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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33598966)

  • 1. Exploring Scientists' Values by Analyzing How They Frame Nature and Uncertainty.
    Vazquez M; McIlroy-Young B; Steel D; Giang A; Öberg G
    Risk Anal; 2021 Nov; 41(11):2094-2111. PubMed ID: 33598966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Science for Policy: A Case Study of Scientific Polarization, Values, and the Framing of Risk and Uncertainty.
    Mason-Renton S; Vazquez M; Robinson C; Oberg G
    Risk Anal; 2019 Jun; 39(6):1229-1242. PubMed ID: 30536900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate.
    Yamamoto YT
    Public Underst Sci; 2012 Jan; 21(1):101-25. PubMed ID: 22530490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison between scientists' and communication scholars' views about scientists' public engagement activities.
    Yuan S; Besley JC; Dudo A
    Public Underst Sci; 2019 Jan; 28(1):101-118. PubMed ID: 30175667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework.
    Ratcliff CL; Wicke R
    Public Underst Sci; 2023 May; 32(4):410-427. PubMed ID: 36196654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. International scientists' priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment.
    Rudd MA; Ankley GT; Boxall AB; Brooks BW
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2014 Oct; 10(4):576-87. PubMed ID: 24954797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists' credibility.
    Jensen JD; Hurley RJ
    Public Underst Sci; 2012 Aug; 21(6):689-704. PubMed ID: 23832155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science-practice gap in ecology and conservation.
    Bertuol-Garcia D; Morsello C; N El-Hani C; Pardini R
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2018 May; 93(2):1032-1055. PubMed ID: 29160024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Scientific rationality, uncertainty and the governance of human genetics: an interview study with researchers at deCODE genetics.
    Hjörleifsson S; Schei E
    Eur J Hum Genet; 2006 Jul; 14(7):802-8. PubMed ID: 16622446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research.
    Edelmann A; Moody J; Light R
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2017 Jun; 114(24):6262-6267. PubMed ID: 28559310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.
    Zhang B; Mildenberger M
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(5):e0230961. PubMed ID: 32374737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists.
    Post S
    Public Underst Sci; 2016 Jan; 25(1):61-70. PubMed ID: 24583579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how.
    Nelson MP; Vucetich JA
    Conserv Biol; 2009 Oct; 23(5):1090-101. PubMed ID: 19459889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield.
    Slovic P
    Risk Anal; 1999 Aug; 19(4):689-701. PubMed ID: 10765431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate.
    Porter J; Williams C; Wainwright S; Cribb A
    New Genet Soc; 2012 Dec; 31(4):408-423. PubMed ID: 23293548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists' interactions in the climate change debate.
    Walter S; Lörcher I; Brüggemann M
    Public Underst Sci; 2019 Aug; 28(6):696-712. PubMed ID: 31027461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic research and the cancer clinic: uncertainty and expectations in professional accounts.
    Kerr A; Swallow J; Chekar CK; Cunningham-Burley S
    New Genet Soc; 2019; 38(2):222-239. PubMed ID: 31156350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy.
    Barke RP; Jenkins-Smith HC
    Risk Anal; 1993 Aug; 13(4):425-39. PubMed ID: 8234951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Scientific authority in policy contexts: Public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists.
    O'Brien TL
    Public Underst Sci; 2013 Oct; 22(7):799-816. PubMed ID: 24048622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs).
    Myhr AI
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 52(6):99-106. PubMed ID: 16304941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.