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

Archives of Toxicology

Volumn 88, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1631-1634

  Calabrese, Edward J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer risk; Funding bias; LNT; Mutation; Risk assessment; Self interest

Indexed keywords

CANCER RISK; DECEPTION; IDEOLOGY; LEADERSHIP; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION HAZARD; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; WRITING; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HISTORY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEUKEMIA, RADIATION-INDUCED; MANPOWER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; ORGANIZATION; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; RADIATION RESPONSE; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CORRESPONDENCE AS TOPIC; DECEPTION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; HEALTH POLICY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; LEUKEMIA, RADIATION-INDUCED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (U.S.); NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84922682652     PISSN: 03405761     EISSN: 14320738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Bear, I Committee Genetics Panel (1956) Genetic effects of atomic radiation. Science 124:1157-1164
2. Calabrese EJ (2011a) Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? Arch Toxicol 85(12):1495-1498
3. Calabrese EJ (2011b) Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned. Environ Mol Mutagen 52(8):595-606
4. Calabrese EJ (2012) Muller's Nobel Prize lecture: when ideology prevailed over science. Toxicol Sci 126(1):1-4
5. 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
6. 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
7. Demerec letter to Beadle (1957) August 1 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society
8. Demerec letter to Dobzhansky (1957) August 9 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society
9. Demerec letter to Weaver (1956a) January 24, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington
10. Demerec letter to Weaver (1956b) February 11, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington
11. Dobzhansky letter to Demerec (1957a) August 3 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society
12. Dobzhansky letter to Demerec (1957b) August 13 Letter, Milislav Demerec papers. American Philosophical Society
13. Failla letter to Weaver (1956) March 5, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington
14. 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
15. Seltzer MW (2007) The technological infrastructure of science. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
16. Sonneborn letter to Weaver (1956) February 3, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington
17. Spencer WP, Stern C (1948) Experiments to test the validity of the linear R-dose/mutation at low dosage. Genetics 33:43-74
18. Sturtevant letter to Weaver (1956) February 20, Lilly Library, Muller mss, Manuscripts Department Indiana University, Bloomington
19. Uphoff DE, Stern C (1949) The genetic effects of low intensity irradiation. Science 109(2842):609-610