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.
67. Whistleblowing in biomedical research: report from a workshop. Mishkin B IRB; 1982 Feb; 4(2):8-9. PubMed ID: 11658314 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
68. In the trenches, doubts about scientific integrity. Hamilton DP Science; 1992 Mar; 255(5052):1636. PubMed ID: 11642983 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. Fraud by scientists seen linked to competition. Russell C Washington Post; 1985 May; ():A8. PubMed ID: 11646422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
70. Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case. Lang S Ethics Behav; 1993; 3(1):3-72. PubMed ID: 11653082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. UK royal college responds to scientific fraud. Ramsay S Lancet; 1995 Jun; 345(8964):1566. PubMed ID: 11657385 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. Data audit by a regulatory agency: its effect and implication for others. Shapiro MF Account Res; 1992; 2(3):219-29. PubMed ID: 11653981 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. No misconduct or fraud in Baltimore case. Anderson A Nature; 1988 Dec; 336(6199):505. PubMed ID: 11644320 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
74. Scientific misconduct in academia: a survey and analysis of applicable law. Sise CB San Diego Law Rev; 1991; 28(2):401-28. PubMed ID: 11651628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
75. Fraud and misrepresentation in research--whose responsibility? Wigodsky HS IRB; 1984; 6(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 11649536 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. NCI director interrogated by Senate committee. Perspectives Prof; 1981; 1(3-4):6-9. PubMed ID: 11649378 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. Biologist in fraud investigation. New Sci; 1983 Jun; 98(1360):609. PubMed ID: 11655541 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]