A*STAR, John Hopkins Research Facility To Close
-
No you didn't. You said that they didn't provide senior researchers, which they did. What they didn't provide was brand names that A*STAR could brag about.
Why is it irrelevant? If you had a background in research, you would know this, but I'll enlighten you.
If research is done right, it will meet accepted standards of quality. These standards are designed to ensure that the conclusions reached are sound enough to act upon. The methodology must be designed in such a way that no other explanations for the results is more plausible than the one being put forward by the researchers. The analyses must follow a clear, cogent process that pertain directly to the matter being studied. The interpretation of the results must not be extended beyond what the results state.
The above is a summary of the requirements of proper research, and obviously the devil is in the detail. The research process is examined in detail and critiqued at two key points, namely at the time of application for approval to proceed with the research, and during the editors' review before the research is published. JH has had plenty of experience over the decades of meeting these standards, and indeed their reputation hinges upon this continuing - they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by cutting corners.
While the process of ensuring that research is a complex one, competent researchers would know the rules and be mindful of them at every step of the study. As long as the rules are adhered to, the research is sound and the results and conclusions are solid enough for applied purposes.
Bottom line: if you're interested in research, keep your eye on the process and standards, not who's conducting the research. The brand name is therefore irrelevant and A*STAR's insistence on brand names is therefore misguided.
That is, unless they have ulterior motives.
What IS your background, by the way? I would like to know what level I'm supposed to be presenting my points at, so that I can make myself clearly understood here. -
And I think they have something else in mind.
-
2.On senior researchersOriginally posted by Gedanken:No you didn't. You said that they didn't provide senior researchers, which they did. What they didn't provide was brand names that A*STAR could brag about.
.quote:
pl read ASTAR's link i post 25 or 27 july.
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......
sorry ASTAR did not consider someone at the level of an Assistant Professor to be a senior investigator.JH said they prefer hungry junior .But who was the boss?
3.On brand name
JH itself already is a good brand name.Why u say they didnot provide?
What they did not provide is hard work to deliver under the contract.
4.JH was fired by ASTAR.A very disgraceful in academic history.
JH so far have not clarified.
Why?
They had not delivered according to contract.
What JH think is not iimportant.
What the boss,ASTAR,think is important.
Full stop. -
A*STAR would just love to think they were the boss, and that's probably the foundation of the problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe JH and A*STAR were supposed to be in PARTNERSHIP.Originally posted by lionnoisy:pl read ASTAR's link i post 25 or 27 july.
sorry ASTAR did not consider someone at the level of an Assistant Professor to be a senior investigator.JH said they prefer hungry junior .But who was the boss?
Just to clarify, partnership doesn't mean master-and-servant or employee-and-boss, despite A*STAR's wishes. There are no bosses, masters, captains, generals or any other hierarchical labels of power for the weak-minded to hang on to like life rafts in a storm.
Anybody who's thinking that there's a boss in this scenario who gets the *ahem* pleasure of firing someone else really needs to:
a) find out what partnership means and;
b) grow up
I didn't say it, A*STAR did in their litany of JH's sins. You acknowledge the brand name value that A*STAR was getting out of riding on JH's coat tails, so you can see how ludicrous their bleating about brand names is.Originally posted by lionnoisy:3.On brand name
JH itself already is a good brand name.Why u say they didnot provide?
What they did not provide is hard work to deliver under the contract.
Again, with regards to this "boss" nonsense, you're just going to have to get a grip, lion. In fact, A*STAR is going to have to get a grip too. Within Singapore they may be backed by the holders of all the strings, but out in the real world they're nobody and carrying on like this will only lead to their own embarrassment. After all, Idi Amin pronounced himself General, Doctor and so on, but did anybody take him seriously? Same thing whern someone in a partnership has the temerity to call themselves boss.Originally posted by lionnoisy:4.JH was fired by ASTAR.A very disgraceful in academic history.
JH so far have not clarified.
Why?
They had not delivered according to contract.
What JH think is not iimportant.
What the boss,ASTAR,think is important.
Full stop.
Fact of the matter is that the very small pond that A*STAR's a big fish in is looking to get bigger, but this kind of thing just get's in the way of that goal. Let's face it, who in their right minds wants to work with a bunch of tin-pot dictators?
Sure, within Singapore what A*STAR thinks is important and what JH think isn't. Then again, if Singapore wants to become a technology hub, they'd jolly well better start getting a grip on reality and understand that on an internationa stage, a whisper from JH carries a helluva lot more weight than all of A*STAR's yammering and stammering.
Why hasn't JH said too much about this? Open your mind and consider other possibilities instead of going "full stop" - that's like a child saying, "it is too!".
Unlike A*STAR, they're polite, intelligent and, most importantly, they know how the political situation works internationally. It is better for them not to dignify A*STAR's yapping with a response. Getting into an open debate with them only makes them look defensive to the people whose opinions really matter (i.e. their other current and potential research partners, and funding bodies like the NIH). JH already knows that nobody outside of Sinagpore is going to take A*STAR's standing over theirs, and getting into an argument only wastes time and drags them down to A*STAR's level - there's simply no mileage in it.
In contrast, A*STAR's whinging and dirt-throwing just makes them look stupid and childish - they obviously have no idea how polite society conducts itself, and research institutions are going to be wary of dealing with people who have no compunction about acting like louts just because they're favoured children at home, so effectively A*STAR's just shot itself in the foot.
Go have a read of Altbach's article again, and if you're not entirely dense you'll see that he's subtly saying that A*STAR's behaviour only does themselves harm because the other kids in the sandbox won't want to play with someone who spits the dummy. -
That's where you sort of imply JH did not have a brand nameOriginally posted by Gedanken:No you didn't. You said that they didn't provide senior researchers, which they did. What they didn't provide was brand names that A*STAR could brag about. -
Then you meant that any guy can just adhere to the process and standards and become a well known researcher??? like we can replace einstein with any tom dick or harry to do the same amount of research???Originally posted by Gedanken:Bottom line: if you're interested in research, keep your eye on the process and standards, not who's conducting the research.
Surely you would trust someone who is more senior to know more about the twist and turn in research and come up with a solution faster. you definitely want an experience guy to work for you. -
In that case you're not keeping track of A*STAR's statement, are you? They didn't whinge about JH not being a brand name, they bleated about the RESEARCHERS not being brand names.Originally posted by matleep:That's where you sort of imply JH did not have a brand name -
Well, duh. Was Einstein a brand name right from the start? How do you think he earned his rep if not by making sure that his research was solid? If anybody, be it Tom, Dick or harry, produced the same amount of quality research that Einstein did, sure we can replace him.Originally posted by matleep:Then you meant that any guy can just adhere to the process and standards and become a well known researcher??? like we can replace einstein with any tom dick or harry to do the same amount of research???
Surely you would trust someone who is more senior to know more about the twist and turn in research and come up with a solution faster. you definitely want an experience guy to work for you.
Unless you're just hung up on the brand name, of course.
If your emphasis is upon speed instead of thoroughness, you're already off to a bad start in research. JH's amount of knowledge and experience at an institutional level, which A*STAR could tap into at any given time according to requirements, is more than enough. There is no reason to go, "Oh, but I want so-and-so because he's got a brand name".
Unless you're just hung up on the brand name, of course. -
So you are simply unhappy that Assistant professor cannot be consider a senior research investigator??? And that a star use this as a clause to break the relation with JH?
Well, it seems that JH had never argue about who can be consider as a senior research investigator, so it probably means that Assistant professor cannot be consider as one. If in their contract, they want this amount, and they don't get it, surely it is their right to rescind the contract.
And wow you sure makes it sounds like research is easy.
and oh i thought a star monitors JH for 3 years before they decides to rescind the contract giving thorough explantation for their decision. do you mean 3 years is too short or you mean a star is not thorough enough??? -
An A/P CAN be considered a senior investigator as long as the quality of work is there. It's only those who childishly insist on the brand name who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this simple fact. It's either that A*STAR are a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who don't know any better, or it's their excuse to break the deal.
And yes, research IS that easy as long as you understand how it operates - I've known people who have a near 100% acceptance rate for top-tier journals, and looking at their system it's very simple as long as you follow the procedure. Then again, since you have difficulty understanding even the simple issues we are discussing here, I suppose it would seem difficult to you.
As I presented right from the start, in keeping with the patterns of other government bodies I have come across, that three years does not necessarily have anything to do with A*STAR monitoring anything apart from what they could rip JH off for. -
For record keeping here.
(http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=06a21008ce599010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:e22a40d43efcc010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD)
Straits Times, Aug 3, 2006
Five questions for A*Star on Johns Hopkins saga
THE recent public spat between Johns Hopkins and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has resulted in some startling revelations about their partnership agreement.
My concern arises from reading the Letter to The Straits Times by A*Star's Dr Andre Wan.
It was clear that the Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore had not delivered on its obligations under the agreement (failing to meet eight out of 13 key performance indicators - KPIs - for scientific capability development) despite Singapore sinking a total of $82 million of public funds to date.
While I appreciate the fact that A*Star has revealed the details of the controversy leading to the decision to terminate the agreement in its bid to uphold its reputation and that of Singapore, I have several questions which, as a taxpayer, I would like to pose to A*Star:
Was there any clause to slap liquidated damages on Johns Hopkins for failing to deliver on the KPIs? This is a common clause in most government contracts. Otherwise, it would seem like Johns Hopkins has just walked away with $82 million plus 12 months' winding-down funds from Singapore.
What were the tangible benefits to Singapore since the collaboration started in 1998?
Why were KPIs not in place when the agreement was signed in 1998? How then would the success of the partnership be measured? The KPIs were implemented only in 2003.
While the alarm was sounded on Johns Hopkins having significant problems in the research and education programmes as early as 1999, why was A*Star funding not halted while it sorted out its problems but instead more funds were poured in?
Its problems had effectively attracted an increased budget of $75 million over five years.
Did Johns Hopkins deliver on its obligation of raising $23 million to date?
In our zealousness to attract world-class talents to Singapore to jumpstart the development of a specific industry, I hope that all public agencies will be more vigilant in monitoring the usage of public funds and to be more decisive when agreements are not working out.
While this incident is now behind us, it is a good lesson (albeit an expensive one) that even world-class brand names can fail at times.
Phoon Kok Hwa -
Ha ha, so it means i can buy bags from roadside stall and still pass off as some LV bag. Because as you say, brand is not important. But you know, some people buy banded goods not because of the brand, but because it is known for its quality, comfort or other stuff. Surely there ought to be a difference between Assistant prof and a full prof, like experience, knowledge or other qualities. I suppose its hard to show you the difference between assistant prof and full prof when you are already a prof or doing work equivalent to a prof.Originally posted by Gedanken:An A/P CAN be considered a senior investigator as long as the quality of work is there. It's only those who childishly insist on the brand name who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this simple fact. It's either that A*STAR are a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who don't know any better, or it's their excuse to break the deal.
And yes, research IS that easy as long as you understand how it operates - I've known people who have a near 100% acceptance rate for top-tier journals, and looking at their system it's very simple as long as you follow the procedure. Then again, since you have difficulty understanding even the simple issues we are discussing here, I suppose it would seem difficult to you.
As I presented right from the start, in keeping with the patterns of other government bodies I have come across, that three years does not necessarily have anything to do with A*STAR monitoring anything apart from what they could rip JH off for.
Beside you have yet to present the most important fact that would convince me. What did a star stand to gain by breaking off the relationship??? right now, other university may think twice about collaborating with a star and they knew this would happen if they break the relation. So what did they stand to gain? I have yet to heard of anyone saying that A star will get back their money or take over their equipments or their work in singapore. -
oh and beside, JH is unable to train the required number of students as stated in the contract. that is also another important consideration. Because students are the future manpower.
-
By the same measure, a Toyota gets you economically and safely from Point A to Point B, and on Singaporean roads you're limited in speed. So why do people buy Ferraris in Singapore? The show-off factor. Don't go applying a purely rational decision-making model to everything because it doesn't apply to everything.Originally posted by matleep:Ha ha, so it means i can buy bags from roadside stall and still pass off as some LV bag. Because as you say, brand is not important. But you know, some people buy banded goods not because of the brand, but because it is known for its quality, comfort or other stuff. Surely there ought to be a difference between Assistant prof and a full prof, like experience, knowledge or other qualities. I suppose its hard to show you the difference between assistant prof and full prof when you are already a prof or doing work equivalent to a prof.
And yeah, a wallet is a wallet is a wallet. Personally, I think that LVs are horribly ugly and an absolute waste of money.
Unless, of course, you've got a brand-name mentality.
If A*STAR is anything like the other government department that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, and there's no reason to say that it isn't, they'll already have gotten enough ideas of JH to complete the rest of the project by themselves without having to cut JH in on any of the action. Maybe they figure that what they've got is enough to set them up as a technology hub, so it was time to make sure that they kept all the goodies for themselves, just like the other department tried to sell the electronic tagging system.Originally posted by matleep:Beside you have yet to present the most important fact that would convince me. What did a star stand to gain by breaking off the relationship??? right now, other university may think twice about collaborating with a star and they knew this would happen if they break the relation. So what did they stand to gain? I have yet to heard of anyone saying that A star will get back their money or take over their equipments or their work in singapore.
It's a dirty but simple tactic. Deliberately make the whole process unworkable and drive off the partners, and then come back later and finish it off without the partners. It's entirely pausible because similar things have already happened in Singapore. -
It would be interesting to see the CVs and academic records of the students who applied to them. Don't forget that it could equally be that not enough students made the mark, and JH wasn't going to take on substandard students just to make up the numbers. It would also be interesting to see if the applications went to A*STAR or to JH. If they had to get to JH through A*STAR, what's to keep A*STAR from keeping the numbers down and engineering the process to fail?Originally posted by matleep:oh and beside, JH is unable to train the required number of students as stated in the contract. that is also another important consideration. Because students are the future manpower. -
STimes 04 aug 2006 reported JH retracted the accusation
to ASTAR.
Pl post news or joint statement of JH and ASTAR here. -
Got an alternate reporting source besides ST?
-
Well, i guess its hard to convince certain people that there are other qualities to a brand other than its name itself.
And your words make me wonder, what are prof and all research students for if research is that easy?
Why did we need good students for research?
why did research seems endless??
Why did it even take years to complete one project?
Why did we even need to inject so much money into research?
why did we even need to call a assistant prof a assistant prof when he is as competent as a prof?
Why is it that even students that are up to mark did not even think of applying to JH?
Also for brand name, why is it that the minute i know my friend buys a volvo, i know he views safely as very important?
Why is it that if he buys evo, i know he is a chongster? shows there are quality associated with brand name.
Why don't they buy toyota which is cheap and able to transport them to the right location?
why is it that when things are made in china, most people thought it is an inferior product??
How did companies even able to make some product into a brand?
Just set high prices??
Why did A star had to bother with collaborating with JH?
If they want ideas, why don't they pay big money to entice the researchers over to singapore? They pay even bigger money to JH.
Why is no of students even in their KPI (if their intention is to steal ideas)?
What is their plan and how are they going to transform singapore into a technology hub? (stealing ideas?)
If stealing ideas is their way forward, why do they need so many students? just get one or two and go round stealing ideas. -
Oh, goody! Plenty of questions for me to answer!
And your words make me wonder, what are prof and all research students for if research is that easy?
Well, by the time the students get to the research stage, they would typically have become the top 10% of the top 5% that get past Honours to postgrad. By the time they make it there, research principles should be second nature to them (although, admittedly, there is the occasional student who manages through slip through the filter). Within those circles, they should already understand the rules well enough to make it easy. It's takes knowledge rather than intelligence to conduct competent research - the intelligence simply comes in the conceptualisation stage of the process, and JH has plenty of that on hand.
Why did we need good students for research?
You don't. It's more of a fringe benefit. That said, having a competent student as a dog's body that you won't have to watch all the time gives the researchers respite from the crap work so they can focus on the real issues.
why did research seems endless??
You obviously haven't done research before. Getting past the research approval stage, especially the ethics commitee, takes a long time because all the angles crucial to the study's success have to be considered. Depending on the nature of the data to be collected, it may take some time. Typically, getting participants for the studies is the most time-consuming part of the process. Once you have your data, it's a piece of cake.
Why did it even take years to complete one project?
See above.
Why did we even need to inject so much money into research?
Not that I'm any purveyor of medical equipment, but you would expect a fairly hefty bill for the gear to conduct biomedical research, wouldn't you? On top of that, add salaries and research grants into the equation and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
why did we even need to call a assistant prof a assistant prof when he is as competent as a prof?
It's a rank thing. Why are some COs colonels while others are majors?
Seriously, most systems are based upon a number of criteria that vary from institution to institution. Unfortunately, one flaw is that one of the criteria is simply the number of publications per year and in total that the academic puts out, not taking into account the quality of the publications. I've seen so-called professors churning out utter piffle over and over again, and they still get their professorships. I've seen others get granted the status as a political reward for bringing in research funding. So you see, as I've been saying all along, it doesn't really mean all that much.
Why is it that even students that are up to mark did not even think of applying to JH?
As I said in my previous post, do we really know if they didn't apply, or did they have to pass through A*STAR first?
Also for brand name, why is it that the minute i know my friend buys a volvo, i know he views safely as very important?
Again, it's the brand name, isn't it? For years, Saab have actually trounced Volvo in the safety stakes, but Volvo's still the name associated with it. It illustrates the association between the name and reality.
Why is it that if he buys evo, i know he is a chongster? shows there are quality associated with brand name.
Well, I'd answer this one if I knew specifically what a chongster was.
Why don't they buy toyota which is cheap and able to transport them to the right location?
Well, it supports my point, doesn't it? Reality and pragmatism don't always figure into the picture, and it's more of a self-image issue.
why is it that when things are made in china, most people thought it is an inferior product??
Well, what markets does China traditionally operate in? Until recently, it's been low-tech products that peasants - excuse me - Chinese citizens can produce at a lower price than others, such as shoes, clothes, toys and fabrics. They're still working their way up in the higher-tech markets because the purchase decisions in those brackets tend to require more careful consideration of the products' capabilities, and they still fall short of the market leaders there (unless the products are produced under license).
How did companies even able to make some product into a brand?
Just set high prices??
Of course. Rolex don't make the best watches in the world, and if you wanted to tell the time, you would buy a Casio at a hundredth the price. Despite that, they raise their prices by between 7 and 8 percent every 12 to 24 months. Hans Wilsdorf, the founder of Rolex, is acknowledged to have been one of the best marketers of his time, and he built up the brand name well beyond the actual value of the product. Despite the fact that prices have fairly much doubled over the past ten years for the same product, sales rates have not dropped. Why? Brand name.
Why did A star had to bother with collaborating with JH?
Let's face it, Singapore's spent decades hammering the "yes sir, no sir, three bags full" mentality into the people, and then when the Thais, Indians and other nationalities came about being able to produce the same things at a third the price, Singapore finally got a wake-up call and realsied that they had to get into the R&D game fast, because inflation had gotten way too high to supposrt the old game of producing electronics and other goods for a low price. It's fairly obvious that they would look to slingshot their way into research by learning whatever they could from established researchers. Unfortuantely, once they figure they've got the hang of it, they've got the unfortunate habit of killing the goose.
If they want ideas, why don't they pay big money to entice the researchers over to singapore? They pay even bigger money to JH.
Well, well, well. As I've already mentioned, off the top of my head I can pick out three instances of where Singapore has mistreated the talent they bring in, and the world's not all that big. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a number of big names have already heard what's going on and said, "No, thanks".
Why is no of students even in their KPI (if their intention is to steal ideas)?
Well, like I said, if you're engineering the situation to result in failure, it makes perfect sense to put in conditions that you can influence and create problems with, doesn't it?
What is their plan and how are they going to transform singapore into a technology hub? (stealing ideas?)
Three words: Suzhou New District. The Singaporean government, having been burnt in that project, seem to have decided it was time the shoe was on the other foot.
If stealing ideas is their way forward, why do they need so many students?
See above in the response about the number of students.
So, there we have it. Thanks for asking those questions about brand name - it's allowed me to expand on what I've been saying all this time. Any other questions? -
Johns Hopkins retracts allegations against A*Star
By Liaw Wy-Cin
TOP US medical institution Johns Hopkins University (JHU) has retracted allegations that Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) did not keep to its side of the bargain in supporting the university's research arm here.
The two parties have also ended their public war of words over the break-up of their eight-year, $82-million marriage, opting instead for a joint statement to The Straits Times yesterday.
In it, JHU said that it had ''no intention to impugn the reputation and standing of A*Star and Singapore, and any such impression is regretted'' - an about-turn from its earlier position.
When the news broke about two weeks ago that dozens of faculty and staff would lose their jobs and four postgraduate students would have to go without scholarships in the US university, the Baltimore-based institution pointed fingers at A*Star.
It alleged that the Singapore agency did not fulfil its financial and educational obligations; and called into question Singapore's and A*Star's reputations.
Yesterday's one-page statement told a different story, saying that ''Johns Hopkins recognises A*Star's reputation for excellence and integrity''.
It added: ''Johns Hopkins acknowledges and thanks A*Star for the financial and other support provided in keeping with the agreement with DJHS.''
When contacted yesterday, the university declined to comment further on its new stance.
DJHS, the Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore, is JHU's research and education arm here. A*Star decided in May to pull the plug on its funding of the division when it failed to deliver on requirements like bringing in top researchers and training students.
Yesterday, Johns Hopkins said it respected the termination and was ''working with A*Star to wind down the existing DJHS programmes and develop appropriate transition plans''.
Both sides said they would like to work together again.
While this phase of the experiment has failed, there was still scope for future partnerships, said the director of A*Star's Biomedical Research Council, Dr Andre Wan.
''Scientists on both sides have already been floating up common areas of interest and discussions on further collaborations are already taking place.''
But first on the agenda is the 12-month ''winding down'' of operations at the division which was closed in June.
This includes finding jobs for staff and sourcing funding for the four postgraduate students.
The Straits Times understands this will cost A*Star substantially less than the $14 million needed to run the division annually.
Equipment and the space occupied by the facility in a building at the Biopolis in North Buona Vista will go to A*Star's other research institutes.
News of the A*Star-Johns Hopkins split, reported in top scientific journals like Nature, has resulted in some local scientists questioning the strategy of courting big foreign names.
Said Dr Ting Choon Meng, 47, chairman and chief executive of medical devices firm HealthStats International: ''We can't expect to just jump-start a medical hub here by luring the big names and giving them what they ask for. We can't just create franchises.''
But A*Star's collaborations with at least six other foreign institutes, like Sweden's Karolinska Institutet, may prove otherwise.
Its president, Professor Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson, said defining clearly the expected goals at the outset was critical in such collaborations. -
I wonder why? And is there any source besides ST for this news?Originally posted by TooFree:When contacted yesterday, the university declined to comment further on its new stance. -
STimes 22 July 2006,posted above:
The spokesman (of JH) added that this is a 'reputational issue for Singapore and A*Star'
2.Now JH changed:Johns Hopkins had no intention to impugn the reputation and standing of A*STAR and Singapore, and any such impression is regretted.
3.Full joint statementJoint Statment by Johns Hopkins and A*STAR
03, Aug 2006
Download this Press Release Adobe Acrobat Document
In collaboration with Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Johns Hopkins University (Johns Hopkins) established the Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore (DJHS) to conduct research and graduate education in various academic disciplines. Here DJHS and A*STAR shared a common goal and have made some progress together, although issues over DJHS meeting the agreed deliverables have surfaced.
A*STAR, after discussion with Johns Hopkins, has determined that it is in Singapore's best interest to terminate funding for the DJHS programs.
Johns Hopkins respects this decision and is working with A*STAR to wind down the existing DJHS programs and develop appropriate transition plans.
Johns Hopkins acknowledges and thanks A*STAR for the financial and other support provided in keeping with the agreement with DJHS. Johns Hopkins also appreciates the assurance by A*STAR that the wind-down process will proceed with A*STAR's full participation and support in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Johns Hopkins recognizes that there were differences with A*STAR over the progress of the DJHS research and education programs.
DJHS is committed to abiding by its contractual obligations and continuing to work with A*STAR in a collegial manner during the wind-down process to protect the interests of all concerned.
Johns Hopkins had no intention to impugn the reputation and standing of A*STAR and Singapore, and any such impression is regretted.
Johns Hopkins recognizes A*STAR's reputation for excellence and integrity.
Both Johns Hopkins and A*STAR look forward to working together in the transition and to pursuing mutual projects in the future. -
Is there any other source besides ST?
Besides, what retraction is there? They recognised "the financial and other support provided in keeping with the agreement with DJHS" but they didn't say that all obligations were fulfilled. Also, they still say that "there were differences with A*STAR over the progress of the DJHS research and education programs".
A retraction is "I take it all back". JH hasn't done that, and most likely have declined further comment because ST would have pressed for that and JH wasn't going to give in to such nonsense. -
An undisputable fact of this Joint statement released on 4th August by JH and A*Star is clearly not in JH favour although it may enjoy sound international repute over A*Star. On my humble deduction, no willing party would retract a truthful allegation unless the truth speaks otherwise or mutual benefits-in-kind reconciled.
According to Oxford Concise Dictionary 11th Edition, 'retract' means to withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified.
JH earlier allegation of A*Star on not able to fulfil its financial and educational obligations and called into question Singapore's and A*Star's reputations was later retracted by JH in the joint statement released to the public. Since JH has already acknowledged and expressed regrets over the allegation against A*Star, there is no requirement or case for concern whether the stipulated contractual obligations were being fullfilled by both parties. This retraction order is solely on the unjustified statement made by JH earlier.
-
What retraction? Like I said, they haven't actually said that they take it back or that what they've said is untrue. Just because they acknowledge that their allegations may be upsetting in no way implies that they are untrue.
Look at the statement that lionnoisy posted and quote me any statement that actually says that JH's allegations are untrue, unjustified or that they take it back.
If you can't quote such a line, then you're only reading what you want into it. Then again, if that's what flaots your boat, knock yourself out.