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.
101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 658712)
1. Recent legislative trends toward protection of human subjects: implications for gerontologists. Wales JB; Treybig DL Gerontologist; 1978 Jun; 18(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 658712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Limited guardianship: additional protection for mentally disabled research subjects used in biomedical and behavioral research. Schaefer GF Forum; 1981; 16(4):796-824. PubMed ID: 11651838 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. HEW proposed policy on the protection of human subjects: experimentation and the institutionalized mentally disabled. Wash Univ Law Q; 1975; 1975(3):745-74. PubMed ID: 11662989 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The burgeoning law of medical experimentation involving human subjects. Bryant LE John Marshall J Pract Proced; 1974; 8(1):19-51. PubMed ID: 11663465 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Wheat, guns, and science: human research subjects and the commerce clause. Charrow RP J NIH Res; 1997 Nov; 9(11):55-7. PubMed ID: 11656802 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Do we need another advisory commission on human experimentation? Katz J Hastings Cent Rep; 1995; 25(1):29-31. PubMed ID: 7730048 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimentation on humans in biomedical research: implications for the industry of recent legislation and cases. Standridge LW Women Lawyers J; 1977; 63(3):88-95. PubMed ID: 11663032 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Who shall decide when doctors disagree? A review of the legal development of informed consent and the implications of proposed lay review of human experimentation. Ratnoff MF Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1975; 25(3):472-532. PubMed ID: 11661164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Human experimentation: the review process in practice. Cowan DH Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1975; 25(3):533-64. PubMed ID: 11661165 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Fetal experimentation and federal regulation. Horan DJ Villanova Law Rev; 1977 Jan; 22(2):325-56. PubMed ID: 11664796 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The impact on fetal research of the report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Levine RJ Villanova Law Rev; 1977 Jan; 22(2):367-83. PubMed ID: 11664798 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Protecting human subjects: the Federal Government steps back. Veatch RM Hastings Cent Rep; 1981 Jun; 11(3):9-12. PubMed ID: 7239896 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Federal investigation concludes that institutional review boards are in trouble. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 1998 Aug; 13(8):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657190 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Regulating human gene therapy: legislative overreaction to human subject protection failures. Leavitt WJ Adm Law Rev; 2001; 53(1):315-41. PubMed ID: 16189905 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Institutional review boards would have to verify certain confidentiality protections. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jan; 15(1):9. PubMed ID: 11658038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Is national, independent oversight needed for the protection of human subjects? Capron AM Account Res; 1999; 7(2-4):283-92. PubMed ID: 11658183 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Constraints on experimentation: protecting children to death. Holder AR Yale Law Policy Rev; 1988; 6(1):137-56. PubMed ID: 11650241 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Beyond localism: a proposal for a National Research Review Board. Levine C; Caplan AL IRB; 1986; 8(2):7-9. PubMed ID: 11649751 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]