It has been a defining confrontation between science and the Government, pitting white coats against grey suits over the future of fertility clinics and research into incurable diseases.

Yet when ministers admitted defeat on Monday over planned reforms to Britain’s 17-year-old embryology laws, the decision generated only a few paragraphs in the next morning’s papers.

So complete was the research community’s triumph, after a year of increasingly confident political lobbying, that the Department of Health chose to slip out its announcement on a classic day for burying bad news.

As the Prime Minister’s statement on Iraq and the fallout over the nonelection dominated the headlines, Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, set out changes to the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill that make it unrecognisable from the original draft. The Government had been forced to rip up two central measures after a revolt that united almost every professional and patient group that would have been affected.

Gone was the main plank of the reforms, a merger of the watchdogs overseeing fertility treatment and human tissue.

Gone, too, were the last vestiges of a ban on certain human-animal hybrid embryos, which have potential in medical research but upset opponents of embryo experiments.

The concessions are the culmination of a remarkable campaign that shows how scientists are starting to acquire the political and media savvy that they lacked in the controversies over GM crops and the MMR vaccine.

Once reluctant to speak out, they are now borrowing the tactics of envi-ronmentalist and consumer groups to set the agenda. They patiently explained the case for carrying out controversial research to the press and the public, while presenting a united front that isolated ministers.

The Government was left looking for an escape route that limited political damage to Sir Liam Donald-son, the Chief Medical Officer, and Caroline Flint, the former Health Minister, who had stood by the proposals.

“This amazing U-turn shows why scientific institutions are absolutely right to shout loudly when they spot a policy which threatens medical research and practice,” said Fiona Fox, of the Science Media Centre. The proposed ban on embryos that are part-human and part-animal would have blocked experiments into Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

The proposed cost-cutting merger between the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Human Tissue Authority would have created a new body with too broad a remit. Doctors said the new Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (Rate) would lack the expertise to do its job.

The fightback that followed was orchestrated by Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Veronica English, of the British Medical Association.

While scientists such as Stephen Minger of King’s College London, who was seeking to study human-animal embryos, briefed the media on how the ban would hurt medical research, Dr Harris enlisted the big guns of British science.

A letter to The Times was signed by 45 leading figures, including three Nobel laureates and the heads of the Royal Society and the Medical Research Council. Dr Harris also persuaded the Commons science committee, on which he sits, to call an inquiry.

The evidence it heard showed that not even the whole Government was behind the ban: Malcolm Wicks, then Science Minister, and Sir David King, the Chief Scientist, raised concerns even as Ms Flint was defending it. Tony Blair also weighed in, saying he saw no reason why the research should not be allowed.

At the same time, Ms English was building a powerful coalition against Rate. Every professional group affected made representations to a scrutiny committee of MPs and peers.

In the face of this pressure, the Government position unravelled. After compromising in May over research into inter-species embryos, it has now agreed to the full list that scientists demanded, as well as shelving Rate.

“To be fair to the Government, it has listened,” said Professor Minger. “But we had to make sure it listened. What would have happened if the same thing had been done for GM foods and the triple vaccine is a very interesting question.”

Off the menu

INTER-SPECIES EMBRYO BAN

— Ministers planned to outlaw all embryos containing human and animal material This would have blocked research into cytoplasmic hybrid or “cybrid” embyros, made by inserting a human cell nucleus into an empty animal egg

— Cybrids are 99.9 per cent genetically human, and can be used to study conditions such as Alzheimer’s and motor neuron disease

— Compromise proposed in May would have allowed cybrids, but not true hybrids made by fertilising human eggs with animal sperm, or vice versa

— Both types and some others will now be allowed if the HFEA grants a licence. The first applications have been made

WATCHDOG MERGER

— Ministers wanted to merge the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates fertility treatment and embryo research, with the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), which regulates transplants, autopsies and museum displays of human body parts

— The new Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (Rate) would have saved money, but medical and patient groups objected strongly

— Critics said Rate’s remit would be too broad to guarantee the necessary expertise, putting public confidence in regulation and patient safety at risk

— Opponents included the BMA, the MRC, the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal College of Nursing The merger is now shelved, and HFEA and HTA will remain independent. Some savings will be made by merging office support

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth