Lilly Singapore Center for Drug Discovery gets the chop

In 2001 the EDB inked a deal with Eli Lilly to set up a research facility for systems biology in Singapore. Along the way the systems biology bit was morphed into a Center for Drug Discovery. Now after 8 years, Eli Lilly has given the Center for Drug Discovery the chop. About 130 jobs will be on the line, although it is not clear how many of these jobs are local jobs, and how many are 'foreign' talents.

The EDB has a mission to bring in big names to 'buzz up' the local R&D environment. For this it has been given a fairly massive war chest. The strategy appears to be to throw money at big named companies to entice them to set up research facilities in Singapore. Create a buzz, has been the buzzword. Eli Lilly was not the only company to have tasted of these low lying fruits. Now after sampling these fruits for 8 years Lilly has decided that it is better off elsewhere, especially after the EDB grants wear off.

I am personally not so convinced of the EDB's strategy to just throw money at these companies for dramatic short term buzzes. I am unsure how much real benefit follow from such extravagance. A high end research facility employing how many locals? Did the research facility really benefit the local research environment; really result in long term enhancement of the local research infrastructure? I am more than skeptical. The money could have been better spent developing real quality in home grown efforts. Methinks this would have had more enduring effects than the printing of glossy annual reports.

Who audits the EDB, I wonder?

NTU down 101 places in latest best university rankings..... kept the eye on the wrong ball??

Changi Airport has apparently waltzed home with a whole barrage of best airport awards. This is kinda something Singaporeans have come to accept and to take for granted.

Singapore plays this game extremely well. I think it's something taught in the civil service school.... Best Awards 101 - "How to game the system". Almost every gahment and quasi-gahment organization picks up best awards galore, often by just astutely gaming the system. Doesn't matter what falls in the cracks, as long as the main checklist boxes score max points. Such training actually begins in school at a very young age, and schools, parents and students conspire ad work furiously through the year to pick up max points for all spheres of educational "excellence".

The universities play this game as well.

Once a while though, this gamesmanship backfires.

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings recently revised her ranking criteria to apparently deliver the "most rigorous, transparent and reliable rankings tables ever".

With a single stroke, our Nanyang Technological University fell 101 places to a pathetic 174th in the world. Our National University of Singapore maintained her position, just dropping 4 spots to 34th.

So someone in NTU now has a bit of egg on the face.... spending $$$ to restructure and game the system, only for the rules to change.

Is this a problem of not keeping your eye on the real ball...... going for the cosmetic rather than the substance.

Do we believe in anything of value....?

Singaporeans have been faulted for being perhaps a bit too pragmatic. Pragmatic to a fault, and perhaps too mercenary in our approach towards many issues.

These faults have sadly been brought to the fore recently in discussions about our contribution to the Haiti effort, and then yesterday about our graciousness (or lack of)...

When responding to criticisms about how little we are monetarily contributing to the relief effort in Haiti, the gahment pretty much argued from a pragmatic point of view. And I am wondering why we need to cast everything in terms of realpolitiks, or look at potential economic returns in everything we do? Isn't doing the right thing, a good enough reason in itself? Isn't compassion a good enough reason in itself to want to reach out in a more substantive way to help a country in agony?

How about the discussion about the development of grace in our society? I couldn't believe the discussions reported in the Straits Times today, about the proceedings at the Singapore Perspectives meeting yesterday! An economic value to graciousness? Duuuhhhhhh........

Isn't being gracious important enough on its own merit, that we have to place a monetary value to it?

But these are not the exceptions in our national psyche...

We smile and try to courteous, not because these are worthy on their own merits, but because we want to improve our business rankings, and bring in the shopping $$$.

We are ethical, not because we think being ethical is important on its own merit, but because we want to be accredited and be recognized internationally, because it brings in the R&D $$$.

We try to be environmentally friendly, not because we genuinely want to save the world, but because of the economic value of being seen to be green.

So sad and tragic.

Singapore, what do we really believe in?

Quacquarelli's quandary

There were 3 apparently unrelated threads in today's ST that to me were saying pretty much the same thing. If only we would prick our ears to listen.

Firstly, there was the opinion piece by US Bureau Chief Chua Chin Hon about "Rethinking MNC Strategy". (You can't find it on Asia1 without subscribing, but can find in The Malaysian InsiderOne frequent point of contention among analysts is whether Singapore was right in aggressively courting foreign multinationals instead of nurturing home-grown industrial giants as South Korea and Taiwan did. Over-reliance on foreign companies, critics argue, leaves Singapore vulnerable to economic downturns and political changes elsewhere — two factors that now loom large." :))The essential thrust of his insightful commentary was whether Singapore needed to rethink the national strategy of attracting MNCs, a strategy that has succeeded since the 1960's. In the article, he says, "

Secondly, Professor Jackie Ying, one of the big whales caught by ASTAR, was interviewed as saying Singapore should be focusing on developing dolphins rather than just drawing in the whales. Hor him, whales tend to be migratory and do not stay. Dolphins are helpful, seldom migrate and tend to stay. He was of course refering to world class researchers and academics. Many of the big whales caught by A*Star tended to make a big splash, contributed little locally and quickly made an exit, especially when times grew difficult.

Thirdly, there was that facile ranking of universities done by Quacquarelli. In the ranking of Asian univeristies, the National University of Singapore, floundered miserably at a pathetic position of 10. Let me say I am not one to take these rankings seriously, but the ranking fluttered more than a few eyebrows, and I am sure some senior people at the NUS must have convulsed frothing at the mouth. Managing Director Nunzio Quacquarelli said the results of the Asian University Rankings focus on regionally relevant measures of excellence, with the top performing universities distinguished not only by quality, but also by high productivity of research, compared to their regional peers.

What the three threads said to me was really that there is a clear recalibration in our thinking about our Asian position vis a vis the traditional ideas of Western leadership, whether this be about economics, academia or education. It has always struck me as strange that while Singapore's success was really a product of Singapore's unique leadership style and ideas, when it came to academia, we submissively sacrifice local efforts to the perceived dominance of Western academics. This is a mindset that seems to be uniquely Singaporean, because other Asian countries tend to have a bit more faith in their own home grown abilities. The Quacquarelli ranking may be disputed for years to come, but I think it has pointed out one very important thing to us, and that is, we are in Asia, and if we look at ourselves with Asian eyes, we are not as great as we pretend to be on the world stage. One could of course argue that we play on the world stage and not just Asia, and that would be true. But as the centre of gravity shifts towards Asia, we need to be careful we don't get flatfooted though our over emphasis on following the West.