288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14764836)
1. Biomedical politics. Sex studies 'properly' approved.
Kaiser J
Science; 2004 Feb; 303(5659):741. PubMed ID: 14764836
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomedical politics. Sex studies denounced, NIH's peer-review process defended.
Kaiser J
Science; 2003 Nov; 302(5647):966-7. PubMed ID: 14605337
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Research funding. Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system.
Hegde D; Mowery DC
Science; 2008 Dec; 322(5909):1797-8. PubMed ID: 19095928
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomedical politics. NIH roiled by inquiries over grants hit list.
Kaiser J
Science; 2003 Oct; 302(5646):758. PubMed ID: 14593135
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. National Institutes of Health. Changes in peer review target young scientists, heavyweights.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Jun; 320(5882):1404. PubMed ID: 18556519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomedical research. Stimulus funding elicits a tidal wave of 'challenge grants'.
Kaiser J
Science; 2009 May; 324(5929):867. PubMed ID: 19443754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. U.S. science policy. Risky business.
Mervis J
Science; 2004 Oct; 306(5694):220-1. PubMed ID: 15472055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Rethinking grant review.
Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. National Institutes of Health. Zerhouni's parting message: make room for young scientists.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Nov; 322(5903):834-5. PubMed ID: 18988813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Biodefense. U.S. agencies unveil plan for biosecurity peer review.
Couzin J
Science; 2004 Mar; 303(5664):1595. PubMed ID: 15016970
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
Gavaghan H
Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Grants, politics, and the NIH.
Drazen JM; Ingelfinger JR
N Engl J Med; 2003 Dec; 349(23):2259-61. PubMed ID: 14657434
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. An open letter to Elias Zerhouni.
Altman S; Bassler BL; Beckwith J; Belfort M; Berg HC; Bloom B; Brenchley JE; Campbell A; Collier RJ; Connell N; Cozzarelli NR; Craig NL; Darst S; Ebright RH; Elledge SJ; Falkow S; Galan JE; Gottesman M; Gourse R; Grindley ND; Gross CA; Grossman A; Hochschild A; Howe M; Hurwitz J; Isberg RR; Kaplan S; Kornberg A; Kustu SG; Landick RC; Landy A; Levy SB; Losick R; Long SR; Maloy SR; Mekalanos JJ; Neidhardt FC; Pace NR; Ptashne M; Roberts JW; Roth JR; Rothman-Denes LB; Salyers A; Schaechter M; Shapiro L; Silhavy TJ; Simon MI; Walker G; Yanofsky C; Zinder N
Science; 2005 Mar; 307(5714):1409-10. PubMed ID: 15746409
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. NIH response to open letter.
Fauci AS; Zerhouni EA
Science; 2005 Apr; 308(5718):49. PubMed ID: 15802584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. National Institutes of Health. Panel weighs starter R01 grants.
Kaiser J
Science; 2004 Jun; 304(5679):1891. PubMed ID: 15218117
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. New rules propose greater scrutiny for NIH grant recipients.
Dove A
Nat Med; 2006 Jan; 12(1):5. PubMed ID: 16397535
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Research agenda. Opportunities for research and NIH.
Collins FS
Science; 2010 Jan; 327(5961):36-7. PubMed ID: 20044560
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. NIH needs a makeover.
Dey SK
Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. National Institutes of Health. Grants 'below payline' rise to help new investigators.
Kaiser J
Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5948):1607. PubMed ID: 19779159
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Peer review. NIH urged to focus on new ideas, new applicants.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5867):1169. PubMed ID: 18309051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
