40
30.32
0.76
32

Publication History View all

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Science and engineering research has becoming an increasingly international phenomenon. Traditional bibliometric studies have not captured the evolution of collaborative partnerships between countries, particularly in emerging technologies such as stem cell science, in which an immense amount of investment has been made in the past decade. Analyzing over 2,800 articles from the top journals that include stem cell research in their publications, this study demonstrates the globalization of stem cell science. From 2000 to 2010, international collaborations increased from 20.9% to 36% of all stem cell publications analyzed. The United States remains the most prolific and the most dominant country in the field in terms of publications in high impact journals. But Asian countries, particularly China are steadily gaining ground. Exhibiting the largest relative growth, the percent of Chinese-authored stem cell papers grew more than ten-fold, while the percent of Chinese-authored international papers increased over seven times from 2000 to 2010. And while the percent of total stem cell publications exhibited modest growth for European countries, the percent of international publications increased more substantially, particularly in the United Kingdom. Overall, the data indicated that traditional networks of collaboration extant in 2000 still predominate in stem cell science. Although more nations are becoming involved in international collaborations and undertaking stem cell research, many of these efforts, with the exception of those in certain Asian countries, have yet to translate into publications in high impact journals.
    PLoS ONE 09/2013; 8(9):e73598.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This short note comments on the Grand Chamber's decision in S.H. and Others v. Austria and draws attention to a tension between the margin of appreciation and the right to access cross-border reproductive treatment.
    Reproductive biomedicine online 07/2012;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early US patent law was machine made. Before the Patent Office took on the function of examining patent applications in 1836, questions of novelty and priority were determined in court, within the forum of the infringement action. And at all levels of litigation, from the circuit courts up to the Supreme Court, working models were the media through which doctrine, evidence and argument were made legible, communicated and interpreted. A model could be set on a table, pointed at, picked up, rotated or upended so as to display a point of interest to a particular audience within the courtroom, and, crucially, set in motion to reveal the 'mode of operation' of a machine. The immediate object of demonstration was to distinguish the intangible invention from its tangible embodiment, but models also'machined' patent law itself. Demonstrations of patent claims with models articulated and resolved a set of conceptual tensions that still make the definition and apprehension of the invention difficult, even today, but they resolved these tensions in the register of materiality, performativity and visibility, rather than the register of conceptuality. The story of models tells us something about how inventions emerge and subsist within the context of patent litigation and patent doctrine, and it offers a starting point for renewed reflection on the question of how technology becomes property.
    Social Studies of Science 10/2011; 41(5):621-43.
  • Modern Law Review 05/2011; 74(3):482 - 487.
  • Health Economics Policy and Law 02/2011; 6(2):279-81; discussion 283-5.
  • Source
    Modern Law Review 01/2011; 55(3):421 - 438.
  • Source
    Modern Law Review 01/2011; 53(3):321 - 337.
  • Source
    Modern Law Review 01/2011; 55(3):331 - 350.
  • Source
    Modern Law Review 01/2011; 53(2):170 - 186.
  • Source
    Modern Law Review 01/2011; 51(5):622 - 628.
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.