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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29202153)

  • 1. Congressional Politics and Peer Review.
    Elwood TW
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):203. PubMed ID: 29202153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pure hype of pure research helps no one.
    Sarewitz D
    Nature; 2013 May; 497(7450):411. PubMed ID: 23698406
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Science under attack.
    Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7256):667. PubMed ID: 19661864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
    Lauer MS; Nakamura R
    N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. No political interference in US agricultural grants.
    Vidaver A
    Nature; 2005 Jan; 433(7022):105. PubMed ID: 15650714
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Can Congress settle the abortion issue?
    Segers MC
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1982 Jun; 12(3):20-8. PubMed ID: 7107237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.
    Munger K
    Cell; 2006 Nov; 127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. PubMed ID: 17110320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A political attack on peer review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2005 Oct; 8(10):1273. PubMed ID: 16189527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Don't create a climate of fear.
    Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6961):885. PubMed ID: 14586426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Basic research: goddess and cow.
    Nichols RW
    Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):400. PubMed ID: 20864981
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Campaign tactics and grants don't mix.
    Maojo V; Pazos J; Kulikowski CA
    Nature; 2013 May; 497(7450):439. PubMed ID: 23698436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Congress slashes "silly titles".
    Anderson C
    Nature; 1992 May; 357(6376):271. PubMed ID: 1589030
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Biomedical politics. Sex studies 'properly' approved.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Feb; 303(5659):741. PubMed ID: 14764836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Overhaul of peer review at NIH.
    Fusaro RM
    Lancet; 1999 Nov; 354(9190):1649. PubMed ID: 10560706
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.