260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8133572)
21. Neuroscientist accused of misconduct turns on his accusers.
Dalton R
Nature; 1998 Apr; 392(6675):424. PubMed ID: 9548238
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. ORI finds Imanishi-Kari guilty of misconduct, proposes 10-year ban.
Gavaghan H
Nature; 1994 Dec; 372(6505):391. PubMed ID: 7984221
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Science and law clash over fraud-case appeals.
Hilts PJ
N Y Times Web; 1993 Nov; ():B10. PubMed ID: 11647010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Imanishi-Kari still in limbo.
Nature; 1994 Mar; 368(6466):1-2. PubMed ID: 8107875
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. HHS: Gallo guilty of misconduct.
Cohen J
Science; 1993 Jan; 259(5092):168-70. PubMed ID: 8380653
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Recent government decision refocuses attention on several cases of alleged scientific misconduct.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Sep; 270(11):1286. PubMed ID: 8395607
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Dingell rips Healy for 'obstructionism'.
Cohen J
Science; 1992 Dec; 258(5089):1729. PubMed ID: 1465608
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Inquiry finds misconduct by virus researcher; Gallo predicts appeal will overturn finding.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Feb; 269(6):723-4. PubMed ID: 8380877
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity.
Needleman HL
Pediatrics; 1992 Dec; 90(6):977-81. PubMed ID: 1331947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. 'Verdicts' are in on the Gallo probe.
Palca J
Science; 1992 May; 256(5058):735-8. PubMed ID: 1589751
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Misconduct finding in the Gallo case.
Greenberg D
Lancet; 1993 Jan; 341(8838):166-7. PubMed ID: 8093759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Federal panel endorses Baylor fraud claim.
Dalton R
Nature; 1999 Feb; 397(6720):549. PubMed ID: 10050835
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Legal protections for the scientific misconduct whistleblower.
Poon P
J Law Med Ethics; 1995; 23(1):88-94. PubMed ID: 7627310
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. What to do about scientific misconduct.
Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):261-2. PubMed ID: 8183349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Dr Baltimore says "sorry".
Baltimore D
Nature; 1991 May; 351(6322):94-5. PubMed ID: 2030740
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. "Thank God for the lawyers": some thoughts on the (mis)regulation of scientific misconduct.
Reynolds GH
Tenn Law Rev; 1999; 66(3):801-18. PubMed ID: 12625356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Champions of science or blacklisting bureaucrats?
Tokarski C
J Am Health Policy; 1991; 1(3):45-9. PubMed ID: 10116471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Verdict in sight in the "Baltimore case".
Hamilton DP
Science; 1991 Mar; 251(4998):1168-72. PubMed ID: 1900949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. How congressional pressure shaped the 'Baltimore case'.
Friedly J
Science; 1996 Aug; 273(5277):873-5. PubMed ID: 8711476
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Federal health officials continue to reorganize offices for investigating scientific misconduct.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1992 Aug; 268(7):848. PubMed ID: 1640594
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
