FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 350:103-104 January 8, 2004 Number 2 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Letters Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

Federal regulations that affect science and health are frequently controversial. Whether the topic is air pollution, stem-cell research, clean needles for injection-drug users, or pharmaceutical advertising, powerful economic and social interests are often at stake. It is hard to dispute the view that federal regulations — or the information disseminated by the federal government, more generally — should be based on data of the highest quality. It is far more difficult, however, for scientists and government officials to agree about how to achieve this goal and to keep political considerations from trumping science when policies are created. Former president Bill . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Letters:

Six Cities Revisited
Bruner J. M.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1577, Apr 8, 2004. Correspondence

Validation of the Harvard Six Cities Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality
Krewski D., Burnett R. T., Goldberg M. S., Hoover K., Siemiatycki J., Abrahamowicz M., White W. H.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2004; 350:198-199, Jan 8, 2004. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Bruner, J. M. (2004). Six Cities Revisited. NEJM 350: 1577-1577 [Full Text]  
• Steinbrook, R. (2004). Science, Politics, and Federal Advisory Committees. NEJM 350: 1454-1460 [Full Text]