I've been living in Asia for 24 years, working on R&D policy for the last 10, and have seen lots of countries come up with schemes to attract foreign talent, wi

I've been living in Asia for 24 years, working on R&D policy for the last 10, and have seen lots of countries come up with schemes to attract foreign talent, without coming up for ways to keep the talent in the country once the fad for whatever-tech has ended. In Singapore, for example, there was a huge push for biotech/biomed R&D focused on the ASTAR research complex. After a few years though, the government's interest diminished significantly (along with funds) due to a combination of 1) the political demise of ASTAR's champion in the bureaucracy (due in part to a feud with the daughter of Lee Kuan Yew; 2) the successful luring of global biopharm companies to set up Asia HQs in Singapore, which was viewed by some in the Sing govt as a 'Mission Accomplished' moment; and 3) the dramatic financial success of the Marina Bay Sands casino, which made a striking counterpoint to the vague, serendipity-based rationale for investing in basic research with no business plan in place. Many countries want the cultural cachet and revenue potential that are historically associated with big investments in basic science. But smaller countries (meaning anything smaller than, say, Germany or S Korea) are going to have a hard time justifying the massive spending without clear economic outputs. I think this applies equally to nascent tech sectors, like AI – maybe even more so for big data-intensive fields like AI. What does being based in Singapore have to offer an AI researcher compared to being in a major US or PRC city? Granted, the SE Asia location with a good hub airport is nice, but is there some advantage to your work from being geographically present in a city-state of ~5 million people? The odds are that this proposition appeals mainly to people who are 1) from the developing world, 2) who have a hard time competing in the developed world (for whatever reason), or 3) very senior scientists looking to pad their retirement income through highly paid advisory work. All this can be well and good for people who go in with the clear intent to leave within 3–5 years. But some people find themselves wanting to stay, and once the funds for their chosen field of endeavor dry up due to the short attention spans associated with bureaucratic funding commitments, they may find that the welcome has worn out uncomfortably quickly.