“Ms. Villar’s remarks riled not a few people, and fast too. In the ensuing backlash in this social media era of ours, she quickly caused an avalanche of memes, almost all contemptuous.

So as not to cause further allergies by which Senator Cynthia Villar obviously suffers from every time the word “research” is mentioned, I am tempted to follow Agriculture Secretary William Dar and use instead the word “innovation.”

Speaking at an event establishing education farms for farmers’ training, Dar was quoted as saying, “for those who are allergic to the use of the word ‘research,’ maybe it would be good for us to use the word ‘innovation’ this time around. Because that’s broader, anyway, than ‘research.’”

Gay amusement greeted Dar’s remarks. Obviously, the audience knew the Secretary’s remarks was an undisguised mocking riposte aimed at the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food.

Much as I am sorely tempted to follow Mr. Dar, but after due though admittedly cursory research on the term “research,” I found it impractical and tiresome to substitute “innovation” for “research” every so often. I am sticking with the word “research” henceforth.

It’s been days since Ms. Villar blurted her “research” remarks, but since these have now gained entry into our political lexicon of uproarious faux pas, it is worthwhile to requote these in the way she made it, in Pilipino.

The original Pilipino is up front and punchier, which English does not do justice. Thus:

“Bakit lahat ng budget puro research? Baliw na baliw kayo sa research. Aanhin n’yo ba ’yung research? Ako matalino akong tao pero hindi ko maintindihan yung research n’yo, lalo na ’yung farmer. Gusto ba nung farmer ’yung research? Hindi ba gusto nila tulungan n’yo sila?”

A rough English translation of her remarks goes like this: “Why is most of the budget for research? You are crazy over research. What will you do with research?” I am a smart person but I do not understand your research, what more the farmer. Do farmers like research? Don’t they want help?”

Between “crazy” and “baliw na baliw,” I’d go for the Pilipino expression anytime. Makes for endless smirks on a depressing day.

Anyway, Ms. Villar’s remarks came during the Senate’s review of the Agriculture department’s budget last week. As to what triggered the ire of the billionaire senator, it seems she felt the Agriculture department was laying out too much money for research after having budgeted P150 million of its proposed P1.2 billion budget for research on corn.

Ms. Villar’s remarks riled not a few people, and fast too. In the ensuing backlash in this social media era of ours, she quickly caused an avalanche of memes, almost all contemptuous.

Taken aback, Ms. Villar subsequently attempted context on what she meant. In a radio interview, she insisted she wasn’t against research, meaning only to say that funds for research should be done within limits.

She insists there is need for balance in how money is spent, insisting half of the proposed allocation for agriculture should be given to farmers in the form of tangible projects rather than paper-based research projects, which she claims don’t benefit farmers.

Seeds, farm equipment and irrigation are what the farmers need the most says Ms. Villar.

Allowing for a non-hostile, though hasty, reaction to Ms. Villar, it does seem she urges us to take serious note of the dilemma between the practical vis-a-vis the impractical needs of farmers.

It is a false dilemma, however. The Agriculture department has been exactly doing for so many years what Ms. Villar suggests, that is distributing seeds and farm equipment and doing irrigation projects here and there.

As a consequence of the above fact, we have no choice but sashay back to the senator’s initial tirade against research. Perhaps, as many suggest, the senator betrays cluelessness about the benefits of research in agricultural development.

Some are even suggesting that as a veteran politico Ms. Villar is acting true to form, her thoughts bearing witness to what all Filipino politicos have mastered in the flesh — patronage politics via staged PR events.

Indeed, it is far more useful for a politico’s political stature to have pictures of publicly giving away seeds and tractors to grateful farmer constituents rather than private study of voluminous research useful for just about everybody in agriculture.

These suggestions have their merits, but I will content myself with the observation Ms. Villar is an innocent babe about modern “research.”

Not that she doesn’t know what research is in general as she presumably is no stranger to college term papers involving research. But in so far as what Ms. Villar has been saying, she isn’t at all clear what she means by research.

In short, she needs to upgrade her notions of what research means in modern professional life. And, as all professionals often say, she needs to be on the same page. Getting on the same page is easy work. It starts by first knowing what the terms specifically refer to and mean.

Amateur detective work would have saved Ms. Villar a heap of trouble, informing her of the nuances and distinctions between basic research and applied research, hallmarks of modern scientific research work.

Using the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica as a tour guide, basic research essentially means “the work of scientists and others who pursue their investigations without conscious goals, other than the desire to unravel the secrets of nature.”

Applied research, on the other hand, “carries the findings of basic research to a point where they can be exploited to meet a specific need, while the development stage of research and development includes the steps necessary to bring a new or modified product or process into production.”

“In Europe, the United States and Japan the unified concept of research and development has been an integral part of economic planning, both by government and by private industry.”

But, enough with the day’s school lessons. Surely Ms. Villar by now has already learned her lessons. Hopefully. With lessons learned she may now be able to convince us to replace our disdain of her self-proclaimed intelligence with bemused indulgence instead.