text:
The mission of the New York State Library is to provide reference, information, and materials to support the work of New York State government and to ensure that every resident of the State has convenient access to essential library services. To carry out this mission, the Library serves as the principal library resource for State government and is a coordinating and resource center for the statewide interlibrary loan network. If you cannot obtain the works listed in this bibliography at your local library, you may request them through interlibrary loan. The bibliography contains items in the collections of the New York State Library and includes books, selected periodical articles, patents, and other materials. New York State Library call numbers are given for books and periodicals to facilitate both library retrieval and interlibrary loan. Patent documents are filed numerically and are part of the patent depository collection of the New York State Library.
The contributions of black Americans in the areas of science, technology, medicine, and allied fields such as dentistry and nursing have gone largely unremarked, with a few famous exceptions. The material in this bibliography emphasizes the accomplishments of individuals from all parts of the country, in all periods, from all backgrounds. It is hoped that it will provide one starting point for future research.
Most of what we know about African-American inventors with patents prior to 1910 is the result of the definitive, contemporary work of Henry Edward Baker, a young African-American graduate of Harvard Law School whose position of Assistant Examiner at the U.S. Patent Office facilitated his scholarly explorations. From the replies of thousands of registered patent attorneys to correspondence, Baker collected nearly 800 instances of verified patents issued to blacks, which he claimed represented less than half of those actually in existence. A portion of Baker's work was published in two essays and one journal article, listed in this bibliography. Baker's list consisted, for the most part, of last names and first initials, although patent documents give full names, which are included here.
Sources for later twentieth-century African-American patentees are fragmentary and far from comprehensive. There are no reliable statistics. The published U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records typically do not identify patentees by race, one noteworthy exception being Henry Blair and his two inventions (1834 and 1836).
Note: listed names may appear in patent documents as sole or coinventors. For reasons of space, no more than three patents are given for each inventor. Patent titles as given in annual indexes, databases, or the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may vary slightly from each other and from the titles on the patent documents themselves.
Allen, Sallie T. The Directory of Black Nursing Faculty; Baccalaureate and Higher Degree Programs. Lisle, IL: Tucker Publications, Inc., 1988. (R, 610.7302573, qA429, 89-2808). American Nurses' Association. Minority Groups in Nursing: A Bibliography. Kansas City, MO: The Association, 1976. (C, 016.3621, A512, 76-8196, 1976). Baker, Henry Edwin. The Colored Inventor. Reprint of the 1913 edition. New York: Arno Press, 1969. (C, 608.717496, B167, 78-21142). Originally published on the 50th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Baker, Henry Edwin. "The Negro as an Inventor." In: Twentieth Century Negro Literature, or, A Cyclopedia of Thought on the Vital Topics Relating to the American Negro, edited by D. W. Culp. Naperville, IL: J. L. Nichols & Co., 1902. (C, 325.26, C96). Contains a list of several hundred patents issued to African- Americans through the year 1900, a commentary on some of the inventors, a summary of background research, and a brief biography of the author. Banneker, Benjamin. Works of Benjamin Banneker. New York: 3M International Microfilm Press, 1970. (MA/FM, 528.1, B219). Microfilmed from the Schomburg Collections of the New York Public Library. Contents: Benjamin Banneker's Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia Almanack and Ephemeris for the Year of Our Lord, 1792; Banneker's Almanack and Ephemeris for the Year of Our Lord, 1793; Virginia Almanack, for the Year of Our Lord, 1794; John H. Latrobe, Memoir of Benjamin Banneker, read before the Maryland Historical Society; Martha Tyson Ellicot, Sketch of the Life of Benjamin Banneker, from Notes Taken in 1836; Benjamin J. Lossing, "Benjamin Banneker," In: Eminent Americans: Comprising Brief Biographies of Three Hundred and Thirty Distinguished Persons. Boykin, A. Wade, Anderson J. Franklin and J. Frank Yates, eds. Research Directions of Black Psychologists. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979. (C, 155.8496073, R432, 80-32856). Brown, Letitia Woods and Elsie M. Lewis. Washington from Banneker to Douglas. Washington, D.C.: Education Department, National Portrait Gallery, 1971. (C, 310.4519607, qB878, 77-7458). Prepared to accompany an exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, Nov. 1, 1971 to Jan. 28, 1972. Burt, McKinley, Jr. Black Inventors of America. Portland, OR: National Book Company, 1989. (C, 926.6048 qB973, 90-13120). Campbell, Marie. Folks Do Get Born. New York: Rinehart & Company, 1946. (Z, 618.2, C189). Midwives in Georgia. Carnegie, Mary Elizabeth. The Path We Tread; Blacks in Nursing, 1854-1984. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1986. (C, 331.4816107, C289, 87-053723). Carver, George Washington. George Washington Carver in His Own Words. Edited by Gary R. Kremer. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1987. (C, 630.924, C331, 87-33768). Cobb, William Montague. The First Negro Medical Society; A History of the Medico-Chirurigical Society of the District of Columbia, 1884-1939. Washington, DC: The Associated Publishers, 1939. (Z, 610.6, M486). Conner, Douglas L. A Black Physician's Story: Bringing Hope in Mississippi. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1985. (C, 610.924, C752, 88-028184). Dummett, Clifton Orrin, ed. The Growth and Development of the Negro in Dentistry in the United States. Chicago: National Dental Association, 1952. (Z, 617.6, D889). Graham, Shirley. Your Most Humble Servant. New York: Julian Messner Inc., 1949. (Z, 520.92, B219g). Biography of Benjamin Banneker. Greene, Harry Washington. Holders of Doctorates Among American Negroes: An Educational and Social Study of Negroes Who Have Earned Doctoral Degrees in Course, 1876-1943. Boston: Meador Publishing Company, 1946. (C, 325.26, G7992). Guzman, Jessie Parkhurst. George Washington Carver, A Classified Bibliography. Records and Research Pamphlet No. 3. Tuskegee, AL: Department of Records and Research, Tuskegee Institute, 1954. (C, 012, C331, 74-7625). Haber, Louis. Black Pioneers of Science and Invention. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970. (Z, 509.2, Ah12). Hardwick, Richard. Charles Richard Drew, Pioneer in Blood Research. New York: Scribner, 1967. (Z, 610.92, D776h2). Harris, M. A. Granville T. Woods Memorial. Collector's ed. Brooklyn: M.A. Harris, 1974. (C, 620.0092, qW894, 75-6844). Hayden, Robert C. and Jacqueline Harris. Nine Black American Doctors. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1976. (C, 920,H415, 78-24643). Henderson, Algo Donmeyer and Natalie B. Gumas. Admitting Black Students to Medical and Dental Schools. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 1971. (C, 378.1057, qH496). Hine, Darlene Clark, ed. Black Women in the Nursing Profession: A Documentary History. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1985. (C, 610.7308996, qB627, 86-36450). Ho, James K. K., ed. Black Engineers in the United States; A Directory. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1974. (C, 620.002573, H678, 77-29269). Holt, Rackham. George Washington Carver; An American Biography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1943. (Z, 630.92, C33h). "Inventors and Scientists," In: The Negro Almanac: A Reference Work on the Afro-American, edited by Harry A. Ploski and James Williams. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983, pp. 1053-1076. (R, 973, qP729a, 1983). Ives, Patricia Carter. Creativity and Inventions: The Genius of Afro-Americans and Women in the United States and Their Patents. Arlington, VA: Research Unlimited, 1987. (C, 609.22, I95, 90-14537). James, Portia. The Real McCoy: African-American Invention and Innovation, 1619-1930. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1989. (C, 609.22, J28, 90-13178). Jenkins, Edward S., ed. American Black Scientists and Inventors. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, 1975. Available as ERIC document. (ED 176-983). Kenney, John A. The Negro in Medicine. Tuskegee, AL: Tuskegee Institute Press, 1912. (Z, 610.92, Ak). Kidd, Foster, ed. Profile of the Negro in American Dentistry. Prepared under the supervision of the Society for Research and Study of the Negro in Dentistry, Inc. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1979. (C, 301.4446, P964, 80-32841). Latimer, Lewis H. Incandescent Electric Lighting: A Practical Description of the Edison System. NY: Van Nostrand, 1890. (N, 621.326, L35). Manber, David. Wizard of Tuskegee; The Life of George Washington Carver. New York: Crowell-Collier Press, 1967. (Z, 630.92, C33m2). Manning, Kenneth R. Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. (C, 574.0924, M283, 84-29211). Maynard, Aubre de L. Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978. (C, 362.1109747, M471, 78-34304). McMurry, Linda O. George Washington Carver, Scientist and Symbol. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. (C, 630.924, M168, 82-22310). Merritt, Raleigh Howard. From Captivity to Fame; or, The Life of George Washington Carver. Boston: Meador Publishing Co., 1928. (Z, 630.92, C33m5). Miller, Basil William. George Washington Carver, God's Ebony Scientist. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943. (Z, 630.92, C33m). Morais, Herbert Montfort. History of the Negro in Medicine. International Library of Negro Life and History, vol. 4. New York: Publishers Company, Inc., 1968. (C, 917.3097496, qI615). Norris, John Saurin. Sketch of the Life of Benjamin Banneker; from notes taken in 1836. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1854. (Z, 610.92, B21n). Paper read by Mr. Norris to the Society, actually compiled by Martha Tyson Ellicot, who knew Banneker personally and was in possession of the Banneker papers. Organ, Claude H., Jr. and Margaret M. Kosiba. A Century of Black Surgeons; the U.S.A. Experience. Norman, OK: Transcript Press, 1987. (C, 617.0922, c397, 88-033590). Patterson, Lillie. Benjamin Banneker, Genius of Early America. Nashville: Abingdon, 1978. (C, 520.924, B219, 79-20204). Pearson, Willie, Jr. and H. Kenneth Bechtel, eds. Blacks, Science and American Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1989. (C, 508.996073, B631, 89-45053). Peyton, Thomas Roy. Quest for Dignity: An Autobiography of a Negro Doctor. Los Angeles: Publishers Western, 1963. (Z, 610.92, P519p5). Pitrone, Jean Maddern. Trailblazer; Negro Nurse in the American Red Cross. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969. (Z, 610.92, D261p6). The story of Frances Elliot Davis, first black Red Cross nurse. Poindexter, Hildrus Augustus. My World of Reality (An Autobiography). (C, 610.924, P571, 74-11120). Story of an African-American physician. Reitzes, Deitrich C. Negroes and Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. (Z, 610, R379). Sammons, Vivian O., comp. Blacks in Science and Related Disciplines. LC Science Tracer Bullet TB-85-5. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Science Reference Section, June 1985. (LC 33.10:85-5). ________. Blacks in Science and Medicine. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1990. (C, 509.2, qB631, 90-6929). "Scientists." In: Encyclopedia of Black America, edited by William A. Low and Virgil A. Clift. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981. (R, 973.0496073, qE56, 81-24479). Stanley, Autumn. "From Africa to America: Black Women Inventors." In: The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow, edited by Jan Zimmerman. New York: Praeger, 1983. (C, 305.4, T255, 83-29717). Staupers, Mabel Keaton. No Time for Prejudice; A Story of the Integration of Negroes in Nursing in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1961. (Z, 610.7306273, S798). Still, James. Early Recollections and Life of Dr. James Still, 1812- 1885. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1973. (C, 616.00924, S857, 74-4164). Summerville, James. Educating Black Doctors; A History of Meharry Medical College. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1983. (C, 610.7117685, S955, 84-37541). Williams, James C., comp. At Last Recognition in America: A Reference Handbook of Unknown Black Inventors and Their Contributions to America. Chicago: B.C.A. Publishing Corp., 1978. (C, 608.778, W724, 82-24801, v.1). Woodson, Carter Godwin. The Negro Professional Man and the Community, with Special Emphasis on the Physician and the Lawyer. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Inc., 1934. (C, 325.26, W89nep).
Alexander, Leslie L. "Early Medical Heroes: Susan Smith McKinney-Steward, M.D., 1847-1918." Crisis, vol. 87, no. 1, Jan. 1980, pp. 21-23. (J, 326.8, qC93). Baker, Henry E. "The Negro in the Field of Invention." Journal of Negro History, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 1917, pp. 21-36. (J, 325.26, J86). Beardsley, E. H. "Making Separate, Equal: Black Physicians and the Problems of Medical Segregation in the Pre-World War II South." Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 57, no. 3, 1983, pp. 382-396. (J/FM, 610.9, B936). Christopher, Michael C. "Granville T. Woods; The Plight of a Black Inventor." Journal of Black Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, Mar. 1981, pp. 269-276. (J/FM, 310.45196, J862). Congressional Record. 53d Cong., 2d sess., vol. 26, pt. 8, Aug. 10, 1894, pp. 8382-8384. (J, 328.73, qU49cr). Contains "A Partial List of Patents Granted by the United States for Inventions by Afro- Americans," appended to the record by Congressman Murray of South Carolina. Drew, Charles Richard. "Negro Scholars in Scientific Research." Journal of Negro History, vol. 35, no. 2, Apr. 1950, pp. 135-149. (J, 325.26, J86). Address delivered by Dr. Drew before the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History in New York City on October 30, 1949. Gray, Garry. "H. C. Haynes, Barber and Inventor." Negro History Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1977, pp. 751-752. (J, 325.2670973, qN393). Ives, Patricia Carter. "Patent and Trademark Innovations of Black Americans and Women." Journal of the Patent Office Society, vol. 62, no. 2, Feb. 1980, pp. 108-126. (LAW/PER). Contains appendices with lists of patents awarded to blacks and women. Names many African-American patentees, especially in the 60s and 70s, not included in this bibliography. Jenkins, Edward S. "Impact of Social Conditions; A Study of the Works of American Black Scientists and Inventors." Journal of Black Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, June 1984, pp. 477-491. (J/FM, 310.45196, J862). Link, Eugene P. "Civil Rights Activities of Three Great Negro Physicians (1840-1940)." Journal of Negro History, vol. 52, no. 3, July 1967, pp. 169-184. (J, 325.26, J86). Odom, Retha. "Pioneers in Technology." Black Enterprise, vol. 11, no. 11, June 1981, pp. 182-188. (J, 338.04, qB627, 79-55791). Plummer, Betty. "Document: Letters of James Durham to Benjamin Rush." Journal of Negro History, vol. 65, no. 3, Summer 1980, pp. 261-269. (J, 325.26, J86). James Durham, b. 1762, was one of the first black men to practice medicine in America. Savitt, Todd L. "Lincoln University Medical Department: A Forgotten 19th Century Black Medical School." Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 40, no.1, 1985, pp. 42-65. (J/FM, 610.905,J864). _____. "Entering a White Profession: Black Physicians in the New South, 1880-1920." Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 61, no. 4, Winter 1987, pp. 507-540. (J, 610.9, B936). Scottron, Samuel. "Manufacturing Household Articles." Colored American Magazine, vol. 7, no. 10, Oct. 1904, pp. 620-623. Microfiche reprint of title in series: The Black Experience in America; Negro Periodicals in the United States, 1840-1960. New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969. (MB/FF, 051, C719). Scottron had several patents, some of which are listed in the "U.S. Patents" section of this bibliography. "Seminar Series Honors Blacks in Science and Technology." Science, vol. 216, Apr. 2, 1982, pp. 43-44. (J/FM, 505,S411). Seraile, William. "Susan McKinney Steward: New York State's First African-American Woman Physician." Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, vol. 9, no. 2, July 1985, pp. 27-44. (R, 9974.700496, A258, 82-55238). Wynes, Charles E. "Dr. James Durham, Black Physician." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 103, no. 3, July 1979, pp. 325-333. (J, 974.8, P412). Yancy, Dorothy Cowser. "Four Black Inventors with Patents." Negro History Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 4, Apr. 1976, pp. 574-576. (J, 325.2670973, qN393). Young, Herman A. and Barbara H. Young. "Science and Black Studies." Journal of Negro Education, vol. 46. no. 4, 1977, pp. 380-387. (J/FM, 371.974, J86). Contains "Micro-Roster of Black Scientists and Inventors."
Akinsheye, Dexter. African-American Inventors Series. Silver Spring, MD: Three Dimensional Publishing, 1989. A collection of 39 study prints which includes patent diagrams, photographs and histories of some African-American inventors.
Abrams, William B. Hame Attachment [part for a draft horse's collar], U.S. Patent 450,550, Apr. 14, 1891. Alexander, Winser Edward. System for Enhancing Fine Detail in Thermal Photographs, U.S. Patent 3,541,333, Nov. 17, 1970. Ammons, Virgie M. Fireplace Damper Actuating Tool, U.S. Patent 3,908,633, Sept. 30, 1975. Ashbourne, Alexander P. Processes for Preparing Cocoanut for Domestic Use, U.S. Patent 163,962, June 1, 1875; Biscuit Cutters, U.S. Patent 170,460, Nov. 30, 1875; Refining Cocoanut Oil, U.S. Patent 230,518, July 27, 1880. Baker, David. Railway Signal Apparatus, U.S. Patent 1,054,267, Feb. 25, 1913; Signal Apparatus, U.S. Patent 1,154,162, Sept. 21, 1915. Battle, James. Variable Resistance Resistor Assembly, U.S. Patent 3,691,503, Sept.12, 1972. Bayless, Robert Gordon. Many patents in field of microencapsulation, including: Solid Globules Containing Dispersed Materials, U.S. Patent 3,922,373, Nov. 25, 1975; Process of Feeding Larval Marine Animals, U.S. Patent 4,073,946, Feb. 14, 1978; Method of Producing Microcapsules and Resulting Product, U.S. Patent 4,107,071, Aug. 15, 1978. Beard, Andrew Jackson. Rotary Engine, U.S. Patent 478,271, July 5, 1892; Car Coupling ("Jenny Coupler" which reportedly saved the lives of hundreds of trainmen), U.S. Patent 594,059, Nov. 23, 1897. Belcher, Paul Eugene. Remote AC Power Control with Control Pulses at the Zero Crossing of the AC Wave, U.S. Patent 4,328,482, May 4, 1982. Bell, Landrow. Smoke Stack for Locomotives, U.S. Patent 115,153, May 23, 1871; Dough Kneader, U.S. Patent 133,823, Dec. 10, 1872. Benjamin, Lyde W. Broom Moistener and Bridles, U.S. Patent 497,747, May 16, 1893. Benjamin, Miriam E. Gong and Signal Chairs for Hotels, etc., U.S. Patent 386,289, July 17, 1888. Adapted for use by the U.S. House of Representatives. Benton, James W. Lever-derrick, U.S. Patent 658,939, Oct. 2, 1900. According to Henry Baker, Benton walked from Kentucky to Washington carrying his device in order to get his patent. Bishop, Alfred A. Nuclear Reactor with Self-Orificing Radial Blanket, U.S. Patent 4,077,835, Mar. 7, 1978. Blackburn, Albert B. Railway Signal, U.S. Patent 376,362, Jan. 10, 1888; Spring Seat for Chairs, U.S. Patent 380,420, Apr. 3, 1888; Cash Carrier; U.S. Patent 391,577, Oct. 23, 1888. Blair, Henry. Designated "colored man" in Patent Office records. Corn Planter, Oct. 14, 1834; Cotton Planter, Aug. 31, 1836. Patents unnumbered during this period. Blanton, John W. Hydromechanical Rate Damped Servo System, U.S. Patent 3,101,650, Aug. 27, 1963. Boone, Sarah. Ironing Board, U.S. Patent 473,653, Apr. 26, 1892. Bowman, Henry A. Making Flags, U.S. Patent 469,395, Feb. 23, 1892. Boykin, Otis F. Many patents for electronic devices, including Electrical Resistance Element and Method of Making Same, U.S. Patent 3,1911,108, June 22, 1965; Thin Film Capacitor, U.S. Patent 3,394,290, July 23, 1968; Electrical Resistor and Method of Making Same, U.S. Patent 4,561,996, Dec. 31, 1985. Bradberry, Henrietta. Bed Rack, U.S. Patent 2,320,027, May 25, 1943; Torpedo Discharge Means, U.S. Patent 2,390,688, Dec. 11, 1945. Brooks, Charles B. Punch, U.S. Patent 507,672, Oct. 31, 1893; Street Sweepers, U.S. Patent 556,711, Mar. 17, 1896; Dust-Proof Bag for Street Sweepers, U.S. Patent 560,154, May 12, 1896. Brooks, Robert Roosevelt. Line Blanking Apparatus for Color Bar Generating Equipment, U.S. Patent 3,334,178, Aug. 1, 1967; Preset Sensitivity and Amplification Control System, U.S. Patent 3,518,371, June 30, 1970; Vertical and Horizontal Aperture Equalization, U.S. Patent 3,546,372, Dec. 8, 1970. Brown, Marie Van Brittan. Home Security System Utilizing Television Surveillance, U.S. Patent 3,482,037, Dec. 2, 1969. Burkins, Eugene. Breech-Loading Cannon, U.S. Patent 649,433, May 15, 1900. Burnham, Gerald Owens. Direction Coded Digital Stroke Generator Providing A Plurality of Symbols, U.S. Patent 3,938,130, Feb. 10, 1976. Burr, John A. Lawn Mower, U.S. Patent 624,749, May 9, 1899. Burr, William F. Switching Device for Railways, U.S. Patent 636,197, Oct. 31, 1899. Butler, Francis Edward. Audible Underwater Signal, U.S. Patent 2,803,807, Aug. 20, 1957; Drill Mine, U.S. Patent 2,912,929, Nov. 17, 1959; Watertight Electrical Connector, U.S. Patent 2,991,441, July 4, 1961. Butler, Richard A. Train Alarm, U.S. Patent 584,540, June 15, 1897. Byrd, Turner, Jr. Holder for Reins for Harness, U.S. Patent 123,328, Feb. 6, 1872; Apparatus for Detaching Horses from Carriages, U.S. Patent 124,790, Mar. 19, 1872; Neck Yokes for Wagons, U.S. Patent 126,181, Apr. 30, 1872. Campbell, William S. Self-Setting Animal Trap, U.S. Patent 246,369, Aug. 30, 1881. Carruthers, George R. Image Converter for Detecting Electro-Magnetic Radiation Especially in Short Wave Lengths, U.S. Patent 3,478,216, Nov. 11, 1969. Dr. Carruthers designed the ultraviolet camera/spectrograph which was adapted for use on the lunar surface and placed there by the Apollo 16 astronauts. Carter, William C. Umbrella Stand, U.S. Patent 323,397, Aug. 4, 1885. Carver, George Washington. Carver refused to patent a vast majority of the hundreds of products he developed while at Tuskegee Institute. Patent Office records show the following: Cosmetic and Producing the Same, U.S. Patent 1,522,176, Jan. 6, 1925; Paint and Stain and Producing the Same, U.S. Patent 1,541,478, June 9, 1925; Producing Paints and Stains, U.S. Patent 1,632,365, June 14, 1927. Certain, Jerry M. Parcel Carrier for Bicycles, U.S. Patent 639,708, Dec. 26, 1899. Chappelle, Emmett W. Numerous patents in photobiology, including Light Detection Instrument, U.S. Patent 3,520,660, July 14, 1970; Method of Detecting and Counting Bacteria, U.S. Patent 3,971,703, July 27, 1976; Rapid, Quantitative Determination of Bacteria in Water, U.S. Patent 4,385,113, May 24, 1983. Cherry, Matthew A. Velocipede, U.S. Patent 382,351, May 8, 1888; Street Car Fender, U.S. Patent 531,908, Jan. 1, 1895. Christian, John B. Many patents in chemical engineering, including Grease Composition for Use at High Temperatures and High Speeds, U.S. Patent 3,518,189, June 30, 1970; Fluorine-Containing Benzimidazoles, U.S. Patent 4,267,348, May 12, 1981; Perfluoroalkylether Substituted Phenyl Phosphines, U.S. Patent 4,454,349, June 12, 1984. Church, Titus S. Carpet Beating Machine, U.S. Patent 302,237, July 22, 1884. Cook, George. Automatic Fishing Device, U.S. Patent 625,829, May 30, 1899. Cooper, James. Elevator Device, U.S. Patent 536,605, Apr. 2, 1895; Elevator Safety Device, U.S. Patent 590,257, Sept. 21, 1897. Cooper, John Richard. Chemical patents include Two-Stage Phosgenation Process for Preparing Aromatic Isocyanates, U.S. Patent 3,234,253, Feb. 8, 1966; Process for Isolating a Fluorine-Containing Polymer, U.S. Patent 3,536,683, Oct. 27, 1970; Separation of Distillable Isocyanates from their Phosgenation Masses, U.S. Patent 3,694,323, Sept. 26, 1972. Cooper, Jonas. Shutter and Fastening Therefor, U.S. Patent 276,563, May 1, 1883. Cotton, Donald J. Vertical Liquid Electrode Employed in Electrolytic Cells, U.S. Patent 4,040,932, Aug. 9, 1977; Capillary Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactor, U.S. Patent 4,327,443, Apr. 27, 1982. Cowans, Beatrice L. and Virginia E. Hall. Embroidered Fruit Bowl Wall Hanging and Kit, U.S. Patent 4,016,314, Apr. 5, 1977. Cralle, Alfred L. Ice-Cream Mold and Disher, U.S. Patent 576,395, Feb. 2, 1897. Creamer, Henry. Seven patents for steam trap devices, including Steam Feed Water Trap, U.S. Patent 313,854, Mar. 17, 1885; Steam Feed Water Traps, U.S. Patent 358,964, Mar. 8, 1887; Steam Trap and Feeder, U.S. Patent 394,463, Dec. 11, 1888. Crossley, Frank Alphonso. Patents in metallurgical engineering include Titanium Base Alloy, U.S. Patent 2,798,807, July 9, 1957; Grain Refinement of Beryllium with Tungsten Carbide and Titanium Diboride, U.S. Patent 3,117,001, Jan. 7, 1964; Grain Refinement of Titanium Alloys, U.S. Patent 4,420,460, Dec. 13, 1983. Crosthwait, David Nelson Jr. Thirty-nine patents, authority on heat transfer, ventilation and air conditioning; helped design Radio City Music Hall heating system. Titles include Apparatus for Returning Water to Boilers, U.S. Patent 1,353,457, Sept. 21, 1920; Method and Apparatus for Setting Thermostats, U.S. Patent 1,661,323, Mar. 6, 1928; Differential Vacuum Pump, U.S. Patent 1,755,430, Apr. 22, 1930. Dacons, Joseph Carl. Numerous patents in organic chemistry, including Process for the Manufacture of Nitroform and Its Salts, U.S. Patent 3,125,606, Mar. 17, 1964; Dodecanitroquaterphenyl, U.S. Patent 3,450,778, June 17, 1969; Recrystallization of Hexanitrostilbene from Nitric Acid and Water, U.S. Patent 4,260,847, Apr. 7, 1981. Davidson, Shelby J. Paper-Rewind Mechanism for Adding Machines, U.S. Patent 884,721, Apr. 14, 1908. Davis, William R., Jr. Library Table, U.S. Patent 208,378, Sept. 24, 1878; Game Table, U.S. Patent 362,611, May 10, 1887. Deitz, William A. Shoe [method of constructing boots], U.S. Patent 64,205, Apr. 30, 1867. Dent, Anthony L. Rehydrated Silica Gel Dentifrice Abrasive, U.S. Patent 4,346,071, Aug. 24, 1982; Toothpaste Containing pH-Adjusted Zeolite, U.S. Patent 4,349,533, Sept. 14, 1982. Dickinson, Joseph Hunter. Many patents for player piano machinery, including Adjustable Tracker for Pneumatic Playing Attachments, U.S. Patent 915,942, Mar. 23, 1909; Volume-Controlling Means for Mechanical Musical Instruments, U.S. Patent 926,178, June 29, 1909; Player-Piano, U.S. Patent 1,028,996, June 11, 1912. Diuguid, Lincoln Isaiah. Burning Efficiency Enhancement Method; Alkynol Fuel Additive for Improved Automobile Mileage, U.S. Patent 4,539,015, Sept. 3, 1985. Dorman, Linneaus Cuthbert. Prolific inventor with many chemical patents, including 3,5-Dihalo-4-Cyanoalkoxy Phenols, U.S. Patent 3,468,926, Sept. 23, 1969; Absorbents for Airborne Formaldehyde, U.S. Patent 4,517,111, May 14, 1985; Composites of Unsintered Calcium Phosphates and Synthetic Biodegradable Polymers Useful as Hard Tissue Prosthetics, U.S. Patent 4,842,604, June 27, 1989. Dorticus, Clatonia J. Device for Applying Coloring Liquids to Sides of Soles or Heels of Shoes, U.S. Patent 535,820, Mar. 19, 1895; Machine for Embossing Photographs, U.S. Patent 537, 442, Apr. 16, 1895; Photographic Print Wash, U.S. Patent 537,968, Apr. 23, 1895. Douglass, William. Several patents in harvesting equipment, including Self-Binding Harvester, U.S. Patent 789,010, May 2, 1905; Band-Twister, U.S. Patent 789,120, May 2, 1905; Carrier Chain, U.S. Patent 789,122, May 2, 1905. Doyle, James. Automatic Serving System, U.S. Patent 1,019,137, Mar. 5, 1912. Dugger, Cortland Otis. Inventor of "Duggerite" (barium magnesium aluminate). Patents include Method for Growing Single Oxide Crystals, U.S. Patent 3,595,803, July 27, 1971; Solid-State Laser Produced by a Chemical Reaction Between a Germanate and an Oxide Dopant, U.S. Patent 3,624,547, Nov. 30, 1971; Aluminum Nitride Single Crystal Growth from a Molten Mixture with Calcium Nitride, U.S. Patent 3,933,573, Jan. 20, 1976. Dunnington, James H. Horse Detacher, U.S. Patent 578,979, Mar. 16, 1897. Elder, Clarence L. Timing Device, U.S. Patent 3,165,188, Jan. 12, 1965; Non-Capsizable Container, U.S. Patent 3,367,525, Feb. 6, 1968; Bidirectional Monitoring and Control System, U.S. Patent 4,000,400, Dec. 28, 1976. Elkins, Thomas. Dining and Ironing Table and Quilting Frame, U.S. Patent 100,020, Feb. 22, 1870; Chamber Commode, U.S. Patent 122,518, Jan. 9, 1872; Refrigerating Apparatus, U.S. Patent 221,222, Nov. 4, 1879. Ferrell, Frank J. Eight patents for improvements in valves for steam engines, beginning with Valve, U.S. Patent 428,621, May 27, 1890. Fisher, David A., Jr. Joiner's Clamp, U.S. Patent 162,281, Apr. 20, 1875; Furniture Caster, U.S. Patent 174,794, Mar. 14, 1876. Flemmings, Robert F., Jr. Guitar, U.S. Patent 338,727, Mar. 3, 1886. Frye, Clara. Surgical Appliance, U.S. Patent 847,758, Mar. 19, 1907. Gant, Virgil Arnett. Method of Treating Hair, U.S. Patent 2,643,375, June 23, 1953; Hair Treating Composition and Method of Use for Setting, U.S. Patent 2,750,947, Sept. 4, 1956; Ammonium Polysiloxanolate Hair Treating Composition and Method for Using Same, U.S. Patent 2,787,272, Apr. 2, 1957. Gaskin, Frances C. Sun Protectant Composition and Method, U.S. Patent 4,806,344, Feb. 21, 1989. Gay, Eddie Charles. Cathode for a Secondary Electrochemical Cell, U.S. Patent 3,907,589, Sept. 23, 1975; Method of Preparing Electrodes with Porous Current Collector Structures and Solid Reactants for Secondary Electrochemical Cells, U.S. Patent 3,933,520, Jan. 20, 1976; Compartmented Electrode Structure, U.S. Patent 4,029,860, June 14, 1977. Goode, Sarah E. Folding Cabinet Bed, U.S. Patent 322,177, July 14, 1885. Gourdine, Meredith C. Over 23 U.S. patents for electrogasdynamic devices. These include such titles as Electrogasdynamic Systems and Methods, U.S. Patent 3,582,694, June 1, 1971; Electrogasdynamic Coating System, U.S. Patent 4,574,092, Mar. 4, 1986; Method for Airport Fog Precipitation, U.S. Patent 4,671,805, June 9, 1987. Grant, George F. Golf-Tee, U.S. Patent 638,920, Dec. 12, 1899. Green, Harry James, Jr. Method of Making a Striated Support for Filaments, U.S. Patent 3,548,045, Dec. 15, 1970; Substrate for Mounting Filaments in Close-Spaced Parallel Array, U.S. Patent 3,584,130, June 8, 1971; Method for Sealing Microelectronic Device Packages, U.S. Patent 3,648,357, Mar. 14, 1972. Greene, Frank S., Jr. Use of Faulty Storage Circuits by Position Coding, U.S. Patent 3,654,610, Apr. 4, 1972. Grenon, Henry. Razor Stropping Device, U.S. Patent 554,867, Feb. 18, 1896. Griffin, Bessie V. Portable Receptacle Support, U.S. Patent 2,550,554, Apr. 24, 1951. Hall, Lloyd Augustus. More than one hundred patents worldwide in food chemistry. Discovered curing salts for meat-packing. Patents include Synergistic Antioxidants and the Methods of Preparing Same, U.S. Patent 2,493,288, Jan. 3, 1950; Meat-curing Salt Composition, U.S. Patent 2,770,551, Nov. 13, 1956; Method of Preserving Fresh Frozen Pork Trimmings, U.S. Patent 2,845,358, July 29, 1958. Hammond, Julia T. Apparatus for Holding Yarn Skeins, U.S. Patent 572,985, Dec. 15, 1896. Harrison, Emmett Scott. Gas Turbine Air Compressor and Control Therefor, U.S. Patent 3,606,971, Sept. 21, 1971; Turbojet Afterburner Engine with Two-Position Exhaust Nozzle, U.S. Patent 4,242,865, Jan. 6, 1981. Hawkins, Walter Lincoln. Numerous chemical patents, including Preparation of 1,2,Di-Primary Amines, U.S. Patent 2,587,043, Feb. 26, 1952; Stabilized Straight-Chain Hydrocarbons, U.S. Patent 2,889,306, June 2, 1959; Stabilized Alpha-Mono-Olefinic Polymers, U.S. Patent 3,304,283, Feb. 14, 1967. Hearns, Robert. Sealing Attachment for Bottles, U.S. Patent 598,929, Feb. 15, 1898; Detachable Car Fender, U.S. Patent 628,003, July 4, 1899. [In Baker list as "Hearness"]. Henderson, Henry Fairfax, Jr. Weight Loss Control System, U.S. Patent 4,111,336, Sept. 5, 1978. Hill, Henry Aaron. Patents include Manufacture of Azodicarbonamide, U.S. Patent 2,988,545, June 13, 1961; Foamable Composition Comprising a Thermoplastic Polymer and Barium Azocarbonate and Method of Foaming, U.S. Patent 3,141,002, July 14, 1964; Curing Furfuryl-Alcohol-Modified Urea Formaldehyde Condensates, U.S. Patent 3,297,611, Jan. 10, 1967. Hilyer, Andrew F. Water Evaporator Attachment for Hot Air Registers, U.S. Patent 435,095, Aug. 26, 1890; Evaporator for Hot Air Registers, U.S. Patent 438,159, Oct. 14, 1890. Hodge, John E. Numerous patents in the area of food technology, including Novel Reductones and Methods of Making Them, U.S. Patent 2,936,308, May 10, 1960; Glucose-Amine Sequestrants, U.S. Patent 2,996,449, Aug. 15, 1961; Substituted Benzodioxan Sweetening Compound, U.S. Patent 4,146,650, Mar. 27, 1979. Holmes, Lydia M. Knockdown Wheeled Toy, U.S. Patent 2,529,692, Nov. 14, 1950. Howard, Darnley Moseley. Method of Making Radome with an Integral Antenna, U.S. Patent 3,451,127, June 24, 1969. Hunter, John W. Portable Weighing Scale, U.S. Patent 570,553, Nov. 3, 1896. Hyde, Robert N. Composition for Cleaning and Preserving Carpets, U.S. Patent 392,205, Nov. 6, 1888. Jackson, Benjamin F. Heating Apparatus, U.S. Patent 599,985, Mar. 1, 1898; Matrix Drying Apparatus, U.S. Patent 603,879, May 10, 1898; Gas Burner, U.S. Patent 622,482, Apr. 4, 1899. Jackson, William H. Railway Switch, U.S. Patent 578,641, Mar. 9, 1897; Automatic Locking Switch, U.S. Patent 609,436, Aug. 23, 1898. Johnson, Andrew R. Precision Digital Delay Circuit, U.S. Patent 3,376,436, Apr. 2, 1968. Johnson, Daniel. Rotary Dining Table, U.S. Patent 396,089, Jan. 15, 1889; Lawn Mower Attachment, U.S. Patent 410,836, Sept. 10, 1889; Grass Receivers for Lawn Mowers, U.S. Patent 429,629, June 10, 1890. Johnson, John ("Jack") Arthur. A little-known footnote to the career of the world's first black heavyweight champion, subject of Sackler's play, The Great White Hope; two patents applied for while he was a prisoner at Leavenworth: Wrench, U.S. Patent 1,413,121, Apr. 18, 1922, and Theft-Preventing Device for Vehicles, U.S. Patent 1,438,709, Dec. 12, 1922. Johnson, Powell. Eye Protector, U.S. Patent 234,039, Nov. 2, 1880. Johnson, Willie H. Mechanism for Overcoming Dead Centers, U.S. Patent 554,223, Feb. 4, 1896 and U.S. Patent 612,345, Oct. 11, 1898. Johnson, Willis. Eggbeater, U.S. Patent 292,821, Feb. 5, 1884. Jones, Frederick McKinley. Over 60 patents, including Ticket-dispensing Machine, U.S. Patent 2,163,754, June 27, 1939; Air Conditioning Unit, U.S. Patent 2,475,841, July 12, 1949; Starter Generator, U.S. Patent 2,475,842, July 12, 1949. McKinley's inventions made it possible to refrigerate trucks for long-distance travel. Jones, Howard St. Claire, Jr. Many patents in the area of microwave and other types of antennas, including Electronically Scanned Microwave Antennas, U.S. Patent 3,268,901, Aug. 23, 1966; Dielectric-Loaded Antenna with Matching Window, U.S. Patent 3,518,683, June 30, 1970; Multifrequency Series-Fed Edge Slot Antenna, U.S. Patent 4,305,078, Dec. 8, 1981. Jones, John Leslie. Numerous patents, including Preparation of Substituted Phenols, U.S. Patent 2,497,503, Feb. 14, 1950; Personnel Restraint System for Vehicular Occupants, U.S. Patent 3,690,695, Sept. 12, 1972; Smokeless Slow Burning Cast Propellant, U.S. Patent 4,112,849, Sept. 12, 1978. Joyce, James A. Coal or Ore Bucket, U.S. Patent 603,143, Apr. 26, 1898. Julian, Percy Lavon. Prolific researcher in organic chemistry and synthesizer of the drugs physostigmine and cortisone; holder of over 100 patents worldwide. Named to National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1990. Titles include Preparation of Cortisone, U.S. Patent 2,752,339, June 26, 1956; 16-Aminomethyl-17-Alkyltestosterone Derivatives, U.S. Patent 3,149,132, Sept. 15, 1964; Method for Preparing 16(Alpha)-Hydroxypregnenes and Intermediates Obtained Therein, U.S. Patent 3,274,178, Sept. 20, 1966. Kenner, Mary Beatrice. Carrier Attachment for Invalid Walkers, U.S. Patent 3,957,071, May 18, 1976; Bathroom Tissue Holder, U.S. Patent 4,354,643, Oct. 19, 1982; Shower Wall and Bathtub Mounted Back Washer, U.S. Patent 4,696,068, Sept. 29, 1987. Knox, Lawrence Howland. Production of Arecoline, U.S. Patent 2,506,458, May 2, 1950; Photochemical Preparation of Tropilidenes, U.S. Patent 2,647,081, July 28, 1953. Knox, William J., Jr. At least 25 patents related to photography between 1950 and 1970, including Coating Aids for Gelatin Compositions, U.S. Patent 3,038,804, June 2, 1962; Gelatin Coating Compositions, U.S. Patent 3,306,749, Feb. 28, 1967; Coating Aids for Hydrophilic Colloid Layers of Photographic Elements, U.S. Patent 3,539,352, Nov. 10, 1970. Latimer, Lewis Howard. One of the "Edison Pioneers" with patents in electricity, Latimer was creative in other fields as well. Patents include Manufacturing Carbons, U.S. Patent 252,386, Jan. 17, 1882; Apparatus for Cooling and Disinfecting, U.S. Patent 334,078, Jan. 12, 1886; Locking Racks for Hats, Coats, Umbrellas, etc., U.S. Patent 557,076, Mar. 24, 1896. See "Books" section for Latimer's publication on the Edison system. Lavalette, William A. Printing Press, U.S. Patent 208,184, Sept. 17, 1878. Lee, Joseph. Kneading Machine, U.S. Patent 524,042, Aug. 7, 1894; Bread Crumbing Machine, U.S. Patent 540,553, June 4, 1895. LeVert, Francis Edward. Numerous patents in physics, including Threshold Self-Powered Gamma Detector for Use as a Monitor of Power in a Nuclear Reactor, U.S. Patent 4,091,288, May 23, 1978; Monitor for Deposition on Heat Transfer Surfaces, U.S. Patent 4,722,610, Feb. 2, 1988; Continuous Level Fluid Detector, U.S. Patent 4,805,454, Feb. 21, 1989. Lewis, Edward R. Spring Gun, U.S. Patent 362,096, May 3, 1887. Lewis, James Earl. Antenna Feed for Two Coordinate Tracking Radars, U.S. Patent 3,388,399, June 11, 1968. Linden, Henry. Piano Truck, U.S. Patent 459,365, Sept. 8, 1891. Loudin, Frederick J. Sash Fastener, U.S. Patent 510,432, Dec. 12, 1893; Key Fastener, U.S. Patent 512,308, Jan. 9, 1894. Love, John L. Plasterer's Hawk, U.S. Patent 542,419, July 9, 1895; Pencil Sharpener, U.S. Patent 594,114, Nov. 23, 1897. Lu Valle, James E. Photographic Processes, U.S. Patent 3,219,445, Nov. 23, 1965; Photographic Medium and Methods of Preparing Same, U.S. Patent 3,219,448, Nov. 23, 1965; Sensitizing Photographic Media, U.S. Patent 3,219,451, Nov. 23, 1965. Madison, Shannon L. Refrigerating Apparatus, U.S. Patent 3,208,232, Sept. 28, 1965; Electrical Wiring Harness Termination System, U.S. Patent 4,793,820, Dec. 27, 1988. Maloney, Kenneth Morgan. Alumina Coatings for an Electric Lamp, U.S. Patent 3,868,266, Feb. 25, 1975; Alumina Coatings for Mercury Vapor Lamps, U.S. Patent 4,079,288, Mar. 14, 1978. Martin, Thomas J. Fire Extinguisher, U.S. Patent 125,063, Mar. 26, 1872. [In Baker list as "Marshall."] Matzeliger, Jan Earnst. Credited with revolutionizing the American shoe industry with his shoe-lasting machine. Patents include Nailing Machine, U.S. Patent 421,954, Feb. 25, 1890; Tack Separating and Distributing Mechanism, U.S. Patent 423,937, Mar. 25, 1890; Lasting Machine, U.S. Patent 459,899, Sept. 22, 1891. McCoy, Elijah. Twenty-eight patents for various inventions through 1900, and many thereafter, most in the field of automatic lubrication. The term for the genuine article, "The Real McCoy", is associated with his work. Titles include Lubricator for Steam Engines, U.S. Patent 129,843, July 23, 1872; Steam Cylinder Lubricator, U.S. Patent 173,032, Feb. 1, 1876; Lawn Sprinkler Design, U.S. Patent 631,549, Sept. 26, 1899. McCree, Daniel. Portable Fire Escape, U.S. Patent 440,322, Nov. 11, 1890. Miles, Alexander. Elevator, U.S. Patent 371,207, Oct. 11, 1887. Millington, James E. Thermostable Dielectric Material, U.S. Patent 3,316,178, Apr. 25, 1967; Method of Making Expandable Styrene-Type Beads, U.S. Patent 4,286,069, Aug. 25, 1981; Method of Making Styrene-Type Polymer, U.S. Patent 4,730,027, Mar. 8, 1988. Morgan, Garrett Augustus. Breathing Device, U.S. Patent 1,113,675, Mar. 24, 1914; Three-Way Traffic Signal, U.S. Patent 1,475,024, Nov. 20, 1923. Morgan used his gas mask in 1916 during the heroic rescue of workers trapped in a tunnel disaster. Morris, Joel Morton. Switching System Charging Arrangement, U.S. Patent 3,688,047, Aug. 29, 1972. Murray, George W. Congressman from South Carolina (see entry for Congressional Record in "Selected Periodical Articles"). Eight patents for agricultural implements in 1894, including Combined Furrow Opener and Stalk Knocker, U.S. Patent 517,960, Apr. 10, 1894; Reaper, U.S. Patent 520,892, June 5, 1894; Cotton Chopper, U.S. Patent 520,888, June 5, 1894. Nash, Henry H. Life Preserving Stool, U.S. Patent 168,519, Oct. 5, 1875. Neblett, Richard Flemon. Several chemical patents, including Gasoline Composition, U.S. Patent 2,955,928, Oct. 11, 1960; Motor Fuel Composition, U.S. Patent 3,054,666, Sept. 18, 1962; Oil-Soluble Ashless Dispersant-Detergent-Inhibitors, U.S. Patent 3,511,780, May 12, 1970. Newman, Lyda D. Brush, U.S. Patent 614,335, Nov. 15, 1898. Nickerson, William J. Piano Attachment, U.S. Patent 627,739, June 27, 1899. Outlaw, John W. Horseshoe, U.S. Patent 614,273, Nov. 15, 1898. Parker, Alice H. Heating Furnace, U.S. Patent 1,325,905, Dec. 23, 1919. Parsons, James A., Jr. Numerous patents in metallurgy, including Iron Alloy, U.S. Patent 1,728,360, Sept. 17, 1929; Making Silicon Iron Compounds, U.S. Patent 1,819,479, Aug. 18, 1931; Corrosion-Resisting Ferrous Alloy, U.S. Patent 2,200,208, May 7, 1940. Perryman, Frank R. Caterer's Tray Table, U.S. Patent 468,038, Feb. 2, 1892. Peterson, Henry. Attachment for Lawn Mowers, U.S. Patent 402,189, Apr. 30, 1889. Phelps, William H. Apparatus for Washing Vehicles, U.S. Patent 579,242, Mar. 23, 1897. Pickering, John F. Air Ship, U.S. Patent 643,975, Feb. 20, 1900. Pope, Jessie T. Croquignole Iron, U.S. Patent 2,409,791, Oct. 22, 1946. Patented with the aid of Eleanor Roosevelt, according to Autumn Stanley (see under "Books"). Porter, James Hall. Gas Well Sulfur Removal by Diffusion Through Polymeric Membranes, U.S. Patent 3,534,528, Oct. 20, 1970. Prince, Frank Rodger. Production of 2-Pyrrolidones, U.S. Patent 3,637,743, Jan. 25, 1972. Pugsley, Samuel. Gate Latch, U.S. Patent 357,787, Feb. 15, 1887. Purvis, William B. Sixteen patents 1882-1897, ten for paper bag machines, as in U.S. Patent 293,353, Feb. 12, 1884; also Magnetic Car Balancing Device, U.S. Patent 539,542, May 21, 1895; Electric Railway System, U.S. Patent 588,176, Aug. 17, 1897. Ransom, Victor Llewellyn. Traffic Data Processing System, U.S. Patent 3,231,866, Jan. 25, 1966; Method and Apparatus for Gathering Peak Load Traffic Data, U.S. Patent 3,866,185, Feb. 11, 1975. Reynolds, Humphrey H. Window Ventilator for Railroad Cars, U.S. Patent 275,271, Apr. 3, 1883; Safety Gate for Bridges, U.S. Patent 437,937, Oct. 7, 1890. Reynolds, Robert R. Non-Refillable Bottle, U.S. Patent 624,092, May 2, 1899. Rhodes, Jerome B. Water Closet, U.S. Patent 639,290, Dec. 19, 1899. Richardson, Albert C. Several patents, including Hame Fastener, U.S. Patent 255,022, Mar. 14, 1882; Casket Lowering Device, U.S. Patent 529,311, Nov. 13, 1894; Insect Destroyer, U.S. Patent 620,362, Feb. 28, 1899. Richardson, William H. Cotton Chopper, U.S. Patent 343,140, June 1, 1886; Child's Carriage, U.S. Patent 405,599, June 18, 1889; also U.S. Patent 405,600, same title and date. Richey, Charles V. Several patents in different areas of invention, including Fire Escape Bracket, U.S. Patent 596,427, Dec. 28, 1897; Combined Hammock and Stretcher, U.S. Patent 615,907, Dec. 13, 1898; Telephone Register and Lock-Out Device, U.S. Patent 1,063,599, June 3, 1913. Rillieux, Norbert. Rillieux's inventions completely changed the sugar industry. Sugar Works, U.S. Patent 3,237, Aug. 26, 1843; Sugar Making, Improvement in, U.S. Patent 4,879, Dec. 10, 1846. Roberts, Louis W. Gaseous Discharge Device, U.S. Patent 3,072,865, Jan. 8, 1963; GASAR (Device for Gas Amplification by Stimulated Emission and Radiation), U.S. Patent 3,257,620, June 21, 1966; Gallium-Wetted Movable Electrode Switch, U.S. Patent 3,377,576, Apr. 9, 1968. Robinson, Elbert R. Electric Railway Trolley, U.S. Patent 505,370, Sept. 19, 1893; Casting Composite or Other Wheels, U.S. Patent 594,286, Nov. 23, 1897. Rose, Raymond E. Control Apparatus [Aerodynamic], U.S. Patent 3,618,388, Nov. 9, 1971. Russell, Edwin Roberts. Eleven patents on atomic energy processes, including The Separation of Plutonium from Uranium and Fission Products, U.S. Patent 2,855,269, Oct. 7, 1958; Ion Exchange Adsorption Process for Plutonium Separation, U.S. Patent 2,992,249, July 11, 1961; Thorium-Oxide or Thorium-Uranium Oxide with Magnesium Oxide, U.S. Patent 3,309,323, Mar. 14, 1967. Ryder, Earl. High Silicon Cast Iron, U.S. Patent 3,129,095, Apr. 14, 1964. Sampson, George T. Sled Propeller, U.S. Patent 312,388, Feb. 17, 1885; Clothes Drier, U.S. Patent 476,416, June 7, 1892. Sampson, Henry Thomas. Binder System for Propellants and Explosives, U.S. Patent 3,140,210, July 7, 1964; Case Bonding System for Cast Composite Propellants, U.S. Patent 3,212,265, Oct. 19, 1965; High Voltage Gamma Electric Cell, U.S. Patent 3,591,860, July 6, 1971. Sams, Adolphus. Multiple Stage Rocket, U.S. Patent 3,199,455, Aug. 10, 1965; Emergency Release for Extraction Chute, U.S. Patent 3,257,089, June 21, 1966; Rocket Motor Fuel Feed, U.S. Patent 3,310,938, Mar. 28, 1967. Scottron, Samuel R. Several patents, including Adjustable Window Cornice, U.S. Patent 224,732, Feb. 17, 1880; Pole Tip, U.S. Patent 349,525, Sept. 21, 1886; Curtain Rod, U.S. Patent 481,720, Aug. 30, 1892. See Scottron's article on "Manufacturing Household Articles" in "Selected Periodical Articles" section of this bibliography. Shaw, Earl D. Free-Electron Amplifier Device with Electromagnetic Radiation Delay Element, U.S. Patent 4,5299,942, July 16, 1985. Silvera, Esteban. Ram-Valve Level Indicator, U.S. Patent 3,718,157, Feb. 27, 1973. Smartt, Brinay. Reversing-Valve, U.S. Patent 799,498, Sept. 12, 1905; Valve Gear, U.S. Patent 935,169, Sept. 28, 1909; Wheel, U.S. Patent 1,052,290, Feb. 4, 1913. Smith, Mildred E. Family Relationships Card Game, U.S. Patent 4,230,321, Oct. 28, 1980. Smoot, Lanny S. Numerous patents in communications technology, including Optical Receiver Circuit with Active Equalizer, U.S. Patent 4,565,974, Jan. 21, 1986; Teleconference Facility with High Resolution Video Display [Bellcore's "Videowindow"], U.S. patent 4,890,314, Dec. 26, 1989; Teleconferencing Terminal with Camera Behind Display Screen, U.S. Patent 4,928,301, May 22, 1990. Spikes, Richard B. Automatic Gear Shift, U.S. Patent 1,889,814, Dec. 6, 1932; Transmission and Shifting Means Therefor, U.S. Patent 1,936,996, Nov. 28, 1933; Automatic Safety Brake System, U.S. Patent 3,015,522, Jan 2, 1962. Stanard, John. Oil Stove, U.S. Patent 413,689, Oct. 29, 1889; Refrigerator, U.S. Patent 455,891, July 14, 1891. [In Baker's list as "Standard."] Stewart, Albert Clifton. Redox Couple Radiation Cell, U.S. Patent 3,255,044, June 7, 1966; Electric Cell, U.S. Patent 3,255,045, June 7, 1966. Stewart, Marvin Charles. Arithmetic Unit for Digital Computers, U.S. Patent 3,395,271, July 30, 1968; System for Interconnecting Electrical Components, U.S. Patent 3,605,063, Sept. 14, 1971. Stokes, Rufus. Exhaust Purifier, U.S. Patent 3,378,241, Apr. 16, 1968; Air Pollution Control Device, U.S. Patent 3,520,113, July 14, 1970. Taylor, Moddie Daniel. Preparation of Anhydrous Alkaline Earth Halides, U.S. Patent 2,801,899, Aug. 6, 1957; Ion Exchange Adsorption Process for Plutonium Separation, U.S. Patent 2,992,249, July 11, 1961; Preparation of Anhydrous Lithium Salts, U.S. Patent 3,049,406, Aug. 14, 1962. Turner, Madeline M. Fruit Press, U.S. Patent 1,180,959, Apr. 25, 1916. Walker, M. Lucius, Jr. Laminar Fluid NOR Element, U.S. Patent 3,478,764, Nov. 18, 1969. Weaver, Rufus J. Stairclimbing Wheelchair, U.S. Patent 3,411,598, Nov. 19, 1968. West, James Edward. Over 100 patents worldwide in acoustical physics. Titles include Techniques for Fabrication of Foil Electret, U.S. Patent 3,945,112, Mar. 23, 1976; Technique for Removing Surface and Volume Charges from Thin High Polymer Films, U.S. Patent 4,248,808, Feb. 3, 1981; Noise Reducing Processing Arrangement for Microphone Arrays, U.S. Patent 4,802,227, Jan. 31, 1989. Woods, Granville T. Known as the "Black Edison," with more than 60 patents, including Telephone Transmitter, U.S. Patent 308,817, Dec. 2, 1884; Electro-Motive Railway System, U.S. Patent 385,034, June 26, 1888; Amusement Apparatus, U.S. Patent 639,692, Dec. 19, 1899.
|Previous Menu
|Home Page
|What's New
|Country Specific


text:
Interested in a Northeastern University Scholarship?
A community conversation regarding plans to redevelop our Whittier Street housing development will take place this Wednesday (9/17)
A Community Forum to gather input/feedback from neighborhood residents and organizations was held on Saturday, June 28, 2014 at the Madison Park Village Community Center.
Copyright Boston Housing Authority 2014. All Rights Reserved. Site Designed by Planeteria Web Design

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Guillermo Del Toro had been helping out on a video game with THQ before, well, THQ basically ran out of money. But that doesn't mean the game is dead.
Movie site Bloody Disgusting is reporting that the game idea, which is actually planned to be a trilogy, was shipped around to other studios and... picked up by the very first place he went.
They don't know where—given it's a movie site, the info may well have come from that side of the business—but if true it's certainly good news for fans of Del Toro, horror games and Lovecraft.
UPDATE—Ah, seems they're referencing this IGN interview, where Del Toro says "We were going to go to a lot of developers after THQ, but it seems like we're going to be developing it after the first meeting we had. I can't disclose where it was, but we went to a great developer on the first meeting and it seems that they're picking it up because they love the package."
Lovecraft Fans Rejoice! Del Toro's 'Insane' Has Been Picked Up By A New Developer [Bloody Disgusting, via Develop]


text:
Minimum three letter term required
Solvijaya Intl provides products worldwide, providing products directly from the Orient. This is a large wholesale distributor of a wide range of sports equipment, kitchen appliances, electronics, hardware, housewares and Christmas supplies. The company has locations in Hong Kong more ...
Website: solvijaya.com
View more companies in "Floors"


text:
Holy cow, the future world according to Cloud Atlas is scary as hell, and weird.
A crop of new character portraits from the Cloud Atlas website via Collider have us making frowning and terrified, but hopelessly intrigued.
Is that Asian Hugo Weaving and Jim Sturgess? What is tattooed on Susan Sarandon's face, and is that white Halle Berry? So much insanity. For those of you unaware Cloud Atlas is a story that jumps from century to century from the 1800s all the way up to our post apocalyptic future. The various actors cast in this movie play future and past versions of themselves — hence all the different Hugo Weaving faces.


text:
From the Ground Up: UCSC Professor Gary Griggs as Researcher, Teacher, and Institution Builder
Part of the University History Series
For the complete text of From the Ground Up: UCSC Professor Gary Griggs as Researcher, Teacher, and Institution Builder (Escholarship). Includes complete audio (streaming or download) for the oral history. Note: Due to editing by the narrator and the Project, there may be minor differences between the audio recording and the transcript. Please quote from the transcript as the record and not the audio. Audio will be found under "Supporting Material."
2012, 233 pages
PLEASE NOTE these interviews are provided for research purposes only. All uses of these manuscripts are covered by copyright agreement between the interviewees and the Regents of the University of California. All the literary rights in these manuscripts, including the right to publish, are reserved to the University of California, Santa Cruz. No part of these manuscripts may be quoted for publication without the permission of the University Librarian of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Gary Griggs was UC Santa Cruz's first faculty member with expertise in oceanography. He came to the campus in 1968 at the invitation of earth sciences founding chair Aaron Waters, who had been his undergraduate mentor at UC Santa Barbara. As a young assistant professor (having completed his Ph.D. at Oregon State University in just three years), Griggs immediately began publishing professional articles at a prolific rate and developing a campus-wide reputation as a stellar teacher. Promoted to the rank of professor in 1979, he served as chair of earth sciences from 1981 to 1984 and associate dean of natural sciences from 1991 to 1994. Since 1991 he has been director of the Institute of Marine Sciences and Long Marine Laboratory. The author of more than 145 journal articles, author or co-author of several books for professional and popular audiences, and writer of a regular column in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Griggs is perpetually in demand both locally and internationally as a consultant and public speaker on coastal erosion, sea-level rise, adaptation to climate change, and other issues related to coastal geology. His work as a teacher, researcher and administrator has earned numerous honors and awards, including the UCSC Alumni Association's 1998 Distinguished Teaching Award and the 2007 Ed Ricketts Memorial Lecture for lifetime achievement in marine research and education.


text:
We spent our day at the U.S. Open today to take in all of the first-round action. Alas, we don't have computer access on site, so everything's going up on Twitter — from favorite outfits so far (Alona B. in K-Swiss!!), to our bathroom time with Dmitry Tursunov and Jurgen Melzer, to (of course) actual match viewing.
We're back for sop up the rest of round 1 play tomorrow, so please tune in. Our handle: @TSFTennis.


text:
Whether it's fondos or races, Challenge's Strada Tubular tires are the choice of pros and enthusiasts alike. At 25mm wide, these tires smooth out rough pavement and chip seal. The core-spun cotton casing is light, supple, and offers an unparalleled ride. Pair that with a latex tube and you've got tires that carve the corners and feature incredibly low rolling resistance. The chevron tread provides excellent traction whether it's wet or dry. A puncture-protection belt under the tread protects your tires from road debris and helps you knock out the miles.
- 285 grams


text:
Barley Lentil Stew
This stew is the perfect recipe to make on a cool winter day with a slice of homemade bread. It is so flavorful with a lot of seasoning.—Hazel Bowman, Mechanicsville, Virginia
Total TimePrep: 15 min. Cook: 50 min.
Makes9 servings
- 2 large onions, chopped
- 2 cups chopped carrots
- 2 tablespoons olive oil
- 1 tablespoon minced garlic
- 2 teaspoons ground cumin
- 4 cups reduced-sodium chicken broth
- 1 can (28 ounces) diced tomatoes, undrained
- 1 cup lentils, rinsed
- 1 tablespoon brown sugar
- 1 cinnamon stick (3 inches)
- 1/2 cup uncooked medium pearl barley
- 1/2 cup minced fresh parsley
- 1/2 teaspoon salt
- 1/4 teaspoon pepper
- 9 tablespoons fat-free plain yogurt
- In a nonstick skillet, saute the onions and carrots in oil for 8 minutes or until crisp-tender. Add garlic and cumin; cook and stir for 1 minute longer. Add the broth, tomatoes, lentils, brown sugar and cinnamon stick. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat; cover and cook for 5 minutes. Add the barley. Cover and cook for 45 minutes or until lentils and barley are tender, stirring occasionally.
- Add the parsley, salt and pepper. Discard cinnamon stick. Serve in bowls with a dollop of yogurt.


text:
Cantine California
This is no longer included among the favorite 350 addresses that make up Our Guide to Paris Restaurants. We've maintained this page so that you can refer to the practical information and other reviews of interest. Feel free to share your own opinion in the comments.
Practical information


text:
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Parts I and II of this three-part series appeared in the August and September issues. Part III follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the last article ended.]
The incredible brouhaha created by global cloning efforts has spawned equally incredible scientific scenarios—which are turning into reality even as we write this series of articles. Researchers generally distinguish among four types of genetic applications. Somatic cell therapy refers to efforts to correct the functioning of a defective gene in an individual's body cells or to replace it and thus cure the disease that it causes. Germ-line interventions alter germ (reproductive) cells, thereby making changes that affect the next generation through the present generation's progeny. Enhancement genetic engineering entails using genetic engineering to produce (in already healthy individuals) improvements such as greater height, increased strength, or sharper memory. Eugenics involves systematic efforts to breed superior individuals, in this case through genetic selection or alteration.
Scientists are absolutely enthralled with the possibilities they see on the horizon of treating (or preventing) all kinds of diseases or creating "replacement" organs. Plus, people around the world are clamoring for "designer babies." With the new technology that is becoming available on almost a daily basis, apparently the sky is the limit. As one Web site promised: "Come [to our facility] and return to your country pregnant with the child of your dreams" (see Boisellier, 2001). Under the heading, "Designer Baby," the October 16, 2000 issue of Time reported a real-life scenario about that very thing—the child of your dreams.
A Colorado couple—the Nashes—had a daughter, Molly, who desperately needed a bone marrow transplant—preferably from a genetically matched sibling. But the Nashes had no other children. So, using presently available in vitro fertilization techniques, they set out intentionally to create a "genetically matched" brother or sister for Molly—with the specific goal of using the newborn's stem cells (derived from the umbilical-cord blood shortly after birth) to treat Molly's condition. In late 1999, the IVF procedure was carried out, and in early October of 2000, as Time reported, researchers working at the Fairview University Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, successfully transferred the stem cells from the newborn's (his name is Adam) umbilical cord to Molly. The Time writer acknowledged, however:
The Nashes' decision has prompted inevitable questions about the ethical implications of parents' choosing their offspring's features as if they were options on a minivan. But even as the issue is debated, the practice is catching on. Already, 300 IVF babies in the U.S. have been born after the same genetic-screening procedure the Nashes used.... Welcome to Brave New World, Molly and Adam (Park, 2000, 156[16]:102).
Unfortunately, it is not just Molly and Adam that are entering a "Brave New World." The rest of us are being dragged—kicking and screaming—into that Huxlian alternative cosmos as well.
So where is all this leading? And why the sudden interest in "stem cells"? While employing "stressed" body cells (e.g., mammary gland cells from an adult, such as those used to clone Dolly the sheep) has no ethical overtones (when used in non-human cloning procedures), the use of certain human stem cells does. Stem cells are the body's "blank slates"—sometimes referred to as "magic seeds." As such, they have the ability to divide for indefinite periods in a laboratory culture to produce more stem cells, or to give rise, under specified conditions, to a veritable plethora of other cells. [Humans have over 250 cell types; Baldi, 2001, p. 147.] Stem cells are known to exist in three varieties. Totipotent stem cells possess an unlimited capability to specialize into any type of cell necessary—extraembryonic membranes and tissues, postembryonic organs and tissues, etc. [The embryo itself is totipotent.] Pluripotent stem cells are capable of giving rise to most, although not all, tissues found within an organism; generally, their potential for future development has not yet been "locked in." Multipotent stem cells are committed to giving rise to cells that have a particular function. For example, blood stem cells give rise only to red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Skin stem cells give rise only to the different types of skin cells (melanocytes, keratinocytes, fibroblasts, etc.).
In the past, stem cells generally were obtained from four main sources: (1) umbilical-cord blood from a newborn's afterbirth; (2) adult bone marrow and/or brain tissue; (3) aborted fetuses; and (4) "discarded" embryos that no longer are "needed"—and thus will be destroyed—after in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.
Are there potential benefits that could inure from the use of stem cells? Yes, there are. When asked in an interview, "What are the potential benefits of researching these cells," bioethicist Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin (who is a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to the President), responded:
They could help regrow heart muscle after a heart attack. They could regrow brain tissues that could be an answer to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease. They could be used as a therapy for burns or to regenerate skin and would help in developing new drugs (2001, 56[8]:101).
But why is this the case? The answer lies in the way stem cells "differentiate." In his book, The Genetic Inferno, John Medina explained the procedure.
[T]he cells in your cheek have the genetic instructions for your heart, your liver, your big toe, in fact every tissue in the body. Sixty million copies of everything, truly an exercise in redundancy.
If that extraordinary fact is true—and it is—you can ask an important question of your mouth: why is a cheek cell always a cheek cell? If that cell truly has all the genetic information to make every tissue, why isn't every tissue in your cheek? Even if you wound the inside of your mouth, you won't grow back a foot, but rather other cheek cells. So not only is there selectivity, there is also memory. How does it all occur?
The answer to that question is beginning to be understood at a refined level, and it is the reason why scientists are so delighted. It turns out that all the genes necessary to make a cheek cell are turned on in a cheek cell, and all the other genes are repressed, rendered nonfunctional. The same is true of a liver cell, where all the genes necessary to make a liver function correctly are active, and everything else (including any cheek cell genes) is turned off. This idea of turning genes on and off is exciting because we are learning how nature does it, and are in kind learning to turn them on and off ourselves (2000, p. 16).
In his intriguing book, Fly: The Unsung Hero of Twentieth-Century Science (about the tiny fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster used in so many research programs), Martin Brookes elaborated on the idea discussed by Medina.
The ability of genes to be turned off and on could account for the range of cell identities. But the deeper question still remained: Who was throwing the switches in the first place? Who was overseeing and organizing the whole operation? Who was the architect?...
To understand the overall picture of genes and development, think of the body in terms of everyday geography. Instead of the body, for example, think of a map of the United States. At the beginning of development, there is just a basic country. Then a group of control genes swings into action, dividing the outline into north, south, east, and west. A second group of genes, the "state" genes, if you like, is responsible for directing the division of the country into fifty states. Of course, the same "genes" will be present in all states. But in Texas, only the "Texas" genes are switched on, while in Maine, only the "Maine" genes are switched on. Next, the "county" genes become active, dividing each state into a collection of counties. After counties, yet another group of control genes directs the formation of towns and cities within each county, and so on (2001, pp. 61,66, emp. added).
The fact that embryonic stem cells—at such an early juncture in their lives—are undifferentiated (what Brookes referred to as a "basic country") makes them both valuable and widely sought after. Within them lies the potential, for example, to grow heart muscle that could be used to repair the damage brought on by a heart attack. They could be used to regenerate skin cells as a therapy for burn patients, or pancreas cells to treat diabetics. They could grow into fresh new brain cells that might restore brain functions in conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease. And so on.
Pro-life groups have no problem whatsoever with scientists harvesting stem cells for use in research or in procedures intended to help cure certain diseases (such as diabetes) when those stem cells are derived from either the umbilical-cord blood of a newborn or adult bone marrow and/or brain tissue. Harvesting such cells does not kill an already-living human being.
However, the minute quantities of cells that can be obtained from umbilical-cord blood, and the complexity of obtaining such cells from adult tissues, have made these two practices unpopular. Plus, scientists fear that stem-cell lines from adults may lose their potency over time because they do not always grow well in culture settings. In addition, researchers are uncertain as to whether stem cells derived from adults will prove to be as versatile as embryonic stem cells. Scientists have learned that the earlier they obtain stem cells, the less likely those cells are to have undergone any differentiation. As a result, scientists involved in stem-cell research generally prefer to use cells derived from the earliest possible (embryonic) stages of development, rather than from the umbilical cord blood of newborns or tissues harvested from adults. Therefore, the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos from "leftover" IVF procedures now is viewed as a practical necessity since those two sources guarantee large quantities of undifferentiated cells.
But this "practical necessity" has developed into a roiling controversy because of some of the sources of the non-adult stem cells that are being recommended for use in research programs (specifically, sources such as aborted fetuses and soon-to-be-discarded IVF embryos). In fact, emblazoned across the front cover of the July 9, 2001 issue of Newsweek were the words, "The Stem Cell Wars." In her feature article ("Cellular Divide") in that issue, staff writer Sharon Begley commented that using stem cells from aborted fetuses and/or discarded IVF embryos has resulted in "the latest embryo war" (138[2]:24).
The argument set forth by those who support embryonic stem-cell research is that fetuses are being aborted by the thousands every day in America (conservative estimates, place the number upwards of 4,000/day!). And, left-over IVF embryos are becoming available in similar (or larger!) numbers. So, why not make "good use" of these aborted fetuses before they reach the landfill? Why not "retrieve" the extra, unwanted, soon-to-be-discarded embryos produced by IVF clinics that never will be used? After all, these represent invaluable sources of ready-made stem cells that otherwise would be destroyed. As paralyzed Hollywood star Christopher Reeve (of the Superman movies) remarked, in his view it would be unethical to let healthy embryos "be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives" (as quoted in Chapman, 2001). The banner across the front cover of the July 23, 2001 issue of Time heralded "Stem Cells: The Battle Heats Up," and in his feature article, staff writer John Cloud spent five full pages discussing the controversy and laying out the options presently available to researchers (158[3]:22-26).
There are those who insist that such non-adult sources are the very ones we ought to be using in research efforts (especially IVF "left-over" embryos). In his volume, Clones, Genes, and Immortality, John Harris suggested that "it would not be wrong" to use unwanted embryos left over from IVF procedures "so long as the embryo is not in fact implanted" (1998, p. 63). Hubert Markl, current president of the Max Planck Society, wrote a stinging article for the "Commentary" section in the August 2, 2001 issue of Nature, under the title of "Research Doesn't Denigrate Humanity," in which he wrote:
This all boils down to the eternal question, "What is a human being?" ...Every human being is new, unique and developed from a fertilized egg cell. However, the fertilized egg is far from being a human being in the full sense of that word: it can be called a human being only if the word is given a meaning totally different from its usual definition. When we refer to an organism as "human," this is an expression of self-reference, the meaning of which is stipulated not by nature but by humans themselves. "Human" is a culturally defined attribute, not a purely biological fact....
A human being is made not at conception but when the zygote becomes implanted.... [T]here is no biological reason to attribute complete personhood to a few-celled embryo simply because, in interaction with a mother organism, it has the ability to become one (2001, pp. 479,480, emp. added).
And so—if we are to understand these two scientists correctly—were the embryo to be allowed to attach itself to the uterine wall, then it would be wrong to employ it in any given research procedure. But if it is not allowed to implant, then there would be nothing wrong with destroying the embryo by robbing it of its stem cells. [One cannot help but wonder, upon seeing statements such as these, what makes it "right" to destroy the embryo seconds before it attaches itself to the womb, but "wrong" to destroy it seconds after it implants? Furthermore, think for a moment (from the viewpoint of those who defend such a position) about how this argument simultaneously would apply to those cells harvested from aborted fetuses—which represent embryos that most definitely have "already implanted." Such a procedure—given their own definition—would be "wrong"!]
Pro-life supporters object (and rightly so!) to any procedure that results in the death (like aborting a fetus) or destruction (like dissecting an IVF embryo) of a human being—regardless of the potential for good that may result from being able to use the harvested cells for such noble purposes as the alleviation of suffering or the extension of life. In her article titled "Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?" in the August 13, 2001 issue of Time, Nancy Gibbs properly assessed the pro-life position when she wrote:
For strict pro-lifers the issue is straightforward: an embryo at any stage of development is a human life, worthy of protection, and any kind of research that entails destroying an embryo to harvest its cells is immoral, no matter how worthy the intent. It involves using people as means; it turns human life into a commodity and fosters a culture of dehumanization that we accept at our peril (158[6]:20).
While many scientists today adhere to the "technological imperative" that we mentioned earlier (the idea that whatever can be done, will be done), they have failed to realize that the end does not always justify the means! We can retrieve stem cells from aborted fetuses. And we can obtain stem cells from discarded IVF embryos. But that is not the point. The question is: should we? Is it right to abort fetuses in the first place? Is it right to create by in vitro fertilization thousands of "extra" embryos that we know never will be permitted to grow into an adult human? John Cloud summarized the issue quite well when he wrote in his July 23, 2001 Time article:
Stem cells derived from human embryos could lead to cures for some of humanity's most devastating illnesses—but to get to the little knots of magic tissue, we have to destroy the embryos, which might otherwise one day become babies (158[3]:22, emp. added).
Yes, those aborted fetuses and discarded embryos "might otherwise one day become babies"—a reality that United States President George W. Bush artfully acknowledged in his carefully crafted August 9, 2001 speech on funding of stem-cell research by the federal government. During that speech, he stated:
Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being....
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.... Embryonic stem-cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards.... [W]hile we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means....
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatment—yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem-cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care (2001, emp. added).
Indeed, we must proceed with great care! We are dealing not merely with the lives of those in this generation, but with the lives of those who will compose the next generation as well. And, truth be told, on January 22, 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand, it took the first step on the slippery slope toward the dehumanization of every American. As newspaper columnist Cal Thomas put it: "A nation that will not protect babies at the moment of their birth is not likely to acquire a latent morality on the way to exterminating them at ever-earlier stages" (2001). Or, as Time writers Gibbs and Duffy commented in their "We Must Proceed with Great Care" (August 20, 2001) article: "This is biology spilled down a slippery slope" (158[7]:15, emp. added). A slippery slope indeed! No amount of impassioned or inflamed rhetoric on the part of those who support research using aborted fetuses or left-over IVF embryos can alter the fact that the tiny "knots of magic tissue" known as stem cells could—given an opportunity—one day become babies.
Life—contradictory claims by eminent scientists notwithstanding—begins at conception. When the gametes join to form the zygote that will grow into the fetus, and when the full complement of chromosomes necessary to produce and support life combines, it is at that moment that the formation of a new body begins. It is the result of a viable male gamete joined sexually with a viable female gamete, which has resulted in the formation of a zygote containing the standard human chromosome number—46. The embryo is growing, and is alive. It is not just "potentially" human; it is human!
As it develops, the embryo will move through a variety of important stages. The first step in the embryonic growth process—which eventually results in the highly differentiated tissues and organs that compose the body of the neonatal child—is the initial mitotic cleavage of that primal cell, the zygote (the cell resulting from the union of the sperm and egg). At this point, the genetic material doubles, matching copies of the chromosomes move to opposite poles, and the cell cleaves into two daughter cells. Shortly afterwards, each of these cells divides again, forming the embryo. [In both humans and animals, the term "embryo" applies to any stage after cleavage but before birth (see Rudin, 1997, p. 125).]
As the cells of the embryo continue to divide, they form a cluster of cells. These divisions are accompanied by additional changes that produce a hollow, fluid-filled cavity inside the ball, which now is a one-layer-thick grouping of cells known as a blastula. Early in the second day after fertilization, the embryo undergoes a process known as gastrulation in which the single-layer blastula turns into a three-layered gastrula consisting of ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm surrounding a cavity referred to as the archenteron. Each of these layers will give rise to very specific structures (see Wallace, 1975, p. 187).
Within 72 hours of fertilization, the embryo will have divided a total of four times, and will consist of sixteen cells. Each cell will divide before it reaches the size of the cell that produced it; hence, the cells will become progressively smaller with each division. By the end of the first month, the embryo will have reached a length of only one-eighth of an inch, but already will consist of millions of cells. By the end of the ninth month, if all proceeds via normal channels, a baby is ready to be born. As one biologist (and author of a widely used secular university biology textbook) noted:
As soon as the egg is touched by the head of a sperm, it undergoes violent pulsating movements which unite the twenty-three chromosomes of the sperm with its own genetic complement. From this single cell, about 1/175 of an inch in diameter, a baby weighing several pounds and composed of trillions of cells will be delivered about 266 days later (Wallace, 1975, p. 194, emp. added).
Is it alive? Of course it is alive. In fact, herein lies one of the most illogical absurdities of arguments set forth by those who defend abortion. They opine that the "thing" in the human womb is not "alive." If it is not alive, why the need to abort it? Simply leave it alone! Obviously, of course, from their perspective that is not an option because, as everyone is well aware, in nine months that developing fetus will result in a living human baby. The truth of the matter is that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intrauterine or extrauterine, until a person's death. The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is living is critically important when answering the question, "When does a person receive his or her soul?" When James observed that "the body apart from the spirit (Greek pneuma) is dead" (2:26), the corollary automatically inherent in his statement is the fact that if the body is living, then the spirit must be present. Since at each stage of its development the zygote/embryo/fetus is living, then it must have had a soul/spirit instilled at conception. No other view is in accord with both the biblical and scientific evidence.
Medical ethics requires that any experiment on humans be to the subject's benefit. It hardly is to the benefit of the tiny embryo to be ripped apart as it is "mined" for its mother lode of stem cells. Nor is it to its advantage to be washed down the drain and drowned in the early hours of life! Are these tiny embryos human? If one of them were traveling down a woman's Fallopian tube or implanted in her uterus instead of floating in a Petri dish, it would be considered unquestionably human. Yet somehow because it now is capable of being manipulated outside the safety of the womb its "humanness" ceases? With what kind of incongruous logic do we reach such a conclusion? In his response to the manner in which IVF procedures are carried out, ethicist Allen Verhey commented:
Even if one did not hold that the human being's history begins with conception, respect for human life is nevertheless violated here...because here human life is created in order to be destroyed. Here the procedure demands from the very beginning the intention to kill those intentionally fertilized but not chosen (1978, p. 16).
Dr. Verhey's statement was made in 1978 in regard to strict in vitro fertilization techniques. Now, more than two decades later, it has taken on an entirely new meaning. Why so? In the July 2001 issue of Fertility and Sterility, scientists from the famous Howard and Georgeanna Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia, announced that they had paid women volunteers from $1,200 to $2,000 each to donate their eggs—eggs that then were fertilized with donor sperm cells to produce living embryos that subsequently were destroyed intentionally in a procedure that robbed them of their precious stem cells.
Of the 162 eggs collected and inseminated by donor sperm, 50 embryos were successfully created. The researchers destroyed 40 of those to get the stem cells that resided inside. Until now, scientists had derived embryonic stem cells mainly from "excess" embryos donated from infertility treatments occurring at IVF clinics. That was not true in this particular case, however. Rather, researchers approached donors and informed them that their eggs and sperm would be used specifically to develop embryos for stem-cell research (see "Virginia Lab Harvests Stem Cells Created for Research," 2001).
In the July 23, 2001 issue of Newsweek, Debra Rosenberg and Karen Springen reviewed the Jones Institute's research.
The ethics of the experiment immediately rang alarm bells. Until now most researchers have proposed using frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments as a source of stem cells. Creating embryos so they can be destroyed was something else, even though the researchers obtained informed consent from the egg and sperm donors (2001, 138[4]:6).
When Dr. Verhey suggested—as long ago as 1978—that "here the procedure demands from the very beginning the intention to kill those intentionally fertilized but not chosen," he likely had no idea how prescient his statement would be in regard to events occurring more than twenty years later. Now, as a result of the efforts of the Jones Institute, the creation of the embryos has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of life, but rather with the destruction of life. Now, we actually have reached the point in science where we are creating life in the laboratory for the sole purpose of destroying it!
And so, the argument that we merely are "making good use" of embryos left over as a result of IVF procedures—embryos that would have been discarded anyway—no longer holds sway. In fact, now, for all practical intents and purposes, it is a moot point. We no longer need those embryos. Why use frozen specimens when we can produce fresh ones at will—as we need them?
The thought of creating life to destroy it even upsets some of those who otherwise support stem-cell research. In the June 23, 2001 issue of Time, Charles Krauthammer authored an essay titled "Mounting the Slippery Slope" in which he lamented the current ongoings in science.
Had we not all agreed that it is unethical, a violation of the elementary notion that we don't make of the human embryo a thing—to be made, unmade and used as a mere instrument for others?...
A day after the news from Norfolk, we learned that a laboratory in Worcester, Mass. (the very same lab that three years ago produced a hybrid human-cow embryo) is trying to grow cloned human embryos to produce stem cells—but could be used to produce a full or (even more ghastly) partial human clone. What other monstrosities are going on that we don't know about?...
People are horrified when a virgin hill is strip-mined for coal; how can they be unmoved when a human embryo is created solely to be strip-mined for its parts?
What next? Today a blastocyst is created for harvesting. Tomorrow, researchers may find that a five-month-old fetus with a discernible human appearance, suspended in an artificial placenta, may be the source of even more promising body parts. At what point do we draw the line?... [We] owe posterity a moral universe not trampled and corrupted by arrogant, brilliant science (2001, 158[3]:80, emp. added).
Krauthammer is correct in his assessment. Barring governmental intervention, cloning human stem cells likely will become as routine as paying women to donate their eggs, or paying men to donate their sperm, to produce embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest their stem cells. That phrase, "barring government intervention," is critically important.
In the United States, prior to the decision by President Bush on August 9, 2001 to allow limited research on stem cells using solely those lines already in existence, two distinct sets of guidelines addressed the status of research on human embryos—both of which militated against their use in research. The first was the 1994 Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel; the second was a group of regulations regarding research on transplantation of fetal tissues (section 498A of the Public Health Services Act). Both sets of guidelines specifically prohibited the use of public funds for research on tissues derived from human embryos.
Late in 1998, however, Harold Varmus, who at the time was the director of the National Institutes of Health, decided to allow funding of pluripotent stem-cell research. In response to his decision, in February 1999 seventy members of Congress signed a letter calling upon the Department of Health and Human Services to reverse Varmus' decision and impose a ban on stem cells from human embryos or fetuses. In July 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended federal funding not only for research on human embryonic stem cells, but also for the production of cell cultures, even at the cost of sacrificing embryos. The White House, however, eventually adopted a more conservative position which suggested that research on embryonic stem cells "is permissible under the current congressional ban"—a position that backed the NIH interpretation of current laws allowing government funds to be spent to study, but not to derive, stem cells from embryos (derivation could occur only in private laboratories).
In late 1999, the NIH issued new guidelines for research on embryonic stem cells. Those guidelines, reported in the December 10, 1999 issue of Science, were as follows: (see Vogel, 1999, 286:2050-2051):
Then, in August 2000, the NIH revised the above guidelines (as reported in Science, September 1, 2000; see Vogel, 2000, 289:1442-1443) to state that NIH -funded researchers could work on embryonic pluripotent stem cells derived by privately funded researchers, provided that:
Embryonic stem cell lines are derived only from frozen embryos created for fertility treatments (viz., IVF procedures).
The decision to donate the embryos is separated from fertility treatment.
Embryo donors are told they cannot accept financial or other compensation and that the cells may be used indefinitely, possibly even for commercial purposes (embryo donors may be identified, if they are notified in advance).
No stem cells may be used for research if those cells have been derived from nuclear transfer technology (i.e., cloning).
On January 28, 2001, Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health, asking the NIH to submit a report on the current status of the science involved in stem-cell research. The 168-page, heavily illustrated document, produced in compliance with Secretary Thompson's request and titled Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions, was released on June 10, 2001 (we were able to obtain a complete copy just as this article was about to go to press). The report encourages federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research (see Stem Cells: Scientific Progress..., 2001).
Many scientists are loath to restrict their future experiments to already-existing stem-cell lines, due mainly to the fact that they do not believe current lines offer enough genetic diversity. Plus, cutting off the source for any future stem cells, scientists say, would limit severely the diversity that is required to make the stem-cell research applicable in all cases since each stem-cell line varies subtly from all others and researchers have not yet determined which ones are best. Cell biologists believe that even if there are as many as 60-65 cell lines available worldwide (the number identified by the NIH ), that still would be too few to ensure successful therapies for many diseases. They also note that several of the existing cell lines do not grow well in culture, rendering them impractical for important research efforts.
Adding to the controversy is the fact that we now know that embryonic stem cells can be disadvantageous when injected into the body, since they may produce tumors resulting from rapid growth. In the words of Michael Shamblott, a researcher in John Gearhart's laboratory at Johns Hopkins University: "Injected into the body, stem cells can produce tumors" (see "New Lab-Made Stem Cells May be Key to Transplants," 2000).
Critics of stem-cell research point out, accurately, that the cells for this research still come from the destruction of human embryos. In a feature article in the July 30, 2001 issue of U.S. News & World Report on "Matters of Life and Death," Terence Samuel commented on this gruesome fact and presented the view of one conservative United States senator (Sam Brownback of Kansas) when he wrote:
Stem cells are elemental human cells that can generate many different kinds of human tissue.... Opponents contend that extracting cells for research kills the embryos and therefore kills the children that might have developed from the embryos. It is, in their eyes, a simple act of murder (2001, 131[4]:16).
The fact that the destruction took place in the past does not lessen the dastardly nature of the deed; nor does it justify the use of the cells merely because the humans that provided them are not being killed now. As Gene Tarne, spokesman for the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, observed: "The stem-cell lines are derived from destroying embryos, whether that was yesterday or next week" (as quoted in Wadman, 2001).
The sad part of all of this is that the destruction of embryonic stem cells is completely unnecessary. There are acceptable alternatives. As Kelly Hollowell observed:
The best sources of stem cells are (1) from our own organs—termed adult stem cells or tissue stem cells; (2) cord blood (the small amount of blood left in an umbilical cord after it is detached from a newborn); (3) bone marrow stem cells which have been demonstrated to make more than blood but also bone, muscle, cartilage, heart tissue, liver, and even brain cells; (4) and neuronal stem cells which can be stimulated to make more neurons, or to take up different job descriptions as muscle and blood.
Bone marrow and cord blood are already successfully being used clinically, while clinical use of embryonic stem cells is years away. Current clinical applications of adult stem cells include treatments for cancer, arthritis, lupus and making new corneas, to name a few (2001, emp. added).
The potential legalization of the wanton destruction of human embryos represents a Pandora's box of evils about to be thrust upon society. Medical ethicist Paul Ramsey has suggested that we cannot even develop the kinds of reproductive technologies being discussed here "without conducting unethical experiments upon the unborn who must be the mishaps (the dead and retarded ones) through whom we learn how" (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p. 65).
If a person shoots an eagle—the symbol of our country—the American judicial system will throw him in prison and toss away the key. That same system will stop a multi-million dollar dam in the state of Tennessee to save an inch-long snail-darter fish, or fly a former President of the United States to the northwest sector of America to discuss the fate of a spotted owl. Yet should some scientist intentionally destroy a human child in its most defenseless, embryonic stage, such an act not only is viewed as desirable and beneficial, but simultaneously is countenanced as legal. The Proverbs writer stated: "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto Him; haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood" (6:16-17, emp. added). What blood could be more innocent than that of a tiny infant—regardless of whether it is in an embryonic in vitro state or a prenatal in vivo stage?
Faithful Christians must oppose such atrocities in a forthright (yet, of course, non-violent) manner. It is not an option for Christians to choose whether or not to care for those who cannot care for themselves; God's Word contains specific commands regarding such actions on our part (Leviticus 19:32; James 1:27; Isaiah 1:23; Romans 15:1). Ignoring those commands, and remaining apathetic to the horrors around us—potential or real—invariably produces evil fruits. It is sad indeed to think that we have come to such a point in America's history. Yet here we are—at a time when scientists have stated publicly that they are willing to destroy human embryos in ever-increasing numbers in order to achieve their stated goals. Sad times!
Baldi, Pierre (2001), The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Begley, Sharon (2001), "Cellular Divide," Newsweek, 138[2]:22-27, July 9.
Boisellier, Brigitte (2001), "Clonaid: The First Human Cloning Company," [On-line], URL: http://www.clonaid.com/english/pages/home.html#.
Brookes, Martin (2001), Fly: The Unsung Hero of Twentieth-Century Science (New York: HarperCollins).
Bush, George W. (2001), "Remarks by the President on Stem-Cell Research," [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.
Chapman, Steve (2001), "The Benefits of Stem Cell Research—and the Cost," Chicago Tribune, July 17.
Charo, R. Alta (2001), "Turning Point," Interview in People magazine, 56[8]:101-102, August.
Cloud, John (2001), "Bush's No-Win Choice," Time, 158[3]:22-26, July 23.
Gibbs, Nancy (2001), "Where do We Draw the Line?," Time, 158[6]:18-21, August 13.
Gibbs, Nancy and Michael Duffy (2001), "We Must Proceed with Great Care," Time, 158[7]:14-23, August 20.
Harris, John (1998), Clones, Genes, and Immortality (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Hollowell, Kelly J. (2001), Nobel Laureates Letter to President Bush Contains Misinformation and Omissions, [On-line], URL: http://cbhd.org/resources/aps/laureates_letter_analysis. htm.
Krauthammer, Charles (2001), "Mounting the Slippery Slope," Time, 158[3]:80, July 23.
Markl, Hubert (2001), "Research Doesn't Denigrate Humanity," Nature, 412:479-480, August 2.
Medina, John J. (2000), The Genetic Inferno (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
"New Lab-Made Stem Cells May be Key to Transplants," (2000), [On-line], URL: http://hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2000/December/001225.htm.
Park, Alice (2000), "Designer Baby," Time, 156[16]:102, October 16.
Restak, R.M. (1975), Pre-Meditated Man (New York: Viking).
Rosenberg, Debra and Karen Springer (2001), "I'm Wrestling with This Decision," Newsweek, 138[4]:6, July 23.
Rudin, Norah (1997), Dictionary of Modern Biology (Hauppauge, NY: Barrons).
Samuel, Terence (2001), "Matters of Life and Death," U.S. News & World Report, 131[4]:14-17, July 30.
Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions (2001), (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health). This 168-page document, released on June 17, 2001, is the result of a request submitted on January 28, 2001 by Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asking that the NIH submit a report on the current status of stem-cell research.
Thomas, Cal (2001), "President Bush's Compromise," [On-line], URL: www.tmsfeatures.com/TMSFeatures/fs_feature3/1,1303,20010810tq—b-a,00.html.
Verhey, Allen (1978), "Test Tube Babies: Two Responses," The Reformed Journal, September.
"Virginia Lab Harvests Stem Cells Created for Research," (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/stem. cells.research.ap/index.html.
Vogel, Gretchen (1999), "NIH Sets Rules for Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research," Science, 286:2050-2051, December 10.
Vogel, Gretchen (2000), "Researchers Get Green Light for Work on Stem Cells," Science, 289:1442-1443, September 1.
Wadman, Meredith (2001), "Stem-cell Fudge Finds no Favour with Biologists," [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/Dyna Page.taf?file=/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412107a0_fs.html.
Wallace, Robert A. (1975), Biology: The World of Life (Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear).