http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/02/16/the-smugness-of-ignorance-i/

In this case, the argument between Lee’s and Yeo is not relevant at all and never constructive at all. The way I see it is just the gov way to tell us that “be prepared for the loss, I’m telling you now so to show I’m honest and truthful”. The answer that gov give is already predictable, so why bother to explain such thing again. Unless gov change its stand and mindset, why waste time even revealing such thing.

If gov is going to say there’s no rethink on biotech, then what the point of publishng such thing ? It only get to discredit Yeo and Lee, and doesn’t serve the public any purpose.

To debate for the sake of debate is useless if we can’t change anything at all.

It’s a favourite to quote lotsa scientists and inventors like Thomas Edison on the nature of invention and discovery.

The problem with that sort of inclination is that it is indisputably simplistic.

If Edison has no moolah from his previous work that yielded him some form of income for day-to-day living, then what kind of fruitful research can he do exactly for his light bulbs?

The point is that whilst the govt is indeed spending huge amounts of money in areas of research which may not yield results, a systemic consideration of the Singapore economy should at the very least yield some form of stable income for at least 20 years for that shadowy research sort to continue.

So assuming that Singapore prefers to pursue research in the grayer areas, then it’d appear that the government has sufficient income from other areas of the economy.

Though I do also subscribe to the common-sense approach—with a catch: I think the govt should reserve about 75% of research finding to the riskier arenas while maintaining 25% for the clearly beneficial and urgent areas of research in the sense of what Prof. Lee Wei Ling proposes.

o.

Management of organisations is about knowing people inside-out. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with MBAs.

Otherwise, pray tell why with the host of MBAs that NUS and NTU have churned out, why is Vivian Bala still only mentioning Sim Wong Hoo as an example of entrepreneurship?

LeslieLee:

The problem is that why this case of disagreement between Lee Wei Ling and Mr Philip Yeo is ever revealed to the public ?

From the PR student’s perspective…

So that the population can see a debate going on, ie. that the press is a lot more progressive now, than previously.

Any kind of research is a risk; on the scale that PY’s A*Star is doing it, the costs must be enormous.

And my interpretation of LWL’s suggestion is to concentrate that outlay or reduce the outlay even, and to focus on issues that are more relevant to Asia.

I subscribe to that commonsense view.

When my American-born cousin wanted to specialise her medical studies in the field of ENT cancer, she came to Singapore and HK because there was little know about that in the USA in her days as a medical student.

When my father was diagnosed with cancer of the liver in Sydney in the 90′s the doctors there recommended he return to HK as they were far more advanced in that field than in Australia – Asians being more prone to cancer of the liver.

So why take the high risk road of researching into topics where the West has a head start and bigger resources – and urgent motivation?

Gamblers with any sense play the odds, so why don’t we?