Podcasts about sir jonathan

In this special St. Valentine’s Day episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Alisha Searcy interview renowned Shakespeare scholar Professor Sir Jonathan Bate to discuss the timeless tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. Exploring its enduring greatness, Sir Jonathan delves into Shakespeare's classical influences, particularly Ovid's Metamorphoses, and how Elizabethan literature shaped the portrayal of lovers. He examines the interplay of passion, violence, and fate in Verona's warring streets […]

In this special St. Valentine's Day episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Alisha Searcy interview renowned Shakespeare scholar Professor Sir Jonathan Bate to discuss the timeless tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. Exploring its enduring greatness, Sir Jonathan delves into Shakespeare's classical influences, particularly Ovid's Metamorphoses, and how Elizabethan literature shaped the portrayal of lovers. He examines the interplay of passion, violence, and fate in Verona's warring streets and explains Romeo and Juliet's eternal love—from Romeo's early infatuation with Rosaline to his deep romantic connection with Juliet. Sir Jonathan highlights the poetic brilliance and intimacy of the famous window scene, Mercutio's pivotal role in shifting the play's tone, and the tragic consequences of miscommunication and hasty action. He also reflects on Shakespeare's overarching themes of love and death, and the poetic depth of his love sonnets. Additionally, he shares insights into what Romeo and Juliet and Shakespeare's works teach us about the enduring human desire for love. In closing, Sir Jonathan reads a passage from his book Mad about Shakespeare: From Classroom to Theatre to Emergency Room.

In this episode; John interviews television producer, writer, musician, artist, and filmmaker Sacha Jenkins about his new documentary “Louis Armstrong's Black & Blues” which consists of many short interview clips and sound recordings from Louis Armstrong himself. Then he sits down with the critically acclaimed, award winning actor from North Wales. Sir Jonathan Pryce. They talk about his many works including "The Two Popes", "Brazil", "Game of Thrones", The Shakespearean play "The Merchant of Venice", and his newest role as Prince Phillip in the final two seasons of the award-winning Netflix historical drama series "The Crown".See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sir Jonathan Porritt is patron of the Aotearoa Circle, the founder of Forum of the Future and a leading advocate for sustainability and climate action. He spoke to us on a hot UK morning about the future of food.

In this classic episode from the past, John interviews television producer, writer, musician, artist, and filmmaker Sacha Jenkins about his new documentary “Louis Armstrong's Black & Blues” which consists of many short interview clips and sound recordings from Louis Armstrong himself. Then he sits down with the critically acclaimed, award winning actor from North Wales - Sir Jonathan Pryce. They talk about his many works including "The Two Popes"; "Brazil"; "Game of Thrones"; the Shakespearean play "The Merchant of Venice"; and his role as Prince Phillip in the final two seasons of the award-winning Netflix historical drama series "The Crown".See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ethical considerations are essential in genomic medicine and clinical practice. In this episode, our guests dive into the details of ethical principles, highlighting how they can be brought into practice in the clinic, whilst considering the experiences and feelings of patients and participants. Our host, Dr Natalie Banner, Director of Ethics at Genomics England, speaks to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli. Jonathan is the Chair of the Genomics England Ethics Advisory Committee, and a Professor of Health Care Law at University College London. Latha is a member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel at Genomics England, and is a Consultant Community Paediatrician working with children with complex needs.   "You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things."   You can read the transcript below or download it here: https://files.genomicsengland.co.uk/documents/Podcast-transcripts/Why-are-ethical-considerations-crucial-in-genomics-research-and-clinical-practice.docx Natalie: Welcome to Behind the Genes.   Jonathan: The first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes all focus is around the patient individually, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions. Families differ enormously, some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approaches to  genomic issues must respect everybody in that.  Natalie: My name is Natalie Banner and I'm the Director of Ethics here at Genomics England. On today's episode, I'm joined by Chair of our Ethics Advisory Committee, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel, who's also a community paediatrician working with children with complex needs.  Today we'll be discussing why ethical considerations are crucial in genomics research and clinical practice and what consent means in the context of genomics. If you enjoy today's episode, we'd love your support. Please like, share and rate us wherever you listen to your podcasts.  At Genomics England, we have an Ethics Advisory Committee, which exists to promote a strong ethical foundation for all of our programmes, our processes, and our partnerships. This can mean things like acting as a critical friend, an external group of experts to consult. It can mean ensuring Genomics England is being reflective and responsive to emerging ethical questions, especially those that arise as we work with this really complex technology of genomics that sits right at the intersection of clinical care and advancing research. And it can also ensure that we are bringing participant voices to the fore in all of the work that we're doing.   I'm really delighted today to welcome two of our esteemed members of the ethics advisory committee to the podcast. Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, our Chair, and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of our Participant Panel. So, Jonathan, if I could start with you, could you tell us a little bit about your background and what you see as the role of the ethics advisory committee for us at Genomics England?  Jonathan: Thanks very much, Natalie. My background professionally is I'm an academic, I'm a professor at University College London, and I profess healthcare law the subject that I've sort of had technical skills in. But I've also spent many years involved in the governance of the National Health Service, so I currently chair the board of the Oxford University Hospital's NHS Foundation Trust.   I've spent quite a lot of time on bodies trying to take sensible decisions on behalf of the public around difficult ethical issues. The most relevant one to Genomics England is I chaired the Human Genetics Commission for three years which was a really interesting group of people from many backgrounds. The commission itself primarily combined academics in ethics, law and in clinical areas, and there was a separate panel of citizens think grappling with things that are really important. Genomics England has a bit of that pattern, but it's really important that the ethics advisory committee brings people together to do that. You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things. My aim as Chair of the advisory committee is essentially to try and reassure myself that we've heard all the things that we need to hear and we've had a chance to discuss with each other as equals what it is that that leads us to think, and then to think about how to advise within Genomics England or other people on what we've learnt from those processes.  Natalie: Fantastic. Thank you, Jonathan. And as you mentioned, the necessity of multiple different perspectives, this brings me to Latha. You have lots of different hats that you bring to the Ethics Advisory Committee, could you tell us a little bit about those?  Latha: Thank you, Natalie, for that introduction. I'm Latha Chandramouli, I'm a Consultant Community Paediatrician and I'm based in Bristol employed by Siron Care & Health. I'm a parent of twins and from my personal journey, which is how I got involved, my twins are now 21 so doing alright, we had a very, very stormy difficult time when they were growing up with our daughter having epilepsy, which just seemed to happen quite out of the blue sometimes. It started to increase in frequency the year of GCSE, to the point that she would just fall anywhere with no warnings and hurt herself. This was difficult for me because as a clinician, I was also treating patients with epilepsy. I also was looking at the journeys of other people and was able to resonate with the anxiety as a parent. Worry about sudden death in epilepsy, for example, at night, these were the kind of difficult conversations I was having with parents, and I was now on the other side of the consultation table.  I was also doing neurology in those jobs in a unit where there was epilepsy surgery happening, so it was, in very simple terms, very close to home. It was quite hard to process, but equally my job I felt was I should not separate myself as a parent but also as a clinician because I had information, I had knowledge, and we had conversations with my daughter's clinician.   We were then recruited into the 100,000 Genomes Project which had just started, so we were just a year after it had started. That was an interesting experience. We were in a tertiary centre with a lovely clinical geneticist team, we had the metabolic team, we had loads of teams involved in our daughter's care. We could understand as a clinician, but there was also my husband, although a clinician, not into paediatrics and was in a different field. It was important that it was the whole family getting recruited into the journey. My daughter also was quite young, so obviously we have parenting responsibility, but we were very keen to make sure they knew exactly what they were getting into in terms of the long-term issues. Despite being informed, at times there were things that we went in with without understanding the full implications because life happens in that odyssey.   I think that was my biggest learning from those exercises when I began to question certain other things because I then had a breast cancer journey, but obviously I was not recruited as part of that process for the 100k. Those were kind of some of the questions coming in my head, how does the dynamic information sharing happen, and that's how I got involved, found out a bit more about the participant panel, and that's how I got involved from 2018 which has been an interesting experience.   Firstly, I think with Genomics England they are probably one of the groups of organisations having a big panel of people, genuinely interested in wanting to make a difference and represent thousands of participants who have got their data saved in the research library, recruited under the two broad arms of cancer and rare disease. We were under the rare disease arm, although I could resonate with the cancer arm because of my own experience.  At various times there were lots of opportunities to think about how data is accessed, are we getting more diverse access to data, all those different issues. At various points we have been involved in asking those questions. We all have different skillsets, you see, in our group. Some have got information governance hats; some have got data hats and PR hats. I've got a clinical hat and a clinical educator hat. I am a paediatrician, so I have recruited people for the same, for the DDD, for CGH etc, and I've always gone through the principles of consenting, confidentiality, the ethics. I also work in a field, Natalie, where there is a huge, as you are aware with the NHS resource issues, there's huge gaps and waiting lists, so it's trying to make sense of what is the best thing to do for that patient or that family at that point in life. Are we obsessed by a diagnostic label? Are we going down a needs-based approach? It's having always those pragmatic decisions to be made. That's one of my clinical hats.  I also am an educator so I'm very keen that young medical students, be it nursing students, everybody understands genomics and they're signing up to it so that we can mainstream genomics. Those are some of my alternative hats which kind of kick in a bit.  Natalie: Fantastic, thank you, Latha. As you say, there are so many different perspectives there. You talk about kind of the role of the whole family as part of the journey. You talked about consent, confidentiality, data access issues, lots of questions of uncertainty. Perhaps, Jonathan, I can come to you first to talk a little bit about what is it about the ethical issues in genomics that may feel a little different. Are they unique or are they the same sorts of ethical issues that come across in other areas of clinical practice and research? Is there something particularly challenging in the area of genomics from an ethical perspective? Jonathan: Thanks, Natalie. I think all interesting ethical issues are challenging, but they're challenging in different ways. I'm always nervous about saying that it's unique to genomics because there are overlaps with other areas. But I do think there are some distinctive features about the challenges in genomics and I suppose I would say they probably fall in three groups of things that we should think about. The first you've touched on which is that information about our genomics is important not just for the individual person where you generate that data but it's important for their families as well. I think the first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes it all focuses around the patient individual, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions and families differ enormously. Some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approach is genomic issues must respect everybody in that, so I think that's the first difference.  I think the second difference is that the type of uncertainty involved in genomics extends much further than many other areas. We're talking about the impact on people's whole lives and it's not like a decision about a particular medication for a problem we have now or an operation. We're having to help people think about the impact it has on their sense of identity, on things that are going to happen sometime in the future.   And then thirdly, I think the level of uncertainty is different in genomics from other areas of medicine, and the particular thing I think is different that we have to work out how to address is that we can't really explain now all the things that are going to happen in the future, because we don't know. But we do know that as we research the area, we're going to find out more. So, what are our obligations to go back to people and say, “we worked with you before and you helped us out giving data into the studies. We couldn't tell you anything then that would be useful to you, but actually we can now.”. Now, that's different. That continuity sometimes talked about, you know, what are our obligations to recontact people after a study. You don't usually have those in the ethical areas we're familiar with; you're usually able to deal with things in a much more focused way.   I think those differences, that it's not just the individual, it's the family, that it's not just about a specific intervention but it's about an impact on people's lives and that we will need to think about what we had to do in the future as well as what we do immediately. They make it different in genomics. Some areas of healthcare have those as well, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has all of that in the same position.  Natalie: Latha, I'm wondering if that kind of resonates with your experience, particularly the navigating of uncertainty over time?  Latha: Yes. I would say that's exactly what you've said, Jonathan. I think it's the whole process of consenting with the view that you do not know much more beyond what you know about the situation here and now. Part of that is like any other situation, that's why we have evolved from I would say penicillin to the SMA gene therapy. If we did not do this, we wouldn't reach frontiers of medicine and kind of that's how I explained to families when I'm recruiting and I'm also very clear that it's not all about research but it's combination of the tool and focusing on your, but it's also helpful for research even if you do not get answers. I think it's very important at that stage, Natalie, that we have to be clear we may not get many answers at the very outset and also when do we really look at data, do we have that kind of realistic pragmatic resources to be able to relook every time? Is there a method of dynamically having that information from our NHS spine if somebody of the trio has contracted a condition, would that be fed in.   Those are the kind of questions parents and families ask. I cannot honestly answer that, and I often say that is optimal plan. If things go to plan, that will be the area we'd be heading towards, but currently I can't give you timelines. I think it's important we are honest at the outset and manage expectations. That's how you engage families and, in my case, it's more these children and families, so engaging is crucial. As you mentioned, it's also the question that gets asked is very simply in my mind, you know, sometimes there is that conflict because of my own personal recruitment to the 100k project, I have an interest in genomics and, therefore, I would be very keen to embark on that journey and I feel that is the way forward.   I also understand as a member of my clinical team, for example, where I know there's a huge waiting list, how am I best using the taxpayers' money that's been entrusted to us. If I think the waiting list is so high, can I see two further patients in that time that I'm using to consent which is not going to add much more to that child's journey, for example, with autism or ADHD. It's trying to be careful where is the ethics in doing an investigation, and that's like in any situation as a clinician. I think that's not much different, but it is kind of similar, but it opens up a huge area of uncertainty. As you would with any investigations, if you just went and did scans on everybody, you might pick things up which you don't need to do anything about. It's being sensible and being honest.  Jonathan: And for me, Latha, that raises two areas which I think are really interesting about genomics. The first of those is the language we've tended to use about consent I don't think captures all the ethical issues that we raise, because we've tended to think about consent of something that happens once and then gives people permission to do things. Whereas what you've described, and what we find ourselves often thinking about, is that we have to get a respectful relationship with people, so the consent is not to doing certain things, it's to agree to part of what I think about as a common enterprise. So, patients and families are partners with the clinicians and the researchers, and it's not that they sign a form and then the consent issue goes away, which is how lawyers tend to think about it, it's that we're starting something together and then we need to think about how do we keep the conversation going with mutual respect to make sure that everybody's values are there.   I think the second thing you picked up is a sense of the need for a better explanation of how research and care interact with each other. Because the care we get now is built on the evidence that people have contributed to in the past, so we're benefitting from our predecessors, and we want to contribute to our successors and our family getting better care in the future. I think one of the things about genomics is that the gap between those two things is really non-existent in genomics, whereas if you take a medicine, the research that's been done to make sure that medicine is safe and effective will have been done on a group of people some time in the past that I'll never meet, whereas in genomics I'm part of the production of that. I may get some benefit now, my friends or family may get some benefit, but there isn't this sort of separation between the care and the research bit that we're used to being able to think about. This is a much more mutual exercise and the stakes that we all have in it are therefore intertwined much more closely than they are in some areas of medicine.  Latha: I agree totally. In our case, for example, I went in in thinking we might get a targeted medication. I know there are certain levels of epilepsy medications anyway, so in principle it wouldn't have mattered a lot. However, it was important to know what the outcome was going to be because we had various labels, potential mitochondrial disease, potentially some susceptibility disorder, so we were on a spectrum from something very minimal to the other end on neurodegenerative situation. We were left dangling and we thought it would be good to embark on this journey, at least there'll be some outcome, some prognostic outcome, and more importantly we don't have any answers, but we actually can be a hopeful story for someone else in that same position, and I think that's how we've embarked on it. That's kind of my personal experience. But in just harking back to some of the ethical issues, it's again very clear educating the clinicians, as you said, it's that relationship; it's not just a piece of paper, it's that development of relationship with your families, some of whom have got very complex issues going on in their lives themselves. I work in a very, very deprived part of Bristol, which is the highest deprivation index, so they have got lots of intergenerational things going on, there is poverty, there is learning issues and crime, lots of things going on. You've got to time it right, what is important for this family here and now, and then work on it. There's also the other issue that we may not continue to remain their clinicians after recruiting. I think that's so important to recognise because the results might come back but you kind of discharge them and it may take a few years by the time the results come. How do you then cross that bridge if some unexpected results come, which then means contacting various other extended family members. I think that's the bit we all do because that's part of the journey we've embarked on, but it's also thinking is there someone else who's probably better placed, like a GP or a primary care person who's actually holding the entire family and not just one person, not just the adult who has been the index patient. It's just trying to think the ethics of it because it's all about engagement and being transparent with families.  Jonathan: I think you've put your finger on another element that's really important about the ethics. In the same way as in relation to the position of the individual patient, and we need to see them in families, which doesn't fit very easily with lots of the clinical ethics that we've been used to. It's also the case that a lot of the traditional clinical ethics has focused on the individual responsibilities of clinicians, whereas what you've just described is that we have to work out what the system's responsibilities are, because it may not be the same clinician who is enabling good ethical practice to be pursued. These are both ways in which our paradigm of ethics has to be expanded from other areas of medicine.  Latha: Yes, I agree. And the other bit I think we can probably reassure quite nicely is about the ethics about information governance and we as data custodians storing information, how do we give with great ethics and discussion the access to research and being mindful that it is again thinking along the same principles GMC kind of had about the good for the common good and using resources equitably, but again being sensible with equality issues that a single condition doesn't get forgotten. It's that right balance that whilst we are doing common good, we might have a condition which might have a treatable medication, but we have to focus on that as well as research. I think it's interwoven, all these ethical questions.  Jonathan: I completely agree, Latha. That interwoven bit is something where we need to be able to think through, “what is the role of Genomics England to improving that?”. I think we've got issues around the good stewardship of information which can't be left with an individual clinician, they can only do that effectively if the system supports them and their colleagues in doing that. But we've also got to be proactive, we've got to recognise the limitations of the system, so one of the really important initiatives from Genomics England is the Diverse Data initiative because we know that without aiming to solve the problem, we will get a skewed dataset and clinicians can't properly look after people. That tells us that the ethics in this area has to do more than avoid things going wrong, it also has to work out what it means to do things right, and what systems we have to put in place to do that. I think that's a particular example of a shift we need to do across our ethics around healthcare.   If speak to the sort of things that lawyers have got wrong around this in the past and some of our history, we focused a lot of our effort on stopping things going wrong. That has meant that we haven't spent as much time as we need to on thinking about how to make things go right, because stopping things going wrong is almost always too late. What we have to do if we're being proactive is work out how to set things up in a way that will make sure that the chances of it going wrong are quite small and the chances of doing good are much increased. I think that's one of the key challenges that we have in Genomics England and as an Ethics Advisory Committee. The things we've inherited tell us quite a lot about things that have gone wrong, but actually what we're trying to do is to get our heads around what could go right and how to make sure it does.  Latha: Also, you mentioned about Diverse Data, I think that's another important thing as we noticed in COVID as well. There were lots of disparities in the social model and the inequalities that have resulted in death, but also potentially HLA or epigenetic issues which could have contributed. We do have the COVID-19 genomic datasets, but it's again important to make sure that we don't perceive certain ethnic minority populations. Just not accessing or considering them to be hard to reach, I would say for them Genomics England is hard to reach. It's looking at it slightly differently and thinking, “how can we reach them? how do we maybe use community workers and maybe even clinicians?”, I think they've got the best trusting relationships with their clinicians and using them to recruit. As you say, even before things get more complicated, you recruit them earlier so that you'd go down the prevention route rather than the gone wrong route and then look for answers later.  Jonathan: Latha, I think you put your finger on something really challenging for a group like the Ethics Advisory Committee at Genomics England, which is that however hard we try to get a range of experiences and voices, that's not a substitute for getting out and hearing from people in real world situations. I think one of the things I've learnt over the years from my national health service work is that you cannot expect people to come to you, you need to go to them. In COVID when we were trying to understand why some groups were more reluctant to take up vaccines than others, there was no point in doing that sitting in your own places, you had to listen to people's concerns and understand why they were there. One of the things we're going to have to be able to do as the Ethics Advisory Committee is work out when we need to hear more from people outside of the Genomics England system, and I'm a great believer that if it's right that we need to go where people are, you have to try not to reinvent mechanisms to do that. You have to try and learn where are people already talking about it and go and listen to them there. Latha: Absolutely, yeah. I think they listen because I do work as a paediatrician with a safeguarding hat, and I think the same principles resonate in child death work. For example, simple messages about cot deaths, you would think that if a professional tells the same message to a parent or a carer it's better received if it's another family, a younger person, another layperson giving the same message. It comes back to who's more receptive. It could be a community worker. As you mentioned about vaccination, during the vaccination initiative I decided early on that I'm probably not going to do a lot because I'm not an intensivist, how do I do my bit in the pandemic. I decided to become a vaccinator and I thought with my ethnic minority hat on, if I went out there to the mass centres and actually vaccinated there or in mosques or wherever else, without even saying a word I'm giving the message, aren't I, that, look, I'm fearlessly coming and getting vaccinated and vaccinating others, so please come. I think that has helped to some extent, just trying to reach out. Other than saying these people are not reaching us, it's got to be the other way around.  [Break for advertisements]  Natalie: I'm really enjoying this conversation. In part because I think it highlights just how valuable it is to sort of think about ethics a little bit differently. Historically, and certainly I think within the research community, ethics can just be associated with consent. Consent is the ethics issue and if you solve for consent, then you don't have any other issues to think through. I think what this conversation is really highlighting is just how much broader the ethical considerations are. Beyond that, it's still very important that consent can be that sort of anchor point for communication and engagement, but it's not simply a one-off. And to be able to think through ethics not just in terms of risk or moving forward when things have gone wrong in the past, there is actually a really positive aspect to it which I think is critically important.   It's great to hear your thoughts about that different approach to ethics that I think does embed it much more in community thinking, in questions of equity; it's not just the individual. I want to follow-up by just asking where do you think the future lies in thinking about ethics both for Genomics England and the Ethics Advisory Committee, but in the space of genomic research and medicine more broadly, given that it sits in this kind of very interesting and quite complex space between research and care in the clinic.  Jonathan: I mentioned earlier in the conversation I think about this as a common enterprise that we have shared stakes in. Academic researchers have a stake in trying to build a better more robust evidence base, clinicians have a stake in being able to offer something to the people that they're looking after. Families have stakes not just in their own immediate care, but they worry about their siblings, they worry about their children, their grandchildren. There are also of course industrial players, so people trying to build a business out of making better medicines in the future. There are government players trying to use public resources more effectively. I think what we have to try to create is a mutual process where we recognise that everybody has overlapping but slightly different values that they're pursuing and trying to get out of it, and how can we make sure that we govern our work in a way that reflects all of those stakeholders and recognises the respect that's due to them. I think this is more like a sort of membership of a common project. And the problem with consent is it risks us saying you can be a member of this club but only if you accept the terms and conditions that the committee has decided is there. That's not going to be adequate going forward. I think we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are respected, that they feel they can place their trust in the system that we're designing. As an Ethics Advisory Committee, we have to ask ourselves what justifies us suggesting to people that this is trustworthy. We need to make sure we have good information governance that people are not going to expose themselves to breaches of privacy if they take part in this. But we also need to make sure that we don't waste people's efforts. If people are prepared to be part of the research project, we shouldn't have rules coming down on the data usage that say that we're going to reduce the value of that contribution by saying it can only be used for one project and can't be used for others, because actually that would not respect properly people's contribution to the process.   We need to ask ourselves not just about the protective element of trustworthiness but that element that says we will make sure that you get as much as we can design of the things that you think are important from this project. They won't be identical for each group, and they won't be identical within each group. Different family members of participants will have different balances, but they all have to believe that this is a good club to be part of and that they have been part of agreeing ways of working that they think will produce a better future that they want to be part of and that they want to be proud of saying we have helped create this future.  Latha: I kind of agree with all that you've said. I think it's most important not to forget because I'm also a participant, like my trio sample is there in the pipeline, and I know my data is sitting there. I also have trust that there is good information governance, the data is secure, so it's reinforcing that, but it's also being very honest that it's obviously the data is there, but we can't forget the person or the persons at the centre of it, so it's not just alphabets or sequences of alphabets, but it is that whole person, and that person represents a group of individuals, family members, different generations, and they have embarked on it. Even if they know they may not get hope they might provide hope for others. It's being therefore respectful. I think that is the first thing I think is the principle of it and if you respect. If you think it could be the same principle that we use in clinical practice, the friends and family test, because I've been on both sides of the consultation table, I think I've become a better doctor because I've been an anxious mum, and my anxieties were dismissed as being an anxious mum and I don't care. As far as my child is concerned, my anxiety was valid and so I would do everything to reach an outcome as to what's best for that person. It's made me a better doctor because I can see it from both the perspectives. Most of us are human beings, apart from AI technology looking at the dataset, so we all have conditions ourselves, we've got doctors with health conditions, we've got clinicians, academics, technicians, nurses everybody who's got a friend or a family member or themselves having a health condition. I think its fundamental principle is that friends and family test. How would I like my data stored? How would I like my data analysed? Could it do this, could it give me some information on how I would get cured or treated or be managed? How would it affect my insurance, or will it find out data about who's the father of this child, for example? It's being honest and being honest about the uncertainties as well.   When I'm recruiting, I'm very clear that these are what I know that I can tell you about the risks. But then there may be other risks that I do not know about. If you're honest about it and acknowledge what is the limit of the knowledge of science at this point in time, because you said there are so many stakeholders, there are researchers and academics who've got interest in some areas, it could have developed because of a family member having that problem, but whatever it is that is a great interest because that intelligent mind is thinking ahead and we need to encourage that. It could be for writing up papers, it doesn't matter. Whatever be the reason, if it's for the common good, that's fine. It's also thinking how are we keeping our families in the loop, so you have newborns, you've got young people sometimes with significant disabilities so they are relying on a parent or a carer to consent for them, but some are not so disabled but they have needs, they've got rare conditions, but they can make their consenting issues known when they turn 16, for example. It's the changing policies and they can withdraw at some point in life or there may be a member of the family who doesn't want to be part of that journey anymore. It's allowing that to happen. Jonathan: I think that's a really interesting example you've just touched on, Latha, where I may diverge a bit in terms of what I think is the key issue. The right to withdraw I think is a really interesting challenge for us going forward, because we developed the right to withdraw in the ethics of research studies that had physical interventions. It's really clear that someone who is being put to discomfort and is having things done to her body, if she wants to stop that, we can't justify continuing on the basis of it being a research project. But I'm less clear whether that applies to withdrawing data from data pools. I think there are a few dimensions to that which I hope as an Ethics Advisory Committee we'll have a chance to think through a bit more. One is the mutual obligations that we owe to each other. I'm not in these particular studies but I do try and take part in research studies when I'm eligible and invited to because I think research is important. When I take part in things and when our participants have taken part, they're doing something in which they rely on other people participating because the aggregation of the data is what makes it power. One of the things we have to be honest about is what are our mutual expectations of each other, so I think we absolutely have to hold on to the fact that people should be able to withdraw from further interventions, but I'm not convinced that you should have the right to say the data I've previously contributed that other people have relied on can suddenly be sucked out and taken out of it, because I think it's reasonable for us to say if this is a sort of part of an enterprise. While you're part of it, you've made some commitments as well as, and that's part of the mutuality of the respect. I think I personally would want to argue you can withdraw from new things, but provided that your privacy is not intruded on, so we're talking about data health anonymously, you shouldn't be able to say don't process it anymore. Latha: No, no, no. What I meant was from my perspective I would like to be constantly involved and get information through trickling. I don't know what my daughter feels years down the line, she might say I'm happy for my data to be used for research, but I don't want to know anymore. There are two aspects of that, and I think if we are clear with that and say continue with my data being used for research, but I don't want to get anymore letters. I think those are the kind of questions I face when I tell them families that these are the uncertainties, you can have your blood stored, you may not be approached again for a resampling unless you have some other issues, but are we happy with this? I think that's what I understand, and I try and recruit with that intention. Jonathan: And that makes lots of sense to me. As you say, you probably can't speak for your daughters now, and you certainly can't speak for them when they become parents for themselves and those things, but we do need to create an ethical framework which recognises that people will change their mind on things and people will vary about what they want to do. But because we have mutual obligations, what that means and the control we can give, we have to be open and honest about what choices we can give people without undermining the enterprise and what choices we say, “you don't have to do this, but if you want to be part of it, there are some common mutual obligations that are intrinsic”, and that's true of researchers, it's true of clinicians, it's true of anyone who works in Genomics England or the NHS.   But I don't think we've been very good at explaining to people that there's an element of this which is a package. A bit like when I bank, I allow the bank to track my transactions and to call me if they see something that looks out of the ordinary as a part of the protections from me. I can't opt out of that bit. I can opt out of them sending me letters and just say do it by email or whatever and I have some choices, but there's an infrastructure of the system which is helping it to function well and do the things it's able to do. I don't think we've been very good at explaining that to people, because we've tended to say, “as long as you've signed the consent form at the beginning of the process, it doesn't really matter what happens after that, you've been told.”. That's not enough I think for good ethics.  Latha: And I think that comes back to the other issue about training those who are consenting. I speak from personal experience within my own teams I can see somebody might say, “I don't do whole genomic sequencing consenting; I don't have the time for it.”. I might even have my organisational lead saying when we had a letter come through to say now we're no longer doing this, we're going to be doing this test for everybody, there's a whole gasp because it's at least two hours' worth of time and how are we going to generate that time with the best of intentions. I think that's where I think the vision and the pragmatic, you know, the grounding, those two should somehow link with each other. The vision of Genomics England with working with NHS England and with the future, Health Education England arm that is not amalgamated with NHS England, is trying to see how do we train our future clinicians who will hopefully consider it as part of their embedded working thinking and analysis, but also, how do we change the here and the now? The more senior conservative thinking people, who are worried about how do they have to generate time to manage, we're probably already a bit burnt out or burning out, how do they generate time? If you then discover new conditions whether there is already bottleneck in various pathways, how are we ethically managing the new diagnosis and how will they fit in in the waiting list criteria of those people on the journey who are symptomatic. I find that bottleneck when I have conversations with colleagues is the anxiety, how is that going to be addressed.  Jonathan: Latha, you've sort of taken us around in a circle. We started off thinking what was special about genomics, and we've reflected on ‘we have to solve the problems of the health service'. I think that there's some wisdom in that, because we are learning how to do things that are not unique to genomics, but there's an opportunity in genomics to do it better and an opportunity for us to help other areas of the health service do better, too. I think we've come around in full circle in a sense.  Natalie: Which feels like a lovely way to wrap up our conversation. I feel like we've gone into some of the deep ethical principles but also really shown how they can be brought into the practice, into the clinic and brought to bear the thinking and the feelings, the hopes the anxieties of participants. There's a very, very important range of different voices so a very rich discussion.   I'd just like to thank you both very much for joining us on the podcast. Thank you to our guests, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli for joining me today as we discussed ethics in genomics research and practice. If you would like to hear more like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. Thank you for listening. I've been your host, Natalie Banner. This podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital, and produced by Naimah Callachand.

No Agenda Episode 1600 - "Unpack It" "Unpack It" Executive Producers: Sir Jonathan of the Fan Mountain Ugnaughts Baronetess CiCi Baronetess Nancy, the Road Trip Girlfriend Sir out in back woods Sir Dude Named Ralph Sircuss Media Baron of Bozeman and the Greater Gallatin Valley Baronet Nico of the hills Sir Wai Yu Kum Nao Jeff Anderson Sir-YES SIR! PHD of the south eastern mountains of PA Thomas Sniezyk Sir Otaku Duke of Northeast Texas and the Red River Valley Dame Bessie – the T is silent; Friend to All Creatures Great and Small Sir Skywright Sir Dude Named Dr. Kelley, Knight of the Fraser Valley Tom Gould Aaron Brzezinski Stephanie Jeremy Daggett ashley karalis Eric Tolbert Sir James Fukumoto Sir Mista Bob Dobalina Sir James of Southwest Washington GauchoWoodworking Darly James Associate Executive Producers: Anouschka Wardy Mike Cislo Justin the Squeaky-Growler Guy Ted homeyer Linda Lupatkin Forrest Tucker Erin Lewis 1600 Club Members: Sir Jonathan of the Fan Mountain Ugnaughts Baronetess CiCi Baronetess Nancy, the Road Trip Girlfriend Sir out in back woods Sir Dude Named Ralph Become a member of the 1601 Club, support the show here Boost us with with Podcasting 2.0 Certified apps: Podverse - Podfriend - Breez - Sphinx - Podstation - Curiocaster - Fountain Title Changes Dame CiCi > Baronetess Dame Nancy, the Road Trip Girlfriend > Baronetess Sir Dude Named Dr. Kelley > Baronet Knights & Dames Anonymous Spirit of the Northwoods > Sir Tannly Not Jonathan Poehler > Sir Jonathan of the Fan Mountain Ugnaughts Bruce Schwalm > Sir out in back woods Dude Named Ralph > Sir Dude Named Ralph Sheung Pang > Sir Wai Yu Kum Nao Jeff Lightner > Sir-YES SIR! PHD of the south eastern mountains of PA James Anderson > Sir James of Southwest Washington Karl Zawadzki > Sir Lqtm Terry Broyles > Sir Lee of Renton Bessie Tolbert > Dame Bessie – the T is silent; Friend to All Creatures Great and Small PhD Honorees Jonathan Poehler Dame CiCi Dame Nancy Bruce Schwalm Dude Named Ralph Sircuss Media Nicholas Evertz Sheung Pang Jeff Anderson Jeff Lightner Thomas Sniezyk Sir Otaku Bessie Tolbert Sir Skywright Sir Dude Named Dr. Kelley Art By: Sir Shoog (aka FauxDiddley) End of Show Mixes: Sound Guy Steve - Matty J Engineering, Stream Management & Wizardry Mark van Dijk - Systems Master Ryan Bemrose - Program Director Back Office Jae Dvorak Chapters: Dreb Scott Clip Custodian: Neal Jones Clip Collectors: Steve Jones & Dave Ackerman NEW: and soon on Netflix: Animated No Agenda No Agenda Social Registration Sign Up for the newsletter No Agenda Peerage ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1600.noagendanotes.com Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com RSS Podcast Feed Full Summaries in PDF No Agenda Lite in opus format NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents Last Modified 10/19/2023 17:11:23This page created with the FreedomController Last Modified 10/19/2023 17:11:23 by Freedom Controller

In the latest episode of Cleary Gottlieb's Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy interviews Sir Jonathan Faull.Their conversation covers Sir Jonathan's 30-year career at the European Commission, including the early days of the EU Merger Regulation, the legacy of DG COMP's Modernization Program, which he helped to design in the early 2000's, the negotiations that preceded the Brexit vote, where he played a critical role in representing the European Union, the future of the European Union following Brexit, and his new career in public affairs.

How should our diets change to protect the planet?Full length podcast episodes are found on “The Doctor's Kitchen Podcast” and the cookbooks plus weekly recipes are on the website www.thedoctorskitchen.com But here, for a few minutes a day enjoy short snippets of information about flavour as well as function & how delicious food can be enjoyable and health promoting too. I'll see you in The Daily Doctor's kitchen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How should our diets change to protect the planet?Full length podcast episodes are found on “The Doctor's Kitchen Podcast” and the cookbooks plus weekly recipes are on the website www.thedoctorskitchen.com But here, for a few minutes a day enjoy short snippets of information about flavour as well as function & how delicious food can be enjoyable and health promoting too. I'll see you in The Daily Doctor's kitchen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on The Learning Curve, guest cohosts Jay Greene and Mark Bauerlein interview renowned U.K. Oxford and ASU Shakespeare scholar Prof. Sir Jonathan Bate, discussing the timeless play Julius Caesar on the Ides of March. Sir Jonathan explains the Roman lessons for American constitutionalism, including warnings against the dangers of dictatorship and civil war. He explores the influence on... Source

Ken Macdonald and Tim Owen discuss Rishi Sunak's post-festive legal headaches with Sir Jonathan Jones KC, former head of the Government Legal Department

Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks with Jonathan Jones about recent developments in UK public law and the Constitution. The discussion covers recent political turbulence, the Union, the Northern Ireland Protocol, Judicial Review reforms,  Human Rights Act reforms and standards and ethics in public life. Sir Jonathan Guy Jones KCB KC is a British lawyer, appointed in March 2014 and serving until his resignation on 8 September 2020 as HM Procurator General, Treasury Solicitor and Head of the Government Legal Service, and so the Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department. He is now a Senior Consultant in Public and Constitutional Law at Linklaters. Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

How should our diets change to protect the planet?Full length podcast episodes are found on “The Doctor's Kitchen Podcast” and the cookbooks plus weekly recipes are on the website www.thedoctorskitchen.com But here, for a few minutes a day enjoy short snippets of information about flavour as well as function & how delicious food can be enjoyable and health promoting too. I'll see you in The Daily Doctor's kitchen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode; John interviews television producer, writer, musician, artist, and filmmaker Sacha Jenkins about his new documentary “Louis Armstrong's Black & Blues” which consists of many short interview clips and sound recordings from Louis Armstrong himself. Then he sits down with the critically acclaimed, award winning actor from North Wales. Sir Jonathan Pryce. They talk about his many works including "The Two Popes"; "Brazil"; "Game of Thrones"; The Shakespearean play "The Merchant of Venice"; and his newest role as Prince Phillip in the final two seasons of the award-winning Netflix historical drama series "The Crown".See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jony Ive, the genius designer who helped redefine Apple's identity, has recently cut ties with the company. Here we learn about his origins and journey to Apple during the company's most chaotic era. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are so excited to be sharing this episode with you. This week, we are sitting down for a conversation with Sir Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen about their recently released second edition of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Complete Works of William Shakespeare, now available at a fine bookseller near you.  The newly revised, wonderfully authoritative First Folio of William Shakespeare's Complete Works, edited by acclaimed Shakespearean scholars and endorsed by the world-famous Royal Shakespeare Company. Combining innovative scholarship with brilliant commentary and textual analysis that emphasizes performance history and values, this landmark edition is indispensable to students, theater professionals, and general readers alike. Jonathan Bate is professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance literature at the University of Warwick. Widely known as an award-winning biographer, critic, and broadcaster, Bate is the author of several books on Shakespeare, including Shakespeare and Ovid and The Genius of Shakespeare, which was described by Sir Peter Hall, founder of the RSC, as "the best modern book on Shakespeare." Eric Rasmussen is professor of English and director of graduate study at the University of Nevada. He is a co-editor of the Norton Anthology of English Renaissance Drama and of the forthcoming New Variorum Shakespeare edition of Hamlet. He has edited a number of works for the Arden Shakespeare series, Oxford's World's Classics, and the Revels Plays series, and is the general textual editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions Project. Shakespeare Anyone? is created and produced by Korey Leigh Smith and Elyse Sharp. Music is "Neverending Minute" by Sounds Like Sander. Follow us on Instagram at @shakespeareanyonepod for updates or visit our website at shakespeareanyone.com You can support the podcast at patreon.com/shakespeareanyone Works referenced: Shakespeare, William, and Jonathan Bate. “Preface to Shakespeare: A Second Edition.” Complete Works, edited by Jonathan Bate et al., 2nd ed., The Modern Library, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 6–14. Shakespeare, William, et al. “Foreward.” Complete Works, 2nd ed., The Modern Library, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 59–60.  

No Agenda Episode 1437 - "Bruce Force" "Bruce Force Executive Producers: Baronet Captain Luke, Knight of the Barbary Coast Sir Karys, Viscount of Greater Boston Anette Miller Brian Skelton Sir Dwight The Knight Associate Executive Producers: Carl "Doug" Elkins Sir Jonathan of the Double-Bladed Paddle Sirlocybin Anonymous Danny Booch John Buell Peter McCaffrey Dame Nancy of the Confused Become a member of the 1438 Club, support the show here Boost us with with Podcasting 2.0 Certified apps: Podfriend - Breez - Sphinx - Podstation - Curiocaster - Fountain Title Changes Captain Luke, Knight of the Barbary Coast -> Baronet Knights & Dames Colin Onufrey -> Sirlocybin Adam Eubank -> Sir Adam Eubank Charles VandeSande -> Sir Salmonspawn Mike S -> Sir Ten Lee Stoned Art By: Roger Roundy End of Show Mixes: Gary Jungling - Tom Starkweather - Amadicious - Sound Guy Steve Engineering, Stream Management & Wizardry Mark van Dijk - Systems Master Ryan Bemrose - Program Director Back Office: Aric Mackey Chapters: Dreb Scott Clip Custodian: Neal Jones NEW: and soon on Netflix: Animated No Agenda No Agenda Social Registration Sign Up for the newsletter No Agenda Peerage ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1437.noagendanotes.com New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com RSS Podcast Feed Full Summaries in PDF No Agenda Lite in opus format NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents Last Modified 03/27/2022 15:01:09This page created with the FreedomController Last Modified 03/27/2022 15:01:09 by Freedom Controller  

No Agenda Episode 1427 - "Seat Warmer" "Seat Warmer" Executive Producers: Rodric Lenhart Sir Quoia Baron of the Sierra Batholith Baldwin Sir Jonathan of the South Mecklenburg Metaverse Sir Veilled Baron of FEMA Region IV Sir Ghee Dame Kim Keeper of the nutty fluffers Konstantinos Pilidis Associate Executive Producers: Paul Noe Cindy Connolly Jermie Noel Nestor Molina Andy Edwards John Alberini John Cooper Jeffrey Holland Roland Thatcher Jenna D'Amico Craig Knowsley Max Become a member of the 1428 Club, support the show here Boost us with with Podcasting 2.0 Certified apps: Podfriend - Breez - Sphinx - Podstation - Curiocaster - Fountain Title Changes Noah Watenmaker, Sir Quoia -> Baron of the Sierra Batholith Knights & Dames Jonathan Halper -> Sir Jonathan of the South Mecklenburg Metaverse Nicole - Dame Shnicci of Flavortown Art By: The Mastermind End of Show Mixes: IDPop - Sir 737 - Sound Guy Steve Engineering, Stream Management & Wizardry Mark van Dijk - Systems Master Ryan Bemrose - Program Director Back Office Aric Mackey Chapters: Dreb Scott Clip Custodian: Neal Jones NEW: and soon on Netflix: Animated No Agenda No Agenda Social Registration Sign Up for the newsletter No Agenda Peerage ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1427.noagendanotes.com New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com RSS Podcast Feed Full Summaries in PDF No Agenda Lite in opus format NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents Last Modified 02/20/2022 15:05:27This page created with the FreedomController Last Modified 02/20/2022 15:05:27 by Freedom Controller  

The Athletic's Adam Hurrey and Charlie Eccleshare are joined by England's deputy chief medical officer and pandemic cult hero Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam for the latest edition of Mesut Haaland Dicks. Among Van-Tam's selections for his fascinations and irritations are the occasional accuracy of football films, the terrace humour down in the English sixth tier, weak referees allowing flagrant timewasting and the uniquely footballing anxiety that comes with "scoring too early". Meanwhile, JVT shares memories of Paul Gascoigne turning out for his beloved Boston United, explains how he's convincing his family to let him have a BUFC tattoo, and we finally piece together the pulsating football match he used as his famous vaccination metaphor.

No Agenda Episode 1400 - "The Learning Curve" "The Learning Curve" Show 1400 Special Executive Producers Dreb Scott, Duke of the Southern California MegaRegion Baron Keg of Southern Wake Sir Jolly Weirdo of the Surrealist Landscapes Steven Fettig, Sir Pants Sir Maggot of the Forest Bas Van vliet Tony Cabrera - NoAgendaShop.com Cody Smith Lou Perz: " The last of the "JUNGIAN" dreams spycoanalyst. Sir Loin, Superfreak of the Catawba River David Fugazzotto Jonas Astrom Dame of the Happy Hummers James Boyle Sir CrashEMT, Viscount of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina Sir Tommyhawk of the Heartland Sir Alberto Barbosa of the Fluoride Free Waters Sir Onion Knight Sir Nathan Lee Miller Foster Noah Watenmaker Stormshayd, Knight Champion of the Frozen Wastes Taylor Davis Anonymous Sir Wes of the Westside Sir Absentea Ryan Marsh James Fukumoto Jeff (Icognito) William Robb Sir Chris - Protector of psychotic sausage dogs John Kimmich Sir Goon, Lee North Sir Hamilton Fish Sir Thomas Alwin Buskens Matt Chase Sir Christian of Phoenix Sir Addison, CEO of Shitposts Sir Kit Bored James Turner Sir Vince, Baron of Floribama. Ray Grill Giuseppe Conte Baron Gordon Walton Associate Executive Producers: Sir Jaymo Black Knight of North Central Idaho Janet Alligood Paul Tompkins Christopher Weirich Mary, Tom and Patrick Hughes Matthew LeRoy Dame Jennifer Ranck, Knight of the Iguana Steve Clutter Sir Jonathan of the Double-Bladed Paddle Bradley Shellnut JENNIFER WINTER The Phoenix Meetup Lillian Soehner Sir Cal Become a member of the 1401 Club, support the show here Boost us with with Podcasting 2.0 Certified apps: Podfriend - Breez - Sphinx - Podstation - Curiocaster - Fountain Title Changes Sir Keg of the Spring -> Baron Keg of the Southern Wake Sir CrashEMT, -> Viscount of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina Knights & Dames Kurt Hildebrand -> Sir Jolly Wierdo of the Surrealist Landscapes Adam Petrey (pronounced Pet Ree) -> Sir Adam Petrey Todd Winton -> Sir Maggot of the Forest Bas Van Vliet -> Zombie With The Ring Lou Perez -> Sir Lou Perz, The last of the "JUNGIAN" dreams spycoanalyst James Foster -> Sir Lion, Superfreak of the Catawba River Susan Beales -> Dame Mama Susan of the North County San Diego Thomas Balmer -> Sir Tommyhawk of the Heartland Robert Conti -> Sir Alberto Barbosa of the Fluoride Free Waters Josh Persello -> Stormshayd, Knight Champion of the Frozen Wastes Wesley Olsen -> Sir West of the Westside Jac Bot -> Sir Absentea Chris Kimmich -> Sir Chris - Protector of psychotic sausage dogs Hamilton Fish -> Sir Hamilton Fish Rob -> Sir Zin of the Forgotten Vines Thomas Sullivan -> Sir Thomas Katherine Walton -> Dame Katherine Bradley Shellnut -> Sir Badley Shellnut Mike Bryan -> Sir Mike of the Rising Elevator Brandon Foster -> Sir Foster of the Deep Woods Electrons Bob Loew -> Sir Gears, Knight of Second-Hand Memes Art By: Capitalist Agenda End of Show Mixes: Sir Geoff Smith Engineering, Stream Management & Wizardry Mark van Dijk - Systems Master Ryan Bemrose - Program Director Back Office Aric Mackey Chapters: Dreb Scott Clip Custodian: Neal Jones NEW: and soon on Netflix: Animated No Agenda No Agenda Social Registration Sign Up for the newsletter No Agenda Peerage ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1400.noagendanotes.com New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com RSS Podcast Feed Full Summaries in PDF No Agenda Lite in opus format NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents Last Modified 11/18/2021 15:46:38This page created with the FreedomController Last Modified 11/18/2021 15:46:38 by Freedom Controller  

Aaron, Mark and Brandon welcome Jonathan Carney, the Vice President of Sales for La Flor Dominicana. We all smoke a special Air Bender Maduro made exclusively for our shop. You will get plenty of food talk along with the normal nonsense like how dentistry is still kind of barbaric and talks of Nairing of body parts. Light up your favorite LFD and hear all about the awesome stuff Sir Jonathan is doing with Hacking Gourmet and how you can participate in the fun.

Welcome to Shaping The Future - this week I am speaking with long-term environmental campaigner and author, Sir Jonathon Porritt, about his new book ‘Hope In Hell'. I urge anyone looking for a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted subject of climate change, to read this excellent piece of work. The book covers the science, policy, policy obstructions, as well as current and future challenges and the impact on the human psyche that we see emerging as a result. In this interview, Sir Jonathon discusses the limits of the Paris Agreement and its roadmap of unbinding incremental change. By its design it allows governments to play loose with their Nationally Determined Contribution to reducing carbon emissions. He also discusses the perilous threat of melting polar ice-caps and glaciers that we are now watching in real-time. In the midst of political ineptness, Jonathon has one final suggestion for how we can each take action in our own ways and in our own lives. Thank you for listening to Shaping The Future. There are many more podcasts in the pipeline so please do subscribe on any major podcast channel or on Youtube. https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/Hope-in-Hell/Jonathon-Porritt/9781471193279

Famed British Environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt has been fighting for our planet for the last 50 years.The son of a former New Zealand Governor-General, he's regularly in New Zealand through his charity Forum for the Future, to work with our companies– the likes of Air NZ through to Fonterra and NZ Post.In his new book, Hope in Hell: A Decade to Confront the Climate Emergency, Sir Jonathan has upped the anti in his plea for urgent action against climate change.Sir Jonathan Porritt joined Francesca Rudkin to discuss his latest work and what we can do to tackle climate change.LISTEN ABOVE

British Orthodox rabbi, theologian, and author Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks presents the case that multicultural British society requires a new approach to national identity, arguing that responsibility — specifically building and creating together — gives societies a strong sense of identity and belonging. This 2009 lecture and Q&A is moderated by Socrates in the City […]

The Institute for Government was delighted to welcome Sir Jonathan Jones KCB QC, Treasury Solicitor, Permanent Secretary at the Government Legal Department and Head of the Government Legal Profession. Sir Jonathan discussed the work and role of government lawyers in making policy, advising ministers and defending the government in court. Raphael Hogarth, Associate at the Institute for Government, chaired a discussion with Sir Jonathan and Dr Catherine Haddon, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government. There was also be an opportunity for audience questions.

Pictured: Jonathan Miller Matthew Bannister on Sir Jonathan Miller, who hated the term polymath - but undoubtedly was one. He came to fame in the satirical revue Beyond the Fringe, was a celebrated opera and theatre director and sometimes regretted his decision not to concentrate on his first calling as a doctor. Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the Chief of the Defence Staff who saw action in the D Day landings, predicted the threat of terrorism and was wrongly accused of sexual abuse late in his life. Clive James, whose memorable turns of phrase made TV criticism an art form. He presented programmes dissecting TV from around the world, but was also a literary critic, essayist and poet who wrote acclaimed memoirs. Interviewed guest: William Miller Interviewed guest: Kate Bassett Interviewed guest: Lieutenant Colonel Jan-Dirk von Merveldt Interviewed guest: Lieutenant-General Sir Peter Royson Duffell KCB CBE MC Interviewed guest: Russell Davies Producer: Neil George Archive clips from: Saturday Night Clive, BBC TV 11/11/1989; The Tingle Factor, Radio 4 Extra 02/08/2016; Desert Island Discs, Radio 4 23/01/2005; Arena, BBC Two 31/03/2012; The Complete Beyond the Fringe, Parlophone Records Ltd 21/10/1996; The Body in Question, BBC TV 06/11/1978; D-Day: The Last Heroes, BBC One 08/06/2019; Today, Radio 4 06/06/1994; The Report: Lord Bramall, Radio 4 04/02/2016; Desert Island Discs, Radio 4 16/06/2000; A Point of View, Radio 4 26/04/2009; The Clive James TV Show, ITV 1996; Front Row, Radio 4 03/04/2015.

The deaths of two giants of the arts were announced today. The Australian poet, critic, broadcaster, poet, translator and essayist, Clive James, and the theatre and opera director, actor, author and medical doctor Sir Jonathan Miller. Shahidha Bari is joined by Ian McEwan, Eric Idle, Norman Lebrecht, Melvin Bragg and Pete Atkin to pay tribute. Presenter: Shahidha Bari Producer: Tim Prosser and the Front Row team

Sir Jonathan is leaving the buildingAnother day another RECALL or this REP or this REP or this REP or this REP.Beta BadGood Omens

Apple’s chief designer Jonathan Ive is leaving after more than two decades in which his iconic designs for the Mac, iPod and iPhone turned one of Silicon Valley’s faded giants into the world’s most valuable company. Janine Gibson discusses what this means for Apple and what Sir Jonathan will do next with Tim Bradshaw and Matthew Garrahan.Contributors: Katie Martin, capital markets editor, Janine Gibson, special projects editor, Matt Garrahan, news editor, and Tim Bradshaw, global technology correspondent. Producer: Fiona Symon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

William Shakespeare started out the son of a glove maker in a small town in England, and went on to become the greatest playwright the world has ever seen. How does one person accomplish so much? What did it take, exactly, for Shakespeare to become a genius? Was he born with particular gifts and talents no one else has seen or heard of again in the last 400 years? Or has our love of Shakespeare inflated his reputation beyond what it deserves?One man who has argued in the public arena specifically for Shakespeare, the man, is our guest this week, Sir Andrew Jonathan Bate. Knighted in 2015 for services to literary scholarship and higher education, Jonathan Bate is also a British academic, biographer, critic, and scholar. He specialises in Shakespeare, Romanticism, and Ecocriticism as the Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, Provost of Worcester College, Oxford, Gresham Professor of Rhetoric, and Honorary Fellow of Creativity at Warwick Business School. His most recent book is the subject of our interview today, and that is titled The Genius of Shakespeare. In his book, Sir Jonathan examines the life of William Shakespeare, the man from Stratford, to outline how one man becomes a genius. We are delighted to have Sir Jonathan here with us today to discuss some of the answers he discovered in writing his book.

This week Collie and Sir Jonathan talk Logan, Spider-Man and more shit only on Spoilers Strike Back

Called a true ninja of sustainability, Sir Jonathon Porritt has more than 40 years of work dedicated to the field of environmental sustainability. Founder Director and Trustee of Forum for the Future, Sir Jonathan is also the co-chair of the High Carbon Stock Study, which hopes to enable oil palm to be grown more sustainably. He joins us to discuss the results of the study. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Neither the state nor the market, the two dominant institutions in liberal democracies, are society-creating forces. They do not sustain relationships, or provide a framework for meaning, identity and community. That is why, against prediction, religion survives and will grow stronger in the course of the 21st century. How can we ensure that it does not bring with it the religious conflicts of the past? Recorded on 17 November 2008 at Playfair Library.

Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies, Sir Jonathan Miller

Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies, Sir Jonathan Miller