A*STAR, John Hopkins Research Facility To Close
-
few guys here just saying JH is right and right,The reasons are they are
long time established and the reputation are internationally better than
ASTAR.
2.I will based on fact and evidence of each org in this issue.
Be honest i just read ASTAR story but not JH.
So far,i mean so far only,that ASTAR has put up concrete evidences. -
Fair enough, lion, that's a rational approach to take and that can't be faulted. However, consider:
1) If JH was as bad as A*STAR makes them out to be, how did they get to where they are today? It stands to reason that if they were so bad at delivering, they would have died out as a research centre long ago.
2) JH is very experienced in dealing with the rigorous compliance issues of bodies such as the NIH. That A*STAR petulantly insisted on having "brand name" researchers despite standards having been met certainly is a case of A*STAR going out of their way to make the working relationship difficult. Would one not be inclined to wonder why A*STAR threw that spanner in the works?
3) A*STAR, in typical Singapore government style, has approached this issue in the manner of a court case. What they don't seem to realise is that this is not being tried in court, and instead other international research bodies will be examining the matter to fidn out what dealing with Singapore is like. At the rate A*STAR is going, they're not making Singapore look at all attractive for research partnerships, and that's just shooting Singapore's biomedical resrach ambitions (amongst others) in the foot. -
quite true. As i said, reputation is damaged already and future research bodies may think twice about coming to Singapore.
Those taking biochemical or life science want ah, this doesn't look good... -
It seems to be a common characteristic that runs through the government and its agencies to behave in the same manner as A*Star - in dictating terms and conditions to JH, as was also seen with the IR Committee telling the various Casino operators their nit-picking preferences that impinge on the operators' room to operate - resulting in the early pulling out of a few operators resulting in the postponement of the bidding date, and with the package of terms reviewed.
Based on the present inexperience of the local Civil Servants in operating casinos, they submitted themeselves to the glib experience of Sands Corporation, who was able to force their own views onto the nit-picking minds of the Singapore Civil Servants.
The entire IR would have been a botched job if the Civil Servants had got their way, and it will be a matter of time before government linked agency - such as the NTUC - will step in to open an IR of its own under the guise of elevating the status of hard pressed Singapore Workers, along the same line as Orchid Golf Club - "the Workers' Golf Club".
Probably, NTUC will be asked to step into JH shoes with the health concern of a large pool of Singaporean Workers in the finanacial minds of the Elite Leadership. -
Do you think A*Star will ever look bad, even though it is their fault in their workings that the partnership fell through?
They are bound to push the blame to JH. And as far as they are concerned, they have done everything right and JH has screwed it up seriously. And 'friends' of A*Star must accept that without question, least they incur the wrath of A*Star. And of course, we know that we shouldn't incur their wrath, or we will be in deep trouble. -
It's Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins.
Anyways, about JH not meeting KPIs, such as the one about recruiting Ph.D. students... has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, JH is more interested in carefully recruiting the right kind of good students and is not interested in simply meeting KPIs and will not therefore anyhow recruit students? I mean, how hard can it be to recruit 8 students in 1 year? That this KPI cannot be met suggests that JH is interested in doing things "right," rather than following KPIs.[/b] -
Originally posted by deemweet:
Precisely.A*Star should have known that JH's culture is such when they signed that partnership, rather than cry foul later.
It's John[b]s Hopkins, not John Hopkins.
Anyways, about JH not meeting KPIs, such as the one about recruiting Ph.D. students... has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, JH is more interested in carefully recruiting the right kind of good students and is not interested in simply meeting KPIs and will not therefore anyhow recruit students? I mean, how hard can it be to recruit 8 students in 1 year? That this KPI cannot be met suggests that JH is interested in doing things "right," rather than following KPIs.[/b][/b]
That's the problem with our stat boards, I would guard myself if I were an MNC working with them.
Sorry, but A*Star's credibility is coming close to non-existent in my eyes when seen in the international R&D context. -
Ged, so much for grooming a sweet sweet IP culture amongst the citizens when a legalistic grey beast is running amok eh.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, I'm sorry - you seem to know all about neurological research, so much so that nothing in the world can happen without you noticing it. What are your achievements in the field, pray tell? You must be some serious bigshot if this Dr Lee's daddy can't touch you in Singapore.
Without revealing too much information and identifying my source, one of the companies I mentioned was contracted by a government department to develop an electronic tagging system. The development contract was set within a period of 18 months, and everything went fine for the first 6 months. After that, the government department started dragging its feet on reviewing the work presented by the company and finding problems with the concepts until the contract ran out.
The government decided not to extend the contract and the company cut its losses after wasting 18 months. Lo and behold, within 2 years that particular Singapore government department was trying to sell an electronic tagging system to other countries, based upon the very concepts that they said were unworkable. Last I heard, the company was fighting to block the sales in the other countries' courts, claiming IP violations.
You want to know the funny thing? I didn't get this information from the company. I got it from someone within that government department.
Do you really think it's that easy to sue a government? What's the US government going to do - restrict arms sales? The Singapore government's already thrown out the Privy Council because they don't like the Council's decisions, so are you really that naive as to believe that the threat of a lawsuit is going to have the government quaking in its boots?
Have you ever filed a patent? I have, and many people I know personally and professionally deal with IP issues on a regular basis. Mention government organisations like ST to any such people, and the first thing they'll tell you is to have your IP locked in airtight before breathing a word to them. If you think I'm kidding, go ask around and find out for yourself what the word on the street is on that count. -
And JH should also have known better when they sign the partnership as well. If they want good students which are hard to find, they should have know better not to promise too much.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Precisely.A*Star should have known that JH's culture is such when they signed that partnership, rather than cry foul later.
That's the problem with our stat boards, I would guard myself if I were an MNC working with them.
Sorry, but A*Star's credibility is coming close to non-existent in my eyes when seen in the international R&D context. -
Oh I am not some big shot in neurological research. But I do know that for some top notch guy to be accuse of false data, that has got to be a news that ought to be in the front page.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, I'm sorry - you seem to know all about neurological research, so much so that nothing in the world can happen without you noticing it. What are your achievements in the field, pray tell? You must be some serious bigshot if this Dr Lee's daddy can't touch you in Singapore.
Without revealing too much information and identifying my source, one of the companies I mentioned was contracted by a government department to develop an electronic tagging system. The development contract was set within a period of 18 months, and everything went fine for the first 6 months. After that, the government department started dragging its feet on reviewing the work presented by the company and finding problems with the concepts until the contract ran out.
The government decided not to extend the contract and the company cut its losses after wasting 18 months. Lo and behold, within 2 years that particular Singapore government department was trying to sell an electronic tagging system to other countries, based upon the very concepts that they said were unworkable. Last I heard, the company was fighting to block the sales in the other countries' courts, claiming IP violations.
You want to know the funny thing? I didn't get this information from the company. I got it from someone within that government department.
Do you really think it's that easy to sue a government? What's the US government going to do - restrict arms sales? The Singapore government's already thrown out the Privy Council because they don't like the Council's decisions, so are you really that naive as to believe that the threat of a lawsuit is going to have the government quaking in its boots?
Have you ever filed a patent? I have, and many people I know personally and professionally deal with IP issues on a regular basis. Mention government organisations like ST to any such people, and the first thing they'll tell you is to have your IP locked in airtight before breathing a word to them. If you think I'm kidding, go ask around and find out for yourself what the word on the street is on that count.
And i won't say that I trust government bodies completely and sure there will be bound to be case as you mention but it seems that you completely condemn every government bodies. I simply don't see what A-star had done wrong in this case. And i don't see how A-star can benefit by breaking the relationship. Seems that they are trying to be careful with their fundings and not to simply give anyone without them meeting their objectives. -
And what are their objectives in the first place? The conjectures do not smell too good. There are decent stat boards and there are otherwise.
Dr Shivron(sic) was only lambasted here, not around the world.That should tell you the miniscule scale of his "deeds". We as people outside the field may not fully know what went on, but it seemed to me that it was more of a cultural clash than actual R&D misdeed.
Simply put, your karma just ran over my dogma, etc that sort of thing. So.. next question, why do we always end up doing something that puts us at odds with most of the world's practices? Trying to reinvent the wheel is a useless thing.
The cord blood bank here is one success though.. -
read ASTAR and JH story now.pl link JH's side of story here for us to judge.
A*STAR's letter to The Straits Times on developments at the Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore,24, Jul 2006
2.At least ASTAR put up his case with some concrete evidences.
11 Of the remaining 7 faculty, 6 were given appointments as Assistant Professors by JHU. For 5 of the 6, this was their first appointment as an Assistant Professor. Academics generally would not consider someone at the level of an Assistant Professor to be a senior investigator......
12 All in all, DJHS failed to meet 8 out of 13 KPIs for scientific capability development specified in the Agreement. For 7 of these KPIs, DJHS was unable to even meet the 1st year targets by the end of the 2nd year.
13 The Agreement allows A*STAR to discontinue funding DJHS if it decides after formal review and with due process, that DJHS is not likely to succeed in achieving its KPIs.
The past performance of JH is not related in this issue.
Pl just check if JH has fulfilled their obligations according to
the agreements.Of course ,each party may has different interpartations.
Eg,para 10 and 11.10. The Agreement also required DJHS to recruit 12
pl read if JH fullfil their obligations?An agreement is an contract.
senior investigators with international reputation to appointments at DJHS and with full-time residence in Singapore by February 2006......
11......When A*STAR raised its concerns, JHU responded that at Hopkins they prefer to hire capable and ambitious junior scientists rather than bring in "big names". A*STAR feels strongly that neither the letter nor the spirit of the Agreement, in particular the requirement to recruit senior investigators, was being followed.....
If it is fully funded and operated by JH,they has their final say.
But JH has agreement with ASTAR.JH has to follow the agreement.
JH cant bully ASTAR like younger brother.
ASTAR want to kick start the RD works by bring in senior
investigators with international reputation to appointments at DJHS
and with full-time residence in Singapore .
But JH gave us not so experienced staff and most of them not
stay in Spore.
3.we can have 1000 opinons.But pl make the facts straight first.
Just like those Share IPO and Funds Investment in disclaimer:
Past performance is not an indications of future performances.
JH and ASTAR already acted.Pl dug out what thet had done or ont done.
4.Is it true in western RD org,researchers has to spent at least
half of their time to write grant papers to get funds?
Straits Times July 22, 2006 Johns Hopkins, A*Star 'headed for break-up'Facility in Biopolis will close in a year, say staff of research and education tie-up By Liaw Wy-Cin and Teh Joo Lin AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD marriage between a top American medical institution, Johns Hopkins University, and Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) looks to be heading for a break-up, and a messy one at that.
what is ''The university maintains that its Singapore partner has not kept up its end of the deal in meeting its 'financial and educational obligations'.''
Staff of the research and education tie-up - Division of Biomedical Sciences, Johns Hopkins in Singapore - told The Straits Times that they had been informed early last month that the facility in Biopolis in North Buona Vista would close in a year.
Another indication of problems came from four local students who were awarded doctorate scholarships to study at the university in Baltimore.
They too were told last month that the research division would no longer be funding their studies.
When contacted, an A*Star spokesman described the problems as a period of 'transition' - a decision taken by the leadership of the American university and the agency to replace the current 'operating model of collaboration' with a 'new model of partnership' that is still being developed.
But while the issues are worked out over the next 12 months, staff and faculty here will be given help to either relocate to Baltimore or find new employment in Singapore, said A*Star.
As of March, there were a total of 60 staff, 13 of them faculty members.
As for the four local students who were to pursue their graduate training in Baltimore, A*Star said:
'Although A*Star is not obliged to do so, we have offered assistance to all four students to facilitate their entry to a PhD programme at a local university and where possible, we have offered them the opportunity to apply for an appropriate A*Star scholarship.'
Taking a different view of the situation was the spokesman for Johns Hopkins University, who said the university had done its part to recruit faculty and graduate students, as stipulated in its agreement with A*Star.
The university maintains that its Singapore partner has not kept up its end of the deal in meeting its 'financial and educational obligations'.
'Although Johns Hopkins University has attempted to be as collegial as is possible during this very difficult phase, the displacement of outstanding junior faculty recruited from throughout the world, and the intense disruption of graduate student education, cannot be underestimated or dismissed.'
The spokesman added that this is a 'reputational issue for Singapore and A*Star' and that the university will continue to work to resolve faculty and student issues during this transition.
The recent developments came as a surprise to staff, some of whom had only recently relocated to Singapore.
As late as March this year, an editorial in Johns Hopkins Singapore's newsletter said the division 'continues its recruitment efforts'. It also said it had 'embarked on its education programme with a bang', before going on to mention the four Singapore students who would receive the postgraduate scholarships.
Johns Hopkins came to Singapore in 1998 to carry out research, education and patient care activities. p>
It also set up a medical centre here, designated as Johns Hopkins Singapore's clinical arm for patient care and clinical research. And while the research division has hit a rocky patch, the medical centre is expanding.
The Johns Hopkins Singapore International Medical Centre last year moved from its original premises at the National University Hospital into a space at Tan Tock Seng Hospital that allowed it to see up to 750 new private patients each year. -
As I've said, it is a clash of ideas on what constitutes success.
JH believes in exposing their junior staff(who are identified to be future top researchers already), whereas A*Star wants instant senior investigators.
Something gave way there and then.The ST article is still a govt piece, can't take it 100% too.
Let's wait for a independant source on the A*Star side. But I think it will be unlikely. -
That where you are wrong. A-star does not only wants instant senior investigators. If they only want that. What for they place the number of students inside their KPI.Originally posted by LazerLordz:As I've said, it is a clash of ideas on what constitutes success.
JH believes in exposing their junior staff(who are identified to be future top researchers already), whereas A*Star wants instant senior investigators.
Something gave way there and then.The ST article is still a govt piece, can't take it 100% too.
Let's wait for a independant source on the A*Star side. But I think it will be unlikely.
Ya you mention success, but success to who? JH or A-star? A-star definitely wants some success, if not they pay so much for what.
JH believes in junior staff. But what can junior staff do without learning the ropes in doing research. They need senior investigators to guide them. I believe that with senior investigator, research can be done at a faster pace. And A-star wants students as well. And Singaporean students who can learn and work hard. So that when they learn the stuff, they can return and contribute. And that when we can stop depending on foreign senior investigators.
And i really wonder why so many people are so quick to condemn A-star. Here I thought i would really condemn A-star if they still continue paying JH so much tax payers money and yet won't help much in building Singapore research environment. -
2.this is a ASTAR funded projects and there is agreement of whatOriginally posted by LazerLordz:As I've said, it is a clash of ideas on what constitutes success.
JH believes in exposing their junior staff(who are identified to be future top researchers already), whereas A*Star wants instant senior investigators.
Something gave way there and then.The ST article is still a govt piece, can't take it 100% too.
Let's wait for a independant source on the A*Star side. But I think it will be unlikely.
ASTAR needs.JH should deliver under the agreement and cant change
the agreement without ASTAR consent.
This jus like I pay the price of Merc C180 and get a 1100 cc Q Cherry fr PRC.
3.There is no point to talk if laws of contract dumped.
4.pl post the JH story here.
pl read what JH said before.
Success Story,Johns Hopkins SingaporeJohns Hopkins Singapore, established in 1999, has become an academic division of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. The new Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore follows the academic model of the School of Medicine, and will have the same rights and privileges as the other departments and divisions.
pl read the stories of both sides above postings
With this change in status, also comes a new grant issued by SingaporeÂ’s Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR). This new 5-year grant of S$75 million (US$43 million) is to fund research initiatives in the areas of immunology, virology and the related sub disciplines, as well as to train bright young scientists in these fields.
Additionally, the Division looks forward to its move to Biopolis ~a state-of-the-art biotech park built by the Singapore government. The Biopolis is designed to be a leading Asian center for biomedical sciences research and development where several key government agencies, publicly funded research institutes, and R&D laboratories of pharmaceutical and biotech companies will be located.
Johns Hopkins Singapore embarked upon its first Graduate Training Program in Molecular and Cellular Immunity in July 2003. This program is being carried out in partnership with the National University of Singapore Faculty of Medicine Graduate Research Program. Part of the DivisionÂ’s new educational initiatives will be to expand its Graduate Training Programs and award HopkinsÂ’ degrees in the fields of Biomedical Engineering, Clinical Investigation and Immunology.
Our scientists continue to excel and contribute valuably to the research field by way of publications in high impact journals, presentations at meetings and conferences both locally and internationally as well as filing patents. The scientists work closely with both their peers in Baltimore as well as other collaborators in Singapore.
To learn more about Johns Hopkins Singapore, please visit www.jhs.jhmi.edu -
besides A*star giving its side of the story, has they done anything else to repair the damaged reputation from JH's letter?
Like asking them to respond or withdraw their statement as this is not so serious whether Singaporeans believe or not but foreign researches' impression of the matter and affecting future collaborations... -
2.agreed. must ask JH tell how'' its Singapore partner has not kept up its end of the deal in meeting its 'financial and educational obligations'. ''Originally posted by sgheartland:besides A*star giving its side of the story, has they done anything else to repair the damaged reputation from JH's letter?
Like asking them to respond or withdraw their statement as this is not so serious whether Singaporeans believe or not but foreign researches' impression of the matter and affecting future collaborations... -
Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Johns Hopkins fallout, entitled A Divorce in Singapore:— Scott Jaschik.loading pl wait.A Baltimore-based spokesman for Hopkins said Wednesday that the university was preparing a statement about the collapse of the partnership, but as of late yesterday, it hadn’t released anything.(lionnoisy:we are waiting)
...Philip G. Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education, at Boston College, said he doesn’t know why the Singapore-Hopkins relationship soured, but thinks that other universities should pay attention. “Singapore clearly wanted both a brand name — brand names are very important in the Asian context — and it wanted the substance behind the name. If they don’t get both, there’s a problem,” Altbach said.(yes sg want the substance behind the name.i dunt care
how good u are in the past 100years.if JH cant deliver according to
the contract.so sorrry.u are fired!!)
In the case of Singapore, Altbach said that officials there have a tough attitude about making sure that American educational partners fully deliver.(does he mean
JH not fully delivered?).... -
sound like a*star is going down dirty..
-
Lion, why didn't you quote the following paragraphs regarding what Altberg said?
The problem for many American colleges (and other colleges in English-speaking countries) is that there are plenty of Asian nations right now where governments or private entities care only about brand name, and the brand just needs to be Western, not necessarily a “name” institution, Altbach said. As a result, many programs being set up don’t have standards equivalent to those of home campuses.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that A*Star sounded like a brat demanding McDonald's.
Altbach said American educators need to do more to make potential partners abroad understand that the excellence of American higher education isnÂ’t just a matter of names.
Altbach seems to have been unsuccessful at diplomacy here. You don't have to read too much between the lines to see that he's saying that the demand for brand names comes from ignorance of the R&D game. Sadly, he's right. -
I don't see how you can call A star as ignorance. As lion article shows, A star don't only want brand name. They want the substance behind the name. They want good researchers in singapore to build up the technology in singapore and also to train up researchers. Thats why A star pay so much to JH. And it appears that A star got neither good researchers nor students and that why they terminated the contract. And you call A star ignorance???
And i wonder about what you mean by R&D game? You mean in this game, i pay lots of cash for the brand name of a college and yet in return i should only expect to get some brunt food? And that singapore should continued to eat these brunt food without complains???
Also I think that the main cause of the breakdown of relation comes from the different working culture of the 2 bodies. Seems to me that neither of them are at fault. -
Of course it's ignorance. If they wanted the substance, JH could more than easily done provided it - after all, why would they want to break their own rice bowl by developing a reputation for producing substandard research?
A*STAR's insistence on brand names regardless just screams of their ignorance. If they could get the product already, why insist on the brand name unless they want to "bai swee"? They're acting like peasants who leave the labels sewn on their coat sleeves, so that all and sundry will know that said coat is such-and-such a brand.
Good research is good research, regardless of whoever produces it. If it meets well-established standards (which is necessary if it's going to be of any use to JH), the product will not be burnt food as you have described it. On the other hand, big names have been known to produce crap as well, and that is why A*STAR's placement of priority on the brand name highlights their ignorance. -
funny, i thought i stress already that a star want the substance behind the brand. it is you who keep insisting that they are ignorant to want only the brand.
Also you mention that A star got the product already. What product do you mean??? The papers that was produced??? Because, as i say, a star is building up singapore as technology hub. They don't get the required amount of students from them nor the required amount of researchers. so what they get, is it really enough?? -
Funny, I thought I already explained that if the substance is there, the brand name is irrelevant.
Think this one through. If A*STAR is going to be busy acting like a petulant child, do you really think it's open-minded enough to learn anything and develop into a technology hub? To do that, it would have to knuckle down and get to the real task, instead of digging its heels in on irrelevancies. -
and i thought i already say that substance is not there. that why they break. i mean that a star doesn't seem to receive any of their substance.
And i wonder what you mean by irrelevant? training students for research, having senior investigator is irrevelant???