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.
22. Lay participation in medical policy making. II. Human experimentation committees: professional or representative? Veatch RM Hastings Cent Rep; 1975 Oct; 5(5):31-40. PubMed ID: 1184371 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Using the brain dead for medical research. Martyn SR Utah Law Rev; 1986; 1986(1):1-28. PubMed ID: 11651917 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Informed consent: the FDA's perspective. Bagley G Food Drug Law J; 1993; 48(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 11653141 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Multicenter trials and subject eligibility: should local IRBs play a role? Freedman B IRB; 1994; 16(1-2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652320 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. If only it were so: medical physics, U.S. human radiation experiments, and the Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee (ACHRE). Martensen R Med Humanit Rev; 1997; 11(2):21-36. PubMed ID: 11645853 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Research with radiation and healthy children: greater than minimal risk. Freeman WL IRB; 1994; 16(5):1-5. PubMed ID: 11652791 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Final rule. Fed Regist; 1991 Jun; 56(117):28003-18. PubMed ID: 10112214 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. How to interpret the federal policy for the protection of human subjects or "Common Rule" (Part A). [for the Working Group of the Human Subjects Research Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council]. Shelton JD IRB; 1999; 21(6):6-9. PubMed ID: 11697393 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Federal agency keeps review committee after public comments support continuation. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 1997 Jan; 12(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 11654603 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Exempt research: procedures in the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health. Wichman A; Mills D; Sandler AL IRB; 1996; 18(2):3-5. PubMed ID: 11654755 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The IRB's role in assessing the generalizability of non-NIH-funded clinical trials. Weijer C IRB; 1998; 20(2-3):1-5. PubMed ID: 11656912 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Institutional review boards in the university setting: review of pharmaceutical testing protocols, informed consent and ethical concerns. Kobasic DM J Coll Univ Law; 1988; 15(2):185-216. PubMed ID: 11659168 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The paradoxical case of payment as benefit to research subjects. Macklin R IRB; 1989; 11(6):1-3. PubMed ID: 11650284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. The human radiation experiments: the real issues. Mossman KL Health Phys; 1995 Jun; 68(6):757-60. PubMed ID: 7759252 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]