| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 20
Page 20
Bibliography
Anderson, Frederick R.
November 29, 1991
. The legal system obstructs science.
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.
Barton, John H.
2000
. Reforming the patent system.
Science
287:
1933-1934.
Berger, Margaret.
2000
. The Supreme Court's trilogy on the admissibility of expert evidence. In:
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.
Washington, D.C.
:
Federal Judicial Center
.
Blumenthal, David;
Eric G. Campbell;
Melissa S. Anderson;
Nancyanne Causino; and
Karen Seashore Louis.
1997
. Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty.
Journal of the American Medical Association
277:
1224–1228.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and the Government.
1993
. Science and Technology in Judicial Decision Making.
New York
:
Carnegie Corporation
.
Cecil, Joe S., and
Gerald T. Wetherington.
1996
. Special Editors, Court-Ordered Disclosure of Academic Research: A Clash of Values of Science and Law.
Law and Contemporary Problems
59:
no. 3.
Cohen, Linda, and
Robert W. Hahn.
1999
. A solution to concerns over public access to scientific data.
Science
285:
535-536.
Enserink, Martin.
2000
. Biomedical Patents. Patent Office may raise the bar on gene claims.
Science
287:
1196-1197.
Fischer, Paul M.
1996
. Science and subpoenas: When do the courts become instruments of manipulation? Law and Contemporary Problems 59,
no. 159.
Hamilton, Heather G.
1998
. The Movement from Frye to Daubert: Where do the states stand?
Jurimetrics Journal
38:
201-213.
Heller, Michael, and
Rebecca S. Eisenberg.
1998
. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research.
Science
280:
698–701.
Hulka, Barbara,
Nancy L. Kerkvliet, and
Peter Tugwell.
2000
. Sounding Board: Experience of a scientific panel formed to advise the federal judiciary on silicone breast implants. The
New England
Journal of Medicine
342:
812-815.
Kaiser, Jocelyn.
1997a
. Showdown over clean air science.
Science
277:
466-469.
OCR for page 21
Page 21
Kaiser, Jocelyn.
1997b
. Researchers and lawmakers clash over access to data.
Science
277:
467.
Kaiser, Jocelyn.
1997c
. Puzzling over a potential killer's modus operandi.
Science
277:
469.
Kantrowitz, Arthur.
1967
. Proposal for an institution for scientific judgment.
Science
156:
763.
Munsterman, G. Thomas,
Paula L. Hannaford, and
Marc G. Whitehead, eds.
1997
. Jury Trial Innovations.
Williamsburg, VA
:
National Center for State Courts
.
Office of Management and Budget.
1999
. OMB Circular A-110 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.
Final revision, effective
Nov. 6, 1999.
Petroski, Henry.
1999
. Daubert and Kumho.
American Scientist
87:
402-406.
Picou, J. Steven.
1996
. Compelled disclosure of scholarly research: Some comments on “high stakes” litigation.
Law and Contemporary Problems
59:
no. 149.
Rosenthal, Steven A.
1996
. Secrecy in medical research. The
New England
Journal of Medicine
334:
392-393.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
association federal