153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21693754)
1. Duke scandal highlights need for genomics research criteria.
Goozner M
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Jun; 103(12):916-7. PubMed ID: 21693754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Risking the rewards of regulation.
Schwab AP
Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):9-10. PubMed ID: 19061096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Researchers break the rules in frustration at review boards.
Giles J
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7065):136-7. PubMed ID: 16280994
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Ethical considerations in the communication of unexpected information with clinical implications.
Lavieri RR; Garner SA
Am J Bioeth; 2006; 6(6):46-8; author reply W10-2. PubMed ID: 17085410
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Duke's hazards. Did medical experiments put patients needlessly at risk?
Kaplan S; Brownlee S
US News World Rep; 1999 May; 126(20):66-8, 70. PubMed ID: 10387890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Why do we need noncommercial, investigator-initiated clinical trials?
Tyndall A
Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol; 2008 Jul; 4(7):354-5. PubMed ID: 18477999
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Ethical human-research protections: not universal and not uniform.
Fleming DA; Reynolds D
Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):21-2. PubMed ID: 19061102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. State regulation of pharmaceutical clinical trials.
Gibbs JN
Food Drug Law J; 2004; 59(2):265-85. PubMed ID: 15298012
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Federal drug agency gets flack about human subjects protections in clinical trials.
Beckman M
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jan; 100(2):90-1. PubMed ID: 18182612
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Conflict of interest in human subjects research.
Groeger JS; Barnes M
Crit Care Med; 2003 Mar; 31(3 Suppl):S137-42. PubMed ID: 12626959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Pragmatism as a complementary approach to legislation: closing regulatory gaps in human subject research.
Vernillo A
Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):15-7. PubMed ID: 19061099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Extend the reach of institutional review boards first, then strengthen their depth.
Spike J
Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):11-2. PubMed ID: 19061097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Shared responsibility in clinical research.
Nightingale SL
Circulation; 1985 Aug; 72(2 Pt 2):I25-30. PubMed ID: 3891137
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Financial disclosures by investigators.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2001 Oct; 16(10):5. PubMed ID: 11833572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Researchers left to guess at outcomes of most cancer clinical trials.
Twombly R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jan; 101(2):72-4. PubMed ID: 19141774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Crunch time for multiple-gene tests.
Gewin V
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):354-5. PubMed ID: 17251949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research.
Andrews CA
N Engl J Med; 2009 Jun; 360(26):2793; author reply 2793. PubMed ID: 19557890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Cancer research. As questions grow, Duke halts trials, launches investigation.
Couzin-Frankel J
Science; 2010 Aug; 329(5992):614-5. PubMed ID: 20688986
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Sanctions agreed over teenager's gene-therapy death.
Check E
Nature; 2005 Feb; 433(7027):674. PubMed ID: 15716917
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ethical, legal, and social issues related to genomics and cancer research: the impending crisis.
Ellerin BE; Schneider RJ; Stern A; Toniolo PG; Formenti SC
J Am Coll Radiol; 2005 Nov; 2(11):919-26. PubMed ID: 17411966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
