Before answering Binay’s question, I propose we ask the ourselves the same question first:
Why spend on science?
Rephrasing to contextualize discussion on a positive note:
Why invest on science?
To Manny M. de Guzman who posted, “MUST READ”: I gather that you are interested in readers keeping ourselves informed about science and have showed your science priority by spending time on starting a discussion on this topic. Allow me to propose that we ask ourselves further:
What science books and journals have I invested on lately?
To who has accurately redirected us as to DOST as the organisation responsible for budgeting science; and to the purpose of PDAF as a mechanism to “accelerate” economy (but negates that science research as helpful to it), I would like to propose we also ask ourselves:
If I were Department of Science and Technology Secretary, what science investment might I use PDAF for?
To , who has advised as to focus on what is important, but has not suggested anything to focus on, I would like to propose that we attempt to answer our own question also:
If I have the power to disburse PDAF, what would I consider as important investments? Is there nothing at all in the area of Science Research that I will not approve?
A Development of a Pure Macapuno Tree (An Adventure in Research) by Benito Vergara narrates the science research of Dr. Emerita V. De Guzman regarding the Macapuno Tree believing that it has economic potentials for the Philippines.
I conclude my comment by sharing a photo of the book cover of a research I consider worthy of investing on even cutting a bit of my personal budget.
Thanks for the clarification. I now understand where i have misunderstood your comment:
You have made these clauses
“or appropriate technology to improve agricultural productivity, make cheaper roads (using waste rubber & plastics?), affordable hospital beds, and maybe a bit for eGovernance, and study of public administration”
dependent to the main clause
“Should we spend for expensive advanced research?”
making readers like me read your sentence, in simplified terms:
“Should we spend for expensive advance research or appropriate technology?”
I suggest you add an adverbial phrase to make the sentence clearer:
Should we spend for expensive advance research or should we rather spend on appropriate technology?
In two Asian Countries, now considered technologically advanced, Western research was appropriated and built upon to leap forward. These Countries are Japan, which used the Transistor developed by Bell Labs, to create cheap radios, upon which they built their electornics industry (Their SUVs are another example, the Pajero was based on a licensed Willys Jeep CJ-5 which Mitsubishi developed into a Wagon; early Mitsu gas engines do in fact have interchangeable parts with the 1940s & 50s Willys engines; as the Datsun inline-6, noted for being in their 240z/260z/280z, was developed from Mercedes1960s ‘in-line 6 used in 280s, and has interchangeable parts); Taiwan is the other, essentially ignoring Western Copyrights to the mid-1980s, until they could build their own technology industry using the knowledge gained from the West’s advanced fundamental research. It’s the same story with China.
I am currently building my list of resource persons who are concerned with science and technology, hoping that these friends will be available to help me out in my teaching of science to non-science majors inUniversity of Santo Tomas (UST) and I would like to find out more about your background in relation to your enthusiasm with appropriate technology. In fact if you have a http://wordpress.com account, I would like to invite you as one of the authors in https://scienceandromcumagun.wordpress.com