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.
251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30353159)
21. After the Storm - A Responsible Path for Genome Editing. Daley GQ; Lovell-Badge R; Steffann J N Engl J Med; 2019 Mar; 380(10):897-899. PubMed ID: 30649993 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. How should the applications of genome editing be assessed and regulated? Fears R; Ter Meulen V Elife; 2017 Apr; 6():. PubMed ID: 28375079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Learning from the Past: Discussing Lessons from Reproductive Justice in the Gene-Editing Sphere. Philippe-Auguste J; Berdecio I; Terry SF Genet Test Mol Biomarkers; 2021 Sep; 25(9):571-572. PubMed ID: 34550780 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. What Is Prudent Governance of Human Genome Editing? Schweikart SJ AMA J Ethics; 2019 Dec; 21(12):E1042-1048. PubMed ID: 31876467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. FDA Regulation of Clinical Applications of CRISPR-CAS Gene-Editing Technology. Grant EV Food Drug Law J; 2016; 71(4):608-33. PubMed ID: 29140647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Strict EU ruling on gene-edited crops squeezes science. Wight AJ Nature; 2018 Nov; 563(7729):15-16. PubMed ID: 30377319 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Racing for academic glory and patents: Lessons from CRISPR. Rai AK; Cook-Deegan R Science; 2017 Nov; 358(6365):874-876. PubMed ID: 29146800 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The Future of Gene Editing - Toward Scientific and Social Consensus. Rosenbaum L N Engl J Med; 2019 Mar; 380(10):971-975. PubMed ID: 30649992 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Legality of Embryonic Gene Editing in Australia. Taylor-Sands M; Gyngell C J Law Med; 2018 Dec; 26(2):356-373. PubMed ID: 30574724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. How the US CRISPR patent probe will play out. Ledford H Nature; 2016 Mar; 531(7593):149. PubMed ID: 26961633 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Patent eligibility of stem cells in Europe: where do we stand after 8 years of case law? Storz U; Faltus T Regen Med; 2017 Jan; 12(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 27976982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Genome-editing technologies and patent landscape overview. Benahmed-Miniuk F; Kresz M; Kanaujiya JK; Southgate CD Pharm Pat Anal; 2017 May; 6(3):115-134. PubMed ID: 28534435 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. CRISPR-Cas9 and the Promise of a Better Future. Raposo VL Eur J Health Law; 2019 Oct; 26(4):308-329. PubMed ID: 31597119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Inventive steps: the CRISPR patent dispute and scientific progress: The recent patent decisions about CRISPR tell us a lot about how advances in biology are actually made-and how they are not. Sherkow JS EMBO Rep; 2017 Jul; 18(7):1047-1051. PubMed ID: 28536246 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Ormond KE; Bombard Y; Bonham VL; Hoffman-Andrews L; Howard H; Isasi R; Musunuru K; Riggan KA; Michie M; Allyse M Per Med; 2019 Jul; 16(4):337-350. PubMed ID: 31331245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. European opposition to exclusive control over predictive breast cancer testing and the inherent implications for U.S. patent law and public policy: a case study of the Myriad Genetics' BRCA patent controversy. Paradise J Food Drug Law J; 2004; 59(1):133-54. PubMed ID: 15190928 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. How to respond to CRISPR babies. Nature; 2018 Dec; 564(7734):5. PubMed ID: 31481729 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]