Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ouch, this thread is back. Not unexpected I suppose. 

Have you never heard the term whistle-blowing? Dr G. tried every avenue and was well aware of what was at risk on her island. She isn't doing this for publicity, she's been offered far better gigs tha

With respect, you are. Without @rachomics on island PCR testing for covid would not have happened when it did, if at all. Of course, Rizwan Khan and Steve Doyle were vital too - sorry don’t know Dr Sh

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

But I think Andy's point Is more to make the IOM a good place to set up biotech, specifically genome sequencing, as another business stream, apart from finance, gaming etc.  

The message sent out with the RG debacle is likely to have been very damaging to such businesses who may have been thinking about setting up here. 

If IOMG treats one of their own like that, what would they do to an outsider? 

I agree.

It seems to me that it has always been hard for the IOMG to attract top class science based enterprises to the Island. Any really good start-up can normally find a government somewhere who will offer it direct and indirect assistance if it substantially locates itself in that jurisdiction. Therefore in the best of times, this Island is in competition with other countries to attract good businesses.

The Dr Glover debacle has made this challenge even harder. It has planted a hillside of red flags in the sights of every possible future biotech business thinking about establishing itself here. So much for our fabled ''freedom to flourish'' slogan. That slogan now sounds incredibly hollow.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Correct Glad.

My guess is that most professionals in R&D in sectors like biotech are highly paid. Having these people move to IOM will create some initial pressure on social infrastructure but they will certainly pay their way in tax & NI collected. 

For the life of me why IOM doesn't have an IP registry is beyond me. If Jersey can do it, why can't Mann? 

IOMG really does have a cock-eyed approach to business development and almost backward in outlook. It's not as if they have to go through multiple government departments to set something like this up. We keep hearing about how nimble Tynwald & the executive are but the opposite seems to be true.

This was a sector they were keen to develop, and a good one that has less of the odour of purely finance based business.  As you say an IP register or some tie up for accreditation  to create something analogous to the ship registry which gives some assurance as to the facility meeting certain industry standards would give international credence.

But no, when a home grown expert is dismissed as not meeting whatever accreditation standard (which R G disputes) what validation of the sector has been given?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

when a home grown expert is dismissed as not meeting whatever accreditation standard (which R G disputes) what validation of the sector has been given?

Maybe this is the problem? Had she happened to have been off Island then she might have been taken more seriously. The trouble is we will never know why they took the decisions they did but over the next couple of years we will see the impact this has had this and other potential new sectors (could our budding new cannabis sector disappear in a puff of smoke?).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Maybe this is the problem? Had she happened to have been off Island then she might have been taken more seriously. The trouble is we will never know why they took the decisions they did but over the next couple of years we will see the impact this has had this and other potential new sectors (could our budding new cannabis sector disappear in a puff of smoke?).

Indeed.  Biotech is an important economic diversifiedr, particularly as the world becomes more hostile to offshore.  Biden is introducing reporting of funds in and out of accounts, beyond the existing balance reporting, adding more cost and process. BEPS, substance and all those things currently targeting offshore is not so relevant to biotech, which could be a sector that provides employment.

A strong biotech sector would be complementary to development of medicinal cannabis applications. 

But of course, that implication of the cack-handed response was not even considered. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

...that implication of the cack-handed response was not even considered. 

Of course it wasn’t. Why? Because the Quayle administration hasn’t a strategic bone in its body. These are people keen to read anonymous letters and dodge inconvenient questions, not ask themselves ‘What are the potential long term, wider, implications of this decision? Why can’t they pose that question? Because they lack the competence and intelligence to do so, or to perform as a entity that links disparate components of the economy in a structured series of policies and decisions. They don’t comprehend those linkages or how to make them work in tandem. The single defining moment for me of the last five years was Quayle’s catastrophic press call in relation to the jet VAT issue. No grasp of the issue; no clear message; no anticipation of the likely media questions/responses; cringingly inept communications. (Hello Covid).  Is that individual likely to consider the implications of a crack-handed response Gladys? (Or ideally start by avoiding the crack-handed response in the first place). Not a chance in hell. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph article kindly provided by Andy shows exactly why we cannot do this sort of stuff alone. There is a great number of resources and funding (£20m) required as well as the economies of scale that this brings.

The IOM much as we would wish,  cannot do for example cancer research on its own. We have to align ourselves with others who have the resources and capabilities to do it and provide as much help and data that we can. That does not diminish the contribution we can make but is merely an acknowledgment that we are a small jurisdiction that does not have the infrastructure to change things on its own.

Just because Dr Glover is a “ home grown expert” in this field does not mean the IOM should ploughing its own furrow. The data feed into Liverpool is valuable in itself and means we can share the benefits.

I am sure we have plenty of home grown experts in other fields who have made important national ( British) and international contributions in science and other fields without all this hoo hah

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The Telegraph article kindly provided by Andy shows exactly why we cannot do this sort of stuff alone. There is a great number of resources and funding (£20m) required as well as the economies of scale that this brings.

The IOM much as we would wish,  cannot do for example cancer research on its own. We have to align ourselves with others who have the resources and capabilities to do it and provide as much help and data that we can. That does not diminish the contribution we can make but is merely an acknowledgment that we are a small jurisdiction that does not have the infrastructure to change things on its own.

Just because Dr Glover is a “ home grown expert” in this field does not mean the IOM should ploughing its own furrow. The data feed into Liverpool is valuable in itself and means we can share the benefits.

I am sure we have plenty of home grown experts in other fields who have made important national ( British) and international contributions in science and other fields without all this hoo hah

You miss the point entirely. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Then I apologize.

No need to apologise, but thank you. 

Zooming out on the specifics as to whether the IOM needs to have its own discreet genomics facility in the fight against covid, and looking at the bigger picture, the debacle with R G has been highly visible. Biotech was a sector IOMG was hoping to encourage here to diversify our economy and reduce the reliance on the finance sector,  which is becoming increasingly vulnerable.

HQ made a statement about the accreditation of RG's facility, or lack thereof, which is challenged by RG.  A biotech company looking at relocating to the island will look at the whole thing, but specifically the lack of government support for its own existing industry and may well decide that the island doesn't really want to foster the sector, possibly through a lack of understanding of the industry,  and decide against the move. 

That is apart from the specific role of RG, but more indicative of the attitude of the government to a technical sector. 

Andy Onchan makes the point about a lack of an IP register and legal means to protect locally developed innovation.  I added that some form of registry which requires such companies to meet minimum industry requirements in order to establish their credentials on the world stage would also help.  Much like the ship registry which requires vessels on it to meet certain internationally recognised technical  and inspection requirements giving credibility to the vessels registered on it. 

In summary, on the one hand IOMG is encouraging biotech, but on the other, saying its not a proper sector because they won't use it. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Just because Dr Glover is a “ home grown expert” in this field does not mean the IOM should ploughing its own furrow. The data feed into Liverpool is valuable in itself and means we can share the benefits.

I am sure we have plenty of home grown experts in other fields who have made important national ( British) and international contributions in science and other fields without all this hoo hah

The data would’ve been shared regardless of which lab processed it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...