Naysayers Strike Back!

Science policy analyst Cong Cao, who worked in Singapore before, wrote a letter to Science magazine (8 June 2007), listing a number of challenges that the Singaporean scientific endeavour faces.

And it quickly drew a response from a world-renowned Singaporean, who agreed wholeheartedly with the article.

At Fresh Brainz we spare no effort at the critical examination of criticisms.

So here is a blow-by-blow analysis of the key challenges that Cong Cao described:

1. First, biotech research is uncertain and it can take many years to achieve a breakthrough. Furthermore, advances in understanding pathways operating in human beings are not automatically translatable into commercialized, profitable products. It is not unusual for a pharmaceutical company to spend 10 years and billions of dollars developing a new drug. Although improvements in drug-screening technologies, automation of the screening process, and advances in genomics may change the “hit-or-miss” drug discovery process and shorten the development cycle, pharmaceutical companies will continue to see high rates of failure and enormous development costs. It remains to be seen whether Singaporeans are ready to embrace uncertainties and tolerate failures.

Research is uncertain, that is true. However it is not necessary to have a "breakthrough" in order to reap commercial benefits from research. Inclemental improvements, whether driven by basic science or technology R&D, can have good potential for profits - this depends on many market-related factors.

Ironically, Dr. Cao shows us that he is already aware of this, by pointing out two such improvements (drug-screening technologies and advances in genomics) that can help pharma companies streamline their drug development process - two key areas in Singaporean biomedical research today.

As for the high rate of failure in pharma companies, I should clarify that while there is a high failure rate for pharm start-ups, established international pharma companies continue to generate strong sustainable revenue. Thus they are a good starting point for collaborations.

Still, I share Dr. Cao's concern about how a new generation of Singaporean biotech and pharma start-ups will fare in the face of uncertainty, failure and intense international competition (see point 2 for more details). Currently, only a handful of Singaporean start-ups are sustainable operations.

I should mention that Dr. Cao's use of the buzzword "breakthrough" and use of "biotech" when referring to products to be used directly in people (should be "biomed") are clues that tell us that his primary training is likely not in science.

2. Second, the talent challenge may not be easily resolved. Singapore has started using a government fellowship program to send students abroad. But it will take at least 10 years—the normal time for a doctoral degree plus postdoctoral research experience—for them to become independent researchers and longer to become internationally renowned. Also, in contrast to the United States, where the biotech industry has benefited from strong entrepreneurial efforts by academic scientists, their counterparts in Singapore, as civil servants, operate in
a highly rigid, hierarchical system where moves between academia and industry are rare. Also, Singaporean youngsters may not be willing to stick to tedious benchwork that may or may not lead to financial rewards.

The timeframe is incorrect - the pioneer batch of A*Star PhD students will be graduating this year. If we use Dr. Cao's assumption that they will need to undergo two postdocs (usually 2 X 3 years), then it will only take 6 years before they return as independent researchers.

Even the students who entered the Life Sciences program after the announcement of our biomedical initiative (2002) will be ready in 8 years' time, likely sooner.

However, Dr. Cao is right that they will take much longer to become internationally renowned scientists. I know of three students in the my field of research who I think have the potential to become world-leading scientists.

Of course most students won't get there, but that's also true of any group of students, even in the USA.

It will be helpful, but not necessary to produce many world-leading scientists in order to have a sustainable biomedical research and manufacturing endeavour. Large pharma or biotech companies rarely have renowned scientists (excluding their advisory boards). It is, however, crucial to have a sizeable number of well-trained scientists and technical staff.

As for the tradition of close links between entrepreneurs and academics in the United States, I agree that Dr. Cao has a good point. It's tough for a good scientist to also become a good entrepreneur; I personally feel that the training to become a scientist almost runs opposite to entrepreneurship.

I don't know what the government expects of A*Star students, but if the plan is for many of them to start companies, then I think we have a real problem. Entrepreneurial training needs to begin early. In fact, if they successfully become world-leading scientists with strong personalities then it will be very difficult to switch them towards the entrepreneurial mindset.

Until the time when an entrepreneurial tradition in science becomes established here, there will be a strong demand for people who have the difficult job of acting as intermediates between scientists and the business community.

3. Finally, research in Singapore profited from the ethical debates that mired stem cell and cloning research in the United States. Less restrictive rules may have been an inducement to some foreign biotech companies to set up operations in Singapore. Of course, that does not mean Singapore has no regulatory framework to review research and enforce any recommended ethical code. But Singapore’s advantage may not last if the research environment becomes more open in other countries.

It's hard to say how much Singapore has benefited specifically from the stem cell controversy in the USA, since other research powerhouses such as the UK have had open research environments for years. Nevertheless we are attracting a significant number of world-leading scientists, as well as new pharma investments to our tiny island.

There are many reasons why this is so, including an attractive tax structure, intellectual property protection and an educated workforce. In order to become more attractive than Singapore for research and manufacturing, a competing nation will need to address all these factors, in addition to having a more open research environment.

I agree that we cannot tell for sure how long Singapore's advantage will last.

But if what Dr. Cao really means is that the United States will quickly catch up in embryonic stem cell research once the political pressures ease after 2008, then I only have one thing to say:

You're too late.

It's not Singapore you have to worry about. Even if all political opposition to stem cell research evaporated today in the USA (which realistically won't happen for years) - Japanese and British research groups have gone so far ahead that you will need a long, long time to catch up.

4. More importantly, there should be better opportunities for civil society in Singapore to debate the issues related to biotech research. Citizens have the right to know much more about the risks and benefits associated with the biomedical sciences conducted in Singapore than they do now. Public understanding is at least as important as deep pockets and a deep talent pool.

If I am reading this correctly, Dr. Cao wonders why there isn't widespread debate about biomedical issues here, unlike the explosive and divisive situation in the United States.

He thinks cynically that it's because there is insufficient public information regarding bioethics.

Well, I can be even more cynical than that.

It's not that public information on bioethics isn't available, you can read about it anywhere: in the newspapers, on the Internet, there are even public talks on bioethics.

The real reason why most Singaporeans don't fight over ethics in science is because - they simply don't care about science at all.

Scientific culture doesn't exist among the general public. This is hardly surprising considering that even our oldest biomedical research institute is only 20 years old.

This is also why there are only 2 science blogs in Singapore, out of a few hundred thousand blogs. In contrast, there are hundreds of political blogs read by thousands of Singaporeans daily.

Heh.

To sum up: A number of informative criticisms about Singaporean science, which I have addressed in this article, have been raised by Cong Cao.

Is he a pessimist? Not quite.

Let me point out that, in stark contrast to this letter, he had a glowing appraisal of China's R&D efforts while working in Singapore.

He is now working in the United States.

Also interesting to note that a critical view of his letter accepted it without any criticism.

I know that naysaying can be fun, but like James Bond says - "It wouldn't do to make a habit of it."


Would you like to know more?

A review of Cong Cao's book
- China's Scientific Elite