Singapore’s biotech game needs a reset

With additional reporting from Elysia Tan and Sharon See

Twenty-five years after Singapore set out to build its biomedical sciences sector into an economic pillar, it still lacks a major success story.

The city-state has a solid foundation of research institutions and a healthy pipeline of startups spanning preclinical to late-stage development. Yet, it still has not come up with a blockbuster drug or a globally recognized brand name like Denmark’s Novo Nordisk or US-based Moderna.

Singapore-based Tessa Therapeutics came close when it raised US$126 million in series A funding for its cancer therapies in 2022. But a year later, the firm entered liquidation amid the VC funding winter, which has left high-risk biotech bets out in the cold.

Now, industry experts tell The Business Times that seeking a national champion is both unrealistic and misses the point of what Singapore can achieve. Comparing the city-state’s relatively nascent industry to markets with longer histories is also unfair, they say.

Refocus on deal flow, licensing

“It takes 10 to 15 years to make a drug. So we’re still early days in this multidecade journey,” observes Lisa Ooi, assistant chief executive of the Agency for Science, Technology, and Research’s (ASTAR) Biomedical Research Council.

Comparisons between Singapore’s startups and Novo Nordisk are flawed, says Rosemary Tan, CEO of Leyden Labs Asia, which makes nasal sprays that block airborne respiratory viruses.

Denmark is home to some of the world’s oldest universities, and its pharmaceutical industry is more than a century old. In contrast, Singapore’s first biomedical research facility, the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, is just 40 years old.

See also: Mapping China’s biotech titans

In addition, large pharmaceutical players are entrenched in global supply chains, making it hard for new players to compete. The “big pharmas” have consolidated the industry, points out Guy Heathers, chief business officer at Albatroz Therapeutics.

Meanwhile, attempts to build a national champion tend to “suck in anyone who knows what they’re doing,” he adds. “And then the trouble is … if it fails, it’s a big failure.”

Rather than push for a global player, Ooi says Singapore should position itself as a global innovation hub and “convener of technology, people, and capital.”

This is an achievable goal for the city-state and would make deal flow and licensing agreements better metrics of success, watchers say. The country’s neutral position is also valuable for firms navigating geopolitical tensions while accessing both Asian and Western markets.

Inflection point

The licensing playbook

Long game