a requirement for residents to conduct research studies. We would like to encourage them to a similar study but
differ on index of time, person, or place. The resident may go through the same study within a given a period of time,
101
for example, one year during her stay in the hospital. My suggestion is always this way, if you are going to study, for
example, the incidence of myocardial infarction among cardiac patients in the hospital during this period. You may go
through this kind of study using the same topic but within a period of time. Your senior resident maybe able to do a
correlation study using the index of time. For residency level 1 or 2, within a period of time he/she can go through a
survey of incidence of myocardial infarction among cardiac patients within that particular period of time. You can
properly analyze with all your statistical tools utilized in that particular study, your consultant can use your study for
his/her meta-analysis study. Do not discourage these residents.
Dr. Gerard Penecilla, Western Visayas State University (WVSU): What is the role of the National Research Council of
the Philippines (NRCP) in the NUHRA? Dr. Jaime Montoya is the President of NRCP and the Executive Director of
PCHRD.
Dr. Antonio Ligsay: NRCP deals with basic research.
Ms. Elizabeth Cajigas: Some of the stakeholders are members of NRCP. NRCP deals with basic research. Whatever
basic research they fund should be supportive of the health research agenda for health. They cover basic research
on several sectors including the industry, agriculture, among others. For basic research, NRCP will fund that in
support of the research agenda of all sectors.
102
TRACKING HEALTH RESEARCHES
Dr. Alan B. Feranil
Director, Office of Population Studies Foundation, University of San Carlos
Maayong buntag ninyong tanan (Good morning to everyone)! In this talk, basically, I like to get your inputs on how to
track researches. As you heard earlier, there are problems of duplication.
Just a background, the tracking of health research was a concern in the early 1990s because of the disparity in the
health research expenses between developed and underdeveloped countries. We found out that people in the
developed countries were spending more on health research.
In 1990, the Commission on Health Research (CHR) found out that 5% of the global annual resources for health
research were devoted to 90% of the world‟s health problems. They recommended that 2% of national health budget
should go to health research, and 5% of external contributions to the health sector for health research and capacity
building.
At the Global Forum in 2004, they asked why we should track health research. And the following reasons were cited:
economic, health, human rights, and development. For economic, they said that the health industry is one of largest
economic sectors in the world, accounts 8% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and about trillions of US
dollars each year. They also say that health research is fundamental to the functioning of the health industry
providing the basis for knowledge and technology and introducing new products and services and understanding
efficiency and effectiveness of existing ones.
For health, it is said that health challenges “wait and arise”• despite improvements made in health sector in
developed, transition and developing countries. These are still challenges like the revival of TB and antibiotic
resistant infections, emergence of new communicable and lifestyle diseases like SARS, HIV, AIDS, and rise of noncommunicable diseases and other conditions like lung cancer, diabetes and obesity.
For human rights, these are basic rights to access to good social, mental, physical, medical and spiritual health as
cradled by the United Nations in 1984. Also, every child has the right to the best attainable standard of health
according to the 1989 Convention for the Rights of the Child. They also say that there exist a 10/90 gap between
developed and developing countries in terms of health research resources. This means that 10% only goes to the
developing countries.
For development, being healthy and having longer life expectancy is part of human development. Also, with the rise
of human rights paradigm and globalization, there is a growing consensus that the world is not divisible and a more
participatory approach is needed to reduce inequities of all kinds, especially between developed and developing
countries.
So, why track? In simple terms, to determine what has been done, to avoid duplication of efforts, to optimize use of
resources, and to identify expertise and strengths of institutions.
For the national and regional level, tracking provides inputs for planning of the health research agenda at the regional
and national levels, for capability development, ethics in health research, research utilization and resource
mobilization, and other strategies (e.g., structures/ mechanisms) as well.
We need to know what has been done to know again what needs to be done. These are inputs as I said earlier:
update the research agenda; identify areas for capability development (technical and ethics review); identify topics for
research utilization; identify areas needing funding or resource mobilization; and others.
103
Who should track? Everybody should track. These include policymaking bodies, funding agencies, research bodies
and organizations, and interested parties (civil society, people organizations).
In 2004, we had a national assembly in Manila. There were several recommendations raised there including the (1)
designation of a body to monitor health research and development of resources and their uses; (2) designation of
PCHRD as convener, DOH and NIH as members; (3) establishment of continuous data collection; (4) establishment
of incentives for routine data reporting, tie up with the Commission on Audit (COA); (5) development/maintenance of
database; (6) signing of MOA; and (7) inclusion of research and development in the national health agenda. Most of
these were done by the PCHRD except maybe of the COA recommendation.
When do we track? How often should we track? Should it be regularly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually? It
depends on the resources. But according to the recommendations from Resource Flows Project in 2004, we should
conduct periodic survey every three years of large sources and users of funds, and encourage network members to
monitor research and development spending by disease or by institution. So we encourage each institution to have
their tracking mechanism. Also, conduct bibliometric monitoring of published research and development activities
starting with the PCHRD database. As we know, publication is very important. It is an indicator of your success as a
researcher. Institutionally and nationally, we should be able to track publications.
What should we track? According to the Global Forum for Health Research in 2003, these are the different
researches areas to track under the health related research and development: (1) fundamental (basic) or nonoriented research; (2) health conditions, injuries or diseases; (3) exposure, risk factors that impact on health
determinants; (4) health systems research (including policy and planning research, health services delivery and
surveillance); and (5) capability building (including capital expenditures). These are all covered by the NUHRA and
the regional health research agenda.
What should we track? We should track the health research and development projects and programs within our
institutions. We should track the objectives, main outputs, implementing agency, collaborators, location, funding
source, and budget estimate of projects.
How should we track? We should set mechanisms or structures in place. It could be at the sub-national or regional
level, institutional and at the national level.
This is a list of recommendations during the PNHRS Assembly in 2004, most of these were done at the national level
except for the last four items. These were as follows: (1) establishment of monitoring/tracking system for resources
generated and their uses; (2) provide shelf space for archiving records; (3) coordinating agencies should track health
research and development components of foreign-assisted projects (FAPs); (4) work with the National Statistical
Coordination Board (NSCB) to improve monitoring of health research and development spending in the National
Health Accounts (NHA); (5) PNHRS to ensure commitment of network members not covered by NHA; and (6) assist
NSCB in refining definition and classification of research and development activities.
Examples of government initiatives on tracking are the (1) PCHRD Surveys (1989-1990, late 1990s, 2002 and
beyond); (2) Resource Flows Project (Alano, late 1990s); (3) Monitoring Resource Flows Project by Clarence
Pascual (2004); (4) Technical Working Group on Resource Mobilization for the 2004 Philippine National Health
Research Assembly; and (5) DOST Research and Development Survey (2004-2005).
The figure shows the research and development expenditures in health. This shows us the bulk of expenditures from
the foreign sources rather than the local sources. The other graph shows distribution of funds locally. Most of the
funding or expenditures came from hospitals; PCHRD has a small share, similar with the DOH, the Food and
Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) and the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS).
104
But the main problems that we faced at the national and the regional levels are poor compliance and poor inputs from
the private sector, particularly from the health industry and pharmaceutical companies.
What we want to raise from you is how to increase compliance. I think Mr. Alexander Sea of PCHRD would like to
share with you that we have a Health Research and Development Information Network (HERDIN) database that can
maybe be a solution to this.
105
HEALTH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION NETWORK (HERDIN)
Mr. Alexander A. Sea
Head, Information and Communications Technology Development Section,
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Good morning!
Maybe the best venue for the explanation on HERDIN is our session this afternoon on collaboration tools. But I will
briefly explain the functionalities of HERDIN. We have improved it to the level where we included “geometrics”•.
Meaning, we included in each research article the references. We counted how many times this particular article has
been cited by other researches. The functionality that we improved in the HERDIN Network-of-Networks (NeoN) is
the online exchange of information. We are looking at the regional approach of HERDIN, wherein, HERDIN can be
installed in your institution and then create users where they can upload or add records. It is a web-based
application. If you are using an open source system, you can use HERDIN. It‟s free. You can download it. Once the
HERDIN is installed in your institution and we have a central server at PCHRD, you can configure our server at your
locally installed HERDIN to synchronize; it will get the information online.
To explain what we did in the past, in 2001, we used CDS/ISIS as a database tool. We created a template which we
gave to our partners. Every month, we requested for the file. Then, our team did the cleaning of files. At the end of
the year, there are missing articles from the Philippine College of Surgeons (PCS); only to find out that this is
because of misspellings. So, we do quality control (QC) at our level, which became tedious. We thought, “can we not
transfer to our partners our skills on QC?”• Another concern is duplication of records. One of our partner libraries
added a certain research that we have added already.
With the current HERDIN, if that particular research is added by our partner, upon synchronization we only get the
physical location. For example, I‟m a researcher in Cebu City, I will be able to see the location of the actual copy. In
that way, service delivery is improved. Another objective is to collect national researches. Once we engage in the
regional approach, each region wherein we put HERDIN becomes a “node”•. For example, in Davao, our partner is
Ateneo. We will only make an account for this partner. If we duplicate it in other regions, we can harness all
information on researches. If not all, at least we maximize that process on how we get researches; the management
is centralized but the collection of researches is automated.
Another problem that we solved is the problem on connectivity. The regions can manage and do their own collection.
The information is distributed.
In HERDIN we have three collections: researches, experts, and the institutions. For example, under experts‟ records,
there is basic information about the author like expertise, affiliated institutions, contact information, among others.
This will be discussed in the afternoon session. If you are going to search experts, the search can be filtered. If he
belongs at the National Kidney Transplant Institute (NKTI), for instance, the profile of the institution can be accessed.
You can access the head of the institution, contact information, equipment available, among others. We linked the
three collections with each other.
One of our contributors at present is the Manila Central University (MCU). If it‟s an ongoing project, they indicate
ongoing. Before, when we are still using the CDS/ISIS, if you search for the amount of government expenditures on
health research, it cannot display results as the fields are in text format and not in number format so we cannot count.
With the current system, we can get the total budget/expenditures for all research projects from 2001 to 2005, for
example.
106
Apart from that, for each record added on HERDIN, you can add a full text. To address intellectual property rights
(IPR) issues, we only publish in HERDIN the public domain information. You can also use HERDIN for your private
collection.
107
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Fe Barquin: A researcher with a purely different technique will usually use two variables. In MEDLINE, the
unnecessary features would not be carried, for example, a risk factor and an outcome; or exposure or outcome
variable; lifestyle of a person and myocardial infarction; and/or use of oral contraceptives and pulmonary edema. Can
we do that also in HERDIN; that unnecessary features will be prevented?
Mr. Alexander Sea: Yes Ma‟am. We have in HERDIN the Google type search as well as the detailed search. You can
aggregate your search up to the level per region, per aggregation, etc.
Question: What can you suggest for an institution that wants to have a research database using Visual Basic?
Mr. Alexander Sea: If you are using Visual Basic, usually these applications are Windows-based and can only be
accessed within your network. Previously, our system is similar to that but we converted to a web-based application
so it can be easily accessed by everyone. If you are using Visual Basic, I would suggest that you partner with us. We
can help convert your data. If you are using web-based application, the database can be accessed even through
mobile phones.
Dr. Fe Barquin: The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has a portal. We have a database in the
region. Can we marry the two?
Mr. Alexander Sea: If you have an existing system that is capable of exporting XML format, we can include that in
HERDIN.
Dr. Alan Feranil: Do you think that having a HERDIN database per institution will solve our health problem? I think
that even if we have a HERDIN database, there is still problem of compliance. What I would like to draw from you
now is how we can improve this? What do you think is the best mechanism to put in place at the regional and
institutional levels? We need to have a good database in the region. Our agenda is to avoid duplication. We would
like to know from you if you have any ideas how to address this? We have this in place for a long time but we have
poor compliance. So, we would like to know from you how we can best improve this database.
Mr. Alexander Sea: What we suggested before is that HERDIN will be embodied in the regional research consortia to
encourage compliance. HERDIN is just a tool for that.
Dr. Fe Barquin: We can have one hardware dedicated to uploading research studies. That is an opportunity to enjoin
them to upload completed researches in the region. By the way, we have to hire a research aid so that he/she can
dedicate time for uploading.
Dr. Alan Feranil: This can be an institutional counterpart.
Dr. Fe Barquin: In the academic institutions, there are a lot of encoders there. Probably, one of their responsibilities is
uploading their researches. Even in hospitals, a staff should be dedicated to uploading.
Mr. Alexander Sea: Yes Ma‟am.
Dr. Pilar Jimenez: I have a few questions for Dr. Feranil on tracking. Are we also tracking where the research money
is going? Is it only in Metro Manila? How about the regions? Where is the money mostly going to? Is it in Mindanao
or are we neglecting the North? Because every time you ask for funds, they always say that most of the money is in
Mindanao. What is happening in Bicol and the North when you track the research? Where are the money mostly
clustered?
108
My other question has to do with the private sector. How large is the private sector from your estimate of all the
researches that has been conducted? Also, unless you regulate this, I mean there is a policy like in the Martial Law
days, you could not do research without the approval of the government so that they can track all researches done in
the country. This has been done in other countries like Indonesia. All researches whether private or public must be
approved by their State Secretary so that they can track this and they will know who will benefit from the research. It
is difficult to get compliance unless there is a regulation. You need to have a carrot that you will dangle.
Dr. Alan Feranil: Your recommendation is to have a regulation?
Dr. Pilar Jimenez: Yes, we need some kind of a regulation for the private sector to come out. We know that the
pharmaceutical companies hire doctors and other allied fields to conduct all kinds of research. We know that the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has a lot of ongoing evaluation in Mindanao and other
places where they fund. These researches are supposed to be unclassified. So, how do you deal with this?
Dr. Alan Feranil: Actually, there are hazards to create a clinical trial registry but that‟s only in trials registered in
BFAD. But for others, NEDA and DOH would have to get the information from them.
Ms. Rosa Gonzales: In DOH, we have this Technical Assistance Coordinating Team that tracks all projects including
research consultancy. This has been instituted last year so that we can assess where these agencies come in.
Dr. Alan Feranil: Even the small researches done by students are important. Some topics done by some students
maybe used later. If you have your own database in the region, you will know if there is duplication. We need to have
data.
Mr. Alexander Sea: When we use HERDIN, we should maximize it. We can aggregate researches. How many
researches are done per region? How much was the budget allocated? We can have records on these. With regard
to the plans of HERDIN, the approach can be regional or institutional. HERDIN can also be used by individual
authors or users. We can create an account for you so you can add directly in HERDIN. When a user submits a
research, it is not automatically published, it has to pass through an editor. If that is the approach, anyone can add
and create an account on their own, but the bulk of work will be left to PCHRD. We only have a few people who will
do QC. My suggestion is for HERDIN to be adopted by the RHRDC; each RHRDC committed to becoming a
HERDIN node; the QC will then be distributed as well. That is why we call it the HERDIN Network-of-Networks, you
can create your own HERDIN network and link to the national.
Question: I don‟t know what has been discussed already. But probably my suggestion is to come up with keywords.
How do you track researches? You can put keywords to track researches.
Mr. Alexander Sea: In HERDIN, there are Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH keywords. There are
several tabs there, the abstracts, objectives, among others which include MeSH and non- MeSH keywords.
Question: Can you map individual institutions in the database, probably using geographic information system (GIS)?
Dr. Alan Feranil:Â What do you think of his idea?
Mr. Alexander Sea: As of now, we can host HERDIN NeoN in PCHRD if the regions do not have the necessary
infrastructure. But as much as possible, you can have your own system in place in your infrastructure.
Question: Can you come up with how many times a research have been cited?
Mr. Alexander Sea: In HERDIN, when we count the number of times a research has been cited, we look at the
references as well as number of authors.
109
Question: In the author field, can they put email address?
Mr. Alexander Sea: You can put email address, but there have been issues raised on this. So you have options of
putting it or not.
Comment: We get in touch with the authors abroad by sending them email. We are surprised that we receive
feedback within seven minutes.
Mr. Alexander Sea: We have that field, but there were complaints of spamming. Spamming is a big business. They
clone the site, and then their server will send you numerous junk emails.
Comment: On the issue of regularly assessing or processing data, probably it is best to give feedback on a regular
basis to stakeholders. It‟s very important for us to show policymakers/ lawmakers what has been done. We always
look back on what has been done. We do that process regularly provided by different stakeholders. You can put that
on the meantime on a quarterly basis.
Dr. Alan Feranil: The website for NUHRA is currently ongoing.
Comment: We can ask money from the Senate and Congress to fund areas in need.
Dr. Alan Feranil: Anymore suggestions? Having information is the key to the regions. Help us help each other. It is
important to have that feel of what is happening in our country. You should situate your proposal in your country even
if it is small-scale. It‟s best to have a feel of what‟s happening. Join us in this initiative of the PNHRS. If you have time
please attend the session this afternoon.
110
RESEARCH PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
Prof. Cynthia P. Cordero
Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, College of Medicine,
University of the Philippines Manila
Good afternoon!
I was tasked to give tips on writing the research proposal. This morning you were told the research agenda and that
funding is available. Next thing to do is how to formulate a question and how to make a protocol. That‟s my task for
today. I entitled this talk, “writing effective research proposals,”• looking also into how to translate it and how to get
funding.
Writing effective research proposals is like applying for a job. First, we should be definite about what we want. Can it
sustain my interest for the next 3-5 years? It has to be consistent with your training and experience. Now, after you
know what you want to do as an applicant, the second important tip for those who are applying for a job is to get to
know the organization to which you are applying to. So, you go to the website and get to know the objectives and
nature of the organization. In other words, you need to know what the organization needs. And the third point is to
package yourself. Meaning, you try to match what you want with what the organization wants. Then you hear these
two words at the end of the day. You‟re hired!
How do I get my research funded? It is very similar to applying for a job. You have to be definite on what you want.
Although we listed the NUHRA there, is this what I really want? I think it is very important that what you would write
about or what you would embark to do for the next few years of your life is something that you would want to do. That
means, you should know the topic of interest to you; not your colleagues‟ interest, not the interest of your institution
which you are affiliated to. A lot of times you are asked to do a topic, or someone from the institution would say,
“there is a call for proposals from this agency, let‟s try to draft a proposal for that.”• It may not necessarily be what you
want but there is an opportunity to do that. The topic is not exactly what you want but still within your realm of
interest.
What the organization wants? That means what does the funding agency wants. What do you do? You identify
prospective funding agencies and go to their websites, if they have one. Most funding agencies have their websites
where they specify their research priorities. For example, the PNHRS has formulated the updated NUHRA; that is
what the funding agency wants. Fortunately, the topics are quite broad, I think most of us will be interested since it
covers the national interest. By the presentations this morning, you will realize that the process of coming up with this
NUHRA is a very tedious process. It tried to capture what the Filipino research community wants to do in the next two
years.
How do we write effective research proposals? First, what do I want to do? What topic will I work on or what is my
research question? And based on my research question, what are my general and specific objectives? This morning,
I joined the group at the end of the hall which is strategic planning. We also discussed goals, general and specific
objectives. I want to spend a great deal of time on this because personally, as a mentor or teacher of researchers, I
think one of the key to finishing your research or having it funded is to see it through the end until its communicated
and disseminated or translated to outcomes. The proponent should be interested on the chosen topic. This will be
very basic to most of us but it may be a reminder to all of us.
I would like to discuss the research question. The way I‟m going to present it is based on the two resources. One is
the handout produced by the NCSALL Practitioner Research Group and the other one is entitled, “How to formulate a
research question?”• published on the web by the University of New South Wales. It is very basic. I hope that all of
you will be happy if we appreciate how to formulate a research question and how it can see us through the funding
and disseminating the research results.
111
Material 1 has several items that tell you what makes a good research question. One is it addresses a need or a
problem that you encounter as a practitioner, whether as a clinical practitioner, instructor in a college, or a community
worker among the indigenous people. It should be relevant in your own sphere of influence. Next, it doesn‟t need to
be unique. Sometimes we do researches that have been done in other areas but it must be important to you and your
practice. There are researches that have been done before but don‟t answer peculiarities in your own setting. So you
want to do that particular topic again, incorporating the peculiarities in your own setting. Next are the challenges that
you learn. It can be a question about improving your way of teaching, the condition of higher education. It could be a
question for a clinician, “how do I better manage my patients?”• “There is an existing method of operation but how
can I improve on this?”• The challenge is to keep on learning. Next, it is researchable? Meaning, if you want to study
questions on HIV and AIDS cases, do you have access to them? Do you have the resources? Meaning, do you have
a pool of patients to do the study?
Material 2 indicates that a good research question can be captured by the word FINER which means “Feasible,
Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant.”
What I want you to do now is to match that in the reading material from this. Bullet one addresses a need or a
problem that you encounter as a practitioner. It must be relevant to your setting and interesting as well. There are still
nagging questions that are important to your particular hospital or region.
As a professor, one of our tasks is to supervise graduate students to do researches. As of all of us would attest, it is
so difficult to do a thesis, to see to the end especially to go back to your clinical practice or job. One of the indicators
of someone who finishes a thesis is that person or student is interested in the topic. It has to be a topic that interests
you so no matter how busy you are, you always go back. It is a nagging research question that you cannot ignore.
It is feasible? Material 1 also tells you that it must be doable. So what is that? Doable means you have enough time
and money. Researchable means that you have limited time and money, but enough patients and access to certain
expertise. Doable means you have time and money. It was announced this morning that there are funding available
for the topics listed in the NUHRA. How do you set aside the time? It is very difficult to find the time to write and do
the research. That‟s why most funding agencies are very critical on the requirements of the research proposal. The
reason for this is that if we as researchers cannot find time to write proposals as detailed as possible then how will
we find time to do it.
The research question has to be intriguing enough. A general research question is a big question. It becomes vague.
Therefore, your funder will find it hard to assess what you are interested to do. A too narrow research question will
not be able to be completed in something that is important to the improvement of health care and health care
delivery. Lastly, a research question answerable by a yes or no is not a good one.
It is also important that the research has to be ethical. That‟s why in the PNHRS, we have the National Ethics
Committee (NEC). They also encourage institutions to have their own independent ethics reviews. We recommend
that each research institution should have that independent ethics review.
Let‟s go to types of good research questions. If you have a question that has the aspects of FINER, you have to
classify what is it about? Material 1 says that you classify a research question by asking the question, “what‟s going
on here?”• You observe that there is an increase in leptospirosis cases because of the rainy season. “What is the
incidence of leptospirosis cases during the rainy season?”• That could be a “what‟s going on here?” research
question. “what‟s going on here?”• can be either descriptive or analytical. If you begin to confirm the leptospirosis
cases in summer months, that‟s already analytical because you have another variable there; aside from leptospirosis,
you have the seasons, the rainy and summer months.
Another type of research question, according to Material 1, is “what happens when....?”• “What happens when I add
another ingredient to my traditional soup recipe?”• “Will this be more palatable or will this destroy the traditional recipe
112
of my family?”• So what happens when I do something? “What happens when”• connotes an intervention. You are
intervening already. Previously, when you asked, “what‟s going on here?”• you are just observing. You are not
disturbing the status.
You are looking at the event of the intervention and you are looking at the effect of that intervention on another
variable. So you already have two variables and you are looking at the relationship of these two variables. The first
variable is an intervention; something you do. An analytical question can either be addressed by an experimental
design or a quasi-experimental design. For most of you who are doing community researches, usually when you ask
a question of this type, “what happens when” you usually employ a quasi-experimental design.
Appreciation of a research question is important. I would like to share with you my favorite diagram as a researcher
and as a teacher where you identify your independent variable and dependent variable. When your question
involves, “what happens when I do something?” What you do is your intervention or exposure. An analytical question
can also be “what‟s going on here?”• if you have an exposure. What happens if these people are exposed to
something compared to people who are not exposed? That‟s observational not experimental but you already have an
independent and dependent variable relationship.
This is my example, “what is the effect of Psyllium fiber on total cholesterol?”• Most of us can identify with this
because I have high cholesterol. What happens if you take Psyllium fiber?; what happens to your total cholesterol or
your lipid profile? Psyllium fiber is an example of an intervention if you employ an experimental design and total
cholesterol is an example of your outcome or dependent variable. Notice whenever we do an analytical study or we
embark on an investigation of an analytical research question, you identify your dependent and independent
variables; there are other variables that disturb that particular relationship. In life, it is very hard to see one
relationship that is not affected by other variables. In this particular case, it is affected by diet, exercise, age, gender,
and concomitant medications. Actually, you can think of other variables that can affect that particular relationship,
which is Psyllium fiber on total cholesterol. If you have research questions in mind, try to imagine a diagram like this.
Then 10% of your research protocol has been written if you are able to identify and draw your research question this
way.
Another thing that will help us write a research question is to think of PICO, where P stands for “patient”• or your
target population of interest or the problem that you are working on; I stands for “intervention”• or “exposure”• such
that your PICO is referred to as PECO; C means your “comparison intervention”•; and O is your “outcome.”•
Sometimes you see in the literature that PICO becomes PICOM and PECO becomes PECOM. M there stands for
“methods.”• If you have a research question, you also have an idea of the general research design or methodology
that is best for that particular research. What I‟m saying is, if you write a research question, all of those components
should be there in the research question.
Let‟s look at our example on Psyllium fiber and total cholesterol. What happens if Psyllium fiber is added to a dietexercise regimen for hypercholesterolemia with no other risk factors? Using PICO, “P”• stands for patients with
hypercholesterolemia; “I”• for Psyllium fiber plus diet-exercise regimen; and “C”• would be the usual regimen which is
for diet-exercise regimen. In this particular research question, we are missing the “O”•. How do we do that? We have
to specify the outcome of the research question. What happens to total cholesterol if Psyllium fiber is added to a dietexercise regimen for hypercholesterolemia?
As we said earlier, we want to make it into a PICOM; so let‟s add the “M”•. We say in a randomized controlled trial,
what happens to total cholesterol if Psyllium fiber is added to a diet-exercise regimen for hypercholesterolemia? This
research question is an example of PICOM. You have your population, intervention, the control group and your “O”•
is your total cholesterol and “M”• which is the randomized controlled trial. Now, it is clear to you on what to do. You
have a research question and this is very important step in writing a research proposal.
113
What the organization wants? We have a nagging research question that interests you; that grips you; that you
cannot sleep until you find an answer to it. But, you don‟t have the money to do it. You don‟t have resources to do it.
Your next step is to find a funding agency that is compatible to your research question. Let‟s try to practice the ideal
way that the research question will come from us. You find that in the course of your practice as a clinician, as an
educator or administrator because this is the key that helps you to go through the difficult process of writing the
research proposal, applying for funding, doing and writing the report.
As I said earlier, you can go to the website or “Google”• the funding agencies that are interested or compatible with
your research question. Examples of these funding agencies are as follows: the World Health Organization (WHO)Tropical Disease Research which funds tropical diseases; the Global Fund which is categorically interested in TB,
malaria and HIV; CHED which is part of the PNHRS, is interested in education questions; USAID, which as far as I
know, funds programs for Mindanao. What we can do as researchers is to build in research questions into the
programs. How do we do that? How to best deliver the program? We build research endeavours into the program
and you can find funding from USAID. The PNHRS has the NUHRA; I think you can find at least one topic there that
is of interest to you.
Once you matched the research question with the funding agency, you now have to write effective research
proposals. How do you do that? We have to go into the details, look into the website of the chosen funding agency.
Usually the funding agency would have their format of the research proposal. Try to comply with the format. Look for
the details such as the process of screening. If you are qualified as a researcher, sometimes they have requirements.
For example, funding is only available for researches in Mindanao because they have regional priority. Look also at
how they shortlist proposals, if it‟s available. One of the hurdles if we don‟t get funding is that we are easily
discouraged. Don‟t be discouraged because that protocol won‟t be wasted because you can apply again to other
funding agencies and other opportunities could come up that would give you windows to apply. Another is deadline.
We have an experience that we applied for funding for a program to USAID. We missed the deadline only by a few
minutes. Imagine our exasperation. We worked on it for so many days and nights; we even got experts from other
institutions to help us package because we are not familiar how USAID wants the proposal written. At the end of the
day, we missed the deadline by a few minutes. USAID is strict. If you missed the deadline, they won‟t accept your
proposal. Please check the deadlines.
Also, check other aspects. Recently, most funding agencies would want a section of your proposal dedicated on how
you are going to translate the knowledge you generated from your research. If you are looking for effective herbal
medications, you have to show the funding agencies that you have partner manufacturers or a company that will
market your invention (effective herbal medicine); maybe that‟s too much, but you have to at least show potential
partners. In fact, we also did a study on how the funding agencies look at knowledge translation and most would
really require the knowledge translation aspect in the proposal. Another example is an educational material or an
educational improvement; you have to show that you have partner institutions that will post that particular teaching
tool. Another thing, they want a layman‟s version of your abstract at least. This might be difficult to ask. In fact we are
always criticized on this, that our writing style is too technical, but that‟s the very nature of our discipline. It is a
challenge to us to write this but I think we have to practice how to do this. In fact there is a session on how we
communicate proposals or research findings to policymakers, and how to market this. I think we are in the generation
that we have to learn this, whether we like it or not. Try to learn how to write your questions and research proposals
in a layman‟s form; meaning, when somebody read it, it must be relevant for them. In fact, even in the proposal
stage, remember that you have to go through an independent ethics review, composed of medical and non-medical
experts. Even at this stage, the writing should be simple.
Try to check the website; if the funding agency has no website, then be persistent in checking on the status of your
proposal.
114
The last 10-pager handout is an example of writing a research protocol of the Pan-American Health Organization
(PAHO),
a
guide
for
writing
a
research
proposal.
You
can
access
it
at
http://www.paho.org/English/HDP/HDR/RPG/Protocol-ENG-2002.doc.
This is the basic outline of a research protocol. If somebody wants to submit a proposal through this organization,
they would check on these aspects of the proposal. Some aspects may not be applicable to your particular research
question.
You begin with the title of the research project. The title is just a statement or a phrase form of your research
question. Project summary is your abstract. The most precise way of communicating what we want is the best way.
Now, I would like to focus on the statement of the problem, justification and use of results, and theoretical framework.
These are often missing in proposals or inadequately written. Remember that you are writing for a general audience.
Try to take time reviewing what you have written. Writing the research protocol well is an investment in writing the
manuscript. If you have written your research protocol well, you can easily write the manuscript. For example, if the
methods and plans are well written, then it is easier to just expound. You have to have a clear grasp, not only of what
you want to do, but also of how you are going to do the procedures.
115
RESEARCH PUBLISHING AND E-TOOLS FOR COLLABORATION
JOURNAL PUBLISHING
Dr. Jose Ma. C. Avila
Editor-In-Chief, Acta Medica Philippina
Good morning everyone! I am happy to be here in Davao.
I would like to share with you some of the things that I picked up along the way. The road to becoming an editor, from
doing specialty pathology, was somewhat difficult but I am here and I am editor of this journal (Acta Medica
Philippina) for the past few years that we have been advertising it. I have been the editor of this publication for five
years now. We would like to cover, as an editor, the stuff that we see. I think we are on track and we are applying for
ISI accreditation this year. I think we have gotten somewhere but the path has been difficult.
Being an editor of a journal is a privilege to be in because how many gets an opportunity to edit a medical journal in
your lifetime? I meet the editors of medical journals, at least in Manila; we meet regularly. Whenever we meet, we are
about 10-20, and when we start sharing our experiences, it is such a sad state of affairs because all of us have very
similar experiences, especially when we started. Journal editing is a phase, or the life of a journal has a phase; from
birth up to maturity. Many of us recognize what stage we are in. So it‟s a process and we are going to talk about that
today. Actually I was asked to talk on editorship or what it takes to be an editor of a journal, and peer review as well
as manuscript evaluation.
An editor has responsibility to its readers, that‟s very basic and important. And if some of you are becoming editors or
are editors now, sooner or later, you‟ll realize this. Your publication cannot be effective or good if you do not think of
the people who are going to read your publication. That is very important. Who are your readers? Are your readers
mostly students? Are you targeting your faculty? Are you targeting the whole region or the whole nation? That‟s very
important to think about because that is how you will proceed with trying to be a good editor. It starts from there.
The rights of your study subjects, for your content, whether they are mice or men, you have to consider that. It‟s very
important that people submitting to your journal disclose that your subjects have been treated well, or have passed
institutional review board or have passed ethical standards. I am not only talking about live subjects but even
archives. If you are going to use glass slides from pathology, you still have to go through to this process. Even if you
are using animals, you should also be considerate.
The editorial content is actually the subject matter of your journal and the type of articles you would publish in the
journal. And you are responsible for that. Are you going to choose materials that are only medical, for example? Are
you going to accept articles that are of public health nature? It all depends on what you are thinking of and what your
readers want as well as what your objective for the journal is.
Authorship policy is another important responsibility of an editor. You must, from the start, have a clear authorship
policy. Authorship is a very controversial topic. But you must establish guidelines in your paper or journal who an
author should be. If a person did not do anything as far as writing the manuscript is concerned, would you consider
that an author? If somebody just thought of the idea and did not contribute anything to the paper, will that have to be
an author or will just that person be acknowledged in your paper? These are the things that you have to think about
and will be asked from you as an editor. This must be very clear in your publication.
When you accept paper for publications, you have to have submission policies. What are the things that are needed?
Are you going to need an electronic copy, do you need a hard copy? Do you need the release forms, copyright forms,
among others?
116
You must also establish manuscript evaluation procedures. This must be in place.
And of course, as an editor, you have to work for the improvement of manuscript quality. Your editorship does not
end with what is submitted to you. If you feel that the manuscript lacks something, you need to work for its
improvement, you have to give lectures or go through some workshops.
You must be ready to deal with errors/misbehavior, not among your staff, but misbehavior as far as authorship or
manuscript behavior is concern. Plagiarism is a type of misbehavior. If somebody writes you a letter and say that this
author plagiarized my work, how are you going to deal with that? You have to be ready with that. You cannot just
start thinking about it when the complaint is already in. This is a problem which a lot of editors do not really think
about before they even begin becoming an editor.
You have to maintain editorial independence. As an editor, you must not be influenced by your publisher. The
publisher cannot say, “publish this no matter what”•. The publishers or your supervisors cannot do that.
You should plan for the journal‟s future. When you accept the job, five years from now, you have to have a vision of
what your journal would be.
If you were offered editorship of a journal, of a medical journal, what should you think of before you accept the job?
 Who owns and publishes the journal? What is its history? Why did the previous editor leave?
 What are the terms of the editors appointment?
 Will I have editorial freedom?
 What is the primary purpose of the journal? Is the editor free to change its scientific content?
 What are the publishers publishing and marketing policies?
 Is the editor responsible for copy editing?
 Is there a print and/or online version? Are they identical?
 Where is the editorial office?
 What support will the owner provide for the editor and the office?
The editorial office
 You need staff for the journal to thrive. You need editorial assistants, editorial board, peer reviewers
 Equipment required: computers, software, internet, etc.
 Need for assistant editors
 Manuscript flow system to be able to track where your manuscript is
 Editorial Board, roles and policies
The editorial content delves about what kind of article your journal is going to publish.
 Editor should have a vision for this
 Predetermined or editor‟s prerogative to accept or reject articles
 Identify types of articles to be published: letters to the editors, reviews, specialty topics, case reports, others
 Invitations to authors to submit articles: do you ask some people to submit?
Publication policies
 Authorship: editor must establish, publish, and enforce criteria; authors should disclose organizational
support for the published work; acknowledgment of additional support by individuals
 Manuscript submission: statement of originality, copyright issues, institutional review board requirement,
technical requirements for manuscripts has to be stated
 Information for authors: freely available and may include details; even the review process described
Manuscript Evaluation
 Editor must establish the review process
117




System for rapid review must be established
Rejection policies must be clear
Reviewers: how many? additional roles?
Blinded reviewers? Will you blind your reviewers?
If you are the editor, the finger points at you and you are responsible.
The editor must be responsible for the reviewers and you must tell what they are going to do. Responsibilities of
Reviewers
 Evaluation details must be there
 Recommendations have to be put down
 Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest
 Confidentiality must be maintained
 Reviewers must not communicate with the authors
 Editor guidance for new reviewers must be in place
 There should be a system where you reward your reviewers
Editorial decision-making
 As an editor, you must have a system for accepting and rejecting manuscripts
 Editor should encourage revisions, when appropriate
Other features of the journal that you should tackle
 Who should write editorials? The editor or you invite other people to write editorial on your behalf, especially
if the topic is not your field of expertise or somebody is in a better position to do that?
 Policies for review articles must be written down (subject to same reviews as other articles)
 Provide space for letters to the editor
 Have space for corrections of errors
These are the basics for editorship. I want to go into peer review now, which I think is very important.
Taken from the pamphlet, “I don‟t know what to believe; making sense of science stories”• I did a summary of what it
contains. It defines what peer review is, in layman‟s terms.
 Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published. This system is called peer
review.
 Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field check research papers for validity, significance,
originality and clarity.
 Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable experts to scrutinize papers before deciding
whether to publish them.
 Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and magazines, and find on the internet, or hear on
television or the radio are not published in peer reviewed journals.
 Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is flawed or incomplete. Many reported
findings, such as claims about “wonder cures”• and “new dangers”• never come to anything.
 Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists cannot repeat it or use it and as a society we cannot
base decisions about our public safety or our family‟s health, for example, on work that has a high chance of
being flawed (You cannot use materials that are not peer reviewed to form public policy).
So no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical research is, you must always ask if it is peer
reviewed. If not, why not. There are a lot of what we call “throw away journals”• that are circulating, Like the Medical
Observer. It is a good journal with good articles but we cannot always believe what is in there because these are not
peer reviewed articles. These are solicited articles. Please try to distinguish the so called “throw away journals”• from
peer reviewed journals.
118
If it is peer reviewed, you can look for more information on what other scientists say about it, the size and approach
of the study and whether it is part of a body of evidence pointing towards the same conclusions. If it is peer reviewed,
chances are, other people are working on similar study or related to it, and all of that will form the evidence that we
will use to make a conclusion in public policy.
Peer review is like a quality mark for science. It tells you that the research has been conducted and presented to a
standard that other scientists accept. Peer review is like a seal of approval for quality.
The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) has defined a peer reviewed journal in 2007. According to WAME,
“to be considered peer reviewed, a journal should have obtained external reviews for the majority of the manuscript it
publishes, including all original research and review articles. Some editors request peer review for other kinds of
articles, such as opinion pieces (commentaries/editorials) and correspondence. To have been peer reviewed, the
manuscript should have been reviewed by at least one external reviewer; it is typical to have two reviewers and
sometimes, more opinions are sought.”
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), composed of editors of the top journals in the
United States (US) or in the world, has also come up with statement on peer review. “A peer reviewed journal
submits most of its published research articles for outside review. The number and kinds of manuscript sent for
review, the number of reviewers, the reviewing procedures and the use of the reviewers‟ opinion may vary. In the
interest of transparency, each journal should publicly disclose its policies in its Instructions to Authors.”
If you are publishing a journal, you have to include in your Instructions to Authors if it is peer reviewed and how you
are going to peer review it. Do you have external reviewers or is that your editorial board that does the reviewing. In
the medical journal editors‟ group where I belong, we did a short survey and we found out that most of the editors are
doing internal review. That‟s why when we asked them, “is your journal peer reviewed?”•, they would say yes. How
do you review your journal? Since most of these journals are society based, there‟s internal review being done, which
is fine. But strictly speaking, you have to have external reviewers.
Manuscript evaluation is related to peer review because the peer reviewers use this, which the editor establishes.
 Editor must establish a process for review. Who are going to conduct the review?
 Editor may establish a system for rapid review.
 Editor may accept manuscripts without review.
 Editor may reject manuscripts without review.
 How many people should review the manuscript? Most have 2 reviewers, but one will do.
 Editor may ask reviewers to recommend rejection or acceptance of manuscripts.
 Should reviewers know the identity of authors? Or should “masked”• review be done?
 Should reviewers be asked to sign their reviews?
The “Peer Review Process”• outlined below, adapted from a presentation by Richard Henderson of Elsevier Hong
Kong, is universal, I think.
When a paper arrives at a journal‟s editorial office a few things can happen:
 Editor reviews paper herself/himself
 Editor assigns to Associate Editor
 Editor or Associate Editor assigns to Peer Reviewers
What do peer reviewers look for?
 Appropriateness for the journal
o Is the topic relevant to the journal?
o Is the topic timely?
o Is the topic significant?
119





o Is the study unique? If so, How?
What type of paper/research is it?
o If research, how is it structured?
 Randomized, controlled, blinded Meta-analysis?
 Retrospective study?
 Case series or single case
Did the author follow the instructions of the journal?
o Correct number of authors?
o Conflict of Interest/Disclosure Statement?
o Copyright release signed?
o Informed consent (if applicable)/Ethics considerations
o Is the article format correct?
 Structured abstract?
 Correct article format (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion,
References?)
 Are References in correct format?
Are the technical aspects correct?
o Research Structure:
 Correctly described and performed?
o Statistics:
 Correct analysis?
 Accurate interpretation?
 Clear presentation?
 Tables and Figures:
 Accurate and clear structure, presentation, and presentation?
 Do the numbers add up?
 Are the data consistent with the body of the paper?
 Abstract and Body of paper
Do number of patients, other data match?
Conclusions consistent?
Most journals accept 30% or less, but these are very mature, solid type of publications. For instance, New England
Journal Medicine and British Medical Journal accept around 10%. In my estimate, Acta Medica‟s acceptance rate is
75-80%. The articles that we reject are mostly for technical reasons. With the number of researches that are
submitted, it‟s a luxury not to accept. And this is really a problem.
There has to be a process. You have to have a chart like this so people are clear on what the process is. This is very
important.
The Acta Medica Philippina Peer Review Process
 When paper arrives at the Acta office, assistant editors do initial review of the article and see if manuscript
satisfies terms as given in the “Instructions to Authors”• particularly:
o correct format (hard copy, digital)
o length
o authorship papers, copyright, etc.
 Editorial Board screens articles and helps in prioritizing them for publication and weeds out some that may
be inappropriate for the journal
 Peer review process begins: two reviewers assigned per article (double blinded), chosen by chief editor
usually
 Reviewers given an average of three weeks per review
120






Reviews go back to chief editor; another reviewer may be assigned to the manuscript depending on the
previous reviews (editorial board members may be sought)
Back to the author for revisions (major/minor)
Revised manuscript to assistant editors to check authors‟ compliance with recommendations
Manuscript to copy editors for final editing
Final paper to chief editor for final evaluation
Final manuscript to press (for early technical preparation before final galley proof of journal)
My frustrations as an editor, on a personal level
 Authors do not follow instructions (at least, majority of them don‟t)
 There are difficulties with epidemiologic or statistical methods
 Papers are generally too long and too wordy
 Authors are careless about bibliography and other minor technical details about their paper
 Peer reviewers may take too long to return back papers. Some don‟t even bother.
 Some authors are stubborn and don‟t take criticism very well
My advice to “would-be”• or future editors
 Difficult job but rewarding.
 “Professionalize”• your job.
 Seek advice. Read up. Don‟t go through it blindly. Educate your “boss”• about the job.
 Go through the process. Be patient.
 Be good to your peer reviewers. “Reward”• them somehow.
 Educate your publishing house. Have a good relationship with them.
You can go to www.actamedicaphilippina.com.ph we have about five issues online. We feature one full text but most
of the others are abstracts and the Instructions to Authors are there. If you want to publish, just email us and we will
answer. We accept any type of paper as long as it is health related.
Thank you very much.
121
JOURNALS GOING ONLINE
Dr. Jose Florencio F. Lapeña
Editor-In-Chief, Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery
Good morning ladies and gentlemen!
I bring greetings from my university, the University of the Philippines (UP). And I would like to acknowledge the
presence of the president of our society at the time I was appointed as editor, I was appointed by Dr. Natividad
Almazan, who is in the audience today.
I did not receive any support for this presentation, however, I have in the past received support from the listed
pharmaceutical and industrial partners.
The objectives of this lecture are to define and discuss open access publishing; presenting the advantages of local
journals going online, illustrating examples of strategies and tactics for going online, specifically mentioning these
different platforms.
The typical linear flow of the scholarly publishing process has been described in detail by the first speaker, and really
begins with the offer after having complied with the institutional and ethical board requirements, submitting a
manuscript to the academic journal editor. The editor in turn, determines whether that manuscript merits review by
the board of editors and selected external reviewers or whether it should be sent back politely to the author with a
rejection letter. If the manuscript is sent out for external review, the reviewers generally return that manuscript with
comments and recommendations, depending on the peer review format and the editor then sends the manuscript
back to the author either with a rejection letter or a request for further revisions. Oftentimes, editors help in the
revisions. If you are interested in having the paper published, and you do not want to reject all the manuscripts, you
better start helping in the content. Otherwise, you will end up with no papers. The author then revises the manuscript
and resubmits it to you and then you may sometimes resend it back to external reviewers, depending on whether
they agreed to review the paper a second time or not. Some reviewers do not like a paper and say that they will not
review it again. So then you will either find a third reviewer or you make your editorial decision about accepting or
rejecting the manuscript. Ideally, the author provides editing or proofing of the final copy. And then the paper is
eventually published in the journal which is hopefully disseminated in print and electronic forms.
There are four major stakeholders in scholarly publishing. The four parties are the scholars or authors, editors and
reviewers, the publishers and subscribers. Each of these players has a different agenda.
The authors create the work to be published despite a non-nurturing research climate and their main concerns are
prestige of a journal, proficiency and fairness of the review process, timeliness of publication and out-of-pocket
publication costs. On the other hand, editors and peer reviewers provide quality control for content; they screen
submissions, review manuscripts, suggests and assists in the revisions, corresponds with the authors and oversee
the final copy. Their concerns are advancing knowledge in the field, creating a prestigious journal, increasing
potential impact, obtaining support of a publisher and out-of-pocket editing and reviewing costs. Notice that there are
a lot of out-of-pocket expenses, not only for the authors but for reviewers.
Publishers range from commercial publishers to academic institutions or professional societies. They are responsible
for getting the journal into the market place. Their concerns are profit, or for professional societies, at least breaking
even by lessening costs and raising subsidy or advertising vis-a-vis subscription rates. And then, finally, you have the
subscribers, institutional and library subscribers, who purchase or receive journals and provide access to the most
prestigious journals for readers, faculty and students whose concerns are budgetary which are affected by
subscription price increases.
122
This system of scholarly communication that has existed for hundred of years, consist of research and other scholarly
publications, created gratis, edited and peer reviewed also gratis, and printed and published for profit or at cost and
sold to libraries and research institutions for dissemination, or donated to libraries rather than having them gather
molds and dust in the shelves. Our society for example donates a copy to all the major medial libraries of all the
medical schools in the Philippines. We shoulder even the mailing cost because we would like to disseminate
knowledge.
This system brings about rising tension of conflict among the players. The increasing volume of scientific research
which not just doubled but rises exponentially every year, coupled with monopolies among big publishing houses.
The Australia and New Zealand Journal of Otolaryngology, for example, was recently absorbed by Otolaryngology,
Head and Neck Surgery which is the American Academy journal, because the Australia and New Zealand Journal of
Otolaryngology could not sustain itself alone so they are now a supplement to the American Academy of
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The rising journal subscription costs coupled with strained library budgets
and the migration to online publishing and push for open access publishing is a phenomenon that is taking place.
What is open access? The open access publishing movement developed in support of a principle that the published
output of scientific research should be available without charge to everyone. Currently, access to research is
restricted. And the means to gain access are determined by a market in which a small number of publishers have a
dominant position. The current model takes literature written by authors and editors who donate their time and skills
and locks it away behind price and permission barriers so that even the world‟s wealthiest institutions cannot provide
full access to it. This is not done for the sake of long term preservation, it is not done to profit authors, readers or their
institutions but to profit third parties with no creative role in the research or in the writing.
Why change the system? Researchers cannot access all the research they need. All third world universities have
reached their breaking point. Most European universities have reached their breaking point. And many smaller
American universities have reached their breaking point as well. Publishing is overly concentrated in the hands of a
few. On the other hand, knowledge is exploding and journals are exponentially increasing. Prices are rising so that
even the major wealthy institutions cannot afford to subscribe to all the major journals in all the important fields. Long
time archiving of research therefore cannot be guaranteed and as academics, we do not even control our own impact
factor because research impact is planted by publishers.
Ironically, digitization is not improving; it is rather impeding fair access. When you have a hard copy of a journal, in
print on a library shelf, then anyone can go and look at it. Now, you cannot get to the full text of a journal unless you
pay, oftentimes, exorbitant subscription fees or access fees. It is not for either publishers or academics to decide who
should and who should not be allowed to read scientific journal articles. We are encouraged by the growing interest
in research findings shown by the public. It is in society‟s interest that public understanding of science should
increase. Increased public access to research findings should be encouraged by publishers, academics and
governments alike.
The online revolution is characterized by the phenomenon of the boycotting of Elsevier. The University of California
at Sta. Cruz actually ordered its academic faculty to stop submitting to Elsevier and to seize peer reviewing for
Elsevier journals as well as to resign from their editorial position. The University of California at San Francisco asked
its faculty to boycott CellPress; to stop submitting, to seize peer reviewing, to resign from their editorial position, and
to publicly criticize. Harvard has rejected Elsevier and did not renew its subscription to all Elsevier journals. Four
North Carolina universities as well as Cornell and the University of Missouri did not renew their Elsevier contracts
either. And the University of Carolina is encouraging its faculty to publish in open access and reasonably priced
journals.
Online technology has revolutionized how scholars communicate with each other and how publishers do business.
Commercial and professional society publishers now provide some form of online access to their journals, usually via
123
online subscriptions. Many journal websites offer limited free content as well, usually tables of contents and
abstracts, and more and more journals are shifting to open access.
Advantages of electronic publishing include digital submission of manuscript and related image files; everything is
done electronically. This increases the efficiency in the quality control cycle, decreasing time from acceptance to
publication of the manuscript. And since our peer reviewers are international, from all the different continents,
electronic communication allows that to happen. This has increased visibility and accessibility for such journals. Open
access literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it
possible is the interest in the consent of the author or copyright holder. Authors retain copyright to their works, by
them bearing or their sponsors bearing most of the cost of disseminating it. Open access literature publications shifts
costs from the user to the producer. Fees are charged for the dissemination of content, not access to it as in the
traditional subscription model. It‟s a mind shift, from subscriber paying to user paying; from library, readers and
institutions paying to the author or author‟s society, institution or research grants paying. This mind shift is what
allows open access to take place.
Open access journals perform peer review and make approved research articles freely available. BioMed Central is
an example of an open access model that works and makes money at the same time. Open access archives or
repositories make current research freely available and provide a way to safeguard long term availability of research
that are already published.
At present, there are more than 200 open access journals indexed by ISI‟s web of science citation databases and the
directory of open access journals contains 1,250 journals of which 350 are searchable at an article level.
There are a lot of free open source software available for anyone wanting to create or publish open access journals.
You need to showcase and safeguard your institutions‟ research, then set up your own open access repository. What
about copyright? Make a formal letter, unless the software or journal is listed on greenlight in SHERPA. There are
many formats to use: PDF, HTML and so on. What about costs? Actually the costs are generally absorbed into
existing infrastructure. In our setting, we haven‟t had an increase in budget. Like many of you, most of the expenses
are labor of love.
Here are some of the better known open access advocates. And open access is really part of the present information
universe. Oyster is a search tool for freely available academically oriented digital resources. And this is a site which
you probably should check and which you should also advertise to students, residents, and young researchers.
We would like to support national publishing. More and more programs are developed, however, many of the
programs are devoted into getting Western information into developing countries. What we would like to do is
emphasize support for online publishing of national journals into the international scene. So we have different
partnerships like the Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRIM) and the Global Health Library (GHL).
The Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors (APAME) tries to be mentors and friends to editors by
elevating publishing in the region to the global arena with the support and help of World Health Organization (WHO)
through the WPRIM and GHL initiatives. We encourage peer to peer relationships to keep editors on balance, work
out ideas and provide mutual support in the local and regional situation and provide further networks, conferences
and events to answer questions, brainstorm ideas and provide feedback.
International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) is a very good platform. It supports online
publishing by supporting journals publishing on commercial hosts. It partners with open journal systems and journal
online (JOL) projects. A JOL is a collaborative database or website to host a group of journals, which makes it a very
cost effective solution to online publishing by giving global visibility to nationally published journals and posturing a
community of journal publishers. Asia Journals Online now has six members; and Philippine Journals Online
(PhilJOL) is one of them.
124
PhilJOL was initiated in May 2008 and this is supported by INASP. It promotes awareness on Philippine published
journals in all disciplines by providing access to tables of contents, abstracts and full texts on the internet; providing
access to Philippine published research; and increasing worldwide knowledge on indigenous scholarship. It uses an
open journal system and its software is open source, meaning you do not have to pay for the license to use the
software, allowing the journal to be content listed in PhilJOL as well as to be indexed through open archive initiative
search engines, which refers to search engines that are able to crawl on your articles to bring you to other websites.
It allows harvesting of meta-data for each article, giving the journal greater visibility in the worldwide research
community.
Started only almost a year ago, PhilJOL already has 93,715 visits from 180 countries as of December 2008. And in
the Philippines alone, it has 68,000 hits from 56 cities. It‟s quite significant that there is a local accessing of that site.
It covers the full range of academic disciplines and its objective is to give visibility to participating journals and the
research they convey.
How can you join PhilJOL? Your journal should be scholarly in content and contain original research in addition to
other content. It should be peer reviewed and quality controlled. It should be able to provide all content for inclusion
in electronic format. It should be published in the Philippines and managed and run from the Philippines, it should not
be outsourced and published overseas. PhilJOL provides information on each journal including aims, scope, contact
details and general information as well as tables of contents, abstracts and full texts, if the journal decides to go full
text. It‟s really up to you. You might say, at this point we are only ready for semi-open access, meaning abstracts for
original articles are available but full text is withheld, that is alright. All of the materials that you supply to PhilJOL can
be freely viewed, searched and browsed, however, the copyright is retained by the journal or the authors. Each
journal has to give permission for any use or re-use of content.
PhilJOL is not a publisher. It provides a service to the journals by hosting their content online and actively promoting
the website to encourage discovery of the articles. A lot of individual journals use the website to publish their journals
and welcome submissions from registered users. These are the three medical journals on PhilJOL: the Philippine
Journal of Internal Medicine; the Philippine Journal of Neurology; and the Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology, Head
and Neck Surgery.
If you are not yet included in PhilJOL and you meet the criteria for inclusion, please contact PhilJOL directly. I‟ll be
very happy to entertain your queries. I‟ll even give you help. If you would like to recommend new journals for
inclusion, let us know because we are always looking for new titles. Let us put it this way, PhilJOL is not a competitor
to WPRIM and GHL and all other platforms; these are all complementary moves. There is nothing wrong with having
your journal hosted and indexed on several platforms. After all, we want to bring knowledge to more people
everywhere that they may be.
Our future plans include facilitating worldwide access to the full text of Philippine journals. We would like to see
everyone‟s journal online. And these models, as I mentioned earlier, can range from complete open access to
subscribed access to hybrid models in between. Full open access is already available and some journals can even
conduct the whole process online.
There are other technologies available that you might want to check: the Index Copernicus and the Open Journal
Systems. When we talk about the Open Journal Systems, the PKP is an example. PKP is based in the University of
British Columbia in Canada and has open source journal management software called Open Journal Systems. This
is free to download. It is a journal management, indexing and publishing system which is compatible with PhilJOL.
Visit the PKP website for more information.
Google Scholar also has its platform. In our experience, being on PhilJOL makes you accessible in Google Scholar.
It‟s an added bonus. Thank you for your kind attention.
125
INTERNATIONAL VISIBILITY FOR RESEARCH
Ms. Violeta G. Intia
Project Officer, Health Research and Development Information Network,
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Good morning!
What I would like to show you this morning are some steps on how to be indexed internationally, in PubMed and the
Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRIM).
PubMed is a service of the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) which offers over 19 million citations from
MEDLINE and other life sciences journals. PubMed provides free access to MEDLINE‟s abstracts on fields of
medicine, nursing, dentistry and health care system. PubMed also has links to full texts articles and other related
resources. Most of the health sciences are covered by MEDLINE except for the non-article items from the journal, for
example, the letters to the editor, which are not included in the database.
How to get indexed in NLM? Requirements of PubMed:
Scope and coverage
The journals brought to the Committee for review will contain articles predominantly on core biomedical subjects.
Journals whose content are predominantly a subject peripheral or related to biomedicine are occasionally brought to
the Committee when they have some biomedical content. In these cases, the Committee's advice is sought not only
on the quality of the content but also on the contribution it makes to the coverage of the subjects in question.
Generally, such journals will not be indexed if their biomedical content is already adequately covered.
Quality of content
Scientific merit of a journal's content is the primary consideration in selecting journals for indexing. The validity,
importance, originality, and contribution to the coverage of the field of the overall contents of each title are the key
factors considered in recommending a title for indexing, whatever the intended purpose and audience.
Quality of editorial work
The journal should demonstrate features that contribute to the objectivity, credibility, and quality of its contents.
These features may include information about the methods of selecting articles, especially on the explicit process of
external peer review; statements indicating adherence to ethical guidelines; evidence that authors have disclosed
financial conflicts of interest; timely correction of errata; explicit responsible retractions as appropriate; and
opportunity for comments and dissenting opinion. Neither the advertising content nor commercial sponsorship should
raise questions about the objectivity of the published material. Sponsorship by national or international professional
societies may be considered.
Production quality
Quality of the layout, printing, graphics, and illustrations are all considered in assessing a journal.
Audience
MEDLINE is intended primarily for those in the health professions: researchers, practitioners, educators,
administrators, and students. The phrase health professionals includes physicians, nurses, dentists, veterinarians,
and the many types of allied health professionals in the research and health care delivery systems.
Types of content
Journals whose contents consist of one or more of the following types of information will be considered for indexing:
 Reports of original research
126






Original clinical observations accompanied by analysis and discussion
Analysis of philosophical, ethical, or social aspects of the health professions or biomedical sciences
Critical reviews
Statistical compilations
Descriptions of evaluation of methods or procedures
Case reports with discussions
All of these forms of information should be included in MEDLINE in order to fulfill the needs of users. However,
coverage of a field tends to create a priority approximately parallel to the order in which the types are listed. For
example, journals reporting original research are more likely to contain unique contributions to the coverage of a field
and therefore are selected more often than those that contain only case reports.
Publications that consist primarily of reprinted articles, reports of association activities, abstracts of the literature,
news items or book reviews, will not usually be indexed.
Foreign language journals
Criteria for selection are the same as for those written in English. In order to extend the accessibility of the journal‟s
content to a wider potential readership, the majority of published articles in the review issues must contain an
English-language abstract before the title will be considered for possible indexing.
Visit http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html for more information.
WPRIM is a project of the WHO. All the countries included in the Western Pacific region are the members or
contributors of this database. The objective of the WPRIM is to publish online regional medical index of selected
medical health journals; to create bibliographic database containing records linked to their full text; to raise the level
of journal publishing in member states of the Western Pacific region through peer review system; and to build the
capacity of participating health institutions.
As of today, PCHRD is the Philippine focal institution for WPRIM. There are 14 Philippine journals indexed in
WPRIM. The database is being hosted in the WHO-Western Pacific Regional Office (WPRO) in Manila. Initially, only
Philippines and Korea are contributing to WPRIM. Hopefully, all countries will be able to contribute. Other member
states are expected to send their health records for uploading later.
For the national journals selection committee, countries that have already established their own national selection
committees include China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines and Vietnam. Currently, communication
with Cambodia and Lao People‟s Democratic Republic is ongoing so they can be also included in indexing meetings.
Criteria for journals to be indexed in WPRIM are the following: journals should be on health and biomedical subjects;
there must be internal and external peer review; abstracts must be in English; journal must be regularly published;
and the quality of the Instructions to Authors must be clear.
Thank you.
127
OPEN FORUM
Question (Cotabato City State Polytechnic College): We have so many journals in the Philippines and in the world
today that there is no standard format that these journals are following. Is there any standard format that we must
adapt in the publishing of the journals, in particular, of research journals?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: The standard is what you see. If you look at Acta Medica, that is the standard. The standard is
the one being proposed by the ICMJE and WAME, that‟s the standard format and the standard way of publishing and
coming up with the forms, the way the journal will look. There are many issues about publishing: how thick the journal
is, how the cover should look like, how many articles you can publish - you can change that. One thing you must
follow is the standard of content and standard of publication. You have to come out regularly, you must follow the
format that is written in the ICMJE, the standard of manuscript evaluation must be followed, peer review must be
done. That is basically the standard. I understand that not all countries can conform to the standards that are being
presented by ICMJE and WAME. However, the objectives of these organizations are to move towards the standards.
If you look at journals from Cambodia or Lao People‟s Democratic Republic, they look like ours or less. They have
not come up to that standards because there is not much research going on or the culture of research and
publication is not yet established in those countries, much like ours. I have always said that the culture of research is
present in our country, the culture of publication is still lacking. That is why we have difficulties of enticing people to
come, do research and publish the research they have done. But we are going there and I think WAME, WPRIM and
APAME are doing that kind of objective. But you have to conform to the idea of standard that are being expounded
by these organizations. We don‟t really expect you to start with those standards already. It takes a while; a process is
there.
Dr. Antonio Lim (St. Scholastica‟s College of Health Sciences, Tacloban, Leyte): My observation in our country is
that, it looks like every college or university would publish its own research journal in compliance to the requirement
of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to have an avenue for the publishing of researches of the
institutions. But what is disturbing is that many of these journals contain a mixture of publications coming from the
different departments or sectors of the college or university, that in the end, it‟s difficult to come up with standards on
publishing even in that particular university. You have format from the College of Education, for example, and one
format from the College of Nursing, one format from the College of Allied Health Sciences and so on. One of the
problems I encountered, for instance, is if you are going to publish medical-related article, when we talk about
research design, we talk about retrospective study, among others. But when you introduce that into the Humanities
Department, for example, they will not understand that because they have different ways of looking into research
design. If I am the editor of the paper, I will have a problem as to whether to insist on what I know in the health
sciences or to just accept what they have in humanities and put these together in one journal because I am the editor
of the journal of a particular university. Is there a way, probably a forum, for these people to meet together so that we
can come up with something like a template?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: I understand the problem because if it‟s a university-based publication, you have to join forces
with all specialties, including literature, among others. If you‟re going into biomedical work, the standards are
different. You cannot compare it with the rest. Other subjects like humanities have their own standards. My
suggestion is not to call it a journal. You call it a bulletin or a compendium. If it‟s a journal, separate biomedical from
the arts. I am not really sure about the standards for literature, arts or the humanities. Putting them together, I really
don‟t know how.
Dr. Erlinda Palaganas (CAR): I would like to thank the speakers for walking us through research publishing. In
relation to the earlier question of putting together these research studies, it‟s a question of where to put premium on quantitative or qualitative research. In my observation, there are two things that I have noticed in the Cordilleras. One
is, not all institutions are ready to embrace qualitative research. There is still a premium in quantitative research as it
is deemed more scientific than qualitative research. Even with publications, it becomes a problem combining them.
128
This brings me to the question on whether PNHRS has a stand about the trend now that the universities, the
academe are doing; pushing faculty members who are advisers to undergraduate researches and graduate studies
being published with the adviser being an author. This is very disturbing on my part. It is an offshoot of accreditation;
they try to come up with schemes to get that certain accreditation to be a center of excellence. I am not very
comfortable with this.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: I had a talk on authorship a few years ago and a lot of students were in the audience. One of the
questions that was asked of me was that, they worked as a group in one of their subjects in medicine and they were
required to do a project. There were 20 of them and one was a faculty adviser, the question was, the faculty adviser
did not contribute anything to the written paper but she insisted to be placed in the list of authors. The question of the
student was, “is that okay?”• Another similar one, “we belong to a department with a chair who insisted that all
research work in that department include his name as author, is that okay?”• There is a basic rule about authorship. If
you did not agree in the beginning, before you even wrote the paper, that the chair or adviser is going to be included
in the paper, then he or she should not be included. Because by definition, an author has to not only substantially
contribute to the work but also has to write the work. But to remove all the debate, my suggestion would be,
especially in our setting where it is a very sensitive issue, I suggest that the authors sit down and clarify before you
even write the paper.
Dr. Erlinda Palaganas (CAR): Is it acceptable?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: If you did not help in writing the paper, if there was no previous agreement, then I don‟t think that
you should be included. But if from the start, you told the students that, “I feel that I should be included in the paper”•
and everybody is amenable to that, then there is no problem.
Question: Internationally, the co-authorship of the adviser is allowed only in the graduate level program. If you look at
the profile of the winners of CHED‟s Research and Publication (REPUBLICA) Awards, most of them, if not all, are
written with co-authors who are the advisers. That is why if you have Filipino researchers and there are foreignsounding names as co-authors, most probably those were the advisers. But under no circumstances should an
undergraduate study be made such that the teacher is a co-author.
I think the antidote for that is simple, that every university should put up its own intellectual property rights (IPR)
policies because only then should you be able to spell out things. In the absence of a clear cut IPR policy, then the
international practice will be regarded.
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: I think we have to exercise caution in so far as rules for authorship are concerned. While
it may be true that that common practice in certain institutions or situations varies, there are universally accepted
guidelines for what constitutes authorship. And that does not have anything to do with the level of research or the
level of education of the supposed collaborators. They are easily accessible, on the web, and in fact I think in the
Philippine setting, journal editors such as those represented by us have a real role in trying to sift through honorific
authorship of chairs and faculty members on student papers, consultant on resident papers versus real authorship
criteria fulfillment. If a person did not really contribute as an author, then he or she may be acknowledged. However,
in no case should an author be also acknowledged. One way to check, as an editor, if an author was actually added
on is when that co-author‟s name is being acknowledged by the students or the researchers.
Dr. Natividad Almazan: I will go back to the peer review. When you say peer review is external, it should not be within
the editorial board but it can be within the institution. Is there specific standard again for what format to give the peer
reviewer?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: Can I clarify about the external peer reviewers? The requirement is that peer reviewers should be
external in the sense that they are outside the editorial board. However, when you read the requirements of the ISI or
PubMed, they encourage that the reviewer is from outside the institution. In the Philippines, I think, our situation is
129
unique because there is just a small number who conducts research. I think, initially, you cannot really do that. But
now it is easier because of the internet. You can easily ask people to review for you.
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: I actually write the author of the most quoted journal in a paper. So let‟s say they based
their study on some article, I will write the author of the article, saying, “this study has been submitted and has quoted
you extensively, would you mind reviewing it please?”• And they often agree; I get a 90% hit that is why our reviewers
are international. People are usually very gracious. They are also academicians like we are.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: I learned about that because people started asking me to review and sometimes I don‟t even
know them. Sometimes I don‟t know where they are coming from.
Dr. Marleonie Bauyot: I would like to ask how to handle the ethics of the review process if the editor of the journal
happens to submit his article in that journal because he is also an expert on that field.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: You submit to yourself, in other words?
Dr. Marleonie Bauyot: You submit to your journal, you are the editor-in-chief of that journal. You have an article, and
you believe that the article is publishable in your journal, how would you handle the review?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: On a personal note, I never submit an article to Acta Medica. That only happened once; I was the
third author I think. It has to go through a process. But I would not advise it.
Dr. Marleonie Bauyot: It just so happened that in most colleges and universities, we have limitations, in terms of
financials that why it is difficult to have the publication. Like earlier, one mentioned that their journal is a compilation
of different specialties. Like now, we are about to release the maiden issue of the Madayao Jounal and it happens
that I am the editor-in-chief. We have the vision, the objective, and the theme of the Madayao Journal. A research on
health is going to be Madayao, if it‟s a research on education, it is Madayao, because Madayao it is a greeting in
Davao. That‟s why I really appreciate the peer review. If the editor has limitations to work on it, we will submit the
work to the peer reviewer and the reviewer will review the article.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: Your journal is alright, depending on your vision for your journal or paper. Most of us, in the
biomedical field would want our journal to be open access, published internationally, ISI accredited. But if that is not
your vision for your journal, then it is okay, as long as you have it peer reviewed and you follow the standards. But if
you want your journal to be ISI accredited or PubMed indexed, then you have to follow the standard.
Comment: In small universities and colleges, you have very little budget so you are only capable of publishing one
journal for all disciplines. For instance, you cannot avoid scientific research articles submitted to you if you are the
editor and there are also articles submitted to you which belong, for instance, in arts and letter. In some journals, I
know that they put the articles in sections. In just one journal, they publish everything. The other thing is that, in some
universities and colleges, the only eligible to write are the editors.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: As I said, the important thing is to be consistent with your policy and vision for the journal and be
sure that the standards are met, then you‟ll have a great journal. It will not be questioned. As long as it is peer
reviewed, no matter what field it is, may be arts or humanities, have somebody who is an expert to take a look at it. If
you want to have scientific journal articles, then give it to us and we might accept it. Acta Medica is a national health
journal. We will accept any article, anywhere from the Philippines, provided that it is biomedical and that it meets our
standards.
Dr. Visara (St. Paul University): In case our faculty will submit their researches in your publication, is there a fee that
they need to pay?
130
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: There is no fee. Just submit it to us based on our Instructions to Authors. If we feel that it can be
published, we will have it peer reviewed and after the peer review, we will return it back to you for your feedback and
corrections.
Dr. Visara (St. Paul University): One time, I came across a particular website which said that you have to pay certain
amount, which does not guarantee yet that the research will be published.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: The reason these exist is because these are under a publishing house, the Elsevier and other
large publishing houses. In order to get your journals published there, they require fees, large amount of money to do
all the stuff for you; they will do the editing, the correcting, everything but you have to pay them. For an amount of
money, they will try to make your journal good. They have writers, they will write it even for you. Because of such
practices, Elsevier was banned.
Dr. Visara (St. Paul University): We intend to invite people, external reviewers, for our publication. Do we need to pay
them for reviewing our articles?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: I look at it this way. Acta Medica pays our reviewers PhP1,000 per review, that is a token amount,
considering the people we ask to review are distinguished people. In the end, if your journal becomes well known or
becomes international or very prestigious, they will actually pay you to get them as reviewer. It is an honor to review.
Sometimes you have to give something. I noticed that when I give a token amount, 99% of them submit on time.
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: On our part, we do not pay our reviewers. My letter of request to review said that it is
gratis so they accept and know that it is gratis. Because all the review that I did for international journals, several of
which are ISI journals, never paid me anything either. It is acceptable, depending on your model.
Dr. Visara (St. Paul University): Maybe it‟s because your journal has already been established. For neophyte
publications, we are inviting reviewers. I am asking this because I would like to know at what amount we would start.
One way of inviting reviewers and making them a part of our pool is the financial reward.
Dr. Henry Dimaano (Cebu Doctors University and Southwestern University): With regard to the question on
authorship, especially on the adviser and consultant involved in the paper, the Philippine Journal of Surgical
Specialties (PJSS) has guidelines on this. Dr. Lapeña said that there has to be universally acceptable definition of
what an author is. They clearly defined it, that if you participated in the creative process in writing the paper, you are
supposed to be an author. If you‟re a consultant handling a resident who is doing a paper and all you did was provide
patience or provide initial idea but you never really went into it and fine tuned the paper, then you are not counted as
an author. Providing merely patience does not make you an author or a co-author. You really have to be part of the
process. Same thing with a student group, if you went in and help tweak it, that makes you eligible as a co-author.
Second comment that I would like to share and this is a fact that I‟ve learned from my own experience as a resident.
My experience in doing research was that my main consultant, my main research mentor, his opinion was that on the
residency level, the consultants in charge or the adviser ought to be the ones driving the research. You don‟t just give
a topic to a resident and check the resident from time to time and expect the research to be finished by this time. You
should play an active part. If you are going to be the adviser of this resident or this group of researchers, be a coauthor so that it is consultant driven, it has a focus. The participants learn from the methods but you get good content
from it because you are part of the authorship process.
I am going back to the peer review. I miss Dr. Avila‟s initial part of the presentation. Would there be any particular
body that you could submit to if you want to have a paper peer reviewed. For instance, does the PNHRS do peer
reviews? Or how many journals online will you need to submit your paper to in order for it to be valid? Or do you
need to submit to a recognized, well-established journal?
131
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: You just have to establish your own peer review system and identify your reviewers. Come up
with a list of reviewers which you can refer to regularly so that when a paper comes out, you have somebody there.
Dr. Dimaano: After the peer review process, when you present the paper, do you just state that the paper has been
reviewed by so and so?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: No, you don‟t do that. It must be confidential. You do not acknowledge your reviewers.
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: There are accrediting bodies that require disclosure of the reviewers per article. CHED is
an example. So CHED requires journals for accreditation to list per article the external reviewer and to provide
contact details of that reviewer. If you want to be accredited by CHED, then you have to comply with that. But in most
cases, people will take your word for it when you say that you had your articles peer reviewed.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: CHED wants to see your records that it was really peer reviewed. So at least you can show them.
I want to say something about students and residents who are doing research. I met a group of students just two
weeks ago, I asked them about plagiarism. I asked these students how they do research now because in UP, they do
a lot of research for every subject. And I asked them, “do you copy the work of others?”• They said “no, we don‟t do
that.” And they said they do legitimate research. But I found out that for them, copying a paragraph and pasting it and
identifying that paragraph as taken from a work, for them that is not plagiarism. That shocked me a little when I
discovered that. And I said that it is plagiarism unless you put quotations for that. And they were all doing that. There
was PubMed study recently that revealed that 20% of the 30% of journals published in PubMed are to some extent
plagiarized. PubMed is alarmed by that and they are trying to find ways to diminish that. By plagiarizing, I mean that
when you write something, you cannot quote verbatim from a journal or a book by copying the entire sentence or a
short paragraph and putting a footnote there. That is plagiarism. You have to change the words. You have to use
your own words in order to do that properly. All the students that I talked to thought that was allowed. In effect, all are
plagiarizing. That‟s why I am hesitant to accept students‟ work even residents‟ work, because these are all made
under pressure, these are all rushed. If you are advisers, please read the work of the students very carefully because
there is a tendency to plagiarize a lot. Cut and paste now is so common because of computers. You can make a
paper in a matter of a day. The difference from now and before is that now plagiarism can be caught. There are now
software that can compare pieces of work or sentences, and they can tell you if it is plagiarized or not. You have to
change your sentences and the paragraphs. What I do now in Acta Medica is when I have a work given to me, I first
ask my editorial assistant to check if there is similar work on the internet, on PubMed. Then I asked them to check
quickly if there is some semblance of plagiarism. I am very suspicious of plagiarism; it is something that should not
be done but is rampantly done.
Dr. Gorospe (Cagayan State University): Is there a minimum requirement for the number of peer review? For
example, I would like my article to be peer reviewed, what is the minimum number of review that I should have for my
work?
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: You can have at least one, preferably external. But as I said, it depends on the stage your
obligation is in. There are very few publications locally that can afford three or four. The standard is two. There are
many publications that undergo only one reviewer, which is fine. If you are the editor, you can actually announce that
“for now, all articles will not be externally reviewed since I will review them myself”• because you have no time or you
have no peer reviewers. It is up to your policies; but internationally, if you have one reviewer, it has to be external. If
you have two, one can be internal and the other one external.
Question: Our university has just started peer reviewing our journal. In fact, we are just on our second year. We are
about to publish our third issue. What we found difficult is identifying external reviewers; should they be authors in
peer reviewed journals also?
132
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: Strictly speaking, an external peer reviewer is a content expert in the field who does not
belong to the same institution or department as the author. There are certain very highly specialized sub-specialty
where you only have a handful of people in the field so even overseas, they know one another. More often than not,
you have a more general and wider pool to choose from. There are several ways you can do it: inter-departmental,
inter-institutional (people from neighboring universities), overseas (look for references and correspond with the author
that is cited). In our case, we don‟t have a problem generating adequate reviewers. Unlike other journals, we don‟t
have a fixed pool of reviewers. Our pool is growing and changing. Depending on the article, then we look for who
would be an expert for that article.
Dr. Jose Ma. Avila: What are the requirements that we have for peer reviewers? That person must be an expert in
the field; must still be actively publishing or reviewing articles. He cannot review adequately if the person is not up to
date in the field. The person must also be writing actively.
Question: I am glad that you mentioned earlier that token is enough in some cases for peer review. Because when
we started, we said to the reviewers that we are giving a fee of PhP2,000, without knowing that this is too much
already. In fact, we are hesitant to connect with people in Metro Manila. Is there a body that could also make a list of
local reviewers in the country so we can also connect with them?
Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeña: I guess it really depends because each article has a different qualified reviewer.
133
CHED JOURNAL ACCREDITATION
Dr. Roberto N. Padua
Consultant, Liceo de Cagayan University
Good afternoon!
In accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Republic Act 7722, otherwise known as the “Higher Education Act
of 1994,”• for the purpose of promoting/enhancing research productivity of higher education institutions (HEIs), the
Commission on Higher Education has created a Journal Accreditation Service (JAS), a mechanism though which a
national standard for peer review and journal refereeing system can be implemented uniformly for all research
journals published by the Philippine Higher Education Institutions. In connection with this, all HEIs and professional
organizations are encouraged to submit their research journals recognized as peer reviewed/ refereed for
accreditation.
Publication of research outputs of faculty members of colleges and universities in refereed journals has become a
universal requirement for tenure in higher education institutions. This requirement hinges on the assumption that peer
reviewed or refereed journals of research are publications of high quality, credibility and integrity. However, the
practice of peer review and/or refereeing is not uniformly implemented by all higher education institutions, thus, giving
rise to a huge variance in the quality of journals of research published by colleges and universities in the country.
When I go around the country and ask colleges and universities on the status of their journals, all of them claim that
their journals are refereed but when you ask them their refereeing process, they have different answers. Others say
that the journal was given to a certain chair for review, others say that they have annual in-house review attended by
certain heads. Obviously, they have varied meaning for refereeing.
For this reason, in 2007 after the International Congress for Research in Higher Education held in Cebu, we decided,
as one of the outputs of that international conference, to establish a Philippine standard for accreditation of journals.
So we will have a nationally accepted standard for what is known as a refereed journal in higher education.
The purpose of this Circular is to prescribe a mechanism through which a national standard for peer review and
journal refereeing system can be implemented uniformly for all journals of research published by Philippine colleges
and universities and other organizations.
CHED shall provide a Journal Accreditation Service for all Philippine HEIs and organizations wishing to have their
research journals recognized as peer reviewed/refereed journals. Journals which pass the evaluation process shall
be given corresponding CHED Journal Codes (CJC) to signify compliance of the journal to nationally-accepted
standards and practice of refereeing and peer review.
The following procedure shall be followed by HEIs and other professional organizations wishing to apply for journal
accreditation:
 The HEI/organization submits at the nearest CHED Zonal Research Center or Regional Office at least two
distinct latest volumes of the research journals to be evaluated or accredited
 CHED, through Office of Policy, Planning, Research and Information (OPPRI), creates a panel of evaluators
for each journal. The panel shall be composed of known published experts in the discipline(s) covered by
the journal
 The Panel of Evaluators evaluates and classifies each journal using the following criteria and categories:
o composition and qualifications of the editorial board
o recruitment and qualification of the peer reviewers/external referees
o type of refereeing system adopted
o overall appearance, timeliness and regularity of the journal
134
Once your journal gets through the technical panel of evaluation, it will be categorized into three. Category A is given
a CHED Journal Code of CJC-A-000 from very good to excellent. This is internationally comparable. This is similar to
an ISI indexed journal. CJC-B-000 is acceptable to good. This means that the journal can be circulated nationally in
the Philippines. CJC-C no code means that your journal is up for re-submission. After the August 31, 2009 deadline,
you can submit anytime, but the next evaluation will be sometime in July next year and then December. This is a
continuing process undertaken by CHED.
One of the items in our meeting the other day was for CHED to perhaps create a permanent office just for JAS. It
might be lodged with the Office of Quality Management now headed by Dir. Lily Garcia.
All journals with ISI citations shall be automatically classified as category A, meaning international.
Here are the incentives. You will notice that the incentives for the various categories of the journal refer mainly for
HEIs. The incentives for societies and organizations submitting their journals for accreditation to CHED can be seen
only if your journal is category A, there is some form of financial assistance, that is incentive number 4 under
category A, “financial assistance in the publication of the journal for dissemination to other HEI libraries.”• That means
that if this association of health research has a publication, and gets accredited by CHED and given a journal code A,
then CHED is willing to support the publication of this journal financially and to endorse this journal to all libraries all
over the country. And that is 1,736 colleges and universities, five copies in each library, about 7,000 copies per
publication of your journal. That is sizeable amount of money. It will be endorsed by the Commission on Higher
Education.
For category B, this will refer mainly for all colleges and universities. It will be part of the requirement now for
accreditation. When you want your program accredited, they will look for your journals of research and when your
journals of research do not have CHED journal code that will not be accounted for by the accrediting agency.
Similarly, we have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the National Quality Assurance Association of
the Philippines.
Once you are accredited, that number that you carry with you as a CHED journal accreditation will be valid for the
next three years. And then you re-submit for re-validation. It is effective March 31, 2009.
I hope that you get encouraged to submit your journals to your nearest regional office of CHED so that you can take
advantage of the incentives and benefits that are provided for when you get accredited.
Thank you very much.
135
OPEN FORUM
Question: If I can remember right, I started hearing about this last year when we had a conference in Cagayan de
Oro, only to find out that the implementation is too soon. Maybe colleges and universities are caught by surprise
about the deadline of the submission of journals. The other thing, in our university, we submitted only one journal
because we thought the other journals that we have would not meet the requirements, for instance, the number of
issues per year because there are no journal articles submitted, there were no journal issued, hence, we were
hesitant to submit these journals. What we are asking for is a little consideration, maybe an extension of the deadline
for submission.
Dr. Roberto Padua: There is no deadline. If you just want to get your results by December of this year, the deadline is
August 31. But if you can wait until July 2010, there is no deadline. You can submit anytime because there will be two
evaluations every year. After August 31, you can still submit and you will get your result by July 2010.
Question: San Pedro College has produced a maiden journal we called the Mindanao Nursing Journal. We have just
launched it and we are working on the second volume. However, in our personal judgment, we follow your protocol
and we do the double blind review, we have referees outside and we have the editorial team. But there is a provision
that at least two issues should be submitted, and we only have one issue because it is a maiden issue. Can we
submit that one?
Dr. Roberto Padua: My advice is for you to wait until next year then you have at least two issues. If you will submit
only one, that is not sufficient for us to gauge whether you should be categorized as A or B.
136
HERDIN NETWORK-OF-NETWORKS OVERVIEW
Ms. Violeta G. Intia
Project Officer, Health Research and Development Information Network,
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Health Research Information Network (HERDIN) is a specialized network of documentation and information centers
engaged in health research and development activities. HERDIN hosts electronic collection or database of
bibliographic entries of published and unpublished health researches in the Philippines in cooperation with other
member-institutions. It is the first online health search service in the country
Our vision is quality health information, on time and online, for better health, better quality of life. Our mission is to
build the capacities of health research institutions to participate in building and in sharing information resources as
part of managing knowledge for better health.
HERDIN started in 1987 as a project of the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD),
supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the British Council with the Department of Health (DOH) and
University of the Philippines (UP) Manila as Major Cooperator.
In 1991, HERDIN services started. We had the first version of HERDIN, the HERDIN CD-ROM, in 1997 since not all
have access to the internet. Every year, we try to publish a new version of HERDIN; that is adding 3,000 researches
annually. Maintaining of the software is very difficult since you need resources and license to maintain it. Hence,
HERDIN utilized open source software. After a few trials and errors, we ended up with HERDIN Network-of-Networks
(NeoN), an open source software that was developed for HERDIN.
HERDIN NeoN is a system and database that enables online exchange of information and allows distributed
knowledge repository network.
The new NeoN uses new technologies to further improve functionalities and overall performance such as searching,
data entry, interface, skins, easiness of customizations, automated link and data collection from nodes, and best of
all, relationship linkage of researches, projects, authors, experts, and institutions.
HERDIN NeoN covers health researches in the Philippines, and/or health researches authored by Filipinos. It can
include whatever health researches are available in the member institutions‟ collection. It can be theses,
dissertations, research reports, journal articles, projects, laws, proceedings, books, except news clippings.
HERDIN contains researches database, institutions database and experts database. For example, we can track the
number of researches authored by a specific person. HERDIN also has a new feature where you can see if your
research has been cited in other researches.
HERDIN is free. There is no charge for joining and for using the HERDIN NeoN search engine. Charge for full-text
will depend on the publisher or providing node. It is up to the institution who owns the research to decide if the full
text of the research will be accessible for a fee or for free.
The HERDIN NeoN is primarily for the serious health researchers. Other target users are students, medical
professionals, health industry, health research community, and the general public. It is open to the public. Users do
not need to be a member to use the search engine.
HERDIN NeoN is open for membership to institutions that:
137



share the vision and mission of HERDIN NeoN and commits institutional resources to implement the same
share their health research collections
sustain institutional information building and updating activities
Why do we have to join then? What are the benefits of joining the HERDIN NeoN?
 enhance your institutional profile by sharing your information to your publics
 develop your capability in organizing, processing, digitizing, and disseminating research information
 access a free and open-source system which will enable you to organize, share, and easily maintain your
collections
 opportunity for income generation through digitized full-text
 participate in building the national health research database
What are the resource requirements?
 subject specialist, researchers and/or information specialists with expertise and experience in health
information content development work
 computer with broadband internet connection
 information technology (IT) specialist, preferably with knowledge in open source systems
What‟s the benefit from digitized full-text?
 towards the trend and international standards
 ability to offer online version and provide the public greater access to full-text articles
 more flexibility and portability
 opportunity for income generation through account registration
There are three steps to follow in joining HERDIN:
 Download the standard MOA from HERDIN website and study it carefully. If you have questions or want to
modify portions of the MOA, contact PCHRD for discussion.
 Sign the MOA and forward two copies to PCHRD.
 PCHRD will send back a fully-signed copy.
If you are now a member-institution:
 We will schedule an installation and training for you.
 After the installation and training, you can now encode or input your collection to your new HERDIN NeoN
system.
 HERDIN NeoN system will automatically send your collection to the Central Hub on a specified time.
HERDIN NeoN future plans:
 have an annual members‟ meeting or forum where issues, new ideas and improvements will be discussed
 Node of the Year award
 continuous implementation of new technologies
138
EXPLORING HERDIN NEON
Mr. Ronel D. Molina
Programmer, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Good afternoon to all of you! This presentation is about the features of HERDIN and its technical overview.
HERDIN has three databases: the research, institution and experts database. I would like to show you how they are
connected to each other.
In the research database, we can research for any health topics of interest, for example, diabetes. The search result
page shows 83 records. In each result, you can see the research‟s abstract, physical location and related experts.
When we scroll down, you can notice in the related institutions section, that there are institutions listed in which there
are available information about these institutions.
In the institutions database, you can see information such as the institution‟s contact details, address, related experts
and related researches.
In the experts database, you can see the experiences and the list of researches conducted by a certain expert and
the institutions he/she is affiliated to.
In addition, under the research details, there is a reference section and a citation section. In the reference section, we
can see the list of materials or bibliographic references used in the research. While in the citation section, we can see
which studies used the particular research in their study.
Technical Overview
Open-source Technologies/System models used
 Mambo / Joomla Content Management System
 Ganesha Digital Library
How secure is the HERDIN NeoN database?
PCHRD Information and Communications Technology Development Section has instituted the necessary security
systems to protect HERDIN NeoN, like providing a firewall and installing the latest security updates on the central
server and the NeoN software.
System Requirements
Hardware Requirements
 Pentium IV or higher
 512 MB memory or higher
 40 GB hard disk or higher
 Broadband, equivalent, or higher
Software Requirements
 Latest stable Apache version
 Latest stable MySQL version (open source database management system)
 Latest stable PHP version
 Latest stable Joomla version
Thank you very much.
139
FREE/OPEN SOURCE COLLABORATION TOOLS
Mr. Alexander A. Sea
Head, Information and Communications Technology Development Section,
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Good afternoon everyone! I will be talking about collaboration tools, in particular, those which are free/open source in
nature.
There are many types of collaboration tools, especially free/open source, including:
 Instant Messaging (e.g., Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, etc)
 Project Management (allows you to create project milestones, assign tasks to a particular user, and monitor
their performance and the progress of the project)
 Collaborative Writing/Document Sharing (enables sharing of documents and allows you to assign editors
and users to edit/comment on the document online)
 Web Presenting/Video/Web Conferencing (enables virtual meeting)
 Learning Management (eLearning tools)
The flow of my presentation this afternoon is that I will discuss each type of the collaboration tools and give some
examples for each type.
Instant Messaging
 Yahoo Messenger (in some companies, Yahoo Messenger is prohibited, especially the file transfer feature)
 ICQ
 Google Chat
 Meebo (web-based instant messaging system)
 Skype (has a voice over internet protocol feature which allows voice chats)
 Jabber (open source instant messaging system which works on local area network)
Project Management
 Openworkbench (can track status of the project)
 Achievo (flexible web-based resource management tool)
 AirTODO
 GanttProject
 PHProjekt
 dotProject
Collaborative Writing
 Googledocs (We have used this when we are developing a manual, wherein we were able to track the
revisions made by the users online. This is not limited to word processor only; this can also be utilized for
spreadsheets and presentations. You can also create survey questionnaire where you can easily get the
results; this can handle complex questions in a survey.)
 Zoho Writer
 Buzzword
 Whiteboard
 Quicktopic
Web Presenting/Video Conferencing
 Slideshare (allows you to upload presentations; this is one way of sharing your presentations)
 Sliderocket
140




InstantPresenter (web-based presentation tool, where you can record voice to synchronize with the
presentation)
LiveMeetups
Freepath
Dimdim
Learning Management
 Moodle (allows you to create lessons or exams)
 EFront
 Atutor
 DrupalEd
 Dokeos
Need for Instant Messaging
 Instant communication
 Low cost or free
 File transfer, group meeting, announcement
Jabber?
 XMPP (eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol)
o open-source XML-based messaging system
o include security, privacy, authentication and access control
 Decentralized system
o anyone can setup their own server
o extensible
What is Gantt Project?
 Project Management Software
 Runs on Java
 XML
 Export to PDF and HTML
 Display into Gantt Chart
 Import or export into MS Project
What is Open Workbench?
 Open source window-based application (this is a disadvantage for collaboration since this is not web-based)
 Define a project, associate work
 Breakdown phases, tasks and milestones
 Manage inter-project dependencies
 Project scheduling
 Resource management
 Project review
What is Googledocs?
 Create and share documents, spreadsheets, forms, presentation and calendar
 Collaborate (can create multiple editors)
 Create template
 Basic editing
 Upload existing file or template made in MS Word
 Uses
o Newsletter
141

o Develop/revise procedure manual
o Committee work
Limitations
o 10 people can edit a presentation at a time
o 50 can edit spreadsheet
o 1,000 documents per account
o Documents of up to 500Kb each
o 10Mb presentation from a computer
o 2 Mb from web
o 1 Mb spreadsheets
What is eFront?
 PHP (web-based)
 MySQL
 Apache, IIS
 Open source
 Can create the following eLearning tools
o Courses
o Lessons
o Chat
o Forum
o Calendar
o Online test
o Track user history, progress and create certification
o Email
What is PHProjekt?
 Project Management Tools
 Web-based collaboration system
 PHP
 MySQL, SQLite, firebird, oracle, MS SQL
 Apache
 Features
o Timecard system
o Contact Management
o Calendar
o Chat
o Forum
o Mail
o File sharing and collaboration
o Notes
o To do List
o Reminder
 Projects
o Subprojects
o Phases and milestones
o Considers project dependencies
o Statistics
o Timeline/Gantt Diagram
o Budget control
o Cost management
142
What is DimDim?
 Web-based web meeting application
o Deliver live presentation, web pages and whiteboards
o Share desktop
o Private chat
o Share video over the internet
o No need to install anything
 Fee Package
o 20 participants
o 1 webcam
o Standard security features
o Standard support
143
OPEN FORUM
Question: HERDIN contains both published and unpublished researches. Why not make it a database containing
only refereed materials?
Mr. Alexander Sea: In HERDIN, there are two kinds of materials, the published and unpublished researches.
Unpublished researches refer to projects which are still ongoing. Why did we include that in our researches
collection? One, sometimes at the end of the year or sometimes when you go to Congress to justify your existence,
we are asked on the number of health research projects ongoing or the expenditure of government on health
research projects in Region 1, for example. At least, even if the research is not published yet, they can be accounted
for in the government‟s expenditure or on statistics of how much expenditure was spent in health research in a
particular area. Further, this is also a good gauge of how many health researches are not published. We can extract
information, for example, that out of 100 researches, 10% get published. Also, another reason for inclusion of
unpublished researches is to avoid duplication of health research projects. HERDIN is a mechanism for tracking of
published and unpublished research.
Comment: I think I agree with you on your point that not all research projects that are unpublished are not really
worth while. I have read a lot of research reports that are really worth publishing but they opted not to publish them.
Mr. Alexander Sea: That is also a good point why we decided to include unpublished research, because as you said,
there are good research projects that are not published but are of good quality.
Question: I was surprised that there are regional websites for the consortium. You said that it is still empty, so how do
we upload content?
Mr. Alexander Sea: We have to capacitate the consortium, give you accounts and teach you how to manage the
website. Maybe someone from each consortium can be assigned as webmaster, wherein that person can create
account for other members of the consortium to enable them to submit content.
Comment: I think that will be our basic problem because amongst us, who are members of the consortium, I don‟t
think there is anybody right now who can really understand and do all of these things. I think we need technical
assistance on that. The group of Region 2 is planning to come up with health researches database which we would
like to be a part of that website.
Mr. Alexander Sea: That is why we also use Joomla content management system because HERDIN was developed
under the Joomla framework. This means that if you want to have your localized HERDIN, we can give you our
HERDIN system installed in your regional websites. You can also have a small network, wherein you, as regional
focal point, can configure the system where you can get researches from your partners. Then the central focal point
can collect also the researches from the regional focal points. If this can be installed nationwide, then somehow we
can have a good collection of health researches.
Comment: I think that is good. As I was talking to a colleague, we were discussing the dissemination of health
researches, since we are all members of different institutions and we also have our full time job, being a member of
the consortium is just a part time job. If we are going to have our database, who will input the researches into the
database? That is our problem. I was thinking, if each institution will upload their own research collection in that
system and in that regional website and the HERDIN can also get from that website, automatically, it will make the
database great.
Mr. Alexander Sea: That is the approach that we can utilize in HERDIN. We can have a regional web server, then
just give accounts to your partners to enable them to add researches online.
144
In HERDIN, you can also attach full text into a particular record, either in PDF or MS Word format. Only those in
public domain will be included in HERDIN. For example, you are a regional focal point, what the central focal point
will get are only public domain information like title, author, abstract, and the full text will not be attached to that
record. You can actually add value added service, for example, offer full text for a fee to users.
Janet Comoda (Mindanao State University): This HERDIN database is really very good but I am just concerned about
the protocol on how we are going to use it. Also, can anybody upload his/her research without undergoing peer
review?
Mr. Alexander Sea: The researchers can add their research to the database. Researches uploaded are not
automatically viewed in the web. It has to pass through an editor and a publisher before it becomes available in the
website.
Question: Can the PNHRS regulate that full texts are offered for free, and not for a fee; to make host institutions
commit that this will be their help to the region?
Mr. Alexander Sea: This will be raised to the PNHRS body. But to answer part of your question, you can notice that in
HERDIN, when you click researches, it will display the different types of researches available, for example, books,
journals, compendiums, research articles, among others. You can order the full text of a chosen research then the
responsible regional focal point will receive an email alerting them that a user has ordered full text. They can then
communicate with you, then perhaps you can negotiate to just pay for photocopying and shipment cost instead.
145
DAY 3, PLENARY SESSION ON CAPACITATING AND EMPOWERING
REGIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH SYSTEMS
WELCOME REMARKS
Atty. Angela Librado-Trinidad
Councilor, Davao City
To Undersecretary Fortunato Dela Peña of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST); Dr. Jaime Montoya
of the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD); a longtime family friend, Dr. Warlito
Vicente; all guests from the different regions; and all participants from the different offices, maayong buntag sa
inyong tanan (good morning to all of you)!
I welcome you again to Davao City and I would like to take this opportunity to invite you on our Kadayawan
celebration which will be next week. It is one of the most awaited celebrations in Davao City, by the way. Now, as
mentioned by our host of ceremonies, the mayor will not be around but he prepared a message for all of you and
please allow me to read it.
It is with pleasure that I welcome all participants to this conference, in line with this year's celebration of the PNHRS
Week. First of all, let me congratulate the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development for organizing
this worthy activity. This conference is timely and significant as many lives have been claimed all over the world by
deadly diseases from AIDS to bird flu, and recently, the influenza A/H1N1. Health researchers and scientists all over
the world have conducted studies, researches and experiments for the perfect remedy and relief formulations for
these infectious diseases.
The health and well-being of our constituents is a priority of the city government of Davao. In fact, the city
government is one with you in your vision of sustaining and strengthening networking and convergence strategies of
health and other partner institutions; thereby, improving the vision of a dynamic and responsible health research
community.
On behalf of the city government of Davao, we commend the Philippine Council for Health Research and
Development in collaboration and coordination with other government agencies, both local and national. May you
achieve the objectives of this significant activity.
Again, congratulations and mabuhay kayong lahat (long live everyone)!
Thank you and good morning.
146
MESSAGE AND INTRODUCTION OF KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Dr. Jaime C. Montoya
Executive Director, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Maayong buntag sa inyong tanan (Good morning everyone)!
First of all, I am supposed to do two tasks this morning. One is to give a short message and the other one is to
introduce our distinguished keynote speaker for today.
Let me do the first task, which is to give you a short message. I cannot help but feel exhilarated, truly excited, and
truly honored to be part of this historic occasion because I think we have gone a long way as far as the Philippine
National Health Research System is concerned. I am truly happy to see everyone from north to south, represented
here in this gathering. It is very much consistent with the ultimate objective of the PNHRS to truly bring research to
the people. When I say bringing research to the people, I mean it to include not only to determine what is best for the
people themselves but also for the people to do the research for themselves. We can only achieve this through this
unified effort of capacity building, collaboration and cooperation across and within regions.
From 2005, wherein we initially started with five Regional Health Research and Development Consortium (RHRDC),
we have now expanded to include the whole country, from Regions 1 to 12. I have always emphasized with pride, as
far as people behind this is concerned, that we have the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as part of
the national health research system. Thank you very much. We truly appreciate you joining the System because we
want this to be a Filipino national health research system.
In addition to that, we have always emphasized the importance of the regional health research systems. I used to say
that it is the backbone of the PNHRS. But I was also informed, through a series of discussions, that being a
backbone is not that essential, it only keeps the System upright just like the spine in the vertebral column. What is
more important is to emphasize that the regional health research consortia are at the helm, or at the heart, of the
PNHRS. I am not a cardiologist, I am an infectious disease specialist. But the heart, of course, is the crux of the
matter, the center of everything, without which the System would not survive. That is why, without your continuous
support and active participation in all levels, the System will not be where it is now.
In behalf of the core agencies of the PNHRS, I would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of our critical
partners, the Department of Health (DOH), the University of the Philippines Manila - National Institutes of Health
(UPM-NIH), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the Region 11 Health Research and Development
Consortium for hosting this important event.
Now, I'm going to move to my second task which is to introduce our keynote speaker.
I look up to him, in the DOST, because he is one of the foremost supporters of research specifically on health
research. He never refuses an opportunity to help us in all of our projects and initiatives. Our keynote speaker holds
a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Master of Science in Industrial Engineering degrees from the
University of the Philippines Diliman. He joined the UP College of Engineering faculty in 1973 and became a full
professor of Industrial Engineering in 1988. He served the University of the Philippines in various capacities: as
Chairman of the Department of Industrial Engineering (Operations Research) from 1982 to 1988, as Director of the
Institute for Small Scale Industries from 1992 to 2001, and as Vice President for Planning and Development of the
UP System from 1993 to 1999. He also served the DOST as the Director of the Technology Application and
Promotion Institute (TAPI) from 1989 to 1991 and President of the National Research Council of the Philippines
(NRCP) from 2002 to 2007. It is with great honor and privilege to present to you our keynote speaker, currently the
Undersecretary for Science and Technology Services of the DOST, the honorable Undersecretary Fortunato T. Dela
Peña.
147
148
KEYNOTE MESSAGE
Prof. Fortunato T. Dela Peña
Undersecretary for Science and Technology Services, Department of Science and Technology
Magandang umaga sa inyong lahat (Good morning to everyone)!
Yesterday, I was surprised to see many colleagues and acquaintances not only from the health profession but from
the other fields and disciplines as well. I am also very elated at this, what you call, convergence. If I may modify the
theme a little bit, I would like to say that this is empowerment through convergence in divergence.
Before I go to my speech, I would like to say that I felt also at home yesterday. I learned a lot from the parallel
session on intellectual property protection and commercialization which I also keynoted. I felt more at home in the
evening, during the fellowship.
There is an art form, and some of the women here might be familiar with this - it is called quilt making. Now before
questions are raised as to why an engineer and a scientist like myself is talking about handicraft, especially in a
conference about health research, allow me to explain the basic principle behind quilt making and how it connects to
the theme of this year's PNHRS Week.
The quilt starts with pieces of fabric - of different colors, cuts and textures. These separate pieces of cloth are then
sewn together to make the top layer of the quilt. This top layer is then placed together with the two other layers. The
entire creation is finally sewn together - or quilted - by threads that connect each part of the quilt to all the other parts.
Understanding the quilt metaphor therefore helps us see how all of us as individuals, or as individual regions, are
connected and interdependent in ways that are not often obvious. And that how problems in one, invariably affects all
people and regions that are connected to the chain. It is this concept of harnessing individual regional strengths and
diversities that is at the heart of the regional health research systems.
The development of regional health research systems is a strategy to develop and enhance regional health research
and development activities. It was envisioned to serve three purposes: (1) as a structure for linking and pooling
resources to facilitate health research activities in the region; (2) as a mechanism for promoting and coordinating
health research and development activities in the region; and (3) as a vita link between PNHRS and the regions.
The RHRDC is also a strategy to decentralize and widen the health research base, which was previously
concentrated in the National Capital Region (NCR).
In is in the spirit of empowering the regions that it has been consistently stressed from the start that the type of
system to be adopted in a given region be designed by the stakeholders themselves. This way, the system reflects
the history, geography, cultural norms and mores that are unique to the region, and which, in turn, is reflected in its
respective health landscape.
Challenges for the Regional Health Research Systems
Establishing the regional health research systems, however, is only the first step. There are a number of areas where
regional health offices could provide the most assistance, not only in providing solutions to health problems, but also
in promoting a culture of research in their respective localities.
One is in the area of knowledge translation.
149
As practitioners in our respective fields, we know that many of the solutions to current health problems already exist.
The problem is that they are not being applied. Thus, there is the phrase “know-do”• gap, to refer to the gap between
what is already known, and what is actually done in practice. Since the “know-do”• gap contributes to huge
inequalities in health, it is no surprise that the World Health Organization (WHO) and other similar agencies are
encouraging research on effective strategies for knowledge translation.
One framework recommended for tailoring interventions is the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). The
underlying principle of OMRU is that the research translation strategies are tailored to the barriers and supports
found within the setting or in possible adopters. This is basically doing a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats
(SWOT) analysis of the situation and adapting the strategies accordingly.
Dr. Seikoh Horiuchi of the School of Medicine of Kumamoto University, on the other hand, calls for the need to train a
“coordinator”• who will bridge the gap between the industry and the academe. The coordinator must possess the
skills to translate basic research concepts into a language that can be understood by, and be of interest to the
principal players in the technology transfer process, namely: industry, policymakers, and the consumers. This
mechanism is called research translation, or what is referred to in other sectors as knowledge translation (KT), which
is being seen as an effective solution for bridging the “know-do” gap.
Another is in the area of health research ethics.
It is critical that the regions have their own Ethical Review Committees to review the compliance to ethical standards
of researches.
Empowerment means ownership of what is rightfully yours. Applied to health research, this means ensuring that the
rights and dignity of human subjects of research in the respective regions be held above all other financial and
scientific considerations.
Third, is in providing evidence-based inputs to the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA).
The research priority topics identified in the NUHRA and in the Zonal Research Agenda are not comprehensive and
final. In fact, I understand that the NUHRA was recently updated to reflect health concerns that recently arose. It
must also be noted that the NUHRA only identified research priorities for the period 2006 to 2010. It goes without
saying that, given the rapid developments in both the global and local health scenarios, the NUHRA will be revised
periodically, and will thus need inputs from the regional partners.
Empowering Communities
It is in this last area, in allowing for popular participation in setting the regional health research agenda, that we can
best see community empowerment in action. In fact, the Founder and Managing Trustee of the African Malaria
Network Trust, Dr. Wen Kilama, spoke lengthily about the logic of involving communities in the research process.
Referencing an old English saying that it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches, Dr. Kilama says that
similarly, communities that are affected by common health issues are the ones in the best position to identify and
even prioritize their health problems. By working with them, researchers can identify their felt needs, and from that,
arrive at a relevant health research agenda.
Further, Dr. Kilama mentioned that researchers and operational health workers have been telling many communities
what their problems are, and bringing them seemingly ready-made solutions, without involving these users at all in
the investigation of what their problems are. From her view, this approach can lead to problems. Yet many health
workers and other change agents continue to insist on pushing failed approaches.
150
Dr. Kilama suggested that a change needs to be made in the way researchers identify community needs, and in how
these problems are addressed. Involving communities in setting an agenda will build a sense of ownership, and
promote community participation in solving the health problems which affect the people directly and which they
themselves have identified.
This is not the end of the process, however. In much the same way that the people need to be trained in the skills to
make informed decisions, regional health system personnel must also continue to learn and un-learn health
concepts, policies and approaches corresponding to the circumstances that they find their region to be in.
There is a popular saying that goes, “healer, heal thyself.”• Correspondingly, today's researchers, especially those in
the various regional health systems, are mandated, not only to be technically skilled in their fields, but to also
possess the skills of a change agent knowledgeable in ways of going to the very heart of their community's problems.
You, our regional partners, are not just adjuncts of a bigger system. You are the very thread that holds the fabric, that
is the Philippine National Health Research System, together. The strength of the very system itself depends on the
cohesiveness of the various parts that make up the whole. As long as we continue to work effectively together, then
Filipinos can be assured of a health system that is truly for the people because they were borne of the people.
Thank you and good morning.
151
RESPONSE FROM THE PNHRS CORE AGENCIES: POSITIONING PNHRS TO BETTER
SERVE THE REGIONS
CHED's RESPONSE
Atty. Carmelita Yadao-Sison
Director, Legal Affairs Services, Commission on Higher Education
Good morning!
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has always been, is, and will always be an important member of the
core agencies of the Philippine National Health Research System. We are a core agency and research is an
important function of the higher education system.
To attest to how committed we are, also here with me are major CHED officials. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Lily
Garcia, director of our new Office of Quality Management, our regional directors for Mindanao and the Cordillera
region.
We have 1,741 private higher education institutions, 110 state universities and colleges and 77 local community
colleges and universities under our mandate. If research is a very important function of these institutions, you can just
imagine what we will be able to do in order to direct them towards proper research, processes and policies.
Now, we always talk about research being important in the academe because you publish or perish. But now I think
we need to redirect that. It will now be patent or perish. I think that is going to be our contribution to the PNHRS.
What is CHED's contribution to research? That is the creation, through a CHED Memorandum Order, of zonal
research centers. In my talk yesterday, I emphasized what our zonal research centers have been doing. Now, we
also mentioned partnership and complementation because of our limited funds and resources. We have several
collaborations in order to improve our research capabilities and we have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Intellectual Property Philippines Office.
We will definitely have to have institutional arrangements because CHED does not have the manpower to be able to
do all the research training and the research evaluations. So we will really require the assistance of the other
members for technical expertise on qualitative analysis and evaluation and research capability building, especially
the creation of research database by which we can all secure valid information.
All of these are the commitments of the Commission to the PNHRS. And I would like to thank the members of the
PNHRS for inviting us to this very successful Forum.
Thank you very much.
152
UP NIH's RESPONSE
Dr. Lulu C. Bravo
Executive Director, University of the Philippines Manila -National Institutes of Health
Good morning to all of you!
I am really happy to be here because getting us here all together is such a wonderful moment. We have the NIH here
in the PNHRS, working together with the Department of Health (DOH), the CHED, and the DOST. I would like to
mention that our slogan is, “Partnerships for Better Health.”
NIH in the PNHRS: Positioning NIH to Better Serve the Regions
“Science for humanity, Scientists with souls”• - Dr. Perla Santos-Ocampo
Vision
To be the country‟s recognized authority in health research and development and the key source of critical health
information for national development in the Philippines and Southeast Asia.
Mission
To be a major resource center for health research and capacity building, using the framework of “Partnerships for
Better Health.”
Mandates of the UPM-NIH
 Health research for policy and practice: basic, applied, clinical, public health
o National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA)
 Research capacity strengthening
o Research methods and ethics
o Research dissemination and utilization
Capacity Building Initiatives in Health Research Ethics
 Strengthening of IRBs
o Training support for technical and ethical review
o Sharing institutional review board (IRB) resources to facilitate institutionalization of ethics review
o Assisting IRBs in preparing for survey and recognition, towards setting up a national network
 Institutional capacity building towards the establishment of regional health research ethics resource centers
I would like to recognize at this point the presence of our Deputy Director, Dr. Vicente Belizario, Jr., who has been
very instrumental in putting this ethics training together. In fact, we have been accredited, together with the
Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM), by the Forum for Ethics Review in Asia and the Pacific (FERCAP) to
do the research ethics review for the Asia Pacific region. We are doing the training twice a month, not only for the
government agencies but also for the private sector.
Aside from this, we are also working on emerging infections not only here in the country but also trying to network in
the Asia Pacific. Emerging infection, as you know, is a very important way to be able to do surveillance.
I would also like to mention that the NIH is keen on responding to the call for achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). Definitely, we would like each of the MDGs to be represented in our researches. We
have presented this to the Metro Manila Health Research Consortium. They are here. These are people who are
going to partner with us.
With that, I would like to say thank you.
153
DOH's RESPONSE
Ms. Rosa G. Gonzales
Chief, Research Division, Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau,
Department of Health
In behalf of the Department of Health and the Director of the Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau
(HPDPB), Dr. Virginia Ala, let me relay to you our response in initiating and committing support to the regional health
research system.
Formulation and development of zonal and regional health research agenda responsive to local health needs:
Ensuring technical actions and of direction, including sourcing of funds.
 Department Order No. 2008-0086: “Institutionalizing the Philippine National Health Research System in
support of the Health Sector Reform efforts in the Department of Health”•
o Research and Development Coordinators taking the initiatives to assist in the development of the
research agenda
o Regional units/offices implementing zonal/regional research agenda; ensuring technical and
administrative support, including the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) allotment
for implementation of the research agenda
 Department Memorandum No. 2009-0152: “Preparation and submission of CY 2010”•
o All offices/agencies/bureaus/hospitals to allocate 2% of MOOE to research and development
o Requests all to identify research projects/activities for appropriate monitoring and evaluation by
HPDPB
Building capacities for research: Research and Development Coordinators, DOH Technical Staff and Partners
 Enrolment/participation in training programs
o UP-NIH: Comprehensive Training Course on Research Development (Agenda Setting, Proposal
Development, Project Implementation)
o UP-NIH:Â Continuing Research Ethics Education
o UP-NIH-Department of Clinical Epidemiology: Systematic Reviews and Policy Brief Development
 Support strengthening of academic excellence in health research and development
o Plan to set up the UP Department of Clinical Epidemiology as the Systematic Review Center for
Health System Development in partnership with regional academic institution
Ensuring translation of research to strengthen the health system
 Supporting organization of policy fora and dialogues (national/local levels)
 Liaisoning and advocating for passage of health bills/ordinances/implementing rules and regulations (IRRs)
in collaboration with stakeholders
 Support localization of national laws (e.g., Milk Code, Tobacco Control, Clean Air Act)
Investing in partnership/networking
 Increased funding support to all PNHRS projects and activities
o sustaining funding support for NUHRA
 Providing opportunities for participation in global/international research projects (for example, Alliance for
Health Systems and Policy Research, WHO, etc)
Promoting good governance in health research management
 Strengthening of technical assistance of coordination team in Centers for Health Development (CHDs)
 Support the promotion of strategic quality and ethical management practices in PNHRS/
RHRDCs and various research groups
Thank you.
154
PCHRD - DOST's RESPONSE
Dr. Jaime C. Montoya
Executive Director, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development,
Department of Science and Technology
Good morning!
To put order in my presentation, I would like to focus on the six priority areas of the PNHRS, going through each area
as we envision them to be addressed through the perspective of the Regional Health Research and Development
Consortium.
First area is Research Management. We already changed the name of the Committee to Research Agenda because
initially it was envisioned to look at the administration of health research. But we have to understand that
management of health research encompasses all of the other priority areas. For it to be focused, we renamed it as
the Research Agenda Committee. The primary task of the Committee is the continuous evolution, updating, and
implementation of the National Unified Health Research Agenda. First, we are now into our advocacy mode. We are
advocating for the adoption of the NUHRA not only by the four core agencies but even by all government agencies.
We already have a video, initially, on the basic concept of research. This is based on the sad reality that many people
either do not understand what research means or do not know how research can contribute to national development.
We are advocating for the NUHRA, which currently dictates the roadmap for health research if you are going to get
government funding. But we would like to go beyond that sphere because we know that the private sector does fund
health research. That is why, very early on, we want to engage the private sector. It is very important to engage
them. We have been talking with other government agencies. The National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), for example, already adopted the NUHRA. It was fortunate because NEDA is the point of entry for official
development assistance (ODA). This is a big step because now we will have a finger into this very big pie of ODA.
We have to continue updating the NUHRA also. We have to be dogmatic because in the sense that we do not know
who will be the next head of government in the country. We have to be prepared to hand over the research agenda
that we want them to pursue rather than have them ask us to present the research agenda or have the agenda
politicized. In that regard, it is very fortunate that I actually sit in the Presidential Coordinating Council for Research
and Development (PCCRD), chaired by the President. I can actually make a strong voice as far as these points are
concerned.
In the area of Ethics, it has already been mentioned by the NIH that we are providing training and seminars. But I
think what is important, the National Ethics Committee which we are stewarding, chaired by Dr. Marita Reyes, is
looking at research projects, in particular, the clinical trials with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). The Ethics
Committee is also looking at the registration of all existing ethics research committees. If there is an ethics research
committee in the region, I would like to ask all the regions to have their Ethics Review Committees (ERCs) registered.
So, we are presently in the registration phase. Once we have put on record and documented all of the existing ERCs
in the country, we are now going to the accreditation phase which is making sure that they meet the minimum
requirements for being an ERC.
Capacity building is a very big area. The Capacity Building Committee is working very hard. This is also one of the
critical committees in the PNHRS. We have to make sure that the regions have the capacity. They are now in the
process of preparing modules on the different needs of the scientific aspects, implementation, and programs for
research which can then be distributed to the different regions for training. They will also be in the process of
accrediting courses that will also provide training in specific areas needed by researchers. One interesting thing that
we would like to push for, in PCHRD, is the area of scientific writing. We have difficulty in writing. It is not just the lack
of time but we find it difficult to write. One of the things that we really have to do is to have this course on scientific
writing. One school of thought is to train scientists to do the scientific writing. Another school of thought now is to let
the scientific writing be done by a third party. The ownership is still with the investigator. I think this is the way to go.
155
And we are already talking with some of our experts based abroad to develop this program. We are also looking at
the possibility of working with the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) to develop this particular course and have the
research institutions send representatives to have training in this particular aspect. That is one. The other option is to
develop a third party to do that. One thing that we plan to do and I already got the approval from DOST, is that when
we approve a research grant in health research, we already allocate a certain portion for scientific writing.
In the area of Research Utilization, we have to popularize our scientific findings. For the people to appreciate what
we are doing, they have to understand what we are doing. We have to move out from our sphere of influence in
which we talk the language of scientists, expecting people to understand us. I was talking to our legislators, some of
them are completely ignorant about research, much more about health research. I think we are responsible for that
because we don't talk with them in a way that we can be understood. This is in the broad area of knowledge
management and translation. With courtesy to Dr. Lulu Bravo, I asked her to lead this initiative. We are already in
consultation with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) in Geneva to help us develop this
particular training module in knowledge management. Again, we will identify representatives from the regions to be
trained.
Resource Mobilization is being chaired by Dr. Jaime Galvez Tan. We are moving heaven and earth for the passage
of the PNHRS Bill. Please have a look at the PNHRS Bill. We have it in the website. If you want to read, we can
provide you copies of that. We want your participation now, in public discourse, but more importantly to talk to your
Congressmen to have this Bill immediately passed into law. The Bill is already at the Committee of Appropriations in
the Lower House. The Senate is just waiting for the movement in the Lower House so that they will already produce a
similar version. In the process, we would get a Presidential certification of the Bill as urgent. Basically, this will
institutionalize the PNHRS as a system and more importantly is the creation of the PNHRS Fund. I would like to say
that even though there is a perception that research funds are limited, the reality is that, the proposals we receive are
mediocre and do not address the priority needs of the country. We need to broaden our perspective. Our research
should be competitive, to be presented in the national level. I challenge the regional health research systems to
enhance their research capacities to be able to compete in the national arena.
I would like to thank the Structure, Organization, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee for all the work they have
done. I really commend them. We need to put substance into that and we commit to make sure that all of those
recommendations are met. We are already discussing some of them now.
To wrap up everything, we really have a lot of challenges to address. All of these will be easy and achievable if we
have all of you here, in the mainstream, participating with the capacity and the ability to do research that will address
the priority needs of the Filipinos. I would like to thank again the core agencies and partner agencies, the media. This
is really convergence in divergence. We really hope that we can move forward from here. We need all the valuable
inputs from you because the System is for you.
Thank you very much.
156
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Pilar Jimenez: I have a comment to Dr. Nañagas. In terms of history, in defense of the NCR, it just re-formed itself
but it actually started in the 1990s. If you remember, we had the Ermita Health Science Community which was a
consortium of different institutions around the area. I know this because I was with the De La Salle University and we
signed the document. We hosted a lot of seminars and PCHRD was actually footing the bill. The Ermita Health
Science Community turned into the Metro Manila Health Science Community. The health social scientists became
very active as a result of the development of the Metro Manila Health Science Community. That is why we had the
Philippine Health Science Association which we hope we can reactivate in the process.
The other thing I am concerned about is that there are three institutions contributing to the NUHRA and I was
wondering about the role of the NIH since it is part of the UP System. What exactly are its financial and human
resource contributions to PNHRS? This is for Lulu Bravo.
Dr. Lulu Bravo: I agree with you that the Metro Manila Health Science Community is a sequel to the Ermita Health
Science Community. We are in the midst of getting all the Metro Manila research institutions. The funding will be
coming from other funding agencies outside the UP System because to tell you, honestly, we do not have yet the
promised funding from General Appropriations Act that actually established us 10 years ago. The funding of the NIH
is coming from the institutes. In the UP Manila system right now, it is still very minimal. We do not have yet the
amount of funding that we need to really become a funding agency. We are more implementers than a funding
agency. But once the PNHRS Bill becomes a law, and we do hope that it will soon come, we would probably be able
to get what we thought would be at least 25 percent of the total fund to be able to get it for our researchers. Right
now, with the law not yet in place, we are getting funding from PCHRD, DOH, WHO, from research grants and the
private sector. Our goal, as I mentioned earlier, is “Partnerships for Better Health.”• The MDGs are good areas for
collaboration.
Dr. Carmencita Padilla: I have a comment about the culture of research in the Philippines. It is not enough that we
say the agenda and the budget. I think that the bigger problem right now in the academic institutions is the lack of
research culture. I think it is a challenge for CHED to ensure that we have the outcome measures; that our colleges
and universities are delivering the kind of researches we need.
Also, make being a researcher a profession. We can make a living out of being a researcher. Maybe you can help
also the universities and colleges identify a pool.
I have a personal comment about having a third party writing the paper. I find it very difficult to get a third person to
write my paper. What I think should happen is that we should be able to identify people who write, let's say in a
university. Even in UP, not everybody writes, not everybody researches. If you can identify that pool and help them
be better writers, that's better. My challenge to PCHRD-DOST, CHED, DOH, and the NIH is to identify the outcome
measures now, the number of publications and quality of researches coming from these institutions, since we have
the research centers of excellence already. We need to create the environment that is appropriate for a researcher.
Dr. Jaime Montoya: Thank you Dr. Padilla for that comment. But I would like to say, being a doctor, we have options;
we can do research work, have our clinics. For the other sectors, they do not have those options. This is easier said
than done, very difficult to do. Even if we provide the research environment, this always boils down to which
generates more income. But let me say that, where as I said that I have a particular bias with third party, it does not
necessarily mean that it will all be third party. We may have to think of a new model, probably a combination of what
you said and the third party. Why? There are advantages. You will tap a third party for the writing but the ownership
stays with you. In the third party contract, they are being paid to do that. We can discuss this further.
157
Dr. Carmencita Padilla: I still believe that doctors must find a way to integrate research into their practice, even in
data gathering. I mean, I would like to encourage that kind of environment, have doctors as researchers too.
Dr. Exaltacion Lamberte: There are some suggestions that I could see but I would like to see the implications; one,
on the establishment of research community. The DOST, DOH, and even CHED should really come up with ways to
sustain the operations. We cannot rely on volunteerism because getting people to come and talk needs time. The
second is the implication of those of us teaching in the university. I do not know if the national government can do
something about the teaching loads. Somewhere in 1987, I did a study on research capability assessment. I found
out three things: (1) some of those faculty teaching social sciences are not even aligned with their discipline; (2)
research capacity is still not at par with what we expected; and (3) the role of the government in enforcing and
requiring universities to be research-oriented. Outcomes need to be measured but it is a long process. There is also
the implication that we should have an inventory of the skills or areas we have in the university. The zonal research
centers are very helpful.
Dr. Rustico Santos: I would like to address this proposal as an option towards creating a research culture especially
among the universities. I would like to propose, if CHED will be open, to offer an option of graduate degree by
research work which is a major mechanism for graduate degrees in Europe and Australia. There are centers of
excellence already whose faculty members are very capable of becoming mentors of the graduate students. We are
already doing this in agriculture in some of the universities in Cagayan Valley. We are strengthening ourselves in
research.
Dr. Nina Castillo-Carandang: To close this session, let us just try to recap some of the things we have discussed. We
said that the regional health research systems are at the helm and not just the backbone of PNHRS. And Dr.
Montoya wants to make it the heart of the PNHRS. Our theme, “Convergence in Divergence,”• is exactly what the
Philippines is like. For those of you who want to really develop a research culture, I challenge you to start in your own
homes. Teach your children a culture of curiosity; teach them also the value of good science. That's the kind of home
I came from. My tatay (father) is an animal nutritionist. My nanay (mother) took us in all her field work. Why am I
telling you this? Research culture starts with you, in your own homes. It is going to be translated to the schools and
the people you interact with. But again, the Committee would like to implore the representatives of the different
agencies here, please take our recommendations seriously because we will hold you accountable for everything that
you said this morning. We do not have collective amnesia. Thank you.
158
RESPONSE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: REFINING RESEARCH AGENDA IN RESPONSE
TO HEALTH NEEDS, ACCESSING RESOURCES FOR HEALTH RESEARCH
Dr. Agapito B. Hornido
Provincial Health Officer, Davao Del Norte
Good afternoon!
Let me read to you the message of the honorable governor of Davao del Norte, Gov. Rodolfo Del Rosario.
It was a great honor to join our research community devoted to health in commemorating the PNHRS Week, which
aims to advance research and development as tool for public policy analysis. We welcome the growth of the
community whose membership includes our own health workers. We welcome the continuing efforts of the
Department of Health to raise the outcomes of local government units‟ (LGU) health programs through
institutionalizing research procedures in program implementation and evaluation. It is very vital not only in
professionalizing local government health units' health workers but also in providing policy guidelines for our policy
and decision makers in pursuit of their vision and mission.
The weakness of the LGUs in the area of program evaluation is symptomatic of what Emory Powell of Texas
Instruments said, “A strategy without metrics is just a wish, and metrics that are not aligned with strategy are a waste
of time.”• Without the metrics needed, we can never know the exact outcomes and impact of our programs. Without a
research framework to work with, we can never simply claim that the decrease of health diseases is due to our health
programs and not of its rival explanations. Indeed, millions of public funds are sometimes wasted because some of
our programs lack vigorous studies. In research, we have Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Type 1 rejects null hypothesis
when, in fact, it is true. Type 2 accepts alternative hypothesis when, in fact, it is false. In public policy, you have the
Type 3 error, which provides sophisticated solutions for the problem. Without some basis for problem analysis, we
are not far removed from committing the third type of error. So we really need research to aid us in analyzing problem
situations.
The more empirical health literatures and evidences are available for policymakers, the better is the quality of their
policy decisions. It is our sincere wish to make research tools user-friendly in our organizations. In the long run, we
hope to inculcate the value of our scientific methods to our ordinary people; for research is more effective when it is
participatory. Social learning is a two-way street and researchers, consultants, and technical people do not have the
monopoly of knowledge base. Well, in our own context, we have not yet arrived at the mature stage of research as a
social science. Let us be content with a clinical base we have each year as we continue to propagate a scientific
attitude towards social problems.
To the organizers, guests and participants, thank you. Good afternoon to all of us.
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Vicente and the organizers. It is unfortunate that I am the only one here
representing the local government units when, in fact, they should be here as implementers of research studies.
Now, let me describe to you the profile of our province.
Demography of Davao del Norte
Population: 743,811 (year 2000); 847,440 (year 2007); 862,694 (year 2008)
Average growth rate: 1.81%
Population density: 237 per sq. km.
159
Vision
High quality of life for Dabaonons
Mission
To be a premier province that is globally competitive, agri-based industrialized local government of committed,
gender-sensitive and empowered Dabaonons harmoniously living in an ecologically balanced and sustainablydeveloped environment.
Core Values
Integrity, Competence, and Commitment
RDRWHEELS - Thrusts of the Administration
R- Roads and Infrastructure Development
D- Development of Cooperatives
R- Reforms in Governance, Peace and Order
W- Water and Electricity Development
H- Health Care and Sanitation
E- Education, Culture and Sports
E- Economy and Environment
L- Livelihood, Skills Development and Micro-Lending
S- Spiritual and Moral Recovery
“Health is a basic human right. Every Dabaonon deserves access to a better quality health care services,”• according
to Gov. Rodolfo Del Rosario.
Vision of the Provincial Health Office (PHO)
Healthy and empowered people of Davao del Norte sustained by quality health care for a productive, meaningful, life.
Mission of the Provincial Health Office
Providing health care services to improve the quality of life for all the people of Davao del Norte, especially the poor.
Health Development Cluster 1 (DRH-NCTC)
New Corella - 20 barangays, 1 rural health unit (RHU), 20 barangay health stations (BHS), 19 Botika ng Barangay
(BnB)
Tagum City - 23 barangays, 1 city health office (CHO), 28 BHS, 12 BnB
Davao Regional Hospital
Health Development Cluster 2 (SIKAT)
San Isidro - 13 barangays, 1 RHU, 13 BHS
Kapalong - 14 barangays, 1 RHU, 14 BHS
Asuncion - 20 barangays, 1 RHU, 18 BHS, 19 BnB
Talaingod - 3 barangays, 1 RHU, 3 BHS, 3 BnB
Kapalong District Hospital
Health Development Cluster 3 (DCAPS)
Dujali - 5 barangays, 1 RHU, 4 BHS, 5 BnB
Carmen - 20 barangays, 1 RHU, 9 BHS, 2 BnB
Panabo City - 40 barangays, 1 CHO, 18 BHS, 13 BnB
Sto. Tomas - 19 barangays, 1 RHU, 18 BHS, 17 BnB
Carmen District Hospital
160
Health Development Cluster 4 (IgaCoS)
Babak - 16 barangays, 1 RHU, 16 BHS, 7 BnB
Samal - 15 barangays, 1 RHU, 14 BHS, 10 BnB
Kaputian -15 barangays, 1 RHU, 15 BHS, 11 BnB
Programs with Research Studies
 Minimum basic needs approach of development
 Intervention Study: Information Exchange for Quality Health Care
 Comprehensive Davao del Norte Water Development Project
 Voluntary Blood Sufficiency Program
 Malaria and Schistosomiasis Control Program
 Study on the Extent of Mercury Contamination in the Coastal Areas
 Animal Health studies
 Agriculture
New Initiatives
 Province-wide Investment Program on Health (PIPH)
 Re-organization of the province – PHO will come up with its own section on research and development
 Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) Universal Coverage Program – PhP30 million was
spent for the indigents' coverage. Research proposals are being explored.Â
That comprises the report. In behalf of our Governor, we would like to sincerely thank you for inviting us and making
us a part of the 3rd PNHRS Week celebration.
161
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Jaime Montoya: Thank you very much for that talk. We really value the participation of the local government in
this whole process. I have one comment and one question. My comment is we realize the importance of the local
government and I do not have to overemphasize the fact that because of the devolution, the local government has
the critical role of overseeing and implementing programs among which is actually research. Now my question is, we
have efforts to meet with the League of Governors, League of Mayors, to discuss the PNHRS Bill, what it means and
how it will help health research in the country. Is it possible for your office or even Davao del Norte to take the lead,
at least for the Mindanao region, to inform our leagues of officials on the importance of the Bill in terms of their
participation so that we realize all these things that we want to happen? Of course, I would hope that you already
read the Bill, Sir. The Bill will institutionalize PNHRS and create the PNHRS Fund. When we talk of the research
fund, we are actually not including the critical contribution of the local governments. I was informed that a lot of local
governments are rich. And we have not really tapped the full potential of the local governments. The problem is that
health is not yet seen as a priority. If that happens, research will follow.
Dr. Agapito Hornido: In my capacity as provincial health officer, I promise you that I will discuss this with the two
Congressmen that we have. In the region, I think Director Baluma will support me on this. In our regional meetings, I
suggested to the DOH to make this Bill as part of the advocacy.
Dr. Genaro Japus: I commend your LGU for the PhP30 million expenditure for PhilHealth. This can be a good
practice, worthy of emulation.
162
PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. Melchor Victor G. Frias IV
Associate Professor and Vice Chancellor for Research, De La Salle University - Health Sciences Campus
Good afternoon!
I will concentrate on our experience at Region IV. We are two years old as a consortium. This report is a work in
progress in terms of sustaining the consortium.
Strategies for Sustainability
 Create the structure
 Formulate the research agenda
 Establish opportunities for collaboration
 Enhance knowledge translation
Structure
 Look at other Models
o Network of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, Quezon (CALABARZON) educational institutions
o International Clinical Epidemiology Network
 Organizational Development: Process Map
o Organizational (Business) model
o Professional (Protocols)
o Personal (Research Culture)
 Complement the National Structure
o Address needs of region
o Equitable distribution of support
Research Agenda
 Consensus and Evidence-based
o Agenda-driven not only faculty-driven
o Localize issues on health
 Competitive Advantage
o Make a difference
o Direction and focus
 Strategic opportunities
o Points of differentiation and convergence
o Short and long-term plans
Collaboration and Synergy
 Multidisciplinary or Multisectoral
 Multi-center/institution/region
o Large scale, project-based (study groups)
o Multi-year/phase
o Resource sharing
o Issues in academic recognition/incentives
Knowledge Translation, Dissemination and Accessibility
 Publication and Database
 Research Fora/Conferences
163

Policy and Practice
This is an important way of perpetuating the cycle of doing research, not only recognition in terms of monetary and
awards but also fulfillment in looking at your research being actually important in policy and practice.
Thank you.
164
DR. FE B. BARQUIN
Head, Health Research, Facility Development and Hospital Assistance Cluster,
Center for Health Development Region VIII, Department of Health
Good afternoon!
One of the issues we lobby with the Regional Development Council in Region 8 is for the Eastern Visayas Regional
Health Research and Development Consortium to review all research projects by proponents outside the region,
particularly from Manila and institutions from outside the country. This is because of our experience that the Region is
mainly the laboratory of these projects. One of the concerns that I will discuss is for regions to be collaborating
centers for these projects from outside the region rather than a source of specimen or data.
This topic on sustaining research collaboration is timely because we will be embarking on inter- and intra-regional
collaborations with Regions 6, 7, and 8.
Sustaining Research Collaboration
Elements
 Common goal
 Common values
 Culture and existing systems
 Institutional strengths
Common Goal
 Reduced prevalence of malnourished children in the region (country)
 Reduced incidence of below normal weight under-five children
 Reduced mortality of neonates
 Reduced mortality of under-five children
 Reduced mortality of pregnant women
 Reduced mortality from HIV and AIDS, endemic diseases - communicable and emerging diseases, lifestyle
Common Values
 Cost-efficient
 Cost-effective
 Equity
 Respect the dignity of man
 Sharing of resources
 Integrity
 Transparency
Culture and Systems
 Of the institution, agency, particular discipline or profession
 Management, procurement, manpower development, collaboration, authorship, research fund mechanism,
publication
Institutional Strengths
 Manpower and expertise
 Laboratory and equipment
 Library
165


Political climate
Research policies
Considerations
 Management structure
 Institutional Capacity Building/Enhancement
 Capability Building/Enhancement
 Fund Administration
 Research Utilization
 Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Structure
 Executive Director
 Research Aide
Institutional Capacity Building/Enhancement
 Office equipment and supplies
 Laboratory equipment and supplies
 Library materials, books, equipment and references
 Information and communication
Capability Building/Enhancement
 Short-course training
 Masteral and/or Doctoral degrees
 Developmental training
That is all. Thank you very much.
166
DR. RUSTICO B. SANTOS
Consultant and Member, Cagayan Valley Health Research and Development Consortium
Good afternoon!
My presentation is about sustainable research collaboration in the Cagayan Valley Health Research and
Development Consortium (CVHRDC).
Sustainable Research Collaboration: The CVHRDC Experience
Conceived: 2005
Born and Launched: 2006
Membership: Philippine Council for Health Research and Development
Regional Government Agencies:
 Cagayan Valley Medical Center (CVMC)
 Commission on Higher Education (CHED II)
 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR II)
 Department of Health (DOH II)
 Department of Science and Technology (DOST II)
 National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA II)
 Population Commission (POPCOM II)
 Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth II)
 Southern Isabela General Hospital (SIGH)
 Veterans Regional Hospital (VRH)
Academe
 Cagayan Colleges Tuguegarao (CCT)
 Cagayan State University (CSU)
 Isabela State University (ISU)
 Medical Colleges of Northern Philippines (MCNP)
 Saint Mary‟s University (SMU)
 University of La Salette (ULS)
 University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao (USLT)
Operations
Ideological Base
 Philippine National Health Research System- NUHRA
 Cagayan Valley Health Research Priorities
 Health Research Agenda for Northern Luzon prior to the birth of CVHRDC
Management of the Consortium
 Regional Research and Development Coordinating Council (RRDC) – Policy
 Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG)
 Identification of Priority Areas
 Review, Consolidate and Recommend Proposals for Funding
 Develop Capability Building Programs
 Develop and Implement a Research Information and Utilization Program
 The Secretariat
o Full-time Consortium Coordinator
o Two Full-time Administrative Assistants
167

Standing Committees
o Research Management
o Finance and Fund Administration
o Capability Building
o Information Dissemination Utilization and Exchange
Accomplishments
 Capability Building
 Research and Development Proposals
o Member Agency Funding
o Funding from Outside Sources
 Enhanced core personnel qualities
o Technical: knowledge and expertise
o Personal Effectiveness Qualities: maturity, commitment
o Organizational Effectiveness Qualities: planning, working well with others, evaluation vis-a-vis
CVHRDC goals
o Cultural Effectiveness Qualities: creativity, innovativeness, breadth of thinking, analytical thinking
 Enhanced Commitments of CVHRDC
o Agency Heads
o Agency Representatives/Researchers
o Individual Researchers through their own Data
Mechanism for Sustainable Collaboration
Vision
A vibrant, dynamic and sustainable health research consortium working for the attainment of regional health goals.
Mission
To create and sustain an enabling environment for health research toward research-based solutions to health
problems and health-related policies.
Strategic Goals
 To ensure that our health research system is linked to Cagayan Valley health needs
 To promote good governance in research toward efficient output-oriented and ethical research
undertakings
 To develop inter-regional partnerships and network for health research
Priorities
 Herbal Medicine
 Fourmula 1 (Governance / Service Delivery)
 Lifestyle Diseases
 Environment, Nutrition and Health
The mechanisms and priorities are perceived to allocate resources to high priority programs, limit unit costs to certain
levels (Agency), limit expenditures within total budget, relate to high and at least medium priority programs, and be
substantially controllable at the consortium and agency level as they are linked to agency structure and agency
management activities.
Next Activities
Organize a Science and Technology Solutions Foundation
 Experts Pool (Professional Service)
168



Area / Commodity Technical Teams (Consultancy Services, etc.)
Engage in Contract Researches (Feasibility Studies)
International Linkages
Thank you.
169
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Alfredo Rabena: I would like to ask the first two discussants. With the presentations, we appreciate very much the
efforts that they achieved. I would just like to be clarified on the indicators of these two different consortia so that we
could have better appreciation, talking of sustainability of programs. I did not see numerical indicators in that span of
time that the consortia existed. Through the paradigm or the framework they have adopted, we can say that they
were able to overcome problems, maybe with the use of SWOT. Can you give us a snapshot of the accomplishments
or indicators so that we can say that you were able to sustain and become a model for all of us in the consortia?
Dr. Melchor Frias: Our presentation failed to show you the process map. I mentioned about the process map in the
organizational management of our consortium. In there, we have the protocols that we developed and the total
customer/client experience in terms of customer relations, service quality, resource utilization, and facilities
development. In the other box were the outcomes or enterprise indicators. As I said, the financials would include the
grants, consultancy fees, registration fees from conferences, research-based services and product development. But
the product development is still a long way because the drug development we are doing is still in the pre-clinical
phase. Those are the indicators we have identified. Aside from the financial, we also have the non-tangibles:
increase in the research outputs of the different institutions, recognition of the institutions as centers of excellence,
and recognition of the consortium as a niche in the identified competitive advantage and strategic opportunities in the
different fields that I have mentioned. These are the outcome indicators.
Dr. Fe Barquin: The indicators in terms of outcome measures of the consortium were discussed earlier by Dr.
Nañagas. Before we started with the consortium in the region, we have established our objectives. The indicators
that have been developed would be the measurement as to the achievement of the objectives. But for the
collaboration that we will be embarking, we also have indicators for that. It is going to be a measurement of different
considerations. This is going to be a wide spectrum of different research projects that each region will be concerned
with.
Dr. Jaime C. Montoya: I think it is a difficult question to answer at this point. We are still in the development process,
we are still moving. But let me tell you that as far as indicators are concerned, you can go by area indicators, project
indicators, and system indicators. These are at different levels. The truth is, when we asked COHRED in Geneva,
they do not have indicators. In fact, what they said was, they are looking at the Philippines to develop those
indicators which in turn they will share with the other countries as far as health systems development are concerned.
The next step here is to develop the monitoring and evaluation parameters which we will eventually share with the
regions.
Dr. Warlito Vicente: The model of the Mindanao consortium is thematic in nature. We still have to see how it is going
to work. I think it is going to be a tremendous issue on logistical preparation, communication, and even understanding
among ourselves. I think it is a real challenge. I think the process as well as the outputs will be evaluated and it is a
work in progress.
Dr. Rustico Santos: The model presented by Region 2 already exists. One of the circles in that model of collaboration
is any agency and the community. The collaboration can be a circle of an agency and a circle of another agency.
One agency might provide the funds, one agency might do the research. That sort of collaboration is existing already.
The most agencies commonly tapped for collaborations are the DOH and the DOST.
Dr. Genaro Japus: We need to address the question, “how are we making sense?”• That will essentially answer the
search for indicators. In the regional level, each consortium can do its own internal evaluation every year. If PCHRD
can sponsor for best in consortium evaluation, then that will be good so that we will be able to see how the others are
faring. To create one instrument for all would not be good because it would not be able to capture the many
indigenous little things that really count to the regional level. With our experiences being reflected upon every year,
170
we will be able to see currents and undercurrents. For now, I think what is important is to explore every possible
means to reinvent.
Dr. Warlito Vicente: We can share with you our experience in the region for the past 20 years or so. The bottom line
is simple; if you have a research output that is relevant to the needs of the regions, then that's it. It answers the need.
What we need is to encourage the role of the member institutions in strengthening human resource development. If
you really want to make this work, put where your mouth is and put up your money.
Dr. Fe Barquin: What we did in Region 8, even if there is no money yet, we made a proposal and submit them to
PCHRD, DOH, and an NGO. They approved the project. That was the start of the funding in Region 8. That is how
we make things happen.
Dr. Jaime C. Montoya: Lack of funding should not be viewed as a barrier. It should be used as an opportunity to
expand our horizons and to be innovative. It is not a reason also to rationalize how things are being done now. There
is a greater responsibility on the people who are going to produce the research. The game now is not allocation. We
also really have to do a lot of capacity building. Regarding the indicators, we also plan to give an award for the
outstanding RHRDC. We would like to bring up the capability of all regions to a level that they can compete.
Dr. Exaltacion Lamberte: This is a suggestion. Perhaps we will do the same way as that of the zonal research
centers of CHED, but this time focusing on health. In that model, you have a mature institution trying to guide those
institutions that need capacity building. The other one, I still reinforce the suggestion of Dr. Vicente; it is still the duty
of the government to invest in research. We should have a bloc grant, by region. We should start with capacity
development assessment then we go into operations. A Nobel laureate for economics gave us the idea that a country
develops not because of money, development starts with health investment. The World Bank said we have so much
money. It is only the Filipinos who are poor. There are lots of money floating, I don't know where it is.
171
AWARDING
2009 Best Mentor in Health Research
The PNHRS Best Mentor in Health Research Award aims to recognize and reward the vital contribution of health
research mentors in the development of research capabilities of human resources in health.
Each regional winner from Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, and the National Capital Region was awarded with a cash
prize of PhP100,000 plus plaque of recognition. The national winner received a cash prize of PhP200,000 and a
trophy.
National Winner
Dr. Edgardo Tulin (Visayas)
Regional Winners
Dr. Carmencita Padilla (NCR)
Dr. Erlinda Palaganas (Luzon)
Dr. Edgardo Tulin (Visayas)
Dr. Rosemarie Arciaga (Mindanao)
172
MESSAGE FROM THE NATIONAL WINNER
Dr. Edgardo Tulin
National Winner, 2009 PNHRS Best Mentor in Health Research Award
Good afternoon!
I have so much joy that I received the two awards. First of all, I would like to thank the Philippine Council for Health
Research and Development, the Philippine National Health Research System, and the Visayas State University. To
all my research aides and project staff, they are very instrumental in this success.
This award is dedicated to all health researchers. I hope this award will serve as inspiration especially the young
researchers so that we will continue to strive for excellence in research. This is an incentive but anyhow our
commitment to research is there. So if we put our hearts to what we are doing, even without the award, we can make
a difference.
Thank you.
173
SYNTHESIS
Dr. Vicente Y. Belizario, Jr.
Deputy Director for Research Management and Development,
University of the Philippines Manila - National Institutes of Health
Good afternoon!
I promise that this will be short and quick.
Day 1 (August 12)
 Assessment of Regional Health Research Systems was presented wherein Regions 9, 10, 11, 12, CARAGA
and ARMM, through a workshop, gave their respective responses
o Strengths, Areas for Improvement, Opportunities and Challenges were presented
o Need to ensure the active participation of the regions to ensure the success of the PNHRS
o Need to strengthen the linkages and collaboration within and among regional consortia
 Mindanao Response to the Assessment Report and Proposals
Consolidated responses of the regions can be accessed at www.healthresearch.ph
Mindanao Response
Enabling Factors
 Collaboration
 Commitment
 Capacity building / mentoring program
 Creative sources of funds
Impeding Factors
 Competing priorities
 Lack of funding
 Frequent change of administration and change of management priorities (political will)
 Peace and order situation
Action Points
 Strengthen regions to minimize concentration of research funding in Metro Manila
 Include policy for the utilization of research results in the structure
 Strengthen partnership among academe-industry-LGUs-NGOs-People‟s Organizations
 Strengthen networking among Mindanao health research and development consortia
 Formulate strategic plans to address gaps
RHRDC-11 signed their renewal of commitment for strengthening health research and development in the region.
Day 2 (August 13)
Parallel Capacity Building Sessions
 National Unified Health Research Agenda Implementation and Tracking
 Strengthening Research Ethics Review
 Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Commercialization
 Marketing Research to Health Care Providers and Policymakers
 Research Publishing and e-Tools for Collaboration
174

Climate Change and its Effect on Health: Orientation on Strategic Management
National Unified Health Research Agenda Implementation and Tracking
 In writing research proposals, ensure close matching between the interests of researchers and institutional
mandates of the funding agency
 Use FINER (which stands for Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) as guiding principle in the
development of a research proposal
 Track health related research and development (Solicit commitment in monitoring health research and
development resources and their uses)
Strengthening Research Ethics Review
 Need for training and capability building in ethics review
 Need to form Ethics Review Board (ERB) within each research institution
 Harmonize roles and standard operating procedures (SOPs) of existing ERBs
Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Commercialization
 Need for well-defined and unifying policy on technology transfer in the Philippines
 Need for sufficient investment in technology transfer and commercialization
 Strengthen private-public collaboration in research and development and commercialization
 Need for well-defined intellectual property (IP) mechanisms in research and development institutions
 Need to enhance the capability of universities in commercializing IP assets
 Need for “technology brokers”•
 Need for a change in mindset: from “How do I get people to buy the technology?”• to “How do I create
something that people will buy?”•
Marketing Research to Health Care Providers and Policymakers
 Enhance skills of researchers in making research palatable/understandable
 Researchers to show to policymakers the importance of research results
 Provide platform for policymakers to work with stakeholders on policy challenges
 Start a marketing campaign by defining your audience, then defining how to capture their attention
 Focus on dialogue as an effective communication model
Research Publishing and e-Tools for Collaboration
 Come up with clear rules on authorship
 Clarify protocols on peer review
 Come up with a pool of research reviewers
 Explore possibility of/ clarify regulation on access of full text in HERDIN, not just access to abstract
Climate Change and its Effect on Health: Orientation on Strategic Management
 In strategic management, employ bottom-up approach and align mindset from traditional strategic planning
method to capability-based perspective
 Look at climate change as a national concern
 Address climate change through collaboration between different sectors and agencies
Day 3 (August 14)
Capacitating and Empowering Regional Health Research Systems
 Need to include and bring research to the people through capacity building and collaboration
 Need to refocus and channel energies and resources to high priority issues and concerns particular to local
settings
175
I believe it has been a very productive three days. Thank you, Dr. Vicente, for leading the way in Davao. Thank you,
PNHRS. Thank you, participants.
176
CLOSING REMARKS
Dr. Fe B. Barquin
Head, Health Research, Facility Development and Hospital Assistance Cluster,
Center for Health Development Region VIII, Department of Health
Allow me to convey to everyone the heartfelt appreciation and congratulations of the DOH, especially the Secretary,
for making this first regional celebration of the PNHRS Week a successful event. Let me thank especially our host in
the region, all the PNHRS Committees, the PCHRD, our host region, CHD Davao Region, and all in the research
community and committees who came all the way from all parts of the country. And this grateful thanks goes to
everyone who diligently and actively participated in the different fora/sessions.
The line-up of activities, topics and processes done in this forum is indeed excellent. As far as learning and exchange
of ideas is concerned, I am sure that we have learned a lot and have enough inputs and inspiration to make the
necessary behavior and policy change. We can initiate actions on these in our milieus and fields of influence. What is
also consoling in the face of odds and challenges to carry out the needed change is that PNHRS and RHRDC are
here for you to support and work together towards the attainment of our health goals for the country. As we leave this
hall, it is also important to instill in your hearts and minds the core values of the System as far as our engagement is
concerned, we want to foster values of inclusiveness, participation, quality, equity, efficiency and effectiveness in all
the things we do.
Adhering to these core principles at your own personal level will definitely sustain and invigorate our research
systems.
I therefore challenge you to take time to review and revisit these core values as you embark on strategic actions in
both research and policy work.
I leave with a final note to advocate and expand membership in your groups and systems so that the spirit of
inclusiveness and participation will truly be realized.
And I find in this quotation of one CEO of the Silicon Valley revealing and inspiring as I was thinking about what is
best for each one of us to start as far as our research advocacies is concerned.
The quotation goes: “The value of a social network is defined not only by who's in it but who's excluded.”• With this
note let me say, “don't fear, don't stop collaborating and networking because we by ourselves are limited and weak.”•
177