Abstract
In most industrialized countries, policy debates around stem cell science manifest in public discourse. Assuming that a functioning public sphere exists where matters of science policy can be discussed, examination of these discourses can help provide an understanding of how science policies evolve. The aim of this paper is to provide a preliminary analysis of how the public discourses around stem cell science have developed in Singapore. Using a theoretical model of “focused discourse,” our analysis indicates that there have been five distinct phases, marked by discernible shifts that reflect important changes in how biomedical science is funded in Singapore. While our results are preliminary, we argue that public discourses around science policies do exist in Singapore but are limited by a lack of diversity that would be expected in a more heterogeneous public sphere.
Introduction
Over the last decade, embryonic stem cell (ESC) research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) have been subject to political, bioethical, and public debate as governments have sought ways to regulate this emergent science. In this time, most industrialized countries have enacted legislation that generally seeks to balance ethical concerns surrounding the protection of human embryos while allowing important biomedical research to proceed (Hauskeller Citation2005, Chang and Tan Citation2010). However, there is great variation in the permissibility of ESC research between, and sometimes within, different nations (Walters Citation2004). Some countries, like the UK, have relatively liberal laws that allow the use of SCNT and the creation of human embryos for research, while others have placed outright bans on all ESC research (Lysaght and Kerridge Citation2010). In the US, while federal funding was (until recently) limited to cell lines that pre-dated former US President George W. Bush's 2001 executive order, individual states such as California have implemented their own legislation and funding initiatives to pursue ESC research (Salter and Salter Citation2010).
Differences in national regulatory approaches have generated competition to implement stem cell programs that will give countries an edge in the global knowledge economy (Gottweis et al. Citation2009). Several East Asian nations – particularly China, South Korea, and Singapore – have adopted science-friendly policies, and invested heavily in building the infrastructure necessary to attract scientific talent from abroad and develop local industries in stem cell science (Levine Citation2008). While these investments have paid off to a degree, some commentators have suggested that the overall outputs from all three countries “have failed to impress” and “none is at present a major player in the stem cell arena” (Sipp Citation2009, p. 853). Others have criticized the top-down approach to science policy development in Asian countries, and an over-emphasis on recruiting senior expatriate scientists, as key factors that are impeding the progress of biomedical science in the region (Huang and Tan Citation2010, Zhang Citation2011). In this paper, we focus on Singapore as an example of how policies for stem cell science have developed in East Asia.
Stem cell policy development in Singapore
Singapore's approach to stem cell science sits within a broader policy framework that promotes the biomedical sciences as part of a strategy to transform the country into a knowledge-based economy (Waldby Citation2009). Central to this framework have been: (1) the establishment of a national funding body, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), which sits under the Economic Development Board (EDB); and (2) the rollout of strategic plans to compete in the global bioeconomy (Reubi Citation2010). Key aspects of this strategy have been the provision of taxation incentives and venture capital schemes to encourage public–private partnerships, and the generation of highly educated workers through university scholarships and the placement of graduates under internationally renowned scientists (Ong Citation2005). Other important aspects have included the technological infrastructure and development of science parks and, most notably, the Biopolis, which is a multi-million dollar complex that houses key research institutes, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and governing bodies (Waldby Citation2009). Complementing the physical construction is the “soft” infrastructure (Reubi Citation2010), which has included the creation of national ethical boards, and specifically the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC).
The BAC was established “to examine and make recommendations for potential ethical, legal and social issues arising from research in the biomedical sciences” (Bioethics Advisory Committee Citation2000). In 2002, the BAC delivered recommendations on stem cell research in a report entitled Ethical, legal and social issues in human stem cell research, reproductive and therapeutic cloning (Bioethics Advisory Committee Citation2002). This report advocated a relatively liberal approach that would allow research on human embryos and SCNT to proceed under license (Kian and Leng Citation2005). The report was endorsed by the government and is now used as the national guidance (Colman Citation2008). The only specific legislation to emerge from this report is the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2004, which prohibits reproductive cloning.
Singapore's permissive regulatory approach and laissez-faire economic policies have been applauded by the international scientific community (Einhorn et al. Citation2005, Arnold Citation2006, Walsh Citation2006a, Citation2006b). Singapore has since recruited a number of high profile scientists with generous research budgets and the freedom to pursue innovative lines of research (Arnold Citation2006). Star recruits have included husband and wife duo Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, who were appointed to the Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology (IMCB) in 2007, and Dr Alan Colman who was formerly with PPL Therapeutics (van Epps Citation2006). According to Colman (Citation2008, p. 520), Singapore was attractive because it lacked “unduly onerous political or legislative restrictions” on the use of human ESC research.
Previous empirical research has shown that stem cell scientists opt to work in geographic areas with liberal regulation (Wainwright and Williams Citation2008) and US researchers are attracted to Singapore because of a perceived favorable political environment (Levine Citation2010). However, recent reports suggest that this climate may be changing with the government's new Industry Alignment Fund (IAF). Starting from 2011, 30% of A*Star's budget will be redirected into a pool for projects that are supported by an industry partner (Bennett Citation2010). The implications of this policy change for Singapore's stem cell community are not yet understood, although early indications suggest that some scientists are unhappy. From a recent Nature editorial (Editor Citation2010, p. 731), a number of high profile scientists have resigned, including Copeland and Jenkins who were “frustrated by the changes,” and there are others “looking for new posts.” The editors cite specific complaints about a lack of transparency and an over-bureaucratized grant review process.
Such sentiments are a departure from the enthusiasm that scientists have previously exuded for Singapore's “no strings attached” approach (van Epps Citation2006, p. 1140) and they raise questions about how the discourse has arrived at this point. These developments are important, not just because of the implications they may have for Singapore's economic aspirations, but because they reflect on how stem cell science is being “co-produced.” Implicit in this idea of co-production is an open and transparent discourse that allows a multiplicity of actors to deliberate and debate the development of science policy (Jasanoff Citation2005). Some scholars have pointed to the BAC's consultation processes as providing a forum for public debate on stem cell science (Ho et al. Citation2010). However, other scholars have argued that even though Singapore has endeavored to adopt liberal ideas of public engagement in science policymaking, “there is no public as such to engage” (Holden and Demeritt Citation2008, p. 83). We aim to examine the development of public discourses around stem cell science in Singapore by drawing on a theoretical model that approaches public discussion around science policy as a particular type of focused discourse.
Theoretical approach: public debate as a focused discourse
For our examination, we applied a theoretical approach of focused discourse that is described by Little and Lipworth Citation(2007). This approach is “a purposive, patterned, restricted use of language and other signs constructed and employed by a community of people who implicitly or explicitly agree to abide by a set of semiotic rules and meanings that determines both the purpose and the membership of the community” (Little and Lipworth Citation2007, p. 7; see also Little et al. 2003, Little and Sayers Citation2004a, Citation2004b, Little et al. Citation2007). Focused discourse “permeates common discourse by way of [for example] the mass media […] [and] frame[s] our ethical understanding, our ethical language, and ultimately our ethical practices” (Little Citation2010, p. 94) to explore the “capacity to extend our moral horizons into domains and territories where we cannot otherwise go” (from Little Citation2010, p. 93, referring to the work of Nussbaum Citation1995a, Citation1995b). The result is a descriptive account that alludes to “… natural histories,” ideas about “fragmentation, paradigm change or disintegration,” and “meanings around such words as justice, equity, fairness, rights, autonomy, contract, consent, and so on” (Little Citation2010, p. 95).
According to this model, public discourses evolve over five phases. Briefly, the first phase occurs with the emergence of an event or an affair, which triggers a public response and the shaping of those responses in the second phase. In the third phase, actors align with communities that share the values and ideals that are expressed within a prevailing discourse. However, this apparent unification masks other discourses that are developing in or around the dominant one. During this fourth phase, critical discourses emerge to reflect and add balance to the prevailing discourse. The final phase is characterized by a realignment that should reveal the heterogeneity of a public discourse. This model provides a useful heuristic for understanding how public discourses around science policies develop and is thus used to examine those around stem cell science in Singapore.
Method notes
While various sources of public discourse exist, we concentrated on the print news media because it is the most accessible and dominant source for tracking public discourse (Kennamer Citation1992). We included the four main categories of print media content: news items, features articles, opinion editorials, and letters to the editor. All articles published between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2010 in the Straits Times, Today, New Paper, International Herald Tribune, and Business Times were retrieved from the Factiva database using the truncated search string of “stem cell, human embryo or cloning.” We also included a search for billboards, blogs, and chat rooms based in Singapore.Footnote1 Initial results were assessed for relevance. Items relating to animal cloning and other non-contextualized use of the term “cloning” (i.e. photography, software, etc.) were excluded. Articles were then examined qualitatively using thematic analysis techniques (Lincoln and Guba Citation1985, Denzin and Lincoln Citation2005) to generate a narrative of key policy events that have shaped the public discourse around stem cell science.
Results
The data for our preliminary analysis comprised 970 items: 799 news and feature articles, 141 opinion editorials and letters to the editor, and 30 blog entries. indicates that the total number of items published fell from 22 to zero in 2000 but then rose to 95 in 2002. This number dropped in 2003 but increased again to peak at 131 in 2005. From 2007, the media coverage began to decline until just 63 items were published in 2010. Many of these items referred to scientific reports and policy developments overseas, which were important to include in tracking the broader context of Singapore's public discourse. As our analysis progressed, we then focused on items that related more specifically to Singapore and the government's policies.Footnote2 Results presented below describe the key events that have shaped five overlapping, but distinct phases of public discourse.
Figure 1. Number of news/feature articles, opinion editorial/letters to the editor and weblog/forum articles included in the analysis.
![Figure 1. Number of news/feature articles, opinion editorial/letters to the editor and weblog/forum articles included in the analysis.](/cms/asset/eb9c9380-f0f0-4e2f-a546-33ef1b74448c/cngs_a_662058_f0001.gif)
Public responses to international events and local policy episodes (1997–2002)
Discussion of stem cell science first emerged in February 1997 with the announcement of Dolly the sheep (Wilmut et al. Citation1997). This event did not attract a large volume of newspaper coverage or public commentary in Singapore. In the single editorial found, Singaporeans were advised against taking an “alarmist reaction” that could result in “funding cuts” and “all sorts of legal and ethical restrictions” (Editor Citation1997). The research that produced the first human ESC line (Thomson et al. Citation1998) went by with even less media interest. Indeed, this announcement went unreported in Singapore's major newspapers and attracted little attention until mid-2001, when President Bush issued his executive order. One article suggested that Bush's policy would encourage “frustrated” American scientists to move offshore and provide countries with more liberal regulatory environments the opportunity to “take lead” (Knowlton Citation2001).
Soon after, Singapore announced its ambitions of becoming a global supplier of ESCs with the EDB's $17 million investment in ES Cell International (ESI). At the time, ESI owned six out of the 21 existing ESC lines that would be approved for US federal funding. In 2001, ESI set up its main research and production facility in Singapore and it was envisaged that this investment, along with a liberal regulatory attitude, would help cement the country's leading position in the global stem cell market:
Along with Australia, Sweden and India, the Republic is now among what The New York Times described last week as “an unexpected new order of world powers” in human embryonic stem cell research. This highlights the newcomers' inventiveness, as well as how the traditional biomedical powerhouses have been held back by political and ethical controversy, it said. Singapore, free of such roadblocks, presently shares the lead in the marathon that is stem-cell research. (Chang Citation2002c)Footnote3
While the recommendations were well received, not everyone supported them. Some commentators warned that more debate was needed on the issue and criticized the BAC by suggesting that the statutory board “slated” to replace it should look “more closely” at the Committee's “wisdom” of legalizing research cloning (Ho Citation2002). The BAC responded by reiterating the inclusiveness and transparency of the consultation process:
It's not a 100-per-cent happy situation for everyone, but we have made all efforts to ensure all views have been taken into account. No one should feel that he has been ignored. We have taken great pains to ensure that. (Anon Citation2002)
Pseudo-unification of Singapore's stem cell discourses (2002–2005)
With funding and regulatory mechanisms in place, or at least in the planning, the stage was set for Singapore to pursue its recruitment drive. From 2002, there was a growing focus on attracting big names in stem cell science. The media had already extensively covered the profile of Sri-Lankan born Ariff Bongso, an obstetrician at the National University Hospital, as a “pioneer” in the field of ESC research (Anon Citation2001). Then, in early 2002, Alan Colman was appointed as Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) at ESI. This appointment was covered with much enthusiasm and hope that he would “act as a magnet” and “create a snowball effect” that would encourage other foreign scientists to “follow suit” (Chang 2002c). According to ESI's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Robert Klupacs:
Alan has a wide network of scientific contacts, collaborators and friends. Part of his role at ESI will be to build the company's scientific talent in Singapore. (Chang Citation2002a)
The only counter-discourses to emerge consistently were from various sections of the Christian Church, who stressed their concerns over the destruction of human embryos and argued for the potential of adult stem cells. An edited position statement of the Singapore Catholic Medical Guild was posted on SG Forums, which stated their opposition to research cloning and generated a small thread of discussion (Anon 2004). Otherwise, there was an apparent unity within the discourse that continued throughout 2004 as news of Woo Suk Hwang et al.'s (Citation2004) reported successes in creating SCNT-derived ESC lines dominated the media. This coverage peaked in 2005 with Hwang et al.'s (Citation2005) announcement of patient-specific ESC lines, and the subsequent news that this research was fraudulent and conducted unethically. However, this high profile event attracted little commentary within Singapore. The main response was to provide assurances that such an episode was unlikely to occur in Singapore given its existing regulatory frameworks, management systems and “extensive use of foreign scientific advisers” (Liu Citation2005).
Singapore's success in attracting foreign expertise was attributed by some to “the critical mass of scientists and institutions clustered at the Biopolis” (Ho Citation2005). By 2005, the facility housed ESI's laboratories along with prestigious A*Star-funded research institutes and pharmaceutical giants such as Eli Lilly and Novartis. However, despite the concentration of industry and scientific expertise, some analysts complained that the Biopolis lacked the “entrepreneurship” needed to “bring science to market” and attain Singapore's economic goals (Ho 2005). These counter-discourses about the lack of economic outputs from the country's venture into stem cell science signaled upcoming changes in Singapore's investment strategy.
Reflection on Singapore's investment policies (2005–2007)
By 2005, a number of key buzz words and catch phases had entered the lexicon: “collaboration,” “translational clinical research,” and “bench to the bedside.” The entrance of these terms coincided with Singapore's new focus on funding projects that were more likely to generate economic outputs sooner than its basic research. Singapore began by consolidating its research efforts into the Singapore Stem Cell Consortium (SSCC). The SSCC was initiated with a $75 million fund that would spread over three years to help scientists “share expertise, avoid duplication and stay focused in their goal to find cures for major diseases” (Chang Citation2010). According to then-chairman of A*Star Philip Yeo, Singapore was “too small to have its talents pulled in different directions” (Chang Citation2005). In the following year, Yeo resigned as co-chair at the EDB to chair ESI claiming that he had “left it [ESI] to the scientists to run” and now wanted to take the company “through its next stage” (Anon Citation2006a). Yeo installed three new directors on the board, which included the CEO of Bio*One Capital – the EDB's capital investment arm – and hotelier Jennie Chua, who was brought on as a layperson because, according to Yeo, “you don't want a board of people (who are) all the same, talk alike, because they (ultimately will be) dealing with patients” (Anon 2006a).
Other shifts in the discourse were evident with the types of foreign scientists Singapore was now looking to recruit. This “second wave” of talent was made up of “scientists with medical relevance or doctors doing research, or even scientists with industrial experience” (Huifen Citation2006). According to an acting executive director of A*Star's Biomedical Research Council, this “new wave of recruits” would help Singapore “embark on the next phase of growth” that would emphasize “bench to bedside, bench to industry and molecule to medicine” (Huifen 2006). This shift also translated into public funds being directed towards scientific programs that linked up with clinics in Singapore's hospitals. To help drive this vision, A*Star created the Translational and Clinical Sciences Group, which was earmarked as the main focus of Singapore's biomedical science initiative.
A year after these announcements, Alan Colman, who had been installed as CEO at ESI in 2005 following the departure of Robert Klupacs, reportedly resigned to return to his “true love” of research (Kesava Citation2007b). Colman was then appointed as Executive Director at the SSCC to “stimulate research” through collaborations among Singapore's academic institutions (Kesava Citation2007a). He also was given a senior research position at the Institute of Medical Biology (IMB) and was soon joined by most of ESI's scientific staff when the company scaled down its research operations. ESI would no longer “play scientist” but instead would focus on being the “commercial arm” of stem cell research (Kesava Citation2007c). The board denied that the company had diverged from its original charter and issued assurances that ESI had the “industrial branding and commercial expertise” to translate research at the SSCC into “economically viable therapies” (Huifen Citation2007a). Colman, who remained on the board, claimed that the strategic shift was necessary because investors were like “fund managers” who wanted “fast results” and had been “losing interest in therapies that are years away from fruition” (Kesava 2007c).
These discourses were evolving against the backdrop of scientific and political developments overseas. International press articles posted on SG Forums about how US federal funding policies were benefiting Singapore generated some cynical comments suggesting that “the competitive edge it once had” was diminishing and that “the bioscience sector is a huge gamble, [as] many projects don't see commercial viability for a long time” (Anon 2006b). Then, in 2007, scientists in Japan announced that they had successfully re-programmed somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells without the use of blastocysts (Yamanaka Citation2007). This event was reported with very little analysis on the implications that it might have on the direction of Singapore's stem cell programs. It did, however, attract criticism that Singapore could no longer afford to continue funding research that was unlikely to generate any returns in the near future. A freelance writer warned that Singapore could “end up like the drug companies which carried on with long-term research that went nowhere because decision-makers refused to cancel unpromising fields of research” (Tan Citation2007).
While the recruitment drive for foreign scientists continued, reports had emerged that some of Singapore's star recruits were either leaving or going part time. David and Birgitte Lane, who were recruited to the IMCB and the IMB respectively, returned to Scotland in 2007 (although both have since returned). Later in the year, Alan Colman announced that he would divide his time between Singapore and his new post in London. Colman gave reassurance that his “new appointment should not be viewed as a reflection on Singapore's biomedical potential” but instead would “lead to greater collaboration” with the UK (Huifen Citation2007b). However, this development was criticized by Professor Lee Wei Ling in a Reuters article posted on a number of blogs/forums. Lee, who is the sister of Singapore's Prime Minister and was appointed as Director of the National Neuroscience Institute following the highly publicized dismissal of Professor Simon Shorvon in 2003 (for an overview of this affair, see Holden and Demeritt Citation2008) was quoted saying:
How can you run research in Singapore on one-third or one-quarter of your time? You must be extremely efficient or not involved enough and so are not worth the money. (Loo Citation2007)
Realignment of stem cell discourses (2008 to present)
From 2008, the media interest in stem cell science began to decline. The BAC's public consultations on “human animal combinations” and payments for human oocytes led to recommendations which were endorsed by the government. However, when the IAF was announced at the end of 2010, it was followed with suggestions that the government was growing impatient with the pace of the biomedical sector and the perceived lack of economic returns. As one commentator has described it:
It's been a dream 10-year run for the biomedical industry – research funds flowing like rivers of gold, Biopolis with its gleaming buildings, superstar scientists from across the world signing up – but the cost accountants have gatecrashed the party. But this new focus on “economic outcomes” has triggered a near-panic among scientists – a scramble in a bureaucratic maze to get a share of the cash, while the real work gets put aside. (Chang Citation2010)
The regulatory environment has got far more complicated, and unfortunately, more complicated than it needs to be. There may be more money at stake, but I think that the administration of research must change if this money is going to be well spent. (Chang 2010)
Discussion and conclusion
Our analysis of public discourse is limited by our sample which, in effect, included mostly media texts from English language newspapers. This approach excluded Chinese and Malaysian language newspapers that might have reported on aspects not captured in our sample. However, most of the media texts were sourced from the Straits Times, which has a daily readership of over 1.4 million and is read by relatively affluent readers who are most likely to constitute discourses around stem cell science (Chang and Tan Citation2010). Additionally, while we attempted to locate sources outside the mainstream media, we were unable to find substantial online discussion on stem cell science other than the materials included in the analysis. Thus, it was important to include materials not written by professional journalists, such as the letters to the editors and opinion editorials, so that the sample was not simply representative of a media discourse.
In addition, our study was not intended to provide an in-depth discourse analysis. Rather, we have provided preliminary insights into how public discourses around stem cell science within Singapore have evolved over the last 14 years. According to the theoretical model of focused discourse (Little and Lipworth Citation2007), science policy issues emerge in the public sphere in response to events that occur within the specialist discourses of science. In the context of stem cell science, the cloning of Dolly and the derivation of the first ESC lines were events that reached beyond the peer-reviewed pages of Science and Nature and into the public sphere. Unlike in the US where both events generated widespread commentary and controversy (Nisbet et al. Citation2003), little media attention was paid to either episode in Singapore until the BAC's public consultation began. Therefore, the trigger for public discourse in Singapore can be pinpointed to the BAC's consultation rather than the two scientific events.
The other type of discourse that emerges in response to major scientific events, and public discussion of them, is the reflective critical discourse (Little and Lipworth Citation2007). Bioethics typically constitutes the central critical discourse around stem cell research. However, talk of bioethics in Singapore emerged much earlier than the Little and Lipworth Citation(2007) model would predict. Rather, bioethics was an important discourse that may have helped shape favorable public responses to the government's regulatory approach. It has been argued elsewhere that bioethics functions not merely as a critical voice but as “an institutionalized political discourse” (Jasanoff 2005, p. 172) that is employed as a means of legitimizing regulatory policies and maintaining public trust in stem cell science (Salter and Salter Citation2007). In Singapore, the establishment of the BAC and adoption of secular bioethics forms part of the “soft” infrastructure considered necessary to build the nation's credibility and reputation as a biomedical hub (Reubi Citation2010). Thus, the “strict” ethical guidelines of the government's permissive regulatory approach fit well into this lexicon.
The critical discourse instead reflected on the economic sustainability of Singapore's funding policy. Public discussion of Singapore's biomedical science policies has tended to focus narrowly on economic dimensions (Holden and Demeritt Citation2008). The influence of these discourses was most discernible in government shifts away from funding basic research to investing more heavily in translational clinical science and industry-partnered projects. In response to these policy changes, counter-discourses have emerged to imply that Singapore may no longer be the regulatory haven, free of political and bureaucratic meddling that it was once thought to be (Editor Citation2010). However, while this provides some evidence of the stem cell community realigning around new discourses, the plurality and diversity that would be expected in a more heterogeneous discourse are not strongly evident in our results. If the realignment phase is still ongoing, then this conclusion may be premature. If not, then it could raise questions about the limits of public discourse in Singapore.
Holden and Demeritt Citation(2008) suggest that no “public” exists in Singapore to engage in a public discourse of science policy. However, given the support of our results for the Little and Lipworth Citation(2007) model, this claim may be a little strong. While there was not a multiplicity of discourse communities (Little et al. 2003) engaging in public debate of stem cell science, we cannot say that it was any more or less homogeneous than the discourse would be in other metropolitan cities given similar circumstances. A*Star scientists are restricted from making comments in the media (van Epps Citation2006) and we expect that these, far from unusual, contractual obligations will prevent key sources from making disclosures which would otherwise inform a discourse in critical ways. However, we expect that the controlled licensing of media outlets in Singapore certainly confines critical debate of government policy (Tan Citation1999, George Citation2002, Citation2007). A number of scholars have also commented on the “climate of fear” and prevalence of self-censorship that deters public involvement in Singapore polity (for a review see Lee Citation2002).
While much can be said about the political landscape of Singapore in terms of the polity and the public sphere, such a task is beyond the scope of this paper.Footnote5 Importantly, the ongoing examination of research investment and priorities in political and scientific spheres continues to gain widespread media coverage. The latest event to occur was the shock resignation of the Director of the Genome Institute of Singapore, Professor Edison Liu, whose departure follows other high profile American scientists and “many more at all levels are also planning escape routes” (Chang Citation2011). Unless these events are being unnoticed entirely by the Singaporean citizen, permanent resident, and expatriate worker on the “Heartlands omnibus,” it is reasonable to argue that public discourses do exist in Singapore.
Moreover, it is important to note that public discourses everywhere, while theoretically open, have many context-bound limitations (Lysaght et al. Citation2011). Public discourses around science policy are constituted by the specialist discourses of science and sustained through processes that allow members of discourse communities to speak with credibility and authority (Little and Lipworth Citation2007). According to the concept of co-production (Jasanoff Citation2004, Citation2005), public discourses develop through knowledge production and embed science with societal values that shape the construction of scientific knowledge. In Singapore, it is not yet clear whether this process will result in a specialist discourse (and thus science production) that is constrained by political micro-management or a more heterogeneous public discourse that is open to a greater diversity of voices. It is also unclear whether the neo-liberal economic discourses that are employed around science policy will ultimately work to help Singapore reach its goal of becoming a major player in the global bioeconomy. Only time will tell.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks are given to Calvin Ho, Alastair Campbell, Ryan Bishop, Catelijne Coopmans, Simonetta Cengarle, and Greg Clancey from the National University of Singapore for their helpful contributions made to the formulation of this paper.
Notes
To identify relevant material, we conducted searches of the Internet for relevant websites and then applied the keyword to search for items published from 1997 to 2010. Sites searched included “Singabloodypore,” “Singapore Notes,” “Singapore Life and Times,” “art.hropod,” “Fresh Brainz,” “Just Singapore,” “Peacebella,” “SgBlogs,” and “SgForums.”
These items were identified in articles that made explicit references to organizations, institutions, and individuals within Singapore and discussion of the government's policies on regulation, funding, education, and recruitment for stem cell science. This smaller sub-set comprised 229 items.
The New York Times article referred to in this quote did not mention Singapore explicitly.
The government has yet to establish the recommended statutory body.
There is a cornucopia of scholarly works addressing specific conceptual and normative issues that concern Singapore; for a particularly comprehensive analysis on health care policy, see Hsiao (Citation1995, Citation2001), Barr Citation(2001), and Lim et al. Citation(2002).
References
- Anon, 2001. A pioneer in more ways than one, Straits Times (2001), 18 September, p. 6.
- Anon, 2002. Panel sought various views for guidelines, Straits Times (2002), 22 June, p. H19.
- Anon, 2004. Why cloning is wrong. SGFourms, 11 April. Available from: http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/75580 [Accessed 1 November 11]..
- Anon, 2006a. Taking ES Cell one step further, Business Times (2006a), 25 February, p. 3.
- Anon, 2006b. Sg gain fr US stem cell policy. SG Times, 20 July. Available from: http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/201102 [Accessed 1 November 11]..
- Anon, 2007a. Singapore biotech drive loses star Dolly-creator scientist. SGForum, 11 December Available from: http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/296662 [Accessed 1 November 11]..
- Anon 2007b. Singapore's biotech suffers another blow. Singabloodypore, 18 December Available from: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/12/18/singapore-s-biotech-suffers-another-blow.html [Accessed 6 July 2011]..
- Anon, 2009. Taxi driver with a PhD from Stanford. SGForum, 21 August Available from: http://sgforums.com/forums/1802/topics/372910?page=2 [Accessed 1 November 11]..
- Arnold, W., 2006. Singapore acts as haven for stem cell research [online], New York Times (2006), Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17stem.htm?_r=2 [Accessed 10 February 2010].
- Barr, M. D., 2001. Medical savings accounts in Singapore: a critical inquiry, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26 (4) (2001), pp. 709–726, (doi:10.1215/03616878-26-4-709).
- Bennett, S., 2010. (2010), Singapore plans $1 billion fund for research, focuses on economic returns [online]. Bloomberg. Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-30/singapore-to-set-up-1-billion-research-fund-focus-on-economic-returns.html [Accessed 24 May 2011].
- Bioethics Advisory Committee, 2000. Who we are [online]. Available from: http://www.bioethics-singapore.org/old/about/whoweare.html [Accessed 25 May 2011]..
- Bioethics Advisory Committee, 2002. Ethical, legal and social issues in human stem cell research, reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Singapore: Bioethics Advisory Committee; 2002, .
- Chang, A., 2001. Green light for S'pore's stem cell lines, Straits Times (2001), 29 August, p. 11.
- Chang, A., 2002a. Cloning expert behind Dolly moving here, Straits Times (2002a), 6 March, p. 3.
- Chang, A., 2002b. S'pore a haven for stem cell work, Straits Times (2002b), 5 October, p. 2.
- Chang, A., 2002c. Stem-cell expert aims to draw talent to S'pore, Straits Times (2002c), 6 March, p. 12.
- Chang, A., 2002d. Strict rules to guide stem cell research, Straits Times (2002d), 22 June, p. 1.
- Chang, A., 2003. Laws on stem cell research soon, Straits Times (2003), 31 October, p. H12.
- Chang, A., 2005. $70m for stem cell research here, Straits Times (2005), 1 November, p. 4.
- Chang, A., 2010. It's crunch time, Straits Times (2010), 9 October, p. D2.
- Chang, A., 2011. Returns not always about money, says star scientist, Straits Times (2011), 7 September, p. A14.
- Chang, A., and Tan, J., 2010. "Engaging the public: the role of the media". In: Elliot, J. M., Ho, W. C., and Lim, S. S.N., eds. Bioethics in Singapore: the ethical microcosm. Singapore: World Scientific; 2010. pp. 51–70.
- Colman, A., 2008. Stem cell research in Singapore, Cell 132 (4) (2008), pp. 519–521, (doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.037).
- Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., 2005. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., eds. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
- Editor, 1997. Hello Dolly, goodbye sanity, Straits Times (1997), 1 March, p. 34.
- Editor, 2010. Singapore's salad days are over, Nature 468 (7325) (2010), p. 731.
- Einhorn, B., Veale, J., and Kripalani, M., 2005. (2005), Asia is stem cell central [online]. Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915052.htm [Accessed 10 February 2010].
- George, C., 2002. "Singapore: media at the mainstream and the margins". In: Heng, R. H.K., ed. Media fortunes: changing times: ASEAN states in transition. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies; 2002. pp. 173–200.
- George, C., 2007. Consolidating authoritarian rule: calibrated coercion in Singapore, The Pacific Review 20 (2) (2007), pp. 127–145, (doi:10.1080/09512740701306782).
- Gottweis, H., Salter, B., and Waldby, C., 2009. The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science: regenerative medicine in transition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.
- Hauskeller, C., 2005. "Introduction". In: Bender, W., Hauskeller, C., and Manzei, A., eds. Crossing borders: cultural, religious and political differences concerning stem cell research. Munster: Agenda Verlag; 2005. pp. 9–24.
- Ho, A., 2002. Cloning can wait till moral issues cleared up, Straits Times (2002), 5 July, p. 30.
- Ho, A., 2005. Biopolis: Singapore's $500 million experiment, Straits Times (2005), 13 August, p. 2.
- Ho, W. C., Capps, B., and Voo, T. C., 2010. Stem cell science and its public: the case of Singapore, East Asian Science, Technology and Society 4 (1) (2010), pp. 7–29.
- Holden, K., and Demeritt, D., 2008. Democratising science? The politics of promoting biomedicine in Singapore's developmental state, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (2008), pp. 68–86, (doi:10.1068/d461t).
- Hsiao, W. C., 1995. Peer review: medical savings accounts: lessons from Singapore, Health Affairs 14 (2) (1995), pp. 260–266, (doi:10.1377/hlthaff.14.2.260).
- Hsiao, W. C., 2001. Behind the ideology and theory: what is the empirical evidence for medical savings accounts?, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26 (4) (2001), pp. 733–737, (doi:10.1215/03616878-26-4-733).
- Huang, A. S., and Tan, C. Y.H., 2010. Achieving scientific eminence within Asia, Science 329 (5998) (2010), pp. 1471–1472, (doi:10.1126/science.1190145).
- Huifen, C., 2006. Top names in med research head for S'pore, Business Times (2006), 24 April, p. 1.
- Huifen, C., 2007a. ESI remains focused on stem cell research, Business Times (2007a), 24 July, p. 9.
- Huifen, C., 2007b. New London post for Dolly co-creator, Business Times (2007b), 11 December, p. 11.
- Hwang, W. S., et al., 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst, Science 303 (5664) (2004), pp. 1669–1674, (doi:10.1126/science.1094515).
- Hwang, W. S., et al., 2005. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts, Science 308 (5729) (2005), pp. 1777–1783, (doi:10.1126/science.1112286).
- Jasanoff, S., 2004. "The idiom of co-production". In: Jasanoff, S., ed. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social. New York, NY: Routledge; 2004. pp. 1–13.
- Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005.
- Kennamer, J. D., 1992. "Public opinion, the press, and public policy: an introduction". In: Kennamer, J.D., ed. Public opinion, the press, and public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. pp. 1–17.
- Kesava, S., 2007a. Dolly's creator to helm stem cell research body here, Straits Times (2007a), 7 July, p. 54.
- Kesava, S., 2007b. Stem cell firm's new head to have business edge, Straits Times (2007b), 14 July, p. 51.
- Kesava, S., 2007c. Stem cell firm takes on new role as marketers of S'pore research push, Straits Times (2007c), 21 July, p. 62.
- Kian, C. T., and Leng, T. S., 2005. The Singapore approach to human stem cell research, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, Bioethics 19 (3) (2005), pp. 290–303, (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00442.x).
- Knowlton, B., 2001. Britain set to take lead in cloning: proposed ban on research could prompt scientists to leave US, International Herald Tribune (2001), 4 August, p. 1.
- Lee, T., 2002. The politics of civil society in Singapore, Asian Studies Review 26 (1) (2002), pp. 97–117, (doi:10.1080/10357820208713332).
- Levine, A. D., 2008. Identifying under- and overperforming countries in research related to human embryonic stem cells, Cell Stem Cell 2 (6) (2008), pp. 521–524, (doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.05.008).
- Levine, A. D., 2010. Science policy and the geographic preferences of stem cell scientists: understanding the appeal of China and Singapore, New Genetics and Society 29 (2) (2010), pp. 187–208, (doi:10.1080/14636778.2010.484228).
- Lim, M.-K., Barr, M. D., and Hsiao, W. C., 2002. Singapore's medical savings accounts – beyond rhetoric and doctrine to “what works”: a response from Singapore – responses, Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 27 (2) (2002), pp. 302–310, (doi:10.1215/03616878-27-2-302).
- Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1985.
- Little, J. M., 2010. Is there a real nexus between ethics and aesthetics?, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (1) (2010), pp. 91–102, (doi:10.1007/s11673-010-9214-x).
- Little, J. M., Jordens, C. F.C., and Sayers, E. J., 2003. Discourse communities and the discourse of experience, Health 7 (1) (2003), pp. 73–86.
- Little, J. M., and Lipworth, W., 2007. Focused discourse: an exploratory essay. Sydney: Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine; 2007.
- Little, M., et al., 2007. Pragmatic pluralism: mutual tolerance of contested understandings between orthodox and alternative practitioners in autologous stem cell transplantation, Social Science and Medicine 64 (7) (2007), pp. 1512–1523, (doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.017).
- Little, M., and Sayers, E. J., 2004a. The skull beneath the skin: cancer survival and awareness of death, Psycho-Oncology 13 (3) (2004a), pp. 190–198, (doi:10.1002/pon.720).
- Little, M., and Sayers, E. J., 2004b. While there's life … hope and the experience of cancer, Social Science & Medicine 59 (6) (2004b), pp. 1329–1337.
- Liu, E., 2005. "Can it happen in Singapore?". In: Straits Times. 2005, 30 December, p. 31.
- Loo, D., 2007. (2007), Singapore's biotech suffers another blow [online]. Singabloodypore. Available from: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/12/18/singapore-s-biotech-suffers-another-blow.html [Accessed 6 July 2011].
- Lysaght, T., and Kerridge, I. H., 2010. "Rhetoric, power and legitimacy in public discourse: a critical analysis of the public discourse surrounding the review of embryo research and cloning legislation in Australia in 2005–6". In: Capps, B., and Campbell, A., eds. Contested cells: global perspectives on the stem cell debate. London: Imperial College Press; 2010. pp. 189–206.
- Lysaght, T., Little, J. M., and Kerridge, I. H., 2011. Marginalizing experience: a critical analysis of public discourse surrounding stem cell research in Australia, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2) (2011), pp. 191–202, (doi:10.1007/s11673-011-9294-2).
- Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., and Kroepsch, A., 2003. Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (2) (2003), pp. 36–70, (doi:10.1177/1081180X02251047).
- Nussbaum, M., 1995a. The fragility of goodness – luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1995a.
- Nussbaum, M., 1995b. Poetic justice – the literary imagination and public life. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1995b.
- Ong, A., 2005. "Ecologies of expertise: assemble flows and managing citizenship". In: Ong, A., and Collier, S. J., eds. Global assemblages: technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005. pp. 337–353.
- Reubi, D., 2010. The will to modernize: a genealogy of biomedical research ethics in Singapore, International Political Sociology 4 (2) (2010), pp. 142–158, (doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2010.00097.x).
- Salter, B., and Salter, C., 2007. Bioethics and the global moral economy, Science, Technology, & Human Values 32 (5) (2007), pp. 554–581, (doi:10.1177/0895904805303202).
- Salter, B., and Salter, C., 2010. Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: stem cell science in the USA, Science and Public Policy 37 (2) (2010), pp. 87–100, (doi:10.3152/030234210X489617).
- Sipp, D., 2009. Stem cell research in Asia: a critical view, Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 107 (5) (2009), pp. 853–856, (doi:10.1002/jcb.22160).
- Tan, A., 2002. S'pore now needs to attract experts for stem cell research, Business Times (2002), 30 October, p. 9.
- Tan, A., 2007. Silence is not an option … only thinking long term could be to avoid difficult decisions Today, (2007), 29 December, p. 10.
- Tan, K. Y.L., 1999. "Economic development, legal reform, and rights in Singapore and Taiwan". In: Bauer, J., and Bell, D., eds. The East Asian challenge for human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 264–284.
- Thomson, J. A., et al., 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts, Science 282 (5391) (1998), pp. 1145–1147, (doi:10.1126/science.282.5391.1145).
- van Epps, H. L., 2006. Singapore's multibillion dollar gamble, Journal of Experimental Medicine 203 (5) (2006), pp. 1139–1142, (doi:10.1084/jem.20060895).
- Wainwright, S. P., and Williams, C., 2008. Spaces of speech and places of performance: an outline of a geography of science approach to embryonic stem cell research and diabetes, New Genetics and Society 27 (2) (2008), pp. 161–173, (doi:10.1080/14636770802077116).
- Waldby, C., 2009. Singapore Biopolis: bare life in the city-state, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 3 (2–3) (2009), pp. 367–383.
- Walsh, B., 2006a. Singapore: Asia's stem cell city [online], Time (2006a), Available from: http://home.biotec.or.th/newscenter/Uploads/WE_pic/radEB900.pdf [Accessed 10 February 2010].
- Walsh, B., 2006b. Stem cell central [online], Time (2006b), Available from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1218061,00.html [Accessed 10 February 2010].
- Walters, L., 2004. Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1) (2004), pp. 3–39, (doi:10.1353/ken.2004.0019).
- Wilmut, I., et al., 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells, Nature 385 (6619) (1997), pp. 810–813, (doi:10.1038/385810a0).
- Yamanaka, S., 2007. Strategies and new developments in the generation of patient-specific pluripotent stem cells, Cell Stem Cell 1 (1) (2007), pp. 39–49, (doi:10.1016/j.stem.2007.05.012).
- Zhang, J. Y., 2011. Scientific institutions and effective governance: a case study of Chinese stem cell research, New Genetics and Society 30 (2) (2011), pp. 193–207, (doi:10.1080/14636778.2011.574372).