Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Archives of Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper extends a series of historical papers which demonstrated that the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment was founded on ideological-based scientific deceptions by key radiation genetics leaders. Based on an assessment of recently uncovered personal correspondence, it is shown that some members of the United States (US) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation I (BEAR I) Genetics Panel were motivated by self-interest to exaggerate risks to promote their science and personal/professional agenda. Such activities have profound implications for public policy and may have had a significant impact on the adoption of the LNT model for cancer risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Dobzhansky was invited to be a member of the BEAR I Genetics Panel, but could not participate due to a scheduling conflict. He subsequently became a member of the Genetics Panel for the BEAR II Committee in 1956.

References

  • Bear, I Committee Genetics Panel (1956) Genetic effects of atomic radiation. Science 124:1157–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2011a) Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? Arch Toxicol 85(12):1495–1498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2011b) Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned. Environ Mol Mutagen 52(8):595–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2012) Muller’s Nobel Prize lecture: when ideology prevailed over science. Toxicol Sci 126(1):1–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2013) 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. Arch Toxicol 87(12):2063–2081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2014) Response to Letter of RJ Cicerone and K 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. Arch Toxicol 88(1):173–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demerec letter to Beadle (1957) August 1 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society

  • Demerec letter to Dobzhansky (1957) August 9 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society

  • Demerec letter to Weaver (1956a) January 24, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington

  • Demerec letter to Weaver (1956b) February 11, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington

  • Dobzhansky letter to Demerec (1957a) August 3 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society

  • Dobzhansky letter to Demerec (1957b) August 13 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society

  • Failla letter to Weaver (1956) March 5, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/National Research Council (NRC) (1956) The biological effects of atomic radiation (BEAR): a report to the public. NAS/NRC, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer MW (2007) The technological infrastructure of science. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg

  • Sonneborn letter to Weaver (1956) February 3, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington

  • Spencer WP, Stern C (1948) Experiments to test the validity of the linear R-dose/mutation at low dosage. Genetics 33:43–74

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant letter to Weaver (1956) February 20, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington

  • Uphoff DE, Stern C (1949) The genetic effects of low intensity irradiation. Science 109(2842):609–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Long-term research activities in the area of dose–response have been supported by awards from the US Air Force and ExxonMobil Foundation over a number of years. Sponsors had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and decision to submit.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I, N344, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Edward J. Calabrese

Authors
  1. Edward J. Calabrese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward J. Calabrese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calabrese, E.J. The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model. Arch Toxicol 88, 1631–1634 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation