# kb

id: what-if-book-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-1.md
category: reference
title: What If? (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:01.686050+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-if-book-20260505-0
summary:
What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light? Using mathematics and physics, Munroe concluded such a situation would result in a nuclear fusion explosion, and that ultimately, the result would be a ruling of hit by pitch. What If? approaches its subject matter with a sense of wit and sometimes makes use of approximations to answer questions that seem impossible to solve. Most questions demand assumptions and cross-disciplinary science skills to answer, resulting in "back-of-the-envelope" calculations. What If? is interspersed with "charmingly-amateur" stick figure illustrations. The book also features periodic sections titled "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox", which are short collections of questions Munroe had not answered because he did not "want to think about that". In an interview, Munroe stated that he "never got past the initial mental image" of the question "How cold would your teeth have to get in order for a cup of hot coffee to make them shatter on contact?" == Reception == The book was received positively by critics. Ethan Gilsdorf of the Boston Globe stated that "it's fun to watch as Munroe tackles each question and examines every possible complication."


id: what-if-2-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-0.md
category: reference
title: What If? 2 (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_2_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:02.939398+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-if-2-book-20260505-0
summary:
What If? 2: Additional Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions is a 2022 non-fiction book by Randall Munroe. The book seeks to provide scientific answers to hypothetical questions proposed by readers of the author's webcomic, xkcd, and blog, What If? A follow-up to Munroe's 2014 title What If?, the book was released on September 13, 2022, to generally positive reviews, with Time saying, "Science isn't easy, but in Munroe's capable hands, it surely can be fun." == Background == Munroe, whose career began as a roboticist for NASA, began writing his webcomic xkcd in 2005, and following its success took up cartooning full-time soon after. With many of his drawings revolving around the topics of science and mathematics, Munroe soon began receiving questions from readers about those subject areas. As a result, he created a spinoff blog titled What If? where he compiled these questions and his subsequent responses. The blog formed the basis for his 2014 book What If?, which reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list, and inspired the creation of a second volume, What If? 2. == Synopsis == What If? 2 continues in the same vein as its predecessor in attempting


id: f-d-c-willard-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._D._C._Willard-0.md
category: reference
title: F. D. C. Willard
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._D._C._Willard
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:04.093310+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: f-d-c-willard-20260505-0
summary:
F. D. C. Willard (1968–1982) was the pen name of Chester, a Siamese cat, used on several papers written by his owner, J. H. Hetherington, in physics journals. On one occasion, he was listed as the sole author. == Background == In 1975, the American physicist and mathematician Jack H. Hetherington of Michigan State University wanted to publish some of his research results in the field of low-temperature physics in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters. A colleague, to whom he had given his paper for review, pointed out that Hetherington had used the first person plural, "we", in his text, and that the journal would reject this form on submissions with a sole author. Rather than take the time to retype the article to use the singular form, or to bring in a co-author, Hetherington decided to invent one. == Publications == Hetherington had a Siamese cat named Chester, who had been sired by a Siamese named Willard. Fearing that colleagues might recognize his pet's name, he thought it better to use the pet's initial. Aware that most Americans have at least two given names, he invented two more given names based on the scientific name for a house


id: albany-law-journal-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Journal_of_Science_and_Technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Journal_of_Science_and_Technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:05.669688+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: albany-law-journal-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
The Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology (Bluebook abbreviation: Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech.) is a triannual law journal edited by students at Albany Law School. It was established in 1990 and covers legal issues involving science and technology. The journal also organizes an annual symposia. == Membership == Members are students at Albany Law School. Students become eligible for journal membership upon completion of their first year of law school. Offers of membership are extended based on student class standing or on the results of a writing competition jointly administered by the school's three student-edited journals. == Notable symposia == Facebook Firing: The Intersection of Social Media, Employment, & Ethics (2013) Building a High-Tech, 21st Century Economy (2015) == Past Editors-in-Chief == Vol. 36 - John Rainey (2026) Vol. 35 - Savannah Everson (2025) Vol. 34 - Natalie Turney (2024) Vol. 33 - Claire Stratton (2023) Vol. 32 - Anneliese Aliasso (2022) Vol. 29 - Daniel Young (2019) Vol. 27 - Erin Ginty (2017) Vol. 26 - James Faucher II (2016) Vol. 25 - Gary J. Repke, Jr. (2015) Vol. 24 - Elizabeth A. Cappillino (2014) Vol. 23 - Nadia Isobel Arginteanu (2013) Vol. 22 - Christina M.


id: biological-patent-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-0.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate. == Biological patents in different jurisdictions == === Australia === In February 2013, Judge Justice John Nicholas ruled in the Federal Court of Australia in favour of a Myriad Genetics patent on the BRCA1 gene. This was a landmark ruling, affirming the validity of patents on naturally occurring DNA sequences. However, the U.S. Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion only a few months later. The Australian ruling has been appealed to the Full Bench of the Federal Court; submissions in the case include consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This decision was decided in 2014, affirming Nicholas J's decision in favor of Myriad, confirming that isolated genetic material (genes) are valid subjects of patents. In October 2015,


id: biological-patent-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-1.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
In the United States, up until 2013 natural biological substances themselves could have been patented (apart from any associated process or usage) if they were sufficiently "isolated" from their naturally occurring states. Prominent historical examples of such patents include those on adrenaline, insulin, vitamin B12, and various genes. A landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013 declared naturally occurring DNA sequences ineligible for patents. == Ethics == === Patenting genes === Gene patents are a form of intellectual property which provide the patent holder with the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention for a specified period of time, typically twenty years. The patenting of genes is a controversial issue in terms of bioethics. Some believe it is unethical to patent genetic material because it treats life as a commodity, or that it undermines the dignity of people and animals by allowing ownership of genes. Some say that living materials occur naturally, and therefore cannot be patented. Along with concerns about the commodification of human life, the medical community has also warned that gene patents can inhibit the practice of medicine and progress of science. For example, the American Medical Association's


id: biological-patent-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-2.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
=== Patents relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of COVID-19 === In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, several companies around the world raced to develop testing, vaccines, and cures for COVID-19. This required a substantial investment of time and money, and patents were used to protect this innovation. Patent holders are able to refuse licensing for third-parties to manufacture the patented medicine, creating a monopoly for the patent holder and lower supply levels. Furthermore, patent-holders control pricing for licensing and access. This patent-regime has the potential to limit access to life-saving vaccines and cures, especially for those in poor countries. Pharmaceutical industry executives diminished the idea of sharing intellectual property, arguing that companies would have no incentive to innovate if their patents were considered worthless during a pandemic. However, health advocates argue that taxpayers substantially contributed to the development of the vaccines and they should thus be regarded as global public goods. A lack of access to medication and vaccines is especially problematic during a global pandemic. In April 2020, the Director General of the World Health Organization supported a proposal by Carlos Alvarado, to create a pool of rights for testing medicine and vaccine with free access or


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-0.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite changing attitudes about sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which deemed compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals unconstitutional. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments. == Background == The modern concept of eugenics was propounded in 1883 by Francis Galton, who also coined the name. The idea first became popular in the United States and had found proponents in Europe by the start


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-1.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
On March 28, 1924, she gave birth to a daughter. Since Buck had been declared mentally incompetent to raise her child, the Dobbses adopted the baby and named her "Vivian Alice Elaine Dobbs". She attended Venable Public Elementary School of Charlottesville for four terms, from September 1930 until May 1932. By all accounts, Vivian was of average intelligence, far above feeblemindedness.She was a perfectly normal, quite average student, neither particularly outstanding nor much troubled. In those days before grade inflation, when C meant "good, 81–87" (as defined on her report card) rather than barely scraping by, Vivian Dobbs received A's and B's for deportment and C's for all academic subjects but mathematics (which was always difficult for her, and where she scored a D) during her first term in Grade 1A, from September 1930 to January 1931. She improved during her second term in 1B, meriting an A in deportment, C in mathematics, and B in all other academic subjects; she was placed on the honor roll in April 1931. Promoted to 2A, she had trouble during the fall term of 1931, failing mathematics and spelling but receiving A in deportment, B in reading, and C in writing and English.


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-2.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
=== Legal appeals and rulings === The case then moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, where Whitehead offered a 5‑page compared to the state's 40-page brief. Buck lost there too. Her only recourse was to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that was merely an illusion: even if Whitehead had put forth an effort, Carrie's case was put before a Supreme Court with at least two avowed believers in eugenics: Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. In 1915, Taft had written the introduction to the book How to Live, which contained a sizable portion devoted to eugenics. As for Holmes, in 1921, he told future justice Felix Frankfurter that he had no problem "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination." Buck and her guardian contended that the due process clause guarantees all adults the right to procreate which was being violated. They also made the argument that the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment was being violated since not all similarly situated people were being treated the same. The sterilization law was only for the "feeble-minded" at certain state institutions and


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-3.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
=== Aftermath === According to famed eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose written testimony was presented during the trial in his absence, Buck's legal defeat signaled the end of "eugenical sterilization's 'experimental period.'" Following the Supreme Court ruling, over two dozen states enacted similar laws, including Oregon and the Carolinas, doubling American sterilizations from 6,000 to more than 12,000 by 1947. Buck was sterilized on October 19, 1927, roughly five months after the Supreme Court trial verdict. She became the first Virginian sterilized since the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act passed. The Virginia sterilization law is said to have inspired Nazi Germany's 400,000 sterilizations, including those sanctioned under the 1933 Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring. Carrie Buck was operated upon, receiving a compulsory salpingectomy (a form of tubal ligation). She was later paroled from the institution as a domestic worker to a family in Bland, Virginia. She was an avid reader until her death in 1983. Her daughter Vivian had been pronounced "feeble minded" after a cursory examination by ERO field worker Dr. Arthur Estabrook. According to his report, Vivian "showed backwardness", thus the "three generations" of the majority opinion. It is worth noting that the child did very well


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-4.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
Cohen, Adam (2016), Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, Penguin, ISBN 978-1-59420-418-0. Cullen-DuPont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women's History in America (Infobase Publishing, 2009) pp 37–38 Breed, Allen G. (August 13, 2011). "Eugenics victim, son fighting together for justice". Winfall, North Carolina. Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 6, 2019. Retrieved August 13, 2011. Bruinius, Harry (2007). Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-375-71305-7. Leuchtenburg, William E. (1995), "Mr. Justice Holmes and Three Generations of Imbeciles", The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt, New York: Oxford, pp. 3–25, ISBN 978-0-19-511131-6. Lombardo, Paul (2008), Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell., Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 365, ISBN 978-0-8018-9010-9 Smith, J. David. The Sterilization of Carrie Buck (New Horizon Press, 1989) == External links == Text of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive Justia Library of Congress Professor Thomas D. Russell An account of the case from the Dolan DNA Learning Center Buck v. Bell (Case File #31681),


id: chemical-patent-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_patent-0.md
category: reference
title: Chemical patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:09.617535+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: chemical-patent-20260505-0
summary:
A chemical patent, pharmaceutical patent or drug patent is a patent for an invention in the chemical or pharmaceuticals industry. Strictly speaking, in most jurisdictions, there are essentially no differences between the legal requirements to obtain a patent for an invention in the chemical or pharmaceutical fields, in comparison to obtaining a patent in the other fields, such as in the mechanical field. A chemical patent or a pharmaceutical patent is therefore not a sui generis right, i.e. a special legal type of patent. Chemical patent claims often use generic, Markush structures contained within them, named after the inventor Eugene Markush who won a lawsuit in the US in 1925 to allow such structures to be used in patent claims. These generic structures are used to make the patent claim as broad as possible. In the United States, patents on pharmaceuticals were considered unethical by the medical profession during most of the nineteenth-century. Drug patent terms in the US were extended from 17 to 20 years in 1994. Pharmaceutical patents are typically more valuable than any other type of patents, and thus play an essential role in the pharmaceutical industry. There are several reasons for this peculiarity: the cost of


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-0.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
Clandestine chemistry is chemistry carried out in secret, and particularly in illegal drug laboratories. Larger labs are usually run by gangs or organized crime intending to produce for distribution on the black market. Smaller labs can be run by individual chemists working clandestinely in order to synthesize smaller amounts of controlled substances or simply out of a hobbyist interest in chemistry, often because of the difficulty in ascertaining the purity of other, illegally synthesized drugs obtained on the black market. The term clandestine lab is generally used in any situation involving the production of illicit compounds, regardless of whether the facilities being used qualify as a true laboratory. == History == Ancient forms of clandestine chemistry included the manufacturing of explosives. From 1919 to 1933, the United States prohibited the sale, manufacture, or transportation of alcoholic beverages. This opened a door for brewers to supply their own town with alcohol. Just like modern-day drug labs, distilleries were placed in rural areas. The term moonshine generally referred to "corn whiskey", that is, a whiskey-like liquor made from corn. Today, American-made corn whiskey can be labeled or sold under that name, or as bourbon or Tennessee whiskey, depending on the details of


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-1.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
Operation Purple is a U.S. DEA driven international chemical control initiative designed to reduce the illicit manufacture of cocaine in the Andean Region, identify rogue firms and suspect individuals, gather intelligence on diversion methods, trafficking trends, and shipping routes, and take administrative, civil and/or criminal action as appropriate. Critical to the success of this operation is the communication network that gives notification of shipments and provides the government of the importer sufficient time to verify the legitimacy of the transaction and take appropriate action. The effects of this initiative have been dramatic and far-reaching. Operation Purple has exposed a significant vulnerability among traffickers, and has grown to include almost thirty nations. According to the DEA, Operation Purple has been highly effective at interfering with cocaine production. However, illicit chemists always find new methods to evade the DEA's scrutiny. In countries where strict chemical controls have been put in place, illicit drug production has been seriously affected. For example, few of the chemicals needed to process coca leaf into cocaine are manufactured in Bolivia or Peru. Most are smuggled in from neighbouring countries with advanced chemical industries or diverted from a smaller number of licit handlers. Increased interdiction of chemicals in


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-2.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
===== Methamphetamine ===== As of the early 1990s, methamphetamine use was concentrated among young white males in California and nearby states. Since then its use has spread both demographically and geographically. Methamphetamine has been a favorite among various populations including motorcycle gangs, truckers, laborers, soldiers, and ravers. Known as a "club drug", the National Institute on Drug Abuse tracks its incidence of use in children as young as twelve, and the prevalence of users increases with age. In the 1980s and early 1990s, most methamphetamine production in the United States occurred in small independent laboratories. Phenylacetone, one precursor of methamphetamine, became a Schedule II controlled immediate precursor in 1979. Underground chemists searched for alternative methods for producing methamphetamine. The two predominant methods which appeared both involve the reduction of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. At the time, neither was a watched chemical, and pills containing the substance could be bought by the thousands without raising any kind of suspicion. In the 1990s, the DEA recognized that legally imported precursors were being diverted to the production of methamphetamine. Changes to federal regulations in 1988 and throughout the 1990s enabled the DEA to more closely track the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine precursors. Many


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-3.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
In Oregon, Brett Sherry of the Oregon Clandestine Drug Lab Cleanup Program has been quoted as stating that only 10–20% of drug labs are discovered by police. Statistics reporting the prevalence of meth labs and arrest of meth producers can vary greatly from county to county and state to state. Factors affecting policing and reporting include funding, specialized training, support from local residents, and willingness to make the issue a priority in policing. How information is categorized and tracked may also inflate or minimize the apparent results. Missouri has reported some of the highest rates of meth-lab arrests in the country, and has pursued an aggressive and highly publicized policy of policing meth labs. This has resulted in as many as 205 cases per year in one county. In contrast, West Virginia reports and/or prosecutes very few cases. It's possible that these low numbers are because of cost. In WV, a police agency which reports a meth lab is responsible for the cost of its cleanup—which can cost tens of thousands of dollars, as proper disposal of toxic and hazardous materials is very expensive. The high cost of cleanup is a clear disincentive for all agencies, but especially those with


