Empowering collaboration avoid perpetuating dynamics associated with parachute science. Research networks must go beyond data extraction to advance science, build local capacity, share credit, and foster trust for advancing science and conservation.

The fact that 17.7% of PH endemic vertebrates still lack genetic data, less than the global average of ~24%, is encouraging and suggests strong research activity. However, these activities must be done in collab that is inclusive and empowering—involving Filipino scientists in all research stages.

118 of 213 wildlife genetic research on Philippine species (or at least mainly involving PH species) had no Filipino co-authors, and Filipino representation averaged only 1–2% of total authorship per paper.

Species confined to smaller biogeographic regions, with narrow ranges, or that are threatened or lack threat assessments, were less likely to have genetic data.

Reptiles had the lowest proportion of species with genetic data (78%, compared to 84–87% in other groups) but showed the highest growth, followed by birds, mammals, and amphibians. Mammals showed the fastest, most consistent growth in genetic data availability.

Genetic data exist for 633 of 769 endemic vertebrate species, though 590 have fewer than 20 GenBank entries, indicating limited, often non-population-level sampling. Only about 8% of 213 wildlife genetic studies included population-level sampling.

Despite global calls (e.g., Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal GBF) to track genetic diversity, countries like the Philippines face serious gaps in data and inclusion. So how are we doing? Key results are: