We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Major Event/ Sports /Prizes
Mossadegh ousted in Iran
NBA: Minneapolis Lakers vs. New Yorks Knicks Series: 4-3
NCAA Football: Maryland Record: 10-1-0
Heisman Trophy: John Lattner, notre dame, HB points: 1,850
Stanley Cup: Montreal Canadiens vs. Boston Bruins Series: 4-1
US Open Golf: Ben Hogan Score: 283 Course: Oakmont CC Location: Oakmont, PA
World Series: New York Yankees vs. Brooklyn Dodgers Series: 4-2
Best Picture: "From Here to Eternity"
Best Director: Fred Zinnemann ..."From Here to Eternity"
Best Actor: William Holden ... "Stalag 17"
Best Actress: Audrey Hepburn ... "Roman Holiday"
1. The Robe
2."From Here to Eternity"
3. Shane - George Stevens
4. How to Marry a Millionaire
5. Peter Pan
6. Hans Christian Anderson
7. House of Wax
9. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
10. Moulin Rouge
Major events, sports highlights and Nobel Prizes of 1953 - History
Winston Churchill was one of the great world leaders of the 20th century. His leadership helped Britain to stand strong against Hitler and the Germans, even when they were the last country left fighting. He is also famous for his inspiring speeches and quotes.
Childhood and Growing Up
Winston was born November 30th, 1874 in Oxfordshire, England. He was actually born in a room in a palace named Blenheim Palace. His parents were wealthy aristocrats. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a politician who held many high offices in the British government.
from the Library of Congress
Churchill attended the Royal Military College and joined the British cavalry upon graduation. He traveled to many places while with the military and worked as a newspaper correspondent, writing stories about battles and being in the military.
While in South Africa during the Second Boer War, Winston Churchill was captured and became a Prisoner of War. He managed to escape from prison and traveled 300 miles to be rescued. As a result, he became something of a hero in Britain for a while.
In 1900 Churchill was elected to Parliament. Over the next 30 years he would hold a number of different offices in the government including a cabinet post in 1908. His career had many ups and downs during this time, but he also became famous for many of his writings.
At the outbreak of World War II, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in command of the Royal Navy. At the same time the current Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, wanted to appease Germany and Hitler. Churchill knew this would not work and warned the government that they needed to help fight Hitler or Hitler would soon take over all of Europe.
As Germany continued to advance, the country lost confidence in Chamberlain. Finally, Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill was chosen to be his successor as Prime Minister on May 10, 1940.
Soon after becoming Prime Minister, Germany invaded France and Britain was alone in Europe fighting Hitler. Churchill inspired the country to keep fighting despite the bad circumstances. He also helped to forge an alliance of Allied Powers with the Soviet Union and the United States. Even though he did not like Joseph Stalin and the communists of the Soviet Union, he knew the Allies needed their help to fight Germany.
from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library
Churchill with President Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin
With the Allies help, and Winston's leadership, the British were able to hold off Hitler. After a long and brutal war they were able to defeat Hitler and the Germans.
Churchill waving to the crowd after the end of World War II
Churchill on VE Day
by a War Office official photographer
After the war, Churchill's party lost the election and he was no longer Prime Minister. He was still a major leader in the government, however. He was again elected Prime Minister in 1951. He served the country for many years and then retired. He died on January 24, 1965.
Churchill was concerned about the Soviet Union and the Red Army. He felt they were just as dangerous as Hitler now that the Germans were defeated. He was right as soon after World War II ended, the Cold War between the Western nations of NATO (such as Britain, France, USA) and communist Soviet Union began.
Winston Churchill was famous for his rousing speeches and quotes. Here are a few of his famous quotes:
In a speech criticizing the appeasement of Hitler, he said "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
He also said of appeasement: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
In his first speech as Prime Minister he said "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."
In a speech about fighting the Germans he said "We shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills we shall never surrender."
When talking about the RAF during the Battle of Britain he said "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Chemical structure of DNA discovered
On February 28, 1953, Cambridge University scientists James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick announce that they have determined the double-helix structure of DNA, the molecule containing human genes. The molecular biologists were aided significantly by the work of another DNA researcher, Rosalind Franklin, although she is not included in the announcement, nor did she share the subsequent Nobel Prize award for it.
Though DNA—short for deoxyribonucleic acid—was discovered in 1869, its crucial role in determining genetic inheritance wasn’t demonstrated until 1943. In the early 1950s, Watson and Crick were only two of many scientists working on figuring out the structure of DNA. California chemist Linus Pauling suggested an incorrect model at the beginning of 1953, prompting Watson and Crick to try and beat Pauling at his own game.
On the morning of February 28, they determined that the structure of DNA was a double-helix polymer, or a spiral of two DNA strands, each containing a long chain of monomer nucleotides, wound around each other. According to their findings, DNA replicated itself by separating into individual strands, each of which became the template for a new double helix. In his best-selling book, The Double Helix (1968), Watson later claimed that Crick announced the discovery by walking into the nearby Eagle Pub and blurting out that “we had found the secret of life.” The truth wasn’t that far off, as Watson and Crick had solved a fundamental mystery of science–how it was possible for genetic instructions to be held inside organisms and passed from generation to generation.
Watson and Crick’s solution was formally announced on April 25, 1953, following its publication in that month’s issue of Nature magazine. The article revolutionized the study of biology and medicine. Among the developments that followed directly from it were pre-natal screening for disease genes genetically engineered foods the ability to identify human remains the rational design of treatments for diseases such as AIDS and the accurate testing of physical evidence in order to convict or exonerate criminals.
Crick and Watson later had a falling-out over Watson’s book, which Crick felt misrepresented their collaboration and betrayed their friendship.
A larger controversy arose over the use Watson and Crick made of work done by another DNA researcher, Rosalind Franklin. Colleague Maurice Wilkins showed Watson and Crick Franklin&aposs X-ray photographic work to Watson just before he and Crick made their famous discovery. The imagerystablished that the DNA molecule existed in a helical conformation. When Crick and Watson won the Nobel Prize in 1962, they shared it with Wilkins. Franklin, who died in 1958 of ovarian cancer and was thus ineligible for the award, never learned of the role her photos played in the historic scientific breakthrough.
LMB History Timeline1947 MRC ‘Unit for Research on the Molecular Structure of Biological Systems’ established 1953 Double-helix structure of DNA elucidated 1953 Sliding filament model for muscle contraction proposed 1957 Single amino acid change causes sickle cell anaemia 1958 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Fred Sanger 1959 First atomic resolution map of a protein, myoglobin 1959 Structure of haemoglobin determined 1961 Demonstration of the triplet nature of the genetic code 1962 LMB Building opened 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology of Medicine: Francis Crick and Jim Watson 1962 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: John Kendrew and Max Perutz 1967 First mutant of nematode worm, C. elegans, produced 1968 First 3D models of protein structures from electron microscopy 1971 Precursor tRNA molecules found and discovery of catalytic RNA 1972 Asymmetric lipid bilayer structure for biological membranes proposed 1972 Signal peptide sequence which directs protein secretion discovered 1975 Monoclonal antibody methodology invented 1975 First 3D structure of a membrane protein, bacteriorhodopsin 1977 Method for sequencing DNA developed 1980 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Fred Sanger 1982 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Aaron Klug 1983 Embryonic cell lineage of C. elegans unraveled 1984 Nobel Prize for Physiology of Medicine: César Milstein and Georges Köhler 1985 Zinc finger DNA-binding motif proposed 1986 First humanised antibody produced 1986 C. elegans is the first animal to have its entire nervous system mapped 1987 Commercial production of MRC confocal microscope 1988 First patient treated with humanised antibody, Campath-1 1989 First LMB spin-out company Cambridge Antibody Technology formed 1989 Queen’s Award for Technology for peptide synthesizer 1991 Queen’s Award for Technology for confocal microscope 1994 Structure of F1 subunit of mitochondrial ATPase revealed 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: John Walker 1997 Major component of filamentous lesions found in Parkinson’s disease identified 1998 C. elegans is the first animal to have its genome sequenced 2000 Structure of 30S ribosomal subunit and its complexes determined 2002 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine: Sydney Brenner, Bob Horvitz and John Sulston 2002 Molecular mechanism of antibody mutation uncovered 2008 β-adrenergic receptor structure determined 2009 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Venki Ramakrishnan 2010 Discovered that antibodies fight viruses within infected cells 2013 New MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology building opens 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Michael Levitt 2014 Cryo-EM atomic structures at 3.2Å resolution 2015 First spliceosomal complex structures determined 2017 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Richard Henderson 2017-18 Structures of tau filaments from Alzheimer’s and Pick’s disease solved 2018 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Greg Winter 2019 First synthesis of an entire recoded E. coli genome 2020 First visualisation of individual protein atoms with cryo-EM
Soon, Pauline became pregnant and the couple decided to move back to America. After the birth of their son Patrick Hemingway in 1928, they settled in Key West, Florida, but summered in Wyoming. During this time, Hemingway finished his celebrated World War I novel A Farewell to Arms, securing his lasting place in the literary canon.
When he wasn&apost writing, Hemingway spent much of the 1930s chasing adventure: big-game hunting in Africa, bullfighting in Spain and deep-sea fishing in Florida. While reporting on the Spanish Civil War in 1937, Hemingway met a fellow war correspondent named Martha Gellhorn (soon to become wife number three) and gathered material for his next novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls, which would eventually be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.
Eating chocolate may help you win Nobel Prize
Take this with a grain of salt, or perhaps some almonds or hazelnuts: A study ties chocolate consumption to the number of Nobel Prize winners a country has and suggests it's a sign that the sweet treat can boost brain power.
No, this does not appear in the satirical Onion newspaper. It's in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which published it online Wednesday as a "note" rather than a rigorous, peer-reviewed study.
The author - Dr. Franz Messerli, of St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital and Columbia University in New York - writes that there is evidence that flavanols in green tea, red wine and chocolate can help "in slowing down or even reversing" age-related mental decline - a contention some medical experts may dispute.
Nevertheless, he examined whether a country's per-capita chocolate consumption was related to the number of Nobels it had won - a possible sign of a nation's "cognitive function." Using data from some major chocolate producers on sales in 23 countries, he found "a surprisingly powerful correlation."
Switzerland led in chocolate consumption and Nobels, when looked at according to population. The United States is in the middle of the pack with the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Belgium and Germany. At the bottom were China, Japan and Brazil. The study only includes Nobels through last year - not the ones being announced this week.
"Since chocolate consumption has been documented to improve cognitive function, it seems most likely that in a dose-dependent way, chocolate intake provides the abundant fertile ground needed for the sprouting of Nobel laureates," he wrote.
Curiously, Sweden should have produced only 14 winners according to its appetite for chocolate, yet it had 32. Messerli speculates that the Nobel panel, based in Sweden, may have "patriotic bias" toward fellow countrymen - or that Swedes are very sensitive to the effects of chocolate so that "even minuscule amounts greatly enhance their cognition."
It is possible, he admits, that chocolate isn't making people smart, but that smart people who are more likely to win Nobels are aware of chocolate's benefits and therefore more likely to consume it.
Sven Lidin, the chairman of the Nobel chemistry prize committee, had not seen the study but was giggling so much when told of it that he could barely comment.
"I don't think there is any direct cause and effect," Lidin said. "The first thing I'd want to know is how chocolate consumption correlates to gross domestic product."
Messerli also calculated the "dose" of chocolate needed to produce an additional Nobel winner - about 14 ounces per person per year, or about nine Hershey bars.
He discloses that he is doing his part - he eats chocolate daily, mostly Lindt dark.
First published on October 11, 2012 / 10:05 AM
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
How Nobel Prizes Are Won
The Faculty of Science of The Chinese University of Hong Kong has been dedicated to promoting science to the general public, especially to young people. In addition to our annual Popular Science Talks, where our faculty members give talks on cutting-edge topics of science, we are pleased to hold a special Popular Science Lecture Series on research that covers topics related to each year&rsquos Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine.
This year, the Popular Science Special Lecture Series: How Nobel Prizes Are Won will be held on 4 December 2020 (Friday) via ZOOM Webinar. To participate, please register through the on-line registration platform by 1 December 2020 (Tuesday).
Lecture Series Topics:
(Science behind the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020)
Department of Chemistry
Hepatitis C &ndash A Success Story from Being Unknown to Having a Cure
(Science behind the Physiology or Medicine 2020)
School of Life Sciences
Irreversible Exits of the Universe &ndash Black Holes
(Science behind the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020)
Immigrants Keep Winning Nobel Prizes
Every October brings new Nobel Prize winners and more reminders of America’s rewards for being a nation of immigrants. This year is no exception.
Rainer Weiss, professor emeritus of physics at MIT and a German-born immigrant to the United States, . [+] looks at a prototype he built c. 1974 of a radio frequency modulated test inteferomater following a press conference after it was announced he shares a Nobel Prize In Physics for LIGO Detector work on October 3, 2017 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Half of the prize was awarded to Weiss with the other half split by Kip S. Thorne and Barry C. Barish of the California Institute of Technology, in recognition 'for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves.' (Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences named Joachim Frank, an immigrant from Germany, the sole American winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Frank is a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and of Biological Sciences at Columbia University in New York.
Table 1: Immigrant Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics
|Immigrant Nobel Winners Since 2000||33 of 85 American winners have been immigrants|
|Percentage of Immigrant Winners Since 2000||39%|
Source: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, National Foundation for American Policy, George Mason University Institute for Immigration Research. Numbers and percentage for chemistry, medicine and physics prizes.
“The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017 is awarded to Jacques Dubochet (Switzerland), Joachim Frank (America) and Richard Henderson (United Kingdom) for the development of cryo-electron microscopy, which both simplifies and improves the imaging of biomolecules,” announced the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “This method has moved biochemistry into a new era.”
Scientists expect the microscopes will lead to new discoveries. “Electron microscopes were long believed to only be suitable for imaging dead matter, because the powerful electron beam destroys biological material . . . Joachim Frank made the technology generally applicable,” the Academy noted. “Between 1975 and 1986 he developed an image processing method in which the electron microscope’s fuzzy two-dimensional images are analyzed and merged to reveal a sharp three-dimensional structure.” Jacques Dubochet carried these advances further after he “added water to electron microscopy,” with both men building on the work of Richard Henderson.
The Academy also named immigrant Rainer Weiss the winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics, along with fellow Americans Kip S. Thorne and Barry C. Barish.
Rainer Weiss helps demonstrate the futility of trying to pick immigrants through a government-run “point system.” Weiss came to America as a teenager, about 70 years before he would be awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics. He was born in Berlin to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, according to JTA. With the rise of Adolph Hitler the family left Berlin and settled in Prague. Germany annexed Czechoslovakia under the Munich agreement (1938) and the family managed to flee to America, which was not easy to do at that time due to tight U.S. restrictions on refugees and immigrants.
“As a high school student, he became an expert in building high-quality sound systems and entered M.I.T. intending to major in electrical engineering,” reported the New York Times. “He inadvertently dropped out when he went to Illinois to pursue a failing romance. After coming back, he went to work in a physics lab and wound up with a Ph.D. from M.I.T.” Weiss remains affiliated with M.I.T. as a professor.
Table 2: Immigrant and Native-Born (U.S.) Nobel Prize Winners Since 2000
|Immigrant – 11 winners||Immigrant – 10 winners||Immigrant – 12 winners|
|Native-Born – 18 winners||Native-Born – 16 winners||Native-Born – 18 winners|
|Immigrant Share – 38%||Immigrant Share – 38%||Immigrant Share – 40%|
Source: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, National Foundation for American Policy, George Mason University Institute for Immigration Research.
The winners received the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics for their “decisive contributions to the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) detector and the observation of gravitational waves.”
“On 14 September 2015, the universe's gravitational waves were observed for the very first time,” according to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “Gravitational waves are an entirely new way of observing the most violent events in space and testing the limits of our knowledge.”
The Academy explained the work of this year’s Physics prize winners: “In the mid-1970s, Rainer Weiss had already analyzed possible sources of background noise that would disturb measurements, and had also designed a detector, a laser-based interferometer, which would overcome this noise. Early on, both Kip Thorne and Rainer Weiss were firmly convinced that gravitational waves could be detected and bring about a revolution in our knowledge of the universe . . . gravitational waves are direct testimony to disruptions in spacetime itself. This is something completely new and different, opening up unseen worlds.”
It is not new for immigrants to win Nobel Prizes. In 2016, all 6 American winners of the Nobel Prize in economics and scientific fields were immigrants to the United States.
Historically and up to the present day, immigrants have made significant scientific contributions to America. “Immigrants have been awarded 39%, or 33 of 85, of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics since 2000,” concluded a recent report from the National Foundation for American Policy.
The study noted these types of accomplishments are not automatic: “The right immigration laws matter, particularly in determining whether the United States gains from increased globalization and rising educational achievement in India, China and elsewhere. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 eliminated the discriminatory national origin quotas and opened the door to Asian immigrants, while the Immigration Act of 1990 increased employment-based green card numbers.”
Sir J. Fraser Stoddart, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2016 and an immigrant from the United Kingdom, noted that “his research group at Northwestern University has students and scientists from a dozen different countries.” Stoddart told The Hill that he believes scientific research will remain strong in America “as long as we don’t enter an era where we turn our back on immigration.”
The National Foundation for American Policy study noted, “When one asks successful entrepreneurs and scientists conducting groundbreaking research whether they favor liberalized policies on immigration, the answer they usually give is that more immigration and greater openness to international students, researchers and immigrants across the skill spectrum will help America grow and prosper.” Listening to successful entrepreneurs and scientists is a good idea.
Inside the Nobel
Hosted by the Otago Institute for the Arts and Sciences, various speakers give a short presentation about the Nobel Prize in each of the disciplines for 2020 and why it is important.
The format for the lecture will be six prizes, six speakers, six minutes each. Six speakers will give a quick summary of the 2020 prize and the impact of the research leading to the prize.
- Martin Phillipps - Singer/songwriter, The Chills
- Dr Sarah Diermeier - Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago
- Professor Jorg Frauediener - Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Otago
- Professor Robyn Maree Pickens - Art writer, poet, curator, and text-based practitioner
- Dr Sungyong Lee - National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago
- Professor Ronald Peters - Department of Economics, University of Otago
Topics will include Peace, Literature, Economics, Medicine/Physiology, Chemistry and Physics. Speakers cover a broad range of scientists, economists, a poet and a musician.
How gender bias influences Nobel Prizes
When Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize in physics this year, she was the first woman to receive the honor in 55 years. The previous female winner, Maria Goeppert Mayer, was in 1963, for proposing the nuclear shell model of the atomic nucleus. Before that, Marie Curie received the prize in 1903 for her work on radioactivity.
And that’s it. Between 1901 and 2018, the prize for physics has been awarded 112 times, but only three times to women. The prizes in chemistry, medicine, and economics reflect a similar imbalance. Of the 688 Nobel laureates in science, only 21 have been women.
Of course, the gender gap in science is well known. So it’s easy to imagine that the small number of female laureates merely reflects this gap. But is this true, or are there other factors at work that have prevented women winning Nobel Prizes?
Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Liselotte Jauffred at the University of Copenhagen and a couple of colleagues, who have compared the gender ratio among Nobel laureates with the gender ratio within their fields and say they do not match. Indeed, women are significantly more underrepresented in the list of Nobel Prize winners than they are in science.
The basic facts about prize winners are easy to gather well known. Laureates are on average 55 years old and thus are likely to be sampled from senior faculty members at universities around the world. They also receive the prize for work they did about 15 years earlier, on average. So today’s laureates were sampled from senior faculty members with a time lag of roughly 15 years.
But determining the fraction of senior female faculty members relative to all senior faculty over the last hundred years or so is harder. Jauffred and co used data from the US National Science Foundation that lists faculty members at universities by gender and scientific discipline between 1973 and 2010.
They assume this data can be used as a proxy for the global distribution of gender ratios. They then extrapolate to determine the gender ratio by discipline between 1901 and 2010.
Finally, the team compared the historical gender ratios with the number of prizes awarded to women and searched for potential bias using a hierarchical Bayesian interference model.
The results are unequivocal. “Female senior scientists are less likely to be awarded a Nobel Prize than their gender ratio suggests,” say Jauffred and co.
But why? One possibility is that the Nobel committee unfairly evaluates nominations for women, but Jauffred and co discount that. Instead, they point to the many biases and hindrances that influence women throughout their careers, often before they become senior enough or influential enough to be considered for major prizes. “We speculate that there are limitations for women to enter the pool of very well esteemed scientists worthy of a nomination,” say the researchers.
For example, female laureates are significantly less likely to be married or have children than male laureates. That suggests family life limits the chances that women will enter this pool. Jauffred and co also say that men in academia are more likely to get the resources and support needed for excellent scientific work. “This suggests that men are more prone to end up in the pool of possible Nobel nominees,” they say.
That’s interesting work that reveals the insidious influence of gender bias in science. “Strikingly few Nobel laureates within medicine, natural and social sciences are women,” say Jauffred and co.
The question now is how best to change this situation so that women are equally and fairly represented.