1,721,051 research outputs found
Premio nobel de medicina 2010: Robert G. Edwards
Get PDFEL PREMIO NOBEL DE ESTE AÑO FUE OTORGADO POR LA ASAMBLEA NOBEL DEL KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET A ROBERT G. EDWARDS por el desarrollo de la fecundación in vitro (FIV). A continuación se presenta un breve resumen del comunicado de prensa emitido por esta organización el 4 de octubre del presente año, complementado con datos de la publicación Making mothers of invention de Adam Smith, editor en jefe del Nobelprize.org., y Advanced Information de la Asamblea Nobel del Karolinska Institute
Robert G. Edwards – 2010. aasta Nobeli füsioloogia ja meditsiini preemia laureaat
Get PDFOktoobrikuu alguses toimuvat uute nobelistide väljakuulutamist oodatakse alati huviga. Tänavuse Nobeli füsioloogia ja meditsiini preemia pälvis Robert G. Edwards, kes on juba enam kui pool sajandit tegelenud inimese reproduktsiooni oluliste küsimustega ning selle töö tulemused on mõjutanud miljonite inimeste elu terves maailmas.
Eesti Arst 2010; 89(11):706−70
Robert G. Edwards – 2010. aasta Nobeli füsioloogia ja meditsiini preemia laureaat
Get PDFOktoobrikuu alguses toimuvat uute nobelistide väljakuulutamist oodatakse alati huviga. Tänavuse Nobeli füsioloogia ja meditsiini preemia pälvis Robert G. Edwards, kes on juba enam kui pool sajandit tegelenud inimese reproduktsiooni oluliste küsimustega ning selle töö tulemused on mõjutanud miljonite inimeste elu terves maailmas.
Eesti Arst 2010; 89(11):706−70
Invited commentary on ‘Robert G Edwards and the Roman Catholic Church’
No full textThe paper 'Robert G. Edwards and the Roman Catholic Church' by Benagiano and colleagues in this issue of Reproductive BioMedicine Online is a very important and timely article published by well-informed authors on the occasion of the long-awaited award of the Nobel Prize to a well-deserved scientist, Bob Edwards. I found it very interesting and challenging that the authors went through all the arguments and criticism made by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and other agents against the newly developed techniques of assisted reproductive technology
Robert G Edwards and the Roman Catholic Church
No full textThe Roman Catholic Church reacted negatively to the announcement that the Nobel Prize for Medicine had been awarded to Robert G Edwards. Thirty-three years ago, Cardinal Albino Luciani, on the eve of his election to become Pope, stated that, whereas progress is certainly a beautiful thing, mankind has not always benefited from progress. Catholic criticism has raised seven points: (i) God wants human life to begin through the 'conjugal act' and not artificially; (ii) artificial interventions at the beginning of human life are dangerous and ethically unacceptable; (iii) limits can be imposed even upon an individual's freedom to achieve a legitimate goal, such as having a child within marriage; (iv) the massive loss of preimplantation embryos characterizing IVF must be considered as a tragic loss of 'nascent' human persons; (v) Edwards bears a moral responsibility for all subsequent developments in assisted reproduction technology and for all 'abuses' made possible by IVF; (vi) there can be deleterious consequences for offspring of assisted reproduction technology; and (vii) Edwards' discovery did not eliminate the causes of infertility. This article elaborates from the Roman Catholic perspective on each of these points, some of which are found to be more substantial than others
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
