JOHNS HOPKINS AND A*STAR'S FALLING-OUT

I came across this article and felt that it is rather interesting. Here, I think that my brother can be considered as a child of the divorced family. A*Star being the father who is paying for all the expenses of his education and JOhn Hopkins being the mother who is provding him with his formal and moral education. A very typical example of today's families. Yet, the only different is that, my brother is more than happy ever.

The following is a sad story as well as something we can learn from. ;D
Highly recommended.
A well written analysis and comparison.

How a perfect marriage' fell apart
JOHNS HOPKINS AND A*STAR'S FALLING-OUT
By: Chang Ai-Lien & Daryl Loo

Broken promises, cultural mismatch and unclear pre-nuptial agreement blamed for
the break-up

ON THE surface, it was the perfect marriage.
On one side, a rich, ambitious suitor; on the other, a partner of fine pedigree eager to tie the knot and explore a foreign land.
So began the collaboration between the Singapore Government and esteemed American institution Johns Hopkins University (JHU), to much fanfare in 1998.
With the Republic's National Science and Technology Board opening wide its coffers, the dream was for Johns Hopkins' overseas arm to take local research
and education to a higher plane.
For the brand-name US medical and research facility, it was a chance to get a foothold in the region.
Johns Hopkins Singapore would have 75 researchers to look at key diseases and work closely with institutions here to develop patents, publish papers and
create companies.
The end result - money made, jobs created, lives saved.
Big dreams and lofty hopes indeed.
Eight years and $82 million later, the papers were filled instead with news of a divorce, little to show for the time and money invested, and accusations of promises broken and unhappiness on both sides.

Cracks appear

CRACKS began to appear soon after the honeymoon.
Just a year after the partners wed, a review showed that Johns Hopkins Singapore had 'significant problems in moving ahead in its research and education programmes', according to the director of the A*Star's Biomedical Research Council, Dr Andre Wan.
A*Star - the Agency for Science, Technology and Research - inherited the project from its predecessor NSTB in 2002.
Among the key results lacking, Johns Hopkins Singapore could not get senior faculty or come up with the $23 million it had earlier agreed to raise.
Efforts to refine the relationship failed and, in 2003, another restructuring exercise took place, resulting in a new baby - the Division of Johns Hopkins in Singapore (DJHS), the university's first division outside its home base in Baltimore.
A*Star kept its end of the bargain by providing the funds.
Yet, despite clear targets agreed on by each side and laid out in 13 key performance indicators, the Johns Hopkins division failed to deliver on eight, including having no graduate students or patents filed.
The goals the division said it met, such as the number of papers published, are still being examined by A*Star.
Yet JHU said initially that Singapore had not kept its commitment to meet its financial and educational obligations, and called it a 'reputational issue for Singapore and A*Star', a statement which the agency refuted strongly.

Opportunities lost

IN their latest joint statement on Aug 3, both parties appeared to have made up, at least in public.
Retracting its earlier allegations, Johns Hopkins acknowledged and thanked A*Star for its financial and other support and said it recognised its reputation for excellence and integrity.
The matter is closed, says Johns Hopkins. It remains silent on its change of heart, and why it initiated the conciliation with A*Star after its earlier flare-up.
A*Star has also softened its tone.
'We see this as an experiment which failed, but the relationship with Johns Hopkins is something ongoing,' said Dr Wan.
The generals of each camp, known for not mincing their words, remain silent.
But earlier communications are telling.
Johns Hopkins president William Brody made it clear that there are others eager to sign on the dotted line.
After learning of A*Star's decision to break up, he told its chairman Philip Yeo that he had decided to forfeit time set aside for a visit to Singapore to pursue interests in China.
Standing firm, Mr Yeo told Dr Brody in an e-mail: 'It is best that we start afresh and move ahead' rather than 'try to painfully salvage a broken project which will only damage our long relationship.
'Friendship is worth much more than a failed project.'
Both parties now say that while the immediate concern is winding down operations here, they look forward to pursuing mutual projects in the future.
However, given the very public fallout, it is unlikely for the pair to become willing bedfellows again, at such an ambitious level.
Professor Edison Liu, executive director of the Genome Institute of Singapore and DJHS Scientific Advisory Committee chairman, said with regret:
'Sometimes things just don't work out.
'The sadness is really the lost opportunity to do more work with Hopkins.'

Beyond appearances

THE news jolted the international research community and was highlighted in top
publications.
A common thread was how serious Singapore is in getting a bang for its buck.
The scientific journal Nature, for example, said in its report: 'The
Singaporean Government is known for its generosity in pumping money into international research projects. But it can apparently be ruthless if these projects do not please it.'
A view echoed by researchers here.
Said Professor Alan Colman, head of stem cell company ES Cell International:
'It is quite clear that the Singapore authorities do not want to be seen as
easy pickings.
'They want to bring in expertise but do not want to be exploited.'
So, while the salaries of top guns enticed to move here are legendary, so are the hours they are expected to put in, leading groups and institutes as well as sitting on boards, advisory panels and committees and helping to chart Singapore's research future.
Not surprising, given the high hopes for the biomedical sector to contribute $12.5 billion in value-added to GDP, and 15,000 jobs, by 2015.
While the failed Johns Hopkins experiment was no doubt a setback, most researchers and collaborators spoken to remain unshaken in their praise of
Singapore's efforts and progress.
Like the handful of world-class players already collaborating actively with local partners, Sweden's famed Karolinska Institutet said that its relationship
with Singapore remained unaffected.
'I doubt others will shy away,' said its president, Dr Harriet
Wallberg-Henriksson.
Added Professor David Lane, a foreign star recruited here to head the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology: 'Both partners are hugely resilient so
I don't see any serious damage to either party.'

Irreconcilable differences

BUT many agree that things could have been done differently.
Given that this was one of the first collaborations of its kind, Singapore's
relative inexperience could have played a part in its downfall.
A major flaw was that the pre-nuptial agreements were unclear.
According to Dr Sydney Brenner, the Nobel laureate who has helped shape Singapore science for more than 20 years, it boils down to common sense.
'It's like a marriage contract, everybody has to know what to deliver,' he said. Prof Liu also pointed to a cultural mismatch.
On the calibre of candidates, for example, A*Star wanted scientists of repute, but Dr Brody contended that 'our experience over 100 years at Johns Hopkins is that the future belongs to the young scientists who have demonstrated remarkable ability even though they may not have achieved stardom'. Perhaps these differences were irreconcilable.

Boston University president Robert Brown, who chairs the Singapore Education
Ministry's Academic Research Council, feels it boils down to 'fundamental
differences' between mission-oriented A*Star and universities geared towards
academic research.
Prof Lane said that while much recruitment was of young, hungry researchers,
experience showed that a few big names helped to create a good mentoring
environment for training.
'Access to internationally top senior staff with biotech experience is also
very attractive to industry thinking of moving to Singapore,' he added.
Another problem, said Dr Brenner, was the lack of Singapore leadership
within the division.
'This is something you cannot administer from overseas. It is of course very
hard to get people to come here when their careers will be decided in America.
'It should have been a Singapore entity with a half-share.'
Said one researcher involved in the Singapore-MIT Alliance, a research and educational collaboration between local tertiary institutes and Boston's famed
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 'The big names are often spread thin while young researchers may be inexperienced.
'Local scientists make sure projects are running as planned, we act as the
glue holding the pieces together.'
Leaders of several new collaborations add that they have avoided a cookie-cutter approach.
Professor Soo Khee Chee is vice-dean of a medical school being set up jointly by the National University of Singapore and another US big name - Duke University. This collaboration, he said, is 'hot-wired for success'.
To make sure the tie-up worked, there was a five-year engagement to iron out
the kinks.
Rather than transplanting Duke's entire curriculum here, for instance, local
faculty members went to the US to observe and adapt the course to local needs.
Such points are key, considering the importance of blossoming relationships
- classes start at the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School next year, and MIT will
take its partnership with Singapore up a notch to set up its first research
centre outside the US here next year.
There are also five smaller but structured tie-ups between famous overseas
universities and local ones to create joint PhD programmes and a steady stream
of research talent - Sweden's Karolinska, Imperial College in Britain, Scotland's University of Dundee, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Carnegie Mellon University in the US.

Calling it quits

THE money for the JHU project - which cost an estimated $14 million a year to run - went mainly into paying up to 60 staff, equipment and supplies, and rental. And the 12-month winding down of operations here continues to impose costs on Singapore.
But measuring a programme's success, and knowing when to call it quits, is not always clear-cut.
Said Prof Lane: 'Science needs time to mature, so it is not easy to make
these judgments.
'The key to successful marriages is communication and flexibility, so I guess everyone will try that bit harder next time around.'
In a community where egos abound and personalities can overrid substance, holding a powerful and influential partner accountable takes courage and conviction.
Mr Yeo has been very clear on how he runs the show here.
'We must have key performance indicators in life, milestones and deliverables. We're spending taxpayers' money,' he said in a recent interview.
'No one can escape KPIs.'

Moving on

AS Singapore's biomedical experiment continues to bubble, more failures will come.
In fact, they are par for the course, given how Singapore is staking its future on the fruits of research.
Said Dr Wan: 'This is not an exact science. We do not claim to have a perfect formula.'
Added Dr Brenner: 'It's an episode we need to put behind us as we move on to the next thing.
'I want to get everybody back to work.'
Referring to the $82 million spent on the Johns Hopkins project, Dr Wan admitted it was a considerable amount of money, but 'against the larger backdrop, we're still on the positive side'.
Successes should not be forgotten.
The industry has burst forth from virtually nothing five years ago to contributing 5 per cent to Singapore's GDP last year.
Said Dr Brenner: 'Singapore has got to create its own brand name, and this is what we are doing.'
Of course, taxpayers' money should be well spent and every cent accounted for, particularly at a time when more money than ever - over $13.5 billion over
the next five years - is being pumped into research and development.
But the real failure would be if Singapore shied away from new partners and affairs and lost its shine in the eyes of many who now consider it a prized catch.