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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21212335)

  • 1. National Science Foundation. Meeting for peer review at a resort that's virtually free.
    Bohannon J
    Science; 2011 Jan; 331(6013):27. PubMed ID: 21212335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. U.S. science policy. Risky business.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2004 Oct; 306(5694):220-1. PubMed ID: 15472055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Looking to NSF as an NIH model.
    Yost WA
    Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6046):1093. PubMed ID: 21868657
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. U.S. science funding. DOE cures pork project with peer review.
    Kintisch E
    Science; 2007 May; 316(5825):674. PubMed ID: 17478687
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. U.S. science budget. Science agencies caught in postelection spending squeeze.
    Lawler A; Mervis J
    Science; 2004 Dec; 306(5702):1662-3. PubMed ID: 15576575
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. U.S. science policy. Report tells NSF to think more boldly.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2007 Mar; 315(5817):1352-3. PubMed ID: 17347421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. U.S. budget 2009. A science budget of choices and chances.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5864):714-5. PubMed ID: 18258869
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Science policy. Peer-review critic gets NIH 'rejects'.
    Malakoff D
    Science; 2001 Nov; 294(5545):1255-7. PubMed ID: 11701895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Science policy. Caught in the squeeze.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2005 Feb; 307(5711):832-4. PubMed ID: 15705818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. U.S. budget. Agencies sweat the details of spending billions more on science.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2009 Feb; 323(5915):696-7. PubMed ID: 19197027
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

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

  • 15. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. In defence of small science.
    Sachs F
    Nature; 1997 Nov; 390(6656):203. PubMed ID: 9367161
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. U.S. budget. Science spared from domestic spending freeze--for now.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2010 Feb; 327(5966):628-30. PubMed ID: 20133540
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. U.S. science funding. Research catches a break in catch-all spending bill.
    Mervis J; Lawler A; Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Dec; 302(5651):1636-7. PubMed ID: 14657461
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Science and the stimulus. Science and the stimulus.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2009 Nov; 326(5957):1176-7. PubMed ID: 19965443
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.