Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016. xxiv, 284 pp. (Illustrations.) US$25.95, paper. ISBN 978-0-8223-6264-7.
“Life” appears twice in the title of this book, for a good reason. As Ong (14, 161, 225) explains, a fungible life is used to describe the nature of bioscience research. Research methods break down the DNA of human life into bits of information and find ways of manipulating and studying them in order to find cures for the diseases we face. Such research pathways promise not just life extension, but “living better in the future” (79). The “Asian city of life” may represent Singapore’s efforts to reinvent itself, the latest of this invention being a hub of Asia-focussed bioscience research. I think this term may better describe Singapore’s efforts at disease control for the region. The “city of life” captures Singapore’s role as a surveillance hub in a hypermobile world where diseases move with bodies. If Asia continues to be an epicentre for the emergence of epidemics (188), then Singapore’s roles of surveillance, detection, coordination, and containment are duties performed on behalf of this region and for the world at large.
For the reader not well versed in science and technology fields, the most difficult portion of the book is the technical part, which is detailed in chapters 1, 2, and 3. This part is skilfully done as Ong introduces the process of assembling an Asian database of biomedical resources and explains how these databases enable a measure of risk for the population and how this population is likely to respond to drug treatments. Chapter 4 covers bioethics, chapter 6 discusses stem cell research, while chapter 8 is on the control of infectious disease. This level of technical detail is necessary for the reader to understand Ong’s cultural, economic, and political analysis of this type of scientific research. Culturally, the enterprise of bioscience research represents the racial basis of disease detection and solution. This very process of scientific research also gets to the biological basis of what makes us Asian. As Ong points out, “ethnicity is this cluster of interacting genetic, epigenetic and geographical elements that shaped a people and their inherited medical chances” (82).
This cultural basis also forms the foundation of nationalist and regionalist claims. Nationalist claims are most clearly analyzed in chapter 9 and the epilogue, where the case of BGI Genomics in China is not just tied to the critical importance of detecting and curing disease in China but to a conception of Chinese life forms and the paths to the present. Nationalist claims also work their magic at the state level, creating a legitimacy that unlocks funding for an expensive enterprise. Regionalist claims are the focus of chapter 7 and operate at two levels. The first is evident as an imagined community narrative about a shared history, uniqueness (in contrast to the Euro-American version), and of the regional benefits of medical breakthroughs (161). The second regionalist claim is about the emerging stature of an Asian science representing collaborative attempts at collection and testing in order to catalogue ethnic genotypes as a means of control and management of Asian diseases (64, 162). Taken together, these regionalist claims create a powerful motive for Asia-based organizations to work together. The regionalism of Asian science is not without its tensions, as collaborative attempts are developed amidst competitive and nationalist tendencies. On the latter, the book documents an interesting South Asian claim that “all Asians arise from Indians,” a statement that is predictably countered by East Asian scientists (167–168).
A significant part of the book is about Singapore’s efforts to build a biomedical hub in Asia. The city-state’s Biopolis is profiled in the book’s introduction, where we note the role of the state in the building of the ecosystem. There are several key elements in this ecosystem. The most obvious is the state role in financing an “infant industry.” In Singapore’s post-independent economic history, the government is known for attracting multinational companies to invest in Singapore. The biomedical project is no different, except the players Singapore attracts are not just pharmaceutical companies, but also universities with strong biomedical programmes such as Duke and Johns Hopkins (18, 119). On the financing of biomedical activities, Ong (2016) notes the funding of particular stages of research that pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to undertake (110), the block funding of the Biopolis (149), and support of bio-entrepreneurs (125).
The state-managed subsidized health care in Singapore is another element which enables an efficient building of bioscience databases (37–39). State sponsorship and management has also resulted in a unified bioethical system that has kept research and data collection away from controversial practices (96, 153). The absence of strong civil society pressures keeps the exchange between researchers and regulators at a professional level without the possible destabilization of politics (60).
The building of the bioscience ecosystem in Singapore is also dependent on attracting highly skilled labour to augment local scientists in the small city state. Chapter 5, “Virtue and Expatriate Scientists,” elaborates on this process and documents the views from the superstars of science, researchers from India and China, and local scientists. Ong (127) worries about highly skilled scientists using Singapore as a springboard to other places. Mobility is however the normal condition for the global city state. Scientists and a range of highly skilled workers are attracted by opportunities in Singapore and those who leave are replaced by a new set. What matters is keeping the environment conducive.
In summary, Fungible Life combines an understanding of bioscience research with the economic geography of research locations, the political economy of ecosystem formation, and the anthropological understanding of its significance.
K.C. Ho
National University of Singapore