Acd. Mercedes B. Concepcion, Phd

Editor: "-- Acd. Mercedes B. Concepcion, PhD Notional Academy of Science and Technology l+! Depur!men! of Science ond T"hnoiogy. ISSN 1655-4299 Biology and Bio-Resource Management in Our Life Proceedings of the NAST Social Sciences Division Roundtable Discussions on Biology as Destiny? I and II, and Bio-Resource Management and Our Common Future? National Academy of Science and Technology Department of Science and Technology, Philippines Mercedes B. Concepcion, PhD Editor © 2007 National Academy of Science and Technology Philippines ISSN 1655-4299 Concepcion, M.B. (Ed.). 2007. Biology and Bio-Resource Management in Our Life. Proceedings of the NAST Social Sciences Division Roundtable Discussions on Biology as Destiny? I and II, and Bio-Resource Management and Our Common Future? National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) Philippines, Manila, 180 pp. Published by the National Academy of Science and Technology Philippines 3rd Level Science Heritage Building DOST Complex Bicutan, Taguig Metro Manila 1631 Philippines [email protected], [email protected] http://www.nast.ph; http://www.nast.dost.gov.ph Tel no. (63 2) 837-207110c. 2170 to 73 Tel I Fax No. (63 2) 837-3170 Editor: Acd. Mercedes B. Concepcion, PhD StafIin-charge: Aristotle P. Carandang, MPS Executive Director: Luningning E. Samarita, MS iv Foreword The NAST Social Sciences Division organized a series of Round Table Discussions (RTDs) in preparation for the July 2006 NAST Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM). The Biological Sciences Division, in charge of the 2006ASM, decided on the theme: Century of Biology (in celebration ofthe Century of Biology) The Social Sciences Division was assigned a plenary session for the presentation of papers along the chosen theme. Accordingly, the Division met to discuss how best to accomplish this assignment. The members agreed with the suggestion of National Scientist Gelia T. Castillo to organize two RTDs: the first on Biology as Destiny? and the second on Bio-Resource Management and Our Common Future? It was decided to involve the Outstanding Young Scientists (OYSs) who are social scientists as discussants in these two RTDs. Acd. Raul Fabella agreed to serve as the convenor for the first RTD while Acd. Edgardo Gomez of the Biological Sciences Division was invited to convene the second RiD. However, Acd. Gomez asked that a social scientist be selected to serve as his co-convenor. In this regard, Dr. Agnes Rola of UP Los Banos readily agreed to serve in that capacity. Dr. Allan Bendict Bernardo, OYS 1995 was designated to prepare a paper synthesizing the RTD discussion on Biology as Destiny? for presentation at the 2006 ASM. Similarly, Dr. Agnes Rola was to present the results of the RTD on Bio-Resource Management and Our Common Future? at the July 2006 ASM. The first RTD was held on 16 March 2006 at the Philippine Social Science Center (PSSC) with some 25 participants. The discussants were Acd. Lourdes Cruz, OYS 1981, Dr. Ma. Concepcion Liwag OYS 1998, Dr. Cecilia Conaco, OYS 1991, and Dr. Emmanuel de Dios, OYS 1993. However, Dr. Allan Bernardo felt that the discussion was not representative of the social sciences as a whole since only an economist and a psychologist participated in the discussion. He requested that a follow up discussion be held later. The Social Science Division acceded to Dr. Bernardo's request and scheduled another session on the same topic on 29 May 2006. Invited as discussants were Dean Antonio Contreras, political scientist, Dr. Eufracio Abaya, anthropologist, Dr. Cynthia B. Bautista, sociologist, OYS 1988, and Acd. Lourdes Cruz. On 23 March 2006, the RTD on Bio-Resource Management and Our Common Future? was convened atthe PSSC with 25 participants. Invited as discussants were Dr. Perry Ong, Dr. Federico Macaranas and Dr. Francisco Magno. v Part I features the paper of Dr. Bemardo as presented during the 2006 ASM and those ofthe discussants on the topic Biology as Destiny? and the open forum that followed. The paper by Agnes Rola as principal author is contained in Part II, followed by the power point presentation of Dr. Perry Ong, the paper of Dr. Federico Macaranas and the discussant's remarks of Dr. Francisco Magno. The questions and comments during the open forum come last. The Social Sciences Division wishes to extend its appreciation to the discussants, particularly the OYSs, who readily accepted the invitation to participate in the RTDs and to enrich the excellent plenary session papers prepared by Dr. Allan Bemardo and Dr. Agnes Rola together with Acd. Edgardo Gomez, Dr. Perry Ong, Dr. Federico Macaranas, and Dr. Francisco Magno. Acd. Mercedes B. Concepcion Chair, Social Sciences Division Contents Page Foreword iv Part I Philippine Social Science in the Century of Biology Allan B.I Bernardo Discussion Roundtable Discussion on Biology as Destiny? 1 13 Roundtable Discussion on Biology as Destiny? 11 49 Part II Bio-resource Management and Our Common Future 79 Agnes C. Rola, Edgardo D. Gomez, Federico M Macaranas, Francisco A. Magno, and Perry S.Ong Changing Maps, Bridging Gaps 109 Perry S. Ong Bio-resource Management and Our Common Future 127 Federico M Macaranas Discussion 139 RoundtableDiscussion on Bio-resource Management and Our Common Future? AboutNAST Biology and Bio-Resource Management in Our Life Part I PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THE CENTURY OF BIOLOGY: ENGAGING THE BIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL PHENOMENAl Allan B. I. Bernardo 2 Abstract My main thesis in the paper is that Philippine social scientists need to engage the biological (i.e., genetic and neurological processes shaped by human evolution) dimensions of behavioral and social phenomenon. In developing this thesis, I first broadly clarifY the so-called nature vs. nurture debate which pits biological explanations against social and cultural explanations, then proceed to briefly explain contemporary perspectives of evolutionary psychology that recast the nature vs. nurture debate. In particular, drawing from examples of recent research and theory, I attempt to show that current theorizing underscores the close interaction between biological and socio-cultural processes, and thus there is no need to construe biological knowledge as antagonistic to socio-cultural theories. I cite some examples to show how social science theories are improved when biological factors are incorporated in the theories. I then discuss the implications to Philippine social science, and suggest that a small sector of the social science community should explore how the biological dimensions of social and behavioral phenomena can improve our theorizing. I further suggest that there is a need to re-examine how Philippine social scientists construe the biological nature of social beings, as this may influence and even constrain how biological knowledge is engaged in theorizing; and to consider some possible constraints within the social science research process in the country. 1The ideas in this paper were culled from the proceedings of two Round Table Discussions (RTDs) entitled, "Biology as Destiny?" sponsored by the NAST Social Science Division. The ideas from this paper come fi·om many brilliant social scientists (and one honorary social scientist) who participated in these RTDs and who 1 acknowledge as my co-authors for this paper. They are, in alphabetical order, Eufracio Abaya, Michael Alba, Ledevina Cariilo, Gelia Castillo, Mercedes Concepcion, Antonio Contreras, Lourdes Cruz, Raul Fabella, Corazon Raymundo, Agnes Rola, and I would like to especially acknowledge the contributions of Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Emmanuel de Dios, and Ma. Concepcion D. Liwag. Correspondence regarding this paper may be sent to the author at De La Salle University-Manila, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004. Email may be sent to [email protected]. 'De La Salle University-Manila, 2401 Tall Avenue, Manila, Philippines 2 Biology and Bio-Resource Management in Our Life The Nature Vs. Nurture Debate Is Dead! Or Is It? Any discussion about any compelling human and social phenomenon inevitably makes reference to the so called, nature vs. nurture debate. The debate is particularly remarkable in discussions regarding the perceived lows and highs of Filipino achievement. Why do Filipinos generally do poorly in mathematics and science? Why can the Philippines not develop enough scientists and engineers? Why do girls consistently out-perform their male counterparts in academic achievement in many schools allover the country? But on the other hand, why are Filipinos apparently so gifted in boxing, billiards, singing, and entertaining? At some point in the discussions of these phenomena, some will make some reference to the possibility that there is something in the "nature" of the person or persons involved. But at some point as well, others might counter this notion with arguments appealing to the effect of parenting, of peers, of media, of the church or some other social or cultural institution, and of course of the individual's own free will. So is it nature or nurture? Filipinos are most likely to say it is both and we continue living our lives, particularly as there are more pressing problems to attend to. Recently, however, a small sector of the Philippine social science community was provoked by their idols National Scientist Gelia Castillo, Academicians Mercedes Concepcion, Ledevina Carifio, and Raul Fabella in a roundtable discussion entitled, "Biology as Destiny?" purportedly inspired by the book by psychologist Steve Pinker (2002) entitled, "The Blank State: The Modern Denial of Human Nature." The roundtable discussion, not incidentally, was being undertaken amidst the imposing backdrop of the "Century of Biology." Suddenly, it seemed the nature vs. nurture debate was alive and maybe even quite fierce. We are all aware of just how old this debate is in the social sciences. The debate of whether to emphasize the biological as opposed to the cultural aspects of human beings has marked the subdivisions of the discipline of anthropology. Sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and even political-economists who have looked at criminality, aggression, corruption, and other grave social phenomena have often taken sides in this debate.

Load more