research grant philippines

• Gender and Development
• Transparency Seal
• Food and Nutrition Research Institute
• Philippine Nuclear Research Institute
• Metals Industry Research and Development Center
• Advanced Science and Technology Institute
• Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
• Technology Application and Promotion Institute
• Philippine Textile Research Institute
• Forest Products Research and Development Instittute
• Industrial Technology Development Institute
• Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
• Science and Technology Information Institute
• Science Education Institute
• Internal Links
• PCHRD Calendar

• Organizational Structure
• Governing Council
• Key Officials
• Citizen’s Charter
• Research and Development Management
• Institutional Strengthening
• Research Utilization
• Collaborations
• Oversight Functions
• Ongoing Projects
• Tuklas Lunas Centers
• HeaRTNovation
• In the News
• Covid-19 Updates
• Calls and Events
• Job Opportunities
• Bid and Awards
• Publications
• Featured Videos
• PCHRD FOI Corner
• FOI Philippines
• Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB)
• Handling Customer Complaints
• @dost_pchrd
• Rate our Services

Subscribe to our Newsletter

PCHRD funds research proposals that are aligned with the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) and the DOST’s Harmonized National Research and Development Agenda (HNRDA).

NUHRA, being the national template for health research and development efforts, guides the health research sector on the health researches that address the most pressing health concerns of the country. NUHRA specifies the areas and topics that need to be addressed in the next five years, in line with global and national initiatives influencing the health sector. On the other hand, the HNRDA focuses more on the areas of science, technology, and innovation for health.

These identified research priority areas are as follows:

PCHRD Research Priorities 

• Tuklas Lunas® (Drug Discovery and Development)
• Functional Foods
• Nutrition and Food Safety
• Re-emerging and Emerging Infectious Diseases
• OMIC Technologies for Health
• Biomedical Devices Engineering for Health
• Diagnostics
• Digital and Frontier Technologies for Health
• Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Health
• Mental Health

NUHRA can be downloaded here .

Review Procedures

Approval of proposals for research grants will be based on a multi-level review process.

• Internal evaluation and screening in terms of alignment to the research priorities, duplication, and completeness of requirements.
• Relevance/Significance
• Technical and Ethical Merit
• Data Management
• Feasibility (practicality, cost, time)
• Proponent’s/Institution’s Capacity
• Marketability Potential (for product-based proposals) 
• Final approval by the PCHRD Executive Director, PCHRD Governing Council or the DOST Executive Committee depending on the recommended total budgetary requirement of the proposal.

In each stage of the review process, the proponent may need to revise the proposal on the basis of the recommendations of the reviewers.

The review process will take forty (40) working days provided that all the requirements have been submitted.

Who may apply

Filipinos with at least a Master’s Degree in a relevant field, have proven research competence/track record, and employed in universities/colleges, research agencies/institutes, hospitals, and other health related agencies are eligible to apply for the research grant.

How to apply

The proponent should submit the following requirements online through the DOST Project Management Information System (DPMIS) during the designated schedule of the PCHRD Call for Proposals or other Special Calls:

• Project Proposal following the PCHRD Detailed Proposal Form
• Workplan Schedule (Gantt Chart of Activities)
• Proposed Line-Item Budget (LIB)
• Counterpart Funding of Implementing Agency
• Ethics Clearance, if applicable
• Biosafety Clearance, if applicable
• Informed Consent Form (for studies involving human subjects)
• Case Report Form, if applicable
• Endorsement of Agency Head
• Duties and Responsibilities of each Project Personnel
• Curriculum Vitae of Proponent(s)
• Other requirements specified in the DOST Grants-in-Aid Guidelines for certain type of implementing agencies (e.g. NGOs, private companies).  

The Regional Research Fund (RRF) initiative supports the research and development efforts of beginning researchers in the regions, and can provide financial support for research projects with six to twelve month-duration, and a budgetary requirement not exceeding ONE MILLION PESOS (PHP 1,000,000.00). Three (3) RRF projects per year are targeted to be supported by DOST-PCHRD per region, subject to the evaluation of the quality of proposals, and availability of funds.  

The requested budget may include allocation for professional fees of research mentor/consultant who can assist beginning researchers from conceptualization to project  implementation and writing of the final technical report. However, allocation for capital outlay/equipment will not be allowed.

A. What proposals may qualify

Only research proposals that address priority health problems/issues identified in the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA), Regional Unified Health Research Agenda (RUHRA), or in the Health Section of the Harmonized National Research and Development Agenda (HNRDA) shall be qualified for review by the Technical Review Board (TRB) of RHRDCs and DOST-PCHRD.

B. How to apply

The proponent should submit to the RHRDC the following requirements:

• Detailed project proposal following the PCHRD-RDMD F-1, “Detailed Research Proposal Form;” (downloadable at https://www.pchrd.dost.gov.ph/index.php/downloads/category/284-call-for-proposals)
• Work plan Schedule (Gantt Chart of Activities);
• Proposed Line-Item Budget (LIB) with breakdown of expenses, and counterpart funding from Implementing Agency (if any);
• Intent to apply for appropriate research authorization/clearances/permits or copy of appropriate research authorization/clearances/permits, whichever is applicable ( e.g. Ethics clearance from PHREB-accredited REC, BAI Animal Permit, Free and Prior Informed Consent clearance for NCIP, Gratuitous permit from DENR, Biosafety Clearance) ;
• Endorsement letter from Implementing Agency
• Curriculum Vitae of each Project Personnel; and
• Duties and Responsibilities of each Project Personnel.

C. Who may apply  

• Regular staff or faculty members of RHRDC member institutions;
• Medical residents of hospitals may submit proposals, but he/she shall work under the supervision of a consultant/experienced researcher in the region who shall serve as the main proponent; and
• Other faculty/staff of research institutes, medical and paramedical schools, hospitals and other health related agencies which are not yet members of RHRDCs (subject to the approval of the regional consortia)

An inter-intra institutional collaborative research and development undertaking will be given higher priority for funding.

D. The deadline for submission of proposals to the RHRDC

Please contact your respective RHRDCs for the details on their call for proposals.

Call for applications: 2024 DOST-PCHRD Undergraduate Thesis Grant in Natural Products

The Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (DOST-PCHRD) … Continue reading Call for applications: 2024 DOST-PCHRD Undergraduate Thesis Grant in Natural Products → April 4, 2024

Visualize Health Research 3.0: Visual Abstract Contest

With the goal of reaching a wider audience in the dissemination of health research results … Continue reading Visualize Health Research 3.0: Visual Abstract Contest → March 25, 2024

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: 13th Joint Call for Proposals of the e-ASIA Joint Research Program (e-ASIA JRP)

TOPIC: Infectious Diseases and Immunology (including Antimicrobial Resistance)  The Philippine Council for Health Research and … Continue reading CALL FOR PROPOSALS: 13th Joint Call for Proposals of the e-ASIA Joint Research Program (e-ASIA JRP) → February 15, 2024

TOPIC: Personalized Nutrition, Functional and Future Foods The Philippine Council for Health Research and Development … Continue reading CALL FOR PROPOSALS: 13th Joint Call for Proposals of the e-ASIA Joint Research Program (e-ASIA JRP) → February 15, 2024

2024 CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: Foreign Graduate Scholarship Program PhD in Molecular Biomedicine

Overview The Department of Science and Technology–Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (DOST-PCHRD), the … Continue reading 2024 CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: Foreign Graduate Scholarship Program PhD in Molecular Biomedicine → January 29, 2024

Predictive Value of 24-Hour Bilirubin in Developing Hyperbilirubinemia among Term Infants in a Multi-Center Study in the Philippines

Cataloging possible philippine strains of zika and african swine fever viruses and coconut cadang-cadang viroid through genome sequencing, assessment of diagnostic algorithms and tools for multidrug resistant and drug sensitive tuberculosis in the philippines part ii (tb-fit 2), long term outcomes of diagnosed tuberculosis cases in the philippines.

• Open Data Portal
• Official Gazette
• Office of the President
• Sandiganbayan
• Senate of the Philippines
• House of Representatives
• Department of Health
• Department of Finance
• Supreme Court
• Court of Appeals
• Court of Tax Appeals
• Judicial Bar and Council
• Bureau of Internal Revenue
• Bureau of Customs
• Bureau of Treasury
• Bureau of Local Government Finance

Get our latest news and updates

I have read and agree to the terms & conditions

Privacy Overview

• Grant Application Process

Find out how to apply for a grant with Forest Foundation Philippines.

How To Apply for a Grant

The first step to applying for a grant is to develop a project that protects and conserves Philippine forests. Once you have a fully-developed project to propose, you may proceed to apply for a grant  following these steps:

Create an account on our grant portal and log in.

Fill out the proposal form within the grant portal. Once completed, submit the form for evaluation.

A designated Project Officer will update you on the status of your proposal, whether it is accepted, requires revisions, or rejected. Small grant proposals are evaluated within a month, while medium to large grant proposals are evaluated within a quarter.

Ready to apply for a grant?

Frequently Asked Questions

A grant is a sum of money or technical assistance given by the Foundation to individuals or organizations to implement projects that may contribute to the protection and conservation of Philippine forests.

Duly-registered individuals, organizations, and firms, such as professionals, non-government organizations, businesses, and consultancy groups, among others, working on projects related to forest protection and conservation in the Philippines.

Since we are using public funds for our grant programs, we are discouraged from awarding grants to government agencies to avoid conflict of interest.  However, we can work with them through partnerships. We have ongoing partnerships with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, among others.

Since we are using public funds for our grant programs, we can only support projects that protect and conserve public lands. However, we recognize that the involvement of private tree farmers is important to the advocacy. In 2018, we partnered with the Sustainable Tree Farmers of the Philippines to publish the Sustainable Tree Farmers Guidebook, which helps teach landowners how to start, maintain, and sustainably harvest tree farms. You may download it here.

We currently support projects that contribute to the protection, conservation, and sustainable management of Philippine forests and its biodiversity. Our areas of interest include: forest protection, forest restoration, law enforcement, capacity-building, sustainable livelihoods, conservation research, urban biodiversity, research, and advocacy, among others.

Generally, we are strongly supportive of projects that enable us to protect and conserve the country’s most critical forest landscapes (focal landscapes): Sierra Madre, Palawan, Samar and Leyte, and Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental. Outside our landscapes, we are committed to protect and conserve small islands, mangroves, critical habitats, and urban forests.

For more information about the list of projects that we are supporting, please visit our Projects page.

A proposal outlines your project’s conservation value proposition. Following our templates, it informs the Foundation what the project is about, specifically:

• What are the project’s objectives?
• How can the project achieve its objectives?
• Where will the project be implemented?
• When will the project be implemented?
• How much funding does the project require to achieve its objectives?
• Who is the proponent?
• Who are the proponent’s implementing partners for the project?
• How will the gains of the project be sustained beyond project implementation?

Proponents may apply for small, medium, and large grants. Small grants may support projects amounting up to PhP 500,000 for a year. Medium grants may support projects amounting up to PhP 6,000,000 for a year . Large grants may support projects amounting up to PhP 24,000,000 for a year.

Project proposals are evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Design – Are the objectives, methods, and outcomes coherent?
• Capacity – Given their expertise and experience, can the proponent successfully implement the project?
• Impact – To what extent will the project contribute to the protection and conservation of the Foundation’s focal landscapes and/or priority areas?
• Relevance – Is the project responsive to the conservation challenges in the site and/or to the needs of the community?
• Efficiency – Will the project be implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner?
• Sustainability – How will the project be sustained, scaled up, replicated, or institutionalized after its implementation?
• The proponent must be a duly-registered entity in the Philippines.
• The proponent must be able to inform us of the project’s conservation value proposition through the proposal and supporting documents.
• The proposal must be submitted to our grant portal using our templates. 
• The proposal must be aligned with our program priorities.
• The proposal must be linked with conservation actions in our focal landscapes.

Yes. However, please note that grantees are only allowed to work on two projects simultaneously. Per grantee, we only allow: 

• Two small grants
• One small grant AND one medium grant

The proposal   will be evaluated based on the capacity of the grantee to implement multiple projects.

We see proposal development as a collaborative process. We believe that grants are products of the combined efforts of the grantee and the Foundation to craft a project proposal that is responsive to both the conservation challenges of the focal landscape/s and the communities. 

To manage expectations, please expect multiple revisions in the proposal. This doesn’t happen because we want our proponents to have a tough time. We simply want to ensure that the projects that we will be implementing can achieve their objectives effectively and efficiently.

Generally, proposals for small grants are evaluated within a month. Meanwhile, proposals for medium and large grants are evaluated within a quarter.

For small grants, proposals are evaluated by the Program Team and Executive Director. For medium and large grants, proposals are evaluated by the Program Team, Executive Director, and Board of Trustees. The results of the evaluation will be communicated to the proponent through the designated Project Officer.

Yes. Upon submission of your proposal in our grant portal, a Project Officer will be assigned to evaluate your project.

In case you project development assistance, you may send an email to [email protected] .

We understand that proponents spend time and effort crafting the proposals that we receive, so we evaluate each proposal carefully. Please coordinate with your assigned Project Officer regarding the matter. He/she should be able to share why we were unable to support your proposal.

For more information, please e-mail proposals @forestfoundation.ph .

2F Valderrama Building, 107 Esteban St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1229

• (+63 2) 8891 0595
• (+63 2) 8864 0287
• [email protected]

Baybayin Font Made by Aaron Amar

Connect with us

The Forest Foundation Philippines is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation Inc.

• Results Framework 2023-2027
• Forest Landscape Grant Program
• Focused Grant Program
• Special Grant Programs
• Work With Us
• Partner With Us
• Support Forest Products and Services
• Learning Resources
• Publications
• Webinar and Podcast
• Photos and Videos

The Council is pleased to inform NRCP members and researchers that the Call for Proposals for CY 2025 funding and implementation under the NRCP Grants-in-Aid (GIA) Program is now open. Please submit proposals that are aligned with the priority areas/programs under the National Integrated Basic Research Agenda (NIBRA) of the Harmonized National Research and Development Agenda (HNRDA) 2022-2028 .

Proposals that forge linkages between the government particularly local government units (LGUs), academe, industry sector, and civil society, and most importantly projects that will ensure translation and transfer of social technologies to the people and various publics will be prioritized for funding.

The Philippines remains to be a developing nation with numerous economic, social, environmental and governance problems, NRCP believes that investments in basic research should yield knowledge needed by society to meet the challenges it faces, identify the solutions to common problems, and develop the opportunities that make the lives of people better. Basic research should yield knowledge that informs the support of individual and collective actions to improve human well-being and address pressing societal problems. Therefore, despite the true nature of basic researches as investigations into the mostly raw ideas, with and without potentials for immediate applications, the following NIBRA priorities considers the following general themes – water scarcity, food security, increased demand for clean energy, increasing diseases and hazards, high population displacement and urban decay, widespread poverty and social conflict, Filipino identity and Climate Change. Further, all projects and programs for Council support will be aligned to the Philippines Sustainable Development Goals such as zero hunger, good health and well-being, gender equality, quality education, clean water and sanitation, affordable & clean energy, sustainable cities & communities and peace, justice and strong institutions.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (ADDITIONAL)

General Criteria:

• Project/Program proposals must be aligned to issue-based programs under the National Integrated Research Agenda (NIBRA) under the DOST Harmonized R & D Agenda
• Project/Program proposals must be gender-sensitive or with GAD components.
• Project Leader must be an NRCP member
• With application form and Curriculum Vitae of the project leader
• Endorsement from institution (President or Vice President of R & D)
• The program or project leader has no outstanding obligations (i.e.,technical and/or financial) with NRCP or with any other attached DOST agencies.

Proposal submission, evaluation and approval:

• Detailed program/project proposal should be in the DOST Format
• Proposals shall be evaluated following the DOST-GIA process
• The Program Leader must be a REGULAR member of NRCP. ASSOCIATE members can only apply and/or be granted for a research project proposal amounting to a maximum of PhP 2,000,000.00 Budget per project per year.
• Preferably, program and component projects should be 2-3 years in duration.

DPMIS Video Presentation

What is NRCP's Call for Proposals?

This is a scheduled activity held in support of NRCP's commitment to promote frontier and problem-oriented researches in the sciences and humanities that provide solutions to pressing and national issues through its grants-in-aid (GIA) program.

This will serve as an opportunity for submission of quality proposals for funding support of the Council. Guidelines and priority research areas for funding are announced through this activity.

Please refer to this link https://basicresearch.nrcp.dost.gov.ph/callforproposals for the complete information about NRCP’s Call for Proposal Guidelines and Priority Research Areas.

What is the NRCP Grants-in-Aid (GIA) Program?

The NRCP GIA is a research funding window that is open to NRCP members whose proposals are aligned with National Integrated Basic Research Agenda (NIBRA) and have passed the NRCP proposal review process.

How can I avail of the research grant?

The researcher must submit a CONCEPT proposal on a topic aligned with the NRCP Guidelines on the Call for Proposals.

Submitted concept proposal must passed the screening process to be notified by the Council for submission of full-blown proposal.

Who can avail of the research grant?

• Must be a Filipino citizen, subject to applicable laws;
• Shall submit documents/proof of the following, which shall include but not limited to: credentials/proof of capability; certificate of employment; track record; and endorsement of his/her institution. Eligibility shall be determined based on his/her readiness in terms of technical, managerial, financial and marketing capabilities (if necessary);
• Must hold a regular plantilla position; will not retire from work in 3 years’ time.
• Must be a member * of the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP). - * GB approved membership
• Must not have any existing accountability with DOST and its agencies particularly technical and financial reports; and
• Must not have been found guilty of administrative or criminal case, including those under appeal.

When is the submission of the proposal?

For concept proposal:.

The submission of research CONCEPT proposals is from March 01 – 15, 2024 through email: [email protected] (cc: [email protected] )

Where can I submit my proposal?

The submission of research CONCEPT proposal is through email: [email protected] (cc: [email protected] )

For full-blown proposal:

What is/are the form/s i need to submit, for full-blown proposal:.

All information needed in a proposal has to be inputted and submitted via DOST Project Management Information System (DPMIS) Portal following the set schedule for submission which is from May 01 – 31, 2024 only.

As a researcher, you must register and create a profile on the said portal in order to submit a proposal. Visit https://dpmis.dost.gov.ph/ for more information.

Researchers may use the following DOST forms as guide in preparation of their proposal:

• Form 1 - Detailed R&D Program Proposal
• Form 2 - Detailed R&D Project Proposal (for Basic and Applied Research)
• Form 4 - Project Line-Item-Budget
• Form 5 - A - Project Workplan
• Form 5 - B - Expected Output
• Form 5 - C - Risk Management Plan
• Gender and Development (GAD) FORM

What are the requirements I need to comply with in order to submit a proposal to NRCP?

In submitting a proposal, the researcher must adhere to the following guidelines

• Project/Program proposals must be aligned to issue-based programs under the National Integrated Research Agenda (NIBRA) under the DOST Harmonized National R&D Agenda
• Project/Program proposals must be gender-sensitive or with GAD component.
• Project Leader must be a member of NRCP
• Endorsement from institution (President or Vice President of R&D)
• The program or project leader has no outstanding obligations (i.e., technical and/or financial) with NRCP or with any other attached DOST agencies

I am not an NRCP member, can I still submit a proposal for funding?

NRCP Grants-in-Aid is solely for NRCP member . Membership application has to be at least approved by the NRCP Governing Board.

Kindly secure approval of any application for NRCP membership prior to the submission of a research proposal.

Proposals submitted by non-NRCP members will not be processed/ considered for funding of the Council.

What are the priority research areas for funding under Call for Proposals?

Proposals must be aligned with the priority areas/programs under the National Integrated Basic Research Agenda (NIBRA), 2022-2028 of the existing Harmonized National Research and Development Agenda (HNRDA). Proposal may be a blue skies or pure basic research, or an oriented basic, or policy research.

Proposals that forge linkages between the government particularly local government units (LGUs), academe, industry sector, and civil society; and most importantly projects that will ensure translation and transfer of social technologies to the people and various publics will be prioritized for funding.

Please refer to this link, https://basicresearch.nrcp.dost.gov.ph/callforproposals for the complete information about NRCP’s Call for Proposal Guidelines and Priority Research Areas.

What kind of proposal should be submitted to qualify for the grant?

Proposal may be a “blue skies” or pure basic research or an “oriented basic” research.

Multi-year program proposals under priority NIBRA are encouraged and preferred.

Please refer to this link, https://basicresearch.nrcp.dost.gov.ph/callforproposals or the complete information about NRCP’s Call for Proposal 2023 Guidelines and Priority Resarch Areas.

What is a “Pure Basic” or Blue Skies research?

Pure Basic Research, also referred to as Blue Skies research, refers to fundamental research in the sciences and the humanities which have no impact or perceived practical use. These may be purely theoretical in scope and heralding disciplinal advances and pioneering works/discoveries.

It is a curiosity – driven basic research whose outcome is not anticipated in the beginning. Hence, the original motivation to address the question “Why is the sky blue?” was due to the interest on the observed physical phenomena itself rather than deriving any benefit from the answer. By definition, this type of research implies that the researcher is given free hand to set his/her own agenda. The aim is mainly to solve a fundamental unique problem without a specific target in mind.

What is an “oriented basic research?”

This covers research which seek new knowledge required for application purposes but which may of course contribute to general scientific advancement in the process.

Proposal may be a blue skies or pure basic research or an oriented basic research.

Is there a required number of years/ months for the duration of research?

No, but preferably, a program proposal and its component projects should be 2-3 years in duration.

Can I resubmit my previously drafted/ submitted proposal in DPMIS?

Yes, provided that it is in accordance with NRCP’s Call for Proposals Guidelines and priority areas.

For a previously submitted proposal, response to the result of initial evaluation has to be provided as supplemental documents.

Please be informed that NRCP has a new evaluation process where CONCEPT proposal has to be submitted and accepted by the Council prior to submission of a full-blown proposal to DPMIS.

Can I still submit a proposal even if I have an on-going research funded by the NRCP?

Yes. NRCP’s Call for Proposals is for the funding year 2026. Should you have ongoing research funded by the Council, you may still submit a proposal but the possibility of funding will depend on the satisfactory completion of your previous research. The researcher must be cleared of any research obligations (both technical and financial) prior to consideration of another research grant of the Council.

The researcher must provide a list of all NRCP and/or DOST projects handled including the completion date and/or clearance from research obligation to support the claim.

Can I still submit a proposal even if I have an on-going research funded by the other Councils (e.g. DOST)?

Yes. NRCP’s Call for Proposals is for the funding year 2026. The researcher with ongoing research project/s funded by the other Council may still submit proposals for funding of NRCP

However, the researcher with existing accountability with DOST and its agencies, particularly technical and financial reports, will be disqualified for the NRCP-GIA.

Is there a cap/ maximum requirement for the proposed research budget?

NRCP-GIA financial assistance is up to Php 2,000,000 per year for Associate Member

For regular member, proposal amounting to maximum amount of PhP 10,000,000.00 per project (covering PS, MOOE and CO) will be considered under NRCP Grants-in-Aid program, otherwise, will be endorsed to DOST for possible funding under DOST grants-in-aid.

Welcome to Basic Research Information System (BRIS)

BRIS is the online platform of the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP) for evaluation, monitoring and management of basic research proposals and projects.

For new researcher or user, you may create or register an account and start submitting proposal.

Call for Proposals

National integrated basic research agenda (nibra), nibra priority programs.

• Sustainable Communities (SAKLAW Program) Saklolo sa Lawa
• Inclusive Nation Building (ATIN Program) Ang Tinig Natin
• Health Sufficiency (LIKAS Program) Likas Yaman sa Kalusugan
• Water Security (TUBIG Program) Tubig ay Buhayin at Ingatan
• Food and Nutrition Security (SAPAT Program) Saganang Pagkain Para sa Lahat
• Clean Energy (ALERT Program) Alternative Energy Research Trends
• Policy Research Program

NRCP Supported Programs and Projects

Other services.

Below are our other online services.

Membership Information System (MeMIS)

A repository of profile of Filipino researchers, scholars, scientists and engineers.

NRCP Research Journal (eJournal)

An online publication of research results from the research projects funded by the NRCP.

Library Management System (LMS)

A repository of terminal reports of research projects funded by the NRCP, policy briefs, monographs, press releases, proceedings, theses, dissertations, books, news clippings, proceedings, annual reports and other resources.

NRCP Expert Engagement Program (NEEP)

An online system that caters the requests of clients and stakeholders in various forms of knowledge transfer, expert and advisorial services by engaging NRCP members as experts

Announcement

NRCP-supported Programs and Projects

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. A lock ( ) or https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Keyboard Navigation

• Agriculture and Food Security
• Anti-Corruption
• Conflict Prevention and Stabilization
• Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance
• Economic Growth and Trade
• Environment, Energy, and Infrastructure
• Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment
• Global Health
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Innovation, Technology, and Research
• Water and Sanitation
• Burkina Faso
• Central Africa Regional
• Central African Republic
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• East Africa Regional
• Power Africa
• Republic of the Congo
• Sahel Regional
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Southern Africa Regional
• West Africa Regional
• Afghanistan
• Central Asia Regional
• Indo-Pacific
• Kyrgyz Republic
• Pacific Islands
• Philippines
• Regional Development Mission for Asia
• Timor-Leste
• Turkmenistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• North Macedonia
• Central America and Mexico Regional Program
• Dominican Republic
• Eastern and Southern Caribbean
• El Salvador
• Middle East Regional Platform
• West Bank and Gaza
• Dollars to Results
• Data Resources
• Strategy & Planning
• Budget & Spending
• Performance and Financial Reporting
• FY 2023 Agency Financial Report
• Records and Reports
• Budget Justification
• Our Commitment to Transparency
• Policy and Strategy
• How to Work with USAID
• Find a Funding Opportunity
• Organizations That Work With USAID
• Resources for Partners
• Get involved
• Business Forecast
• Safeguarding and Compliance
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
• Mission, Vision and Values
• News & Information
• Operational Policy (ADS)
• Organization
• Stay Connected
• USAID History
• Video Library
• Coordinators
• Nondiscrimination Notice
• Collective Bargaining Agreements
• Disabilities Employment Program
• Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
• Reasonable Accommodations
• Urgent Hiring Needs
• Vacancy Announcements
• Search Search Search

USAID Awards Php12 Million in Grants to Philippine Universities for Research and Innovation

The U.S. government, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has awarded nearly Php12 million ($244,000) to five Philippine universities for research and innovation during the pandemic.

Dubbed “Widening Applications of Research within the Pandemic” or WARP, these grants will help Philippine universities build on previous USAID-funded research to address new challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The WARP grants will also create partnerships among universities, industries, and local governments.

The five selected research proposals are:

• The University of San Carlos in the Visayas region will develop novel antiseptic patches for wound dressing and skin healing.
• A team from Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University will analyze the properties of high-value extracts from ube and corn for possible use in ready-to-eat foods, and as a replacement for commercial food coloring.
• The University of the Philippines-Visayas will help establish a tuna jerky product enterprise that can improve economic opportunities for local fishermen.
• The Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology will convert waste from coconut oil processing into an economically viable substitute to imported chemicals used in insulating foam production.
• A team from the Mariano Marcos State University will expand village-scale ethanol production in the Ilocos regions to sustainably supply much-needed disinfectants for public health use.

“As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippines diplomatic relations, these grants are another milestone in this longstanding partnership as we work together to make higher education and innovation a driver of inclusive growth in the Philippines,” said USAID Mission Director Lawrence Hardy II during the WARP grant virtual launch on April 27.

Since 2013, USAID, through its Science, Technology, Research, and Innovation for Development (STRIDE) project, has provided grants supporting innovation initiatives to almost 60 research groups in 20 higher education institutions throughout the country.

• Toggle Accessibility Statement
• Skip to Home
• Skip to Content
• Skip to Site Map
• Transparency Seal
• Accessibility Page
• Attached Agencies
• Regional Offices
• Other Divisions

AUXILIARY MENU

• About the Council
• Vision, Mission and Quality Policy
• Organizational Structure
• Governing Council
• Management Team
• Sectoral Coverage and R&D Priorities
• Citizen's Charter
• Strategic Thrusts and Programs
• On-going projects
• Completed Projects
• Latest News
• PCIEERD in the News
• Meet our Balik Scientists

Call for Proposals

• Call for Partnerships
• Job Opportunities
• GC Meeting Schedule
• Conferences

Presentation Materials

• Annual Reports
• Call for Proposal Forms
• HR Competency Gaps Forms
• Project M&E Forms
• Drone Starter Kit
• Grants-in-Aid Forms
• Guidelines/Issuances & Policies

The Research and Development (R&D) Support Program provides financial support to research projects consistent with the priorities identified in the national research agenda for industry, energy, and emerging technology sectors. Research grants may be availed of by government research and academic institutions as well as companies.

Harmonized National R&D Agenda

Harmonized national r&d conference presentation, human resource and institution development division roadmap.

Emerging Technology Division (ETDD) Ms. Edna C. Nacianceno - Chief Science Research Specialist

Industrial Technology and Development Division (ITDD) Engr. Niñaliza H. Escorial - Chief Science Research Specialist

Energy, Utilities and System Technology Development Division (EUSTDD) Engr. Nonilo A. Peña - Chief Science Research Specialist

Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development

University of the philippines, diliman, quezon city.

Login to view proposals and projects.

To start using this system, please register an account.

Download research grant application forms and guidelines.

• Our Programs
• News & Journal
• Events Page
• Support PhilDev

11 Government Funding Opportunities for Startups in the Philippines

By adriel nisperos, “a real emerging startup destination”.

This is how Undersecretary Rafaelita Aldaba of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) described the actively growing startup ecosystem in the Philippines in the 2022 Global Startup Ecosystem Report (GSER) . DTI boasts the notable increase in value of the Manila ecosystem from USD 584 million last year to USD 2.1 billion. A key contributor to this remarkable growth is the expanding programs of the government for startups thanks to the Innovative Startup Act .

In this article, we share with you 11 government funding opportunities for startups that you can explore, so you can keep your business running.

Government Funding Opportunities for Product Development

Technology innovation for commercialization (technicom).

• Stage Focus: Pre-commercialization (with rough prototype or MVP)
• Lead agency: Department of Science and Technology – Technology Application and Promotion Institute (TAPI)

Have you seen a “Tatak PINOYpreneur” branded startup program before? If yes, then you know it’s a technopreneurship program of the Technology Application and Promotion Institute (TAPI), the tech commercialization and marketing arm of DOST. In 2021, DOST-TAPI launched a campaign to encourage Filipino innovators and entrepreneurs to participate in their programs. They offer a wide range of support for startups, but the best part is that all provide funding assistance. 

DOST-TAPI has two programs for startups in the pre-commercialization stage: the Technology Innovation for Commercialization (TECHNiCOM) and the Youth Empowerment through Technopreneurship (YET) programs. Pre-commercialization is a stage where a startup is yet to launch their product in the market and enter full-scale production. It includes activities such as prototyping, pilot-scale testing, tech validation, market research and testing, business model validation, and pre-investment activities.

TECHNiCOM is a multi-million grant program that helps startups and small businesses fast-track the commercialization of their research and development outputs. Currently, the program prioritizes projects aligned with the country’s national R&D agenda .

Youth Empowerment through Technopreneurship (YET)

• Stage Focus: Pre-commercialization

The Youth Empowerment through Technopreneurship (YET) is the other grant-giving program of DOST-TAPI. It supports youth-led income-generating projects by providing them opportunities to develop their entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, and access financial assistance for their projects. YET funds projects up to PHP 250,000 for college students (per academic institution) and PHP 350,000 for young professionals (per project). 

Some of the resources that YET covers are raw materials, production tools and equipment, packaging and labeling, computer hardware and programming language.

Startup Grant Fund (SGF) Program

• Stage Focus: Early-stage (with working prototype/proof of concept)
• Lead agency: Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Industry, Energy, and Emerging Technology Research and Development (PCIEERD)

The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) has also started launching various programs to support startups, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). One of which is the Startup Grant Fund Program they launched in 2020 to assist startups and SMEs in their research and development activities. Since then, they have funded 27 projects, amounting to a total of PHP 89 million.

Two of DOST’s pioneer startup grantees were Nanotronics, Inc. , a tech company that produces nanomaterials derived from indigenous plants to support key industries in the Philippines, and the Futuristic Aviation and Maritime Enterprises (FAME) , a tech startup providing solutions for real-time intelligent monitoring and management of resources for maritime, aviation, and land transportation applications. 

With the theme “Powering Startups to Thrive in the Next Normal,” this year’s SGF program prioritizes startups that are focused in the following areas:

• Sustainable Industries
• Education/Learning
• Remote Work Productivity
• Content and Talent Development
• Industry Data-Driven Solutions

Women-Helping-Women: Innovating Social Enterprises (WHWise)

Aside from the Startup Grant Fund Program, DOST-PCIEERD has also paved the way for women-led businesses to thrive through their Women-Helping-Women: Innovating Social Enterprises (WHWise) program. The program aims to help 10 women entrepreneurs annually by providing them with customized incubation support and financial assistance. Since its launch last year, they have supported 9 women-led social enterprises, releasing a total of PHP 30 million in grant funding.

Empath , a social enterprise on a mission to make mental health care accessible to Filipinos, is one of the program’s grantees. Receiving the funding has enabled Empath to expand and streamline their operations, improve their services and booking processes.

Venture Financing Programs (VFP)

• Stage Focus: Commercialization

DOST-TAPI also offers funding opportunities to startups and SMEs that are already commercializing by providing them soft loans. This means that startups and SMEs accessing financial support through this mechanism should repay the agency with the amount they loaned but with 0% interest and 0 collateral. DOST TAPI’s venture financing programs , purchase order financing, and LIGTAS-COVID-19 follow this funding mechanism.

Here are TAPI’s venture financing programs:

Startup and Tech-based Projects

• Startups existing for less than 5 years
• Intellectual Property (IP)-based company with valid IP OR tech-based company with potential for IP application

This VFP was created to help startups accelerate the commercialization of their innovations or inventions. It can lend startups of up to PHP 2 million to cover equipment purchases or fabrication. As it is a loan, borrowers are expected to repay DOST-TAPI within 3 years (with 6 months grace period). 

The agency prioritizes projects that are under the following areas:

• Food Processing
• Gifts, Decors, and Handicrafts
• Agriculture or Marine or Aquaculture
• Metals and Engineering
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• Pharmaceuticals, Health, and Wellness products
• Manufacturing and Industrial processing

Environmentally-Sound Technologies (VFEST)

Target: Filipino-owned Startups and SMEs

Promoting local green technologies or technologies that protect the environment is also a key aspect of DOST-TAPI’s technopreneurship programs. This is why they have also implemented a venture financing program for Environmentally-Sound Technologies or VFEST. Through this program, startups and SMEs looking to purchase equipment for sustainable energy conservation (or abatement) and waste and pollution reduction can access funding of up to PHP 2.5 million. These businesses should be able to repay the agency within 3 years (with 6 months grace period).

Commercialization of DOST-Generated Technologies

Target: Filipino-owned Startups and SMEs that have adopted a DOST-generated technology (by virtue of a Technology Licensing Agreement)

DOST undertakes various research and development projects. Many of those projects result in technologies that can be mass-produced to benefit communities and other businesses. However, it doesn’t always end up that way. This is why DOST-TAPI incentivizes startups and SMEs that are interested to license or adopt DOST-generated technologies through a venture financing program.

This VFP can fund startups and SMEs commercializing DOST-generated technologies of up to PHP 5 million to cover their expenses for equipment and applications to local and international standard certifications. Examples of these are FDA approvals and ISO certifications.

Similar to other venture financing programs, businesses accessing this support are expected to repay DOST-TAPI within 3 years (with 6 months grace period).

Purchase Order Financing Program

• Stage Focus: Startups and SMEs that are previous DOST program beneficiary or adopter of DOST-generated technologies

Unlike the venture financing programs that are more focused in assisting startups and SMEs purchase equipment or fabrication, the next two financial assistance programs of DOST-TAPI focus on providing financial assistance to startups and SMEs for their purchase of raw materials. 

The Purchase Order Financing Program was developed to aid startups and SMEs that are unable to meet their customer’s purchase orders due to financial constraints. Businesses can borrow up to PHP 2.5 million and should repay DOST-TAPI within 3 months (with 3 months grace period).

Level-up Innovation Government Support for Technologies Against the Spread of COVID-19 (LIGTAS-COVID-19)

• Startups and SMEs providing support for the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic
• Previous DOST beneficiary or adopter of DOST-generated technologies

COVID-19 has proven to be a major business disruptor for startups and SMEs. To help them survive and continue to provide essential goods and services to their customers, DOST-TAPI has initiated the Level-up Innovation Government Support for Technologies Against the Spread of COVID-19 (LIGTAS-COVID-19). Through the program, DOST-TAPI can lend startups and SMEs of up to PHP 1 million to help them continue developing products and services that respond to the impacts of the pandemic. 

Similar to the Purchase Order Financing Program, the LIGTAS-COVID-19 aids startups and SMEs in purchasing raw materials but with focus on businesses responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Borrowers are expected to repay DOST-TAPI within 12 months (with 6 months grace period).

Government Funding Opportunities for Business Development and Growth

Startup venture fund.

• Stage Focus: Seed to Series B
• Lead agency: Department of Trade and Industry – National Development Company (NDC)

At last year’s Philippine Startup Week, DTI-NDC launched the Startup Venture Fund (SVF), a venture capital fund developed to support the startup ecosystem in the Philippines. Through the program, NDC has allocated PHP 250 million to fund Seed to Series B startups. Aside from financial assistance, the SVF opens the opportunity for startups to access mentorship and training from DTI and other startup enablers.

One of the first startups that received funding through the program was Agro-Digital PH , a startup “building the digital enterprise for small farmers”. Their business won PHP 100,000 in the Venture Pilipinas pitching competition held also at the PHSW in 2021. Previously, they were also part of the third batch of social enterprises in the Social Impact Accelerator, a program we’ve co-implemented with the United Nations Development Programme in the Philippines and the Australian Embassy in the Philippines.

Upcoming Startup Programs

Startup grant fund.

• Stage Focus: Early-stage (with at least a proof of concept)
• Lead agency: Department of Information and Communications Technology – ICT Industry Development Bureau

The DICT-IIDB is the latest government agency that has expressed their support for startups. In March, they conducted a public consultation to introduce their agency’s Startup Grant Fund to startup founders and enablers. The program was designed to help new and early-stage startups access starter funds, so they can become investable and ready for venture capitalists.

DICT hopes to launch soon not just their Startup Grant Fund, but also the rest of their programs under their Digital Startup Development and Acceleration Program. This includes a Startup Portal consolidating various information about startups and ecosystem enablers in the Philippines.

The Philippines’ startup ecosystem continues to grow fast, and it’s because of the momentum we have gained in the past few years. What we need to do now is to stay consistent (or leap further), so startups can also continue solving problems and creating lasting impact for the well-being of Filipinos .

Government support may be becoming more robust to back startups, but it takes the whole village to catapult the ecosystem and truly become a “startup destination”.

Adriel Nisperos

Adriel Nisperos is a passionate and mission-driven communications professional. Gaining a background in development communication, Adriel uses communication to advocate for quality education, social innovation, and sustainability in and outside the work that he does. He is currently a Communications Officer at PhilDev Foundation, empowering social entrepreneurs and innovators by telling stories of impact.

If you have any questions about our organization, our scholarships, or our programs, Send us a note, we’d love to hear from you.

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. For more information, please visit our Privacy Policy.

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

BG-RESEARCH

• Available Research Grants
• Guidelines and Procedures

UPLB Basic Research Program

Up system textbook writing grant, up system emerging interdisciplinary research grant, up system sabbatical research grant, up system creative work and research grant.

Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Extension

3f uplb main library building, university of the philippines los baños, college, laguna, the philippines 4031, tel/fax: +63 (049) 536 2354 +63 (049) 536 5326, [email protected], ovcre supervised units.

• UPLB Museum of Natural History
• UPLB Technology Transfer and Business Development Office
• UPLB Gender Center
• Office for Initiatives in Culture and the Arts

OVCRE Publications

Research Award Program (RAP)

Extends modest financial assistance to Filipino graduate students in the social sciences to enable completion of their graduate thesis or dissertation.

PSSC Research Award Program (PSSC-RAP)

The PSSC Research Award Program (PSSC-RAP) was established in 1972 to assist graduate students in the social sciences complete their thesis or dissertation requirements and obtain their Master’s or Ph.D. degrees. A modest financial assistance is awarded to successful PSSC-RAP grantees—maximum of P50,000 for PhD students and P25,000 for MA students.

NOTICE: The PSSC Research Award Program is currently suspended until further notice. For questions or concerns, you may send an email to  [email protected]  

THE THESIS/DISSERTATION GRANT PROPOSAL

The thesis/dissertation grant proposal to be submitted must be no more than ten (10) pages long (A4 size paper, double-spaced, font size 12) based on the approved thesis/dissertation. The grant proposal must include a description of the following:

Statement of the Problem

This should be concise and to the point. It must indicate that the applicant has gone beyond having a general area of interest (e.g., gender, kinship, environment, governance, sustainable development etc.), and has now formulated a focused question/problem and objectives worth researching. The statement of the problem must inform readers what new knowledge they are going to gain from the thesis/dissertation research that they do not already know.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework/s

The statement of the problem must be embedded within a given field of inquiry. Hence, the applicant must provide a summary of the relevant literature and theoretical framework/s informing the thesis/dissertation problem. A good grant proposal demonstrates an awareness of relevant literature and previous scholarly arguments and locates the thesis/dissertation problem within the intersections of ongoing debates and theoretical currents. 

Methodology

The grant proposal must specify the research operations and activities the applicant will undertake and how the results from these operations will be analyzed and interpreted in terms of the thesis/dissertation problem. Research operations and activities (i.e., archival work, surveys, interviews, observation and testing statistical patterns, etc.) vary by discipline, but the applicant must be able to argue why the choice of methodology is the best approach to answering the thesis/dissertation’s central problem.

Timetable & Activities for the Grant Period

The applicant must indicate the remaining activities needed to complete the thesis/dissertation research, bearing in mind that the RAP grant period is for one year only. 

REVIEW PROCEDURE

Each PSSC-RAP proposal will undergo a double-blind review from the members of the PSSC Research Committee based on the following criteria: (a) clarity of research problem and objectives; (b) contextualizing the research problem within existing literature and theoretical framework/s; (c) methodology; and (d) overall presentation and study significance.

The financial requirement of the research and the availability of other funds are also considered in the review.

The Research Committee will deliberate on the proposals and decide which proposals will be awarded a RAP grant. 

Results will be announced in August.

Digital Channels

Payment Center

2nd Floor, Philippine Social Science Center, 372-C Commonwealth Avenue, Brgy. New Era, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101

[email protected]

(632) 8-929-2671 (632) 8-922-9629 (632) 8-926-5179

Copyright 2024 Philippine Social Science Council. All Rights Reserved.

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2024

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research

• James Shaw 1 , 13 ,
• Joseph Ali 2 , 3 ,
• Caesar A. Atuire 4 , 5 ,
• Phaik Yeong Cheah 6 ,
• Armando Guio Español 7 ,
• Judy Wawira Gichoya 8 ,
• Adrienne Hunt 9 ,
• Daudi Jjingo 10 ,
• Katherine Littler 9 ,
• Daniela Paolotti 11 &
• Effy Vayena 12  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  46 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1439 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022.

We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships.

Conclusions

The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Beyond the growing number of AI applications being implemented in health care, capabilities of AI models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) expand the potential reach and significance of AI technologies across health-related fields [ 4 , 5 ]. Discussion about effective, ethical governance of AI technologies has spanned a range of governance approaches, including government regulation, organizational decision-making, professional self-regulation, and research ethics review [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. In this paper, we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health research, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. Although applications of AI for research, health care, and public health are diverse and advancing rapidly, the insights generated at the forum remain highly relevant from a global health perspective. After summarizing important context for work in this domain, we highlight categories of ethical issues emphasized at the forum for attention from a research ethics perspective internationally. We then outline strategies proposed for research, innovation, and governance to support more ethical AI for global health.

In this paper, we adopt the definition of AI systems provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as our starting point. Their definition states that an AI system is “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy” [ 9 ]. The conceptualization of an algorithm as helping to constitute an AI system, along with hardware, other elements of software, and a particular context of use, illustrates the wide variety of ways in which AI can be applied. We have found it useful to differentiate applications of AI in research as those classified as “AI systems for discovery” and “AI systems for intervention”. An AI system for discovery is one that is intended to generate new knowledge, for example in drug discovery or public health research in which researchers are seeking potential targets for intervention, innovation, or further research. An AI system for intervention is one that directly contributes to enacting an intervention in a particular context, for example informing decision-making at the point of care or assisting with accuracy in a surgical procedure.

The mandate of the GFBR is to take a broad view of what constitutes research and its regulation in global health, with special attention to bioethics in Low- and Middle- Income Countries. AI as a group of technologies demands such a broad view. AI development for health occurs in a variety of environments, including universities and academic health sciences centers where research ethics review remains an important element of the governance of science and innovation internationally [ 10 , 11 ]. In these settings, research ethics committees (RECs; also known by different names such as Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) make decisions about the ethical appropriateness of projects proposed by researchers and other institutional members, ultimately determining whether a given project is allowed to proceed on ethical grounds [ 12 ].

However, research involving AI for health also takes place in large corporations and smaller scale start-ups, which in some jurisdictions fall outside the scope of research ethics regulation. In the domain of AI, the question of what constitutes research also becomes blurred. For example, is the development of an algorithm itself considered a part of the research process? Or only when that algorithm is tested under the formal constraints of a systematic research methodology? In this paper we take an inclusive view, in which AI development is included in the definition of research activity and within scope for our inquiry, regardless of the setting in which it takes place. This broad perspective characterizes the approach to “research ethics” we take in this paper, extending beyond the work of RECs to include the ethical analysis of the wide range of activities that constitute research as the generation of new knowledge and intervention in the world.

Ethical governance of AI in global health

The ethical governance of AI for global health has been widely discussed in recent years. The World Health Organization (WHO) released its guidelines on ethics and governance of AI for health in 2021, endorsing a set of six ethical principles and exploring the relevance of those principles through a variety of use cases. The WHO guidelines also provided an overview of AI governance, defining governance as covering “a range of steering and rule-making functions of governments and other decision-makers, including international health agencies, for the achievement of national health policy objectives conducive to universal health coverage.” (p. 81) The report usefully provided a series of recommendations related to governance of seven domains pertaining to AI for health: data, benefit sharing, the private sector, the public sector, regulation, policy observatories/model legislation, and global governance. The report acknowledges that much work is yet to be done to advance international cooperation on AI governance, especially related to prioritizing voices from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in global dialogue.

One important point emphasized in the WHO report that reinforces the broader literature on global governance of AI is the distribution of responsibility across a wide range of actors in the AI ecosystem. This is especially important to highlight when focused on research for global health, which is specifically about work that transcends national borders. Alami et al. (2020) discussed the unique risks raised by AI research in global health, ranging from the unavailability of data in many LMICs required to train locally relevant AI models to the capacity of health systems to absorb new AI technologies that demand the use of resources from elsewhere in the system. These observations illustrate the need to identify the unique issues posed by AI research for global health specifically, and the strategies that can be employed by all those implicated in AI governance to promote ethically responsible use of AI in global health research.

RECs and the regulation of research involving AI

RECs represent an important element of the governance of AI for global health research, and thus warrant further commentary as background to our paper. Despite the importance of RECs, foundational questions have been raised about their capabilities to accurately understand and address ethical issues raised by studies involving AI. Rahimzadeh et al. (2023) outlined how RECs in the United States are under-prepared to align with recent federal policy requiring that RECs review data sharing and management plans with attention to the unique ethical issues raised in AI research for health [ 13 ]. Similar research in South Africa identified variability in understanding of existing regulations and ethical issues associated with health-related big data sharing and management among research ethics committee members [ 14 , 15 ]. The effort to address harms accruing to groups or communities as opposed to individuals whose data are included in AI research has also been identified as a unique challenge for RECs [ 16 , 17 ]. Doerr and Meeder (2022) suggested that current regulatory frameworks for research ethics might actually prevent RECs from adequately addressing such issues, as they are deemed out of scope of REC review [ 16 ]. Furthermore, research in the United Kingdom and Canada has suggested that researchers using AI methods for health tend to distinguish between ethical issues and social impact of their research, adopting an overly narrow view of what constitutes ethical issues in their work [ 18 ].

The challenges for RECs in adequately addressing ethical issues in AI research for health care and public health exceed a straightforward survey of ethical considerations. As Ferretti et al. (2021) contend, some capabilities of RECs adequately cover certain issues in AI-based health research, such as the common occurrence of conflicts of interest where researchers who accept funds from commercial technology providers are implicitly incentivized to produce results that align with commercial interests [ 12 ]. However, some features of REC review require reform to adequately meet ethical needs. Ferretti et al. outlined weaknesses of RECs that are longstanding and those that are novel to AI-related projects, proposing a series of directions for development that are regulatory, procedural, and complementary to REC functionality. The work required on a global scale to update the REC function in response to the demands of research involving AI is substantial.

These issues take greater urgency in the context of global health [ 19 ]. Teixeira da Silva (2022) described the global practice of “ethics dumping”, where researchers from high income countries bring ethically contentious practices to RECs in low-income countries as a strategy to gain approval and move projects forward [ 20 ]. Although not yet systematically documented in AI research for health, risk of ethics dumping in AI research is high. Evidence is already emerging of practices of “health data colonialism”, in which AI researchers and developers from large organizations in high-income countries acquire data to build algorithms in LMICs to avoid stricter regulations [ 21 ]. This specific practice is part of a larger collection of practices that characterize health data colonialism, involving the broader exploitation of data and the populations they represent primarily for commercial gain [ 21 , 22 ]. As an additional complication, AI algorithms trained on data from high-income contexts are unlikely to apply in straightforward ways to LMIC settings [ 21 , 23 ]. In the context of global health, there is widespread acknowledgement about the need to not only enhance the knowledge base of REC members about AI-based methods internationally, but to acknowledge the broader shifts required to encourage their capabilities to more fully address these and other ethical issues associated with AI research for health [ 8 ].

Although RECs are an important part of the story of the ethical governance of AI for global health research, they are not the only part. The responsibilities of supra-national entities such as the World Health Organization, national governments, organizational leaders, commercial AI technology providers, health care professionals, and other groups continue to be worked out internationally. In this context of ongoing work, examining issues that demand attention and strategies to address them remains an urgent and valuable task.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, REC members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. Each year the GFBR meeting includes a series of case studies and keynotes presented in plenary format to an audience of approximately 100 people who have applied and been competitively selected to attend, along with small-group breakout discussions to advance thinking on related issues. The specific topic of the forum changes each year, with past topics including ethical issues in research with people living with mental health conditions (2021), genome editing (2019), and biobanking/data sharing (2018). The forum is intended to remain grounded in the practical challenges of engaging in research ethics, with special interest in low resource settings from a global health perspective. A post-meeting fellowship scheme is open to all LMIC participants, providing a unique opportunity to apply for funding to further explore and address the ethical challenges that are identified during the meeting.

In 2022, the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations (both short and long form) reporting on specific initiatives related to research ethics and AI for health, and 16 governance presentations (both short and long form) reporting on actual approaches to governing AI in different country settings. A keynote presentation from Professor Effy Vayena addressed the topic of the broader context for AI ethics in a rapidly evolving field. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. The 2-day forum addressed a wide range of themes. The conference report provides a detailed overview of each of the specific topics addressed while a policy paper outlines the cross-cutting themes (both documents are available at the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ ). As opposed to providing a detailed summary in this paper, we aim to briefly highlight central issues raised, solutions proposed, and the challenges facing the research ethics community in the years to come.

In this way, our primary aim in this paper is to present a synthesis of the challenges and opportunities raised at the GFBR meeting and in the planning process, followed by our reflections as a group of authors on their significance for governance leaders in the coming years. We acknowledge that the views represented at the meeting and in our results are a partial representation of the universe of views on this topic; however, the GFBR leadership invested a great deal of resources in convening a deeply diverse and thoughtful group of researchers and practitioners working on themes of bioethics related to AI for global health including those based in LMICs. We contend that it remains rare to convene such a strong group for an extended time and believe that many of the challenges and opportunities raised demand attention for more ethical futures of AI for health. Nonetheless, our results are primarily descriptive and are thus not explicitly grounded in a normative argument. We make effort in the Discussion section to contextualize our results by describing their significance and connecting them to broader efforts to reform global health research and practice.

Uniquely important ethical issues for AI in global health research

Presentations and group dialogue over the course of the forum raised several issues for consideration, and here we describe four overarching themes for the ethical governance of AI in global health research. Brief descriptions of each issue can be found in Table  1 . Reports referred to throughout the paper are available at the GFBR website provided above.

The first overarching thematic issue relates to the appropriateness of building AI technologies in response to health-related challenges in the first place. Case study presentations referred to initiatives where AI technologies were highly appropriate, such as in ear shape biometric identification to more accurately link electronic health care records to individual patients in Zambia (Alinani Simukanga). Although important ethical issues were raised with respect to privacy, trust, and community engagement in this initiative, the AI-based solution was appropriately matched to the challenge of accurately linking electronic records to specific patient identities. In contrast, forum participants raised questions about the appropriateness of an initiative using AI to improve the quality of handwashing practices in an acute care hospital in India (Niyoshi Shah), which led to gaming the algorithm. Overall, participants acknowledged the dangers of techno-solutionism, in which AI researchers and developers treat AI technologies as the most obvious solutions to problems that in actuality demand much more complex strategies to address [ 24 ]. However, forum participants agreed that RECs in different contexts have differing degrees of power to raise issues of the appropriateness of an AI-based intervention.

The second overarching thematic issue related to whether and how AI-based systems transfer from one national health context to another. One central issue raised by a number of case study presentations related to the challenges of validating an algorithm with data collected in a local environment. For example, one case study presentation described a project that would involve the collection of personally identifiable data for sensitive group identities, such as tribe, clan, or religion, in the jurisdictions involved (South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and the US; Gakii Masunga). Doing so would enable the team to ensure that those groups were adequately represented in the dataset to ensure the resulting algorithm was not biased against specific community groups when deployed in that context. However, some members of these communities might desire to be represented in the dataset, whereas others might not, illustrating the need to balance autonomy and inclusivity. It was also widely recognized that collecting these data is an immense challenge, particularly when historically oppressive practices have led to a low-trust environment for international organizations and the technologies they produce. It is important to note that in some countries such as South Africa and Rwanda, it is illegal to collect information such as race and tribal identities, re-emphasizing the importance for cultural awareness and avoiding “one size fits all” solutions.

The third overarching thematic issue is related to understanding accountabilities for both the impacts of AI technologies and governance decision-making regarding their use. Where global health research involving AI leads to longer-term harms that might fall outside the usual scope of issues considered by a REC, who is to be held accountable, and how? This question was raised as one that requires much further attention, with law being mixed internationally regarding the mechanisms available to hold researchers, innovators, and their institutions accountable over the longer term. However, it was recognized in breakout group discussion that many jurisdictions are developing strong data protection regimes related specifically to international collaboration for research involving health data. For example, Kenya’s Data Protection Act requires that any internationally funded projects have a local principal investigator who will hold accountability for how data are shared and used [ 25 ]. The issue of research partnerships with commercial entities was raised by many participants in the context of accountability, pointing toward the urgent need for clear principles related to strategies for engagement with commercial technology companies in global health research.

The fourth and final overarching thematic issue raised here is that of consent. The issue of consent was framed by the widely shared recognition that models of individual, explicit consent might not produce a supportive environment for AI innovation that relies on the secondary uses of health-related datasets to build AI algorithms. Given this recognition, approaches such as community oversight of health data uses were suggested as a potential solution. However, the details of implementing such community oversight mechanisms require much further attention, particularly given the unique perspectives on health data in different country settings in global health research. Furthermore, some uses of health data do continue to require consent. One case study of South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda suggested that when health data are shared across borders, individual consent remains necessary when data is transferred from certain countries (Nezerith Cengiz). Broader clarity is necessary to support the ethical governance of health data uses for AI in global health research.

Recommendations for ethical governance of AI in global health research

Dialogue at the forum led to a range of suggestions for promoting ethical conduct of AI research for global health, related to the various roles of actors involved in the governance of AI research broadly defined. The strategies are written for actors we refer to as “governance leaders”, those people distributed throughout the AI for global health research ecosystem who are responsible for ensuring the ethical and socially responsible conduct of global health research involving AI (including researchers themselves). These include RECs, government regulators, health care leaders, health professionals, corporate social accountability officers, and others. Enacting these strategies would bolster the ethical governance of AI for global health more generally, enabling multiple actors to fulfill their roles related to governing research and development activities carried out across multiple organizations, including universities, academic health sciences centers, start-ups, and technology corporations. Specific suggestions are summarized in Table  2 .

First, forum participants suggested that governance leaders including RECs, should remain up to date on recent advances in the regulation of AI for health. Regulation of AI for health advances rapidly and takes on different forms in jurisdictions around the world. RECs play an important role in governance, but only a partial role; it was deemed important for RECs to acknowledge how they fit within a broader governance ecosystem in order to more effectively address the issues within their scope. Not only RECs but organizational leaders responsible for procurement, researchers, and commercial actors should all commit to efforts to remain up to date about the relevant approaches to regulating AI for health care and public health in jurisdictions internationally. In this way, governance can more adequately remain up to date with advances in regulation.

Second, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should focus on ethical governance of health data as a basis for ethical global health AI research. Health data are considered the foundation of AI development, being used to train AI algorithms for various uses [ 26 ]. By focusing on ethical governance of health data generation, sharing, and use, multiple actors will help to build an ethical foundation for AI development among global health researchers.

Third, forum participants believed that governance processes should incorporate AI impact assessments where appropriate. An AI impact assessment is the process of evaluating the potential effects, both positive and negative, of implementing an AI algorithm on individuals, society, and various stakeholders, generally over time frames specified in advance of implementation [ 27 ]. Although not all types of AI research in global health would warrant an AI impact assessment, this is especially relevant for those studies aiming to implement an AI system for intervention into health care or public health. Organizations such as RECs can use AI impact assessments to boost understanding of potential harms at the outset of a research project, encouraging researchers to more deeply consider potential harms in the development of their study.

Fourth, forum participants suggested that governance decisions should incorporate the use of environmental impact assessments, or at least the incorporation of environment values when assessing the potential impact of an AI system. An environmental impact assessment involves evaluating and anticipating the potential environmental effects of a proposed project to inform ethical decision-making that supports sustainability [ 28 ]. Although a relatively new consideration in research ethics conversations [ 29 ], the environmental impact of building technologies is a crucial consideration for the public health commitment to environmental sustainability. Governance leaders can use environmental impact assessments to boost understanding of potential environmental harms linked to AI research projects in global health over both the shorter and longer terms.

Fifth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should require stronger transparency in the development of AI algorithms in global health research. Transparency was considered essential in the design and development of AI algorithms for global health to ensure ethical and accountable decision-making throughout the process. Furthermore, whether and how researchers have considered the unique contexts into which such algorithms may be deployed can be surfaced through stronger transparency, for example in describing what primary considerations were made at the outset of the project and which stakeholders were consulted along the way. Sharing information about data provenance and methods used in AI development will also enhance the trustworthiness of the AI-based research process.

Sixth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage or require community engagement at various points throughout an AI project. It was considered that engaging patients and communities is crucial in AI algorithm development to ensure that the technology aligns with community needs and values. However, participants acknowledged that this is not a straightforward process. Effective community engagement requires lengthy commitments to meeting with and hearing from diverse communities in a given setting, and demands a particular set of skills in communication and dialogue that are not possessed by all researchers. Encouraging AI researchers to begin this process early and build long-term partnerships with community members is a promising strategy to deepen community engagement in AI research for global health. One notable recommendation was that research funders have an opportunity to incentivize and enable community engagement with funds dedicated to these activities in AI research in global health.

Seventh, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage researchers to build strong, fair partnerships between institutions and individuals across country settings. In a context of longstanding imbalances in geopolitical and economic power, fair partnerships in global health demand a priori commitments to share benefits related to advances in medical technologies, knowledge, and financial gains. Although enforcement of this point might be beyond the remit of RECs, commentary will encourage researchers to consider stronger, fairer partnerships in global health in the longer term.

Eighth, it became evident that it is necessary to explore new forms of regulatory experimentation given the complexity of regulating a technology of this nature. In addition, the health sector has a series of particularities that make it especially complicated to generate rules that have not been previously tested. Several participants highlighted the desire to promote spaces for experimentation such as regulatory sandboxes or innovation hubs in health. These spaces can have several benefits for addressing issues surrounding the regulation of AI in the health sector, such as: (i) increasing the capacities and knowledge of health authorities about this technology; (ii) identifying the major problems surrounding AI regulation in the health sector; (iii) establishing possibilities for exchange and learning with other authorities; (iv) promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in AI in health; and (vi) identifying the need to regulate AI in this sector and update other existing regulations.

Ninth and finally, forum participants believed that the capabilities of governance leaders need to evolve to better incorporate expertise related to AI in ways that make sense within a given jurisdiction. With respect to RECs, for example, it might not make sense for every REC to recruit a member with expertise in AI methods. Rather, it will make more sense in some jurisdictions to consult with members of the scientific community with expertise in AI when research protocols are submitted that demand such expertise. Furthermore, RECs and other approaches to research governance in jurisdictions around the world will need to evolve in order to adopt the suggestions outlined above, developing processes that apply specifically to the ethical governance of research using AI methods in global health.

Research involving the development and implementation of AI technologies continues to grow in global health, posing important challenges for ethical governance of AI in global health research around the world. In this paper we have summarized insights from the 2022 GFBR, focused specifically on issues in research ethics related to AI for global health research. We summarized four thematic challenges for governance related to AI in global health research and nine suggestions arising from presentations and dialogue at the forum. In this brief discussion section, we present an overarching observation about power imbalances that frames efforts to evolve the role of governance in global health research, and then outline two important opportunity areas as the field develops to meet the challenges of AI in global health research.

Dialogue about power is not unfamiliar in global health, especially given recent contributions exploring what it would mean to de-colonize global health research, funding, and practice [ 30 , 31 ]. Discussions of research ethics applied to AI research in global health contexts are deeply infused with power imbalances. The existing context of global health is one in which high-income countries primarily located in the “Global North” charitably invest in projects taking place primarily in the “Global South” while recouping knowledge, financial, and reputational benefits [ 32 ]. With respect to AI development in particular, recent examples of digital colonialism frame dialogue about global partnerships, raising attention to the role of large commercial entities and global financial capitalism in global health research [ 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, the power of governance organizations such as RECs to intervene in the process of AI research in global health varies widely around the world, depending on the authorities assigned to them by domestic research governance policies. These observations frame the challenges outlined in our paper, highlighting the difficulties associated with making meaningful change in this field.

Despite these overarching challenges of the global health research context, there are clear strategies for progress in this domain. Firstly, AI innovation is rapidly evolving, which means approaches to the governance of AI for health are rapidly evolving too. Such rapid evolution presents an important opportunity for governance leaders to clarify their vision and influence over AI innovation in global health research, boosting the expertise, structure, and functionality required to meet the demands of research involving AI. Secondly, the research ethics community has strong international ties, linked to a global scholarly community that is committed to sharing insights and best practices around the world. This global community can be leveraged to coordinate efforts to produce advances in the capabilities and authorities of governance leaders to meaningfully govern AI research for global health given the challenges summarized in our paper.

Limitations

Our paper includes two specific limitations that we address explicitly here. First, it is still early in the lifetime of the development of applications of AI for use in global health, and as such, the global community has had limited opportunity to learn from experience. For example, there were many fewer case studies, which detail experiences with the actual implementation of an AI technology, submitted to GFBR 2022 for consideration than was expected. In contrast, there were many more governance reports submitted, which detail the processes and outputs of governance processes that anticipate the development and dissemination of AI technologies. This observation represents both a success and a challenge. It is a success that so many groups are engaging in anticipatory governance of AI technologies, exploring evidence of their likely impacts and governing technologies in novel and well-designed ways. It is a challenge that there is little experience to build upon of the successful implementation of AI technologies in ways that have limited harms while promoting innovation. Further experience with AI technologies in global health will contribute to revising and enhancing the challenges and recommendations we have outlined in our paper.

Second, global trends in the politics and economics of AI technologies are evolving rapidly. Although some nations are advancing detailed policy approaches to regulating AI more generally, including for uses in health care and public health, the impacts of corporate investments in AI and political responses related to governance remain to be seen. The excitement around large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) has drawn deeper attention to the challenges of regulating AI in any general sense, opening dialogue about health sector-specific regulations. The direction of this global dialogue, strongly linked to high-profile corporate actors and multi-national governance institutions, will strongly influence the development of boundaries around what is possible for the ethical governance of AI for global health. We have written this paper at a point when these developments are proceeding rapidly, and as such, we acknowledge that our recommendations will need updating as the broader field evolves.

Ultimately, coordination and collaboration between many stakeholders in the research ethics ecosystem will be necessary to strengthen the ethical governance of AI in global health research. The 2022 GFBR illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Data availability

All data and materials analyzed to produce this paper are available on the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ .

Clark P, Kim J, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Marketing, Food US. Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical devices: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2321792–2321792.

Article   Google Scholar  

Potnis KC, Ross JS, Aneja S, Gross CP, Richman IB. Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: evaluation of FDA device regulation and future recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(12):1306–12.

Siala H, Wang Y. SHIFTing artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114782.

Yang X, Chen A, PourNejatian N, Shin HC, Smith KE, Parisien C, et al. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):194.

Meskó B, Topol EJ. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):120.

Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(9):389–99.

Minssen T, Vayena E, Cohen IG. The challenges for Regulating Medical Use of ChatGPT and other large Language models. JAMA. 2023.

Ho CWL, Malpani R. Scaling up the research ethics framework for healthcare machine learning as global health ethics and governance. Am J Bioeth. 2022;22(5):36–8.

Yeung K. Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (OECD). Int Leg Mater. 2020;59(1):27–34.

Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PR. Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA. 2019;321(1):31–2.

Dzau VJ, Balatbat CA, Ellaissi WF. Revisiting academic health sciences systems a decade later: discovery to health to population to society. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):2300–4.

Ferretti A, Ienca M, Sheehan M, Blasimme A, Dove ES, Farsides B, et al. Ethics review of big data research: what should stay and what should be reformed? BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–13.

Rahimzadeh V, Serpico K, Gelinas L. Institutional review boards need new skills to review data sharing and management plans. Nat Med. 2023;1–3.

Kling S, Singh S, Burgess TL, Nair G. The role of an ethics advisory committee in data science research in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–3.

Google Scholar  

Cengiz N, Kabanda SM, Esterhuizen TM, Moodley K. Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–9.

Doerr M, Meeder S. Big health data research and group harm: the scope of IRB review. Ethics Hum Res. 2022;44(4):34–8.

Ballantyne A, Stewart C. Big data and public-private partnerships in healthcare and research: the application of an ethics framework for big data in health and research. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019;11(3):315–26.

Samuel G, Chubb J, Derrick G. Boundaries between research ethics and ethical research use in artificial intelligence health research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):325–37.

Murphy K, Di Ruggiero E, Upshur R, Willison DJ, Malhotra N, Cai JC, et al. Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–17.

Teixeira da Silva JA. Handling ethics dumping and neo-colonial research: from the laboratory to the academic literature. J Bioethical Inq. 2022;19(3):433–43.

Ferryman K. The dangers of data colonialism in precision public health. Glob Policy. 2021;12:90–2.

Couldry N, Mejias UA. Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev New Media. 2019;20(4):336–49.

Organization WH. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 2021.

Metcalf J, Moss E. Owning ethics: corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Soc Res Int Q. 2019;86(2):449–76.

Data Protection Act - OFFICE OF THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER KENYA [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Sep 30]. https://www.odpc.go.ke/dpa-act/ .

Sharon T, Lucivero F. Introduction to the special theme: the expansion of the health data ecosystem–rethinking data ethics and governance. Big Data & Society. Volume 6. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2019. p. 2053951719852969.

Reisman D, Schultz J, Crawford K, Whittaker M. Algorithmic impact assessments: a practical Framework for Public Agency. AI Now. 2018.

Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2012;30(1):5–14.

Samuel G, Richie C. Reimagining research ethics to include environmental sustainability: a principled approach, including a case study of data-driven health research. J Med Ethics. 2023;49(6):428–33.

Kwete X, Tang K, Chen L, Ren R, Chen Q, Wu Z, et al. Decolonizing global health: what should be the target of this movement and where does it lead us? Glob Health Res Policy. 2022;7(1):3.

Abimbola S, Asthana S, Montenegro C, Guinto RR, Jumbam DT, Louskieter L, et al. Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS Med. 2021;18(4):e1003604.

Benatar S. Politics, power, poverty and global health: systems and frames. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(10):599.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of the attendees of GFBR 2022 in Cape Town, South Africa. This paper is authored by members of the GFBR 2022 Planning Committee. We would like to acknowledge additional members Tamra Lysaght, National University of Singapore, and Niresh Bhagwandin, South African Medical Research Council, for their input during the planning stages and as reviewers of the applications to attend the Forum.

This work was supported by Wellcome [222525/Z/21/Z], the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation), and the South African Medical Research Council through funding to the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana

Caesar A. Atuire

Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Phaik Yeong Cheah

Berkman Klein Center, Harvard University, Bogotá, Colombia

Armando Guio Español

Department of Radiology and Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

Judy Wawira Gichoya

Health Ethics & Governance Unit, Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Adrienne Hunt & Katherine Littler

African Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Data Intensive Science, Infectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Daudi Jjingo

ISI Foundation, Turin, Italy

Daniela Paolotti

Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Effy Vayena

Joint Centre for Bioethics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JS led the writing, contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. CA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. PYC contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AE contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JWG contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AH contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DJ contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. KL contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DP contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. EV contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Shaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shaw, J., Ali, J., Atuire, C.A. et al. Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 46 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 01 April 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence
• Machine learning
• Research ethics
• Global health

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• High contrast
• OUR REPRESENTATIVE
• WORK FOR UNICEF
• NATIONAL AMBASSADORS
• PRESS CENTRE

Search UNICEF

Philippines joins un global accelerator aiming to expand jobs and social protection.

MANILA, 02 May 2024 – Fostering a job-rich economic recovery and extending social protection are the goals of the UN’s Global Accelerator initiative, to which the Philippines is joining as just one of 15 pathfinder countries.

The inter-ministerial Social Development Committee (SDC), chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has confirmed its commitment for this programme to facilitate just transitions towards the achievement of the  Sustainable Development Goals .

The interest from the Philippines highlights the alignment of the Global Accelerator objectives with the country’s development frameworks, particularly the  Philippine Development Plan (PDP)  and the Philippine Labor and Employment Plan (PLEP) for 2023-2028, said Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. These frameworks have been reinforced by the Trabaho Para sa Bayan (TPB) Plan whose inter-agency council shall be the national steering committee in implementing the roadmap/s under the Global Accelerator. “These underscore as a priority the creation of employment opportunities and that is where support from the new initiative will be crucial,” he said on behalf of the SDC.

The Global Accelerator will support pathfinder countries like the Philippines to align national policies, close gaps and channel investments for social impact. It will help address coverage and financing gaps for universal social protection, create decent work, protect communities from climate change and other risks, and facilitate just transitions initially in the construction and transport sectors. With its potential to make a real difference in the lives of millions of people around the world, the Global Accelerator will also enhance multilateral cooperation for joint implementation, said Gustavo Gonzalez, the United Nations Resident Coordinator for the Philippines.

“The Philippines’ participation as one of the Pathfinder Countries in the Global Accelerator will maximize UN support to bolster the country’s efforts to ensure full, decent and productive employment for every Filipino,” he said. “This global initiative has great potential to fast-track the realization of development objectives.”

The engagement process with the Global Accelerator started in 2023 with various national consultations that included international financial institutions, UN agencies, development partners, government agencies and other partners. On 28 February 2024, the Global Accelerator was presented to the Social Development Committee at the Cabinet level, which endorsed the country's engagement in the initiative.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), will actively support the Global Accelerator in the Philippines.

Following the official commitment, the Trabaho Para sa Bayan (TBP) Inter-agency Council will serve as the National Steering Committee. The council will support the design and implementation of the national development roadmap and foster collaboration among the actors involved, including workers and the private sector. The national roadmap will set the direction and the entry points of the Global Accelerator in the Philippines.

The Philippines has already joined the Global Coalition for Social Justice, a UN-breaking initiative to reduce inequalities, promote decent work and advance social justice.

Media contacts

About unicef.

UNICEF promotes the rights and wellbeing of every child, in everything we do. Together with our partners, we work in 190 countries and territories to translate that commitment into practical action, focusing special effort on reaching the most vulnerable and excluded children, to the benefit of all children, everywhere.

For more information about UNICEF and its work for children in the Philippines, visit www.unicef.ph .

Follow UNICEF Philippines on Facebook ,  Instagram , LinkedIn , TikTok and Twitter  and  YouTube .

Related topics

More to explore, be brave and dare to dream.

No matter the age, there’s no limit in what we can do to change the world for the better.

Typhoon vulnerable areas to benefit from DSWD-UNICEF anticipatory action agreement

The faces behind the numbers: UNICEF helps DSWD’s Listahanan

UNICEF supports DSWD in assessing most vulnerable and hardest-to-reach families to be included in Listahanan program.

Leaving no child behind: UNICEF helps DSWD’s Listahanan Proj

To ensure inclusion of most vulnerable and hard-to-reach children and families, UNICEF worked with DSWD to help address grievances submitted to Listahanan.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Planning Grants to Broaden Participation in the Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation Program

December 15, 2023

Dear Colleagues:

The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for Engineering (ENG) continually seeks to advance engineering and scientific progress in research and innovation while broadening participation and inclusion of the full spectrum of diverse talents in engineering and science fields. This Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) seeks to inform the community about an opportunity to pursue both goals through Planning Grants for the development of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) proposals. These Planning Grants will support costs associated with the development EFRI research projects and the formation of teams that are responsive to the current EFRI solicitation and that significantly address the goal of broadening the participation and inclusion of researchers and institutions supported by the EFRI program. Funding opportunities are available in FY 2024 to provide support to teams that plan to submit an EFRI proposal to the FY 2025 cycle of the current EFRI solicitation described on the EFRI website .

The National Science Foundation’s strategic goals include expanding knowledge in science and engineering and building capacity for a diverse and inclusive science and engineering workforce. The primary goal of this DCL is to broaden the diversity of institutions, faculty, and trainees participating in the EFRI program by enabling the engineering and science community to develop potentially transformative ideas that challenge current understanding or provides pathways to new frontiers in science and engineering, recruit the personnel needed to form topic-responsive teams, and build capacity and preparedness prior to submitting to the EFRI solicitation. As described in the 2020 National Science Board’s (NSB) Vision 2030 report, “progress in creating a diverse and inclusive [Science and Engineering] S&E enterprise has not kept pace with demographic trends or with the increasing centrality of S&E to our economy, national security, and jobs of the future. America’s diversity is a great strength. Leveraging that strength by broadening participation in the U.S. S&E enterprise will be crucial to fostering individual opportunity and a thriving economy.” Importantly, progress in engineering and science is accelerated when research teams are comprised of diverse individuals who are equitably integrated into the team environment. 1 The array of perspectives and talent that comes from a diverse team and leadership can heighten the likelihood of transformative research and outcomes. 2

The EFRI program is working in conjunction with the NSF Directorate for Engineering’s Broadening Participation in Engineering (BPE) program solicitation ( NSF 22-514 ) to coordinate EFRI Planning grants. The BPE program seeks to strengthen the future U.S. Engineering workforce and catalyze research innovation by enabling the participation of all citizens in STEM, thus reflecting the diversity and true intellectual capacity of the Nation's population. In line with the goals of Track 1 of the BPE program solicitation, the EFRI program will offer planning grants that aim to catalyze the inclusion of the full spectrum of diverse talents in engineering.

The EFRI program seeks proposals with potentially transformative ideas that represent an opportunity for a significant shift in fundamental engineering knowledge with a strong potential for long term impact on national needs or a grand challenge. Thus, research teams that draw on and fully integrate engineering and science research talent, ideas, and perspectives from non-research-intensive institutions, Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), as well as institutions in EPSCoR states have the capability to undertake research that significantly addresses the societal needs and grand challenges presented in the EFRI solicitation. Through this DCL, the EFRI program offers planning grants that support the engineering and science community to form and enhance multi- and interdisciplinary research collaborations that are responsive to the goal of supporting the full spectrum of diverse talents in engineering and science expressed in this DCL.

Description of the Opportunity

Planning grants funded through this DCL are expected to cultivate potential EFRI research teams that actively address broadening participation and inclusion goals expressed in this DCL and to develop a competitive EFRI proposal for the FY 2025 cycle of the current EFRI solicitation. As a result of planning grant activities, potential EFRI teams should be better equipped to carry out potentially transformative research that addresses the Biocomputing through EnGINeering Organoid Intelligence (BEGIN OI) EFRI topic. Proposers supported through this mechanism may use the funding to organize activities that help stimulate the formation of EFRI teams (in terms of PI, Co-PI, Senior Personnel, and organization type) and crystalize the ideas and research plans to be presented in a potential EFRI proposal.

Examples of planning grant activities can include, but are not limited to:

• Lead PIs from MSIs, PUIs, and institutions in EPSCoR states,
• Lead PIs from underrepresented in the field of engineering,
• Co-PIs and senior personnel from MSIs, PUIs, and institutions in EPSCoR states
• Development of research goals
• Leadership and management of mid-size projects
• Development of a research plan that is responsive to the EFRI BEGIN OI solicitation
• Geographical distance: The physical distance between researchers at collaborating institutions
• Cognitive distance: The degree of overlapping specialized knowledge between members of an inter- or multidisciplinary team
• Social distance: The “trust and friendship” (at the micro-level) among members of the team
• Organizational distance: The methods or networks used to exchange information, knowledge, and make decisions; The level of autonomy afforded to each member of the team
• Institutional distance: The level of shared values, norms, and language present among collaborating team members and institutions
• Assessment of planning grant goals

Given the complexity of an EFRI proposal, NSF recognizes that many teams will identify important research priorities but may not have the full complement of skills needed to effectively address the challenge. The planning grant can be used to support team formation activities that create opportunities for the development of partnerships between researchers and institutions that are bi-directional and mutually beneficial, thus engaging a wide array of perspectives and scientific talent to address the national needs and grand challenges presented in the EFRI solicitation. The National Institutes of Health Collaboration Team Science Field Guide can provide a starting point for team formation activities.

Award size and Duration

The budget for a planning proposal may be up to $100,000. The proposal may request funding for up to 12 months.

Preparation and Submission Information

To be considered for an EFRI Planning Grant, planning proposals must be submitted by 5:00pm, submitter’s local time, on February 23, 2024.

PIs must contact Alias Smith at [email protected] prior to submission of a planning proposal to aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under this opportunity.

This activity is being conducted under the auspices of the Broadening Participation in Engineering (BPE) solicitation ( NSF 22-514 ), Track 1. Planning grant proposals should be prepared in accordance with the guidance in Chapter II.E.1 of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and as described in the BPE solicitation. Planning proposals must be submitted to the BPE program solicitation ( NSF 22-514 ) via Research.gov and the “Planning” type of proposal should be selected. The system will automatically insert the prepended title “Planning” and that should be followed by “Track 1 EFRI DCL”. Please note that although the BPE solicitation accepts Track 1 proposals at anytime, planning proposals submitted in response to this DCL must be submitted by 5:00pm, submitter’s local time on February 23, 2024. When selecting the due date in Research.gov, proposers should select the target date available in the system.

Submission or receipt of a planning grant is not a requirement for participating in forthcoming EFRI competitions. Planning grant proposals do not constitute any commitment on behalf of the PI/co-PI(s) or their organizations to submit a future proposal. Award of a planning grant does not constitute any commitment on behalf of NSF to fund an EFRI proposal subsequently submitted by the Planning Grant team. Prospective PIs are encouraged to read this DCL and the PAPPG carefully for planning proposal preparation and submission requirements and to review the current EFRI solicitation for EFRI program priorities.

EFRI planning proposals may be reviewed internally by NSF staff, reviewed in a panel, by ad hoc reviewers, or any combination of these methods.

For further information, please contact

• Alias Smith, ENG/EFMA, [email protected]
• Sohi Rastegar, ENG/EFMA, [email protected]

Susan Margulies, PhD Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering National Science Foundation

• Smith-Doerr L., Alegria S., and Sacco T. (2017). How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3 (2017), 139-153.
• Dai Y., Byun G., and Ding F. (2019). The Direct and Indirect Impact of Gender Diversity in New Venture Teams on Innovation Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3) 505–528
• Boschma R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1): 61–74