184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10342987)
21. Supreme Court to weigh science.
Marshall E
Science; 1993 Jan; 259(5095):588-90. PubMed ID: 8338515
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Bendectin: the wrong way to regulate drug availability.
Leeder JS; Spielberg SP; MacLeod SM
Can Med Assoc J; 1983 Nov; 129(10):1085-7. PubMed ID: 6627167
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. A dearth of new drugs.
Nature; 1980 Feb; 283(5748):609. PubMed ID: 7354846
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Supreme Court to judges: start thinking like scientists.
Mervis J
Science; 1993 Jul; 261(5117):22. PubMed ID: 8316850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Liability for the psychiatrist expert witness.
Binder RL
Am J Psychiatry; 2002 Nov; 159(11):1819-25. PubMed ID: 12411212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. From science to evidence: the testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases.
Sanders J
Stanford Law Rev; 1993 Nov; 46(1):1-86. PubMed ID: 10131325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Drug therapy in pregnancy: the lessons of diethylstilbestrol, thalidomide, and bendectin.
Saunders EJ; Saunders JA
Health Care Women Int; 1990; 11(4):423-32. PubMed ID: 2228814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluating science outside the trial box: applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' criminal history score.
Krauss DA
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2006; 29(4):289-305. PubMed ID: 16530267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.
Haack S
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S66-73. PubMed ID: 16030341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Measuring drug effectiveness by default: the case of Bendectin.
Neutel CI; Johansen HL
Can J Public Health; 1995; 86(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 7728721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings.
Jasanoff S
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S49-58. PubMed ID: 16030338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation.
Melnick RL
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S30-4. PubMed ID: 16030335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Product liability all dressed up American style.
Smith R
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1981 May; 282(6275):1535-7. PubMed ID: 6786550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Dr. Brent and scientific debate.
Newman SA
Reprod Toxicol; 1999; 13(4):241-4. PubMed ID: 10453908
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Two legal issues: expert witnesses and Bendectin case.
Brushwood DB
Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1983 Nov; 17(11):848-9. PubMed ID: 6641512
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Concern for truth: driving defensively when confronting a zombie epidemic.
Howland RH
J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv; 2013 Nov; 51(11):9-12. PubMed ID: 24124694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Response to Dr. Brent's commentary on "Dr. Brent and scientific debate".
Newman SA
Reprod Toxicol; 1999; 13(4):255-60. PubMed ID: 10532797
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. A cognitive scientist looks at Daubert.
Lakoff GP
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S114-20. PubMed ID: 16030326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards.
Neff RA; Goldman LR
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S81-91. PubMed ID: 16030344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Expertise in law, medicine, and health care.
Shuman DW
J Health Polit Policy Law; 2001 Apr; 26(2):267-90. PubMed ID: 11330081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
