The rebuttal of Johns Hopkins University by A*Star was forceful and reinforced by facts and figures. Although signs point to a failure of JHU to fulfill their side of the agreement, I was still somewhat dismayed by the way A*Star washed the dirty linen in public against one of the world's most renowned institutions.
For the uninitiated, the spate is basically the closure of the Division of Johns Hopkins Singapore and the now-erupted mutual allegations about the failed delivery of promises.
As a Singaporean and taking a neutral view, I feel that the key performance indicators (KPIs) set by A*Star for DJHS was not entirely reasonable. A good example is the number of patents filed per year by DJHS. Targets of 3 and 5 were set respectively for the years 2005 and 2006, and till present, the institute has patented nothing.
At first glance, pretty alarming. Millions of public dollars go into funding DJHS's cutting edge researches and no tangible results are yielded. Shame on DJHS? In retrospect, the results are indeed disappointing, but sad to say, not all things (especially when it comes to researches) can be quantified. Inputs and and results on researches can be greatly disproportionate, especially in our day and time. The times when you sit under an apple tree (Issac Newton) and fly kite (Benjamin Franklin) to yield world changing results are over, because much of the fundamentals are already in place. May I liken pumping money into research to the investment of stocks - you can't expect to win all. But as long as some good counters keep your overall balance in the black, and you have a time horizon long enough to ride the volatility, you should prevail in the end. In this light, I really question of the setting up of this performance indicator in the first place. Why didn't JHU oppose to such a criterion?
Another dispute point was the appointment of senior investigators armed with international reputations to steer the DJHS boats. By A*Star's standards, Singapore expect top brains to reside here on a permanent basis to provide leadership for DJHS. I have no qualms about this, and I believe JHU should prove its commitment to DJHS by posting senior faculty here to match A*Star's research dollars. On the other hand, I can see why Singapore has problems attracting the top brains away from the US, and am partly agreeable to JHU's arguement for their employment of junior and promising researchers.
Fundamentally, the objective of research works done at DJHS is more profit-driven and results-oriented than anything else. Trying to map a top scientist's brain, I would say this is not the most conducive environment to conduct researches. Moreover, I reckon the US is nearer to the top resources and personnel in terms of life science researches than our tiny red dot. And not to mention the uprooting of families to enter a foreign land with potential adaptation issues.
A resolution would have been the appointment of a group of probably 4-6 top senior investigators to chart directions, and a supporting group of investigators with intermediate to high international repute and experiences and then that is where the bright and young scientists come in. A compromise is needed but obviously both JHU and A*Star were not flexible enough.
Seriously, no matter how forceful A*Star's statement regarding the closure of DJHS is, the final loser is still Singapore and our reputation as a growing bio-medical research hub. Perhaps the superior indicators such as papers submitted, number of projects initiated, conferences and seminars held are neglected by A*Star. While not as economic-fulfilling, these are signs that Singapore's progress is thriving and international meetings here provide the local scientific community invaluable opportunities to interact with the gurus and network. Sadly, they escaped the eyes of A*Star when the decision to drop DJHS was made.
This whole issue only serves to highlight the inherent flaw in our approach to scientific research - giving a dollar value to every project undertaken and those that fall behind in producing economic returns will be cruelly chopped. Sounds pretty much like the Dummies Guide to Singapore's success. It is ironic how these measures of efficiency and cost-effectiveness can come back and haunt Singapore as we make a quest to join the scientific elites of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think A* has proven at all that JHU has neglected its side of the agreement. A* stated that it invested XX million dollars in DJHS, but it never stated that this was the amount agreed upon. My suspicion is that JHU expected a bigger investment, which is why it accused A* of not meeting its financial obligations. And to attract senior scientists to Singapore, you need money. If A* was indeed not providing enough funds, it would not be surprising that JHU failed to attract senior scientists.
Money talks. I agree with you that the $XX millions contributed by A*star may have fell short on earlier agreements, afterall I only gathered the data from Straits Times.
The fact that DJHS doesn't work out will prompt any potential top foreign institutes to think twice before setting foot here.
Post a Comment