Well this is the kind of moment that makes me start doubting whether I can actually be a scientist.
I spent 2 weeks altogether growing up cells and treating them with drugs to make the positive and negative controls, collecting the relevant mouse tissues, setting up the new blot system and running the controls twice to make sure that everything works perfectly -
And I thought, oh I will get the answer of that long-standing question TODAY.
Not so much. Not even the controls worked today. Why? I don't know. Maybe I am just not supposed to become a scientist.
I told my PI, I need to go home to rest (yes and I have freaking a lot of other work). So I drove home, tailgated the guy in front, and looked for a policeman when some guy left his car in the middle of the road and blocked my way (usually I will just wait). And slept from like 5 to 7:30.
Then yc came back and I complained to him. He asked me to go out to have dinner together with his friend who came for the weekend - people and food do make me feel less like a loser.
I will go back and see how it goes tomorrow - I re-probed the blot altering some conditions, and hopefully it will work (which it most probably won't). If not, that means another week of delay - and I do not have a lot of time left.
When on earth will I get a conclusion with sufficient support data to start writing my paper?! Maybe I should just go to medical school, get a professional license and take over my family doctor's business. Or, to make it less complicated, just start teaching tuition full-time.
I shouldn't feel good about myself. Whenever I do that, something will go wrong.
Sigh. Developmental biology is like that - it takes a lot of effort and time to get the data I want, especially if I am working on mice. It is a lot slower than cell-line studies, it is slower than flies, and because I need embryos and babies it makes it even more time consuming because I need timed-pregnancies rather than just readily-available adult mice.
I just thought of a way to quantitatively co-relate expressions - the data would be cool and useful, if even necessary - that is, dissociating the mesenchyme and epithelium at different time points, label them with BOTH BMP4 and PTEN abs, and FACS them. But, as soon as I thought about the optimisation - it isn't that good an idea after all, especially when I don't have much time. I will stick to IF for the time being. Actually, for BMP4, I would rather do an in-situ. Never mind...
I have never believed in organic food. Asking me to buy food that has no significantly proven health, safety and environmental benefits but is twice as expensive sounds too much like a gimmick designed to con people who don't know what to do with their money.
And I always have this idea that there is more bacteria dotting organically produced food than conventional food. Since the US soak their chicken in chlorine to make sure that they are contaminant-free, probably they might have to soak organic chicken or even organic lettuce in a higher concentration of chlorine :|
Support locally grown/produced food though! Not only it reduces the carbon footprint of the food, it can also contribute positively to the local economy, and needless to say, the food has a higher likelihood to be more fresh. Haha we buy Maryland eggs and Maryland milk cos they are the cheapest.
I support recycling though. Hmm if recycling requires more staff and a higher cost to process the trash, it isn't necessarily a bad thing - it creates more jobs?
Other than being very nice, dim sum surely does have its merits.
Thanks to today's dim sum lunch YES I think I found my grant topic :D
And of course credits must be given to KS who told me about it.
I will probably have to spend 2 full days reading like 20 papers from scratch (I haven't even finished the stack I am supposed to read on BMP4), and look through the NIH guidelines. Not too fun but YES I kind of have an idea now!!
A couple of months ago I got very interested in this blog written by a NUS medical student who was complaining how teachers in the SOM treat students from Duke GMS better and always attempts to belittle them. Some of the points that he raised are relevant in the discussion today.
1) Is developing research important to biomedicine in Singapore?
The answer is YES, regardless of the angle you are looking at it. I have addressed the industrial point of view; I will have to address the clinical point of view too.
I don't know if it is prevailing or not, but that guy above gave me the idea that many students in NUS SOM do not believe that research is necessary and is a digression, a waste of resources, and it is just the 'politically correct thing to do'.
How interesting. If doctors in Singapore are like that, Singapore will forever be playing catch-up - we will never lead. We can continue to dream about becoming a biomedical hub; when techniques that are used in Hopkins are unheard of in Singapore, that Sultan from Saudi Arabia will choose to go to Baltimore instead of Singapore and the goodness-knows-how-much from him (he was happy because we gave him good care) which became a new building for paediatric patients and an endowment fund for purchasing equipment and giving scholarships to needy students will belong to Baltimore, not Singapore.
If we are content in running an efficient medical system for every Singaporean, it's fine if we just keep playing catch-up. But if we are trying to develop this whole thing into an industry to sustain Singapore's economy in addition to being a service to all Singaporeans - I'm sorry you guys will just have to work harder, or just learn to work with us.
Currently clinical research and translational research is not managed by A*STAR - they come from the MOH research institutes such as NCC, NHC, NNI, NSC etc., in collaboration with the hospitals. Some clinical trials are also done in these sites - A*STAR does not manage these trials also. These research centres are not big, the studies that they do are not significantly world-class, but they are doing relevant work. Other than getting money from MOH, research groups from these places can get additional funding through direct NRF grant calls, which A*STAR groups are not eligible for. Recently NRF has just given out 4 $10,000,000 grants for cross-disciplinary collaborative projects aimed at studying significant clinical problems. They have given a couple of these grants in the previous years as well.
2) Though what kind of research should Singapore fund? Since I have established that Singapore's biomedical initiative is economically driven, the natural conclusion is that Singapore should fund research that will have a higher likelihood of generating returns. Indeed this is NRF's policy. Read:
CRP proposals should demonstrate the following:
i. High quality cutting-edge science; ii. High likelihood of building up research infrastructure and capabilities in Singapore; iii. Competent team consisting of individuals with credible track records; iv. Excellent execution of individual projects which form a coherent programme; and v. High potential to generate economic and societal benefits to Singapore by creating new industries or advancing existing industries.
National Research Foundation - Competitive Research Programme. Note: only groups based in Singapore are eligible for NRF funding.
This is only one of the couple of funding schemes that NRF has. For more information check out their website - even I am not completely aware of everything that they have.
With limited resources, it is apparent that Singapore should focus on strategic areas that we can eventually develop into a strong capability. Institutions overseas have key strengths too - Hopkins has key strengths in biomedical engineering, urology, pancreatic cancer, neurology and neuroscience. However, focusing on key strategic areas does not mean a neglect of the basic sciences - all these areas of research are heavily multidisciplinary and expertise from all levels is necessary. Of course, it should be harder for a research group that focuses on rice genetics to get funding here, but people dealing with transcriptional silencing of tumour suppressor genes (this is such hardcore molecular biology that I, despite being a basic science person, am trying to stay away seriously) should be able to get funding.
An important consideration should be - whether or not the research group is able to contribute to the technical story and the translational efforts the larger key strategic group is putting together. It will also depend on how the research group is able to sell their projects - it is the same everywhere.
(Sometimes it is hard to sell new ideas to the older generation of administrators in Singapore. I had an interesting (well not so much when I am doing it) experience trying to persuade a NUS/A*STAR dean/director that physician scientists are now a necessity in bringing people from multiple disciplines together to produce useful research - there is a reason why the NIH started the MSTP scheme in 1974 (is this even a NEW idea?!!) and they do not plan to end it anytime soon. A friend of mine had another experience persuading experts - not from Singapore but from Cambridge UK this time - that computational models are important and useful in future biomedical research and it didn't turn out well. Well for the latter I have already taken it for granted because I have seen such models working in many people's (and to some extent, my lab's) research in Hopkins...)
3) Research will only benefit Singaporeans if it can translate into jobs, better healthcare, and economic growth. Thus, translation and commercialisation is necessary - it is a reality that no one can escape from. However, I must emphasise that such a translation is NOT as straightforward as people might hope - research -> new pills and medical equipment that we can sell to earn money; research -> new clinical procedures that will have a 10% higher chance of curing my cancer. Looking at it in this way is overly simplistic and unrealistic.
A*STAR does have a commercial branch dealing with this process - it is called Exploit Technologies. EDB people have the resources to help us do that too, and there are also local companies dealing with development and running trials, albeit not at a large scale - they include S*BIO and Merlion Pharmaceuticals.
However, the key here is physicians. Drug trials, new medical equipment, and new clinical procedures need to be run by physicians. These physicians need to work together with the key strategic groups that I have mentioned before, know what the groups are doing, be willing to contribute ideas, time and effort, must be able to recruit patients, and must be able to network with other hospitals in the region or even as far as hospitals in East Asia to make the whole development scheme viable.
Hopkins oncologists can refer patients to Duke for trials if they are willing to. Can SGH refer patients to Queen Mary for trials even if the patient is willing to? As far as I know, I don't think so, and I don't think most doctors here are interested, and they may even criticise me for being too ambitious, risking the lives of patients - and they believe that only a messed-up privately owned medical system in the US can support such ideas.
I don't think so. It all comes down to whether we can design our system in a way that is clever enough to not compromise healthcare to common Singaporeans but also reap the benefits of a private medical system. I won't go into details here - it is running too long.
Okay conclusion:
1) To develop a biomedical industry, Singapore needs to develop research capabilities. 2) Singapore needs to form multidisciplinary strategic interest groups, each with a clear focus - to a certain extent that is what we are doing now. 3) If Singapore is serious about making biomedicine the industry of the future, we need to produce some doctors who have the foresight and ability to invest their efforts in the initiative. 4) Foreign experience is definitely needed at the time being, until our universities are capable of producing talents that can sustain the industry independently. They can't do that yet.
Developing biomedicine runs a high risk. However, nothing is risk adverse, and we can't afford to do nothing and continue to rely solely on manufacturing, finances and petrochemicals - stagnating is a sure way to kill. However, a high level of transparency and accountability should be made available, and in this light the biomedical industry is doing way better than GIC and Temasek Holdings already.
If properly managed, Singapore can become another Cambridge MA. It will take one generation at least - it takes a long time to change people's mindsets and change educational culture, especially if those people are all established experts. It might require people like us to go in to create a storm. I would be happy and proud if I can be part of this successful effort!
And in the upcoming General Elections, vote wisely! Use your brains! I will start talking about it soon...
I know this is a somewhat old topic, but I guess a review is somewhat necessary. It helps me synthesise what I know and puts things into clearer perspective.
When I was first enticed into this business I was told that Singapore is making biomedicine into the fourth pillar of the economy, developed to eventually serve as a replacement for manufacturing which is projected to decline in the years to come. Thus, at the time when we were getting out of JC, students were given the idea that biomedicine has a lot of prospects and thus many of them flocked into the field.
At the same time, A*STAR was set up, infrastructure was being built, and a huge amount of money was set aside to fund biomedical research of all forms. Also, a large number of scholars are being funded and sent overseas to be trained as researchers.
Criticisms came from all directions. Singaporeans are concerned as to whether the money dumped into research will indeed actually generate economic returns and translates into jobs for Singaporeans. People like me are worried that the whole research enterprise might be too commercial and there might be problems getting funding for projects that are difficult to be translated into commercial use.
Let's see.
It is almost beyond question that Singapore's biomedical initiative is economically driven. What the government hopes is that biomedicine will eventually become one of the driving forces of our economy. This field is indeed picking up - although its overall GDP contribution is still less than 5%, there are signs that companies are taking us seriously - BioRad, Pfizer and GSK being some significant examples.
The research sector seems less certain. Indeed, where are all our money going to? Can such spending be justified? Is the research spending going to benefit Singaporeans? Can we put our money into better use instead of throwing it into research?
It is almost beyond doubt, again, that if Singapore were to develop its biomedical industry, Singapore has to develop its own R&D capabilities. If pharmaceutical companies were to come to Singapore - even if they are only setting up manufacturing plants - they need support staff that are able to do R&D if they were to ever benefit from the sales of new products and get a headstart in occupying the niches in the relatively ignored Asian-specific diseases 'market'.
In order to ensure that these companies come to Singapore instead of going to Hong Kong or Taiwan, we have to invest in manpower with the right skill sets and the right ideas. There is a reason why biomedicine as an industry grew out of places like Cambridge MA (nope not the UK) - institutions there have produced significant amounts of professionals with the key skills, ideas and attitude, and they formed the basis of the success that was to follow. It is not realistic for companies to recruit talents they need from overseas, especially when Singapore is so far away from most places where these talents can possibly come from.
Thus, Singapore needs to produce our own talents - but Singapore cannot do this on our own. First of all, we do not have a research tradition. Since 1819 Singapore has been a trading post for the British Empire, and Singaporeans now are mostly descendants of merchants, labourers and artisans; the nature of our people is pragmatic, we want to earn as much money as we can, and we want stability. These are not characteristics of anyone who can excel in research. Furthermore, our universities do not have the right environment to groom such talents. In the field of biomedicine, our universities do not sufficiently foster intellectual curiosity and the individual's strive towards excellence, and they do not sufficiently develop confidence for independent work. These shortcomings cannot be rectified in the short term, because this is a result of our society's general characteristics and attitude.
Singapore has been trying to groom local talents in 2 ways: 1) Bring in so called 'Big Whales' such as Sydney Brenner to set directions, 'Sharks' such as Jackie Ying and Edison Liu who has experience to actually work on the ground to lead, and also people like Brigitte Lane, Nancy Jenkins etc. to actually set up labs here. 2) Send scholars like me out.
I have justified why the money allocated for biomedicine cannot all go to local universities - because, if they are lacking in certain critical aspects, money is not going to change anything. The point of contention is whether I am worth what the government pays me for, whether the whales serve their purposes, and whether or not money can be better spent on young researchers who show promise.
Whether or not I am worth my money - I will let the economists debate about this. All I will do is to do what I want to do and you will see. I have criticisms for the system but that is also old and I won't repeat it here.
The whales versus young promising researchers thing requires a little more insight. If I am a young promising researcher whom has just completed my post-doc in UCSF and I am ready to start a new lab, would I choose Singapore for a $500,000 start-up grant or a reputable institution in the US for $100,000?
Realistically, I will choose to stay in the US. Reasons: higher predictability of staff's reliability, higher availability of grants, stronger and closer professional support networks, and possibility of getting a tenure. It is a gamble either way, but going to Singapore is a bigger gamble even with a bigger start-up grant. I will not do that in any case because if I mess up any bit my career is gone - and Hopkins' departure from Singapore is not appeasing.
Only people who have nothing to lose will come to Singapore. They are either the completely useless, or those who have already made their name. The latter would be the big whales.
But how would they benefit us? They do not directly train people for sure, but these people have their networks with them and as they become more confident of Singapore and have more stakes in us they will bring the young and promising to us - at least this is what we are hoping for. And indeed this is what happens on the ground - Peter Gluckman has once told me, he knows developmental biology people in the whole of the Commonwealth, and Judith Swain knows people from the USA - and as long as I need help from them, they will be able to find the right person for me. Indeed they have. This is not limited to A*STAR - for example, we have Stephen Cohen in TLL too.
Further on I will talk about sources of funding, translation of bench work to clinical medicine, and the commercialisation of our research.
Haven't been eating properly for quite some time...
Yesterday evening's dinner was the most proper already. Roasted chicken, fried veggie, rice.
This morning's brunch was instant noodles with luncheon meat and fried egg.
(Oh how should I forget - cooked some laksa some time ago and ate it for 2 days.)
Then dinner was Subway (again).
Though I have started to try liking Subway again. After my freshman year I basically stopped eating subway cos I became so sick of it.
(Trust me. They NEVER look like that. And even if they do look like this, do they look appetising to you?)
But now it is emerging (again) as the cheapest decent lunch/dinner option when I have no time to cook - because they started the $5.00 foot-long sub promotion again. There is cheaper food - $3.18 for 3 double cheeseburgers can fill me too, and I do eat that sometimes - but that is nonsensical food. Toilet paper soaked in soy sauce could have contained more nutrients.
So have eaten it three times since, each with a different method. So far, chicken teriyaki with honey mastard and lettuce and tomatoes and black olives works alright (it is cos of the black olives), buffalo chicken with mayonnaise and black pepper and lettuce and tomotoes and black olives works well (it is cos of the chilli), and chicken and bacon ranch with mayonnaise and black pepper and lettuce and tomatoes and onion and green pepper works fine too (it's cos of the bacon and black pepper and onions). And parmelone cheese works the best so far, followed by American. Swiss cheese tastes like NOTHING.
I am still rather apprenhesive of the cold cut versions. For now I will stick to those with tonnes of chicken in them, and I will get them toasted. If I have to eat those roast beef, turkey breast, seafood sensation and what not - I definitely will have to add chilli to that thing. I have since grown to be afraid of turkey breast + honey mastard without black pepper or hot pepper - that is how grass tastes like. And MEATBALL SUBS ARE ALWAYS DISGUSTING, no matter what you do to it.
LOL it seems like I am going back to my freshman year state - which I have grown to be afraid of as well. Hopkins people know what I am talking about. Let's just keep it at Subway...
Wake up: 8:00am German class: 9:00am History of Medicone: 10:00am Immunobiology: 11:00am Start runnning down to medical school: 12:00pm Arrive at lab: 12:20pm Prepare solutions for drug treatment: 12:30pm Treat cells (timer start): 12:50pm (end): 1:20pm Make cell lysate: by 1:40pm Start BAC timer: 1:55pm (end): 2:25pm Nanodrop: end 2:45pm Loading buffer + pre-treatment: end 3:10pm Load: end 3:20pm Start gel: 3:20pm, end: 4:50pm Prepare transfer: end 5:00pm Transfer: end 6:00pm Start blocking: 6:10pm, end 7:10pm Transfer to Primary: 7:15pm Leave lab: 7:20pm Reach school: 7:45pm CF: 8:00pm end ~10:00pm I should try do some work: end 12:00am
Recently there have been a lot of articles discussing the suitability of a Chinese classic <弟子规> as a basic text for teaching traditional Chinese values to kids. I grew up studying some form of Chinese classics and I support the idea of making kids learn traditional texts. We can't take them at face value though; things like 晨昏定省 is certainly no longer applicable but things like 出必告, 返必面 should definitely be advocated.
The above paragraph struck me though, because there is a parallel verse in the Bible:
Romans 13:10: Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
If you love your neighbour (i.e. everyone else) as yourself, you will automatically fulfill the law. If you genuinely love your parents, you will do what <弟子规> tells you to without even knowing what is inside.
Well love needs to be carefully defined - I kind of know what how to do it now. Haha next post perhaps...
Haha! I do not know why I am so excited about having gotten my ticket back home this time. I wouldn't have been back for 10 months by the time I get back - but this doesn't seem to matter because I am already pretty used to not being home. Kind of echo GCS's sentiments - nowadays I can go home anytime I want (okay not as if I will go party until 2am but most days of the week I won't be back until past 9pm), but when I am back I will have to be more conscious of that cos of parents. That will limit the amount of stuff that I can do outside.
Nevertheless, I am hoping to get back as much as I don't want to leave Baltimore...
Arriving on 29 June, 11:40pm on NH901.
This would be the first time since my first flight to the US that there will be someone flying with me all the way - and I am coming back from T2, the place where I first left as opposed to T1 which I have always been using since September 2007.
This semester is not as slack as I would like it to be.
I need to spend a lot of time on my research. I have since a long time ago cleared the standard research requirements (poster + report), but we are hoping that I can get something published by the end of June. I am nowhere near that goal at this point!
Now with that $250 poster sitting in my room, I should try to find more useful (free) conferences to go to - just to practise presenting and hopefully obtain some useful contacts. I probably should enter myself to the pathology talent search thing in April, despite the fact that everyone else would be a grad student or a post-doc :P
Moreover - school work is not as light as I thought it would be too. The stupid immunobiology problem set is based on material that is NOT in the lectures. History of medicine will have quizzes every week based on readings. D-bio lab has quizzes every week, and I have to prepare for a practice grant for the other d-bio class. And German is killing me as usual.
I don't even have the time and energy to read the literature! My PI has been feeding me with info all the time!
Like I told Cheryl, having a full load of classes in addition to a full load of research work is a nightmare, especially if your lab is like 5 miles away from your house and you are also doing other stuff on campus. After graduation I will not have classes anymore, but most probably I will fill that up with stuff that I would like to do. And according to MD/PhD people in Hopkins, I can forget about doing anything else but to study during the first 2 years of medical school.
I have reasons to feel happy. Not that spectacular things are happening to me, but really nice things have been happening to people around me. I am truly thankful! ______________________________________________
Looking at air tickets. I would probably fly together with Weizhuang for at least one of the legs (IAD -> NRT -> SIN). I have decided I will not fly SQ anymore, unless they are insanely cheap... Firstly, I am already used to the service airlines in America give; I have developed the ability to read the articles and play with the games in the in flight magazine for an hour, read my book for a couple of hours, watch a movie if it is good, eat and get wine from the air stewardess, and then sleep for a couple of hours thanks to the wine - and 13 hours will pass and I will be in Tokyo. Tokyo to Singapore, haha it is nothing.
Secondly, although SQ is almost always more expensive than other airlines even when discounted, they don't give miles. If I fly UA, although the price can only be 60% of what SQ's is, they will still give me miles - Krisflyer some more.
Thirdly, many airlines are already having comparable (or even better) service compared to SQ, and they are cheaper. Cathay Pacific is one example - the HKG -> JFK flight I had was honestly one of my best flight experiences. According to people who have flown Korean Air and ANA before, their service is comparable to SQ too. Virgin Atlantic as well, but unfortunately their food falls below the mark. I kind of like BA too, have had 3 flights with them and they all have been on time and good.
So - weighing price, miles and service, there is no reason for me to seek SQ anymore (patriotism? well, we Singaporeans are known to be pragmatic you know...). I still remember when I was a freshman - that I thought I should try my best to fly SQ. After wasting a lot of miles and a couple of hundred dollars - well, experience is experience!
If you put my drawing up on the Internet, with the level of detail down to the colour of the tube I am wearing and the colour of the earphone cords I am using, the only thing I would want to do is to run as far away as possible...
Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Matthew 25:29 -
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. (NIV)
In the first case, the context is Jesus explaining to his disciples why he had to speak in parables. In the second case, the context is the Parable of the Talents.
The meaning of the first verse can be inferred when you read the whole of Matthew 13. Jesus is referring to people who heard the word, accepted it and understood it, and comparing them to people who had 'callous hearts' and did not 'hear with their ears' and 'closed their eyes' (Matthew 13:15, Isaiah 6:10).
The Parable of the Talents is harder. Bible.org has a loooong article interpreting it if you are interested - I have not completely read through it. Since I do not know much I shall not comment on it now...
But look - when you remove the spiritual significance of the verses, they represent a truth in life that we can hardly deny. Exemplified in today's world, the term to use would be 'social injustice'. Or putting it plainly - the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer.
Although in the biblical context they should not be read in that way, people have actually acknowledged their literal meaning and gave it a term - the 'Matthew Effect'. People have argued that, other than being applicable to economics, it works the same way in science too - the big names will get more and more attention and resources, while the nobodies will almost always remain nobodies with little expendable resources. When you get a grant, you will be in a better position to apply for your next; when you don't get your first grant, because your start-up fund dwindles subsequent applications will become more difficult.
That is a fact of life isn't it. I see it working tirelessly all the time.
I decided to write about this because these two verses keep coming to me recently. Their literal meaning is so plain and so direct that there is no way justice can be seen from them. If you are the person whom things are taken from you, there might even be jealousy and hate in you (and hence more will be taken from you). I suppose this can be a chance for me to actually pray, read and think about them.
The bible is like that - the more I read through it, the more I think that I should work on it. There are a lot of aspects to that - well, I guess I can talk about it some other time...
