April 2009 Archives

BY now, you've probably read a lot of news about the swine flu spreading around the world at an alarming rate. At this point, it is best to know what it is to help us prepare. We've collated some news and information we think would be useful Information culled by Reuters: Q&A: How serious is swine flu? Excerpt:

WHAT KIND OF FLU IS IT AND HOW IS IT SPREADING? The virus is influenza A virus, carrying the designation H1N1, but it contains DNA from avian, swine and human H1N1 viruses. It appears to have evolved the ability to pass easily from one person to another, unlike most swine H1N1 viruses which only very occasionally infect people and usually only infect one person and then stop there. Flu viruses are all passed on by sneezing, coughing or when people pick up the virus on their hands. This one likely originated in pigs, but the Mexican government and the World Health Organization have ruled out any risk of infection from eating pork. HOW SERIOUS IS IT? The Geneva-based WHO has declared the flu a "public health emergency of international concern" and raised the threat level for a pandemic, a global epidemic of new disease. H1N1 swine flu poses the biggest risk of a large-scale pandemic since avian flu re-emerged in 2003, killing 257 out of 421 infected in 15 countries. It is not clear yet whether this virus could actually become a pandemic.

Poynter Institute has also tracked a growing pool of information from the Internet. In fact, the Internet is now abuzz with swine flu talk in Twitter and blogs. Here's another interesting step-by-step way to track news and information about the Swine Flu on the Internet from Mashable.

The Department of Science and Technology-Science Education Institute (DOST-SEI) is planning to hold an annual robotics competition among the country’s science high schools. The competition would allow science high school students to show their prowess in creating a robot, in the same manner as "Larry Labuyo," the robot created by a group of students from the Philippine Science High School in Quezon City, which joined the prestigious FIRST Robotics competition in Hawaii and Atlanta, Georgia in the US. The competition is set to be officially announced sometime in June or July, in time for the upcoming National Science and Technology Week (NSTW). SEI Director Ester Ogena said the robotics competition is aimed at encouraging young science high school students to pursue technical courses related to the creation of robotics, particularly in the areas of software programming, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. Ogena said the Philppine robotics team recently sent abroad with “Larry Labuyo” are examples of young people working together to build a complex machine. “Obviously, our intention is to develop communities among our students.” Ogena said the SEI is stil finalizing the guidelines for the competition. She said that the development kit for each school participating in the competition would have to be composed of parts mostly purchasable from local shops. “We’re still working on what the development kit would have. They won’t have to be expensive but they have to be workable,” Ogena said.

MANILA, Philippines—A non-government organization (NGO) is calling on government to recognize the “real and present danger” posed by climate change to coastal communities on Earth Day which is being celebrated today. The Tambuyog Development Center, an NGO that assists coastal municipalities in drafting local Fisheries Code and Coastal Resource Management Plans, is calling the attention of various government agencies to fast track responses to climate change challenges. Tambuyog specified the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Interior and Local Government. During its Earth Day event, Dinna Umengan, lead campaigner of the group, said Tambuyog was primarily concerned with the impact of climate change on coastal and marine natural resources that have a direct bearing on the food security and livelihood of millions of people in coastal communities. Umengan added that there are inconsistencies on the part of the government in prioritizing coastal development programs and projects and investments should be scrutinized in the light of the real situations in the coastal areas where much of these human induced hazards have brought great disasters to coastal people and natural resources in the past. Meanwhile, hundreds of fishermen belonging to Kilusang Mangingisda, a national coalition of small fishermen federations, marched and picketed the DA-BFAR and DENR offices during Earth Day to highlight the dangers they are continuously facing from natural and human-induced hazards. The group called on these agencies to act immediately by stopping all unregulated coastal reclamation, mining and quarrying, mangrove conversion, irresponsible aquaculture in brackishwater and marine areas that have been the cause of livelihood displacement to thousands of fishing families and greatly contributed to the depletion of natural coastal resources of this country. Climate change is a phenomenon in nature that is largely induced by human activities. The impacts of climate change are often worsened by the social and environmental costs of human productive or economic activities. Coastal quarrying and mining cause siltation and soil erosion which could damage corals and other marine resources aside from its effect on the coastal physical structures. Trawl fishing degrades corals and in so doing, increases the possibility of coral bleaching due to rising sea temperature. For coastal communities, the loss of corals means less food fish and loss of barrier protection from high waves. Similarly, the cutting of mangrove forests to develop fishponds deprives coastal communities of mangroves as source of food fish and their protection from rising seas and typhoons, as extreme weather phenomena are predicted to become more common due to climate change. Tambuyog specifically proposes that current programs, projects and investments in coastal area development should be reviewed and ordered to discontinue their operations if found to be endangering the communities. Second, immediately set up a social and environmental insurance and protection fund for the most vulnerable coastal communities to climate and human-induced hazards. Studies show that most of the municipalities in the Eastern seaboard or the Pacific Ocean side of the country are in great danger. Third, existing management plans for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, coastal zones and watersheds need to be further developed to ensure they cover potential climate change impacts, mitigations and adaptation responses. And fourth, support all LGUs’efforts and community organizations initiatives in addressing climate change and allocate budget to increase their capacity for adaptation.

By Dennis Posadas Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared officially that six greenhouse gases namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, are a threat to public health and welfare. Based on scientific evidence, particularly that summarized in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2007, these greenhouse gases produce global warming which is responsible for stronger storms, changes in weather patterns, higher sea levels that inundate formerly habitable coastal areas, and other effects. This declaration by the EPA will hopefully be a precursor to how the United States will act in the Copenhagen summit this year. Copenhagen is where the world’s leaders will gather this year to find a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which the Bush administration refused to ratify. Obama has long made it a priority to make the United States drive the technology for clean energy forward, in order to reduce greenhouse gases and cut their dependence on OPEC oil. Let me point out what many people already know, but some do not. If you shift from fossil fuel based energy (e.g. coal) to clean energy, you will cut greenhouse gas emissions. But how exactly does this affect the Philippines? Well for starters, we have a new Renewable Energy Act that was signed into law last year by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Key features of this law include tax incentives (no tax for seven years for clean energy businesses), a reduced tax after the seven year period has elapsed, payment for missionary (off-grid) electrification, incentives for domestic development and manufacturing. It also features a Renewable Portfolio Standard and a Feed-in-Tariff mechanism that was popularized in Europe, which gave rise to many of their clean technology companies there. What this means for the Philippines is that we simply need to get our act together , drive our academe and R&D institutes to do research on clean energy (e.g. micro hydro, micro wind, biogas, solar, energy conservation, biofuels, etc.), and try to transfer these technologies to the market as soon as feasible. In this way, we are able to create new green technology jobs and industries, and put the Philippines on the world map as a leader in clean and green technologies. Surprisingly, agriculture also contributes to global warming. The manure from farm animals produces methane. But fortunately the solution is a win-win solution. If you use the methane from the manure to generate electricity, you cut global warming and you also save electricity for the farm. We simply have to pick the niches we will play in. According to Fortune magazine, there was a company in China that was given around $4m in seed money a few years ago, not by the Chinese national government, but by the local provincial government of Wuxi, China. That company, Sun Tech, is now one of the largest solar photovoltaic companies in the world, and employs thousands of workers and generates several billion dollars a year in revenue. In India, a company called Suzlon Energy came out of nowhere to compete toe to toe in the large wind turbine category, with well-known companies like General Electric. Maybe we can specialize in typhoon resistant micro wind turbines that are ideal for tropical climates. Or micro hydro turbines. Or micro methane powerplants for agriculture. Or whatever we feel we can be world-class in. The point is to get the ecosystem going so that our researchers, our entrepreneurs, our investors, our policymakers, get together and decide that we are going to do this. Because we have limited resources, we should pick what technology we will be world-class in, and pour all our resources there, instead of trying to develop everything. We should begin to develop local technology companies that will be world leaders, and begin to shift our economy from a cheap manufacturing destination to one which develops and manufactures the products here. All the ingredients are there to build a clean tech sector in the Philippines. It is simply a matter of will on our part. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007)

By Dennis Posadas WITH the rise of institutions like the UP Ayala Technohub (a Silicon Valley-like enclave at the UP Diliman campus) and Filipinos like Dado Banatao (hardware/semiconductors) and Winston Damarillo (open source software), one would think that we are on our way to developing a local Silicon Valley-type environment like Beijing’s Zhongguancun district or India’s Bangalore. It is nice to talk and dream about these things, especially since we have a lot of technopreneurs in ICT, in telecoms, in software, hardware and other technologies. But as Kevin Costner said in the movie Field of Dreams, “if you build it they will come.” By it, we mean an ecosystem for innovation. First we need a source of innovation. Typically, it can come from universities like UP, government R&D labs, private corporations that have research arms, or even individuals. The problem sometimes with innovation that comes from corporations that do research, as in the case of Route 128 in Boston, Massachusetts in the 60’s and 70’s, is that oftentimes these are confidential research. No wonder, it is research done for the advancement of the business, and not some altruistic “blue sky” research. On the other hand, universities oftentimes engage in extremely theoretical research, because their aim is primarily knowledge creation. “Publish or perish” is the credo often heard in the academe, and to do research with business overtones has traditionally been viewed as a sellout to the establishment. So here you have two extremes, pulling scientists and engineers towards the two ends of the spectrum. Another source of innovation are the government R&D institutions like the DoST ASTI, which has developed the Bayanihan Linux operating system for example. But where the middle ground falls is when academe and industry meet. It can be when a pharmaceutical company works with the chemistry or biology departments to do drug discovery and testing. Or when an electronics or semiconductor company works with the engineering and physics departments to develop some products or manufacturing and testing procedures. Both have actually happened here to some extent; when I was with the local chip industry, we did some collaborative research with schools like UP Diliman. It hasn’t quite reached the extent that it has in schools like MIT and Stanford, but hopefully this will continue and develop further. So assuming the technology has been developed, and it is commercialized, you now have to contend with intellectual property issues. In the US, the Bayh-Dole Act made it possible for federally funded research to be commercialized by the grant recipient institution. Locally, a Technology Transfer Act is being pushed to allow the same to happen here. But you have culture issues to contend with. Some private schools for example, like Ateneo and DLSU, seem to have developed a culture of entrepreneurship that goes well with their science training. For schools like UP, although there have been successful technopreneurs like the late Peter Valdes (co-founder of the Austin, Texas based Tivoli Systems that was acquired by IBM), the culture of technopreneurship is just starting to take root. Then you of course have the issues with business training and finance, which are not often taught to science and engineering majors. Complicating issues further is the fact that the business schools and the science/engineering schools do not really mingle well together. So you have the typical “toyo and patis” business ideas from the business schools, while just a few meters away the science and engineering majors try to figure out what business they can build out of the technology products that they have developed. Sometimes all it takes is for people to talk and build relationships and teams, but sometimes that is the hardest thing to do, especially if the business majors feel that the engineers and scientists are all geeks, and the other party feels that the other side knows nothing. That kind of mentality doesn’t really help get us forward. Although I heard that in UP Diliman, they are now starting to try to break these barriers. Let’s see how far they can go with that. Some people claim that you need fancy incubators to launch technology startups. They can help, but some really famous startups like Apple and Microsoft didn’t start from incubators. They got launched in garages, and in whatever place where people could setup shop and start developing and selling their products. It also helps if you can get experienced people to mentor you. After all, where would Apple be if the young Steve Jobs and Steven Wozniak never met the experienced Intel marketing executive Mark Markulla. This tradition of mentorship, of experienced technopreneurs and venture capitalists helping out young people with bright ideas, has been taken to the fore in Silicon Valley. Can it work here? We need to build the culture to do that. Of course we can’t leave out the lawyers. We need people who can help our local innovators protect their patents, but at the same time we have to be careful that we do not stifle legitimate innovation because everyone is suing everybody for patent infringement. Some people talk about angel and venture capital, and concepts like technology s-curves, adoption-diffusion, crossing the chasm, and other fancy terms used by technopreneurs and venture capitalists. But let’s start with the basics. If we want to start our own little Silicon Valley here, for lack of space maybe here is a quick menu how we can do it: 1) Fund the schools and staff them with really bright young faculty, and try to pay them well if they do well. Reward innovation; 2) Try to get the business majors and the engineering/science majors to spend time together, maybe in joint classes on innovation. Have the business majors take up some basic science subjects and have the science/engineering majors take up some basic finance and accounting subjects. Have them work together on joint projects. For example, the science/engineering majors can develop the product and manufacturing strategy, and the business majors can develop the business strategy for the technology product. Right now, they all work separately; 3) Invite some local experienced technology entrepreneurs and investors to sit in, and perhaps judge the ideas. Maybe if they like what the teams are proposing, they will step in with their checkbooks and their advice; Obviously the way to do it is a bit more complicated that what I’ve spelled out in this oped, but I’ve laid out the basics. We all need to start somewhere. The important learning is that it starts with brilliant minds interacting with experienced people in business and investors. Maybe all it takes is a little creativity in bringing all these people and their ideas together. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007)

A Filipino returning scientist is proposing to develop a solution to clean up areas that have been ruined by mining contamination. Agustine Doronila, a University of Melbourne senior research fellow, said that he was willing to help establish a "phytoremediation" research group that would harness plants to recover contaminants from the ground and water, thereby restoring ecological balance in a mining area. Doronila is now part of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Balik Scientist Program. Doronila said the research, dubbed the Philippine Metalophyte Research Consortium, would be based in Ateneo De Manila University. He said there are endemic plants in the country that could be used for phytoremediation. These include the spurge plant or Euphobiaceae (scientific name Phyllanthus balgooyi), which has been described in a study by botanist Domingo Madulid as a "hyper accumulator" or a plant that could absorb large quantities of heavy metals. Other plants considered for phytoremediation are the Meliceae, Ochnaceae and Dichapetalaceae. The Filipino scientist said the yield of contaminated farmlands is only about P5,500 per hectare. But farms that have undergone phytoremediation could produce P165,000 of crops per hectare. The Philippines produces various metals, including chromite, copper, nickel and gold. Statistics from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Mines and Geosciences Bureau show there are 24 operating medium to large scale metallic mines in the country, up from 18 in 2006. There are also about 800 abandoned mines all over the country. Doronila said that mining contamination could affect people's livelihood and health.

By Anna Valmero INQUIRER.net Senator Edgardo Angara has filed Senate Bill 3139, which allows the total research and development (R&D) cost and prices of shares of stocks in biotechnology companies as tax deductible. This bill seeks to propel the biotechnology industry in the country by offering the private sector incentives to invest in biotechnology R&D and building a biotechnology center. At present, majority of the government’s investments in biotechnology R&D is awarded through a government corporation, Angara said in a statement. “We need to put in place the appropriate policy environment to promote bio-industry development. This legislation aims to address the weaknesses of our system to enable the country to develop a biotechnology-based industry,” added Angara. Through the bill, a Philippine Bio-industry Research and Development Center would be established to promote availability of suitable, innovative and competitive bio-based technologies, said Angara who chairs the Senate Committee on Science and Technology. He noted the 21st century is the biotech century, noting the early years would pave way for convergence of agriculture and medicine with pharmaceuticals being produced by genetically engineered plants and the greater acceptance of herbal medicine. The Philippines invested early on biotechnology but Filipino scientists face issues of local employment and “cumbersome” government accounting resulted in poor fund use. In 1979, the Philippine government invested in biotechnology with the establishment of the National Institute of Biotechnology and Microbiology (Biotech), now known as the National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology at the University of the Philippines Los Baños. In mid-1980s, the Department of Science and Technology identified biotechnology as a priority investment area and developed the UPLB science park for business incubation. The Department of Agriculture two years organized its leading research centers—the Philippine Rice Research Institute, Philippine Carabao Center and National Fisheries Research Institute into a network of biotechnology research centers for crops, livestock and aquatic resources, respectively. Angara said these investments have not sufficiently fostered the growth of a biotechnology industry because of lack of policies to support research and turning them into marketable products, support for startup companies, and other incentives for industry to develop/adopt new technologies.

By Dennis Posadas Contributor THE scenario is all too familiar. A young Filipino, after having completed his masters or PhD in engineering or the sciences, decides to leave for abroad to seek greener pastures. Or even, a returnee Filipino with an advanced degree from abroad, returning with hope in his eyes, only to leave again, disillusioned by what he can work on and what he will earn. Or even the fact that many of our small- and medium-sized Philippine companies cannot afford to do R&D to improve their products to make them world class. But if they had a world-class R&D Institute that can help them, but for a fraction of the cost, wouldn't that be great? One of the Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE)’s main recommendations is to setup a local version of Taiwan’s R&D jewel, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). In the 70’s, when the GDP of Taiwan was still based on agriculture and low cost manufacturing, their leaders decided that they wanted to copy Silicon Valley. To do this, they setup the ITRI, in the city of Hsinchu. The ITRI ever since has become Taiwan’s top source of innovation and technology spin offs. Every day, many patents are made at ITRI, and a lot of Taiwanese companies do business with it. In fact ITRI has spun off many tech companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) as well as others. In fact, even musical instrument and bicycle companies in Taiwan work with ITRI to improve their products through R&D. ITRI is in the business of innovation. The main difference between ITRI and the R&D institutes we have now, that are either government owned (like DoST’s ASTI) and those in the private sector (like what some companies have), is that ITRI is a semi-government, semi-private entity. In other words, it is a public-private partnership. Have you ever noticed any of our technologies developed locally that have been commercialized, particularly from government laboratories? Very few. This is because government is not really setup to commercialize things, although hopefully with the passage of the Technology Transfer Act (patterned after the US Bayh-Dole Act) that will change. But still, one of the things we do not really see much of locally is what we call academe-industry interaction at the highest level. By that I mean that although we do see activities like cadet engineering internships, we do not see the type of research where a company outsources its research to an outside R&D entity. There are, but not a lot. So how does this involve the poor scientist and how does this hopefully convince him to stay here? By offering the young scientists a venue to work on real problems with industry. The ITRI Philippines will be a shared venue for Philippine companies that do not have money to do R&D. But if they share the expenses of running ITRI, we will have a place where young brilliant Filipino scientists can work on problems that will be used by our local companies, and potentially create opportunities for technology startups to sprout. ITRI Philippines should ideally be run like a private venture, but with a government stake. It should try to go after R&D contracts with Philippine companies. By being competitive, by operating in this manner, the researchers can share in the fruits of the success of this institute. The details of ITRI Philippines are still being worked out. But if you are interested in giving inputs, feel free to checkout the COMSTE website at http://www.comste.gov.ph. Dennis Posadas is the Deputy Executive Director of the Philippine Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering. His new book Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable, will be published by Pearson Education Asia this Summer 2009.