BRIBERY and solicitation are different from each other, but there could be a symbiotic relationship between the two.
Bribery is directly related to corruption, because when a bribe is offered, the person of influence becomes corrupt, and graft happens consequently. That is the reason why it could be said that bribery could be the cause of corruption, which is in turn the cause of graft.
Solicitation, on the other hand, is different, because it is the “applicant” who offers something of value to the person of influence, in exchange for a favor or some kind of approval. Although it goes through another route, the result of solicitation is the same, when the person of influence grants the favor or approval to the “applicant”.
What can a good Christian do when he or she encounters a corruptible person of influence?
Obviously, the good Christian should not be the first to offer a bribe, because bribery is clearly a sin.
But what if the person of influence is the first to demand a bribe?
I think that could already be considered as a solicitation, and the good Christian may now decide in his conscience what to do, in the best interests of his or her business or employer.
This goes without saying that a good Christian who is in a position of influence should not solicit anything from an applicant. There is no other way around that.
CLINICAL TRIALS IN PH
I am looking for an expert who could help me understand how clinical trials are being conducted in the Philippines, or how they ought to be conducted.
I took an interest in this matter when I heard from some sources that some clinical trials are being conducted either by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or by the Department of Health (DOH).
I then took the trouble to send queries to both the FDA and the DOH, but so far, I have not received their replies.
I am curious what their reply would be, because I really think that there would be a conflict of interest in doing the tests, if the outcome of the tests could potentially favor a private company of any kind.
We should still wait for the reply of both the FDA and the DOH before we judge them, but in the meantime, I suggest that these two agencies should instead enable the private sector to conduct their own tests, especially those small companies that have limited funds for product development.
Since the FDA has a regulatory function, I think that it may not be able to go into product development. That role might be more appropriate for the DOH but only as an enabler or policy maker.
The DOH could also choose to fund the research of nonprofit companies, in which case there would be no conflicts of interests./PN
