Singapore’s bio-med
Big risks, says World Bank
Billions spent with results far away, WB economists say. Reuters.
Dec 9, 2006

Singapore's multi billion-dollar campaign to develop a biomedical sector and create new sources of revenue is failing to yield any significant payoffs so far, two prominent World Bank economists said.

The economists, authors of a new book about industrial policy in East Asian cities, said Singapore has only a 50/50 chance of succeeding, but the move is a gamble it must take to maintain economic prosperity in the face of growing competition from low-cost neighbours such as China.

“We don't see the pay-off yet. The real pay-off is when Singapore companies are turning profits and going for IPOs,” Shahid Yusuf said on a call from his office in Washington DC.

“The pressure is building for Singapore to have some success stories,” he said, noting that Singapore did not have any internationally known drug companies.

Over the last five years, Singapore has plowed more than S$3 billion (US$2 billion) into its biomedical sector, official data showed.

Some estimate as much as S$5 billion has been committed. It has spent generously on start-ups, new facilities and labs and on luring top scientists from the US, the UK and Europe.

The problem Singapore faces is one, which is faced around the globe by countries trying to tap into the potential of biomedical development.

So far, despite all the investment, few are earning the kind of money that hubs in Boston and San Diego are making.

“Around the world, biotech is still more promise than profit as of yet,” said Mr Yusuf.

Despite the lack of success so far, the authors highlighted the potential for huge dividends later.

Kaoru Nabeshima said the pharmaceutical industry held great potential for economies such as Singapore, India, China, South Korea and Taiwan.

In the US health care spending was about 16 per cent of GDP compared to 3-6 per cent in many other countries. - Reuters

Comments
(SammyBoy forum)

Zenra2003
I think the problem with Singapore is that it still doesn't have the environment to stimulate minds that produces many a good researcher.
I have seen A+ students who actually blank out when placed in a research environment, like a seminar presentation of a PhD research proposal, etc.
Look at our students. They are trained by rote learning, quoting ad verbatim from textbooks. Rarely do you find students venturing beyond the classroom.
In fact, in yesterday's ST article, in the tie up between the Swiss drug company and EDB culminating in the establishment of a biologic drug factory, the executives at the Swiss side said that Singaporeans have good science foundation (provided by rote learning) but lack expertise in biologic drug research (biologic means use of biological medium like antibodies, proteins as drugs).
Ironically, the article said that 350 jobs will be created, but the folks at the Swiss side said that we lacked the expertise.
Probably, they will be getting experts from overseas, and the rest could be assembly line workers.

DatDamnGd01
Bioscience - long considered/known as one of the BIGGEST DESTROYER OF CAPITAL in history...

iviviv
You have to be fair to PhD students. In any taught degree programme, research skills are hardly taught, if do, it is a small amount.
Research skills takes time to develop and even after completing a PhD in 3 years, a young PhD graduate still need a lot of guidance in extending their research.
The main misconception of PhD graduates is to assume that they know everything upon graduation. Actually, it is only the beginning. The road is long...and challenging.
Many PhD graduates lack post-doctoral training to develop their skills to identify new research, extends existing research, etc.

Zenra2003
I am not talking about knowing everything. Consider this scenario. Someone presents to you a list of experiments to prove this and this, now he asks you to comment on his experiments.
For someone that has a good research mind (there are undergraduates who already have this ability), he would be able to comprehend the skeletal details of the research even though the research may not be in the area that he is focusing on, and he is able to suggest alternative kinds of experiments.
I have seen some A+ undergraduates blanking out and they cannot even comprehend the skeletal details of the research.
I think it boils down to the textbook kind of people versus the non-textbook kind.
You see, those that desire an intellectual adventure are usually those that possess a good research mind.
In research, you are walking on unchartered waters and when you tell the textbook kind of students something unfamiliar and contradictory to their textbook, they just blank out even when it comes to comprehending the skeletal details of the research.
That is why these A+ students that I mentioned blanked out, simply because they see something new and contradictory to what their textbooks teach!
For the intellectual adventurers kind, they do not blank out, but are curious of the underlying phenomena, which produces contradictory findings to what textbook teaches.
All the the lists of possible underlying phenomenas go through their mind and there they are able to think of alternative experiments to prove the mechanisms.
The sad part is that our education system is producing the textbook kind instead of the intellectual adventurer kind.
-
Look at our students. They are trained by rote learning, quoting ad verbatim from textbooks. Rarely do you find students venturing beyond the classroom.
In fact, in yesterday's ST article, in the tie up between the Swiss drug company and EDB culminating in the establishment of a biologic drug factory, the executives at the Swiss side said that Singaporeans have good science foundation (provided by rote learning) but lack expertise in biologic drug research (biologic means use of biological medium like antibodies, proteins as drugs).
Ironically, the article said that 350 jobs will be created, but the folks at the Swiss side said that we lacked the expertise.
Probably, they will be getting experts from overseas, and the rest could be assembly line workers.

Cystaire
I think that the life science effort has had a spectacular start with good commitment from the government. They have been very careful with the strategic position of their biomed investments.
However, much of the current growth in the biomed sector is from drug manufacturing rather than R&D payoffs.
To really make big money and achieve sustainability, we need to create many biotech and pharma startups.
Even in the US, biotech attrition rate is very high and our long-term success in this field does depend quite a bit on a stroke of luck.
In my opinion, to improve that possibility of a lucky break, a creative environment, a playful spirit and a culture that doesn't mind failure is essential. As of now we have none of these pre-requisites.
So while the whole life science field will continue to make steady gains by the sheer force of momentum due to the massive government investments, future growth projections are likely to be too optimistic.

johnny333
I thought the biomedical thingee was replaced by the IR thingee or was it back to tourism or budget airline hub. So hard to keep up with the in thing the govts doing.

mips4
Never mind, if mega failure after spending billions, some running dogs will come out and bark: "In business, you must take risk. You win some and you lose some." After that, it will be biz as usual ... and another 40% rise in GST.

Biomed dream.... successful is far away
truth
Yes the growth in the biomed sector in Singapore has spurt up. This is not success. This is the result of pumping in $billions into a new industry.
To claim that the biomed sector has succeeded is wild claim to glory personal glory and to justify the $billions spend.
Whether the big plunge into the biomed industry will turn out to be success, only time will tell. But please don't jump the gun and claim success now. There are still too many hurdles and obstacles to cross.

Ventura
Pumped in $billions and get $peanuts in return.

ardeedee
But for those who received your billions they only pumped in peanuts - that is the difference between the good the bad and the ugly and stupid.
Dec 9, 2006