These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11286263)

  • 1. Peer review. NSF scores low on using own criteria.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2001 Mar; 291(5513):2533-5. PubMed ID: 11286263
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Again, army shuns AIDS peer review.
    Science; 1994 Oct; 266(5183):207. PubMed ID: 7939648
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Grants management. NSF survey of applicants finds a system teetering on the brink.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5840):880-1. PubMed ID: 17702914
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. NSF probes peer review; NIH investigates awards.
    Change; 1976 Feb; 8(1):60-1. PubMed ID: 1030336
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. U.S. science policy. Report tells NSF to think more boldly.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2007 Mar; 315(5817):1352-3. PubMed ID: 17347421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. National Science Foundation. Digging for fresh ideas in the sandpit.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2009 May; 324(5931):1128-9. PubMed ID: 19478152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. U.S. science policy. Bill would set new rules for choosing NSF grants.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2013 May; 340(6132):534. PubMed ID: 23641083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Looking to NSF as an NIH model.
    Yost WA
    Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6046):1093. PubMed ID: 21868657
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A turn-up for the National Science Foundation.
    Nature; 2002 Nov; 420(6913):253. PubMed ID: 12447401
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Review process for the Department of Defense: breast cancer research funds.
    Sleven M
    J Oncol Manag; 1999; 8(6):17-8. PubMed ID: 11184266
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. MicroGeneSys. Peer review triumphs over lobbying.
    Cohen J
    Science; 1994 Jan; 263(5146):463. PubMed ID: 8290949
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Research priorities: new program at NSF reflects shift in values.
    Greenberg DS
    Science; 1970 Oct; 170(3954):144-6. PubMed ID: 5456609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NSF FastLane goals.
    Petersen AC
    Science; 1995 Feb; 267(5198):601-2. PubMed ID: 7839130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review cuts power of Italy's 'barons'.
    Abbott A
    Nature; 1998 Apr; 392(6676):531. PubMed ID: 9560135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Panel trims NSF budget.
    Mervis J
    Nature; 1992 Jul; 358(6381):5. PubMed ID: 1614530
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. NSF balks at grants to entrepreneurs.
    Mervis J
    Science; 1993 Sep; 261(5127):1384. PubMed ID: 8367720
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evolution and growth at NSF.
    Abelson PH
    Science; 1987 May; 236(4804):893. PubMed ID: 3576204
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. NSF. Change of direction afoot.
    Beardsley T
    Nature; 1985 Sep 5-11; 317(6032):3. PubMed ID: 4033787
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Money for NSF: the odyssey of a research agency's budget.
    Greenberg DS
    Science; 1967 Oct; 158(3799):357-61. PubMed ID: 6061884
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Gain for space station; pain for NSF.
    Marshall E
    Science; 1992 Aug; 257(5071):737. PubMed ID: 1496386
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.