Bernie Madoff (Ethics) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Bernie Madoff (Ethics) - Essay Example Most Ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes end up collapsing because new investors begin to dwindle and the return on investment promised quickly declines. What Madoff did that set him apart was to run a successful Ponzi scheme for years and to use charisma, charm, intelligence and advanced accounting to keep auditors, regulators and investors at bay. One thing that clearly contributed to Madoff's success, both because it expanded his resume and because it allowed him to know how to make his business appear legitimate, was that he was a well-established Wall Street player in legitimate operations. He made his money as a stocks wholesaler in the early days of the telecommunication boom when Wall Street would transform utterly. He could point to years of legitimate success when he wanted to assuage the fears of his investors. The frightening fact about Madoff's one-time legitimacy is that it indicates, as do the Enron and WorldCom examples, that Wall Street's mainstream culture does not see m to weed out potential conmen. Rather, the opposite seems to happen: The culture of Wall Street either seems to sharpen existing predatory urges or causes businessmen and financial whizkids to seek out ever-higher rates of return. Of course, Madoff pointed out as he was being arrested and tried that no one was complaining when he was returning them double-digit returns, even though it is clear that it is almost impossible for such returns to be legitimate. One issue might be the inequality at the top of the ladder itself: Hacker and Pierson in Winner-Take-All Politics point out that winner-take-all inequality, where the top 10% gain the lion's share of economic growth, leads to a situation where the rich are more and more likely to invest into extremely risky financial instruments. Madoff, like all good conmen, made sure to psychologically control, reward and assuage his participants. Investors in his money management scheme always were given the direct benefit of his individual ch arm. He cultivated an exclusive atmosphere, allowing only invited investors to come in, which seemed to indicate both safety (after all, why be so careful about an investment if it wasn't legitimate?) and power. People in Madoff's web felt that they were unique and special, part of a small club. Madoff consciously cultivated this image. One of the things that contributes to the eventual transparency of Ponzi schemes is that their affectations at exclusivity are totally superficial: It's obvious to anyone that they're desperately trying to get anyone involved, which makes smart people wonder what they're doing with their money. But Madoff was willing to walk away; he managed to cover up his Ponzi scheme not least with the way he treated investors. Madoff made sure, for whatever reason, to distance his family: Mark, Shana, Ruth and Peter Madoff all seemed totally distant from the planning process. Ruth acted as a public face but it seemed that she was unaware of the fraud. It may have been a desire to protect his family, but it may also have been smart business. The legitimate businesses Madoff ran not only generated profit but were also, in essence, a front: He could use those ventures to shield problems in his illegitimate schemes and could use it to find victims. By scrupulously preserving the integrity of his family and the firm, he made the Ponzi scheme more viable alongside protecting his cash cow. He even hired people who were less educated and perhaps less intelligent than him, people who would be

Homelessness Is More Than Missing a House Essay Example for Free

Homelessness Is More Than Missing a House Essay We always encounter these types of people: A man who is shaking a cup and trying to present a smiling face to you on the side of the street, his coins are striking against each other, and his clothes were tatty and his shoes unmatched. Or at night, a crew of people who sit or sleep in front of a store with some filthy blankets on. We don’t know what kind of causes affect their homelessness, but we could easily recognize them, probably take pity on them and maybe give them change or food. Homeless people might not expect financial assist but they need mental support because they are not just physically missing a house and they have nothing to lose after the spiritual collapse by missing heart protections. We need to emotionally help them by more psychological fixing. Barbara Lazear Ascher states that we were able to help homeless people by more attentions in her article, â€Å"On Compassion†. Ascher argues that we should pay more attention to the homeless by helping them. She says, â€Å"We cannot deny the existence of the helpless as their presence grows. It is impossible to insulate ourselves against what is at our very door step† (213). We can help them by possibly give a used blanket or some warm soup. However, economical contribution might not able to fix the issue, according to Anna Quindlen’s in her â€Å"Homeless†, â€Å"Home is where the heart is. There’s no place like it†(217). Once those homeless people lose their homes, they lose everything physically, and emotionally miss their hearts and believe, faith of lives, that’s what money or food couldn’t build. Ascher believes that the general public should treat homeless people better. She begins with stating that people shouldn’t judge the homeless by their appearances. She tells a story of a homeless man, â€Å"His buttonless shirt, with one sleeve missing, hangs outside the waist of his baggy trousers. Carefully plaited dreadlocks bespeak a better time, long ago. As he crosses Manhattan’s Seventy-ninth Street, his gait is the shuffle of the forgotten ones held in place by gravity rather than plans† (211). What a pitiful man! What a tragic abjection came down onto his life! He maybe was a successful businessman in his earlier life? By giving details of a homeless person, she sets up the fundamentals of her paper and that straightforwardly grabs attention and sympathy from the audience right into the story. Ascher also observes how did aloof neighbors ignore the homeless person away, â€Å"A man with a briefcase lifts and lowers the shinny toe of his right shoe, watching the light reflect, trying to catch and balance it, as if he could hold and make it his, to ease the heavy gray of coming January, February, and March†(212). A well-educated man would not prefer to give up a dime to the person, and how about others? The rest couple in this image, are standing far away from the man, five of them, are anxiously staring at the direction that the crosstown shuttle come from(212). They feel there was nothing to do about this situation, they were totally out of this moment. Because of human nature, they refused to lower their dignities and positions to help out the homeless man even though he didn’t ask for it. Comparing with details of the homeless person exterior by Barbara L. Ascher, Anna Quindlen begins her essay in a much different way. †She said I was wasting my time talking to her; she was just passing through, although she’d been passing through for more than two weeks. To prove to me that this was true, she rummaged through a tote bag and a manila envelope and finally unfolded a sheet of typing paper and brought out her photographs†(216). Quindlen tells the story of a strange woman whom Quindlen met. The woman was carrying a picture of her old and common house all the time at the bus terminal. Quindlen recognized the lady, â€Å"She had a house, or at least once upon a time had had one. Inside were curtains, a couch, a stove, potholders. You are where you live. She was somebody†(217). From the opening of both stories between Ascher and Quindlen, Ascher focused on expressing the pitiful image of homelessness to the public, bring sympathy and help to them. However, In Quindlen’s essay â€Å"Homeless,† she brought the arguement that society’s view of home has changed in the past few generations. What could we accomplish by changing our perspective on homelessness? In this context, Quindlen noted that a home is, simply more than an exact house-a home becomes a place where we can feel connected emotionally and physically with our families. That was also the main cause why those homeless people refused to live in shelters, mostly they preferred to live on random streets. Because the homes they used to have, were more like a symbol exists in their minds, it was more than just a house and mailing address. However it was a place where it collected emotions such as love, hate, happiness, sadness, and it was a place that offered comfort and security. They used to express themselves in home but not in the shelter. Quindlen stated that our society should have treated those people as a collection of people who are not homeless, but are just missing a home. The main purpose of Barbara Lazear Ascher’s â€Å"On Compassion† encounter in couple different acts of how do people treat homeless people. She witnesses both neglect and kindness to the homeless people by the general society. She also curiously gives how does the middle-class do not understand the poor and homeless of homeless people. However, Anna Quindlen expresses her points in a different view of homelessness. Her point shows we should be able to understand of the depth of the issues of homelessness, and the most important thing for those people is a sense of heart’s place, a home. Homeless circumstances sound far away from us because we have our body and mind protected in our home. Nevertheless, the lady from Quindlen’s story who carried the picture of her house with her all the time, owned her respect and faith of a home, and shouldn’t be treated as a homeless person. There are a lot of things we can do other than just give them food. We could smile, talk, and even contribute a hug for them. Home is not just a house or mailing address. Home is the place where a family’s body and emotions are collected. It also provides the bridge that connects families. People laugh, cry, become angry or stressed, we are dealing with every kind of emotions in our daily life and finally we find out the best place to express all of these emotions are in our home.

Failure analysis report on the chernobyl power plant

Failure analysis report on the chernobyl power plant 1. Introduction This memo is a failure analysis report on the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant located near the city of Pripyat, Ukraine. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the power plant exploded, releasing a powerful stream of radioactive vapour. Immediately, the explosion killed 54 people. Later on, effects due to radiation claimed the lives of at least an additional 2500 people (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006). This report will explain the events leading up to the failure, the failure itself, the reasons for the failure, and the lessons to be learned from this failure. 2. Description of reactor and failure i) In this section, I will explain the mechanism of the reactor. I will also placethe reactors components in bold. The Chernobyl Power Plant was fuelled using uranium mined from the earth; the uranium was kept in fuel bundles. The main objective of the power plant was to convert heat produced by the slightly-enriched uranium into electricity (World Nuclear Association, 2009). In order to do this, control rods first slowed down the rates of reactions by absorbing stray neutrons from the fission reactions (World Nuclear Association, 2009). After the fission reactions began producing heat, this heat was then transferred to stored water which eventually converted to steam at a temperature of 580ÂÂ °C (The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, 2008). The pressure of the steam moved a turbine which then powered a generator. The final process was the condensation of the steam back into liquid using a cooling lake, thus repeating the cycle (World Nuclear Association, 2009). This type of nuclear reactor is known as a high-power channel reactor or a RBMK reactor, as referred to it by the Soviets (World Nuclear Association, 2009). The Chernobyl Power Plant had four such reactors each with a power rating of 1000 megawatts (World Nuclear Association, 2009). The diagram at the end of this report illustrates this reactor along with all the bolded components. ii) In this section, I will explain the process leading up to the failure and the failure itself. Hours before the explosion, engineers within the plant were planning tests to see how the reactor would run on low power (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006). The engineers added control rods to slow the reaction. They then disabled the cooling system, which was a major safety violation. The reactor was then incrementally slowed to reach the lowest operating power (The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, 2008). Soon after, the engineers noticed that the reactor was moving towards shutdown, so they quickly lifted the control rods to increase the rate of reaction. Suddenly, the power levels of the reactors increased, uncontrollably, and caused fuel elements to rupture along with an increase in steam generation (World Nuclear Association, 2009). This led to the detachment of the reactor support plate which caused the control rods to jam. The channel pipes then burst, and the explosion occurred, releasing 50 tons of radioactive particles into the atmosphere (World Nuclear Association, 200 9). 3. Reasons for the failure Chernobyl was most definitely a preventable disaster (Frot, 2004). Even though the RBMK design was perhaps not the safest reactor design, it still would not have exploded had the people involved taken the appropriate precautions necessary (Medvedev, 1990, p. 73). The technical failure of Chernobyl was due to extreme pressure increases along with design malfunctions. However, that was not the only cause. The engineers in charge of Chernobyl were also suppressed by the Soviet bureaucracy who did not allow for time to be wasted on such things as safety, focusing much more time on advancement and cutting costs (Frot, 2004). Hence, the engineers and workers at the power plant were not rigorously trained in safety nor did they regard safety as paramount (Medvedev, 1990, p. 70). 4. Lessons to be learned The Chernobyl Disaster left a devastating impact on the people and the surrounding environment. Improper technique, untrained personnel, and lack of oversight all contributed to this disaster. As engineers or aspiring engineers, it is our duty to understand the potential impacts of our design decisions. Not the least of which is the attention to safety. If a culture of safety is not cultivated then disasters such as Chernobyl will become possible realities. On the other hand, if a culture of safety is cultivated then disasters such as Chernobyl will become easily preventable. References Frot, Jacques. The Causes of the Chernobyl Event. (2004). Retrieved 16 February, 2010, from http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ddH2v8pgJukJ:www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Causes.ChernobyJF.doc+causes+of+chernobylcd=2hl=enct=clnkgl=caclient=firefox-a. International Atomic Energy Agency. Frequently Asked Questions about Chernobyl. (2006). Retrieved 16 February, 2010, from http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml. Medvedev, Zhores. (1992). The Legacy of Chernobyl. New York: W. W. Norton Company. The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. (2008). Retrieved 16 February, 2010, from http://www.bentan.me/chernobyl/?page. World Nuclear Association. Chernobyl Accident. (2009). Retrieved 16 February, 2010, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html.

Mahfouzs Akhenaten, Dweller in Truth Essay -- Historical Novels Histo

Mahfouz's Akhenaten, Dweller in Truth In the history of literature, perhaps the most explored genre is the historical novel. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to the present day, authors have taken historical facts and interpreted them novelistically. When no facts are available, the author may extrapolate missing parts of the story from two sources -- either through the interpretation of the existing scholarly data or through the author's imagination. These two approaches to 'filling in the gaps' of a historical novel can either appease the historian and displease the literary critic or please the literary critic and upset the historian. Very few novelists can produce a historically accurate novel that is also pleasing to a literary critic; to do so would be very difficult because the novelistic plot structure hardly ever follows the structure of truthful historic events. A novelistic writing about a battle in World War Two would be bound to either an accurate portrayal of the events around the main character or a convincing d epiction of the people involved. If the author chose to write about turrets, casualty statistics, and troop movements, he would surely sacrifice much of the artistic content of the novel. If the author chose to focus on character and plot, then the writer couldn't portray the event with the specificity it requires. However, the exception to these guidelines appears when a novelist chooses to write a historical novel about a time or a person when large portions of the historical picture is still either unknown or up for scholarly debate. This condition presents itself infrequently to the historical novelist, in circumstances where few people witnessed or spoke about the event, or through an event so ancient tha... ... with a few authorly embelishments. Despite his lack of glaring inaccuracies, the author does not seem to capture the anthropological, sociological, and political climate of the Amarna period. Having examined Mahfouz's portrayal of the pre-Amarna and Amarna periods, in the context of popular belief and scholarly interpretation, the novel appears as an interesting yet general view of Akhenaten and his times. Despite his writing geared towards a general audience, Mahfouz does not take advantage of his audience by engaging in heresay and confabulation. The novel appears to be thought out on the basis of scholarship, both Egyptian and otherwise, giving the reader a surface glance of the complications of the Amarna period. Works Cited: Brier, R., The Murder of Tutankhamen, 1998. Robbins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.

IT Ethics and Security Essay

Piracy has always been a concern with technology over the years. Organizations strive hard to analyze the requirement of the hour of computer users and then develop software that can fully ease the problems of a user. The organizations that develop software obviously need to have a return for their attempt. The software developers’ job is a tough one, because they put off their sleep in order to maintain a tempo in the development of software and organizations often find it difficult to meet the exact requirements on ordered software, due to which several revisions are done on the software before it gets into a final product. The software development market is generally divided into two categories, Open Source software and Close Source software. The Open Source software is the one that are free to use, and the organizations or individual developers who develop this software encourage its distribution, usage and at times modifications according to the requirement of the user. The Source code, which has all the development procedures are provided to the user in this category, therefore the modifications become easy when the software gets into the hand of another developer. (Frederick, 2007) These are great for learning purpose and often are used by immature developers to get help in development. The Close Source software are contrastingly different, the users need to buy these software just like any product in the market and often these kind of software get customer support and trainings â€Å"how to†, so that the user gets full value for his money. The close source software is ones, that are stable and they go through different processes before its final launch. The organization that develop these software often register them with their name so that copyrights and license usage law is applied on them. The licensure law ensures the organization that the software bought but a person will be used according to organization’s specified conditions. (Albacea, 2005) In this particular case where the friend is offering to split the cost is a violation of licensure law. Microsoft is a large enterprise and it develops close source software that are copyrighted and licensed according to their terms and conditions. When my friend bought Microsoft Office, in the product pack he had been provided the terms for use of the product, which states that sharing of the product is a violation to the licensure law. Ethically this is very wrong because Microsoft develops the software after several procedures and analyzing the market conditions, and the price $300 for the office suite the charged is based upon cost analysis of one person. The sharing of one-user license is almost equal to as stealing of a product; because the organization is charging for once only from the user but at the same price another user using the same product free of cost. There have been several discussions conducted in small to large enterprises that develop software about piracy and violation of usage licensure. However many steps have been taken to minimize the violation and organizations also offer some package deals where multiple licenses are discounted which saves a lot of cost of user. This ethical violation of licensure law has been minimized to some extend now due to efforts but it also depends upon the inner self of a person to realize the attempt that an organization does in order to develop the software and stealing the software reduced their return which is an ethical issue.

Nobel Prize Winner: James Watson

Among the most notable and controversial Nobel Prize recipients is James Watson. He, together with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, was awarded the Nobel Prize in the year 1962 in the Physiology or Medicine category. He is one of the scientists who discovered the molecular structure of the DNA which is hailed as one of the great breakthroughs in the field of Sciences.James Dewey Watson was born on April 6, 1928 in Chicago, Illinois. In his early life, he was said to be fond of bird-gazing together with his father. When he was 12 years old, he was part of the famous radio show entitled Quiz Kids, a game which challenged young students to a quiz contest. At the age of 15, Watson entered the University of Chicago with the help of the then liberal policy of Robert Hutchins, the University president. In 1946, his interest in the field of science changed from his former concern on ornithology to genetics after he had read What Is Life? by Erwin Schrodinger. In 1947, he received his Bache lor’s degree in Zoology from the same university.Among Watson’s foremost influences was Salvador Luria, also a Nobel Prize winner. He was engrossed to the latter’s work which exposed him on the nature of genetic mutations. In the first months of 1948, Watson started to pursue his Ph.D. research at Indiana University at Luria’s laboratory. He was able to meet with another Nobel Prize recipient Max Delbruck. Delbruck and Luria were the pioneers of the Phage Group, a movement of geneticists who underwent studies and researches on microbial genetics.Eventually, Watson was also able to work with the group as a working scientist. His experience with the Phage group opened up his scientific knowledge on the nature and structure of genes. In order to develop his knowledge about the components of a gene, he took a course with another scientist Feliz Haurowitz in 1949 in which he was able to gain the conventional views on genes such as genes were proteins and vice versa; that genes have the capacity to replicate themselves; and other scientific data about the DNA.But through with all those knowledge, Watson was also fascinated with the work of Oswald Avery explaining that DNA was indeed the genetic molecule. Towards his doctoral studies, he underwent X-rays researches which attempted to de-motivate bacterial viruses. In 1950, he received his Ph.D. in Zoology at Indiana University.To be able to enhance more his knowledge on genetics and genetic composition, Watson went to Europe to pursue a postdoctoral study. He stayed at the laboratory in Copenhagen owned by a biochemist named Herman Kalckar whose studies were also linked with the nucleic acids. Through his stay with Kalckar’s laboratory, he was able to conduct experiments with another member of the Phage group, Ole Maaloe.The latter’s studies and researches were concerned on the DNA and the earlier supposition that it is the genetic molecule. In a meeting in Italy where he acc ompanied Kalckar, he met Maurice Wilkins who was also a devoted geneticist. In an event, Wilkins had shown Watson an X-ray diffraction data for DNA (which was originally worked out by Rosalind Franklin). After seeing the X-ray, he came to a conclusion that DNA had a distinct structure. Watson attempted to discover this through his experimental research done in different universities.Watson came to a decision to be familiar with performing X-ray diffraction experiments for the reason that such undertaking would lead him to a more probable and easier discovery of the DNA structure (He was inspired by Linus Pauling who was able to publish the protein alpha helix model with his unremitting efforts in undergoing X-ray experiments on molecular model.In 1951, Watson, together with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, started to work out a series of experimental researches using Franklin’s X-ray findings on DNA structure. A controversy was said to occur during the period of experimenta l researches among Watson, Crick and Wilkins for the reason that they were using Franklin’s data and findings without the latter’s knowledge and consent.To further study Franklin’s X-ray findings, Watson attended one of Franklin’s seminar by which she explained how she obtained her findings on the DNA structure. Originally, Franklin claimed that the DNA was structured in helix-form. With this, Watson had started again to construct a molecular model but in the end it was criticize by Franklin by saying that the phosphate backbones must not be in the inside but on the outside.Eager to finish their attempt, the two used Franklin’s observations in their ultimate attempt to arrive at the DNA structure model. However, 1951, the absolute details of the chemical structure of the backbone of the DNA were identified by Alexander Todd, a biochemist. With that, Watson and Crick were asked to stop working with the DNA structure in 1952. Yet the two had never co mpletely put aside their desire to come up with the DNA structure model.After numerous trips which exposed Watson and Crick to different methods and experimental systems that could help them in their account on DNA structure model, they were again asked to continue working on the DNA structural model by the then laboratory director Maurice Wilkins. Through the years, Franklin’s findings progresses and even developed.   The two, again, used Franklin’s findings in their experimental research on the DNA structure.The most outstanding contribution of Watson in the entire pursuit of the structural model of the DNA was his discovery of the nucleotide base pairs. These base pairs are said to be the chief answer in solving the structure and function of the DNA. Watson used the Pauling tradition, which he was formerly exposed.On February 1953, Watson worked out a molecule model which used a straight periphery, and exacto blade, white cardboard and adhesive. He made the molecu les flat in their loop so that he could slide the cardboard models and inspect how they work. Through such improvised models, Watson saw that the bigger two ring (A and G nucleobase; also referred as the purines) could be matched with a lesser one ring (T and C nucleobases; also referred as the pyrimidines).Watson hypothesized if the tow pairs could be paired through a hydrogen bond which he discovered possible. He then observed that the two pairs could be placed over on each other with alike general configuration. To elaborate, the hexagonal rings were central and the comparative courses of the five-member rings of A and G were the identical.   Watson perceived that numerous members were falling into place such that he regarded it as the answer. He was right for formulating such conclusion. Watson’s discovery of the base pairs was unswerving with what Chargaff, also a biochemist, had already worked out.Not so long that Watson and Crick had completed their experimental rese arch on the structural model of DNA by concluding the double helix form of the DNA. They presented their findings through a journal entitled Nature. With this great discovery, Watson and his co-scientists Crick and Wilkins were given the Nobel Prize in 1962 for their discovery of the structure of nucleic acids.Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier the controversy involving the original works of Franklin had put the three Nobel Prize Awardees in so much criticisms primarily with their failure to acknowledge the contribution of Franklin. But Watson took the courage to clarify the issue and appraise Franklin’s involvement in the discovery of the DNA structural model. In 1968, he published a book entitled The Double-Helix which explained his team’s side regarding the controversy with Franklin.He clarified that it was not intentional to bypass Franklin all throughout their achievements. He said that Franklin was really one of the persons who gave him the impetus to strive hard er and make him more careful in analyzing his experimental research on DNA structure.   In the end, his team included Franklin as one of the most important persons behind the success of their structural model of DNA.Watson’s published book made the public realize how scientists like him undergo so much hardships for the sake of scientific discoveries which can really aid the entire mankind in uplifting the quality of their lives. He had proven that with great effort and outstanding sacrifice, anyone could victoriously achieve his or her goals.Watson did not stop his scientific endeavors with his Nobel Prize award. He worked with the Genome Project in 1988 which he held up until 1992.References:Hamilton, J. (2004). James Watson: Solving the Mystery of DNA (Nobel Prize-Winning  Ã‚   Scientists). Enslow Publishers.Watson, J. D. (2001). The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Structure of DNA (First ed.). Touchstone. Nobel prize winner: james watson Among the most notable and controversial Nobel Prize recipients is James Watson. He, together with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, was awarded the Nobel Prize in the year 1962 in the Physiology or Medicine category. He is one of the scientists who discovered the molecular structure of the DNA which is hailed as one of the great breakthroughs in the field of Sciences.James Dewey Watson was born on April 6, 1928 in Chicago, Illinois. In his early life, he was said to be fond of bird-gazing together with his father. When he was 12 years old, he was part of the famous radio show entitled Quiz Kids, a game which challenged young students to a quiz contest. At the age of 15, Watson entered the University of Chicago with the help of the then liberal policy of Robert Hutchins, the University president. In 1946, his interest in the field of science changed from his former concern on ornithology to genetics after he had read What Is Life? by Erwin Schrodinger. In 1947, he received his Bache lor’s degree in Zoology from the same university.Among Watson’s foremost influences was Salvador Luria, also a Nobel Prize winner. He was engrossed to the latter’s work which exposed him on the nature of genetic mutations. In the first months of 1948, Watson started to pursue his Ph.D. research at Indiana University at Luria’s laboratory. He was able to meet with another Nobel Prize recipient Max Delbruck. Delbruck and Luria were the pioneers of the Phage Group, a movement of geneticists who underwent studies and researches on microbial genetics. Eventually, Watson was also able to work with the group as a working scientist.His experience with the Phage group opened up his scientific knowledge on the nature and structure of genes. In order to develop his knowledge about the components of a gene, he took a course with another scientist Feliz Haurowitz in 1949 in which he was able to gain the conventional views on genes such as genes were proteins and vice versa; that genes have the capacity to replicate themselves; and other scientific data about the DNA. But through with all those knowledge, Watson was also fascinated with the work of Oswald Avery explaining that DNA was indeed the genetic molecule. Towards his doctoral studies, he underwent X-rays researches which attempted to de-motivate bacterial viruses. In 1950, he received his Ph.D. in Zoology at Indiana University.To be able to enhance more his knowledge on genetics and genetic composition, Watson went to Europe to pursue a postdoctoral study. He stayed at the laboratory in Copenhagen owned by a biochemist named Herman Kalckar whose studies were also linked with the nucleic acids. Through his stay with Kalckar’s laboratory, he was able to conduct experiments with another member of the Phage group, Ole Maaloe.The latter’s studies and researches were concerned on the DNA and the earlier supposition that it is the genetic molecule. In a meeting in Italy where he ac companied Kalckar, he met Maurice Wilkins who was also a devoted geneticist. In an event, Wilkins had shown Watson an X-ray diffraction data for DNA (which was originally worked out by Rosalind Franklin). After seeing the X-ray, he came to a conclusion that DNA had a distinct structure. Watson attempted to discover this through his experimental research done in different universities.Watson came to a decision to be familiar with performing X-ray diffraction experiments for the reason that such undertaking would lead him to a more probable and easier discovery of the DNA structure (He was inspired by Linus Pauling who was able to publish the protein alpha helix model with his unremitting efforts in undergoing X-ray experiments on molecular model.In 1951, Watson, together with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, started to work out a series of experimental researches using Franklin’s X-ray findings on DNA structure. A controversy was said to occur during the period of experiment al researches among Watson, Crick and Wilkins for the reason that they were using Franklin’s data and findings without the latter’s knowledge and consent. To further study Franklin’s X-ray findings, Watson attended one of Franklin’s seminar by which she explained how she obtained her findings on the DNA structure.Originally, Franklin claimed that the DNA was structured in helix-form. With this, Watson had started again to construct a molecular model but in the end it was criticize by Franklin by saying that the phosphate backbones must not be in the inside but on the outside. Eager to finish their attempt, the two used Franklin’s observations in their ultimate attempt to arrive at the DNA structure model. However, 1951, the absolute details of the chemical structure of the backbone of the DNA were identified by Alexander Todd, a biochemist. With that, Watson and Crick were asked to stop working with the DNA structure in 1952. Yet the two had never completely put aside their desire to come up with the DNA structure model.After numerous trips which exposed Watson and Crick to different methods and experimental systems that could help them in their account on DNA structure model, they were again asked to continue working on the DNA structural model by the then laboratory director Maurice Wilkins. Through the years, Franklin’s findings progresses and even developed.   The two, again, used Franklin’s findings in their experimental research on the DNA structure.The most outstanding contribution of Watson in the entire pursuit of the structural model of the DNA was his discovery of the nucleotide base pairs. These base pairs are said to be the chief answer in solving the structure and function of the DNA. Watson used the Pauling tradition, which he was formerly exposed.On February 1953, Watson worked out a molecule model which used a straight periphery, and exacto blade, white cardboard and adhesive. He made the mole cules flat in their loop so that he could slide the cardboard models and inspect how they work. Through such improvised models, Watson saw that the bigger two ring (A and G nucleobase; also referred as the purines) could be matched with a lesser one ring (T and C nucleobases; also referred as the pyrimidines).Watson hypothesized if the tow pairs could be paired through a hydrogen bond which he discovered possible. He then observed that the two pairs could be placed over on each other with alike general configuration. To elaborate, the hexagonal rings were central and the comparative courses of the five-member rings of A and G were the identical.   Watson perceived that numerous members were falling into place such that he regarded it as the answer. He was right for formulating such conclusion. Watson’s discovery of the base pairs was unswerving with what Chargaff, also a biochemist, had already worked out.Not so long that Watson and Crick had completed their experimental re search on the structural model of DNA by concluding the double helix form of the DNA. They presented their findings through a journal entitled Nature. With this great discovery, Watson and his co-scientists Crick and Wilkins were given the Nobel Prize in 1962 for their discovery of the structure of nucleic acids.Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier the controversy involving the original works of Franklin had put the three Nobel Prize Awardees in so much criticisms primarily with their failure to acknowledge the contribution of Franklin. But Watson took the courage to clarify the issue and appraise Franklin’s involvement in the discovery of the DNA structural model. In 1968, he published a book entitled The Double-Helix which explained his team’s side regarding the controversy with Franklin. He clarified that it was not intentional to bypass Franklin all throughout their achievements. He said that Franklin was really one of the persons who gave him the impetus to strive h arder and make him more careful in analyzing his experimental research on DNA structure.   In the end, his team included Franklin as one of the most important persons behind the success of their structural model of DNA.Watson’s published book made the public realize how scientists like him undergo so much hardships for the sake of scientific discoveries which can really aid the entire mankind in uplifting the quality of their lives. He had proven that with great effort and outstanding sacrifice, anyone could victoriously achieve his or her goals.Watson did not stop his scientific endeavors with his Nobel Prize award. He worked with the Genome Project in 1988 which he held up until 1992.References:Hamilton, J. (2004). James Watson: Solving the Mystery of DNA (Nobel Prize-Winning  Ã‚  Ã‚   Scientists). Enslow Publishers.Watson, J. D. (2001). The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Structure of DNA (First ed.). Touchstone.

Darren Mansaram (or Flash as he is better off known) scored one of the best goals he had ever scored in his short career

Darren Mansaram (or Flash as he is better off known) scored one of the best goals he had ever scored in his short career. Only eighteen years of age, but an up and coming star of the future hit the sweetest of shots to keep Grimsby Town in the F. A Cup. Grimsby was playing Burnley in the third round of the F. A Cup for a place in the fourth round maybe to face one of the premiership big boys. It was a miserable day with snow coming down in buckets. The previous league match at Grimsby was called off because of a waterlogged pitch so this match was lucky to go ahead. The eighteen year old from Doncaster was named in the starting eleven to face the team they had beat 6-5 two months previously. With the ground quickly filling up, the players came out of the dressing room onto the pitch for a warm up. Every Grimsby player applauded the Grimsby fans for their support and every person in the crowd applauded back. The team started their warm-up and there, right in the middle was Darren Mansaram. This was to be his first F. A. Cup match of his career and it was definitely going to be one to remember. Kick Off was approaching quickly and the snow seemed to have cleared, so the referee gave to ‘all clear' for the match to go on. The ground was rather full as the players came out of the tunnel, the Grimsby faithful applauded their team and the Burnley faithful applauded theirs. The officials called in the two captains to determine who was to kick off. It was to be Grimsby to kick off left to right towards the away end. Flash and David ‘Digger' Soames to kick off, playing the ball back to Stuart Campbell who in turn plays it to player/manager Paul Groves. Groves loses out to Paul Weller who plays a first time ball to Arthur Gnohere. He hits a long ball over the top of the Grimsby defence, Georges Santos looks over at the linesman to see if there is an off-side, Robbie Blake chases it down, takes it around the Grimsby keeper, Danny Coyne, and hits a shot which smacks the upright. The Grimsby defence can't clear it, Tony Grant comes steaming in and whacks the ball straight over the Pontoon. The town fans cheer with sheer delight as they watch the ball disappear. Grant got right under the ball there. Danny Coyne to take the goal kick, it's a brilliant kick which Stacey Coldicott heads on straight for ‘Digger' Soames who chases it down and hits a first time shot right into the Burnley keeper's arms. A great chance for Grimsby turned into a wasted opportunity. Marlon Beresford clears the ball for Burnley, Georges Santos heads the ball clear. It's pumped straight back into the box by Mark McGregor; Coyne comes flying out of his goal and gathers the ball comfortably. He rolls it out to Gallimore who plays a first time ball to Ford. Ford to Santos, up to Cooke who controls the ball well. Cooke has the ability to take people on from here. Branch and Gnohere quickly close Cooke down. Cooke decides to dribble the ball. He's took it past Branch, skips past the challenge from Gnohere. It's three on two for Grimsby here, what can Cooke do? Who can he pick out? It's a great ball behind Cox. Digger Soames is onto it. One on one with Marlon Beresford. Beresford makes himself as big as possible, Digger slides the ball underneath Beresford and just the wrong side of the post. The Burnley supporters look happy to see the ball slide the wrong side of the upright. Great play by Grimsby, deserved a goal there. Beresford to take the goal kick. He's taking his time with it to slow down the flow of play. Super goal kick headed away by McDermott, headed on by Groves. Cleared by McGregor, Ian Moore controls the ball. Forty yards out, dribbles the ball around Coldicott, Groves comes steaming in. Moore skips past the challenge from Groves, slides a ball around the back of the Grimsby defence, Alan Moore is onto it. Just Coyne to beat. SUPER GOAL from Alan Moore, 1-0 Burnley. Coyne is absolutely furious with his defence. The Burnley fans jump up as overjoyed as Moore himself. Flash to precede the match with the kick off. He plays the ball to Digger who picks out Cooke with a pin-point pass. Cooke, back to McDermott. McDermott brings the ball in-field, Santos goes the opposite way. Great play here from Grimsby. Santos plays a neat one-two with Cooke, Santos keeps going. He sees Flash in space and plays a tidy ball around the back of the Burnley defence. Flash runs onto it. Cox comes flying in with the challenge. Flash neatly tucks the ball between Cox's legs. This is great build-up play from Mansaram. The town faithful are on their feet, urging Flash on. He spots Digger making his way into the box. Superb ball straight to the head of Digger Soames, Just wide, if anything deserved a goal that certainly did. Beresford to resume play, just a short kick out to Cox, who turns and controls well. Tony Grant receives the ball at half way. Grant runs with the ball, past Groves, past Santos. One on One with Coyne. The shot deflects off Coyne's legs straight to WELLER. 2-0 to Burnley who I dare say justify this lead. Player/Manager Groves can't believe that his side are 2-0 down to the team they beat 6-5. Where on earth was the Grimsby defence there? Digger to kick off for Town as they look to come back from 2-0 down to beat this Burnley side. Coldicott in possession of the ball for Town. Groves takes over and plays it to Cooke. Cooke attempts to play a cross-field ball to Gallimore, which finds its intended target. Gallimore plays a neat one-two with Santos. Gallimore to Campbell, who plays a first time ball to Stacy Coldicott. Town are keeping possession well here. Coldicott in midfield plays the ball back to Ford. Ford leaves it for Coyne, who hits the ball first time to out to McDermott. McDermott turns and sees Cooke in space. Cooke receives the ball at half-way. He's got time and space to run with the ball here. Cooke takes the ball on, Gnohere comes across. Cooke skips past the challenge from Gnohere. The crowd urges Cooke on. Cooke comes in-field, he's got time to cross a ball in. It's a superb ball onto the head of Mansaram. It smacks the upright and bounces out. Groves has a shot, which is blocked by Branch. Coldicott hits a shot which is saved by Beresford. What a goalmouth scramble. Campbell hits a screamer which is blocked on the line by Cox. Finally Ian Moore clears the ball for Burnley and the defence can breathe again. Grimsby are really trying to get back into the match. Graham Rodger the assistant manager screams instructions to the captain McDermott and to player-manager Paul Groves. For the time being it is Burnley in the lead and Burnley in possession with Papadopoulos. This is his first real touch in this exciting and productive first half. Thirty Seven minutes in and its Grimsby Town 0, Burnley 2. Papadopoulos with a one-two with Grant. Papadopoulos keeps going and slides a ball through the middle of the defence. Alan Moore is chasing the ball down, Coyne comes flying out of his goal. Moore has to get past Santos first. He's done that successfully. He's one on one with Coyne. Coyne still flying from his goal line, collects the ball comfortable. The danger is over for Grimsby. Burnley are to make a substitution here, It's going to be Paul Weller to leave the field of play to be replaced by Paul Cook. Grimsby will be happy to hear the referee's whistle for half time. There is two minutes plus stoppage time left. McDermott is in possession for Grimsby. He's trying to slow things down here. He plays it back to Coyne, Coyne controls the ball and takes his time before playing the ball to Gallimore. The fourth official holds up the electronic board. He's indicated one added on minute. Gallimore to Georges Santos straight to Groves. Groves hits a ball over the top of the Burnley defence, Digger chases after it. Last chance for Grimsby. Digger has two defenders to beat. Cox and Gnohere. He beats Cox comfortably, only Gnohere to beat. Gnohere takes the ball off Digger and pumps a ball up-field. The Burnley crowd breath a sigh of relief. The referee blows for half time. What an exciting, action-packed first half, more of the same is expected in the second. Burnley are two goals up here against a weak Grimsby side compared to the one almost two months ago. Well, Grimsby have had the most possession but it's Burnley who have got the rewards for their hard work. At half time here at Blundell Park, it's Grimsby Town nil Burnley two. Half time entertainment here at Blundell Park today with to local junior sides are playing in a mini tournament. I wonder what is going on in both changing rooms, do you? Well wonder no more because in both changing rooms we have installed microphone camera's, so off to the home changing room to get an idea of the atmosphere in there. What a pathetic performance you lot are showing, absolutely pathetic' Graham Rodger, the assistant manager, was yelling at his players. ‘Either buck your ideas up or some of you are going to be put on the transfer list' he continued. Ok, I think we are getting the point that the Town assistant manager is appalled with the first half performance of the mariners. Off to the away dressing room we go. I presume it's a better atmosphere in there. ‘E. I. E. I. O through the F. A Cup we go, when we get Man United, this is what we'll sing. We are Burnley, we are Burnley, Ternant is our king' Wow, they are really enjoying today. Grimsby Town are coming out for the second half. Grimsby Town look fired up for a tense and nerve wracking forty-five minutes for the Grimsby Town supporters. There is no sign of Burnley yet. I can tell you there have been no substitutions during half time. Papadopoulos and Blake to get this second half under way. Blake back to Grant who gives the ball to Cook. Cook plays a neat one-two with Branch, Cook continues down this left hand touchline. He comes in-field and gives the ball to Alan Moore who loses out to Groves. Groves, who is just inside his own half, plays the ball back to Santos who kicks it first time to Gallimore. Santos looks like he has injured himself but play continues with Gallimore. Gallimore to Campbell. An over-hit pass there from Gallimore which Campbell controls brilliantly. He turns, looks up and sees Digger in Space. Campbell decides to take the ball on himself. Santos is signalling to the bench that he wants to come off. Campbell to Mansaram. Mansaram to ‘Digger' Soames. Soames tricks the defender into going one way and he goes the other. Excellent build up play from Grimsby Town. Digger sends in a left footed cross which falls onto the head of Coldicott. Super header from Coldicott smacks the bar, Terry Cooke comes flying in and sails the ball straight into the stand. Beresford takes his time in retrieving the ball from the stand containing Grimsby supporters. Grimsby Town to make a substitution here. It's going to be Steve Chettle coming on for Georges Santos. Beresford to resume play from the goal kick, plays a ball up-field trying to find Alan Moore. The ball doesn't reach him but is headed away by Groves. Coldicott picks it up on half way, controlled well. He picks out Cooke with a precise pass. What a good game Cooke and Coldicott are having. Cooke on the right wing plays the ball to Mansaram who gives the ball back to Cooke. Great play from Grimsby Town, the crowd are really getting behind Grimsby. Cooke travels further with the ball. There is only ‘Digger' Soames in the box. Cooke decides to shoot himself. It's a real pile driver of a shot that Beresford can only tip behind for a corner. The crowd are buzzing with excitement. Campbell to take the corner for Grimsby. There are six in the area for Grimsby including Cooke, Mansaram and Chettle. The ball is driven into the area to Cooke who stumbles under a challenge from Cox, Burnley manage to clear the ball. The referee blows his whistle, the crowd are astonished to hear the whistle, and the players are totally astounded to hear it. The referee points to the penalty spot, he's awarded a penalty to Grimsby Town, possibly for the slight challenge on Cooke, we'll never know. Cooke has got up and is ready to take the penalty himself. He puts the ball on the spot, this to make it two-one. The crowd are trying their best to put off the Burnley keeper. It's Cooke against Beresford. Cooke takes a run up and belts the ball. GOAL. Grimsby Town are back into this game thanks to a dubious decision by the referee. At Blundell Park, Cleethorpes its Grimsby Town One, Burnley Two. Burnley are absolutely furious with the decision but ‘The show must go on'. Stan Ternant, the Burnley manager, is angry at the officials, he's having a right go at the fourth official. The referee sees it. He's walking over. He's talking to the official. He's going over to Stan. The referee has sent him away from the dugout. I presume that is for the abuse he was giving the fourth official. He will certainly be complaining about these officials to the F. A. Burnley to resume play from the centre circle. Papadopoulos plays the ball back to back who spots Grant running down the left touchline. Brilliant ball straight to the feet of Grant who loses out to McDermott. McDermott plays a long cross-field ball to Campbell who turns well. Grimsby look like they are going to make a substitution, Chris Thompson is warming up on the touchline. Groves receives the ball at half way and takes his time before playing a ball back to Santos. Santos to Gallimore on this left touchline. Thompson is ready to come on when the ball goes out of play. Gallimore hits a long ball up to Cooke who mis-controls and the ball rolls over the line for a Burnley throw-in. It's going to be a double substitution for Grimsby Town. The electronic board goes up, it's going to be 14 Chris Thompson for 20 David Soames and 12 Jonathan Rowan replacing 2 John McDermott. Burnley to take the throw-in with Branch. Gnohere receives the ball who gives it to Cox. Up-field straight to Paul Cook. Cook runs with the ball, trying to take on the Grimsby defence by himself. He's past Groves, skips past the challenge from Ford and rides the challenge from Santos. Only Coyne to beat. Cook tries to slide the ball underneath Coyne. He's done that successfully. Coyne got a touch, the ball is rolling towards the line, Santos is trying to get back. What a brilliant clearance off the line from Santos. Grimsby are straight on the attack with Cooke on the ball. Cooke hits a ball up-field to Mansaram. Great touch to control the ball. Mansaram brings the ball out left, he's got support from the packed Grimsby midfield. He's turned brilliantly, he's going back to where he started. He turns well again and strikes a left footed shot. GOAL, wow what a superb shot straight past the helpless Beresford. There was nothing the goal keeper could do there. After 88 minutes, it's Grimsby Town 2 Burnley 2. Burnley are devastated by that, that they decide to make an attacking substitution. Dimitrios Papadopoulos is coming off to be replaced by Gordon Armstrong. The fourth official holds up the board and indicates two minutes added time. The ninety minutes are up, Grimsby are under a lot of pressure from the Burnley attack. The referee blows his whistle for full time, it's finished Grimsby Town 2 Burnley 2.