Biomedical research: Establishment vs Establishment
-
In all likelihood, the Govt is likely to personally push and set up a new GLC to do the job of fighting the pharmaceuticals. Start-ups in Singapore have a very harsh environment to work on and likely, even if it does survive, it would get bought by Temasek, just as Temasek bought a piece of Hyflux.Originally posted by Cystaire:OM,
From this paragraph, I can see that you have also been confused by the difference between pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and biomedical research initiative.
Though it is true that the government's biomedical initiative has encouraged a number of pharmaceutical companies to come to Singapore after 2001, most of the money spent on the initiative has been used for infrastructure and manpower training.
So Dr. Lee is right that the biomedical investment costs has not paid off directly yet. The pharma are posting record sales, but pocketing much of this. Meanwhile the government is spending billions to build the foundations of a biotech industry.
In order to make megabucks, we still have to wait for our freshly trained scientists to join industry and set up our own pharma and biotech companies.
What we can agree on is that Dr. Lee thinks that it's all a mistake and IMHO that call is way, way too premature.
That assumes we even get that far to start our own GLC. -
You bring up "shotgun approach", with so many misses, I wonder if all our ministers are "bobo king" in the army.Originally posted by Cystaire:Robert,
I am usually enlightened by your comprehensive analysis in many areas, but I am disappointed with your series of posts in this thread. Despite portraying yourself as an informed critic of the government, you have concentrated only pointing out Mr Philip Yeo's faults while apparently supporting Dr Lee without explaining your reasons why.
In addition, some of your articles are general criticisms of the government and not addressing the specific points in this debate.
Of course many of us are concerned with where the biomedical sector is headed.
However your posts misrepresent the issues.
It's not "Philip Yeo has no strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has strategy".
It's "Philip Yeo has one strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has another".
The government does have a niche strategy that prioritizes biomedical research in areas like cancer, heart disease and stem cells.
Dr. Lee disagrees with these areas and recommends head injury and Hepatitis B as better niche areas.
She thinks that the government is having aimlessly "shotgun approach", but if that is the case why did Philip Yeo close the Institute of Agrobiology?
Robert, if you are supportive of Dr. Lee's approach, then can you explain to the rest of us why you agree that Singapore has a unique advantage in head injury and Hepatitis B research compared to cancer and stem cell biology? -
quote:Originally posted by robertteh:*snip*
Cystaire,
The editor nevertheless was too afraid to say that there is no strategising at all among all the researches as which are the ones we could excel or stand a better chance to succeed in.
So Dr Lee Wei Ling was right in saying that without such strategising we will be spending taxpayers' hard-earned monies without a clear direction of the kind of goals and results we could get.
I would say that the single most important issue in this debate actually is whether our government could implement our economic policy of upgrading our economy well and successfully in practical terms and not the principles of attracting or not attracting enough or whether the spending of large sums of monies would be worth it.
Cystaire wrote:
Robert,
I am usually enlightened by your comprehensive analysis in many areas, but I am disappointed with your series of posts in this thread. Despite portraying yourself as an informed critic of the government, you have concentrated only pointing out Mr Philip Yeo's faults while apparently supporting Dr Lee without explaining your reasons why.
In addition, some of your articles are general criticisms of the government and not addressing the specific points in this debate.
Of course many of us are concerned with where the biomedical sector is headed.
However your posts misrepresent the issues.
It's not "Philip Yeo has no strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has strategy".
It's "Philip Yeo has one strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has another".
The government does have a niche strategy that prioritizes biomedical research in areas like cancer, heart disease and stem cells.
Dr. Lee disagrees with these areas and recommends head injury and Hepatitis B as better niche areas.
She thinks that the government is having aimlessly "shotgun approach", but if that is the case why did Philip Yeo close the Institute of Agrobiology?
Robert, if you are supportive of Dr. Lee's approach, then can you explain to the rest of us why you agree that Singapore has a unique advantage in head injury and Hepatitis B research compared to cancer and stem cell biology?
I have stated from the outset of my posts on this topic that many people would have different views on this rather complex and controversial topic - a shotgun approach to compete with world's best biomedical researches as propounded by Philip Yeo as against a more strategic one which will capitalise on our own resources, educated work force, infrastructural facilities etc which will better our chance of success.
It is more than obvious that there are some merits in Philip Yeo's shotgun approach involving our spending billions on citizens' monies on wide-arrays of life-sciences and bio-medical technologies but such an approach would requires long gestation periods of 10 years or more without any assurance of success.
From my own perspective, there is another dimension to the whole issue - whether among our ministers and civil servants, we have people who have the implementation abilities to carry out such a long-term project consistently.
That is why, I have inclined to Dr. Lee Wei Ling's view that there is a need for strategizing our efforts so that we could achieve our various economic aims and more likely to see our billions of investments well spent.
This means that we need to have good men with abilities not just to conceptualise the biopolis but see to its consistent strategic implementation.
To make my point clear, I harked back a little to how our ministers and civil servants reacted to our various economic restructuring plans over the last three recessions. It will be clear from reading the old Straits Times that the ministers were at their wit's end and were not sure of all their so-called economic restructuring or biomedical plans and tended to blame the lack of implementation of those plans on the people instead for lack of skills or the right education to stay ahead.
I have not misrepresented the crucial issues here involved in this topic. I am afraid you have not understood my perspective in the whole topic. If the various past economic restructuring plans would not be carried out consistently so far how could our ministers or Philip Yeo be so sure that this time the biomedical plan would be strategically and consistently carried out espcially in an industry as complex as the biopolis. It is quite as likely that the grandiose biomedical plans may just suffer the same fate.
I am afraid even if we do have well-reasoned biomedical long-term plan, we may no longer have the kind of people with good implementation excellence like Dr. Goh Keng Swee or Lim Kim San to oversee them consistently.
So far we only hear the ministers continue to talk and talk about upgrading our economy but we have not seen any existing plans implemented with excellence in respect of even conventional projects like creating IT hubs, software engineering hubs and needed technology start-ups.
Too much academic or technocratic type of people may be at fault. Since absorbing so many new bloods from the 1970s, we have yet to see transformation of our own domestic manufacturing sector to value-adding technology-driven model of model to match that of Korea, Taiwan or Finland which are turning out many international branded products.
In our case we are just hoping and hoping to attract more and more foreign set-ups to revitalise our own lagging domestic economy. Something seriously is going wrong with the management of our economy.
If we are still talking again and again to create some more grandiose plans, I would like to ask the question - do we not have enough plans already and which direction are we heading now or are our leaders only concept people all the time good for more big-picture presentations which again may not produce results due to lack of implementation abilities.
Remember, the need to set up biomedical hubs has been talked about by the ministers for a long time. Our biomedical hubs were seen as struggling and not bringing in the results like scientific breakthroughs in this area and follow-up manufacturing and creations of jobs among our own citizens.
What assurances can be given to the citizens now that all the hopes and dreams of discovering something big and follow-up manufacturing of various drugs and cures in our particular targeting will be achieved within say three to five years to further confirm to our citizens the efforts and total investment commitments by the billions will be worthwhile.
Based on the rather muddled thinking mentioned that we must invest in such areas so as to hit big returns equivalent to discovery of cancer cures or bird flu vaccines is for the moment in the absence of good objective analysis from learned strategists, we can only conclude that their hopes and aspirations are nothing more than some wishful thinking. -
I still think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Coming at a time when the leadership is changing hands at Astar, there must be something going on that is not reported in the media.
But that's just me.
-
haha... sorry to be rude hereOriginally posted by Cystaire:Yes I understand what you mean.
Though Mr Yeo as an engineer doesn't appear appropriate, Dr. Lee's credentials are not suitable for science either, as she was trained with a purely medical background.
I hope people understand that medicine =/= science, the culture behind each field is often opposite to each other. Medicine is not closer to science than engineering... I have been appalled at how poor the scientific knowledge of local doctors can be.
The first batch of MD/PhDs who will be truly apt to lead the field, will not be returning until couple of years later.
but ur above comments really make me want 2 laugh
no hard feelings
saying tt Dr Lee's credentials are not suitable for science
really shows that you dun have much understanding about medicine
for drs to move on after their basic degree,
doing scientific research is very much of a requirement
though it is the minority tt actually love research
many practising docs, who are not academics do research as part of their work
Dr Lee herself, if u do a search on PubMed
has 4 scientific papers published in international medical journals
all this under the scrutiny of scientific rigor
how much scientific research Mr Yeo have done b4 remains to be seen
regarding the new batch of MD/PhDs clinician scientists
from the new Duke Graduate School of Med
there are fears that they will be half-baked docs, half-baked researchers
coz the med training is "far too short" to train a doc
hmn... regarding e directon of biomed
docs are those on the ground
and see the actual needs (+ economical profitable)
can answer at least e med part of biomed
regarding e part abt niche fields
it's hard for outsiders, those outide of med or research,
to comprehend it
if u do a search for cancer papers,
there's probably a million out there
n lots of work duplicated
how many of this research actually tranlates to actual use
is really
because there is so much competition,
some one else will probably make e "amazing" discovery b4 u
by simple probability
hence, it will be smarter to find niche areas
where u haf e advantage, where there is still so much unknown
waiting for u to unrivel, where u will be e 1st
coz in research, it's all abt being e 1st, e discovery is applicable
and economically profitable
e suggestions abt head injuries, Hep B
makes absolutely no sense to everyone
only e few in e med field will appreciate it
pls do not make sweeping statements about a field that
you only have a superficial understanding of
-
Of this 30% (for how many years?) which you claim; what is the percentage that is attributable to biomedical research? This expansion FYI in "medicinal products" could have taken place even without biomedical research, as companies set up factories to produce whatever patent drugs or traditional chinese medicine. There is no correlation between your expansion of medicinal products to biomedical research. Please cite references to prove me wrong.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy. -
My sons n I after we were reading through the OM n Cystaire's postings r laughing non stop!!!
How on earth these 2 jokers just know how to recite information from newspaper to survive in this forum ?worst still, twisted facts w/o analytical mind n knowledge on the subject matter dare to post all these here!!!making them real laughing stocks here n there!!! -
I don't think u will ever receive a reply from him!!!Originally posted by maurizio13:Of this 30% (for how many years?) which you claim; what is the percentage that is attributable to biomedical research? This expansion FYI in "medicinal products" could have taken place even without biomedical research, as companies set up factories to produce whatever patent drugs or traditional chinese medicine. There is no correlation between your expansion of medicinal products to biomedical research. Please cite references to prove me wrong. -
Originally posted by kaoya:
Please don't turn this discussion into a personal issue.
*snip*
pls do not make sweeping statements about a field that
you only have a superficial understanding of [/b]
I won't go into the details, but I will stand by my opinion that a doctor is not necessarily better at leading a science effort than an engineer.
You may consider 4 peer-reviewed articles impressive, but that is in reality a very modest research output.
Prof. Sydney Brenner (who is one of Mr. Philip Yeo's main advisors) has at least 40 publications since 1979 (and dozens more before that).
Plus a Nobel Prize.
As for peer-reviewed research articles, even I have two publications myself.
Let's stick to the discussion of whether head injury and Hep B are really the correct niches to follow instead of cancer, heart disease and stem cells. -
Come on lah, I thought you usually support me against OM? Now on this rare occasion we agree on some minor thing you shoot me?Originally posted by foomwee88:My sons n I after we were reading through the OM n Cystaire's postings r laughing non stop!!!
How on earth these 2 jokers just know how to recite information from newspaper to survive in this forum ?worst still, twisted facts w/o analytical mind n knowledge on the subject matter dare to post all these here!!!making them real laughing stocks here n there!!!
So that means I must always be against everyone everytime? I am not such a negative person. -
Hmm...Originally posted by charlize:I still think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Coming at a time when the leadership is changing hands at Astar, there must be something going on that is not reported in the media.
But that's just me. -
It should be noted that LKY's daughter is probably more liberal than her elder brother. She actually publicly said that she was against the Gifted Program, describing it as fostering elitism.
She has largely kept out of the public eye unlike her brothers who are in more public positions, but LHY has since disappeared out of sight too. -
Yes I don't know what is happening.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It should be noted that LKY's daughter is probably more liberal than her elder brother. She actually publicly said that she was against the Gifted Program, describing it as fostering elitism.
She has largely kept out of the public eye unlike her brothers who are in more public positions, but LHY has since disappeared out of sight too.
Maybe there is some disagreement going on.
I am surprised that so many people here are supportive of Dr. Lee reflexively, considering they are usually against members of the establishment.
Perhaps they feel Philip Yeo is more establishment than Dr. Lee's family.
They are even painting me as a pro-government supporter. What a confusion! -
But whatever Kaoya stated in her posting is consistent with what my graduated doc from NUS had told me!It is a matter of fact,hence I cant support you by twisted the fact,right!!!Originally posted by Cystaire:Come on lah, I thought you usually support me against OM? Now on this rare occasion we agree on some minor thing you shoot me?
So that means I must always be against everyone everytime? I am not such a negative person.
Perhaps,we dont know wat foreign Unis medical students r trained ???
By the way, r u graduated from a foreign Uni???? -
I think we all will gradually learn that our first objective is not going against anyone whether he is Philip Yeo or LKY. We are mainly questioning wrongs in government's policies and implementation. It so happens that Dr. Lee Wei Ling has spoken the people's views and since she is also part of establishments, our people's views are now well, better supported.Originally posted by Cystaire:Yes I don't know what is happening.
Maybe there is some disagreement going on.
I am surprised that so many people here are supportive of Dr. Lee reflexively, considering they are usually against members of the establishment.
Perhaps they feel Philip Yeo is more establishment than Dr. Lee's family.
They are even painting me as a pro-government supporter. What a confusion!
That is a good development in Singapore politics as government and its own insider must be able to see what went wrong and disagree with their own superiors and party. -
I'm of the believe that it will take someone of their own bloodline to change things...Originally posted by robertteh:I think we all will gradually learn that our first objective is not going against anyone whether he is Philip Yeo or LKY. We are mainly questioning wrongs in government's policies and implementation. It so happens that Dr. Lee Wei Ling has spoken the people's views and since she is also part of establishments, our people's views are now well, better supported.
That is a good development in Singapore politics as government and its own insider must be able to see what went wrong and disagree with their own superiors and party.
As the saying goes; no one can change you, but yourself... -
LKY's daughter has always been rather outspoken even against her father. She spent quite a long time abroad.Originally posted by robertteh:I think we all will gradually learn that our first objective is not going against anyone whether he is Philip Yeo or LKY. We are mainly questioning wrongs in government's policies and implementation. It so happens that Dr. Lee Wei Ling has spoken the people's views and since she is also part of establishments, our people's views are now well, better supported.
That is a good development in Singapore politics as government and its own insider must be able to see what went wrong and disagree with their own superiors and party. -
May be to prepare a queen in the next election???Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:LKY's daughter has always been rather outspoken even against her father. She spent quite a long time abroad. -
I doubt it. She has stayed out of politics for decades, though within the realm of possibility but unlikely. LKY doesn't like people who go against him.Originally posted by foomwee88:May be to prepare a queen in the next election??? -
Do u know wat is politics?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I doubt it. She has stayed out of politics for decades, though within the realm of possibility but unlikely. LKY doesn't like people who go against him.
In politics,there is no p enemy but frd, some more like father like daughter !mind my words,we shall c it in 4 yrs later!!! -
aiyo... u really dun understandOriginally posted by Cystaire:Please don't turn this discussion into a personal issue.
I won't go into the details, but I will stand by my opinion that a doctor is not necessarily better at leading a science effort than an engineer.
You may consider 4 peer-reviewed articles impressive, but that is in reality a very modest research output.
Prof. Sydney Brenner (who is one of Mr. Philip Yeo's main advisors) has at least 40 publications since 1979 (and dozens more before that).
Plus a Nobel Prize.
As for peer-reviewed research articles, even I have two publications myself.
Let's stick to the discussion of whether head injury and Hep B are really the correct niches to follow instead of cancer, heart disease and stem cells.
e thing is tt we are not talking abt science here
we are talking abt biomed
docs understand e at least e med part,
not necessarily e bio part oredi
engineers are slightly further away lah
docs, like Dr Lee, constantly does both clinical work
n scientific research
don't tink tt Mr Yeo does any form of scientific research
of coz Prof Brenner is more like qualified to comment lah
but then u muz understand tt his interests n point of view is diff wat
he is not local.. whether all this money poured in actually
generates real benefit for singapore n us
doesn't matter to him
his personal interests is in getting both research funds
n conducive environment 4 his research
hmn... for ur idea abt peer-reviewed research articles
it really depends on where ur stuff is published lah
whether it's on SCIENCE or something else makes a whole lot of diff
haha.. even i haf a scientific paper published and presented in a conference
when i was still in sec sch
n u dun get e idea lah
e point i was trying to make was not abt credentials
but tt Dr Lee does research n Mr Yeo doesn't
so she is e one on e ground
u muz understand e diff between research 4 research sake
n research tt is applicable in real life...
docs are e one who will understand e needs of medicine lah
even more than e researcher
about the niche areas, she is juz giving possible examples
not saying hard n fast ones lah
u're not inside e field, so when she mention Hep B, it juz nothing
for those inside e field, it will ring a bell
Hep B is an Asian prob, e caucasians dun haf this prob
so america n europe does very little research on it
they can't too, coz they dun haf e patients to do clinical trials on
so tt's where singapore can possibly had an advantage lah
u mention Hep B to Mr Yeo, n u hear his answer
this sorta stuff is wat Mr Yeo doesn't seen to noe
it's not his fault
coz he is not in e field
but then since he is e one setting e direction,
it may be better if he can be more receptive of those in e field? -
What we should look for in our biomed investment are the potential for job creation and commercial gains.
There's no point pumping millions of investment to fuel the research interests of local scientific elites or FTs. Breakthrough in pure research don't create jobs or make money. That's why Brenner is not an industrialist, though he is much respected in his field.
Dr Lee has a good point about the strategy of identifying niche areas ie. Singapore should differentiate its R&D from other countries'. All else being equal, concentrating our resources on niche areas increase the chance for our success. Then we should choose the niche which has market potential.
Philip Yeo's strategy is less likely to result in a breakthrough because our investment is spread over many areas. Plus every other country is working on the same popular fields of stem cells and cancer. His strategy will result in a diversity of talents working in Singapore which makes the R&D scene more interesting, not will not get us to commercial success sooner.
I'd suggest that Singapore invest in food & nutrition R&D. Products like vitamins, diet pills, cosmetics have more immediate commercial value and are lower tech and more appropriate for our level of R&D capability. Even less sexy products like reduced-harm cigarettes have huge and immediate market potential. Forget about Nobel-prize winning cancer cures for now.