Public Advocacy and Allocation of Federal Funds for Biomedical Research

Milbank Quarterly

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 257-274

  Dresser, Rebecca ^a,b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER ADVOCACY; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

CONSUMER ADVOCACY; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032601588     PISSN: 0887378X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.00133     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. 1997. About the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. Http://www.aamc.org/research/ adhocgp/about.htm. Washington, D.C.
2. Agnew, B. 1996. Two in a Row: A Whopping Budget Boost for NIH. Journal of NIH Research 8(November):19-20.
3. Anglin, M.K. 1997. Working from the Inside Out: Implications of Breast Cancer Activism for Biomedical Policies and Practices. Social Science and Medicine 44:1403-15.
4. Callahan, D. 1998. False Hopes: Why America's Quest for Perfect Health is a Recipe for Failure. New York: Simon and Schuster.
5. _. 1999. Shaping Biomedical Research Priorities: The Case of the National Institutes of Health. Health Policy Analysis. (Forthcoming.)
6. Dickson, D. 1988. The New Politics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Dresser, R. 1992. Wanted: Single White Male for Medical Research. Hastings Center Report 22(1):24-9.
8. _. 1998. Setting Priorities for Science Support. Hastings Center Report 28(3):21-3.
9. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Institute of Medicine. 1997. Committee on Care at the End of Life. Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
11. _. 1998. Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
12. Johnson, J. 1998. Disease Funding and NIH Priority Setting. Report 97-917 (March 26). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
13. Journal of NIH Research. 1997. Funding Priorities, Peer Review: An Interview with Harold Varmus. Vol. 9(August):21-5.
14. Kaiser, J. 1996. NIH's Harvest of Special Projects. Science 274:167.
15. Lauerman, J.F. 1998. Turning the Tables. Harvard Magazine (July-August):26-8.
16. Lawler, A. 1998. Physician-Turned-Politician Seeks Middle Ground. Science 281:635-6.
17. Marshall, E. 1997. Lobbyists Seek to Reslice NIH's Pie. Science 276:344-6.
18. Murphy, T. 1991. No Time for an AIDS Backlash. Hastings Center Report 21(5):7-11.
19. National Institutes of Health. 1997. Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes of Health. NIH pub. no. 97-4265. Bethesda, Md.: NIH Working Group on Priority Setting.
20. _. 1998a. NIH Policy on the Inclusion of Children as Participants in Research Involving Human Subjects. Http://www.nih.gov/grants/guide/ notice-files/not98-024.html. Bethesda, Md.
21. _. 1998b. Call for Nominations for Membership on the NIH Director's Council of Public Representatives. Bethesda, Md.: Office of the Director. New York Times. 1998. Medical Research Funding. (January 6):A20.
22. Resnik, D.B. 1998. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
23. Sarewitz, D. 1997. Social Change and Science Policy. Issues in Science and Technology (summer):29-32.
24. Science & Government Report. 1998. Q & A: NIH Director Varmus on Support for All Sciences. (May):2-4.
25. Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford.
26. Stapleton, S. 1998. Lobby for Labs: Biomed Research Campaigning for Funding Increase. AMA News (February 9):1, 29.
27. Stolberg, S. 1997. New Challenge to Idea That "AIDS is Special." New York Times (November 12):A1, A18.
28. U.S. House. 1997. Appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. 105th Congress. First session. (June 10). Washington, D.C.
29. U.S. Senate. 1997. Biomedical Health Priorities: Who Should Decide? Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety. 105th Congress. First session. (May 1). Washington, D.C.
30. Weijer, C. 1996. Evolving Ethical Issues in Selection of Subjects for Clinical Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 5:334-45.