This article builds upon a relatively small but growing literature in geography, planning and cognate disciplines that seeks to understand the variegated geographies and histories of policy mobilities. The article uses a case study of an exchange trip between town planners in the Soviet Union and the UK between 1957 and 1958. It focuses on the experiences of the British planners in the Soviet Union and sets the tour within the wider context of a fluctuating and sometimes turbulent history of Anglo‐Soviet politics, travels and connections. In doing this, the article makes three arguments: first, there is much to be gained by bringing together the geography‐dominated policy mobilities literature with that on exchanges and visits by architects, engineers and planners. Secondly, the greater sensitivity to the histories of policy mobilities allows contemporary studies to be contextualized in the longer history of organized learning between different urban professions. Thirdly, despite the long history of policy mobilities, what differentiates the current era from previous eras is the prominent ‘knowledge intermediary’ roles now played by consultancies and think tanks. As the article will demonstrate, it was branches of government and professional bodies, rather than consultancies and think tanks, that tended to dominate such roles previously.

This article notes the different approaches to the international diffusion of planning ideas and practices. It briefly reviews the principal body of work by planning historians to highlight the key themes of such studies. This previous work is then used to develop a simple typology of diffusional episodes, based on the power relationship between the two parties to the diffusion relationship. Thus several forms of imposition and several forms of borrowing are identified. This typology is then used to inform a case study of Canadian planning, focusing particularly on Vancouver. The case study shows how Canada's planning was shaped by recurrent encounters with two major international planning traditions, those of Britain and the US, particularly the latter. These encounters initially resulted in episodes of undiluted borrowing, alternately, from both traditions. Increasingly after 1945, however, these borrowings became more selective, first from Britain and then from the US. By the late 1960s, other international influences were also apparent and Canadian planning exhibited a more synthetic approach, achieving real distinctiveness. Interpretations based on context and the autonomous roles of individuals are considered but greatest emphasis is placed on the role of the reformist and professional milieux in determining the origins and extent of Canadian borrowings. The article concludes by suggesting that the existence, however weak, of such milieux within the country importing planning ideas and practices may be crucial to the distinction between borrowing and imposition.

No abstract

In light of the burgeoning academic interest in policy mobilities and policy tourism, this paper offers a critical insight into international planning study tours. Countering the contemporary focus of much of the research on these topics, this paper draws on archival research to explore the international study tours of the UK's Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) between 1947 and 1961. In doing this, the paper makes two wider arguments; first, that there remains significant mileage in bringing together the policy mobilities literature with the work on past exchanges and visits by architects, engineers and planners and, second, that greater awareness and appreciation of past examples of comparison and learning might allow contemporary studies to be situated in their longer historical trajectories.

If the field of regenerative medicine is to deliver therapies, rapid expansion and delivery over considerable distances to large numbers of patients is needed. This will demand efficient stabilization and shipment of cell products. However, cryopreservation science is poorly understood by life-scientists in general and in recent decades only limited progress has been made in the technology of preservation and storage of cells. Rapid translation of new developments to a broader range of cell types will be vital, as will assuring a deeper knowledge of the fundamental cell biology relating to successful preservation and recovery of cell cultures. This report presents expert consensus on these and other issues which need to be addressed for more efficient delivery of cell therapies.