Life Sciences in Asia: a recent graduate’s perspective
Kyaw Myo Lwin Frank
Singapore
To get a bird’s-eye view of the life sciences in Asia necessitates one to look at the nature of scientific research worldwide. Although several Asian countries have recently embarked on an odyssey of talent recruitment, enhanced research funding support and development of centres of research excellence, biomedical research in the East is, in general, a step behind the Western countries. This begs the question: why?
While assessing the plethora of diverse research activities across the globe, many phenomena can be counted as contributing factors in this East-West discrepancy. One of the phenomena stems from the nature of scientific research. The way that scientific research organized and conducted in the laboratory has changed over years. Scientific research in the laboratory today is more complicated and sophisticated than research from several hundred years ago. Researchers in the past spent many years in their ivory towers, mulling over their observations, pondering the mysteries of life. Driven by their ever-curious nature, supported by keen observation powers of biological events in the field, and often fuelled through personal expenses, they spent many years quenching their thirst for knowledge to decipher what is life.
Knowledge on what is life has advanced tremendously in the last couple of decades. From Mendel’s observations of inheritance in the pea to the identification of DNA as the blueprint of life, through the discovery of the DNA double-helix structure to our understanding of the genetic code and gene regulation, biomedical science has come a long way. The 1970s saw the dawn of in vitro genetic engineering, the 1980s saw the birth of transgenic mice, and the 1990s presented to us the possibilities that cloning, stem cells, tissue engineering, genomics, transciptomics, proteomics, RNA interference etc. have opened up. Medicine has come a long way from voodoo and supernatural witchcraft to where answers are grounded in scientific facts. Treatment is now targeted at the basis of the disease itself, be it microbial or genetic in nature, through the development of antibiotics and genetic therapies, respectively.
Today, the world of life science research operates on a different plane. The system of how research is conducted, funding, mentoring and career development, has also changed. There is more government intervention now in the form of centralized bodies which identify areas of research of national interest, dispense funding, regulate research activities, and build core facilities where scientists of different disciplines come together and synergise. In the last decade, an increasing number of students have chosen the life sciences as their field of study in the university. With better academic progression, more graduates are also embarking on graduate studies and post-doctoral fellowships with the intent of building careers in this arena. Life science education today is also different from a decade or two ago. Students are no longer confined within the silos of zoology, botany, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology etc. Rather, a holistic approach is adopted as the questions in life sciences today can no longer be solved by specialists in any one discipline alone. Students need and are given the grounding in the different areas, and more. A broad spectrum education includes fundamentals in chemistry, physics, statistics, and engineering.
The aim ultimately is to nurture young life scientists with the ability to participate in different fields of biomedical research and to encourage mature life scientists to step beyond their comfort zones and collaborate with researchers in other disciplines to explore the full biomedical research terrain. The incorporation of ideas from other academic disciplines is integral to finding answers to old questions, and even to the opening up of new fields of research. History tells of the denouncement by French anatomist Xavier Bichat of microscopes as being useless1. But history also tells us that this unsung device is now a quintessential tool in cellular pathology. And developments in microscopy like electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, scanning tunnel microscopy, and atomic force microscopy, have yielded knowledge about subcellular and molecular structures never before imagined possible. Similarly, the German physician Rudolf Virchow, father of pathology, disapproved of the idea that bacteria can cause diseases1. It was through a collaborative effort to investigate bacteria in causing diseases that spawned the new field of microbiology.
Public awareness of biomedical research, too, is playing a role in driving better research, developing better drugs, and achieving better treatment and superior clinical outcomes. The life science evolution has piqued the interest of the young; more of the best and brightest are attracted to the field. All this brings us back to the conundrum: why is life science research weaker in the East relative to the West?
Different countries have different priorities to the needs of citizenry. The standard of living in the country has a significant impact on the extent of biomedical research endeavour. Countries where people are living at the basal levels of subsistence will not be able to allocate sufficient funding for meaningful state-of-the-art research. Furthermore, the environment will not be conducive for researchers to develop to his or her full potential. The educational and technological state of the country would inhibit pharmaceutical and biotechnological MNCs from establishing R&D and drug and medical device manufacturing plants in the country. In a parallel vein, lack of financial affordability would dictate that the drug giants do not sell their ‘blockbuster’ pills in the country. The general lack of awareness of biomedical potential coupled with the needs for infrastructure and economic development would drive young talents towards fields of study like business and engineering.
Culture, religion, and/or tradition also play a role in certain aspects of scientific enquiry such as embryonic stem (ES) cell research. ES cells are taken from 4- or 5-day old embryos which, to some, are considered as “alive”. They would contend that destroying embryos is equivalent to mercilessly nipping a life in the bud. Others, however, support that ES cells could pave the way for new therapies, organ replacements, and may even tread on the hallowed ground of immortality. There should be healthy discussion between ardent researchers and the public on such polemical issues. This can be achieved only when the educational state of the population has reached a certain standard, there is unbiased public education, and society is unpolarized. In this regard, the Singapore government in its desire towards becoming a biomedical hub in South Asia has adopted a secular pragmatic view towards stem cell research and provided strong funding in life science research. This approach has resulted in top scientists in US and UK moving their research to Singapore, strengthening the research climate and improving the overall quality of life science research2,3. The enactment of clear policies on biomedical research, bioethics, scientific integrity, and the provision of strong financial incentives has also attracted MNCs to establish R&D units and manufacturing bases in Singapore. This clearly explains the fact that government policy, bioethics, and religion play major roles in driving biomedical research a step forward.
In this regard, several Asian countries have taken the same approach in fostering biomedical research. In 2002, South Korea made a similar approach in stem cell research such that stem cell research centre (SCRC) has been founded with initial 10 years project plan on stem cell research establishment in South Korea4. Similarly, Singapore Stem Cell Consortium (SSCC) was also established to initiate a coordinated and focused translational research and development in stem cells research in Singapore5. RIKEN in Japan is also a leading publicly funded basic research organization, established to conduct scientific investigation in a variety of fields such as physics, chemistry, engineering, and medicine6. Likewise, Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) has also proved that China is keen on leading scientific research with full financial support7. Such macro-perspective far-sighted thinking is, unfortunately, not prevalent throughout the East. Since several Asian countries are still in developing phase, it is their priority to stabilize socio-economic infrastructure so that they can take a step further into biomedical research later.
In a nutshell, for the Asian countries to ‘catch-up’ with the West on the world stage of life sciences research, many factors need to be improved such as socio-economic development, government policy, education, financial support, and the provision of a stimulating environment. The rapid development and growth of biomedical research in China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea is a shining example of what can be achieved. It is now time for other countries in the region to learn and follow.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO
DISCUSS YOUR OPINIONS IN THE FORUM!
Janet Wright. Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins 2006. Principal Investigators, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Singapore. Nature. 439: 1028.
Karen Birmingham 2002. Stem cell scientist moves to Singapore. Nature medicine. 8:314.
www.stem.or.kr
www.sscc.a-star.edu.sg
http://www.cdb.riken.jp/en/index.html
http://english.cas.ac.cn/