How video game effect our live Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

How video game effect our live - Research Paper Example I went through different books, searched online for information and finally ended up with something I think is important from both sociological and cultural point of views. The topic I have chosen for my research project is ‘How video games affect our lives’. This research would be useful for all kinds of people, those who are addicted to video games, those who play video games occasionally and those who don’t play video games at all. The structure of my research project would be simple, clear and linear. Starting from a historical point of view, I would first describe some of the pioneers and early days of video games. Then I would move on to their development, an era in which video games started to gain some fame but only in the elite class of the society and they were a big attraction for the kids in that class (Weiss). Moving on to the invention of some video games of the late 20th century for example, Atari, Nintendo, Sega and home computer which were the only gaming devices at that time and many games such as Sonic, Mario bros, Contra 4, the helicopter and fighting jet games, Street fighter and tekken were introduced on these gaming stations. The modern 21st century video games have taken the level of video games to a next level. The inventions of Playstation and Xbox360 with PSP (playstation portable) have opened the doors for a totally new generation of games such as GTA, Call of Duty, Prince of Persia, Assassins and millions of other games. These games are both graphically and technologically advance and take the gamer inside the characters they are playing with and Now to increase the experience 3D games are being introduced (Rowlands). After the history and development, I would choose a social and psychological perspective of gaming. I would describe the affects that they have on our mind and body. Starting with the main affect, playing too many games has led our children to stick inside their homes and decreased their outdoor physical

The Beveridge Report of 1942: Aims and Impact

The Beveridge Report of 1942: Aims and Impact (The Making of the Welfare State, 1942 1951) Examine the extent to which the AIMS of the Beveridge Report of 1942 had been achieved by 1951. From the Cradle to the Grave In 1941 the wartime coalition government ordered Sir William Beveridge[1] to write a report suggesting policies that could be implemented to assist people on low incomes in the United Kingdom. In December 1942 Beveridge published his findings in his Report to Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services.[2] The Report proposed that people in employment should pay a proportion of their pay into a fund which would then be distributed in the form of benefits paid to people who were unemployed, sick, widowed or retired. Essentially, Beveridge argued for a comprehensive system of social insurance from cradle to grave. Beveridge reasoned that this system would establish a minimum standard of living ‘below which no one should be allowed to fall’. His proposals proved immensely popular among the British public and his suggested reforms were introduced by the Labour Government that was elected by a landslide vote (after adopting the objectives of the Beveridge Report in its manifesto)[3] at the end of World War II in 1945. The period under discussion in this paper extends from publication of the Beveridge Report to the end of the post-war Labour Government, which was led by Clement Attlee. The principle aims of the Beveridge Report were addressed to counter the five so-called ‘giants’ of illness, ignorance, disease, squalor, and want. The Report considered the broad question of social insurance, contending that social ‘want’ could be met by a state organised system of social security for the benefit of individual citizens. Beveridge proposed the establishment of family allowances, a national health service, a scheme for national insurance and assistance, and lobbied for policies to secure full-employment. The Achievements of the Beveridge Report Attlee’s Government introduced three acts of key significance and others that proved instrumental in pursuing the aims of the Beveridge Report. The 1946 National Insurance Act, implemented the Beveridge scheme for social security creating a comprehensive system of unemployment, sickness, maternity and pension benefits funded by employers, employees and the government. It is submitted that the Act represents a significant reforming achievement on any given set of criteria. By June 1948, prominent Labour Minister of Health Aneurin Bevan had steered the National Health Service Act through Parliament and into force. This legislation provided the British public with free diagnosis and treatment of illness and disease, in hospital and at home, and also made comprehensive dental and ophthalmic services available. Again, it is argued that this Act constitutes an important achievement for the Beveridge agenda, indeed, with the benefit of hindsight and from the full perspective of 2005, it is hard to overstate its significance. The 1948 National Assistance Act was the third of the key Acts inspired by Beveridge. The Act abolished the Poor Law and made provision for welfare services, enacting a raft of measures designed to relieve poverty in the United Kingdom. All three of the above Acts entered into force on the same day, 7th June 1948. The 1948 Children Act was another important reform inspired by Beveridge. This Act established a childrens committee and a childrens officer in each local authority adding, it is submitted, an important perspective to the Beveridge agenda. Full employment also became government policy as a consequence of Beveridge. This goal has never been sustained for any long period, but it is submitted that it is unfair to judge Beveridge by the success or failure of this aspiration, given that so many socio-economic factors impact on the level of employment. Together, the achievements of Beveridge created a welfare state for the United Kingdom: a system of social security guaranteeing a minimum level of income, health and social services for all. Returning to office in 1951 under Churchill, the Conservative Party pursued an agenda of pragmatic social modernity and accepted almost all of the social reforms, including all the key reforms, instituted by the former Labour government. This demonstrates that not only had the Beveridge Report achieved its primary objectives, but also that it had engineered a shift in the political norms and received social wisdom of the country. Concluding Comments Although securing almost one and a half million more votes than the Conservatives, Clement Attlee’s Labour Party, as stated above, narrowly lost the 1951 General Election. However, it is argued that the post war period of Government was by most measures a great success. Vigorous reform based largely around the model established by Beveridge was achieved. The goal of full employment has and will probably remain an elusive one for the foreseeable future, but great strides were taken during the period under review and the social superstructure of the United Kingdom changed out of all recognition and for, it is submitted, the better. It is a testament to the influence and success of the Beveridge Report that some forty years after its publication, Margaret Thatchers Conservative government in terms of its political stance poles apart from Beveridge and Attlee which as a consequence opposed many of the principles behind Beveridges work, recognised his report as by any measure a landmark in a white paper on social security reform[4]. In summary it is submitted that the British welfare state of 2005 is recognisably the progeny of Beveridge. This grand social system retains all the basic characteristics of the system created by the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951.[5] Thus it can be claimed that the Beveridge Report achieved many of its aims, and, moreover, that those achievements have stood the test of time and proved both durable and effective. Beveridge deserves a place of prominence in the political pantheon of the twentieth century. In terms of his lasting influence on modern Britain, it is arguable that he surpasses even his far more famous political contemporary Churchill. The following quote strikes an appropriate closing note. â€Å"The welfare state, arguably the greatest achievement of European civilisation in this century.† Marquand, 1997. p127[6] BIBLIOGRAPHY Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd. 6404) London: HMSO, 1942 ISBN: 0108502767 George V. and Wilding P. (1999) British Society and Social Welfare, London, Macmillan. Marquand D. (1997) The New Reckoning, Cambridge. Polity. The National Archives: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 1 Footnotes [1] (1879-1963). [2] (Cmd. 6404) London: HMSO, 1942 ISBN: 0108502767. [3] It should be noted that the Conservative Party also supported much of the Beveridge Report. [4] See for comment: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/welfare.htm [5] George V. and Wilding P. (1999) British Society and Social Welfare, London, Macmillan. [6] Marquand D. (1997) The New Reckoning, Cambridge. Polity.

Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses to the Moderate-Carbohydrate Energy Bar :: Health Nutrition Diet Exercise Essays

Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses to the Moderate-Carbohydrate Energy Bar      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With Americans facing an ever-growing obesity epidemic, diets of all sorts have arisen to try and reduce the problem. One of which is the Atkins Diet, which reduces the carb intake in one's diet or substitutes other macronutrients to reduce high levels of insulin that slow down one's metabolism. With all the hype of low-carb diets, low-carb snacks and other foods have swept the grocery store shelves. In an attempt to measure the affect some of these foods have on blood glucose and insulin levels, a moderate-carb energy bar was tested and compared to two controls; white bread, having a high carb content and chicken breast, consisting of mostly protein with zero percent carbs. The results of the test showed a decrease in glucose in the blood after consuming the bar, but had no direct correlation to the insulin levels of the subjects in the study. Steven R. Hertzler and Yeonsoo Kim note in their article, "Glycemic and insulinemic responses to energy bars of macronutrient composition in healthy adults" that "there is currently little evidence to support that these plans, or the snack foods associated with them, can actually reduce insulinemia" and "carbohydrate is not the only macronutrient that influences the insulin response." (CR 85) This is shown in the experiment that was conducted. A number of steps were taken in controlling and carrying out the experiment. Twenty healthy individuals were recruited and volunteers were excluded if they had any history of diabetes or glucose intolerance. Each subject kept diet records three days prior to each test meal and were to include a minimum of 150g of carbohydrate in there diets per day. Blood samples were collected before the test began and after a fasting period to get readings of each subject's blood insulin levels and blood glucose levels without any interfering data.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The results showed a significant increase in blood glucose levels for the bar compared to the chicken breast. In comparison with the white bread, the bar's glucose levels peaked and quickly dropped much faster than the bread's glucose levels.

It 255 Final Project

Dear Richman Investments Senior Management, It has come to my attention that your corporate security policy for the firm is out of date and that it needs to be updated. In my time here as an intern I have reviewed the security policy and revised it to keep up with all of the technological updates going on in the internet world today. I was assigned this project and being that we have 5000 employees operating in different locations and different parts of the country; I have noticed that some of the other branches do not follow the firms’ policies as they should.Some branches operate on their own policies. I have drafted up a new and improved corporate security policy that covers emails, mobile devices, computer usage, email retention policies, passwords, etc. I hope this will help streamline our security policy across the board so that everyone is on the same page and so there is no misinterpretation of the firm employee or otherwise. RICHMAN INVESTMENTS CORPORATE SECURITY POLI CY Use of Phone and Mail Systems Personal use of the telephone for long-distance and toll calls is not permitted.Employees should Practice discretion when making local personal calls and may be required to reimburse The Firm for any charges resulting from their personal use of the telephone. The mail system is reserved for business purposes only. Employees should refrain from sending or receiving personal mail at the workplace. To ensure effective telephone communications, employees should always use the approved greeting and speak in a courteous and professional manner. Please confirm information received from the caller, and hang up only after the caller has done so.Computer and E-mail Usage Computers and other media of electronic communications (â€Å"Media†) are the property of the Firm which has a legitimate business interest in the proper utilization of its property. Therefore, any use of the Firm's property, and any electronic communications sent or received, may be mo nitored by persons authorized by the Firm. Employees who use such Media for private, non-work related purposes do so at their own risk. The Firm encourages such Media to be used for business purposes and forbids the waste or monopolization of such resources.Electronic communications, including computer files, voicemail and electronic mail (â€Å"e-mail†), are not anonymous: sender and receiver can be determined, and the content of any message may be viewed by others within the Firm. A password is not intended to ensure the privacy of electronic communications. Instead, it serves to provide a minimum level of security to the Firm's Media by restricting access to those who bear valid passwords. Preventing a person from outside of the Firm from gaining access to the Firm's Media is not the same as affording privacy to the communications of Media users.The Firm strives to maintain a workplace which is free of harassment and sensitive to the diversity of its employees. Therefore, the Firm prohibits the use of computers and the e-mail system in ways that are disruptive, offensive to others, or harmful to morale. For example, the display or transmission of sexually explicit images, messages, and cartoons is not allowed. Other such misuse includes, but is not limited to, ethnic slurs, racial comments, off-color jokes, or anything that may be construed as harassment or showing disrespect for others.In addition, e-mail may not be used to solicit others for commercial ventures, religious or political causes, outside organizations, or other non-business matters. E-MAIL IS NOT A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE FIRM. NEVER USE E-MAIL TO SEND PERSONAL INFORMATION OR DISCUSS PRIVATE MATTERS ABOUT ANYONE, INCLUDING YOURSELF, UNLESS DISCLOSURE OF THAT INFORMATIONWITHIN THE FIRM IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. THIS PROHIBITION ALSO APPLIES TO VOICEMAIL AND COMPUTER FILES. ANY DEFAMATORY, INSULTING OR DEROGATORY REMARK ABOUT ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS IS PROHIBITED.Email Retent ion Policy Because the volume of e-mails sent and received continues to rise, the size of attachments Continues to grow, and pictures and images consume significant amounts of storage space, the Firm has Adopted an Email Retention Policy that addresses retaining, deleting and saving e-mail in an effort to Advance the Firm's technology objectives and ensure that a reliable network exists for rapid message exchange and communication. The Email Retention Policy allows a faster, more responsive e-mail system and ensures that, in the event of a disaster (i. . hardware failure, natural disaster events, etc. ), our messaging services can be quickly restored to operation. This policy also encourages organization of e-mail through the use of email folders. The policy is designed to automatically delete information from only the Inbox, Sent Items and Deleted Items as they age. The Table below illustrates the policy and aging and flow of email items from those folders. Software Policy The Firm will not tolerate any employee making unauthorized copies of software.The Unauthorized duplication of software violates software licensing agreements and federal copyright laws. Such conduct is not only against the Firm's policy, it is a federal criminal offense. No employee shall install any software on any computer at the offices of the Firm unless the installation is approved in writing in advance of the installation. Social Media Policy Although this is not a complete or exhaustive list, employees should consider the following guidelines prior to using social media (including Firm operated social media) while an employee of the Firm.Employees should be aware that while not always apparent, work-related issues may often be implicated by their use of social media. In all instances, employees are expected to use good judgment and to consider the effect their social media use has on others and the way in which others perceive them. Stay Legal – Employees should make sure tha t their use of social media complies with all applicable laws. When in doubt, the employee should find out whether what he/she is doing is legal before proceeding.Confidentiality – An employee's confidentiality obligations extend to his/her online activities. Accordingly, employees should be familiar with the Firm's policies regarding confidential information. Generally speaking, an employee should not disclose to any third party any information related to the Firm or its employees, products, services, clients, partners, suppliers, or other business interests unless that information is already public knowledge.Even if the information is public, an employee should avoid discussing the Firm's clients, suppliers, and partners without their permission. If in doubt about whether particular information may be disclosed, contact a Managing Partner. Copyrights, Trademarks, and Intellectual Property – Employees should not make any use or reproduction of any copyright, trademark , or intellectual property belonging to any other person or entity, except in accordance with applicable law. NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACYFirm employees should have no expectation of privacy with respect to any information created, viewed, distributed, received, uploaded, downloaded, accessed, or otherwise facilitated by the Firm's Computer or Information Systems (phone, computer, hand-held devices, etc. ). Similarly, employees should have no expectation of privacy with respect to information that is generally available online. The Firm reserves the right to monitor and maintain any content created, viewed, distributed, received, uploaded, downloaded, accessed, or otherwise involving any Firm Computer or Information System or resource.DISCIPLINARY ACTION Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Internet Policy For those employees who are provided access to the internet, the Firm encourages the use of the internet for business purposes. Non-business use (such as net surfing for personal enjoyment, entertainment, or children's school projects) should be kept to a minimum and generally restricted to non-working time. Personal use of the internet that adversely affects an employee's productivity is prohibited.No employee may use the internet during working time or during non-working time to access or convey information in violation of any Firm policy. Examples of the types of information that would violate Firm policies include information that is sexually explicit or offensive, or which is offensive, hostile, or harassing with respect to anyone's race, religion, color, creed, marital status, sex, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation or preference, veteran's status, or any other aspect that is protected by law or by the Firm's policies.No employee may use the internet during working or non-working time to access or convey information in an unlawful manner or for any unlawf ul purpose, such as downloading or copying information or programs in violation of copyright and software licensing laws, or using the internet to distribute or receive destructive programs such as viruses. Remember that you should not expect any â€Å"privacy† in your use of the internet.The Firm has the ability to monitor your internet access (all messages sent, sites accessed, and information downloaded). The Firm reserves the right to review and disclose such records or information with or without prior notice or consent. Your hard drive contains a history of sites recently visited and information (such as text and graphics) from those sites. This information is the Firm's property.The Firm has the right to enter your workstation or office, with or without notice or consent, at any time, and to access, monitor, review and take possession of your hard drive and any data storage medium. (For example, hard drives, floppy disks, CD-ROMs, videotapes, cassette tapes, etc. ) Any thing on Company premises is presumed to be Company property and is covered by this policy. I hope this proposal meets all of your contractual needs and gets everyone on the same page. Thank you.

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Brandon Pond New England Institute of Technology Case Studies in Criminal Forensics CJ 372. 57 Professor Michael Pezzullo October 24, 2012 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals The 1993 Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, like many high-profile court cases, set a precedent for future court causes of a similar background. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was a pharmaceutical company based out of Kansas City, Missouri which was founded in 1950.Originally named â€Å"Marion Laboratories† after its founder Ewing Marion Kauffman, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals specifically developed pharmaceuticals that had yet to be marketed by other pharmaceutical companies after being discovered and researched. As a result, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are credited for producing several high-quality and extremely popular drugs even in modern day, including the Nicorette anti-smoking gum and Cepacol mouthwash.However, in an attempt to recei ve credit for popular and effective pharmaceutical production over other companies, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals earned a reputation of producing drugs without sufficient research of potential side-effects. As a result, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals were I involved in an extremely high-profile U. S. Supreme Court case, titled â€Å"Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. This 1993 court case put pressure on the pharmaceutical company to close their doors and sell the company just three years later in 1996. Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were both born in San Diego, California with visible physical defects.At birth, Daubert was missing three fingers on his right hand and was missing a bone in the lower part of his right arm. Schuller was born without a left hand and a leg which was shorter than the other. In 1993, Daubert and Schuller, along with their parents, elected to sue Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the drug Bendectin, an anti-nausea medication both the boysâ €™ mothers were prescribed and consumed during their pregnancies. Bendectin had been already removed from the market in 1983 after numerous claims that the medication ad caused birth defects in children. Despite the claims that the drug had caused birth defects in a number of children, scientific research behind Bendectin showed no evidence that the drug is question produced birth defects in fetuses. The case was taken to a California state court, where it was ultimately moved to a Federal Court following a successful motion of diversity, ultimately meaning if a party in a case is established in a state differing from the state where the trial is being heard, the trial can be upgraded to a federal court.At the federal court trial, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals presented an expert witness, Dr. Lamm, who provided his opinion tht Bendectin has no proven components that are consistent with causing birth defects in humans. Following the expert witness presentation, Merrell Dow Pharmace uticals filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that following their presentation of a certified expert witness that stated Bendectin does not have components which produce birth defects, there was no longer a necessity for continuation of the trial.Schuller and Daubert, however, submitted a total of eight expert witnesses of their own possessing various accreditation and credentials, stating that Bendectin indeed had the potential of causing birth defects in humans. The eight expert witnesses expressed their opinions based upon a scientific study regarding in-vitro and in-vivo techniques during animal studies. During the time in which the case was heard in 1993, in-vitro and in-vivo animal testing was not recognized as a legitimate methodology that had not yet been established as common practice within the scientific community.As a result, the expert witnesses presented by Schuller and Daubert were deemed inadmissible in court, and Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical’s motion fo r summary judgment was approved at the district court level. Daubert then appealed their case to the appellate court at the 9th circuit court of appeals, re-introducing their expert witnesses’ opinion that Bendectin indeed can cause birth defects, backing their opinions with in-vitro and in-vivo research. The 9th circuit court determined that the district court had correctly approved Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical’s motion for summary judgement, using the 1923 U. S.Supreme Court Case Frye v. United States as their basis for their decision. Frye v. Unites States dealt with the inadmissibility of a blood-pressure lie-detection method into court proceedings because it had not yet become â€Å"generally accepted† as a reliable scientific practice. In addition, the 9th circuit stated that it was the court’s opinion that the evidence in which Daubert and Schuller were presenting was designated for litigation, and without their presentation of expert witnesses, Daub ert and Schuller had no sufficient evidence to prove that the Bendectin drug indeed can cause birth defects in humans.The 9th circuit court upheld the U. S. district court’s decision, but filed a motion of certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court, anticipating the higher court to review their decision on the case, a motion the U. S. Supreme Court ultimately agreed to hear. At the U. S. Supreme Court, the court determined that â€Å"general acceptance† is not a justified precondition of the admission of scientific evidence into court. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, there is no requirement that specifically stated that scientific evidence has to have a â€Å"general acceptance† in order to be admissible into court.In particular, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that the judge during the trial has the discretion to determine whether or not an expert witnesses’ testimony is based upon a â€Å"reliable foundation† and is  "relevant to the task at hand†. The Supreme Court also determined that any evidence with â€Å"scientifically valid principles† will be sufficient to fulfill the two aforementioned requirements. Ultimately, the U. S. Supreme Court overturned the decision of the 9th circuit court of appeals, and eliminated Frye v.United States from judicial review practices during determination of evidence admissibility. After having the case reintroduced into the lower court, the lower court again sided with Merrell Row Pharmaceuticals, determining that there was no sufficient evidence that the use of in-vitro and in-vivo research methods fulfilled the task-relevancy and reliable foundation requirements. Despite the ruling, the Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, currently known as the Daubert Test, has fully replaced the Frye Test in all evidence admissibility review cases.Overall, the Daubert v. Merrell Row Pharmaceuticals case has played an overwhelmingly significant role in m odern day Criminal Justice and the way court proceedings are carried out. This case is responsible for single-handedly changing the landscape in which evidence is analyzed for admissibility. Prior to this case, evidence admissibility was based around a U. S. Supreme Court case that was decided way back in 1923, 70 years prior to the Daubert case. The Frye Test had simply lost its base in modern day Criminal Justice, and the Daubert Test rovides justices within a court setting to have the overall determination of whether evidence fulfills two simple requirements. As more and more cases are presented into criminal courts, and more technological advances are produced, statutes, laws, and precedents need to change to accommodate for the new technology. In this instance, the Frye Test surrounded a blood-pressure style lie-detection test, technology that was so advanced and profound that it hadn’t even been considered an accepted scientific practice.In modern day, there are even mo re advanced forms of lie-detection software that individuals involved in the Frye v. United States case could not even imagine. There is no question that there needs to be some sort of decisive test to determine what types of evidence should be admitted into court proceedings, and what types of evidence should be excluded. Not all evidence can be included, because there would be no way of determining the credibility of the evidence being introduced into court.It would simply not be fair to a defendant at trial to be incriminated using evidence that isn’t proven to be sufficient, and would not otherwise pass some sort of evidence admissibility test. By using the Daubdert admissibility test, however, it provides judges leading a trial proceeding to have the overall determination of whether or not evidence fulfills the Daubert Test. The Daubert Test states that evidence must both have â€Å"scientifically valid principles† and must be â€Å"relevant to the task at handâ € .This may sound like a productive test for all evidence. I agree that the Daubert Test is indeed a good test, though only to some degree. One of the justices that heard the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case at the U. S. Supreme Court level admitted that while he understood his ability to have the overall determination of all evidence admissibility in the case, the magnitude of scientific advancements involved in the case was certainly out of his expertise, as well as the other justices within the U. S. Supreme Court.I do not feel it is right to put evidence admissibility into the hands of justices whom have a expertise in legal practices and the judicial system, rather than bimolecular engineering, pharmaceuticals, or any other scientific field. However, with that said, I do feel that the Daubert Test is certainly a step in the right direction. I firmly believe that the Daubert Test will uphold until another case similar to the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals c ase will force new improvements into the standards of evidence admissibility. Works Cited Angier, Natalie. Two Pre-decision Articles on the Daubert Case (rules forscientific evidence). † Free Legal Information & Forms | The ‘Lectric Law Library. The New York Times, 2 Jan. 1993. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. ;http://www. lectlaw. com/files/lit03. htm;. Annas, George. â€Å"Legal Issues in Medicine. † Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom — The Death of the Frye Rule. Version 330. Georgetown University, 7 Apr. 1994. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. . BRODY, JANE E.. â€Å"SHADOW OF DOUBT WIPES OUT BENDECTIN – NYTimes. com. The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 19 June 1983. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. . â€Å"Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 (1993).. † LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. . Mahle, Stephen. â€Å"An Introduction to Daubert v. Merrell Dow. † DaubertEx pert. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. .