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 *

314 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15994492)

  • 1. U.S. budget. House 'peer review' kills two NIH grants.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2005 Jul; 309(5731):29-31. PubMed ID: 15994492
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. House approves NIH funding, "de-funds" two NIMH grants.
    Physiologist; 2004 Oct; 47(5):382. PubMed ID: 15587608
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. U.S. science policy. The battle over the 2011 budget: what's at stake for research.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2011 Jan; 331(6013):14-5. PubMed ID: 21212327
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Managing science. House votes to kill grants, limit travel to meetings.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Sep; 305(5691):1688. PubMed ID: 15375232
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. View from the Nation's Capital.
    Appler WD
    J Clin Psychopharmacol; 1986 Jun; 6(3):185-7. PubMed ID: 3711370
    [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. NIH stimulus plan triggers flood of applications--and anxiety.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2009 Apr; 324(5925):318-9. PubMed ID: 19372395
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
    Shalev M
    Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. U.S. budget. A stimulus for science.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2009 Jan; 323(5914):571. PubMed ID: 19179500
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Congress Passes 2006 NIH Reform Act.
    Lang L
    Gastroenterology; 2007 Feb; 132(2):474-5. PubMed ID: 17261310
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Rethinking grant review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 2004 budget request. Protecting the homeland sets tone for 2004 budget.
    Malakoff D
    Science; 2003 Feb; 299(5608):806-8. PubMed ID: 12574594
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Budget numbers for US science looking up.
    Hand E; Wadman M
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7234):18. PubMed ID: 19262638
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. NIH response to open letter.
    Fauci AS; Zerhouni EA
    Science; 2005 Apr; 308(5718):49. PubMed ID: 15802584
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. NIH budget. Peer review under stress.
    Miller G; Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Apr; 316(5823):358-9. PubMed ID: 17446364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Budget cuts.
    AIDS Policy Law; 1996 May; 11(10):12. PubMed ID: 11363493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Science and Congress: outlook uncertain.
    Science; 1990 Jan; 247(4941):404-5. PubMed ID: 2300803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.