566 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11649526)
1. In search of funding: the clinical investigator and the drug company; Commentary: why researchers need not be demoralized.
Siris ES; Burrell CD
IRB; 1983; 5(6):1-5. PubMed ID: 11649526
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Money is putting people at risk in biomedical research.
Andrews LB
Chron High Educ; 2000 Mar; 46(27):B1, B4-5. PubMed ID: 11657699
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. IRBs and pharmaceutical company funding of research.
Jellinek MS; Levine RJ
IRB; 1982 Oct; 4(8):9-10. PubMed ID: 11651693
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The concept of the IRB and bureaucratic reality: an exchange of letters.
van Eys J; Levine RJ
IRB; 1984; 6(4):8-10. PubMed ID: 11649563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Why I oppose drug company payment of physician/investigators on a per patient/subject basis.
Roizen R
IRB; 1988; 10(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 11658990
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. If only it were so: medical physics, U.S. human radiation experiments, and the Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee (ACHRE).
Martensen R
Med Humanit Rev; 1997; 11(2):21-36. PubMed ID: 11645853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Is post-marketing drug follow-up research or advertising?
Weiss GB; Winslade WJ
IRB; 1987; 9(4):10-1. PubMed ID: 11649947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The case for per patient payments.
Lewis JP
IRB; 1988; 10(5):9. PubMed ID: 11650075
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The role and responsibility of industry in research.
Lasagna L
Dolentium Hominum; 1987; 4(2nd Yr. 1):56-9. PubMed ID: 11653199
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Public-private partnerships in biomedical research: resolving conflicts arising under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
Bulleit TN
J Law Health; 1989-1990; 4(1):1-20. PubMed ID: 11652568
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Institutional review boards in the university setting: review of pharmaceutical testing protocols, informed consent and ethical concerns.
Kobasic DM
J Coll Univ Law; 1988; 15(2):185-216. PubMed ID: 11659168
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Data monitoring committees: the moral case for maximum feasible independence.
Walters L
Stat Med; 1993 Mar; 12(5-6):575-80. PubMed ID: 11659537
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. University physician-researcher conflicts of interest: the inadequacy of current controls and proposed reform.
Maatz CT
High Technol Law J; 1992; 7():137-88. PubMed ID: 11659962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Ethical issues in funding and monitoring university research.
Beauchamp TL
Bus Prof Ethics J; 1992; 11(1):5-16. PubMed ID: 11659431
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Conflicts of interest.
Nature; 1989 Aug; 340(6236):664. PubMed ID: 11644385
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Criminal liability for misconduct in scientific research.
Kuzma SM
Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1992; 25(2):357-421. PubMed ID: 11651584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Parents say federal agency helps protect researchers from more than their subjects.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2000 Oct; 15(10):5-6. PubMed ID: 11913435
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The IRB's role in assessing the generalizability of non-NIH-funded clinical trials.
Weijer C
IRB; 1998; 20(2-3):1-5. PubMed ID: 11656912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Ethical responsibilities of physicians in their dealings with pharmaceutical companies.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Biomedical Ethics Committee
Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can; 1990 Jan; 23(1):45-8. PubMed ID: 11650305
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. FDA's new rule on treatment use and sale of investigational new drugs.
Levine RJ
IRB; 1987; 9(4):1-4. PubMed ID: 11649946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
