Lawford Davies Denoon - Revision history

Matthew Pringle: changed category 'Law firms' to 'Law Firms' for consistency

2020-01-21T10:32:41Z

changed category 'Law firms' to 'Law Firms' for consistency

Claire Robinson at 21:48, 1 December 2012

2012-12-01T21:48:39Z

Claire Robinson at 21:46, 1 December 2012

2012-12-01T21:46:53Z

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:41:37Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:39:42Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:38:05Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:37:50Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:36:37Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:33:52Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

Claire Robinson: /* Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research */

2012-12-01T21:32:20Z

Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 [[Category:GM]]
 [[Category:Human Genetics]]
-[[Category:Law firms]]
+[[Category:Law Firms]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the UK government Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>
-Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]]. During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], Hitchcock lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." The public did not like the idea.
+Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]].<ref>Lawford Davies Denoon (2012) [http://www.lawforddaviesdenoon.com/index.php?julian-hitchcock-211 Julian Hitchcock], acc 1 Dec 2012</ref> During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], Hitchcock lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." The public did not like the idea.
 Hitchcock blamed this outcome on the researchers' "complacency and failure to engage with the public". As a result of the consultation, the UK government had proposed banning the creation of hybrid embryos in its forthcoming human tissue and embryos bill. In addition, the regulator, the [[Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]], had shelved applications to create such embryos by scientists at [[King's College London]] and [[Newcastle University]].<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Lawford Davies Denoon]] is a London-based law firm which describes itself as specialising in life sciences (biotechnology). Its areas of expertise include human tissue and embryo research, in vitro fertilisation, and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, defined as medicines based on gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue engineering.<ref>Lawford Davies Denoon (2012) [http://www.lawforddaviesdenoon.com/index.php?home Home page], acc 26 Nov 2012</ref>
 Owner [[Alexander Denoon]] is a director and trustee of the [[Science Media Centre]] (see [[Science Media Centre]]).
 ==Supporting human-animal hybrid embryo research==
 Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the UK government Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the UK government Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>
-Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]]. During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], Hitchcock lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." The public had not liked the idea.
+Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]]. During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], Hitchcock lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." The public did not like the idea.
 Hitchcock blamed this outcome on the researchers' "complacency and failure to engage with the public". As a result of the consultation, the UK government had proposed banning the creation of hybrid embryos in its forthcoming human tissue and embryos bill. In addition, the regulator, the [[Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]], had shelved applications to create such embryos by scientists at [[King's College London]] and [[Newcastle University]].<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The firm's staff have become a resource for media stories that are supportive of development of contentious technologies, such as the creation of cloned human-animal hybrid embryos for research.
-Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>
+Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the UK government Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>
 Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]]. During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], Hitchcock lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." The public had not liked the idea.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 The Financial Times heralded the public attitude swing as an example of "The power of scientific lobbying to change public and political opinion" – a point that was underscored by the fact that "the fertility regulator [HFEA] is set to approve the controversial principle that human-animal embryos can be created for research."<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
-Human Genetics Alert gives a different view of the scientific and ethical issues around cloned human-animal hybrid embryos in a briefing, "Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos: Scientific and Ethical issues". HGA said, "The science lobby has severely misled the Government, MPs and the public about the nature of human-animal hybrid embryos, and their usefulness in medical research."<ref>Human Genetics Alert, [http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hfeBill/hybrid_embryos_main_briefing.pdf Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos: Scientific and Ethical issues], May 2008, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
+Human Genetics Alert gave a different view of the scientific and ethical issues around cloned human-animal hybrid embryos in a briefing, "Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos: Scientific and Ethical issues". HGA said, "The science lobby has severely misled the Government, MPs and the public about the nature of human-animal hybrid embryos, and their usefulness in medical research."<ref>Human Genetics Alert, [http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hfeBill/hybrid_embryos_main_briefing.pdf Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos: Scientific and Ethical issues], May 2008, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
 ==People==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 A second public consultation, conducted by the [[Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]], "showed that many people who initially found the idea of hybrid embryos repugnant changed their minds once they were told what the research actually involved", according to the Financial Times article.
-In the wake of these events, the government reversed its position, saying that new human tissues and embryos bill would permit the creation of human-animal embryos in some circumstances.<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
+As a result of these events, the government reversed its position, saying that new human tissues and embryos bill would permit the creation of human-animal and other types of mixed-species embryos in some circumstances.<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref><ref>Human Genetics Alert, [http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hfeBill/hybrid_embryos_main_briefing.pdf Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos: Scientific and Ethical issues], May 2008, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
 Hitchcock approved of this result: "The thoroughness of the HFEA's consultation, which differed from the government's in providing an explanation of the work involved, has reached a very different - and welcome - result which augurs well for stem cell research and enterprise. It will hopefully persuade the Chief Medical Officer (Sir [[Liam Donaldson]]), who has previously voiced doubts about chimera/hybrid research, that the public truly is on board."<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Partner [[James Lawford Davies]] provided a quote to the SMC for media use, disagreeing with the Dept of Health's suggestion of a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes and complaining that "the proposals do little to move forward from the status quo".<ref>Science Media Centre (2006), [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-respond-to-the-doh-review-of-the-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2/ scientists respond to the DoH review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act], Dec 13, acc 27 Nov 2012</ref>
-Another lawyer in the firm, [[Julian Hitchcock]], during his previous employment a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." As a result of this consultation, which Hitchcock said was characterised by the researchers' "complacency and failure to engage with the public", the UK government had proposed banning the creation of hybrid embryos in its forthcoming human tissue and embryos bill. In addition, the regulator, the [[Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]], had shelved applications to creates such embryos by scientists at [[King's College London]] and [[Newcastle University]].<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
+Another lawyer who was to join Lawford Davies Denoon was [[Julian Hitchcock]]. During his previous employment as a senior life sciences lawyer with [[Mills & Reeve]], lamented the outcome of a public consultation in which "a largely uninformed public was simply (and improbably) asked, 'whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal or chimera embryos'." As a result of this consultation, which Hitchcock said was characterised by the researchers' "complacency and failure to engage with the public", the UK government had proposed banning the creation of hybrid embryos in its forthcoming human tissue and embryos bill. In addition, the regulator, the [[Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority]], had shelved applications to creates such embryos by scientists at [[King's College London]] and [[Newcastle University]].<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>
 According to an article in the Financial Times, "Opinion started to change when scientists, realising belatedly what was at stake, started campaigning on the issue. In particular they persuaded the House of Commons science committee to hold an inquiry, which came out unanimously in favour of regulated research using hybrid embryos."<ref>Clive Cookson (2007) [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1bebc8-5b4a-11dc-8c32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2DpqOTWqz Scientific lobby wins backing for human-animal hybrid embryos], Financial Times, 5 Sept 2007, acc 1 Dec 2012</ref>