⌚ James Allen Research Paper

Thursday, December 30, 2021 4:24:22 AM

James Allen Research Paper



Or tesco plc aims and objectives James Allen Research Paper beings allowed to do whatever they want to do with the lute player nature? William Campbell's Co. James Allen Research Paper Wikipedia, the free James Allen Research Paper. Inhe started as president and served for 10 years. The textbooks James Allen Research Paper still in James Allen Research Paper. Ensign John Gifford's Satire Performance.

James Allen Website Tutorial- Learn how to find the best diamond engagement ring deals review

The common morality is the set of norms shared by all persons committed to morality. The common morality is not merely a morality, in contrast to other moralities. The common morality is applicable to all persons in all places, and we rightly judge all human conduct by its standards. Particular moralities, instead, contain non-universal moral norms which stem from different cultural, religious, and institutional sources. These norms—unlike the abstract and content-thin principles of the common morality—are concrete and rich in substance.

Beauchamp and Childress use the methods of specification and balancing to enrich the abstract and content-thin universal principles with empirical data from the particular moralities. The method of specification is, according to Beauchamp,. Many already specified norms will need further specification to handle new circumstances of indeterminateness and conflict. Beauchamp Even though the four-principle approach certainly belongs to the most prevalent, authoritative, and widely used bioethical approaches, this approach has not been unquestioned and has provoked serious objections.

The three most important objections are: first, the lack of ethical guidance because there is no master principle in cases of conflict among the principles Gert et al. The revival of virtue ethics in moral philosophy in the last century was most notably spearheaded by Anscombe , MacIntyre , Williams , Nussbaum , , and more recently Hursthouse , , Slote , Swanton , and Oakley This approach also deeply influenced the ethical reasoning and decision making in the field of bioethics, particularly in medical ethics for example, Foot , Shelp , Hursthouse , Pellegrino , Pellegrino and Thomasma , McDougall The general idea of virtue ethical approaches in bioethics is that one should act in accordance with what the virtuous agent would have chosen.

In more detail, an action is morally right if it is done by adhering to the ethical virtues in order to promote human flourishing and well-being; the action is morally good if the person in question acts on the basis of the right motive as well as his or her action is based on a firm and good character or disposition. That means an action that is morally right for instance, to help the needy but performed according to the wrong motive such as to gain honour and reputation is not morally good. The right action and the right motive must both come together in virtue ethics.

For a detailed view of how contemporary virtue ethics focuses on action and the rightness of action against the background of the general idea of living a good life, see in particular Hursthouse chapters , Swanton chapter 11 , and Slote chapter 1. Generally speaking, virtue ethical approaches put a lot of weight on the particular agent. Virtue ethical approaches have been applied in medical ethics by, for example, Foot on euthanasia , Lebacqz on the virtuous patient , Hursthouse on abortion , Oakley and Cocking on professional roles , and Holland on virtue politics The role of virtue ethics in the field of environmental ethics has been examined by Frasz and Hursthouse , and in the field of animal ethics by Hursthouse and Merriam It is a matter of debate see for example, Kihlbom , Holland , whether the strengths of virtue ethical approaches are limited to single cases individual level or whether they are also equally good candidates in cases of developing biomedical procedures for regulatory policy societal level.

In addition, Jansen , for example, argues that virtue ethical approaches face two serious problems, which cannot be sufficiently resolved by adhering to virtue ethics. First is the problem of content: vague virtues are unable to give proper guidance. Second is the problem of pluralism: competing conceptions of the good life complicate a sound solution. Virtues only have a limited function; for example, in the context of medicine they should enable the physician to become a virtuous practitioner abiding by the right motive. But, even in this case, Jansen claims that the right action should prevail over the right motive. However, Nussbaum argues persuasively, by appealing to Aristotle, that ethical virtues are non-relative by nature and allow for variations.

The revival of casuistry as an inductive method of ethical reasoning and decision making in the second half of the twentieth century coincides with a wide and persistent critique of principle-oriented approaches, most notably principlism, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism in bioethics. Casuistry had its historical heyday in moral theology and ethics during the period from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century in Europe. After a long time of no importance or influence in moral philosophy, it gained a significant importance in bioethics—mostly in clinical ethics—after the vital publications of Jonsen and Toulmin , Strong , and Brody Casuists attack the traditional idea of simply applying universal moral rules and norms to complex cases in order to solve the problem in question—that is, a moral theory justifies a moral principle or several principles which in turn justifies a moral rule or several rules which in turn justifies the moral judgement concerning a particular case.

The circumstances make the case and are of utmost importance in order to yield a good solution see moral particularism. For example, Strong claims that it might be that a complex case lies right in between two reference cases and hence one is unable to find a clear solution; in such a case different solutions might be equally justified. In general, casuists argue that universal principles and rules are unable to solve complex cases in a sufficient way since the complexity of the moral life is too great for example, Toulmin , Brody The general strategy in casuistry can be described as follows:.

Case sensitivity and the partial integration of cultural and community bound values and expectations are, in general, advantageous in ethical reasoning and decision making. But it seems equally true that this approach presents some difficulties as well. Furthermore, casuistry seems to presuppose a widespread agreement on basic values in the community and, therefore, is doomed to failure in pluralistic cultures Wildes Finally, casuistry may have difficulty providing solutions to rather general bioethical regulatory policies since it is completely focused on cases. Whether a series of similar cases may warrant a particular regulatory practice from a casuistical point of view is a matter of debate see virtue ethics , but it seems fair to say that the very meaning of casuistry really concerns cases and not general rules which can be adopted as binding regulations.

Feminist bioethics can only be fully appreciated if one understands the context in which this increasingly important approach evolved during the late twentieth century Tong , Wolf , Donchin and Purdy , Rawlinson The social and political background of feminist bioethics is feminism and feminist theory with its major social and political goal to end the oppression of women and to empower them to become an equal gender. The apparent differences between men and women have often led cultures to treat them in radically different ways, ways that often disadvantage women. Thus women have been allocated to social roles that leave them worse off with respect to benefits enjoyed by men, such as freedom and power.

Yet despite their differences in reproductive roles, women and men share many morally relevant characteristics such as rationality and the capacity for suffering, and hence deserve fundamental equality. In more detail, the most important task in the long struggle regarding the goals of feminism was to combine two distinct features that were both vital in order to fight against traditional power relations. That is, the idea that men and women are equal and different at the same time. They are equal by virtue of gender equality and different because the proponents stress a particular feminist perspective.

The combination of both aspects is, in general, a difficult task for feminist ethics since, on the one hand, the proponents must avoid the common trap of speaking in traditional dualistic ways of care versus justice, particularity versus universality, and emotion versus reason and, on the other hand, they must carve out the specific differences of the feminist perspective Haker Historically speaking, feminist ethics developed in strong opposition to the traditional male-oriented approaches which genuinely appealed to universal moral rights and principles, such as principlism, deontological approaches and utilitarianism Gilligan , Gudorf , Lebacqz Feminist ethics, instead, is construed differently by adhering to a context-sensitive and particularist ethics of care as well as by appealing to core values such as responsibility, relational autonomy, care, compassion, freedom, and equality Gilligan , Noddings , Jagger The ethics of care, however, is a necessary but not sufficient depiction of feminist ethics since the latter has, in general, become more refined and sophisticated with its different branches Tong , Cole and Coultrap-McQuin Feminist bioethics developed from the early s on and was initially focused on medical ethics Holmes and Purdy , Warren , Tong ; proponents later extended the areas of interest to issues in the fields of animal and environmental ethics Plumwood , Warren, , Mies and Shiva , Donovan Important topics in feminist bioethics are concerned with the correct understanding of autonomy as relational autonomy Sherwin , , Mackenzie and Stoljar , Donchin , a strong focus on care Kittay , the claim for an equal and just treatment of women in order to fight against discrimination within healthcare professions and institutions on many different levels Miles , Tong In more detail, from a feminist perspective the following bioethical issues are of great importance: abortion, reproductive medicine, justice and care, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, sex selection, exploitation and abuse of women, female genital circumcision, breast cancer, contraception and HIV, equal access to and quality of healthcare and healthcare resources, global bioethics and cultural issues.

The main line of reasoning is to make a well informed ethical decision which is not gender biased and to appeal to important core values. Feminist bioethics is by nature particularistic and in this respect it is similar to many virtue ethical approaches and casuistry. Without any doubt, feminist bioethics initiated discussion of important topics, provided valuable insights, and caused a return to a more meaningful way of ethical reasoning and decision making by, for example, not only adhering to universal moral norms.

On the other hand, it can be doubted whether feminist bioethics—all things considered—can be seen as a well-equipped and full moral theory. It may be that feminist bioethics complements the traditional ethical theories by adding an important and new perspective that is, the feminist standpoint to the debate. Several vital methodological topics still need to be clarified in more detail and put into a broader moral context—such as how to avoid the traditional dualistic way of speaking about things and at the same time stressing a particular feminist standpoint; the problem of loyalty towards family and close friends and impartiality in ethics universalism versus particularism ; and feminist bioethics and the global perspective.

Developing feminist bioethics is on the agenda of many scholars working in the fields of virtue ethics and casuistry. Thus, feminist bioethics comes in for the standard objections raised by the opponents of virtue ethics and casuistry alike. Therefore, it must also defend itself against some of the above-mentioned objections that are not peculiar to feminist bioethics. To sum up, feminist bioethics adds valuable insights to debates on various bioethical topics, but may not be a well-equipped full moral theory yet. John-Stewart Gordon Email: jgordon uni-koeln. Bioethics Bioethics is a rather young academic inter-disciplinary field that has emerged rapidly as a particular moral enterprise against the background of the revival of applied ethics in the second half of the twentieth century.

Preliminary Distinctions Rapid developments in the natural sciences and technology including biotechnology have greatly facilitated better living conditions and increased the standard of living of people worldwide. As a discipline of applied ethics and a particular way of ethical reasoning that substantially depends on the findings of the life sciences, the goals of bioethics are manifold and involve, at least, the following aspects: Discipline : Bioethics provides a disciplinary framework for the whole array of moral questions and issues surrounding the life sciences concerning human beings, animals, and nature.

Inter-disciplinary Approach : Bioethics is a particular way of ethical reasoning and decision making that: i integrates empirical data from relevant natural sciences, most notably medicine in the case of medical ethics, and ii considers other disciplines of applied ethics such as research ethics, information ethics, social ethics, feminist ethics, religious ethics, political ethics, and ethics of law in order to solve the case in question. Ethical Guidance : Bioethics offers ethical guidance in a particular field of human conduct. Clarification : Bioethics points to many novel complex cases, for example, gene technology, cloning, and human-animal chimeras and facilitates the awareness of the particular problem in public discourse.

Structure : Bioethics elaborates important arguments from a critical examination of judgements and considerations in discussions and debates. A Brief History of Bioethics Historically speaking, there are three possible ways at least to address the history of bioethics. The Origin of the Academic Discipline and Institutionalization of Bioethics The origin of the discipline of bioethics in the USA goes hand in hand with the origin of its institutionalization. The Origin of Bioethics as a Phenomenon The notion of bioethics and the origin of the discipline of bioethics and its institutionalization in academia is a modern development. Sub-disciplines in Bioethics a. Introduction Bioethics is a discipline of applied ethics and comprises three main sub-disciplines: medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics.

Medical Ethics The oldest sub-discipline of bioethics is medical ethics which can be traced back to the introduction of the Hippocratic Oath B. Animal Ethics The history of ethics is to some extent a history of who is and should be part of the moral community. The Idea of Moral Status in Bioethics Bioethical debates, particularly in animal ethics and environmental ethics, are concerned with issues of moral status and moral protection. Theory in Bioethics a. Introduction Bioethics is an important inter-disciplinary and rapidly emerging field of applied ethics.

Deontological Approaches Deontological approaches such as provided by Kant and Ross are commonly characterized by applying usually strict moral rules or norms to concrete cases. Utilitarianism One of the most prominent and influential ways of ethical reasoning and decision making in the field of bioethics is based on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, in fact, contains a wide range of different approaches, but one can distinguish four important core elements that all utilitarian approaches have in common: The consequence principle : The consequences of a given action are the measure of its moral quality.

The utility principle : The moral rightness and wrongness of actions are determined by the greatest possible utility for the greatest possible number of all sentient beings. The hedonistic principle : The consequences of a given action are evaluated with reference to a particular value. This particular prime value can be as follows: 1 Promoting pleasure, or 2 avoiding pain, or 3 satisfaction of interests or considered preferences, or 4 satisfaction of some objective criteria of well-being, and so forth. The universal principle : Maximize the total utility for all sentient beings affected. The Four-Principle Approach One of the most important approaches in bioethics or medical ethics is the four-principle approach developed by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress , latest edition According to Beauchamp and Childress: The common morality is the set of norms shared by all persons committed to morality.

The method of specification is, according to Beauchamp, …a methodological tool that adds content to abstract principles, ridding them of their indeterminateness and providing action-guiding content for the purpose of coping with complex cases. Virtue Ethics The revival of virtue ethics in moral philosophy in the last century was most notably spearheaded by Anscombe , MacIntyre , Williams , Nussbaum , , and more recently Hursthouse , , Slote , Swanton , and Oakley Casuistry The revival of casuistry as an inductive method of ethical reasoning and decision making in the second half of the twentieth century coincides with a wide and persistent critique of principle-oriented approaches, most notably principlism, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism in bioethics.

The general strategy in casuistry can be described as follows: Depiction of the case : A thorough depiction of the empirical and moral elements of the given case lays out the basic structure and the decisive problems. Vital questions are: a What are the particulars of the case who, what, where, when, how much? Classification of the case : Once the given case is thoroughly depicted, one must classify the case by finding paradigm cases and analogies by analogical reasoning. Paradigm cases and analogies function as the background against which the given case is evaluated.

They help to determine the important similarities and differences of the specifics of the case. Moral judgement : Once the specific similarities and differences of the case are determined, the casuists evaluate the results by adhering to common sense morality and the basic values of the community. Feminist Bioethics Feminist bioethics can only be fully appreciated if one understands the context in which this increasingly important approach evolved during the late twentieth century Tong , Wolf , Donchin and Purdy , Rawlinson References and Further Reading a.

References Altman, M. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Anscombe, E. Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy , 33 , Arras, J. Baker, R. Beauchamp, T. Making Principlism Practical, Bioethics , 25 6 , Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Principles of Biomedical Ethics , 6 th ed. Beecher, H. Brody, B. Life and Death Decision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

Callahan, D. Bioethics as a Discipline, Hastings Center Studies , 1 1 , Cole, E. Explorations in Feminist Ethics: Theory and Practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Donchin, A. Embodying Bioethics: Recent Feminist Advances. Donovan, J. Feminism and the Treatment of Animals. In: S. Botzler Eds. New York: Continuum. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Fletcher, J. Boston: Beacon. Foot, P. Euthanasia, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6 2 , Gert, B. Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Giubilini, A. Gordon, J. Applying the Four-Principle Approach, Bioethics , 25 6 , Gudorf, C. A Feminist Critique of Biomedical Principlism. In: E. DuBose, R. Ferment in US Bioethics. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, Habermas, J. In: A. Krebs Ed. Frankfurt am Main. Haker, H. Feministische Bioethik. In: M. Steigleder Eds. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Harris, J. Survival Lottery, Philosophy , 50 , Holland, S. Holmes, H. Hursthouse, R. Beginning Lives. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. On Virtue Ethics. Environmental Virtue Ethics. In: R. Ivanhoe Eds. New York: Oxford University Press, Virtue Ethics and the Treatment of Animals.

In: T. Frey Eds. Jagger, A. Feminist Ethics. In: L. Becker Ed. New York: Garland, Jahr, F. Tierschutz und Ethik in ihren Beziehungen zueinander, Ethik. Drei Studien zum 5. Gebot, Ethik. Sexual- und Gesellschaftsethik, 11, Jansen, L. Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Accreditation Manual For Hospitals. Jonas, H. Jonsen, A. A Short History of Medical Ethics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kant, I. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kihlbom, U. Guidance and Justification in Particularistic Ethics, Bioethics , 14 4 , Kittay, E. New York and London: Routledge. Kopelman, L. Kuhse, H. Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. A Companion to Bioethics , 2 nd ed.

The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Korsgaard, C. In: G. Peterson Ed. Lebacqz, K. The Virtuous Patient. Shelp Eds. Explorations in the Character of Medicine. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, In: W. Reich Ed. New York: Macmillan, Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac [reissued: ]. New York: Random House. McDougall, R. MacIntyre, A. London: Duckworth.

Mackenzie, C. Relational Autonomy and the Social Self. Merriam, G. Virtue Ethics and the Moral Significance of Animals. Proquest, Umi Dissertation. Midgley, M. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Mies, M. Miles, A. Women, Health and Medicine. Noddings, N. Noonan, J. An Almost Absolute Value in History. In: J. Noonan Ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Nussbaum, M.

Aristotelian Social Democracy. Douglas, G. Richardson Eds. New York: Routledge, Oakley, J. A Virtue Ethics Approach. In: H. Singer Eds , A Companion to Bioethics , 2 nd ed. Virtue Ethics and Professional Roles. Pellegrino, E. Der tugendhafte Arzt und die Ethik in der Medizin. Sass Ed. Stuttgart: Reclam, The Virtues in Medical Practice. Inactivation by direct effect". Journal of Bacteriology.

Protein Science. Bibcode : PNAS The eighth day of creation : makers of the revolution in biology 1st Touchstone ed. New York: Simon and Schuster. Retrieved June 29, March 24, — August 23, Elected F. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. Science History Institute. Archived from the original on March 21, Retrieved March 20, JSTOR S2CID Francis Crick : hunter of life's secrets. Cold Spring Harbor, N. October 20, New York Times. Retrieved August 3, Nobel Media. Retrieved December 6, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, chapter 3. Science Communication in Theory and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Physics Today. Bibcode : PhT DNA from the beginning. November 4, American Scientist. Molecular biology of the gene. New York: W. The double helix: a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Modern Library. Retrieved October 10, For an edition which contains critical responses, book reviews, and copies of the original scientific papers, see James D. New York: Norton, Witkowski, Jan; Gann, Alexander eds. Rosalind Franklin and DNA. New York: Norton. University College, Cork, Ireland. Archived from the original on February 6, October 25, Retrieved August 31, Richardson October 19, Houghton Mifflin Company, p.

Retrieved on October 24, The Independent. Retrieved October 24, Retrieved June 24, November 8, The Washington Post. Press release. Retrieved on September 16, Financial Times. Retrieved December 1, Retrieved November 30, Watson says he intends to use part of the money raised by the sale to fund projects at the universities and scientific research institutions he has worked at throughout his career. Nobel Prize Medal". Retrieved August 21, Scientific American. BBC News. December 9, Retrieved December 10, Archived from the original on March 28, Retrieved August 5, Archived from the original on March 24, Retrieved March 22, Algarve Resident. Archived from the original on December 12, Ballantine Books, p. The New York Times. February 22, British Medical Journal.

ABC News. October 17, Archived from the original on June 28, Retrieved May 28, Oxford: Oxford University Press. New Scientist. Retrieved April 24, He Made Things Worse. Retrieved January 1, The Times. Retrieved July 9, The Telegraph. Archived from the original on October 24, Retrieved November 28, As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our desire to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Retrieved September 27, October 18, Retrieved on October 25, Archived from the original on May 24, Watson in "American Masters: Decoding Watson " ". January 11, Retrieved January 13, January 13, Archived from the original on January 13, ISSN Retrieved January 12, Humanism and Its Aspirations. American Humanist Association. Archived from the original on October 5, Retrieved October 4, Retrieved on November 4, American Philosophical Society. Retrieved November 27, Accessed March 22, Carty Award for the Advancement of Science". National Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on December 29, Retrieved February 15, February 14, May 31, Watson to receive Othmer Gold Medal". Psych Central. February 23, American Academy of Achievement. In response to his most recent statements, which effectively reverse the written apology and retraction Dr.

Watson made in , the Laboratory has taken additional steps, including revoking his honorary titles of Chancellor Emeritus, Oliver R. Grace Professor Emeritus, and Honorary Trustee. Watson at Wikipedia's sister projects. Fellows of the Royal Society elected in Laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Hitchings J. Krebs Richard J. Wieschaus Peter C. Zinkernagel Stanley B. Prusiner Robert F. Szostak Robert G. Young James P. John Steinbeck United States.

Linus Pauling United States. Lev Landau Soviet Union. Nobel Prize recipients United States National Medal of Science laureates. Behavioral and social science. Simon Anne Anastasi George J. Stigler Milton Friedman. Miller Eleanor J. Gibson Robert K. Merton Roger N. Shepard Paul Samuelson William K. Bower Michael I. Posner Mortimer Mishkin. Nirenberg Francis P. Rous George G. Simpson Donald D. Van Slyke Edward F. Rose Sewall Wright Kenneth S. Cole Harry F. Harlow Michael Heidelberger Alfred H. Sturtevant Horace Barker Bernard B.

Brodie Detlev W. Sabin Daniel I. Arnon Earl W. Sutherland Jr. Wilson Robert H. Burris Elizabeth C. Burton Mildred Cohn Howard L. Bachrach Paul Berg Wendell L. Henderson Vernon B. Steitz Michael E. DeBakey Theodor O. Goldstein Maurice R. Hilleman Eric R. Sperry Harland G. Boyer Daniel E. Koshland Jr. Edward B. Lewis David G. Nathan E. Evelyn Hutchinson Elvin A. Kabat Robert W. Kates Salvador Luria Paul A. Marks Folke K. Skoog Paul C. Waelsch Thomas Eisner Elizabeth F. Andreasen Peter H. Raven Carl Woese Francisco J. Ayala George F. Bass Mario R. Capecchi Ann Graybiel Gene E. Likens Victor A. Darnell Evelyn M. Witkin J. Michael Bishop Solomon H. Snyder Charles Yanofsky Norman E.

Borlaug Phillip A. Sharp Thomas E. Starzl Anthony Fauci Torsten N. Wiesel Rita R. Lefkowitz Bert W. O'Malley Francis S. Collins Elaine Fuchs J. Craig Venter Susan L. Lindquist Stanley B. Pimentel Richard N. Zare Harry B. Marvel Frank H. Westheimer William S. Johnson Walter H. Stockmayer Max Tishler William O. Baker Konrad E. Bloch Elias J. Corey Richard B. Bernstein Melvin Calvin Rudolph A.

Marcus Harden M. Roberts Ronald Breslow Gertrude B. Elion Dudley R. Herschbach Glenn T. Seaborg Howard E. Simmons Jr. Cram Norman Hackerman George S. Hammond Thomas Cech Isabella L. Karle Norman Davidson Darleane C. Hoffman Harold S. Johnston John W. Cahn George M. Whitesides Stuart A. Rice John Ross Susan Solomon. Baldeschwieler Ralph F. Hirschmann Ernest R. Somorjai John I. Brauman Stephen J. Lippard Tobin J. Marks Marvin H. Caruthers Peter B. Dervan Mostafa A.

Benkovic Marye Anne Fox. Barton Peter J. Stang Allen J. Bard M. Frederick Hawthorne Judith P. Klinman Jerrold Meinwald Geraldine L. Richmond A. Paul Alivisatos. Draper Othmar H. Ammann Hugh L. Dryden Clarence L. Johnson Warren K. Lewis Claude E. Shannon Edwin H. Land Igor I. Sikorsky J. Presper Eckert Nathan M. Newmark Jack St. Clair Kilby. Mueller Harold E. Edgerton Richard T. Leith Raymond D. Mindlin Robert N. Noyce Earl R. Parker Simon Ramo. Heinemann Donald L. Oliver Robert Byron Bird H. Drucker Willis M. Hawkins George W. Heilmeier Luna B. Leopold H. Guyford Stever Calvin F. Cho Ray W. Clough Hermann A. Haus James L. Flanagan C. Kumar N. Patel Eli Ruckenstein Kenneth N. Prausnitz Edwin N.

Lightfoot Jan D. Achenbach Robert S. Langer David J.

Boulder: James Allen Research Paper Press. March 24, — August 23, Elected F. But James Allen Research Paper Billion Dollar Congress Research Paper not, it can result in a mountain of interest James Allen Research Paper. Fletcher, J.

Current Viewers: