[OPINION] The Philippines should rethink health innovation in the age of advanced technologies

The recent transition of the leadership at the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development marks an important moment for the Philippine health research community. For many years, the leadership helped anchor the country’s research agenda, strengthening links between science, policy, and public health. PCHRD contributed to building a solid foundation — one that continues to support research, training, and international collaboration.

As the system evolves, this transition creates an opportunity to reflect not only on continuity, but also on how health innovation in the Philippines can evolve alongside the changing nature of medicine.

Because the context is shifting.

The system we have today was largely designed for an earlier generation of healthcare — one defined by small-molecule drugs, incremental device innovation, and relatively linear pathways from discovery to approval.

Today, that landscape is becoming more complex. Cell and gene therapies are moving closer to routine clinical use. Artificial intelligence is beginning to influence diagnostics and decision-making. Medical robotics is reshaping surgical workflows. Even natural products — long familiar in the Philippines — are being revisited through modern scientific and regulatory frameworks.

These developments are not simply new technologies. They are reshaping how innovation moves from research to patient care.

In the Philippines, much of this innovation still remains closely tied to academia. Universities and research institutions continue to be the primary engines of discovery, producing valuable insights and early-stage technologies. This is a strength. But it also means that many innovations remain within academic or pilot settings, with fewer pathways to scale into products, companies, or widely adopted clinical solutions.

This pattern is not unique to the Philippines.

In a recent conversation I had with Dr. Nares Damrongchai, previous CEO of the Thailand Center of Excellence for Life Sciences (TCELS), he reflected on how Thailand faced a similar starting point. Earlier efforts were also anchored in academia, with a strong focus on agricultural biotechnology — leveraging biodiversity and building foundational scientific capability. At the time, much of the work remained within research institutions.

Over time, however, Thailand began to place greater emphasis on translating these capabilities into commercial initiatives with the industry.

Part of this shift came from individuals like Dr. Nares, who had been following the evolution of the biotechnology sector — including companies such as Genentech — well before it became a global policy priority. This early exposure helped shape a more integrated view of how science, industry, and policy could work together.

Today, institutions like TCELS operate across multiple domains, helping bridge the gap between research and application. They support areas such as advanced therapeutics, medical devices, and the development of natural products into regulated, scalable applications.

One notable effort has been the translation of local natural ingredients into pharmaceutical-grade molecules, working with international industry partners to move from traditional use toward standardized drug development. Beyond individual products, this has also contributed to building local capabilities in formulation, manufacturing, and quality systems, gradually strengthening Thailand’s domestic pharmaceutical sector.

Just as importantly, there has been a growing emphasis on developing professionals who can move across disciplines — connecting scientific discovery with commercial and regulatory pathways.

For the Philippines, the question is how to build on its strong academic base while expanding pathways for translation.

The country already has many of the necessary components. Research institutions continue to produce high-quality work. Agencies such as PCHRD, the Department of Health, and the Department of Trade and Industry each play important roles in supporting different parts of the ecosystem. These are meaningful strengths.

At the same time, as technologies become more complex, there may be opportunities to further connect these elements — particularly in the transition from research to real-world application. Many innovations begin with strong scientific foundations, but scaling them often requires coordination across industry, regulation, and investment.

This is where the concept of regulatory science becomes increasingly important. As innovation advances, the ability to evaluate safety, efficacy, and long-term impact becomes more specialized. Strengthening this capability can help create clearer and more predictable pathways for new technologies, making it easier for innovations to move beyond early-stage development.

At the same time, new technological shifts are also creating a window of opportunity. AI-driven drug discovery is no longer theoretical — it is already producing real candidates and entering clinical development. Companies like Insilico Medicine have demonstrated that new entrants, leveraging computational approaches and integrated platforms, can participate meaningfully in drug development—an area traditionally dominated by large pharmaceutical companies.

This matters because it represents a potential reset point.

When technological paradigms shift, the barriers to entry can change. New players — whether startups, research groups, or emerging ecosystems — can find opportunities to contribute in ways that were previously difficult. For countries like the Philippines, this creates a chance not just to follow existing models, but to identify areas where it can participate more actively in the evolving landscape.

The broader challenge is not whether innovation exists in the Philippines. It clearly does. The question is how to enable more of that innovation to move beyond academia and into broader use.

Moments of transition often create space for reflection. They allow systems to consider what has worked well, and where there may be opportunities to evolve. In this case, the goal is not to shift away from academia, but to build stronger bridges outward—from research institutions to industry, from discovery to application.

Across the region, different countries are approaching this challenge in their own ways. Some experiences may offer useful perspectives, not as models to replicate directly, but as examples of how systems can evolve over time. Ultimately, each country must find its own path, shaped by its own strengths and priorities.

For the Philippines, that path may involve continuing to invest in academic excellence while expanding the structures that support translation — through partnerships, talent development, and stronger regulatory capabilities.

It may also mean looking beyond its borders. Just as in healthcare and many other fields, a significant number of Filipino scientists and innovators are working abroad, contributing to global research and industry. Finding ways to better connect with and engage this broader talent pool could become an important part of strengthening the country’s innovation ecosystem.

The country still lacks a dedicated biotech or science park comparable to Thailand’s integrated hubs, where research, industry, and commercialization are co-located and actively connected.

Philippines, think bigger — not just about research or selling consumer commodity products and services, but about turning innovation into viable products and solutions, at home and abroad. – Rappler.com

Dr. Jaemin Park is an adjunct professor at the University of the Philippines College of Public Health, and a managing partner of Heal Venture Lab from Singapore. He works across Southeast Asia on healthcare investment, medical innovation, and health system reform.