Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?

@article{Calabrese2011MullersNL,
  title={Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?},
  author={Edward J. Calabrese},
  journal={Archives of Toxicology},
  year={2011},
  volume={85},
  pages={1495-1498}
}
  • E. Calabrese
  • Published 30 June 2011
  • Philosophy, Medicine
  • Archives of Toxicology
In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose–response for radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was “no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold”. However, assessment of correspondence between Muller and Curt Stern 1 month prior to his Nobel Prize Lecture reveals that Muller knew the results and implications of a recently completed study at the University of Rochester under the direction of Stern, which directly… 

Topics from this paper

Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture: when ideology prevailed over science.
  • E. Calabrese
  • Philosophy, Medicine
    Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology
  • 2012
TLDR
Hermann J. Muller knowingly made deceptive comments in his 1946 Nobel Prize Lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation, changing how risks would be assessed for carcinogens throughout the 20th century to the present.
How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response
TLDR
Documentation is provided that Muller reinforced practices within the scientific literature in the early 1950s, by supporting scientifically questionable actions of Stern, affecting key publications in the mutation literature.
Linear, no Threshold Response at Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Ideology, Prejudice and Science
The linear, no threshold (LNT) response model assumes that there is no threshold dose for the radiationinduced genetic effects (heritable mutations and cancer), and it forms the current basis for
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate.
TLDR
During this process the Nobel Laureate, Muller, provided incorrect information to the ICRP in what appears to have been an attempt to manipulate the decision-making process and to prevent the dose-rate concept from being adopted into risk assessment practices.
Lessons to be learned from a contentious challenge to mainstream radiobiological science (the linear no‐threshold theory of genetic mutations)
  • J. Beyea
  • Medicine
    Environmental research
  • 2017
TLDR
It is found that the contemporaneous evidence overwhelmingly favored a (genetics) LNT and that no calculations were suppressed, and the claim of investigator bias, which underlies Calabrese's accusations about key studies, is based on misreading of text.
Muller’s nobel prize research and peer review
  • E. Calabrese
  • Medicine, Philosophy
    Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM
  • 2018
TLDR
Historical analysis suggests that Hermann J. Muller deliberately avoided peer-review on his most significant findings because he was extremely troubled by the insightful and serious criticism of Altenburg, which suggested he had not produced gene mutations as he claimed.
The New Radiobiology: Returning to Our Roots
  • B. Ulsh
  • Medicine
    Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
  • 2012
TLDR
Current evidence on low dose, low dose-rate effects against objective criteria of causation is compared and some questions for a post-LNT world are posed.
Response to Letter of Ralph J Cicerone and Kevin Crowley regarding “How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.” [DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6, Review Article]
TLDR
The present Muller–Stern-NAS investigation is an exhaustive examination of the published literature, previously classified documents, and copious letters and other types of personal documents in the files of Curt Stern, Hermann J. Muller and other key people to uncover scientific deceptions/misrepresentations.
Changing Attitude to Radiation Hazards and Consequent Opportunities for LINAC Applications
High-energy LINACs unavoidably yield ionizing radiation. This fact makes them subject to strict regulations and considerably limits their possible applications. During the last two decades the
On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.
TLDR
It is argued that current international cancer risk assessment policies are based on fraudulent actions of the U.S. NAS BEAR I Committee, Genetics Panel and on the uncritical, unquestioning and blind-faith acceptance by regulatory agencies and the scientific community.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 19 REFERENCES
The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment
TLDR
Observations suggest that while scientific disciplines are self correcting, that regulatory ‘science’ fails to display the same self-correcting mechanism despite contradictory data.
Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned
  • E. Calabrese
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Environmental and molecular mutagenesis
  • 2011
This paper reassessed studies conducted under the leadership of Drosophila geneticist Curt Stern which played a pivotal role in the acceptance of the linear dose‐response model by the U.S. National
Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited
TLDR
A conservative strategy of estimating toxicity at low doses is to determine the risk at high doses and connect the highlevel risk to the zero intercept and a linear low dose–response extrapolation seems to be conservative but adequate for regulatory purposes.
Radium and Lethal Mutations in Drosophila Further Evidence of the Proportionality Rule from a Study of the Effects of Equivalent Doses Differently Applied
Experiments planned with a view to determining within what limits the proportionality rule holds show again a strict correspondence existing between the amount of radium administered and the
Low-dose extrapolation in toxicology: an old controversy revisited
TLDR
Low-dose extrapolation is a long-standing and important issue that needs to be revisited and deserves further attention and in a strict sense of statistical correctness extrapolations should be avoided.
A Perspective on the Scientific, Philosophical, and Policy Dimensions of Hormesis
  • G. R. Hoffmann
  • Medicine
    Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
  • 2009
TLDR
This perspective on hormesis concentrates on toxicology and toxicological risk assessment and secondarily explores observations from other fields on the varied manifestations of hormesis in the context of a broad family of biological stress responses.
An Analysis of the Effects of the Different Rays of Radium in Producing Lethal Mutations in Drosophila
TLDR
In unpublished work on visible mutations due to radium rays it has been found that the gene mutations are, in general, in the same direction and of the same nature as those occurring spontaneously in the fruit fly and also parallel exactly the results obtained by Muller3 with X-rays.
Author ' s personal copy
Linear and quadratic forms as well as other low degree polynomials play an important role in statistical inference. Asymptotic results and limit distributions are obtained for a class of statistics
Toxicology rethinks its central belief
TLDR
Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed for the first time in 25 years.
Genes, radiation, and society: The life and work of H.J. Muller
...
1
2
...