Works matching DE "GENETICS laws"
1
- Bio-IT World, 2008, v. 7, n. 6, p. 11
- Article
2
- Bio-IT World, 2003, v. 2, n. 11, p. 22
- Article
3
- Bio-IT World, 2003, v. 2, n. 11, p. 22
- Article
4
- Journal of Law & Health, 2013, v. 26, n. 2, p. 375
- Article
5
- Journal of Law & Health, 2013, v. 26, n. 2, p. 349
- Article
6
- 2013
- Blankfein-Tabachnick, David H.
- Essay
7
- 2015
- Philibert, Robert;
- Erwin, Cheryl
- journal article
8
- UMKC Law Review, 2011, v. 79, n. 2, p. 333
- Article
9
- Valparaiso University Law Review, 2018, v. 52, n. 3, p. 505
- Article
11
- Nature Medicine, 2009, v. 15, n. 8, p. 826, doi. 10.1038/nm0809-826a
- Article
12
- 2012
- Machado, Helena;
- Costa, Susana
- Abstract
13
- Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 2009, n. 87, p. 171
- Article
14
- Journal of Law & the Biosciences, 2019, v. 6, n. 1, p. 1, doi. 10.1093/jlb/lsz007
- Clayton, Ellen Wright;
- Evans, Barbara J;
- Hazel, James W;
- Rothstein, Mark A
- Article
15
- Dissent (0012-3846), 2009, v. 56, n. 1, p. 13, doi. 10.1353/dss.0.0022
- Article
16
- American Ethnologist, 2007, v. 34, n. 2, p. 375, doi. 10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.375
- Article
17
- Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law, 2011, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
18
- Southern California Law Review, 2011, v. 84, n. 6, p. 1403
- Article
19
- Legal Studies, 2007, v. 27, n. 2, p. 312, doi. 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2007.00045.x
- Article
20
- California Western Law Review, 2009, v. 46, n. 1, p. 137
- Article
21
- DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 2014, v. 24, n. 2, p. 403
- Article
22
- Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 2013, v. 54, n. 1, p. 85
- Article
23
- Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 2013, v. 53, n. 4, p. 389
- Article
24
- Minnesota Law Review, 2016, v. 100, n. 3, p. 1171
- Article
25
- Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 2020, v. 22, p. 159
- Article
27
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2016, v. 44, n. 2, p. 342, doi. 10.1177/1073110516654127
- Article
28
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013, v. 41, n. 3, p. 733, doi. 10.1111/jlme.12083
- Article
29
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013, v. 41, p. 65, doi. 10.1111/jlme.12042
- Article
30
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2011, v. 39, n. 3, p. 469, doi. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00615.x
- Article
33
- American Nurse, 2009, v. 41, n. 3, p. 14
- Article
34
- Nature Biotechnology, 2009, v. 27, n. 5, p. 446, doi. 10.1038/nbt0509-446
- Article
35
- Nature Biotechnology, 2008, v. 26, n. 10, p. 1105, doi. 10.1038/nbt1008-1105
- Article
36
- Nature Biotechnology, 2001, v. 19, n. 5, p. 400, doi. 10.1038/88035
- Article
37
- Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007, v. 115, n. 8, p. A401, doi. 10.1289/ehp.115-a401b
- Article
38
- Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 2014, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
39
- Cleveland State Law Review, 2022, v. 71, n. 1, p. 103
- Article
40
- 2002
- Salter, Brian;
- Jones, Mavis
- review
41
- Canadian Journal of Communication, 2007, v. 32, n. 3/4, p. 613, doi. 10.22230/cjc.2007v32n3a1972
- Article
42
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2013, v. 79, n. 1, p. 175
- Article
44
- Boston University Law Review, 2016, v. 96, n. 6, p. 2037
- Article
45
- Boston University Law Review, 2012, v. 92, n. 2, p. 733
- Article
46
- Texas Law Review, 2013, v. 91, n. 5, p. 1051
- Article
47
- Medical Laboratory Observer (MLO), 2000, v. 32, n. 4, p. 8
- Article
48
- Parliamentarian, 2017, v. 98, n. 2, p. 170
- Article
49
- Georgia State University Law Review, 2016, v. 32, n. 2, p. 513
- Article
50
- Georgia Law Review, 2012, v. 47, n. 2, p. 445
- Article