75 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1585145)
1. Pointing Fingers. DNA identification is called into question.
Beardsley T
Sci Am; 1992 Mar; 266(3):14-5. PubMed ID: 1585145
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Academy under fire over plans for new study of DNA statistics..
Macilwain C
Nature; 1994 Jan; 367(6459):101. PubMed ID: 8114894
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Chief says panel backs courts' use of a genetic test.
Kolata G
N Y Times Web; 1992 Apr; ():A1, A23. PubMed ID: 11647446
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Courts reject DNA fingerprinting, citing controversy after NAS report.
Anderson C
Nature; 1992 Oct; 359(6394):349. PubMed ID: 1406941
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Comments on the statistical aspects of the NRC's report on DNA typing.
Devlin B; Risch N; Roeder K
J Forensic Sci; 1994 Jan; 39(1):28-40. PubMed ID: 8113709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. DNA fingerprinting: academy reports.
Roberts L
Science; 1992 Apr; 256(5055):300-1. PubMed ID: 1566077
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. National Academy of Sciences endorses National Institutes of Health plan for enhanced access to research information.
Cozzarelli NR; Fulton KR; Sullenberger DM
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2004 Oct; 101(42):14991. PubMed ID: 15479758
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. PNAS joins peer-reviewed PubMed Central. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Macilwain C
Nature; 1999 Oct; 401(6755):733. PubMed ID: 10548089
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. DNA fingerprinting reconsidered (again).
Beardsley T
Sci Am; 1992 Jul; 267(1):26. PubMed ID: 1502508
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. National Academy of Sciences report on nursing home regulation.
Gebhardt RB
Nurs Homes; 1986; 35(3):18-26. PubMed ID: 10284043
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. NAS report: strengthen agbio regs and relations. National Academy of Sciences.
Fox JL
Nat Biotechnol; 2000 May; 18(5):486. PubMed ID: 10802605
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. U.S. science policy. Obama courts a smitten audience at the national academy.
Mervis J
Science; 2009 May; 324(5927):576-7. PubMed ID: 19407168
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Scientific community. U.S. science academy elects new members.
Science; 2002 May; 296(5570):1001-2. PubMed ID: 12004095
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. National Academy of Sciences enters controversy on relevance of animal toxicologic studies.
Environ Health Perspect; 1993 Apr; 101(1):19. PubMed ID: 8513757
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. ADA testifies as National Academy of Sciences examines adding nutrition services for Medicare beneficiaries.
J Am Diet Assoc; 1999 Sep; 99(9):1056. PubMed ID: 10491671
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. National Academy calls for sea change in ocean efforts.
Mason B
Nature; 2003 Nov; 426(6962):6. PubMed ID: 14603278
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. National Research Council Board recommends restructuring of U.S. HLRW disposal program.
Ghosh PR
J Nucl Med; 1991 Jan; 32(1):15N-19N, 26N. PubMed ID: 1988621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Academy warns against slipping ethics.
Anderson C
Science; 1994 Feb; 263(5148):747. PubMed ID: 8303286
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. No hemlock in future harvest.
Nature; 1987 Aug 20-26; 328(6132):653. PubMed ID: 3475578
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Contaminated evidence.
Loftus EF; Cole SA
Science; 2004 May; 304(5673):959. PubMed ID: 15143260
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
