Download Pdf of Rice Today article
Download Pdf of the full transcript

Kwanchai Gomez:
Figures, fake guns, and fund-raising

For 25 years from July 1967, Thailand’s Kwanchai Gomez was the International Rice Research Institute’s chief statistician. She was also IRRI’s first female international scientist in what was then a very male-dominated field. In 1993, Dr. Gomez moved out of statistics to work on donor relations as the head of the new Liaison, Coordination, and Planning Unit, which focused on an innovative experiment at the time: fund-raising. She returned to Thailand in December 1996 to spend 2 years at IRRI’s Bangkok office and round off more than 3 decades with the Institute. Dr. Gomez, who remains in Bangkok, is currently executive director of the Asia Rice Foundation, which is based in IRRI’s Philippine hometown of Los Baņos. 


A new bride with a statistics degree
How did I get to IRRI? By marrying, in April 1967, a Filipino, Arturo A. Gomez [who was professor of agronomy at the University of the Philippines at Los Baņos]. I had earned a PhD in statistics from North Carolina State University, the place where I met my future husband. After our wedding in Bangkok, I decided to resign from my teaching job at Chulalongkorn University and move to Los Baņos to be with my husband. I hoped to find a job in Los Baņos instead of in Manila because going to Manila every day back then would have been horrible because of the terrible road conditions. Luckily, Burton Oņate, who was then chief statistician and head of the Statistics Department at IRRI, had planned to take sabbatical leave at the Asian Development Bank in Manila for 1 year [but ended up staying there for 16 years, during which time he was the ADB’s chief statistician].
          Burt Oņate heard about this new bride with a degree in statistics who was nearby, so he contacted me and suggested I apply to be his “temporary” replacement. Bob Chandler [IRRI director general, 1960-72] and Colin McClung [IRRI assistant director (1964-66) and associate director (1967-71)] interviewed and hired me and the rest is history

Challenges for a lady statistician at IRRI
As a statistician at a research institute like IRRI, my goal was to see that all rice researchers, be they in the field or laboratory, used the proper statistical techniques and procedures. To my surprise when I came, statistics—be it experimental designs or statistical analyses—were not appreciated, understood, or used very much in any of IRRI’s experiments. That was a challenge for a very young person like me (pictured at left in those days), a woman—the only lady scientist for a long, long time at IRRI, not to mention being an Asian from Thailand. It was difficult working with these very renowned, relatively older, scientists and telling them that they ought to be using statistics in their experiments.
          Things changed for the better when I talked to Hank Beachell, who was then IRRI’s chief plant breeder [and eventual co-World Food Prize winner in 1996; photo right]. He was much older than I was and I thought if I could convince him maybe I could convince many others. So, I talked to him about why he was not using statistics in his yield trials. He looked at me and said, “what do you statisticians know about field experiments and the problems we [breeders] face everyday? You guys sit in an air-conditioned room and expect to tell us what to do in the field.” Well, it’s true that I did sit in an air-conditioned room and did not work in the field, but I was [still] taken aback, but I was not angry. In fact, I thought about this comment long and hard overnight.
            The next day, I went to Beachell and thanked him profusely for having given me a very good perspective. Then, I thought maybe I could win him and the others over about using statistics if I could show them that I knew what I’m doing by conducting my own field experiments.
            Now, I didn’t know anything about conducting field experiments. I didn’t know much about rice research to start with. In fact, when Chandler and McClung interviewed me, they asked me one question: “What experience do you have with rice research and what knowledge do you have about rice?” I said the closest I ever got to a rice plant was when I was traveling from Bangkok to Ayutthaya, in the Central Plain of Thailand, and saw the rice plants along the road as the car passed by, and that I knew nothing about rice research. I thought that would be the end of the interview, but it continued and they hired me anyway!
          So, I knew I had to learn something about rice experiments. I went to Bob Chandler and asked him for some resources to conduct field experiments because there were none in the [Statistics] Department at that time, since no one in the Statistics Department had ever conducted a field experiment. Conducting field experiments requires both human and financial resources. Chandler said: “Take whatever you need; I am pleased that you’re going out to the field.” I think he said this because, at the time, our chief world-renown soil scientist, Dr. Felix Ponnamperuma [IRRI’s first soil chemist, 1961-85, photo right] worked only in the lab. Chandler had tried to push him out to the field but never had succeeded. So, after I started conducting experiments, he went to Ponnamperuma and said, “If Kwanchai can go to the field, so can you.” It worked. Ponnameperuma went out and started field experiments after that.
             I learned a lot by conducting field experiments. S.K. De Datta [IRRI agronomist, 1964-91; see below], my mentor and teacher, taught me everything I needed to know about field experiments on rice. After that, I was able to talk to the researchers much more easily and was able to convince many of the need to use proper statistical procedures in their experiments. I probably was the first statistician anywhere who had to conduct field experiments to get closer to the scientists.

Working behind the scenes
Certain professions may be doomed to be behind the scenes. Statistics is one of those. We were used to it and we did not mind it very much. We took pride in seeing researchers using proper statistical procedures in their research. I appreciate the comments of Ronnie Coffman [IRRI plant breeder, 1971-81], which affirm that the use of statistics at IRRI has really helped the scientists
          Having heard what Coffman said about the statistics situation before 1971, that the yield trials were not replicated, etc. (see box), I must defend Hank Beachell [on this point] since he was at IRRI prior to 1971. Actually, Hank was right. He did not need to use statistics for his yield trials at the time. Back then [in the late 1960s], the breeders were looking for very large yield differences between the improved new varieties and the traditional ones. They were not talking about yield differences of 1 to 2 tons per hectare. Some of the new varieties were yielding maybe 8-9 tons while the traditional ones were yielding 1-2 tons. For that kind of difference, you can see it with your eyes! You did not need statistics to tell you.  

Applying statistics worldwide
My goal as a statistician was to be able to get statistics applied in rice experiments—not only at IRRI but throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Of course, that should be the goal of any statistician working at an international rice research institute. I think that, in my small way, I achieved that. IRRI became a user of statistics for research. During those years, it became the model. National program researchers came and saw what IRRI was doing in the area. Of course, they followed and applied statistical procedures in their rice experiments.
          IRRI had many nondegree training programs in those years. Statistics became a key course in those programs, accounting for 2–4 hours up to 20–30 hours per course. I think that helped our cause greatly—for many years, everybody who passed through IRRI for training learned something about statistical applications in rice research. So, when they went back home, they were able to apply the concepts.
          I thank IRRI that I was able to do two things that I took great satisfaction from.  One is that I wrote a book—Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Of course, that book, as you know, has been read and used all over the world, not only in Asia. So, that has been one of my greatest joys—to produce a tool to help achieve my goal of teaching people about statistics for use in experiments whether they are students in universities or scientists at research centers.
          The book was written 32 years ago and updated a bit in a 1984 second edition published by Wiley and still available. In those days, microcomputers were not available to everybody so I went through all the calculations in detail, which of course was a large part of the book’s content. Many people have asked me why I detailed in the book, step-by-step, how a statistical analysis was done. My answer was, “If you use a computer, suddenly the answer comes out. You don’t know what went on because the program did it for you.” The book helps scientists to understand why a particular statistical analysis was used for their data, how the computation was actually done, and how to best interpret the results. Computer users would not have understood the underlying principles, if all they do is simply push two buttons and the results come out.
          About the book revision, I think many new statistical tools should be added and explained in a revised version, although I would not be able to tell you what they should be specifically, since I left the statistics field of discipline more than 15 years ago. The book must be updated by someone who works closely with rice research and rice researchers so they will know what specific statistical techniques are most applicable today—and not to include all about every new techniques that have come onto the market. Even during those days [1970s and ‘80s], there were many statistical techniques that I omitted on purpose, simply because they would have “scared” a lot of people away. The book revision would be more useful today if more new tools could be included, recognizing the way scientists do things now.
          The second thing that being with IRRI allowed me to do was to develop a statistical computer package called “IRRISTAT.” It is not being used today because it was originally written in the BASIC [Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code] language, which is not compatible with “Windows.” Remember, that was more than 25 years ago. IRRISTAT was one of the most widely used statistical packages at that time since the Western-designed statistical packages such as SPSS [Statistical Procedures for the Social Sciences] or SAS (Statistical Analysis System) were too costly to acquire. So, IRRISTAT was pretty widespread in Asia and even now some people still ask: “Where is  IRRISTAT?” [In recent years, a slightly different Windows-compatible version, called CropStat, has been developed by Graham McLaren’s group and is now available online via the IRRI Web site.] IRRISTAT has helped a lot of scientists to be able to analyze their data properly after they conduct experiments using an appropriate design. It has helped researchers to understand better the importance of statistical analysis for their research data.
            My biggest regret is that I was not able to save the Statistics Department. The External Program Review in the mid 1980s recommended that the Statistics Department be abolished because it was essentially just a one-person [i.e., one internationally recruited staff] department. When I was asked to move from the Statistics Department to IRRI Administration in 1993, one of my bargaining chips was that the Statistics Department would not be abolished, at least not immediately.
            [Local politics and advances in the discipline led to gradual changes. The Statistics Department became Project Management Services and Biometrics Unit in 1990, simply Biometrics by 1992, then expanded to Biometrics and Bioinformatics in 2001, and finally became the Crop Research Informatics Laboratory in 2006. From 1993, Dr. McLaren headed the unit until September 2008, when he left IRRI to work in Mexico for the Generation Challenge Program.]

From statistics to fund-raising
Statistical know-how was not required to head IRRI’s new Liaison, Coordination, and Planning Unit, created by Klaus Lampe, the IRRI director general in 1993, to focus on establishing close relationships with IRRI donors. I was thus reluctant to take on the job. I finally agreed to take the job—for two reasons. First, IRRI was having financial difficulties and needed to go out and look for funds to sustain its operations. I believed that I owed IRRI a lot. I had gained a good reputation in the statistics discipline because of IRRI. So, I wanted to repay. A special unit for donor relations was never tried before. Somebody had to set up the system and I should help.
            Second, even though I wasn’t sure if I had the right qualifications to do the job well, I knew that Lampe trusted me and I trusted him, which was an important ingredient for the success of such a unit. Besides, Lampe was a good fund-raiser and had in fact taught me a lot. I knew that I could always count on him to help me out when I needed it.

Directors general remembered
[Robert F.] Chandler was my first director and IRRI’s first director as well [1960-72]. Bob was very intelligent and had an excellent management style. I always remember his open-door policy. Whenever we would like to talk to him—whether it was to report to him about our work accomplishments, to tell him of our personal problems (such as the car repair not being done on time), or to talk about anything at all—we could always see him in his office and he would listen. He valued senior staff time, and always made sure that all the needed services were provided in an efficient manner—to help unload the burdens of the senior staff. We often heard him say, “You guys are supposed to concentrate on your work, which is rice and rice research, and nothing else. So, you should leave all the other problems to us.” He made us feel truly special.
          In fact, this tradition is what had made IRRI standards the best in the world. He saw to it that all the provided services were really excellent such that no one needed to complain. If there was any problem, a senior staff could knock on his door and say, “I need a plumber in my house or my wife would not stop complaining.” He would listen because he felt that anything that bothered his senior staff, if not solved quickly, would surely detract the scientist from getting research done. So, I think this Chandler’s management style, in which he made us all feel great—like someone special—is one of the reasons why we all felt committed to making IRRI great as well. This was a very good practice, especially for the first director of IRRI.
          [After just a brief stay of 6 months or so in 1972 as the second IRRI director general, Ralph Cummings, Sr., departed for India to start up ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics), and Nyle Brady arrived as the third director general, 1973-81; photo left.] Dr. Brady was an expansionist. During his time, there were more buildings built and more programs added than at any other time that I can remember. Before he came, IRRI’s senior staff was a small group of 30 or even less. Senior staff meetings were held in a very small room (as shown in 1963 photo below). And then Brady came. The number of staff started to increase very quickly. Of course, he introduced new programs, such as farming systems, which necessitated bringing in many new staff—both senior and junior staff. He had changed IRRI from a very small close-knit type of family to a very large institution by the time he left. I’m not sure if everybody liked that, but he was surely the one responsible for it.
          A hard-working man himself, he was almost a slave driver in some ways. I remember during his time most senior staff went to the annual meetings of the American Society of Agronomy. Brady encouraged me to go to learn something about “agronomy” and to be closer to the other agricultural scientists. There were generally more than 12 or 13 of us at those meetings each year. We were assigned to be on the lookout for new people to hire. Thus, we all had to help in the recruitment interview besides listening to presentations of the scientific papers. And every morning—very early—he would call a breakfast meeting and all IRRI staff would have to be there to report to him what was going on the day before. We didn’t mind it that much because he himself came to the early breakfast meeting every day and worked harder than any of us.
          M.S. Swaminathan [IRRI director general, 1982-88] was the greatest speaker I’ve ever known—a truly great orator. He could sell ice to an Eskimo. When he talked, he was very convincing. That was truly his strength. His administrative and management style, on the other hand, was a bit unusual. He was absent from IRRI most of the time, and the question of “who’s minding the store” was often raised.
          During Swaminathan’s first staff meeting [in 1982], he made an announcement, “Kwanchai will head IRRI’s Gender Program.” Surprised and perplexed, I got up and said, “Dr. Swaminathan, I am sorry but I cannot head the Gender Program of IRRI. That’s not my interest and I don’t think I will do justice to the program. I’m a statistician, I know nothing about gender, and just because I’m a woman does not qualify me to run the Gender Program.” So, I guess, we didn’t start off too well.
          Then, IRRI celebrated its 25th anniversary [in 1985] and Mrs. Imelda Marcos [wife of the then Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos] was invited to come and chair the session. I was not involved at all in the arrangements for her visit. But on the morning of her arrival, Swaminathan came to me and said, “You are to sit next to Mrs. Marcos at the table on stage to assist her.” I almost fainted. I hated doing that kind of job but had no alternative as the time was too short for the organizers to make changes. But things were not too bad. Mrs. Marcos [photo above left during her 25th anniversary visit] was a very beautiful and graceful lady, and I was pleased to have a chance to get to know her.
          Although questions were raised about Swaminathan’s management style, mostly by senior staff, he was much loved by the nationally recruited staff, as he was always extra nice to them and gave them more than what they asked for. Even in recent years, whenever he came back to IRRI for a visit, many nationally recruited staff would swarm around him, kiss him left and right. Swaminathan was certainly not a man without controversy, but he’s a great man, that I can say. A great director general of IRRI?— that I don’t know.
          Klaus Lampe [IRRI director general, 1988-95] was a visionary. The first strategic plan of IRRI was developed during his time. I think it was a very good strategic plan. Of course, I could be biased since I was part of the development. That strategic plan was primarily based on Lampe’s vision more than anything else. He never stayed long at any one of our meetings. He would usually come in, and for 5 minutes gave his vision and ideas. And what he said became the basis on which the group developed the strategy.
          Lampe was not a likable person. He was very straightforward; he meant what he said. Unlike Swaminathan, he was not a sweet talker. He said things outright, and didn’t sugar-coat it. There were many senior staff who were offended by what he said. Perhaps because I worked with him closely and thus understood him a little bit more than others, and because I personally am a straightforward person myself, I didn’t mind him much. However, some years after he left, many of those same people who felt offended by him said they missed him and wished that he had stayed longer.
          When Lampe arrived as director general in 1988 [access YouTube video clip of this story below], I was just a working scientist and never had much of a chance to see him. However, one day, he called me to his office saying there was a problem: “Your son Victor [who was 10 years old at that time] brought a fake gun to the international school today,” he frowned, “and he had a ‘real’ bullet as well. The school principal wasn’t very happy about that.” I thought to myself, “Oh, my god, how could Victor bring a real bullet to school and where did he get it from? Then, Lampe immediately said, “You know any boy at his age might do something like that. Don’t worry too much about it.” With a great sigh of relief, I said, “Oh, ok, thank you,” and left his office in a hurry.
 

         Two days later, he called me again to his office. I thought to myself, “Oh, what did Victor do this time?” But I was wrong; it had nothing to do with Victor. Lampe told me that IRRI was being asked to do strategic planning. And since it would be the first time for such an exercise at IRRI, he would like to ask me to help organize the group that he would set up to develop the plan.
          He added that this task would be time-consuming and I may not have time to do statistics work. At the time, my immediate thought was that he gave me this assignment because he just wanted me out of statistics. I thought long and hard about his request and finally said: “Ok, I will agree to do it, as long as I still can be in the Statistics Department. Strategic planning shouldn’t take the whole day.” He agreed to my request, but not many years later, he changed his mind about letting me stay in statistics.
          I learned a lot from Lampe, particularly about fund-raising. I’ll never forget that. He always told me frankly what I did wrong, and I told him frankly, too, what he did wrong (in private, of course). We became very good friends, and the friendship remained until today. Hence, I may be biased when I said that Lampe was a good director general of IRRI. He had come at the time IRRI needed him. I don’t know if he had stayed longer, the benefit would have been as great. But, in those years, IRRI needed money and he brought a lot of it in. Of course, he also tried to streamline the management system to save a lot of money and that made many people angry, but that had in fact saved IRRI.
          I served briefly under George Rothschild [IRRI director general, 1995-97]. He was always a gentleman. He introduced the use of e-mail to IRRI staff, especially among internationally recruited staff. Prior to his days, e-mail was done by the secretaries. No department head would be caught dead typing notes on a computer. But Rothschild set up a rule that, if any staff wanted to tell him something, they must do so through e-mail. Now, many staff didn’t want their secretary to know what he/she wanted to talk to the DG about. This had forced senior staff to use e-mail to communicate with the DG. Maybe an exception was Gurdev Khush [rice breeder and principal scientist, 1967-2001], who never liked e-mail. I think Rothschild had brought a very good culture to IRRI. My familiarity with using e-mail has helped me greatly in my life after IRRI. Without it, I don’t know what I would be doing now. Thus, I must thank Rothschild for being ‘ahead of the time’ on this matter.
          I resigned from IRRI during Rothschild’s time for personal reasons. I had to go home to Bangkok. Rothschild didn’t want me to leave IRRI right away, so he asked me to stay at the IRRI-Bangkok office for 2 more years and become IRRI’s consultant. During that time, he was very supportive and very instrumental in helping me set up the Asia Rice Foundation, under the sponsorship of the Rockefeller Foundation.
          I had a chance to talk to Robert Havener [interim IRRI director general, 1998] a few times. Some people at IRRI, particularly those in finance, did not like the idea of someone setting up an Asia Rice Foundation, as they considered it a threat to IRRI, perhaps in terms of competition for fund-raising. Bob Havener, a very level-headed guy, told me a couple of times not to worry, and that he himself supported the establishment of an Asia Rice Foundation.
          Havener was a very good in-between manager [after Rothschild and before Ronald Cantrell, IRRI DG, 1998-2004]. It was not his first time to serve in such a capacity and IRRI was not his last either. It takes a special talent to move into an institute and stay only a very short time with an aim to keep it going until the real DG comes in.

Tribute to a mentor
I’d like to mention S.K. De Datta [IRRI agronomist, 1964-91, photo left] again. S.K. was my mentor in rice. Without his help, I would not have been able to do my job well. He graciously extended his expertise to show me how to conduct rice field experiments. I learned a lot from him. He was also a true scientist. Even though we were friends, often during our coffee breaks, I would give him some statistical advice, for example, once I told him, “S.K., you should not measure plant characters from plants taken from border rows, as they behave differently from the rest inside the plot.” And he would simply say, “Why (should I change), I have been doing that all my professional life.” Only when I conducted experiments and showed him the experimental data that clearly illustrated that plants from border rows behave differently from those inside the plots, S.K. immediately called his chief assistant and told him to change the way sample plants are taken for measurement of agronomic data in all his experiments. A good scientist is one who believes only experimentally proven data and not some guys—statisticians included—who might preach all kinds of things but no scientific evidence. I admired S.K. for his rice knowledge. I have yet to find another person who knows as much about rice agronomy as he does.
          Another person who had a lot of influence on my IRRI work was Bob Herdt, an agricultural economist [at IRRI, 1973-83]. His work was very far from the field experiments that I was usually associated with. However, he was able to convince me how important an agricultural economics program would be at a research institute like IRRI. We worked very closely on the Yield Constraints Project, one of the first multidisciplinary projects at IRRI. [From left in photo below taken in 2000] Bob, myself, S.K., and Randy Barker [IRRI agricultural economist, 1966-78, and acting head of the Social Sciences Division, 2007-08] were known as the “Gang of Four” based on the yield constraints work because all four of us traveled to many places and did things together. We were trying to identify and quantify factors that caused rice yields to be lower in farmers’ fields than on experiment stations. Our work became the model. At a recent conference I attended, one young man showed a slide of the yield gap model that our group developed in the yield constraints work—way back then. I must say that it was one of IRRI’s successful projects, and Bob was the strength behind it. By the way, Bob was also very supportive in pushing me to establish the Asia Rice Foundation, during the time he was with Rockefeller Foundation.  

IRRI’s first statistician
Burton “Burt” Oņate [1921-2001] was the one who brought me to IRRI when, after 6 years at IRRI, he decided to go to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for a 1-year sabbatical in 1967. He asked me to be his replacement at IRRI for that year. But, after that, he decided to remain at ADB. IRRI then hired me and I stayed at IRRI HQ until 1996.
             Actually, I didn’t have a chance to know Burt well. I knew more of his work though, since, when I came in, I had to study what he had done at IRRI to be able to continue. Burt was a different kind of statistician than I was. He was more into surveys and sampling, while I specialized in experimental statistics. He did a lot of crop cutting and measuring farm yields. He did not pay much attention to the use of statistics—experimental designs and statistical analysis—in rice experiments. His work on crop cutting was pretty good and was very helpful to people who were doing that kind of work. However, when I came, I decided that that was not what IRRI needed, and thus moved the focus of the Statistics Department toward the application of statistical procedures to rice research instead. 

Not easy being liked
I must say that one of IRRI’s biggest problems, then and perhaps now as well, that it must do something about, is that not too many people like IRRI. Somehow, it is so easy for people to look at IRRI negatively. The national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) owe IRRI a lot, at least from IRRI’s point of view. IRRI trains their people, works with them in joint research projects, and strengthens their capacity in rice research. But, if you go to any NARES and really have an honest-to-goodness talk with the people there, you will not likely find positive feelings toward IRRI. The question is why? It could be the culture somewhere at IRRI in the way it treats different people differently. And I think IRRI should review that. How IRRI views the term “equality between IRRI and NARES” and how to operationalize it accordingly may be the key.
          During Lampe’s time, IRRI designed the consortium concept to equalize the roles of national systems and IRRI. There was a clear recognition among many that NARES had grown stronger over time, and IRRI must recognize and treat them as equal partners. It was Lampe’s view that if IRRI and NARES were to be equal, both should plan research projects together, and work together on task assignments. Thus, the consortium concept was born, and several rice research consortia were subsequently set up. Did the various consortia work? I would say “not really.” Why? Perhaps it is because IRRI could not change that quickly its culture, and the way it does business with its partners.  

IRRI is lucky to be in the Philippines
IRRI is lucky to be in the Philippines, especially in Los Baņos. It has enabled IRRI to be able to get excellent support staff—the key to IRRI’s success. I had heard that, in the early years [late 1950s], there were debates over whether IRRI should be located in Thailand or in the Philippines. After working at IRRI for a while, I came to believe—even though I am a Thai—that the Philippines was a good choice to locate IRRI, primarily because of the excellent support provided by the nationally recruited staff. IRRI can get senior [international] staff anywhere, but the [junior] national staff here are truly remarkable.
          I personally was supported by a very good group of nationally recruited staff. They were very hard working and learned very fast, and more importantly were very committed to IRRI. That was IRRI’s luck and mine too. Some of those staff members are still here today with Graham McLaren [head of the IRRI Biometrics Unit and its various incarnations, 1993-2008, and in photo above with Dr. Gomez and the famous IRRI variety IR36], but many have gone to important jobs beyond IRRI, from working with the World Trade Organization and various banking institutions to owning a computer company; and living in countries all over the world—from the United States, Canada, Singapore to Europe. IRRI built professionals too.

Strengthening relations with national systems
I don’t think we can stress enough that IRRI has been very instrumental in strengthening national research systems in Asia. Many national systems people were trained here. High-level agricultural officials in most rice-growing countries of Asia are alumni of IRRI. Many of them came to IRRI for short-term and long-term training programs. IRRI is well known in most Asian countries through its training programs that made the NARES strong today.
          But I think IRRI’s relationships with NARES have not been as good as they should be. If IRRI has trained these people, why is it that they do not regard IRRI as their mentor? Why is it that IRRI is not regarded as their good colleagues or good partners? Why is it very difficult for IRRI to get NARES to join it in research cooperative programs when IRRI has no funds to give? Many of the NARES, like Thailand, for example, have a lot of money. They don’t really need money from outside sources for their rice research programs. They, however, need truly collaborative programs from which both parties benefit—equally. For that, I don’t think IRRI currently has a suitable approach or a culture to do it. But it must find ways to do so in the next page of IRRI’s relationship with the NARES.
          When I left IRRI headquarters to work at the IRRI-Thailand office for 2 years as a consultant [1997-98], I was extremely surprised to learn that not too many people in Thailand, including farmers, knew of IRRI. In Vietnam, the picture was different; you went anywhere there and people knew IRRI. Of course, it’s different from one country to the next. But the question is why?
           Even in the Thai Ministry of Agriculture, not a lot of people know IRRI. When IRRI Director General Ronald Cantrell, IRRI Board Chair Keijiro Otsuka, and IRRI Spokesperson Duncan Macintosh came to Bangkok to seek an audience with His Majesty the King, Bhumibol Adulyadej [25 August 2004], they were surprised to discover that the [then] Thai minister of agriculture, Mr. Somsak Thepsutin, who was going to accompany them to see the King, did not know much about IRRI and had to ask for information on IRRI from his staff.
           When I was in the IRRI’s Bangkok office, I talked to the then IRRI director for international programs [Fernando Bernardo] about what I had discovered (that IRRI is reasonably unknown in Thailand) and told him that something should be done about it. But the situation now is even worse because IRRI doesn’t even have a liaison person in Thailand anymore. There is no appropriate venue to keep relevant people in Thailand informed about IRRI’s research programs and other activities. Unless the relationship with NARES can be strengthened, IRRI will find it difficult to do effective collaborative work.  IRRI cannot isolate itself from the NARES—doing only basic research and staying by itself. I think that is not very productive. IRRI still has to work with NARES. But how to do it well? That’s the million-dollar question.
 

IRRI’s greatest challenge
I think IRRI’s greatest challenge is probably to define clearly the kind of contributions it still can make to the rice world. Times have changed. IRRI cannot just keep doing the same things it did at the start. IRRI has come a long way [47 years] and the rice problems of the world have changed drastically. IRRI must define what its present goals are; who are its clients and what are their expectations? What does the rice world need and what and how can IRRI contribute?
          It’s true that IRRI is an aging institution, and it may not be easy to re-define its goal, its mandate, and adapt new strategies and directions at this point in time. But, unlike old people, it is still easier to revive and renew an old institution. And I think IRRI should be able to find the way.
          IRRI has a new strategic plan, Bringing hope, improving lives. Some see it simply as a patch-up job of what it is doing now or maintaining a status quo. Whenever a strategic plan is developed purely by the people from inside the institution, it carries too much baggage; it’s heavy. Who will work on a strategy and work plan that will put them out of their jobs tomorrow? Nobody, of course! I myself had worked closely with the first IRRI strategic plan, I should know. I think IRRI is at present struggling with its identity, and one can see that in this new strategic plan.

IRRI’s role in the future of rice research in Asia
Are there enough rice scientists today in Asia? I suppose we have many more rice scientists today than, say, 50 years ago. The question is: does it guarantee a bright future for rice research? I’m not sure. The work of national systems depends on government policies. It doesn’t depend on what IRRI does or does not do. If the government policy is to support rice, then there will be a bright future for rice research. Otherwise, regardless of how many rice scientists there are in that country, nothing will come out of it. This is one of the reasons why I think the efforts must come from the different national systems because they are the ones who define the rice problems and constraints in their countries and decide on how best to solve them. I think IRRI’s role should be to try to convince governments of rice-growing countries to support their own rice research, instead of convincing them to support IRRI directly.
          I see the different national systems, and not IRRI, as the really important component for the bright future of rice research. When you think about rice globally, IRRI is just a drop in the bucket. For example, when you look at the numerous rice research centers in India, it’s clear that they are going to be strong only if the Indian government supports them or that the government is interested in their development. I think IRRI can do a lot to help convince governments to support their own rice research, and if the rice research in these countries becomes stronger, there would surely be a bright future for rice. Let us not be so IRRI-centric and keep on saying that only when IRRI is strong that the future of rice research is guaranteed. When I was at IRRI, I also thought that IRRI was the center of the universe when it comes to rice. But after I left IRRI, I found that there are in fact many “centers of the universe,” none of which is IRRI. When we work at IRRI, we think IRRI, eat IRRI, and dream IRRI. Of course, we finally convince ourselves that IRRI is the answer to the rice problems of the whole wide world, but this simply isn’t true. However, IRRI is a very influential institution when it comes to the issue of rice, and can greatly help the different national systems to obtain a bright future in rice research if it goes about it in the right way.
          I wish someone will convince IRRI to reverse its role from asking countries to help IRRI to asking them to help their own people. That should not be too difficult. Which government would not like to help their own people—if they are convinced of the need? That’s why I think IRRI can play the role very effectively. Along this line, I am hoping that, sometime during a future visit with His Majesty the King [Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand], IRRI’s director general will discuss with His Majesty on how he can help support rice research in Thailand—with some specific examples, instead of asking His Majesty to help support IRRI.  I think when IRRI asks people to support IRRI, the interest will be low as it is self-serving. But when you ask somebody [such as the King] to support the rice research systems in his own country, how can he not be interested. Besides, IRRI would then still be supported anyway, although indirectly. This indirect route is what I think IRRI should take. The direct route will not work—not in Asia.

Asia Rice Foundation
The idea of establishing the Asia Rice Foundation came out of an informal meeting of a group of donors led by the Rockefeller Foundation during the CGIAR’s International Centers Week in Washington, D.C. in 1996. Bob Herdt, who was then a Rockefeller Foundation vice president and director of its agricultural program, was worried about the declining interest of donors in supporting rice research, and what would become of rice research—both in national programs and at IRRI. Since, in 1996, Asia’s economy was booming, plus the fact that more than 90% of the world rice is grown and consumed in Asia, the thinking then was how to get Asians to take more responsibility in supporting rice—their own staple food. For example, why not approach the big corporations in Asia—Toyota and Honda, say, for support of rice. Asian economies were growing, so support for rice research in Asia should come from within Asia.
          That’s how the idea of setting up the Asia Rice Foundation was conceived. When I left IRRI at the end of 1996, Bob Herdt came to me and said, “I heard that you’re going back to Bangkok for some personal reasons. Why don’t you take up the task of establishing the Asia Rice Foundation? You could do it from anywhere, including Bangkok.” It sounded appealing, so I took the offer.
          By 1999, the Asia Rice Foundation was set up, with its headquarters in Los Baņos, Philippines. One of the first things the Asia Rice Foundation did was to help establish national rice foundations in major rice-growing countries in Asia, so that they can undertake appropriate programs and activities to help solve specific rice problems in their respective countries, with the Asia Rice Foundation as a coordinator and supporter. Five national rice foundations have been established, in Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand. These national rice foundations are independent in the sense that they have their own board of trustees and their own programs. The chairman of the board of the Bangladesh Rice Foundation, Mr. M. Syeduzzaman (photo right), is currently on IRRI’s Board of Trustees.
          The Asia Rice Foundation only helped these national rice foundations with funding in the beginning so they could start up their own activities, and could subsequently raise their own funds. The Asia Rice Foundation cannot be expected to solve all rice problems. The national foundations know their local problems, their priorities, and how to get funds. The Asia Rice Foundation only coordinates activities of, exchanges information among, and sometimes provides support to, the national rice foundations.
          Besides the national rice foundations, there are two support groups from developed countries, one in Japan and one in the USA. The Asia Rice Foundation –USA (ARFUSA), which is based in Vermont, is active in establishing scholarships for American students to do rice research in Asia and for Asian students to study in the U.S. Most of the members of the ARFUSA are IRRI alumni.

One of Thailand’s best known figures
and importance of the King
[In December 2006, Dr. Gomez was featured in an ABC Radio Australia documentary about rice in Thailand: Rice Bowl Tails, The Royal Grain. The interviewer, Tony Barrell, called her “one of Thailand’s best known figures,” and added, “She always looks elegant, stylish, and cool. But every Monday, like millions of other Thais, she goes to work in a yellow shirt, the King’s color.”]
          I really don’t know why Tony came up with the description of me as “one of Thailand’s best known figures.” I guess because when he asked me to help arrange various interviews with some important “rice people” in Bangkok, I called each person on my mobile phone and got an okay for interviews with him within minutes. But that is because I happened to know those people personally. The then president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association, Khun Vishay Sriprasert, and the former president of the Thai Rice Millers Association, Mr. Pramote Vanichanont, are both my friends and we work closely together. It is natural that I know a lot of rice people in Thailand, as I have been working for the Thai Rice Foundation under Royal Patronage for almost eight years now. Another point might be that Tony and I spent almost a day together—going from place to place. Wherever we went, everyone from directors general to rice researchers knew me well. Many were IRRI scholars during my IRRI days.  So, I guess Tony might have thought that I must be quite influential to know so many people. But, I must stress that it is only within the rice world of Thailand that I might be known.
          Regarding the yellow T-shirt that Tony was surprised to see everyone including me wearing, this was in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the King’s succession to the throne (in 2006) in which the government encouraged every Thai to wear a yellow shirt on Mondays in His Majesty’s honor, and for government employees to do so 5 days a week. This year [2007], some Thais are still wearing yellow shirts because it is His Majesty’s 80th birth anniversary [5 December]. I think it simply shows how much the Thai people—not only in Bangkok but everywhere throughout the country—love their King.
          Several governments in Thailand have wanted to reduce the country’s rice farming by saying that it has become too expensive for Thailand to produce rice. The government often said: “Why don’t we let our neighbors, with lower cost of production, produce the rice and we’ll buy it from them.” But the King would say, “No, we will lose our dignity if we cannot produce rice for our own consumption.” So, I think the government’s plan to curtail rice farming has been stopped in the track. His Majesty is always concerned about rice and rice farmers, and has always provided help and support by introducing many rice-related projects, from big irrigation projects to the New Farming Theory (how to manage water in small farms), to the Rice Bank (where farmers can borrow rice grains and pay back in grains as well). His Majesty also helped to promote consumption of brown rice for health, when he said that he himself eats brown rice.
          The Thai Rice Foundation under Royal Patronage, one of the member national rice foundations of the Asia Rice Foundation, is under His Majesty’s Royal Patronage. His Majesty not only provided direct funding for the Foundation, but also valuable advice. The Foundation has progressed well over the years, owing for the most part to the fact that it is under His Majesty’s Royal Patronage. Thai people tend to want to help the Foundation more once they realize that His Majesty is our Royal Patron; it’s slightly easier to seek funds, partners, and volunteers.  

A switch in aggressiveness
Would I have done anything differently during my time at IRRI? Yes, I would have liked to have been more aggressive as a statistician and less aggressive as a donor relations person. I might have made more friends and fewer enemies at IRRI over the years.