DBJ Discussion Paper Series, No. 2301

Life Science Ecosystem Formation in Singapore
̶ The Process of Focusing on ʻTranslationʼ ̶

Tatsufumi Aoyama(Research Institute of Capital Formation, Development Bank of Japan)

March 2024

Discussion Papers are a series of preliminary materials in their draft form. No quotations,reproductions or circulations should be made without the written consent of the authors in order toprotect the tentative characters of these papers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or
recommendations expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of
the Institute.

Life Science Ecosystem Formation in Singapore— The Process of Focusing on ‘Translation’ —Introduction
This discussion paper examines issues discussed in ‘Structure and Ingenuity of Ecosystem
Formation in Life Science: System Formation in Belgium and Challenges in Japan’ (Economics Today,
Vol. 44, No. 1, ‘the previous report’) published in April 2023, based on a new case study.
As shown in Figure 1 at the beginning of the previous report and reproduced here, the global life
science ecosystem is structured in a way that each country adapts to.
Figure 1

Overview of the life science ecosystem
Idea /
Prototype

Animal testingetc

PhaseⅠ

PhaseⅡ

PhaseⅢ

Approval
・
Reimbursement

Manufacturing* Sales

Incubator
MedicaldeviceMiddle & Large Companies（acquisition）

Entrepreneur／
EngineerStart-up [medical device]

IPO

CommonUniversity

Hospital

Key opinion leader etc [ advisor]
Venture capital incl. CVC（early／middle／late）

Research
Institute

Further

Crossover
Fund

Pipeline-type start-up [biotech]
BiotechScientist
Platform-type

Basicresearch

Pre-clinicalstart-up［biotech]PhaseⅠ

PhaseⅡ

growthIPO
Middle & Large Companies（Acquisition）

PhaseⅢ

Approval・
Reimbursement

Manufacturing*SalesCreated by the author.

This paper qualitatively examines the direction of the transition and how to deal with it throughthe challenges and responses in the life science ecosystem formation that Singapore has been
rapidly implementing. It highlights the issues in the ecosystem formation that are occurring invarious regions, contrasting them with those of Belgium, the case in the previous report, andattempts to lay the groundwork for considering practical responses.
Translation, which is the main theme of this paper, means the social implementation of science,and it should be understood as the process depicted in Figure 1.

1

Chapter 1

History of Science and Technology Policy in Singapore

In this chapter, I would first like to briefly summarise the history of life science ecosystemformation in Singapore.
1.1

R&D promotion policy
In Singapore, the National Science and Technology Board (NSTB) was established in 1991 to focus

R&D investments to support knowledge-intensive and innovative economic development. The first
National Technology Plan (1991–1995), formulated in 1991, was budgeted at S$2 billion andexpanded to S$4 billion in the second plan five years later, targeting IT, electrical equipment, water,
and the environment.
Biomedical and engineering fields emerged from the third plan in 2001, which was reviewed after
the Asian financial crisis, following the initial development of the electronics industry. As part of this,the Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research, commonly known as A*STAR, wasestablished under the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 2002. The current national R&D frameworkis shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2

National R&D framework
The Cabinet

Research, Innovation& Enterprise Council

Funding
Agencies &Ministries

Research
Performers

National
Research
Foundation

Ministry of
HealthEDB Singapore

Polytechnics

Universities

Prime
Ministerʼs
OfficeMinistry of
Education

Ministry ofTrade & Industry

A*Star

A*Star Research Institute Hospitals

EnterpriseSingapore

Corporate Labs

Source: Created by the author from the National Research Foundation website, etc.

A*STAR is a research and development organisation that now has a staff of more than 6,000,
including more than 4,700 researchers. The organisation includes The Biomedical Research Council(BMRC), The Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), and A*STAR Graduate Academy, which
provides scholarships and runs various human resource development programmes.
The BMRC is an important organisation for life science research. There are nine research2

institutes under the BMRC1, and their research missions are shown in Figure 3. How A*STAR changed
its approach will be discussed in Chapter 3.
Figure 3

BMRC research areas

Primarily Economic-Driven

Primarily Health/Social Outcomes

Biomedtech andBiomanufacturing

Food, Skin Health &Consumer Care

Social and HealthPharmabio &BiotechFood & Nutrition

National Precision Medicine(SIFBI)(GIS)Skin Health &Consumer Care

Human Potential(IMCB & SIgN)

Biomanufacturing(BTI)(SICS)(A*SRL)

Epidemic Preparedness(ID Labs)

Bioinformation and Data
(BII)

Source: A*STAR material.

1.2

Industrial promotion policy
In parallel with this R&D framework, an industrial cluster of seven buildings called Biopolis wasestablished in 2003 by JTC Corporation, an industrial park development company under theSingapore government.
Tax breaks and subsidies have been provided to biotech companies to encourage their entry into
the area and development of the cluster. It is already 20 years old, and after six establishment phases,
it is now the core of Singapore’s biotech industry.
Biopolis mainly focuses on headquarters and R&D functions, but manufacturing bases have been
consolidated in the western area. In the pharmaceutical industry, the specialised industrial park Tuas
Biomedical Park was established in 2009, and companies such as Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer have
expanded into the area. For example, in 2021, Sanofi announced that it would invest €400 million to
set up a state-of-the-art vaccine manufacturing facility over the next five years.
In terms of medical devices, an area called Medtech Hub was completed in 2014 at the Tucan
Innovation Park, a medical industrial park in Jurong, also in the west of the country, and a

1

A*STAR Infectious Disease Labs (ID Labs), A*STAR Skin Research Labs (A*SRL), Bioinformatics
Institute (BII), Bioprocessing Technology Institute (BTI), Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS),
Institute of Molecular & Cell Biology (IMCB), Singapore Immunology Network (SIgN), Singapore
Institute for Clinical Sciences (SICS), Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation(SIFBI).
3

manufacturing base has been established along with pharmaceutical facilities.
Through these efforts, many companies have established Asian headquarters in Singapore, alongwith 60 other factories and 30 R&D centres.
Figure 4

Accumulation areas, such as major clusters

Created by the author based on information in the public domain.

Chapter 2

Trends in Research-related Data

Now, I would like to use objective data to see how the numbers have actually changed. In thischapter, I would like to collect the main data from the Singapore government’s SingStat and the OECD.
2.1

Research environment
First, I look at R&D spending over the past 20 years. As can be seen in Figure 5, in the biomed

domain, the growth has increased to the right. However, if I look at the figures by sector, the growthof universities and public institutions has been somewhat flat since the mid-2010s, which may be dueto the fact that the methodologies that these institutions focus on have changed. On the other hand,
this does not mean that the overall growth is stagnant. Growth in the private and government sectors
is supporting the biomed upswing. This is particularly healthy in the sense that private sector growthis supporting R&D cost growth.

4

Figure 5

Life science–related R&D costs in Singapore, by sector
R&D expediture（biomedical & naturl science）

million dollars
2,500.

2,000.

1,500.

1,000.

500.

0.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
BiomedNatural science

Biomedical & related sciences R&D expedituremillion dollarsn
800.
700.
600.
500.
400.
300.
200.
100.
0.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
PrivateInstitute of higher learning

Government

Public research instituteSource: SingStat.

The development costs are also allocated to hiring researchers, whose growth can besummarised as follows: Company’s efforts to strengthen human resources, including the invitation ofoverseas personnel, were resulting in upward growth as of around 2015.
Figure 6

Trends in the number of researchers in the medical and health sciences fields
peopleResearchers : medical and health sciences

8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

Source: OECD data, ‘R&D personnel by sector and major field of R&D’.
5

This figure, like R&D spending, has been flat since the mid-2010s, but it is assumed that it islargely due to a change in the direction of life science sector support, which will be discussed later.
However, it is important to point out the scale of R&D costs. Singapore’s population was
projected to be 5.64 million in 2022. Meanwhile, in the context of strengthening the life sciencesindustry since 2000, the country has implemented very intensive spending in terms of R&D per capita.
I would like to compare this situation with that in Belgium, which was mainly discussed in the previous
report, as well with those in Japan and the United States (however, they are not included in the OECDdata for the last 20 years) on a 10-year basis.
As can be seen in the figures in Table 1, a very large amount of money has been spent by higher
education institutions relative to the population, which shows their outstanding focus.
Table 1R&D expenditure—medical & health sciences—higher education in Belgium, Japan andSingapore(unit: US dollar, 2015)

R&D expenditure on medical and health sciences （higher education）

1999
Population
BelgiumJapan
United States
Singapore

10,226,419
126,686,000
279,040,168
3,958,723

2009
R&D
expenditure
per capita

40.6
37.2
39.3
17.5

Population

2019
R&D
expenditure
per capita

Population

R&D
expenditure
per capita

128,031,514

62.1
46.2

126,555,078

74.6
51.6

4,987,573

140.0

5,703,569

172.7

10,796,498

11,462,023

Source: Compiled by the author from OECD data, ‘Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of
performance and field of R&D’.

2.2

Outcome trends
Of course, the outcomes generated by these human resources are important. Let us look at thisin terms of the number of papers and patents.
First, in terms of journals, I look at the situation in clinical medicine and basic life sciences in thisfield. In terms of clinical medicine, the average number of top 10% cited papers and the number of
top 1% cited papers from 2019 to 2021 ranked in the top 25 in the world (see Table 2). This isremarkable considering the population of Singapore, and the progress can be seen considering thatthe average number from 2009 to 2011 did not rank in the top 25. Also, the global share (in whole
numbers) of the top 10% papers was below 1.0% from 2009 to 2011, but reached 1.8% from 2019 to
2021. Basic life sciences has not yet reached the top 25, and the global share (in whole numbers) of
the top 10% papers was below 1.0% from 2009 to 11, but more recently this has been slightly above
1.0%, showing moderate growth.

6

Table 2

Comparison of the number of papers in clinical medicine【Clinical medicine】
PY2019-2021（average）
Number of papers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Country
U.S.
China
U.K.
Germany
Italy
Japan
CanadaAustralia
FranceNetherlands
Spain
South Korea
BrazilTurkeySwitzerland
SwedenIndia
Belgium
TaiwanDenmark
PolandAustria
Iran
Israel
NorwayPapers116309
64693
33597
26344
22864
22423
20138
18658
16296
14361
14182
14150
10618
10427
9769
8385
8294
6699
6445
6392
5713
4772
4635
4327
3941

Per Capita

PY2019-2021（average）
Number of top 10% cited papers

PY2019-2021（average）
Number of top 1% cited papers

CountryCountry349.9 U.S.
44.9 China
493.7 U.K.
315.4 Italy
377.6 Germany
176.8 Canada
538.3 France
740.3 Australia
239.7 Netherlands
823.7 Spain
303.4 Japan
276.2 Switzerland
50.3 Belgium
125.0 Sweden
1,137.1 South Korea
835.5 Denmark
6.1 Brazil
580.5 Austria
273.1 India
1,087.6 Poland
150.8 Israel
532.9 Norway
55.9 Greece
507.9 Singapore
732.7 Taiwan

PapersPer Capita

16907
6550
6318
4472
4147
3440
3002
2888
2862
2404
1989
1868
1490
1462
1219
1183
1021
887
871
730
685
672
657
6 19
590

50.9 U.S.
4.5 U.K.
92.8 China
73.9 Italy
49.7 Germany
92.0 Canada
44.2 France
114.6 Netherlands
164.2 Australia
51.4 Spain
15.7 Switzerland
217.4 Belgium
129.1 Japan145.7 Sweden
23.8 Denmark
201.3 South Korea
4.8 Brazil
99.0 Austria
0.6 Israel
19.3 Poland
80.4 India
124.9 Greece
62.7 Norway
1 06 .6 Singapore
25.0 Ireland

Papers

2191
1000
631
621
610
563
518
442
442
412
304
268
251
226
200
173
169
141
127
126
124
115
108
98
97

Per Capita

6.6
14.7
0.4
10.3
7.3
15.0
7.6
25.4
17.5
8.8
35.4
23.2
2.0
22.5
34.0
3.4
0.8
15.7
14.9
3.3
0.1
11.0
20.1
1 6.9
19.9

Source: Processed and created by the author based on ‘Science and Technology Indicators 2023’,
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (Data Source: Web of Science XML by Clarivate).
Shaded countries are those with relatively high numbers per capita.

A major feature of Singapore is the high number of internationally co-authored papers. The ratio
of internationally co-authored papers in all fields (3-year moving average) exceeded 70% as of 2020,
and a similar ratio was found in individual fields such as clinical medicine and basic biomedical science.
As mentioned above, the invitation of overseas human resources has also had a significant impact.
Next, I would like to look at patents in chronological order. Figure 7 shows the patent transitionin the field of biotechnology up to the pre–COVID-19 period.
Figure 7

Patent transition in the field of biotechnology

IP5 patent families : biotechnology
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 20197

Source: OECD data, ‘Patents by technology’.

Similar to the trend of increasing the number of researchers, the patent-producing trend
continued to rise to the right until the mid-2010s, and even after that showed were at a significant
level. Of course, there is debate about when to register a patent, and this data does not represent allof the research results, and even though the annual level is more uneven, it is certain that the statusof the publication of articles is at global levels.
Table 3 shows the trends per population in the same four countries. As with the R&D expenditure,
the figures are outstanding per population.
Table 3

Number of patents in biotechnology (per 1 million population)
BelgiumJapan
United States
Singapore

1999
13.4
7.9
13.4
3.5

2009
11.2
9.1
10.5
15.3

2019
15.5
11.1
15.9
19.3

Source: Compiled by the author from OECD data, ‘Patents by technology’.

Chapter 3

Trends in Data on the Life Science Industry

In this section, I look at trends in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry as a whole.
Singapore has a strong sense of being a hub in Asia for companies expanding globally in production;
so, the link between production trends and the country’s overall research is not necessarily strong. It
can, however, be seen as contributing to the improvement of the industrial base inseparably.
3.1

Trends in production and labourFirst, Figure 8 shows the transition of the production value of the pharmaceutical industry. When

Biopolis was built, it already showed a great rise, and its peak occurred in the middle of the first
decade of the millenium.
Figure 8

Trends in production

Manufacturing output : pharmaceutical & biological Products

million dollars
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Source: SingStat.
8

Similarly, looking at the trend of value added 2 , including both pharmaceuticals and medical
devices (Figure 9), it is apparent that the value added has been rising mainly in pharmaceuticals dueto the COVID-19 pandemic, although the peak was around 2006.
Figure 9

Trend of value added
million dollars

Value added : biomedical manufacturing

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Biomedical manufacturing

Pharnaceuticals

Medical technology

Source: SingStat.

Importantly, there has been a cumulative increase in employment in this industry. Whereas
researchers have come and gone, globally as well as locally, the number of employees in the industry
as a whole inevitably shows more local talent, and their careers will add up. The ability to create
growth in the industry to match this accumulation will be a major key, but the depth of the talentpool will be an important factor when new companies enter the industry in the future.
Figure 10

Changes in the number of employees
30,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Biomedical

3.2

manufacturing

Pharmaceuticals

Medical technology

Source: SingStat.

Capital investment

Compared with the increase in the number of employees, the growth in fixed asset investment
itself has been limited in recent years. Figure 11 shows the figures since the 2010s, and although
2

Value added is the net output of a sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate
inputs. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or depletionand degradation of natural resources.
9

large investments probably occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the expansion of
vaccine facilities, the trend is basically cyclical, and it is assumed that the fluctuations are large due
to large-scale advances and investments.
Figure 11

Trends in capital expenditure

Fixed Assets Investments : pharmaceutical & biological products
million dollars

1,200.
1,000.
800.
600.
400.
200.
0.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Source: SingStat.

At present, it is unclear whether the investment recovered in Singapore by Western countries
expanding into Singapore is being used to form local capital. However, it is natural to assume that therecovered investment is being used mainly in the formation of human capital. In the future, how toutilise the human capital formed here is an important aspect, and the approach will be described in
Chapter 6 and later.
3.3 Chugai Pharmaceutical’s initiatives in Singapore
In this section, I would like to look at the development of this Singaporean environment in which
many global companies are operating. Chugai Pharmaceutical, one of the leading companies,
established Chugai Pharmabody Research Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as our company) in
Biopolis in 2012, and has since played a role in potential antibody drug projects. I conducted on-site
interviews and heard the following stories.
Our company started with fewer than 50 people in 2012, but now (2023) it has 148 people, andthe general ratio of Japanese to local talent has been approximately less than 20%. In recent years,
we have been searching for clinical candidates for not only antibody drugs but also medium molecules(cyclic peptides).
In terms of the flow of technology transfer, this was carried out in the beginning with people
seconded from Chugai Pharmaceutical, and since then, the seconded people have been rotated in forseveral-year stints to carry out technology transfer locally. There are some managers under the
CEO/research head, but now some of them have been filled by local-hire promotions, including people
who have been with our company for eight to nine years.
10

To date, we have already contributed nine projects to the drug development portfolio of Chugai
Pharmaceutical. For these projects, the technology platform transferred from Japan is used, andseconded employees and local personnel work together to lead the projects.
The fact that we have returned nine projects in 11 years means that we have turned it aroundquite quickly, and this productivity is high. The most advanced is SKY59/Crovalimab for the treatment
of PNH (paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria), a rare disease. Up for approval in China next year, it
would be a globally approved drug created by a target originated in Singapore.
One of the reasons for its high efficiency is its scale as a one-floor operation in which managers
and researchers are physically close. In the future, it is highly likely that local talent in Singapore willtake the lead and develop platform technologies from a perspective that Japan does not have.
In this process, our company has received support from Singapore’s Economic Development
Board (EDB) for hiring local human resources and purchasing laboratory equipment. This kind of
support from the government is a great asset to our company, and it is important that it continues.
In addition to the government’s R&D expenditures, Singapore also offers easy access to
networking in environments such as Biopolis. This case clearly shows that Singapore provides a
desirable environment for R&D of companies entering the market.
Chapter 4

A* STAR’s New Initiatives

As the ecosystem formation matures to a certain extent, I will examine the changes andresponses to issues along the dimensions of science, finance, and human resources. First, let us lookat the progress of A*STAR from a science perspective.
Figure 12

Trends in science and technology promotion policies (unit: billion S$)

25

19
16.1
13.9

6
4

2
1991-1995

1995-2000
Natural

1st

National

Technology Plan

Science &TechnologyPlan2001-200

2006-2010

Science &Science &Technology
2005

Technology
2010

2011-20152016-2020

ResearchResearch

2021-2025
ResearchInnovation
EnterpriseInnovation
EnterpriseInnovation
Enterprise

2015

2020

2025

Source: A*STAR Material and National Research Foundation RIE2025 Materials.
11Figure 12 shows the transition of the budget for the promotion of science and technology in thenational budget and shows very large growth. However, there has also been a change in the direction
since the mid-2010s, and I would like to summarise the efforts, based on an interview with Professor
Tan Sze Wee, assistant chief executive of The Biomedical Research Council.
4.1

Responses to issues
At first, A*STAR focused on the recruitment of researchers, including those from overseas, but it

moved to the next stage amid the results in terms of published papers. In fact, since A*STAR originallypursued academic excellence, the publication of the papers was the main KPI, but in terms of social
implementation, for example, the spin-off itself was low in the period from 2000 to 2010.
Specific issues included (1) the intention of the principal investigator (PI) for translation itself, (2)issues in terms of funding for commercialisation/translation, and (3) whether there was any interest
after publication.
In light of these circumstances, there was a sense that it would be better to leave thedevelopment of commercialisation to those who know how to do it rather than leaving it toresearchers. Also, in terms of spin-out, it was decided to create an incubation hub and drive it throughthat platform. All the leading public sector hospitals are also involved here.
In the past, researchers discussed the subject of the grant from the bottom up, but now it isdecided from the top down based on strategic direction, scientific focus and international
competitive market conditions. Topics to be researched are discussed by the government and relatedorganisations (A*STAR, EDB, Enterprise Singapore (ESG)3, etc.) and decided by the government as awhole. These are all for the purpose of ‘how to bring it into a translational form’.
As a result of these developments, many of the leading spin-outs in the biotech area are comingfrom A*STAR (see Table 4). There have been 200 spin-outs, recently at a rate of 15 per year, and giventhat there were initially fewer than 10 in the first 10 years, the results have been steadily growing.
In addition, a number of public structures such as SEEDS Capital have been put in place to support
these developments, and there are several domestic VCs and overseas funds on a private basis; so,the environment is fairly well set.

[Intentionally Blank]

3Enterprise Singapore was formed by the merger of International Enterprise Singapore and SPRING
Singapore.
12

Table 4

A*STAR spin-out startups

Company name

Foundingyear

MiRXES Pte. Ltd.

2014

ImmunoScape PTE. Ltd.

2016

CytoMed Therapeutics Limited

2018

Lucence Life Sciences Pte. Ltd.

2018

Nuevocor Ptd. Ltd

2020

Major disease areas/modalities
miRNA diagnostic kit
TCR (tumor-specific T cell receptor)
identification technology/Deep Immunomics
platform
Hematological malignancies, etc./CAR-T celltherapy
Blood-based tests for cancer screening andtreatment selection
Developing new treatments that target
genetic causes of heart disease

Compiled by the author from various sources.

4.2

Focus on human resources
Even in Singapore, however, there is a shortage of people with venture experience. To address

this, many entrepreneurship programmes have been created, including A*STAR’s Technology forEnterprise Capability Upgrading (T-Up) programme. However, entrepreneurs also have a highprobability of failure. That is why A*STAR allows researchers to return after being seconded to a
venture.
There are many biotech and medtech companies in Biopolis right now, and they need muchtalent. Additionally, the startups that came out of this are starting to create local talent circulation,and that is creating sustainable surroundings in which the talent is secured through a talent supply
created from startups as well as the government and public sectors.
4.3

Policy directions
RIE2025 is currently running as a science and technology policy, and it has four major pillars: (1)Manufacturing, Trade and Connectivity; (2) Human Health and Potential (including Life Science); (3)Smart Nation and Digital Economy; and (4) Urban Solutions and Sustainability.
As shown in Figure 12, the overall budget is S$25 billion, and when private funds are counted,
2.5% of Singapore’s GDP is allocated to R&D for chemicals. Below are striking comments from
Professor Tan Sze Wee.
‘These developments since 2000 have been largely helped by the prime minister and thebiomedical industry. It can be clearly said that it was necessary for the country to improve its
momentum by pointing a cross line between ministries and agencies on the axes of academic
research, manpower, innovation and enterprise’.
The fact that they were able to make a kind of change in direction across ministries and agencies
is very significant.
13

Chapter 5

Financing Startups

As mentioned in part in the previous chapter, financing startups is still necessary to strengthenscience and ensure it flows seamlessly into industry. So how has that investment actually fared?
5.1

Public institutionsFirst of all, from an institutional perspective, the seed stage is in a very satisfactory situation.

Let us list the main programmes. A*STAR grants include the Industry Alignment Fund–Prepositioning Programme (IAF–PP) and the Singapore Therapeutics Development Review (STDR).
Enterprise Singapore (ESG) grants include the Startup SG Tech grant and Enterprise Development
Grant (EDG). The National Health Innovation Centre Singapore (NHIC), a nationally appointed
programme secretariat for the identification and social implementation of clinical innovations incollaboration with public health agencies across Singapore, also has an Innovation to Develop (I2D)
grant for use in medical innovation.
In addition to these grants, ESG offers a programme called SEEDS Capital as a fund manager
designated under the Startup SG Equity scheme to co-fund private VC funds.
5.2

The state of startups
In Table 5, I selected several representative startups in this field.
Table 5Company name
TauRx Pharmaceu cals Ltd.
Wave Life Sciences Ltd

Representative startups in this field (one example each)Founding
Major disease areas/modalities
Remarksyear
Alzheimer's disease/Tau aggregation inhibitor
The main research facility is Aberdeen, Scotland.
2008
(TAI)
Listed in November 2015 (NASDAQ) /Japanese company SHIN NIPPON
Genetic diseases/nucleic acid therapy
2012
BIOMEDICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. was involved in the establishment/
technology
British company GSK introduced the company's products in 2022

MiRXES Pte. Ltd.

2014

miRNA diagnostic kit

Spin-out companies from A*STAR

Lion TCR Pte. Ltd.

2015

Hepatocellular carcinoma/TCR-T cell therapy

Based on A*STAR research/FDA fast track designation

Hummingbrid Bioscience Pte. Ltd.

2015

Biofourmis Holdings Pte. Ltd.

2016

Multiple Solid Tumors/Rational Antibody
Discovery Platform
Health condition analysis platform using
personalized AI

Signed a partnership with A*Star (EDDC) to jointly develop new
antibodies (2021/5)
Headquartered in Boston, USA/Concluded partnership regarding
endometriosis-related pain with Chugai Pharmaceutical (2023/3)

MedISix Therapeutics Pte. Ltd.

2016

T cell malignancy/gene editing technology

Founded by Lightstone Ventures Singapore

ImmunoScape Pte. Ltd.

2016

Enleofen Bio Pte. Ltd.

2017

SCG Cell Therapy Ptd. Ltd.

2017

CytoMed Therapeutics Ltd

2018

Lucence Life Sciences Pte. Ltd.

2018

Nuevocor Ptd. Ltd

2020

Paratus Sciences Singapore Pte.Ltd.

2021

TCR (tumor-specific T cell receptor)
identification technology/Deep Immunomics Spin-out companies from A*STAR
platform
Fibrosis including non-alcoholic
Established based on research from National Heart Center ofsteatohepatitis (NASH) and interstitial lungSingapore, SingHealth and Duke-NUS Medical School
disease (ILD)/antibody therapeutics
Helicobacter pylori, HPV, HBV, EBV, etc./T cell
Signed a cooperation agreement with A*STARtherapy, antibodies, therapeutic vaccines, etc.
Hematological malignancies, etc./CAR-T cell
Listed 2023/04 (NASDAQ) / Spin-out company from A*STARtherapy
Blood-based tests for cancer screening andSpin-out companies from A*STAR
treatment selection
Developing new treatments that target genetic
Spin-out companies from A*STAR
causes of heart diseaseDuke-NUS and the company jointly develop anti-inflammatory drug for
Research based on bat immunology/antihumans
inflammatory drugs

Compiled by the author from various sources.
14

Although the amount of venture investment is a little stagnant on the basis of the number ofcases, it is still industry-specific. In the RIE2025 category, it is in the second position after the Smart
Nation and Digital Economy category, and it can be said that the fund is coming in sufficiently.
LION TCR, Miraxes, ImmunoScape and others have recently achieved a large Series A round, andthe fund’s funding performance since the latter half of the 2010s has been accumulating despite ups
and downs. However, when going to Series B, it seems that more international funding will be preferred.
On the other hand, the accumulation of exit cases is still to come and there is little precedent for
IPOs. Also, since the Singapore Stock Exchange is small, the companies tend to choose NASDAQ or
Hong Kong. At the same time, IPO and licensing activity is vigorous, but exit as M&A is still not widely
expected.
5.3

VC trends
Not only public grants but also local and US venture capital support the market in Singapore, with

the invitation of overseas VCs being a unique feature in the creation of this market. This development
was not seen in Japan.
In 2016, Lightstone Ventures established Lightstone Singapore with Temasek to start working
together, saying that the early stage could be completed only in Singapore, but after entering theClinical Stage, the company had to have an overseas orientation. Several projects have emerged fromthese efforts, and ClavystBio has been established under Temasek as a life science fund contributing
to a trend toward localisation.
Additionally, Lightstone Ventures, Evotec SE, Leaps by Bayer, Polaris Partners, and the Polaris
Innovation Fund launched a new collaborative initiative, the 65Lab4, in October 2023.
Singapore is also an Asian hub for VCs. But even if life science funds establish Singapore
as their base in Asia, whether or not they will invest in Singapore will depend on how many attractive
startups there are.
Conversely, there are cases in which even if the technology originated in Singapore, the company
chooses to deploy it more globally in places such as the United States. Connecting to the global
ecosystem is a big theme for both startups and VCs, but the foundation for going from local to global
is gradually being laid.
Chapter 6

Human Resource Development

As I mentioned in Chapters 4 and 5, human resource development is big in Singapore. Of
course, programmes related to human resource development and recruitment are not necessarily
4

It is a kind of consortium that aims to connect ideas from academia (A*STAR, NUS, DukeNUS) to
global syndicates by providing capital and networks to local and international VCs, and enlists thehelp of German company Evotec for actual drug discovery.
15

specific to the life sciences, and each industry has its own area of coverage, but I want to see howthese programmes have been launched with some concentration.
6.1

Development of programmes related to human resource development and recruitment

First, regardless of industry to some extent, Figure 13 shows the start of various human resource
recruitment and development programmes related to entrepreneurial development support.
Figure 13

Start of programmes

T-Up
2003
Singapore Biodesign
2010

Global Ready Talent Programme
2019
Tech＠Sg
2019
The Innovation and Enterprise (I&E) Fellowship Programme (IFP)
2020
Helix Immersion Programme
2023

Created by the author.

Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-Up), operated by A*STAR, sends researchers
to member companies for up to two years to serve as technical advisors. The technical advisors willadvise on technology upgrade strategies and implement the transfer of technical know-how and skills,
which will also provide valuable field experience for the seconded researchers.
The Singapore Biodesign programme from Stanford is representative in terms of more direct
training of entrepreneurs for the life sciences. A joint partnership between Stanford University,
A*STAR and EDB Singapore was formed in 2010, followed by a fellowship in 2011 and a shift toSingapore Biodesign in 2018. Gradually, companies are born from this programme, and 5–10 fellows
are produced every year, and this talent is said to be the result of the programme.
Enterprise Singapore, too, has various programmes. The Global Ready Talent Programme,
launched in 2019, offers interns and jobs abroad, while the Tech@Sg programme, run in collaboration
with EDB, offers up to 10 new employment passes over two years to foreign employees who are hired
as part of the core team of a Singapore company. As for direct talent development, they launched
the Innovation and Enterprise (I&E) Fellowship Programme (IFP) in 2020 with the intention of
expanding its deep technology talent pool. Over a 12–18 month period, professionals are trained todevelop technology commercialisation skills through on-the-job training at designated IFP partners.
16

6.2

Helix Immersion ProgrammeWith the exception of T-Up and Singapore Biodesign, these human resource development

programs cover a wide range of industries, but I would like to focus on SGInnovate’s life sciences
program.
Established in 2016, SGInnovate is a Singapore government–owned investor and ecosystembuilder that supports deep tech entrepreneurs. To drive talent development in the various deep techsectors, SGInnovate runs programmes in collaboration with different partner companies, including
programmes for students and graduates (Summation Programme) and working professionals(PowerX).
One of its latest initiatives—the Helix Immersion Programme—aims to build Singapore’s talentpipeline for the biomedical sector. Dr Vanessa Ding, Deputy Director (Human Health & Potential),
Talent, SGInnovate, shares her comments below.
The Helix Immersion Programme is designed to bridge talent gaps in Singapore’s biomedical
sector. The immersive learning opportunity provides a platform for talent to gain relevant industry
experience, while also creating an avenue for companies to develop their talent pipeline.
This programme offers individuals a valuable platform to experience the progression oftechnology across various stages of commercialisation, including fundraising, clinical development,
etc. We find that it is crucial to provide education about the intricacies of these processes at the earlycareer stage for talent, and this sentiment is growing in recognition within the broader ecosystem.
Various community stakeholders such as A*STAR, our universities, and other government agencies
are working together to create suitable programmes to plug these gaps, and the Helix Immersion
Programme is the latest addition to the landscape.
The outcomes of these ecosystem efforts may take time to materialise, but their potential impact
will strengthen our ecosystem for the long run.
In listening to Dr. Ding, it is clear that the focus is on the development of human resources forthe unique research environment of the life sciences and that the development of such humanresources is a pressing issue in the formation of the ecosystem. Japan faces a very similar issue.
Chapter 7

The Meaning of Concentrating on Translation

To some extent, there is a common need for ecosystem formation in the life sciences: ‘strengthenscience’, ‘introduce translational processes’ and ‘develop and circulate human resources to support
this’. Moreover, not all of these factors are ‘aligned’ at the same time, except in the United States; so,17

the timing and focus of efforts varies from country to country. In this chapter, I examine the process
and how to respond as translation becomes the main theme, focusing on Singapore, Belgium (using
examples from the previous report) and Japan.
7.1

Comparison of Singapore, Belgium, and Japan
Figure 14 juxtaposes changes in Singapore’s research investment, VC funding, and industry sizewith those of Belgium and Japan, and illustrates how each has risen 5 . The reader’s tolerance isrequested regarding various limitations, such as the fact that the absolute value of each data point isdifferent—in particular, it is difficult to trace the exact amount of VC investment from the past insome countries.
Dimensions in Figure 14[R&D expenditure per capita]
OECD Data ‘Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and field of R&D’
Compiled by the author based on country population[VC investment]
For Japan and Belgium, see the previous report (Belgium is described as a comparison of the EU as a whole).
For Singapore, based on Singapore Venture Funding Landscape and various articles[Production per capita]
Singapore: Manufacturing output for pharmaceutical and biological products was adopted from SingStat.
Belgium: Output (at basic prices) for basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations was
adopted from NBB.Stat (National Bank of Belgium).
Japan: The amount of drug production was adopted from the annual report of Pharmaceutical Industry
Production Dynamics Statistics (however, since the statistical method has changed since 2020,
the information is limited to that up to the previous year).

Figure 14 shows that Singapore and Belgium place importance on investing capital in researchcapabilities. Singapore has done this all at once, and Belgium has done it continuously. Both haveachieved some results, as can be seen by looking at the number of articles per population in Table 2,‘Comparison of the number of papers in clinical medicine’.
In addition, the rise of industry in Singapore was intensively conducted at one time because of
the strong aspect of attracting foreign capital. It can be seen that Belgium gradually strengthened its
position as a hub in the EU because a certain number of companies already existed.

5 Normally, considering the circulation domestically, it would be desirable to integrate the sales or investment performanceof domestic companies as an exit of the ecosystem, or to compare the integration of the value of IPOs and M&As when
they are realised, if they are positioned as a part of the global ecosystem. However, due to the limited data available, theoutput of each country is substituted in its stead.

18

Figure 14

R&D expenditure (left), VC investment (centre), and production (right), by country

Grooss domestic expenditure on R&D_Higher
Education_Medical and health sciences
Per Person (Total Population)

Manufacturing output - pharmaceutical & biological products

Million Dollars

25000

20000

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

15000

10000

0

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

5000

-SingaporeCF manufature of basic pharmaceutical products
and pharma prepations per person

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D - Higher
education : medical and health sciences per person

3,000
2,500

80
70

2,000

60
50

1,500

40
30

1,000

20

500

10

0

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

0

-BelgiumChanges in pharmaceutical production amountper capita

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D - Higher
education : medical and health sciences per person

60,00050,00060
50

40,00040

30,00030

20,00020

10,000

10

19

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

1999

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

-JapanSource: Described in the main text.

2000

0

0

On the other hand, the population of Japan is about 30 times larger than that of Singapore andabout 10 times larger than that of Belgium, and the domestic market is maturing, making it difficult
to make a simple comparison. However, the industry itself has been on a fairly long and steadytrend (however, sales overseas have increased significantly), and the amount of capital invested inscience has increased only moderately.
In this sense, the three countries have been developing in three distinct ways. But in the senseof translation, in all three countries it has been delayed until recently, with the amount ofinvestment starting to rise significantly since the mid-2010s.
Figure 15 briefly summarises this comparison, but it is clear that in each channel, smoothestablishment of a system for ‘translation’, whether through strengthening research capabilities or
through strengthening industrial scale, has taken time and not occurred spontaneously, as
highlighted in the area surrounded by the blue line in Figure 15. Paradoxically, however, it isnecessary for each country to establish a foundation that both enables science to occupy a certain
position on the global stage and, at the same time, provides human resources from industry.
Figure 15

Research(R&D expenditure)
Singapore

BelgiumJapan

Rise in each country, by phase

Translation(VC investment)

Production scale

Rapid implementation

Increased since around Intensive reinforcement
2017
for a period of time

Gradually increasing

Increased trend throughthe 2010s, especially
increasing in the second
halfFlat over the long term(slight increase between Increased since around 20142000 and 2005)

Expansion continues
over the long term
Remains flat in the longterm (but companies are
moving forward withoverseas production)

Source: Author.

In the previous report, I tried to make a broad comparison among the growth pace of global
companies, the rise of the VC market and the degree of strengthening of science. Even in the US,
the expansion of the VC market followed the expansion of global companies, and it is consideredthat the market was improved as the exit points were clarified and the division of roles progressed.
To some extent, it is inevitable that there will be a delay in translation in countries where suchapproaches to global companies tend to lag behind those in the US.
20

7.2

Characteristics of Singapore’s initiatives
On the other hand, if a country tries to build a focused translational process, I feel that what ishappening in Singapore is very reasonable. This is probably because in Singapore’s case the aims ofpolicy, funding, and human resource development are all heading in the same direction, and there
are many areas where they overlap with each other, and localisation is progressing in each field.
Figure 16 illustrates the overlaps, and at the centre of the illustration is the phrase ‘The mid2010s transformation as a symbol = Focus on translation’.
Figure 16

Characteristics of the Singapore ecosystem
Ａ：The mid-2010s transformation as a symbol= Focus on translation

ScienceB
FundingA
D

Ｂ：Science /Funding= Seed money development and connection to
global networks
Ｃ：Science/Human Resource= T-up program and other human resources
circulation
Ｄ：Human Resource/Funding= Supply of human resources who understandtranslation process

C
Human
Resource
Development

Source: Author.

At the same time, some of the events that are happening in Singapore have elements in common
with Belgium, although they have different time horizons.
Listed below are the elements in common.
1)

The clarity of the message: ‘Strengthen science and subsequent translation’2)

The point of trying to form an ecosystem by skewing it among universities and ministries

3)

The effective use of human resources arising from the strengthening of industry

4)

The goal of connecting to the global ecosystem while assessing the scope of what they can do
I can easily see how these elements are being incorporated into practical programmes in bothcountries. In Japan, on the other hand, although these points are focused on as well, a certain
environment had been established before the current events of division of roles and formation of the
global ecosystem occurred; so, transitioning to the current trend is more difficult.
7.3

Process of realising translation
In the life sciences, the goal should be to improve medicines, medical devices, and the provisionof medical services appropriately to patients or prospective patients. It is my understanding that thedivision of roles in the name of ecosystem has been developed to more efficiently deliver discoveries21

at the science level. Needless to say, this includes economic needs.
It can be said that the ecosystem formed in the US, especially in Boston and on the West Coast,
quickly took shape, with the inclusion of some kind of implicit rule-making, but it is not easy to findout the factors of success empirically because the methods of division of roles are various and changeover the years. Of course, individual parts of this process have also been tested empirically—for
example, in industry–academia collaborations6.
This discussion paper relies on the case studies following the previous report, but what emerges
in each interview are some successful examples and ‘future issues’ ahead. This paper is a continuationof efforts to find practical ideas while examining these issues.
As for Belgium, in the previous report I focused on a case in which the development of science
represented by Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB) and other organisations and the expansionof industry over the medium term have been balanced, and human resource development isflourishing to make this more effective. In addition, the circulation of human resources within theindustry has been directed to function complementarily.
In Singapore today, recognition of the need for translation has been reached in a cross-ministerial
manner, and while venture funding is utilising connections with global networks, it is also
strengthening human resource development locally. Again, increased employment in industry
appears to support the development of this initiative in a complementary manner.
Although Singapore differs from Belgium in terms of time horizons, they seem to have taken
essential steps in ecosystem formation.
However, even at this point, it is still uncertain what form human resource development can takeand how it will contribute to translation. Specifically, in translation it is necessary for each stakeholder
to share a certain level of awareness and practice: (1) determining the timing of switching fromresearch to development, (2) setting the appropriate exit at that time, and (3) designing patent
strategies and grants accordingly. At present, however, there does not seem to be a clear answer as
to whether such matters are truly educable, whether they are more OJT-related, whether theintelligence is broadly held by the various parties, including advisors, and whether there is a need for
IT to be used more effectively. Part of the overall issue is that the correct answer keeps changing as
the modality changes.
Programmes such as T-Up, Singapore Biodesign, and the Helix Immersion Programme seem tobe trying to address these issues in Singapore, as was the case driving the establishment of Solvay

6Michele O’Dwyer, Raffaele Filieri & Lisa O’Malley, 2022, ‘Establishing successful university–industry
collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed’, The Journal of Technology Transfer
22Brussels School (SBS) in Belgium. In the future, I would like to create a new research paper andexamine Japanese development along these themes, based on the case studies presented here.
Finally, the greatest motivation for finishing this paper is the sense of ‘anticipation for the future’
that I felt at each interview I conducted in Singapore. It is not a sense of lofty expectations subject togradual dissipation, but rather a sense that ‘there are problems, but a positive future can be
anticipated’, which seems to overlap with the ‘shared sense of a certain direction’ mentioned in thispaper.
I would like to thank the many people I spoke with during my research, including those notmentioned directly in this paper. I sincerely appreciate the experience.

23

[References] Note: Documents written only in Japanese are omitted.
National Research Foundation, 2020, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan.
Agency for Science, Technology, and Research, Annual Report.
University of Cambridge, 2021, Singapore’s Biomedical Cluster, Cambridge Industrial Innovation
Policy.
DealStreetAsia (in partnership with Enterprise Singapore), 2022, Singapore Venture Funding
Landscape 2022.
Michele O’Dwyer, Raffaele Filieri, Lisa O’Malley, 2023, Establishing successful university–industry
collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed, The Journal of Technology Transfer (2023)
48:900–931.
Angus Liu, 2023, 20 years in, Singapore still searches for its biotech success story, Fierce Biotech article.
Tatsufumi Aoyama, 2023, ‘Structure and Ingenuity of Ecosystem Formation in Life Science—System
Formation in Belgium and Challenges in Japan’, Economics Today, Vol.44, No.1, Development Bank ofJapan Research Institute of Capital Formation.

24