Politics: The Great Biomed Debate
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/170442.asp
Brief Summary/ Foreword: I may not be an economic expert, but I chose to use this topic and share my views with the little knowledge that I have in this area and the brief research that I did. Even though politics may not interest many, I feel that it is relevant and important for us as students to keep up with Singapore’s current political affairs. This can also serve as a preparation on evaluating views in a debate. The article speaks about Singapore’s race to breach the next big biomedical frontier. The debate between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr. Philip yeo, centers on whether Singapore should continue pursuing our current areas of research. Dr Lee Wei Ling feels that we should concentrate on other areas of research such as hepatitis B and head injuries instead of competing with other world-class centers that are chasing the same thing. On the other hand, Mr. Philip yeo feels that this is no reason for concern, since the biomedical sector has churned out very healthy and encouraging results and he feels will continue to.
Reflections: What caught my attention was the double helix DNA strand but more than that, this article concerns Singapore’s future and two politicians who strongly feel about their points of view. There is no question that both Dr. lee and Mr.Yeo have Singapore’s best interest at heart.
But their opinions couldn’t be more different- change direction and minimize the damage says one, stay the course and reap the rewards, says the other.
The stakes are high. New research shows that around the world, biotech’s shine could be dulling. A recent Harvard business school article quoted business administration professor Gary Pisano as saying that the biotech business – caught between the differing needs of business and science, had under performed. The industry needed to realign itself to integrate research and focus on long-term efforts, he said.
While both have their strengths in their points of views, Dr Lee has already pointed out that we should not compete with world class powers and concentrate on other sectors. Having done her own research, she says that hepatitis would be good since 5% of Chinese have this, and head injuries would comprise the main cause of disability in children and otherwise healthy adults which could have been economically productive to Singapore.
Mr. Yeo says that our current biomedical sector has account for 5% gross national product (GDP) and accounts for many high-valued jobs.
While Mr. Yeo may have been right that the current biomedical sector has been doing very well, pitted against international standards. However, I feel that he also has to take into account that the fact that people are investing heavily into Singapore’s biomedical industry is not solely based on our multi billion-dollar research drive. Other factors such as the generous help from our government to set up strict intellectual property (IP) laws, Singapore’s efficiency as well as our highly English-speaking environment are many other incentives attracting foreign investors.
I also feel that Dr. Lee is right in not competing with other world-class centers chasing the same research field. While this may seem that we are advocating the fact that Singapore cannot be world-beaters, I feel otherwise. Yes, Singapore can definitely be world-beaters, however, while being daring and optimistic, we definitely have to be realistic and tactical as well. Singapore too must have the appropriate research strategy in this case and concentrate effort and resources on the areas where we have a competitive advantage. After all, with the many limitations that Singapore has, we can be personified as David who has to use brains and faith to defeat the goliaths.
Next, while I belief that both politicians have done equal amounts of homework, I feel that in politics especially when economics is involved we definitely have to look long term. Dr. Lee here has taken a long-term view and predicted that the biomedical sector will flourish taking into account the opportunity costs incurred by people with head injuries, we can see from here the depth of her argument. On the outside, head injury may not be favorable sector to invest, however, if you look at the many problems linked with head problems, we can see the whole cumulative effect.
Other than politics, I feel that debates show how different people have different perspectives and mindsets. It also shows us that opinion is very subjective and different people have their own points of view. There are many things we can take out of this as well such as while we can be ambitious, we must consider our limitations and pit ourselves against challenges that are realistic therefore we will be a thinker rather than a mindless savage, brave but stupid. It also teaches us to look at an issue in more ways than one, where something can be the product of many things and not just one thing. This teaches us to be more analytical and not look at things in a shallow fashion.
