On DepEd's K to 12 and the RH Bill
The arguments on RH bill have reached a recent low when the majority leader of the Senate lifts his arguments from grey literature. Findings in science and medicine are published in journals that are peer-reviewed. The web is full of misinformation. Before, it takes a lot of resources to spread misinformation. With the internet, spreading the information no longer requires printing. Thus, it is now more important than ever to know when information has been vetted and when information is simply bogus. Peer review in science and medicine accomplishes the much needed examination of experimental results and claims. For this reason, initiatives like K to 12 and the RH bill require input from peer-reviewed scientific literature, and not from anecdotes and hearsay. Simply reading something from the web or a book is not sufficient for arguments in science. These need to be based on peer-reviewed published data. The reasoning from the other side is likewise tainted as some advocates focus heavily on correlations between economic development and use of contraceptives. And as in education, artificial means of birth control is only one factor. As in K to 12, the RH bill must be focused on maternal health and reducing infant mortality rate. These are the far more realistic objectives. And with this emphasis, one can then see what the bill really needs so that its implementation can indeed go farther than a simple pissing match between ideologies.