Bio

Academic Appointments


Administrative Appointments


  • Thomas A. Raffin Chair, Medicine and Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University (2010 - Present)
  • Director, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics (2003 - Present)
  • Chair, Program in Regenerative Medicine Sub-Committee on Bioethics and Conflict of Interest (2005 - Present)
  • Co-Director, Scholarly Concentration in Biomedical Ethics and Medical Humanities (2003 - Present)
  • Co-Chair, Stanford Hospital and Clinics Ethics Committee (2003 - Present)

Honors & Awards


  • Expert for World Bank on Food Security and Biotechnology, The World Bank (2000)
  • Secretary of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and the 21st Century (Member), Agriculture Advisory Committee (2003)
  • Committee on Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms (Member), National Research Council of the Academies (2002-2003)
  • E.G. Young Seminar, Chemical Institute of Canada (2000)
  • Best New Journal Award, Council of Editors of Learned Journals for the American Journal of Bioethics (2004)
  • Arnold G. Wedum Memorial Lecture, American Biological Safety Association (2003)
  • Woodrow Wilson Convocation Speaker, Clarkson University (2002)
  • Moral and Social Consequences of the Human Genome Project, Oregon State University (2001)

Professional Education


  • Ph.D., Stanford University, Philosophy
  • B.A., UC Riverside, Philosophy

Research & Scholarship

Current Research and Scholarly Interests


Genetic testing, gene therapy, genetically engineered organisms, and the history of eugenics. Stem cell research and cloning, and egg procurement. Examining ethical issues in reproductive technologies. Organ transplantation including donation after cardiac death, ethics of listing decisions. End of life issues in both adults and children.

Teaching

2013-14 Courses


Publications

Journal Articles


  • Accepting brain death. New England journal of medicine Magnus, D. C., Wilfond, B. S., Caplan, A. L. 2014; 370 (10): 891-894

    View details for DOI 10.1056/NEJMp1400930

    View details for PubMedID 24499177

  • A content analysis of posthumous sperm procurement protocols with considerations for developing an institutional policy. Fertility and sterility Bahm, S. M., Karkazis, K., Magnus, D. 2013; 100 (3): 839-843 e6

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze existing posthumous sperm procurement (PSP) protocols in order to outline central themes for institutions to consider when developing future policies. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis. SETTING: Large academic institutions across the United States. PATIENT(S): N/A. INTERVENTION(S): We performed a literature search and contacted 40 institutions to obtain nine full PSP protocols. We then performed a content analysis on these policies to identify major themes and factors to consider when developing a PSP protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Presence of a PSP policy. RESULT(S): We identified six components of a thorough PSP protocol: Standard of Evidence, Terms of Eligibility, Sperm Designee, Restrictions on Use in Reproduction, Logistics, and Contraindications. We also identified two different approaches to policy structure. In the Limited Role approach, institutions have stricter consent requirements and limit their involvement to the time of procurement. In the Family-Centered approach, substituted judgment is permitted but a mandatory wait period is enforced before sperm use in reproduction. CONCLUSION(S): Institutions seeking to implement a PSP protocol will benefit from considering the six major building blocks of a thorough protocol and where they would like to fall on the spectrum from a Limited Role to a Family-Centered approach.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.002

    View details for PubMedID 23773314

  • Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenatal diagnosis Allyse, M. A., Sayres, L. C., Havard, M., King, J. S., Greely, H. T., Hudgins, L., Taylor, J., Norton, M. E., Cho, M. K., Magnus, D., Ormond, K. E. 2013; 33 (7): 656-661

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to provide an ethical framework for clinicians and companies providing noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free fetal DNA or whole fetal cells. METHOD: In collaboration with a National Institutes of Health-supported research ethics consultation committee together with feedback from an interdisciplinary group of clinicians, members of industry, legal experts, and genetic counselors, we developed a set of best practices for the provision of noninvasive prenatal genetic testing. RESULTS: Principal recommendations include the amendment of current informed consent procedures to include attention to the noninvasive nature of new testing and the potential for a broader range of results earlier in the pregnancy. We strongly recommend that tests should only be provided through licensed medical providers and not directly to consumers. CONCLUSION: Prenatal tests, including new methods using cell-free fetal DNA, are not currently regulated by government agencies, and limited professional guidance is available. In the absence of regulation, companies and clinicians should cooperate to adopt responsible best ethical practices in the provision of these tests. 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    View details for DOI 10.1002/pd.4144

    View details for PubMedID 23613322

  • Overthrowing the tyranny of the journal impact factor. American journal of bioethics Magnus, D. 2013; 13 (7): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2013.807709

    View details for PubMedID 23767427

  • Risk, consent, and SUPPORT. New England journal of medicine Magnus, D., Caplan, A. L. 2013; 368 (20): 1864-1865

    View details for DOI 10.1056/NEJMp1305086

    View details for PubMedID 23597408

  • Parental refusal of vaccination and transplantation listing decisions: A nationwide survey. Pediatric transplantation Ladd, J. M., Karkazis, K., Magnus, D. 2013; 17 (3): 244-250

    Abstract

    Many professional societies and research studies recommend complete vaccination before pediatric solid organ transplantation. Nevertheless, incompletely vaccinated children often receive transplants. As the number of parents refusing to vaccinate children for nonmedical reasons increases, pediatric transplantation programs face difficult listing decisions. Given the importance of psychosocial criteria in listing decisions, this study explores how parental refusal of vaccination affects those listing decisions. Surveys were emailed to individuals at 195 pediatric solid organ transplantation programs in the United States, with a 71% response rate. Forty-four respondents (39%) reported that their programs have had cases involving parental refusal of vaccination. In response to hypothetical scenarios, 93 respondents (82%) would list a child not vaccinated for medical reasons, whereas only 54 respondents (47%) would list a child whose parents refused vaccination. Only five respondents (4%) reported that their programs had written policies regarding parental refusal of vaccination. These data reveal inconsistencies across pediatric transplantation programs regarding how parental refusal of vaccination affects listing decisions and raise the issue of whether and how the reason for incomplete vaccination should be factored into listing decisions. We recommend further discussion and the development of written guidelines to unify programs' assessments of incompletely vaccinated pediatric transplantation candidates.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/petr.12046

    View details for PubMedID 23347536

  • Can Informed Consent Go Too Far? Balancing Consent and Public Benefit in Research AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Milner, L. C., Magnus, D. 2013; 13 (4): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2013.778645

    View details for Web of Science ID 000316391200002

    View details for PubMedID 23514383

  • Suicide and the sufficiency of surrogate decision makers. American journal of bioethics Taye, H., Magnus, D. 2013; 13 (3): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2013.769827

    View details for PubMedID 23428024

  • 100th Issue Anniversary Editorial AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Magnus, D. 2013; 13 (1): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2013.747307

    View details for Web of Science ID 000315983000001

    View details for PubMedID 23311828

  • Customers or research participants?: Guidance for research practices in commercialization of personal genomics GENETICS IN MEDICINE Tobin, S. L., Cho, M. K., Lee, S. S., Magnus, D. C., Allyse, M., Ormond, K. E., Garrison, N. A. 2012; 14 (10): 833-835

    View details for DOI 10.1038/gim.2012.64

    View details for Web of Science ID 000309645900001

    View details for PubMedID 22699154

  • Informational risk, institutional review, and autonomy in the proposed changes to the common rule. IRB Allyse, M., Karkazis, K., Lee, S. S., Tobin, S. L., Greely, H. T., Cho, M. K., Magnus, D. 2012; 34 (3): 17-19

    View details for PubMedID 22830179

  • Triggers for Research Ethics Consultation SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE Havard, M., Cho, M. K., Magnus, D. 2012; 4 (118)

    Abstract

    Research ethics consultation services are designed to help scientists address ethical and societal issues that may not be considered in the context of existing regulatory frameworks, such as institutional review boards. Here, we identify some types of biomedical research for which the research process can benefit from consultation with ethicists.

    View details for DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002734

    View details for Web of Science ID 000299539500001

    View details for PubMedID 22277965

  • Duty-Free: The Non-Obligatory Nature of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Sayres, L. C., Magnus, D. 2012; 12 (4): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2012.669269

    View details for Web of Science ID 000302916400001

    View details for PubMedID 22452462

  • The Instrumental Role of Hospital Ethics Committees in Policy Work AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Garrison, N. A., Magnus, D. 2012; 12 (11): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2012.729935

    View details for Web of Science ID 000310137100001

    View details for PubMedID 23072670

  • Medical and graduate students' attitudes toward personal genomics GENETICS IN MEDICINE Ormond, K. E., Hudgins, L., Ladd, J. M., Magnus, D. M., Greely, H. T., Cho, M. K. 2011; 13 (5): 400-408

    Abstract

    Medical schools are being approached by direct-to-consumer genotyping companies about genotyping faculty or trainees as a method to "teach" them about the potential implications of genotyping. In thinking about the future incorporation of genotyping into a graduate level genetics course, the purpose of this study was 2-fold: first, to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of students toward personal genomics as it related to themselves as both as customers and future physicians and as it related to consumers at large, and second, to determine the impact of the course (as taught without genotyping) on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.We surveyed first-year medical students and graduate students before and after a core genetics course.After the course, students were less likely to believe that genotyping information would be useful to physicians, patients, or consumers; genotyping would provide information to improve their own personal health; or personal genomic testing services are diagnostic of medical conditions. They were more likely to answer knowledge questions accurately after the course but still had difficulty with clinical interpretation. Despite these changes, a slight majority of students were, and remained, interested in undergoing genotyping themselves. Of note, the number who believed genotyping "would help them understand genetic concepts better than someone else's data" decreased. General curiosity was the most commonly chosen reason for interest in undergoing genotyping, and approximately 50% of respondents expressed concern about confidentiality of results.In conclusion, even without the genotyping process, an educational program about genotyping increased knowledge, particularly about the clinical limitations of genotyping, but student interest in genotyping did not significantly change. Institutions thinking about offering genotyping to their students as part of a learning experience should consider the pros and cons of doing so.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31820562f6

    View details for Web of Science ID 000290435700005

    View details for PubMedID 21270640

  • Beyond the IRB: Local Service Versus Global Oversight AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Havard, M., Magnus, D. 2011; 11 (5): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2011.576932

    View details for Web of Science ID 000290053400002

    View details for PubMedID 21534135

  • Sexless Reproduction: A Status Symbol AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Havard, M., Magnus, D. 2011; 11 (3): 1-1

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2011.556531

    View details for Web of Science ID 000288275900001

    View details for PubMedID 21400372

  • Can the Dead Donor Rule be Resuscitated? AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Vernez, S. L., Magnus, D. 2011; 11 (8): 1-1

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2011.602260

    View details for Web of Science ID 000293843800003

    View details for PubMedID 21806426

  • Translating Stem Cell Research: Challenges at the Research Frontier JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS Magnus, D. 2010; 38 (2): 267-?

    Abstract

    This paper will address the translation of basic stem cell research into clinical research. While "stem cell" trials are sometimes used to describe established practices of bone marrow transplantation or transplantation of primary cells derived from bone marrow, for the purposes of this paper, I am primarily focusing on stem cell trials which are far less established, including use of hESC derived stem cells. The central ethical challenges in stem cell clinical trials arise in frontier research, not in standard, well-established areas of research.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000279534400011

    View details for PubMedID 20579250

  • Empirical Methods in Bioethics: A Cautionary Tale ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE Braddock, C. H., Magnus, D. 2010; 152 (6): 396-?

    View details for Web of Science ID 000275905200009

    View details for PubMedID 20231572

  • The History of The American Journal of Bioethics AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Magnus, D. 2010; 10 (10): 3-3

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265161.2010.527273

    View details for Web of Science ID 000282971200002

    View details for PubMedID 20945258

  • Emergency Innovation: Implications for the Trauma Surgeon JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE Pretz, J. L., Magnus, D., Spain, D. A. 2009; 67 (6): 1443-1447

    Abstract

    Experimentation involving human subjects requires careful attention to the protection of their rights. Beginning with the Belmont Report in 1979, the United States has developed various sets of rules and regulations that identify the requirements for performing human subject research. In addition, these standards attempt to define the fundamental difference between what constitutes research versus clinical treatment versus innovation. We explore the intersection between two areas of independent bioethics, surgical innovation and emergency research; the point we refer to as emergency innovation.A systematic literature review in each of the fields of emergency research and surgical innovation was completed. The ethical principles involved in each field were identified. In addition, a recent case of surgical innovation within the context of emergency treatment is evaluated for the ethics invoked.One of the great challenges in emergency innovation is that the main protection offered in innovation (heightened informed consent) is not possible in the emergency context where in fact informed consent is waived. Interestingly, the rest of the protections outlined for each field are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be utilized in any project that takes place at this intersection. However, as there are no strict regulations in place for the collision of these two fields, the possibility of having the majority of the involved ethical principles misinterpreted or ignored is very real.For emergency innovation, where it is unclear what ethical principles and regulatory powers apply, it is imperative to be unambiguous about the purpose of the investigation, to adhere to all applicable ethical principles, and to have utmost consideration for protection of the research subject. To determine intent, the goals of the study must be outlined precisely - and if those include the prospect of publication, institutional review board (IRB) approval should be involved early. If, however, the innovation is subtle and the goal geared toward improved patient care, a small feasibility trial would be an appropriate first step before transitioning to a formal larger study approved by an IRB. In either case, the degree of the change in practice must be carefully evaluated and the vulnerability of the research subjects respected. With careful attention paid to all applicable ethical principles at the emergency innovation intersection, medical progress can continue at minimized risk to the human subject participants.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181bba255

    View details for Web of Science ID 000272658100060

    View details for PubMedID 20009701

  • Use of neurodevelopmental delay in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions: Inconsistencies in standards across major pediatric transplant centers PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION Richards, C. T., Crawley, L. M., Magnus, D. 2009; 13 (7): 843-850

    Abstract

    Children with NDD present for organ transplant evaluation, but the role of NDD as a listing criterion itself is poorly described. Therefore, we sought to investigate how major pediatric solid organ transplant programs use NDD as a criterion in their listing decisions. We developed a survey that was sent via post to active pediatric solid organ transplant programs across the United States investigating transplant listing decision-making for neurodevelopmentally delayed children. Respondents were medical/surgical directors and transplant coordinators. Descriptive statistics summarize the findings. Programs inconsistently use NDD in listing decisions. Thirty-nine percent of programs stated that they "rarely" or "never" consider NDD in their decisions, whereas 43% of programs "always" or "usually" do. Sixty-two percent of programs report that informal processes guide their use of NDD, and no programs describe their process as "formal, explicit, and uniform." The degree of delay is an additional source of discordance among programs, with 14% of programs reporting mild or moderate NDD as a relative contraindication to listing and 22% reporting that NDD was "irrelevant" to the listing decision. The use of NDD in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions is varied and inconsistent across active programs.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2008.01072.x

    View details for Web of Science ID 000270666600010

    View details for PubMedID 19067911

  • Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: beyond medical regulation? GENOME MEDICINE Magnus, D., Cho, M. K., Cook-Deegan, R. 2009; 1

    View details for DOI 10.1186/gm17

    View details for Web of Science ID 000208627000017

  • Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: beyond medical regulation? Genome medicine Magnus, D., Cho, M. K., Cook-Deegan, R. 2009; 1 (2): 17-?

    Abstract

    The availability of personalized genomic tests, ordered directly by consumers, is rapidly growing. These tests are unlike other genetic or biochemical tests in the sheer amount of data they provide, but interpretation of these genome-wide analyses for health remains uncertain because of the lack of information about environmental and other factors, and because for the vast majority of genetic loci the associations with disease are weak. Although these tests could provide value to customers by offering tools for social networking or genealogy, there are questions about whether and how to regulate these tests and about the extent to which they provide medical information.

    View details for DOI 10.1186/gm17

    View details for PubMedID 19341488

  • Research ethics consultation: the Stanford experience. IRB Cho, M. K., Tobin, S. L., Greely, H. T., McCormick, J., Boyce, A., Magnus, D. 2008; 30 (6): 1-6

    View details for PubMedID 19119757

  • Strangers at the Benchside: Research ethics consultation AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Cho, M. K., Tobin, S. L., Greely, H. T., McCormick, J., Boyce, A., Magnus, D. 2008; 8 (3): 4-13

    Abstract

    Institutional ethics consultation services for biomedical scientists have begun to proliferate, especially for clinical researchers. We discuss several models of ethics consultation and describe a team-based approach used at Stanford University in the context of these models. As research ethics consultation services expand, there are many unresolved questions that need to be addressed, including what the scope, composition, and purpose of such services should be, whether core competencies for consultants can and should be defined, and how conflicts of interest should be mitigated. We make preliminary recommendations for the structure and process of research ethics consultation, based on our initial experiences in a pilot program.

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265160802109322

    View details for Web of Science ID 000257030400004

    View details for PubMedID 18570086

  • The green revolution in bioethics AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Magnus, D. 2008; 8 (8): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265160802424135

    View details for Web of Science ID 000259331900002

    View details for PubMedID 18802846

  • Federalism & bioethics - States and moral pluralism HASTINGS CENTER REPORT Fossett, J. W., Ouellette, A. R., Philpott, S., Magnus, D., Mcgee, G. 2007; 37 (6): 24-35

    Abstract

    Bioethicists are often interested mostly in national standards and institutions, but state governments have historically overseen a wide range of bioethical issues and share responsibility with the federal government for still others. States ought to have an important role. By allowing for multiple outcomes, the American federal system allows a better fit between public opinion and public policies.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000251116100020

    View details for PubMedID 18179102

  • Blood, sweat and tears AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Magnus, D. C. 2006; 6 (3): 1-2

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265160600781488

    View details for Web of Science ID 000238283800001

    View details for PubMedID 16754438

  • Research conduct - Lessons of the stem cell scandal SCIENCE Cho, M. K., McGee, G., Magnus, D. 2006; 311 (5761): 614-615

    View details for DOI 10.1126/science.1124948

    View details for Web of Science ID 000235257400030

    View details for PubMedID 16456065

  • Stem cell research: The California experience HASTINGS CENTER REPORT Magnus, D. 2006; 36 (1): 26-28

    View details for Web of Science ID 000235069900019

    View details for PubMedID 16544836

  • A commentary on oocyte donation for stem cell research in South Korea AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS Magnus, D., Cho, M. K. 2006; 6 (1): W23-W24

    View details for DOI 10.1080/15265160500496666

    View details for Web of Science ID 000235709600029

    View details for PubMedID 16423767

  • Issues in oocyte donation for stem cell research SCIENCE Magnus, D., Cho, M. K. 2005; 308 (5729): 1747-1748

    View details for DOI 10.1126/science.1114454

    View details for Web of Science ID 000229926800039

    View details for PubMedID 15905363

  • Stem cell research should be more than a promise HASTINGS CENTER REPORT Magnus, D. 2004; 34 (5): 35-36

    View details for Web of Science ID 000224607200019

    View details for PubMedID 15553398

  • Politics and peer review. American journal of bioethics Magnus, D. 2004; 4 (1): 7-8

    View details for PubMedID 15035920

  • New life forms: New threats, new possibilities HASTINGS CENTER REPORT Caplan, A. L., Magnus, D. 2003; 33 (6): 7-7

    View details for Web of Science ID 000188390800010

    View details for PubMedID 14983550

  • In focus. Core faculty and their publications at bioethics centers in the United States. American journal of bioethics Magnus, D., Miller, V., Carroll, K. 2002; 2 (4): W20-?

    View details for PubMedID 12778940

  • Evaluating graduate programs in bioethics: what measures should we use? American journal of bioethics Mcgee, G., Magnus, D., Carroll, K. 2002; 2 (4): 1-2

    View details for PubMedID 12784805

  • The meaning of graduate education for bioethics. American journal of bioethics Magnus, D. 2002; 2 (4): 10-12

    View details for PubMedID 12762912

  • Is there a bioethicist in your company? Should there be? DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY Magnus, D. 2002; 7 (7): 385-387

    View details for Web of Science ID 000174556700001

    View details for PubMedID 11916559

  • Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS Merz, J. F., Magnus, D., Cho, M. K., Caplan, A. L. 2002; 70 (4): 965-971

    Abstract

    Biomedical researchers often assume that sponsors, subjects, families, and disease-associated advocacy groups contribute to research solely because of altruism. This view fails to capture the diverse interests of many participants in the emerging research enterprise. In the past two decades, patient groups have become increasingly active in the promotion and facilitation of genetics research. Simultaneously, a significant shift of academic biomedical science toward commercialization has occurred, spurred by U.S. federal policy changes. The concurrent rise in both the roles that subjects play and the commercial interests they have presents numerous ethical challenges. We examine the interests of different research participants, finding that these interests are not addressed by current policies and practices. We conclude that all participants should be given a voice in decisions affecting ownership, access to, and use of commercialized products and services, and that researchers and institutions should negotiate issues relating to control of research results and the sharing of benefits before the research is performed.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000174252100013

    View details for PubMedID 11870592

  • Who Owns Life? David Magnus, Ed. with Art Caplan, Glenn McGee 2002
  • NAS cloning hearing disappoints participants SCIENCE Magnus, D., Caplan, A. 2001; 294 (5547): 1651-1651

    View details for Web of Science ID 000172307400017

    View details for PubMedID 11724062

  • Reason and repugnance. Medical ethics (Burlington, Mass.) Callahan, D., Magnus, D. 2001: 6-7

    View details for PubMedID 15584188

  • Bioethics programs evolve as they grow - With bioethics squarely in the news comes new scrutiny on exactly what it takes to train a bioethicist. NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY Magnus, D. 2001; 19 (10): 991-992

    View details for Web of Science ID 000171417600031

    View details for PubMedID 11581672

  • Family problems. American journal of bioethics Magnus, D., DAGOSTINO, L. 2001; 1 (3): 1-?

    View details for PubMedID 11954574

  • The AJOB Experiment. American journal of bioethics McGee, G., Magnus, D. 2001; 1 (1): 1-?

    View details for DOI 10.1162/152651601750078835

    View details for PubMedID 22494011

  • Ethical issues: from genome to therapy. Novartis Foundation symposium Magnus, D. 2000; 229: 122-125

    View details for PubMedID 11084937

  • Policy forum: genetics. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science Cho, M. K., Magnus, D., Caplan, A. L., McGee, D. 1999; 286 (5447): 2087-?

    View details for PubMedID 10617419

  • What is immoral about eugenics? BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Caplan, A. L., McGee, G., Magnus, D. 1999; 319 (7220): 1284-U19

    View details for Web of Science ID 000083786900007

    View details for PubMedID 10559038

  • What is immoral about eugenics? WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Caplan, A. L., McGee, G., Magnus, D. 1999; 171 (5-6): 335-337

    View details for Web of Science ID 000084352100024

    View details for PubMedID 18751200

  • Disease gene patenting: The clinician's dilemma CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS Magnus, D. 1998; 7 (4): 433-435

    View details for Web of Science ID 000075650700016

    View details for PubMedID 9752586

  • HIDDEN ADAPTATIONISM BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES Magnus, D., Thiel, P. 1990; 13 (1): 26-?

Footer Links:

Stanford Medicine Resources: