BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10342992)

  • 1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: active judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence.
    Kirsch EW
    Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(2):213-34. PubMed ID: 10342992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Congressional action to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702: a mischievous attempt to codify Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    Farrell NS
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1997; 13(2):523-51. PubMed ID: 9212529
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow: missed opportunity.
    Jackson KA
    Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(1):71-93. PubMed ID: 10342987
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. What has a decade of Daubert wrought?
    Berger MA
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S59-65. PubMed ID: 16030340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: a new standard for scientific evidence in the courts?
    Zonana H
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):309-25. PubMed ID: 7841504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Daubert v Merrell Dow: scientific evidence in the courtroom.
    Klein RD
    JAMA; 1994 May; 271(20):1578. PubMed ID: 8182809
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.
    Cecil JS
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S74-80. PubMed ID: 16030342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform.
    Neufeld PJ
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S107-13. PubMed ID: 16030325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality.
    Wagner W
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S99-106. PubMed ID: 16030346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony.
    Merlino ML; Murray CI; Richardson JT
    Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law.
    Krimsky S
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S129-36. PubMed ID: 16030328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part I--A quantitative analysis of the exclusion of forensic identification science evidence.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Sep; 56(5):1180-4. PubMed ID: 21884119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Daubert v Merrell Dow. The Supreme Court tackles scientific evidence in the courtroom.
    Gold JA; Zaremski MJ; Lev ER; Shefrin DH
    JAMA; 1993 Dec 22-29; 270(24):2964-7. PubMed ID: 8018140
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.