Items from the John Innes Memory Bank Cell Biology at Bayfordbury - Dr Norman Sunderland It was his new department for cell biology, the ill-fated dream enterprise of Kenneth Dodds, that brought me to Bayfordbury in 1958. Robert Brown FRS, who was at the time seeking an outlet for expanding his limited facilities in the Oxford Agricultural School, had agreed to take charge of the new department and sent me ahead to Bayfordbury to prepare the ground for his arrival, together with the rest of the team and some new recruits. I think I am correct in saying that when I arrived at Bayfordbury the building for the new department was still at the planning stage. A rather austere Dr. Dodds met me, I recall, seemingly vague what to do, eventually steered me up a winding staircase of stone steps into the attic of the mansion where he introduced me to two large rooms which had been emptied to serve as temporary laboratories, He then deserted me, leaving me more than a little stranded, with not even a chair to sit on. Dick Stickland, one of the new recruits, joined me later on and between us we managed to get chairs and a table or two.

Dick proved to be very good with the draft plans for the new laboratories and suggested various amendments. I set about writing a paper on some of the research done in Oxford, the resulting effort of which did not meet in any respect with Dodds' approval. He berated me severely, going to great lengths to point out my inadequate layout and lack of scientific precision. However, it was much to his credit that he did then take me in hand and produced some very sound advice as to how to put together a scientific treatise, advice that in later years was to prove invaluable. Robert Brown eventually arrived from Oxford and took up residence at Broad Green. Other members of the team joined us in the attic. I think I am right in saying that work began on the new building while Robert Brown was in residence but regrettably his interest in the project did not last and he eventually resigned to take up the Regius Chair of Botany in the University of Edinburgh. Most of the team went with him leaving behind a few, among them Dick Stickland and myself. A period of uncertainty followed when I think the ARC sent Professor Thoday to supervise until a replacement for Robert Brown could be found.

Ultimately, Henry Harris from Oxford took the post and saw through the completion and occupation of the new laboratories. However, the idyllic situation provided by the new facilities together with the glorious surroundings of the Bayfordbury estate proved to be short-lived. An announcement by Dr. Dodds of a proposed move to East Anglia and abandonment of the new laboratories caused an uproar. He himself appeared to be in favour, but Henry Harris and many members of staff, especially the geneticists, thought otherwise and gradually filtered away into other posts. The remaing staff argued desperately against the move and even went so far as to canvass the local MP for the establishment of a new University based on the Bayfordbury facilities, but these attempts proved fruitless. The move to Colney Lane was completwed in 1967 and the Institute began yet another milestone in its history along the bleak, windswept fields of Colney Lane. I have little recollection of the first few years in Colney. Dick Stickland helped once again, I recall, in designing prefabricated laboratories and later on in the design of the permanent buildings.

Graham Hussey bewailed the loss of the controlled growth rooms which William Lawrence had established at Bayfordbury and though a suite of growth chambers was eventually installed at Colney by a commercial firm they were far from ideal and had the perverse habit of breaking down especially at weekends. The gardening staff worked wonders in landscaping areas around the laboratories and in housing a collection of exotics brought from Bayfordbury. New appointments in genetics were made to counteract the earlier losses but Dr. Dodds, who was offered the headship of genetics, but not the directorship, preferred to resign and left Norwich. The 50th anniversary of the Institute was celebrated while I was at Bayfordbury. The ensuing 50 years has seen a remarkable expension of staff and facilities, several different directors and the creation of new departments. It is all a far cry indeed from those early years in the mansion attic. Recollections from World War Two - Ursula Mittwoch, JIHI 1943-1947 Before leaving school in 1943, I took an entrance examination for St Anne’s Society, Oxford.

This resulted in a letter from the Principal, in which she wrote that my work had reached Entrance standards, but owing to the regulations of the Ministry of Labour(?) and National Service, she was unable to offer me a place. This meant that I had to find employment in an organisation deemed vital for the War effort. Instead of accepting the first job on offer in an ammunition factory, I wrote a letter to the Director of the John Innes Horticultural Institution, Dr CD Darlington, offering my services; and I was very fortunate in being offered a post as technical assistant to Dr Kenneth Mather. The production of home-grown food was of vital importance in war-time Britain, as encapsulated in the mantra “Digging for Victory”, and this employment was passed by the authorities. I worked without pay for a few weeks, after which I received a weekly wage of 35 shillings. At the same time I attended evening classes in botany and chemistry, intended to lead to a BSc degree at London University.

Of the experiments I was involved in, assessing the yields of tomatoes grown out of doors was probably most germane to the war effort, as was the breeding of sweetcorn, but there were also breeding experiments on Primula sinensis and Antirrhinum. Much of this work was done outside, which was pleasant. Another investigation carried out in Mather’s department was on the genetics of bristle numbers in Drosophila. The painstaking work of counting bristles was done by Brian Harrison, but in those days, statistical analysis was also a time-consuming task; and, after being given detailed instructions, I frequently spent many hours computing on a noisy, semi-automatic Monroe calculating machine. When I graduated, in 1947, the war had ended, and this seemed to be a chance to go to University, which had eluded me first time round. I applied to University College London for admission as a PhD student, giving genetics as my first choice, and mycology as second. My application went to JBS Haldane, who thought I might be a suitable candidate for a project on fungal genetics, in which Hans Kalmus had expressed an interest. I was taken on, and joined the Galton Laboratory.

PhD students turned out to be something of a novelty in the Department, and the supervision I received was minimal. But the experience in laboratory routine that I had learned at the John Innes stood me in good stead in maintaining my stocks of Coprinus lagopus and studying the offspring of crosses I duly obtained my PhD in 1950. Returning to the subject of war-time Britain, there can be little doubt that John Innes compost played an important role in the success of the “Digging for Victory” campaign; and this fact alone would make the compost a strong candidate for the John Innes key achievement. Nevertheless I have decided to vote for another innovation that is more directly targeted at the 21st century, i.e. Darlington’s proposal of the “plasmagene”. Notwithstanding his predilection for chromosomes, Darlington envisaged the cytoplasm as an additional bearer of heredity, and was not afraid to say so.

While this hypothesis made little impact at the time, today the number of publication on the subject of mitochondrial DNA, cited by PubMed, is rapidly approaching the 40000 mark; and abnormal mitochondria are known to play a pivotal role in the causation of an increasing number of diseases. It is to be hoped that advances in cellular energy metabolism will help to make sense of genetic data that are at present puzzling. Personal recollections - Gordon Rowley, JIHI 1948-61 Gordon Rowley - Keeper of the National Rose Species Collection, JIHI Bayfordbury During early 2008 JIC Curator Sarah Wilmot visited Gordon Rowley, Keeper of the National Rose Species Collection JIHI, in his home. Below are some audio extracts from Sarah's interview which contain some colourful insights into the characters and events around the Institute during the 1950s.

Personal recollections - Brian Snoad, Dept of Cytology 1950 - 1984 The Department of Cytology, one of four departments in the Institution, occupied a vast room called the Kit Kat Room at the rear of the building with appropriately large windows overlooking lawns, ornamental flower beds and vistas of parkland and the arboretum: the word idyllic comes to mind. In the centre of this large area there were two big island benches, each holding four work stations. Each work station was equipped with an old-fashioned chair, with arms if you were lucky but not necessarily very comfortable, a monocular microscope, a microscope lamp, an anglepoise lamp, a book shelf, a spirit lamp and probably an ashtray, but more of that later. All round the interior walls, interrupted only by magnificent double mahogany doors, were benches and shelves for the equipment and chemicals needed for the work in hand. Looking back on it now, I am more shocked at the distinctly relaxed and almost indifferent way with which we all handled the various chemicals that were in regular use; in particular osmic acid, colchicine and chloroform to mention just a few.

The atmosphere was mostly of peace and quiet concentration, broken only by the gentle tapping of bone or ivory rods on microscope slides, the chink of bottles or the clatter of a microtome. Sometimes one of the occupants would get up to look at someone else's preparation in order to discuss what was to be seen or perhaps to help in making a decision. If a photograph was to be taken, using black-painted plywood cameras made in the institution in the 1930 when it was at Merton by a Mr Osterstock, then there was a call for quiet because any vibration from the wooden floors could ruin an image. The other component of the atmosphere was cigarette smoke, hence the ashtrays already mentioned. Len La Cour, among others, was a committed smoker and, on behalf of the John Innes Society he bought and sold tobacco which he kept in a locked cupboard in the lab. He alone kept and guarded the key to this cupboard but it was passed to me, a non smoker, when he went away on holiday. Cigarettes were meant to be sold at predetermined times but occasionally someone who was desperate for a smoke would have to come into the lab and approach a sometimes taciturn Len and hope to be served.

Mostly they would be successful but not without some grumbling noises from Len. The most significant interruption to the peace of the room was when the door from Cyril Darlington's study opened and the great man himself burst in, usually carrying a book, an article or a manuscript. He would then call us all to one end of the room to gather round the blackboard where he would probably lambaste some poor author for something he had written with which Darlington did not agree. He would then pounce upon us and ask us to show where the poor individual had got it wrong. If we couldn't spot it then there would be a cry of, "Have I wasted all these years and taught you nothing about chromosomes?" Another memory is of times when you went into his room to discuss a paper that you had written and which he had to approve for publication. If something really critical was coming as he read, you would literally see his ears twitch and move backwards and forwards just before he spoke, and we were all well aware of this danger signal.

Life in the Department of Physiology, Bayfordbury during the 50's - Graham Hussey, JII 1957-1988 I was appointed as a plant physiologist in the Department of Physiology and Plant Culture under William Lawrence and began work at Bayfordbury on January 1st. 1957. The Institute at the time was a relatively small organisation. There were about 120 on the staff, 46 scientific posts and 36 gardeners in addition to administration and maintenance. There were eight of us in Lawrence’s Department which occupied the upper floor of the west wing of the mansion. Bayfordbury had been the country seat of the Clinton-Baker family from 1762 to 1945 when it was acquired by the John Innes Trust. The mansion afforded a panoramic view of the countryside in the upper Lea Valley and was set in most attractive gardens surrounded by a landscape of meadows, arable fields and woodland. Almost at any time when work was not pressing one could wander out into these 160 hectares to get a little exercise, to think or just to admire the beauty of the surroundings.

The glasshouse complex occupied a site of just over half a hectare about 200 metres from the Mansion, beyond an area of mature gardens planted with a wide variety of native and exotic trees. The main corridors in the glasshouse complex housed a collection of tropical and subtropical flowering plants and shrubs. On one side of the gardens was an artificial lake of about one hectare surrounded by willows and alder. In warm weather, staff used to swim there at lunchtime, in the evenings and at weekends. On the other side of the lake was the old stable block converted for gardeners’ accommodation and maintenance workshops. Nearby, the walled garden contained much of the National Rose Species Collection. We always took visitors on a tour of the grounds and few failed to comment favourably on the beauty of the estate. The Library occupied the spacious former dining room in the west wing of the mansion. It had tall elegant Georgian windows and an Adam ceiling from which two large chandeliers once hung. The Librarian had a desk in a smaller adjoining room which contained a long polished mahogany table on which the current journals were set. The Library was stacked high with books and bound journals.

The open shelves also housed what is now the John Innes Special Collection. These most valuable volumes (now kept in a controlled atmosphere under conditions of high security) could be taken down from the shelves and perused at any time or shown to visitors. With a relatively small staff, the library was always a quiet and secluded place to read, browse or think. With its view of the cedars on the south lawn, and with its oak shelving and rows of leather bound volumes it had an old-time atmosphere, an age away from the modern library with its air of efficiency and high-tech electronic aids. As in most small organsations, everyone knew everyone else and there was a keen sense of community. Most belonged to the John Innes Society and activities such as play reading and country dancing took place in the evenings. There were tennis courts on the far side of the glasshouse complex and a cricket team played at weekends on the pitch on the front lawn. Some of these activities, however, gradually declined over the years, largely as a result of the Director’s (Dr. Dodds) dislike of staff being on the premises out of working hours.

The Department of Physiology at Bayfordbury In the 1950’s after carrying out extensive research on glasshouse design and the use of artificial lighting, William Lawrence was anxious to move into plant physiology. The Department of Garden Research had become the Department of Physiology and Pant Culture on condition that a physiologist was appointed. That person was me. My brief was to investigate the effects of light and temperature on the growth and development of young tomato plants. The results would not only be of importance to a basic understanding of how plants react to their environment but could also be helpful to the glasshouse industry in the commercial production of tomatoes. My first task, however, was to help Lawrence in the construction of controlled environment facilities (or Growth Rooms), which at the time were a novelty. Most research on growth and development had up that time been carried out in glasshouses where there was limited control of temperature and light intensity. By growing plants entirely under artificial light, complete control of the environment would be possible. Such facilities are now taken for granted and available from many specialist suppliers. Because controlled environment rooms then hardly existed in this country, we had to start from scratch and design from basic principles. Lawrence and his team were well qualified to do this.

Lawrence had been Curator of the Institute for many years and had carried out comprehensive research into glasshouse design and the use of artificial light. Some years before, a physicist, Ray Whittle, was appointed to assist Lawrence in this work and to devise the recording instruments, work for which he was later awarded a Ph.D. Lawrence was also on excellent terms with key members of the maintenance staff: the electronics engineer Ron Garner and the electrician John Munn. At the start of the Growth Room project a carpenter, Albert Fitter, a craftsman and former cabinet maker joined the team. His practical expertise was to prove invaluable in solving certain constructional problems as well as conferring a highly professional standard on the finished product. The space available was a basement room in the mansion. Six 'walk-in' rooms were eventually built, three each side of a central corridor. In each room a bank of 32 fluorescent lights was housed in a separate cooled compartment which formed the low ceiling to the growing area, a bench 1.3 x 1.6 metres. The bench could be continuously adjusted to different heights below the lights.

By careful positioning of the individual lights and the use of side reflectors, the distribution of light intensity across the bench was made as even as possible. The air-conditioning equipment (the circulation fan, cooling coils, the heater and humidifier) was housed in a duct across the ceiling of the room. After consulting specialists at the National Physical Laboratory, we achieved a uniform flow of air across the bench with tapered ducting and horizontally placed baffles. When the rooms were completed we had many visits from those constructing their own facilities in other parts of the country and abroad and many of the controlled environment facilities built at that time and later developed commercially owed something to our pioneering work. Recollections of W Lawrence, KS Dodds & G Rowley - Graham Hussey, JII 1957-1988 William Lawrence I worked under William Lawrence for nearly eight years. He was one of the most friendly and affable scientists I have ever met. He had great drive and energy, a tremendous zest for work and an insatiable curiosity about almost everything. He was always coming up with new ideas, sometimes absurd but often thought provoking with a promise of something worthwhile.

He also had an ebullient sense of humour with a constant stream of highly amusing and often acerbic comments on Institute matters and personalities. If he had just heard a good joke or some amusing story, he could not resist sharing it with any of his staff who happened to be around. Lawrence has described his career in his excellent autobiography “Catch the Tide”. He left school at the age of fourteen and joined the Institute in 1913 as a garden boy. He gradually became involved in more responsible jobs in the gardens and glasshouses and after a spell at Kew Gardens began to participate in some of the Institute’s research projects. With no formal qualifications he showed considerable initiative in educating himself and no doubt made the most of his daily contact with some of the most distinguished scientists of the day such as C.D. Darlington and J.B.S. Haldane. Lawrence began to develop a considerable programme of genetical work which included his work on Dahlia and Streptocarpus (which eventually became a popular houseplant).As well as a stream of scientific papers, he collaborated with M.B. Crane on writing The Genetics of Garden Plants, which served as an influential and useful introduction to genetics.

The first Director, William Bateson, recognised his ability and did much to encourage him, but dissuaded him from bothering to obtain any academic qualifications, assuring him that he would always be accepted at the John Innes.Unfortunately that view was not shared by Sir Daniel Hall, who succeeded Bateson as Director in 1926. Inspite of Lawrence’s successful and growing involvement in genetical research, in 1932 he was moved to the post of Curator and obliged to concentrate mostly on horticulture. This was probably the best thing that could have happened to Lawrence given his history and the circumstances of the time. As a result, when horticulture was still based largely on tradition, Lawrence was able to bring a fresh and much more scientific approach to many important problems. These included soil composition, soil sterilisation and methods of controlling light and temperature in the glasshouse. His many books on these subjects included Science and the Glasshouse and Soil Sterilisation which became standard texts. In collaboration with John Newell he developed standardised growing media for experimental plants. These became known and, the formulae published, as the John Innes Composts, names which have become almost synonymous with the Institute.

Lawrence was later made Head of the Garden Department which became the Department of Physiology and Plant Culture shortly before I was appointed. It is understandable that Lawrence wanted to be remembered most for his work on genetics and the artificial control of the plant environment in the glasshouse and growth room but his impact on the horticultural world was immense and widely recognised. As a long time member of the John Innes staff and later Secretary of the Genetical Society, Lawrence knew personally all the leading geneticists and cytologists of the day and was able to relate numerous anecdotes concerning these personalities. Through the privilege of knowing him I was able to gain some knowledge and insight into the early days of the John Innes Institute. Dr. Dodds (Director 1954 – 66) Working under William Lawrence was very pleasant. He encouraged a friendly informal atmosphere in the Department and had a healthy disrespect for unnecessary authority and red tape. He took the view, shared by most workers that scientists do research because they enjoy doing it and find it absorbing. There should therefore be no need for strict hours during a Monday to Friday regime. However, it was evident from the start of my appointment that Lawrence's stimulating and easy going attitude prevailed in spite of Dodds’ Directorship.

Dodds couldn’t have been more different. When he was appointed in 1954 to replace C.D. Darlington, he was apparently the only candidate in an otherwise distinguished short list who did not provoke strong disagreement among the appointments committee. It seems to have been a classic case of the compromise candidate being appointed. He was obviously aware of this but never alluded to it except at William Lawrence’s retirement presentation. Referring to his own appointment he let slip that “they had to scrape the barrel”. Dodds was a man of few but loud words. Terse edicts would appear on the Director’s notice board announcing any changes at the Institute. During the whole time that I knew him he hardly ever showed any enthusiasm for anything. What ever fascination he had for science he kept to himself. This contrasted with most other senior scientists I have known who have been eager to share their enthusiasm with others. I felt rather sorry for him as without enthusiasm one can neither teach nor lead research. He seemed to have a built-in Civil Service mentality. He did, however, have a gift for clear expression and was extremely good at editing papers, a most useful attribute for a Director. Dodds discouraged staff from meeting on the premises after work.

He would descend the steps outside the main entrance punctually at 5.30 pm each day and expect everyone else to drop what they were doing and leave the building. We gradually learned to ignore this and came and went as we chose. One of Dodds’ problems was his colour blindness which prevented him from appreciating the vast range of colour of flowers and foliage at Bayfordbury. He hated anything horticultural and was responsible for expunging the word (admittedly no longer appropriate) from the title of the Institute. The John Innes Horticultural Institution officially became the John Innes Institute in January 1960, at the time of the 50th. Anniversary Celebrations. During the spring of 1960 Dodds went on a trip to Peru to find new potato species material and left Lawrence in charge of the Institute including the organisation of the 50th. Anniversary Celebrations to be held on an Open Day on June 2nd. Lawrence tackled this with his usual energy and enthusiasm. "We are going to have a proper celebration”, he told me, “Dodds just wanted tea on the lawn with the Trustees and a few guests”.

Lawrence set about producing the Anniversary Booklet describing the history and present structure of the Institute. He also got each Department to stage exhibits of current work of the Institute and these were to be displayed in the Lecture Room. Dodds arrived back from Peru just as the exhibition was being assembled. The expression on his face showed that he clearly disapproved. One day he came in and commented in a loud voice to some of us working on the exhibits: “I suppose all this is to exhibit the work that we should otherwise be getting on with.” Dodd's bureaucratic state of mind seemed to be summed up by an incident at the end of the Open Day. There had been a fault in one of the growth rooms and I had to stay late to deal with it. As I had had to keep a lunch appointment, I had driven back to the Institute a few minutes before the opening ceremony by which time most of the guests had arrived in their cars and filled all the available parking places. Some of those arriving last had parked under one of the large cedar trees on the front lawn so I parked there as well. When I emerged about six o'clock after everyone else had gone home, I found my car standing alone under the cedar trees.

There was a note stuck to the windscreen which read: “Do not park on the lawn. K.S. Dodds.” Gordon Rowley I made many good friends at Bayfordbury, prominent among them was Gordon Rowley who was appointed in 1953 to look after the National Rose Species Collection. He is a leading expert on the history and genetics of roses and an extremely knowledgeable botanist. He is also an expert on succulents and has written extensively on the subject. He was one of our most vivid personalities at Bayfordbury with bounding energy and wide interests. For most of the year, he wore shorts and multi-coloured shirts, which in the rather sedate 1950’s was considered somewhat outrageous. Full of extrovert humour he was unable to resist cracking jokes most of the time. He used to slide down the banisters saying it was “quicker by rail”. On one occasion, Neil Gilbert, the statistician, gave an Institute seminar and spent some minutes covering the blackboard with (to most of us) somewhat obscure mathematical formulae on capture/recapture statistics. When he had finished, Neil nonchalantly looked up and inquired if everyone were happy.

Gordon resolved the awkward silence that followed by answering quietly at the back: “divinely!” In the basement corridor, the overhead heating and water pipes had their usual lagging wound round with barbed wire to prevent Rowley from swinging on them. For many years he wrote very entertaining Christmas Pantomimes full of topical humour and wit. Gordon is not only a keen photographer and cinematographer but an ardent music lover. When I started at Bayfordbury, I had equipped myself with state of the art receiving and recording equipment. Gordon had several large tape recorders and was always updating his radio equipment. We used to record music from what was then the Third Programme (later BBC Radio 3) and exchange tapes. We sometimes attended concerts together in London. Once one had got used to his eccentricities, he was delightful company with a great sense of fun. In 1961 he left the John Innes to become a lecturer at Reading University where the Rose Collection was relocated, a double loss to the Institute.

Cell Biology at Bayfordbury - Norman Sunderland, JIHI/JII 1958 - 1983 It was his new department for cell biology, the ill-fated dream enterprise of Kenneth Dodds, that brought me to Bayfordbury in 1958. Robert Brown FRS, who was at the time seeking an outlet for expanding his limited facilities in the Oxford Agricultural School, had agreed to take charge of the new department and sent me ahead to Bayfordbury to prepare the ground for his arrival, together with the rest of the team and some new recruits. I think I am correct in saying that when I arrived at Bayfordbury the building for the new department was still at the planning stage. A rather austere Dr. Dodds met me, I recall, seemingly vague what to do, eventually steered me up a winding staircase of stone steps into the attic of the mansion where he introduced me to two large rooms which had been emptied to serve as temporary laboratories, He then deserted me, leaving me more than a little stranded, with not even a chair to sit on. Dick Stickland, one of the new recruits, joined me later on and between us we managed to get chairs and a table or two.

Dick proved to be very good with the draft plans for the new laboratories and suggested various amendments. I set about writing a paper on some of the research done in Oxford, the resulting effort of which did not meet in any respect with Dodds' approval. He berated me severely, going to great lengths to point out my inadequate layout and lack of scientific precision. However, it was much to his credit that he did then take me in hand and produced some very sound advice as to how to put together a scientific treatise, advice that in later years was to prove invaluable. Robert Brown eventually arrived from Oxford and took up residence at Broad Green. Other members of the team joined us in the attic. I think I am right in saying that work began on the new building while Robert Brown was in residence but regrettably his interest in the project did not last and he eventually resigned to take up the Regius Chair of Botany in the University of Edinburgh. Most of the team went with him leaving behind a few, among them Dick Stickland and myself. A period of uncertainty followed when I think the ARC sent Professor Thoday to supervise until a replacement for Robert Brown could be found.

Ultimately, Henry Harris from Oxford took the post and saw through the completion and occupation of the new laboratories. However, the idyllic situation provided by the new facilities together with the glorious surroundings of the Bayfordbury estate proved to be short-lived. An announcement by Dr. Dodds of a proposed move to East Anglia and abandonment of the new laboratories caused an uproar. He himself appeared to be in favour, but Henry Harris and many members of staff, especially the geneticists, thought otherwise and gradually filtered away into other posts. The remaing staff argued desperately against the move and even went so far as to canvass the local MP for the establishment of a new University based on the Bayfordbury facilities, but these attempts proved fruitless. The move to Colney Lane was completed in 1967 and the Institute began yet another milestone in its history along the bleak, windswept fields of Colney Lane. I have little recollection of the first few years in Colney. Dick Stickland helped once again, I recall, in designing prefabricated laboratories and later on in the design of the permanent buildings.

Graham Hussey bewailed the loss of the controlled growth rooms which William Lawrence had established at Bayfordbury and though a suite of growth chambers was eventually installed at Colney by a commercial firm they were far from ideal and had the perverse habit of breaking down especially at weekends. The gardening staff worked wonders in landscaping areas around the laboratories and in housing a collection of exotics brought from Bayfordbury. New appointments in genetics were made to counteract the earlier losses but Dr. Dodds, who was offered the headship of genetics, but not the directorship, preferred to resign and left Norwich. The 50th anniversary of the Institute was celebrated while I was at Bayfordbury. The ensuing 50 years has seen a remarkable expension of staff and facilities, several different directors and the creation of new departments. It is all a far cry indeed from those early years in the mansion attic. On being an undergraduate student at the Plant Virus Research Unit - Rod Casey, JII/JIC 1968-1972; 1976-06 When I was an undergraduate student, I was fortunate enough to get a summer job at the Agricultural Research Council’s Plant Virus Research Unit (VRU) in Cambridge.

The head of the unit was Roy Markham, who would later become the first Norwich-based Director of the John Innes. Within days of my starting, Markham asked me – a twenty-year-old undergraduate student with virtually no laboratory experience – to harvest an entire greenhouse of tobacco plants infected with tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and purify the virus for a collaborator. As he showed me the plants, I reached forward to hold a leaf to better inspect the symptoms and had my hand hit by a ruler that suddenly had appeared in his hands, with the admonition that “we don’t do that”. Knuckles rapped, literally and metaphorically, in the first week; but it got worse …….. I was given a method of preparing the virus that required extraction with a large volume of buffer followed by differential centrifugation – slow spin to remove insoluble debris, fast spin to pellet the virus, re-suspend the pellet in buffer and repeat the process several times.

The problem was the immense volume for the first and second centrifugations, so I sought advice from the protein chemist Maurice Rees on how to deal with this; he advised me to add ammonium sulphate, which would “salt out” the virus and give me a highly concentrated preparation early on. This I did, and consequently was able to present Markham with a TMV sample in record time. He asked how I had managed to be so fast; I told him that I had used ammonium sulphate and he exclaimed “Oh no, it was supposed to be monodispersed!” I didn’t know that, nor did I know the effect of ammonium sulphate on monodispersity, but I didn’t need to ask.

He then picked up the ‘phone, in my presence, called the intended recipient of the TMV, who turned out to be Aaron Klug, and said “Aaron, some idiot in the lab has prepared the TMV with ammonium sulphate, do you want to speak to him?” Aaron clearly didn’t, but since I had no idea of the identity of “Aaron” (he was to become a Nobel prize-winner, knight of the realm and president of the Royal Society), I wasn’t terribly bothered one way or the other, just irritated that I was being castigated for something that wasn’t my suggestion. I apologised and went back to the lab.. The next day I expected to have a little difficulty with Markham, but quite the opposite happened – he must have spoken with Rees about my “idiocy” and Maurice had told him that it was his idea, not mine. As a consequence I obviously had picked up brownie points for not pointing the finger, because at 11.30 Markham called in to take Rees to the Traveller’s Rest, the pub on Huntingdon Road at the head of the approach road to the lab., and suggested that they “take the boy, too”.

I was duly driven the hundred yards or so to the pub in Markham’s twin-carburettor Ford Corsair (he was a bit of a car buff), treated to a Guinness and with immense kindness thereafter. I learned more in six weeks at the VRU than I could ever have learnt in three years of student practical classes, including the certainty that I wanted to become a research scientist. My recruitment to John Innes - Steve Rawsthorne, JIC 1985-present In 1985 I was a postdoc working at the Boyce Thompson Institute on the campus at Cornell University in upstate New York. I had tried, before leaving for this postdoc, to get post at John Innes knowing that it was a great place to do research on symbiotic nitrogen fixation but this had not materialised. The Director of JI at that time was Prof. Harold Woolhouse and he came to Cornell as a Visiting Professor during the summer of 1985. I was very happy to be given the opportunity of speaking to Harold about my research on metabolism of mitochondria in legume root nodules and we spent a couple of hours in great discussion.

Towards the end of my slot I asked Harold about the climate for research opportunities in the UK in general, and at JI specifically. Harold was very quick to respond and said that in his view I would be best to stay in the US and he went on to elaborate why he thought the opportunities were better there. After some reinforcement of these messages he then added “However, I do happen to have a postdoc position that you might be interested in”. Further discussion on the said postdoc, which was to study C3-C4 photosynthesis, resulted in me writing formally to Harold to express an interest – after which I heard nothing…… Towards the end of 1985 I had decided to return to the UK to make myself available for interviews and visits to potential employers. In December 1985 on the last Sunday morning in the USA and surrounded by packing cases, a knock on the door revealed a special delivery messenger bearing a contract of employment to carry out research with Harold Woolhouse! I was delighted then, elated at the success of that project, and ecstatic when I became a Project Leader to continue the work in my own right.

I have remained at JI in various roles since then and feel very privileged to have worked at such a fantastic place, all of this following on from such a strange recruitment process. Interviewed by the Director by the pool - Dee Rawsthorne, JIC 1986-present After two years in the US following our PhDs at Reading, when Steve was a post doc at Boyce Thompson, Cornell and I was a post doc in Plant Pathology at Cornell, Steve got a post doc in the Woolhouse lab, despite Harold's warnings not to come back to the UK, and I got a job as a ward receptionist at the hospital. After a few months Steve mentioned that Harold wanted an assistant in the office with a science background to help with writing general science articles and after dinner speeches, and was I interested. Of course I jumped at the chance and so HWW asked me to pop along after work one day to meet him and have a chat. When I arrived I was told he was in the pool but that he was expecting me and I was to go and find him there. So I walked up and down as he swam and he interviewed me. He got out and made his way towards the changing rooms.

I pointed out that I didn't think I could follow him any further, to which he replied "Quite so, meet me in my office". I waited there with Steve and the rest of the lab who were sitting round his large T shaped table in what is now roughly where the DSB meeting room is, having tea. The lab freely walked in and out of his office and used it as a tea, reading or meeting room, the door was rarely closed. Harold appeared, dominating the doorway, quoting Macbeth, something to do with the trees by Hill House, and then laid out on the table to stretch his back, a position he was frequently found in, often asleep. He asked if I could type, to which I replied "No, but I can learn", and then he offered me the job. The post had not been advertised and I don't think HR knew much about it either, and here I have been ever since in various roles and offices but none more happier than being challenged by Harold to do all manner of things and having endless laughs with Jeni Fox who taught me all I know about office management. The day Harold told us he was leaving to go to the Waite Institute was sad but the day we heard he had died was devastating.

I feel honoured to have known him and privileged to have worked for him during a fascinating period of JI's history when The Sainsbury Lab was formed, PBI was privatised and he appointed three new group leaders, Dean, Harberd and Coupland. I often wonder what he would make of it all now... On getting to do a PhD at John Innes in 1968 - Rod Casey, JII/JIC 1968-1972; 1976-06 I was accepted for PhD studies at John Innes in 1968 and I thought I’d recount how it came about, because it typified the way in which things operated in those days and was in sharp contrast to the system that operated when I left JIC in 2006. I was in my final year as a biology student at the University of East Anglia and had been offered a job at the British Sugar research station, which occupied labs adjacent to the Institute of Food Research, at the temptingly large salary of £1400 per annum.

The professor of biochemistry at UEA, D.D.Davies, considered that I would be unwise to accept and thought that I should do a Ph.D.. He knew that I’d had a summer job with Roy Markham, the director of the Virus Research Unit in Cambridge, so he phoned him, in my presence, in July 1968. He simply said that he had this student, Rod Casey, whom he expected to get a first, and wondered if Roy would be interested in taking him as a Ph.D. student? Apparently Markham said that he remembered me from the summer placement and that I’d got on well with Ted Parker (the head of the engineering workshops), so he went off to ask Ted what he thought. He returned to the phone to tell D.D.D. that Ted thought I was a good chap so yes, I could do a Ph.D. starting that October. Thus, on the say-so of the head of the workshops, I embarked on the career of a research biochemist, beginning with a Ph.D.

supervised by Roy Markham, who was about to become the first director of the John Innes Institute at Norwich, and Maurice Rees, one of the most rigorous and experienced protein chemists of his time. It was quite some time before I realised how lucky I’d been. A two-years walk with David Hopwood - Alfredo Aguilar, Dept of Genetics 1979 - 1981 The dramatic advances made on Streptomyces over the last 40 years are indissolubly linked to the figure of Sir David Hopwood and to the John Innes Centre. A privileged witness of this period and a close colleague of Hopwood, Keith Chater outlines in the accompanying article certain moments of Hopwood’s scientific career, which were particularly fruitful from the scientific point of view. I am honored for having had the privilege of sharing with him not only bench and flasks but also, in particular, two unforgettable years of my life. I arrived to Hopwood’s lab one morning in September of 1979, with an EMBO fellowship in my pocket and a Ph.D.

on the biochemistry and mechanism of action of a group of antibiotics named microcins, discovered by Carlos Asensio a few years earlier. During my PhD I was impressed by the pioneer work of Hopwood on the genetic analysis of antibiotic production, which later on was crucial in the industrial improvement of antibiotic production. In those early years of the development of molecular biology, I was captivated by a paper of Hopwood’s group showing that both antibiotic production and resistance were coded by a plasmid. Studies on microcins led by the group of Fernando Baquero seemed to also be the case. Suddenly, it all became clear to me: in my postdoc I decided to tackle the antibiotic methylenomycin, whose production and resistance genes were coded by a plasmid (SCP1) from Streptomyces coelicolor A3. Physical isolation of the plasmid was essential for more refined studies. Unfortunately, the SCP1 plasmid proved impossible to isolate by conventional procedures. In spite of the many different methods and approaches suggested by my colleagues at the John Innes Centre, I still had no luck in isolating the elusive SCP1. In those days Hopwood and I came across an article of Okanishi et al.

in which they had detected, by electron microscopy only, a plasmid (pSV1) in the original methylenomycin-producing Streptomyces violaceus-ruber strain. The next series of questions were obvious: Could pSV1 be related to SCP1 and also code for methylenomycin production and resistance? Could pSV1 be isolable? The answers to both these questions were, in fact, positive. Plasmid pSV1 was isolated and its size was estimated to be about 110 MDa. At the same time we demonstrated that it coded for either methylenomycin production or resistance genes. As Chater indicates in his article, the mystery of the SCP1 plasmid needed another ten more years to be clarified, but this is already another story. I have the privilege of having been the first of a long list of Spanish postdocs who worked with Hopwood. I think that one of the reasons for attracting so many people to his laboratory was his rare ability to combine scientific and human excellence. From him I learned all that I know about Streptomyces plus a continuous lesson of humbleness.

Hopwood had a broad and restless mind; he was always interested in other cultures, in any aspect of science and art, in Chinese food, in wine and in music, particularly the guitar. I shall never forget the evening of the 25th of February 1981, when the Hopwoods (Joyce and David) invited my wife Rosario and myself to a concert of Spanish guitar in the Strangers Hall to celebrate the failure of the military putsch in Spain two days before. Luckily, I did not need to make use of his generosity to remain in the UK, should the putsch have succeeded. Not many people know that David Hopwood has also played an essential role in the promotion of Biotechnology in the European Community. In fact, he was invited by the European Commission (EC) to provide advice for the preparation of the first research and training European programme in Biotechnology, the Biomolecular Engineering Programme (BEP) of the European Community that existed from 1982 to 1986. Although it is now past history, its decisive contribution to the “Europeanization” of research has made this pioneering activity an outstanding landmark for any observer of EC biotechnology.

The recognition of the European dimension of the Streptomyces research was also due to Hopwood. Thanks to the recommendations stemming from a seminal meeting chaired by Hopwood in Brussels in 1987, Community R&D benefits from outstanding collaborative R&D projects on the biotechnology of Streptomyces. Early days of The Norwich Research Park - Professor Derek Burke I was a Professor at the University of Warwick in the seventies when I first met Harold Woolhouse, the then Director of the JI, and I was invited to Norwich to give a seminar on animal viruses and interferon. I had links with the plant virologists but had never been to Norwich or the JI before; it seemed a long way from the English Midlands. I left Warwick in 1982 to help start a plant biotechnology company in Toronto and so became involved in plant science, then came back to the UK in 1987, when I was appointed as the third Vice-Chancellor of UEA.

Harold was on to this like a flash; though he had already upset people, I learned subsequently, by making a speech at the UEA Senate saying that “we must cut out the soft underbelly of research at UEA”, he wanted cooperation with UEA. He was right, but there was a lot to do. He was coming to Canada and we met in Montreal in August 1987 when he told me of his plans for bringing the Cambridge Lab to Norwich, starting the Sainsbury Laboratory and hopefully moving the Nitrogen Fixation Unit from Sussex. I was very impressed and said I would do all I could to help when I arrived. As VC, I was Chairman of the John Innes Council and therefore working closely with the JI Trustees and Harold as Director. The University welcomed the scientists who were being transferred, often rather unwillingly, from Cambridge to Norwich. The Plant Breeding Laboratory at Cambridge had been privatized by Margaret Thatcher and a large sum of money paid for it turned out to be the property of the trustees of the Cambridge Laboratory. Harold went to a bank in Cambridge and opened an account with several million pounds [I forget how much] and this provided the funds for the new laboratory.

The Gatsby Foundation had been persuaded by Harold to invest in Norwich and that led to the Sainsbury Laboratory and we were able to make outstanding appointments to lead it. Harold then set his eyes on moving the Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory from Sussex. But he left about this time to go to Australia, mainly because BBSRC would not extend his post beyond 60 [what a foolish thing to do]. However Dick Flavell took over as Director [Harold’s idea from the beginning] and continued the developments in a splendid way. I went with Dick to Sussex to help persuade their reluctant scientists to move to Norwich. The University helped as much as it could, offering academic appointments, teaching, validating graduate students and agreeing to pass a substantial amount of the overhead that came with each graduate student to the JIC. So there were three splendid research institutions on the same site, the JIC, consisting of the original John Innes, the Cambridge Laboratory and the Sainsbury Laboratory, the Institute for Food Research and the University and a lot of my job in the late eighties and early nineties was to try and help build links between us. We were all under pressure, money was getting tighter every year and working together was a huge advantage.

So we looked for a name for what we were doing, and UEA sponsored a competition for the name, offering a case of wine as a prize. It was won by a scientist from BIO and although Norwich Research Park seems the obvious title in retrospect, no one had thought of it beforehand. I retired in 1995, moving to Cambridge and Dick Flavell went to the US after I had retired so I never worked with Chris Lamb although I got to know him when we moved back to Norwich in 2006. So three outstanding directors – Harold Woolhouse, Dick Flavell, and Chris Lamb – have contributed to the splendid organisation we have now, which together with the University forms one of the major science complexes in the UK, and focused on an area that’s been identified as one of the major strategic objectives for the future of Britain and the developing world – sustainable agriculture producing sufficient food to feed the world burgeoning population. JIC International Scholarship Scheme | WeMakeScholars JIC International Scholarship Scheme All subjects available at University of East Anglia Open to all nationalities More about this scholarship The John Innes Centre will offer at least one JIC International Scholarship to an overseas postgraduate research student studying for a PhD degree.

Eligibility: To be eligible to receive a JIC International Scholarship candidates must: be liable to pay the Overseas University of East Anglia lab-based Postgraduate Research Tuition Fee (i.e. be assessed as ‘Overseas’ for Fee Status purposes), and; have a high upper-second-class undergraduate honours degree from a UK Higher Education Institution, or an equivalent from an Overseas Institution, and; be based at the John Innes Centre with a primary supervisor who is a Group Leader at the John Innes Centre, and; have met all their outstanding conditions for admission to the University. Note: Applicants are advised to secure additional funding to cover living costs, which are estimated to be in the region of £12,000 per year and will be liable for the tuition fees to the Home/EU level. To take up the award students must be able to provide evidence of additional funding to cover living costs and the tuition fees to the level of the Home/EU (e.g. by external scholarship). Rotation PhD – further details : Postgraduate Research Rotation PhD – further details Why do a PhD at the JIC/TSL/EI in Norwich UK?

The John Innes Centre (JIC), The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL) and the Earlham Institute (EI) are three prestigious institutes that share a campus and have closely linked scientific programmes. The JIC is one of the world’s premier research institutes in plant and microbial sciences with an illustrious history going back over a century. It came top in a world survey by Times Higher Education in 2010 of plant and animal institutes in terms of average citations per paper over a 10 year period. TSL is a world leader in plant-microbial interaction research. EI is the newest institute, focused on exploring living systems by applying computational science and biotechnology. Why do a PhD on the Rotation Programme? A traditional PhD studentship has a pre-defined research project and supervisor. By contrast, a rotation PhD programme allows you the student to select several mini-research projects in the first year before choosing a topic and supervisor for your main research project. A key objective of any PhD is to train students to become independent thinking scientists. The empowerment of the student on the rotation programme instils independence of thought right from the start.

This programme is therefore suitable for the very best students who are ready to embrace independence together with a thirst for training in a broad range of multidisciplinary skills in order to develop their own PhD project and launch their research careers. What is special about the Rotation Programme at JIC/TSL/EI? Our rotation programme was the first in plant and microbial science in the United Kingdom, having been established in 2003. It is designed for outstanding applicants with excellent academic records who show the potential for research at the highest level and at the cutting edge of biological science and biotechnology. This multidisciplinary programme is open to students from any country and from a wide range of scientific backgrounds ranging from genetics, genomics and cell biology through to molecular biology, computational biology, microbiology, biological chemistry, applied mathematics and systems biology. The expected outcomes from the Rotation PhD Programme will be: well-rounded multidisciplinary training in research methodologies; the timely completion of an excellent thesis; publications in high-ranking international refereed journals; and a firm foundation for a distinguished scientific career. The Rotation PhD Programme is sponsored by the John Innes Foundation, together with the three partner institutes.

The studentships benefit from a generous stipend to reflect the prominence and prestige associated with the Rotation PhD programme. The studentship also covers university registration fees and research/training costs. It is expected that up to five studentships will be available each year. It is open to International students as well as UK/EU students. What happens during the first rotation year? Year one begins with a three-week period of intensive training and orientation. This is designed to introduce all the research programmes currently being pursued at JIC, TSL and EI. You will attend departmental presentations, the JIC Annual Science Meeting, a Rotation Students’ Retreat for all year groups, and a range of one-to-one meetings of your choice with supervisors whose research particularly interests you. You will be guided by a faculty-mentor, a student-mentor from the previous year-group and the programme tutor who will help you to select your three rotation projects. You will then undertake 10-week mini-research projects with three different supervisors located in any of the three partner institutes. You will learn from fellow rotation students in this multidisciplinary programme through a fortnightly journal club where you will present and discuss key papers from researchers at the three institutes.

After each rotation period, you will write a brief report and give a short oral presentation to the other rotation students. You will rapidly become familiar with a wide range of scientific approaches. The objective of the first eight months is to gain broad technical and theoretical training prior to the selection of a main research project and supervisor. Our plant and microbial research is organised into the following scientific areas: Biological Chemistry What happens after the first three rotations? By June of the first year, you will have selected the supervisor with whom to embark on the main research project. What is effectively a fourth rotation period of 16 weeks, you will conduct exploratory experiments and write a research proposal. The emphasis should be on clearly framing the questions to be addressed in the thesis so as to create a scientifically interesting but technically feasible research project. The outcome will be the submission of a high quality PhD thesis within a total of four years. You will be registered for a PhD degree at the University of East Anglia. What evidence is there for excellence in the science and training provided on our Rotation Programme? The achievements and subsequent career paths of previous rotation students illustrate the excellence of this programme as a springboard for an illustrious career in research. What do current and recent rotation students say about the programme?

Yang Zhang “The 4-year Rotation PhD Program is perfectly designed for students who have broad interests in plant and microbiology. We are encouraged to try different short-term projects before designing our own PhD research proposal. The experience of gaining a broad-based multidisciplinary training, of communicating and interacting with a wide range of scientists and of making important strategic decisions in research planning are important components of our training which together provide a unique foundation for our scientific career.” Philippa Borrill “The rotation programme was a fantastic opportunity to gain experience working in a range of different labs and in diverse scientific fields. Working in different areas has given me the confidence to interact with scientists from a wide range of disciplines and the contacts made during my rotation year made me aware of the world class expertise available at JIC. But maybe the best part has been the chance to formulate my own project based on shared interests with my two chosen PhD supervisors Cristobal Uauy and Alison Smith.” Nik Adamski “The rotation student programme is a great opportunity for students to gain valuable experience in different research areas. During the rotation year, students learn a wide variety of skills, which will form a toolbox that they can utilise throughout their career.

Furthermore, the students can quickly and easily create a professional network during their rotations between different labs, which will prove invaluable for future collaborations and discussions. For me, the best thing about the rotation student programme is to experience working in three different research groups with very different research topics. This enables a student to “sample” the width and breadth of science at JIC.” Scott Berry “The rotation year provided a fantastic opportunity to work with researchers from around the John Innes Centre and The Sainsbury Laboratory, providing an invaluable introduction to world class research in plant and microbial science. Like many students on the rotation programme, my main project combined aspects from two of my rotations to establish a multidisciplinary collaboration with both experimental and theoretical supervisors. I have found staff at the JIC and TSL to be extremely approachable (even project leaders!) and with the diverse range of expertise available on site, there has always been someone to go to for a helpful and thought-provoking discussion.” University of East Anglia Faculty of Science in United Kingdom - MScs School Description UEA's Faculty of Science Feed your passion for science at UEA: deepen your knowledge, specialise, take your career to the next level, challenge yourself and ensure you have the edge with potential employers.

There’s nowhere better to immerse yourself in every last detail if your chosen field. The Faculty of Science is one of the largest faculties at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and is based in one contiguous building encouraging a ‘faculty without walls' approach to innovation and excellence, in learning, teaching and research. As a postgraduate student you’ll have the chance to study at the forefront of postgraduate science education and research, with some of the world’s leading academics. Interdisciplinary approach The Faculty's focus is on interdisciplinary collaboration across the UEA and through its strong partnership with the Norwich Research Park. Students are part of this outstanding local scientific network, with opportunities to work with partner institutes including: the John Innes Centre, The Genome Analysis Centre, The Sainsbury Laboratory, the Institute of Food Research and the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. You could be part of research projects that deliver new concepts and products with direct benefits to the wider community, from topics as diverse as improved digital imaging, to the detection of illicit drugs, and new methods of treating diseases. The Schools of Study in the Faculty of Science are committed to providing an intellectually challenging learning experience within a supportive educational environment that is responsive to student needs.

This is reflected in the consistently high scores received in the National Student Satisfaction survey. The Schools of Study, each renowned for their international excellence, include: • Biological Sciences • Natural Sciences World Leading Research In the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), UEA’s Faculty of Science returned most of their staff for assessment, and all of their research activity was judged to have international impact. 84% of the ~700 outputs returned to the REF were judged to be either world leading or internationally excellent. 90% of UEA’s research impact was judged to be either world leading or internationally excellent. 97% of UEA's research environment was judged to be either world leading or internationally excellent. Facilities for the Faculty of Science are constantly expanding and improving: latest additions include the Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research (ZICER) building, Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS), Biomedical Research Centre (BMRC) and imaging suites, plus a major facility for biophysical chemistry, new laboratories for energy research and the D’Arcy Thompson Centre, which houses the Computational Biology Laboratory.

“UEA is 10th in the UK for the quality of its research outputs” – Research Excellence Framework 2014, 2014 Postgraduate Funding Postgraduate Scholarships, Bursaries and PhD Studentships are available to students within the Faculty of Social Sciences and are usually awarded on the basis of academic merit. Application deadlines vary, so you are strongly advised to apply as early as possible in your year of entry. To explore further detail on funding linked to your area of study visit UEA’s dedicated page for Postgraduate funding opportunities . UEA: WORLD LEADING INSTITUTION WITH STUDENTS AT ITS HEART The University of East Anglia (UEA) is an internationally renowned, campus-based university that delivers top quality academic, social and cultural facilities to over 15,000 students. UEA’s postgraduate community is around 3,500 students, forming one of the central strengths of the University.

Proving its pioneering spirit, UEA proudly sits in the Top 1% of universities in the world (Times Higher World League Table 2015-16) and consistently performs in the Top 5 for student experience in the National Student Survey since it began 10 years ago. The campus is located in a lush, green area of Norwich, England’s first UNESCO City of Literature. It’s just two miles from the heart of the city, which is easily reached by foot, bike or bus. The stunning Norfolk coast is 1 hour away, and London a swift 2 hours by train. This uniquely-placed University is also part of the Norwich Research Park, one of Europe's biggest concentrations of researchers in the fields of environmental, health and plant science. Sporting facilities on campus include the Sportspark, which houses an Olympic-sized swimming pool and regularly hosts local and international athletic events. UEA also offers the world famous Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts and hosts an International Literary Festival that featuring famous names such as Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro and Anne Enright (all UEA Creative Writing course alumni).

If you want to change the world with your degree, make an impact in your industry and reach your full potential - the University of East Anglia is a brilliant next step. This school offers programs in: English Postgraduate Diploma Pharmacy Practice (Part time) Campus Part time 12 - 42 months August 2017 United Kingdom Norwich This postgraduate programme is part of the Joint Programmes Board (JPB) initiative which includes seven Schools of Pharmacy within the south and south east of England working in partnership. [+] This postgraduate programme is part of the Joint Programmes Board (JPB) initiative which includes seven Schools of Pharmacy within the south and south east of England working in partnership. The course is designed to enable pharmacists from community, primary care and hospital within the Eastern region to deliver patient-focussed services utilising good clinical and consultation skills. Undertaken to Diploma level it will enable hospital and primary care pharmacists to be able to apply for band 7 posts and community pharmacists to provide a range of enhanced services, and develop the clinical and organisational skills required to participate fully and competitively in the changing NHS The course is designed to develop pharmacist skills and knowledge which are appropriate for their workplace.

Course topics include basic clinical skills and drug knowledge in a wide range of therapeutic areas together with general practice knowledge of how to maximise patient safety, introduce change within the workplace, conduct simple research, teach peers and how to engage with the national agenda for pharmacy and the wider NHS. This course is open to all sectors of pharmacy and where applicable joint teaching is undertaken to enrich the learning experience with common skills such as consultation skills and leadership taught to mixed community and NHS pharmacist learning sets. However we recognise that sector-specific skills are important and also provide specialist experiences tailored to each sector. This approach facilitates the sharing of best practice both within and across pharmacy sectors. Duration One, two or three and a half years part-time depending on exit point Assessment Performance assessment using a professional capability framework designed to guide the trainee in the development of general pharmacy practice in the following areas: Delivery of patient care Building working relationships Management Leadership Education, training and development Research and evaluation This will be supported by a practice portfolio, coursework designed to reflect workplace practice (such as clinical audit, critical appraisal of literature, service development and research), a range of presentations including oral, poster and written, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and a multiple choice examination.

Attainment to Masters level will require successful completion of a practice-based research project. [-] MSc MSc Plant Genetics and Crop Improvement Campus Full time 1 year August 2017 United Kingdom Norwich The one-year MSc course in Plant Genetics and Crop Improvement provides training for students wishing to undertake a further degree in plant molecular genetics, or alternatively, a career in plant breeding and crop improvement. The course focuses on plant molecular genetics and its potential applications to crop improvement in the 21st century. [+] The one-year MSc course in Plant Genetics and Crop Improvement provides training for students wishing to undertake a further degree in plant molecular genetics, or alternatively, a career in plant breeding and crop improvement. The course focuses on plant molecular genetics and its potential applications to crop improvement in the 21st century. The course is run jointly by the School of Biological Sciences (BIO) at UEA and the John Innes Centre (JIC), which also includes The Sainsbury Laboratory. The John Innes Centre is one of the world’s leading research institutes in plant genetics and crop improvement.

The teaching staff includes members of the School of Biological Sciences together with scientists from the John Innes Centre and a number of leading plant breeding and plant biotechnology companies within the UK. In recent years the career prospects for students with a postgraduate degree in Plant Genetics and Crop Improvement have been very good, often leading to a PhD or employment in the plant breeding industry. The course will provide you with a unique opportunity to study plant genetics and crop improvement in an environment of academic and research excellence. The taught modules cover subjects including plant molecular genetics and biotechnology, target traits for crop improvement, and plant breeding. Training in a number of key transferable skills is also included. You will also undertake a six-month laboratory-based research project under the supervision of a member of BIO faculty or a senior scientist at the John Innes Centre. You will be required to submit a dissertation and present a seminar on your research project. Research projects are offered in the following areas: Plant genetics Plant biotechnology and crop improvement Plant genome organisation Plant-microbe interactions Cell and developmental biology Plant gene function "I found this course very beneficial but it was also tough for me as I did not have a molecular biology background in my first degree.

However, there was always support from the lecturers, supervisors and staff of the course who are sympathetic to students and encouraging. The number of students is kept small, so the atmosphere of the class is friendlier than the other large courses. We are also privileged to have so much exposure to the latest Plant Science at John Innes Centre where renowned researchers gather from all over the world. Thanks to this course, I was offered the PhD studentship to research Crop Genetics at JIC and enjoy a life as a scientist there!" Entry Requirements Degree Subject: Biological Sciences or Plant Biology Degree Classification: Good first degree (minimum 2.1 or equivalent) Alternative Qualifications: Candidates with other experience, such as employment within a plant breeding company or relevant research experience, will also be considered. [-] HEALTHCARESTUDIES.COM

Question: With which English university does the John Innes Centre share a campus?
Answer: EAST ANGLIA