Technology transfer in Britain: the case of monoclonal antibodies

In 1975 two Cambridge scientists published a short article in Nature which announced the discovery of monoclonal antibodies. The article concluded ‘Such cultures could be valuable for medical and industrial use’. The interest which developed by the end of the decade in the industrial and financial possibilities of the new prospects opening up in biotechnology was to throw the apparent ‘failure’ to follow‐up the potentialities of this discovery into a public prominence rarely achieved by scientific discoveries. By the time Mrs Thatcher came to power it had become a scandal, another example of Britain's apparent inability to exploit effectively the brilliance of its scientific base. It was to explore both the process of scientific discovery and the conditions in Cambridge which nurtured it, and the issues which this particular discovery raised in the area of technology transfer (and the changes of policy that ensued), that the Wellcome Trust's History of Twentieth Century Medicine Group and the Institute of Contemporary British History organised this special witness seminar. It was held at the Wellcome Trust in London on 24 September 1993. The seminar was chaired by Sir Christopher Booth and introduced by Dr Robert Bud of the Science Museum. Those participating included the two authors of the Nature article, Dr César Milstein and Dr Georges Köhler, who received a Nobel Prize for their research, Dr Basil Bard (National Research Development Corporation [NRDC] 1950–74), Sir James Gowans (Secretary of the Medical Research Council [MRC] 1977–87), Sir John Gray (Secretary of the MRC 1968–77), John Newell (BBC World Service science correspondent 1969–79), Dr David Owen (MRC), and Dr David Secher (Laboratory of Molecular Biology [LMB], Cambridge). There were also contributions from Dr Ita Askonas (former head of immunology at the National Institute for Medical Research), Dr John Galloway (former member of MRC headquarters staff), Dr David Tyrrell (former Director, MRC Common Cold Unit), Professor Miles Weatherall (head of Therapeutic Research Division, Wellcome Research Laboratories 1967–75), Dr Guil Winchester (post‐doctoral fellow, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine), and Dr Peter Williams (former Director of the Wellcome Trust). The organisers would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for hosting and sponsoring the seminar. We would like to dedicate this publication to the memory of Georges Köhler, who sadly died in April 1995 before this could appear.

Culture in Transfer: Translation and Transcultural Communication International Conference

It is widely acknowledged that interpreters need to have knowledge of the cultures represented by the languages they work with (e.g. Roy 2002, Angelelli 2004, Wadensjŏ 2008). However, it is not clear what interpreters are expected to do with this knowledge. Some scholars recommend that interpreters be cultural mediators (e.g. Katan 2004 & 2014). As an attempt to examine existing guidelines on interpreters’ roles in the face of cultures/cultural issues, the research reported in this paper compares and contrasts the codes of conduct for interpreters from a number of associations and institutions in the UK, the US and China. The research has collected three different sets of data and has sought to investigate (1) in what ways interpreters are expected to do with their knowledge of cultures; (2) to what extent interpreters’ role as cultural mediators is referred to or defined in these codes of conduct; and (3) whether or not relevant guidelines are practically helpful for interpreters to deal with the range of cultural issues they may encounter in interpreting. Data analysis suggests that while cultural knowledge is a requisite for interpreters, the expectation for them to be cultural mediators may depend on the types of interpreting setting they work with and further guidelines are needed so that interpreters are clear on what they are required to do in dealing with cultural issues. The paper then discusses the implications of these findings and points to some directions for future research. Key references Brunette, L., G Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (ed.). The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The International Association of Conference Interpreting, 2015. Interpreting Explained. Available from: http://aiic.net/; accessed on 24 June 2015 Katan, David, --- 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. St Jerome. --- 2014. Workshop: Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn? University College London. Martín, Mayte C. & Mary Phelan, 2009. Interpreters and Cultural Mediators – different but complementary roles. In: Translocations: Migration and Social Change. ISSN Number: 2009-0420 (online) McDonough Dolmaya, Julie, (2011. Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators. In: The Journal of Specialised Translation. Issue 15, January 2011 (online). Pöchhacker, F., 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In: (ed.) Valero Garcés, C. and Martin, A, Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: definitions and dilemmas, pp. 9-26. John Benjamins Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Roy, Cynthia B., 2002. The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In: (ed.) Pöchhacker, Franz & Miriam Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge. Wadensjö 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.