Academic literature on the topic 'Christ's College (Manchester, England)'

Background After European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) high-grade lymphoma in 2018, England was one of the first European countries granting fully funded access to these CD19 CAR-T therapies. Both products are available through the National Health Service England (NHSE) Cancer Drug Fund until their cost-effectiveness has been determined. The NHSE CAR-T program has been set up in a structure aiming to implement robust and transparent criteria for patient selection and to ensure equity of treatment access: CAR-T slots are approved by a weekly National CAR-T Clinical Panel (NCCP), consisting of independent clinical experts, patient representatives, and delegates from each CAR-T centre; treatment is delivered in 7 geographically spread commissioned CAR-T centres (Birmingham, Bristol, King's College Hospital London, University Hospital London, The Christie Manchester, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Newcastle). Here, we report prospective data on the first 122 lymphoma patients approved by the NCCP. Methods Patients with r/r high-grade lymphoma referred to the NCCP between December 2018 and July 2019 and deemed eligible for treatment with CD19 CAR-T were analysed. Eligibility was assessed in the CAR-T centre's tumor board, based on organ function and fitness (performance status 0/1), absence of active CNS disease, and biopsy confirmation of r/r high-grade lymphoma. The final decision on patient eligibility was made by consensus through the NCCP independent clinical panel. CAR-T product selection for each patient was done by the CAR-T centre, mainly on the basis of manufacturing slot availability. Results 122 patients were approved for treatment with CD19 CAR-T therapy by the panel. CAR-T centres selected 76 patients for axicabtagene ciloleucel and 46 for tisagenlecleucel. Patients' median age was 56 years (range 18-75). 62% were male. 87 (71%) patients had de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 29 (24%) transformed lymphoma (23 from follicular- and 6 from marginal zone lymphoma), and 6 (5%) primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. 96 (79%) patients had biopsy confirmation of disease prior to submission. 71 (58%) patients had received 2 prior lines of therapy for high-grade lymphoma, 51 (42%) patients 3 or more treatment lines (maximum 6). 5 patients had previous allogeneic, 19 previous autologous transplant. 88% of patients (107/122) were refractory to the last line of treatment (stable- or progressive disease (PD) or relapse within 6 months). Among 122 patients, 112 completed leukapheresis, 3 are awaiting the procedure, and 7 patients did not proceed (6 due to PD, 1 opted for radical radiotherapy). 57 of 112 patients were infused at the time of abstract submission, 42 are awaiting CAR-T infusion. 10 patients did not proceed to infusion due to disease progression and clinical deterioration (3 with CNS relapse), 2 due to manufacturing failure. One patient achieved a complete response following bridging therapy and is currently monitored. 84% (88/105) patients received bridging therapy between the time of NCCP approval and CAR-T infusion (median 64 days), 62 had chemotherapy, 9 radiotherapy, and 17 steroids only. Details on bridging therapy, treatment-related toxicities and outcomes will be provided at the meeting, by which time approximately 62 patients will have completed their 3 months PET response assessment. Conclusion NHSE has successfully implemented a national structure for providing licenced CAR-T products in England, enabling equity of access and oversight on capacity and patient outcomes, which can serve as a model for newly licenced, cost-intense and complex cell- and gene therapies in the future. The prospective and centralised nature of this dataset offers a true reflection of the real-world patient population undergoing CAR-T therapy in England. Disclosures Kuhnl: Kite Gilead: Honoraria. Roddie:Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy. Menne:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sanderson:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria. Osborne:Novartis: Other: Travel; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Radford:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patten:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. O'Reilly:Kite Gilead: Honoraria. Bloor:Abvie, Gilead, Novartis, Autolus, Celgene, etc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant. Rowntree:Novartis: Consultancy. Bowles:Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Collins:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. McMillan:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria.

The Lancashire Independent College in Whalley Range, Manchester (1839-43), was built to train Congregational ministers. As the first of a number of Nonconformist educational institutions in the area, it illustrates Manchester‘s importance as a centre of higher education generally and Nonconformist education in particular. The building was designed by John Gould Irwin in Gothic style, mediated through references to All Souls College in Oxford by Nicholas Hawksmoor, whose architecture also inspired Irwins Theatre Royal in Manchester (1845). The College was later extended by Alfred Waterhouse, reflecting the growing success of the institution, which forged links with Owens College and went on to contribute, with other ministerial training colleges, to the Universitys Faculty of Theology established in 1904. The building illustrates an interesting strand in early nineteenth-century architectural style by a little-known architect, and has an important place in the history of higher education in north-west England.

Sir William Flinders Petrie (the grandson of Captain Matthew Flinders who explored the coast of Australia between 1797 and 1803) had a brilliant career as an archaeologist that spanned five decades, and his contribution to the subject in developing scientific methodologies for excavation is unparallelled. Initially, it was Amelia B. Edwards, a founder of The Egypt Exploration Fund in London, who recognised Petrie’s genius, and ensured that he was recruited as one of the Fund’s first archaeologists. However, disagreements with the Committee led to a parting of the ways, and in 1886, he had no excavations in view and his career faced premature extinction. Amelia Edwards then introduced Petrie to Jesse Haworth, a textile manufacturer with an interest in Egyptology who lived in Manchester, England. He took up the support of Petrie’s work and, for many years, he financed his excavations. Finds from these sites came to form the basis of two major collections: at The Petrie Museum, University College London, and at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester. The recent establishment of the endowed KNH Centre and Chair for Biomedical Egyptology at the University of Manchester has fulfilled Jesse Haworth’s hope that the university would establish a professorship in Egyptology.

Dr Arnold Renshaw trained in both dentistry and medicine in Manchester, being actively involved in the University student organisations. He followed a career in pathology and bacteriology that was interrupted by serving in the RAMC during World War I. Bacteriological interest in the antiseptic properties of aniline dyes followed. His main interest, however, was in pathology where he was associated with the Pathology Society of Manchester for more than twenty years. He was also actively involved in the founding of the Association of Clinical Pathologists. The Association led to the formation of the Royal College of Pathologists and to Renshaw being elected one of the Founding Fellows. He also developed a special expertise in forensic pathology which he pioneered in northwest England. His later years witnessed an interest in rheumatoid arthritis to investigate a possible cause and suggest a unique treatment consisting of the small intestinal enzymes, erepsin.

Michael Szwarc was born in Będzin, an industrial town in the south of Poland, as an only son of a Jewish family. Michael received his pre–college and college education in Warsaw and in 1932 received his degree in chemical engineering from the Warsaw Polytechnic Institute. After graduation he married in 1933 Maria Frenkel (Marysia), whose brother married his younger sister Rala. From 1933 to 1935 he worked in Poland as a chemical engineer. In 1935 he emigrated to Palestine (today's Israel) and after a year was joined there by his sister and brother–in–law. Two of his three children were born during his stay in Jerusalem, where he was engaged in research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and from which he gained a PhD in organic chemistry. In late 1945 he went to England, where he joined the group under Professor Michael Polanyi FRS in Manchester.

Thomas Hincks was born 15 July 1818 in Exeter, England. He attended Manchester New College, York, from 1833 to 1839, and received a B.A. from the University of London in 1840. In 1839 he commenced a 30-year career as a cleric, and served with distinction at Unitarian chapels in Ireland and England. Meanwhile, he enthusiastically pursued interests in natural history. A breakdown in his health and permanent voice impairment during 1867–68 while at Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds, forced him reluctantly to resign from active ministry in 1869. He moved to Taunton and later to Clifton, and devoted much of the rest of his life to natural history. Hincks was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1872 for noteworthy contributions to natural history. Foremost among his publications in science were A history of the British hydroid zoophytes (1868) and A history of the British marine Polyzoa (1880). Hincks named 24 families, 52 genera and 360 species and subspecies of invertebrates, mostly Bryozoa and Hydrozoa. Hincks died 25 January 1899 in Clifton, and was buried in Leeds. His important bryozoan and hydroid collections are in the Natural History Museum, London. At least six genera and 13 species of invertebrates are named in his honour.

John Dyson was born on the 7th January 1941 in Meltham Mills, West Yorkshire, England, and later grew up in Harrogate and Leeds. The proudest moment of John's early life was meeting Freddie Trueman, who became one of the greatest fast bowlers of English cricket. John used a state scholarship to study at Kings College London, after hearing a radio lecture by D. M. McKay. He received a first class BSc Special Honours Degree in Physics in 1962, and began a Ph.D. at the University of Manchester Department of Astronomy after being attracted to astronomy by an article of Zdenek Kopal in the semi-popular journal New Scientist. John soon started work with Franz Kahn, and studied the possibility that the broad emission lines seen from the Orion Nebula were due to flows driven by the photoevaporation of neutral globules embedded in a HII region. John's thesis was entitled “The Age and Dynamics of the Orion Nebula“ and he passed his oral examination on 28th February 1966.

AbstractThe NHS provides more than 98% of all surgical procedures in infants and children in the United Kingdom through a comprehensive network of secondary (typically for the general surgery of childhood) and tertiary (specialist neonatal and specialist pediatric surgery) centers [n = 22]), typically located within large conurbations. It was originally envisaged that these specialized centers would be able to provide the full range of surgical interventions (aside from organ transplantation). However, there has been a trend toward centralization of some key procedures, previously thought to be within general neonatal surgery.The architype for centralization is the management of biliary atresia (BA). Since 1999, within England and Wales, this has been exclusively managed in three centers (King's College Hospital, London; Birmingham Children's Hospital and Leeds General Infirmary). All of these provide facilities for the diagnosis of BA, primary surgical management (Kasai portoenterostomy), and liver transplantation if required. The case for centralization was made by rigorous national outcome analysis during the 1990s showing marked disparity based on case volume and driven by parents' organizations and national media. Following centralization, national outcome data showed improvement and provided a benchmark for others to follow.The management of bladder exstrophy was later centralized in England and Wales, albeit not based on strict outcome data, to two centers (Great Ormond Street, London and Royal Manchester Children's Hospital).

Ali Mazrui was born in 1933 in Mombasa, Kenya. Sent to England in 1955 for his secondary school education, he remained there until he earned hisB.A. (1960, politics and philosophy) with distinction from the University of Manchester. He received his M.A. (1961, government and politics) and Ph.D. (1966, philosophy) from Columbia and Oxford universities, respectively. In Africa, he taught political science at Uganda’s Makerere University College (1963-73), and then returned to the United States to teach at the University of Michigan (1974-91) and New York’s Binghamton University (1991-2014). An avatar of controversy, Mazrui was also legendary for the fertility of his mind. Nelson Mandela viewed him as “an outstanding educationist” 1 and Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations, referred to him as “Africa’s gift to the world.”2 Salim Ahmed Salim, former secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity and prime minister of Tanzania wrote: Ali Mazrui provided [many of us] with the illuminating light to understand the reality we have been confronting. He armed us with the tools of engagement and inspired us with his eloquence, clarity of ideas while all the time maintaining the highest degree of humility, respect for fellow human beings, and an unflagging commitment to justice.

Ali Mazrui was born in 1933 in Mombasa, Kenya. Sent to England in 1955 for his secondary school education, he remained there until he earned hisB.A. (1960, politics and philosophy) with distinction from the University of Manchester. He received his M.A. (1961, government and politics) and Ph.D. (1966, philosophy) from Columbia and Oxford universities, respectively. In Africa, he taught political science at Uganda’s Makerere University College (1963-73), and then returned to the United States to teach at the University of Michigan (1974-91) and New York’s Binghamton University (1991-2014). An avatar of controversy, Mazrui was also legendary for the fertility of his mind. Nelson Mandela viewed him as “an outstanding educationist” 1 and Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations, referred to him as “Africa’s gift to the world.”2 Salim Ahmed Salim, former secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity and prime minister of Tanzania wrote: Ali Mazrui provided [many of us] with the illuminating light to understand the reality we have been confronting. He armed us with the tools of engagement and inspired us with his eloquence, clarity of ideas while all the time maintaining the highest degree of humility, respect for fellow human beings, and an unflagging commitment to justice.

This statement reflects the underlying purpose of The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Begun in the late 1940s by an international team of New Testament scholars, the NICNT series has become recognized by pastors, students, and scholars alike as a critical yet orthodox commentary marked by solid biblical scholarship within the evangelical Protestant tradition. While based on a thorough study of the Greek text, the commentary introductions and expositions contain a minimum of Greek references. The NICNT authors evaluate significant textual problems and take into account the most important exegetical literature. More technical aspects — such as grammatical, textual, and historical problems — are dealt with in footnotes, special notes, and appendixes. Under the general editorship of three outstanding New Testament scholars — first Ned Stonehouse (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia), then F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England), and now Gordon D. Fee (Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia) — the NICNT series has continued to develop over the years. In order to keep the commentary “new” and conversant with contemporary scholarship, the NICNT volumes have been — and will be — revised or replaced as necessary. The newer NICNT volumes in particular take into account the role of recent rhetorical and sociological inquiry in elucidating the meaning of the text, and they also exhibit concern for the theology and application of the text. As the NICNT series is ever brought up to date, it will continue to find ongoing usefulness as an established guide to the New Testament text.

This essay will look at one of the principal functions of the seminary colleges founded by English exiles and the place they occupy in debates about what happened to Catholicism in England after the Reformation, i.e. after 1559, currently still in something of a deadlock between those who argue for a slow-decline thesis and, on the other hand, those who want to say that there was, across the British Isles, a surge in and after the 1570s of Counter-Reformation zeal. It will ask: what were those who enrolled at these colleges supposed to do once they returned to their native country and started to minister to the faithful? In particular, in the context of the powerful rhetoric of conversion which framed the founding of the seminaries at Douai and Rome, how far were ordained clergy supposed to evangelise outside the confines of the separated Catholic community? And if they did so, to what end? How seriously were they supposed to take the rhetoric of national conversion that some Catholics in this period used? We might imagine that individual conversions to Catholicism, in the sense of explicit, overt and public changes of “religion”, were rather limited in number, not least because of the development of a statutory legal code which inflicted severe penalties on those who decided to go into separation from the national Church. However, this paper will also look at what conversion means more generally in this context, in other words – not just as a transfer from one confession or Church to another but also as the understanding of the purpose of the Catholic clerical estate in the English national Church. Finally, it will attempt to do this with an eye to the conflicting approaches and interpretations in the current historiography of the post-Reformation Catholic community in England and Britain in the later sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.

Abstract In the first half of the nineteenth century British universities were still regarded as branches of the established churches of England and Scotland. University College, London (1828), and the examining University of London (1836), were the only exceptions until the foundation of the Queen’s University of lreland in 1850 and Owens College, Manchester in 1851. The University of Durham (1832), King’s College, London (1831), and St. David’s College, Lampeter (1827) were all Anglican foundations. Cambridge was heavily clerical, Oxford even more so: virtually all heads of houses and tutors were clergymen, and most undergraduates intended to be clergymen. Both ancient universities enforced attendance at chapel and applied a religious test-Oxford on students entering the university, Cambridge on those graduating. The Scottish universities, by contrast, did not apply a religious test to their students (also true of Trinity College, Dublin from 1794), even if many of them intended to enter the Church of Scotland as ministers (at Aberdeen in the 1850s some 40% to 48% of entrants). A religious flavour was entirely absent, however. Lectures often opened with a prayer, and at Glasgow a thinly-attended ‘college service’ managed, just, to survive moves to abolish it in 1844. Nevertheless, compulsory chapel could not be a feature of the non-residential Scottish system. Nor were there university officials to enforce student discipline extramurally. This distinctiveness of Scottish universities was underlined by Thomas Macaulay (at the time MP for Edinburgh) when he told Parliament in 1845, ‘a Jew might there be a master of arts or doctor of medicine … If a Principal at the University of Edinburgh were to meet one of the students drunk in the streets, it does not belong to his office to interfere or to punish’.

James Barr (1924–2006), a Fellow of the British Academy, was a biblical scholar, Semitist, and theologian, who combined these three skills with exceptional brilliance. He was among the foremost biblical specialists of his generation, and for his depth of insight into the study of the Bible he was in a class of his own. Barr was born on March 20, 1924 in Glasgow. He never considered any other profession than the ministry of the Church of Scotland, and upon graduating proceeded to New College, Edinburgh to study theology and prepare for ordination. Barrs's first book, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), was a ‘landmark’ contribution in the history of twentieth-century biblical studies. In 1961, he migrated to the United States to take up an appointment as Professor of Old Testament Literature and Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Barr returned to England in 1965 as Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Manchester. Despite his many honours, he retained a simplicity and straightforwardness of manner that endeared him to family and friends alike.

Abstract Ernest Newman, writing in the Musical Times of September 1914 on ‘The War and the Future of Music’, remarked that in England Elgar was still ‘the one figure of impressive stature’. It was nearly fifteen years since the Variations had first been played and the English musical scene in that time had been transformed. Yet much remained the same. Parry was still director of the Royal College of Music, Stanford still taught there and was still Professor at Cambridge, Mackenzie was still Principal of the Royal Academy of Music, Brodsky was still Principal of the Royal Manchester College of Music and still active enough as a soloist to have played the Violin Concerto in Vienna in 1913 under Franz Schalk. But Elgar’s name and fame surpassed them all. He stood aloof from ‘schools’ of music, he had no academic position, he exerted no direct influence on the young. He had seen new names come into prominence but none challenged his supremacy. Bantock had his admirers, Josef Hol¬ brooke enjoyed a brief spell of attention, and Delius was regarded almost as a foreign composer. Of a younger group the most successful and admired was Vaughan Williams, whose A London Symphony, first played in March 1914, owed something to Elgar’s example. His friend Gustav Holst was known only to a restricted circle. Ethel Smyth, J. B. McEwen, Frank Bridge, Arnold Bax, Cyril Scott, York Bowen, Percy Grainger—all had work to their credit but some had yet to make their mark and others, though they did not realize it, had already made what mark was within their capacity. One thing was common to all the younger men: they could face the world of music bravely and confidently, and this they owed, as much as to anything, to the vantage-point won for them by Elgar.

This discussion between Turing, Newman, R. B. Braithwaite, and G. Jefferson was recorded by the BBC on 10 January 1952 and broadcast on BBC Radio on the 14th, and again on the 23rd, of that month. This is the earliest known recorded discussion of artificial intelligence. The anchor man of the discussion is Richard Braithwaite (1900–90). Braithwaite was at the time Sidgwick Lecturer in Moral Science at the University of Cambridge, where the following year he was appointed Knightsbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy. Like Turing, he was a Fellow of King’s College. Braithwaite’s main work lay in the philosophy of science and in decision and games theory (which he applied in moral philosophy). Geoffrey Jefferson (1886–1961) retired from the Chair of Neurosurgery at Manchester University in 1951. In his Lister Oration, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 9 June 1949, he had declared: ‘When we hear it said that wireless valves think, we may despair of language.’ Turing gave a substantial discussion of Jefferson’s views in ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (pp. 451–2), rebutting the ‘argument from consciousness’ that he found in the Lister Oration. In the present chapter, Jefferson takes numerous pot shots at the notion of a machine thinking, which for the most part Turing and Newman are easily able to turn aside. Jefferson may have thought little of the idea of machine intelligence, but he held Turing in considerable regard, saying after Turing’s death that he ‘had real genius, it shone from him’. From the point of view of Turing scholarship, the most important parts of ‘Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said to Think’ are the passages containing Turing’s exposition of the imitation game or Turing test. The description of the test that Turing gave in ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ is here modified in a number of significant ways. The lone interrogator of the original version is replaced by a ‘jury’ (p. 495). Each jury must judge ‘quite a number of times’ and ‘sometimes they really are dealing with a man and not a machine’. For a machine to pass the test, a ‘considerable proportion’ of the jury ‘must be taken in by the pretence’.