Letter from Ralph J Cicerone regarding Edward Calabrese’s paper published online first on August 4th: “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]

Abstract

Arch Toxicol (2014) 88:171–172 DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1176-4 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter from Ralph J Cicerone regarding Edward Calabrese’s paper published online first on August 4th: “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] R. J. Cicerone · K. D. Crowley Received: 18 November 2013 / Accepted: 21 November 2013 / Published online: 6 December 2013 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 Dear Dr. Hengstler We write to express disappointment with the inappropri- ate title and unsubstantiated content of Edward Calabrese’s paper published online on 4 August: “How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on can- cer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foun- dations of the linear dose response” (Calabrese 2013). Professor Calabrese accuses 1946 Nobel Laureate Her- man Muller and his colleague Curt Stern of a pattern of deception in their treatment of experiments by another scientist. Calabrese further accuses Muller of inappropri- ately influencing fellow members of the National Research Council’s Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) (NRC 1956) about the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in humans. Calabrese uses correspondence between Muller and Stern concerning experiments on germ cell mutations in male fruit flies, along with subsequent scientific publications by both scientists, to make unsubstantiated insinuations about Mul- ler and Stern’s motivations: For example, that Muller was “…[p]rotecting his reputation by ensuring that his mislead- ing comments would not be discovered while still aggres- sively pushing acceptance of the linearity agenda” (p. 2). And “In the absence of new data, Stern decided upon a new strategy to ‘save’ the single-hit linearity dose response” (p. R. J. Cicerone Chair, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA K. D. Crowley (*) Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, 500 Fifth St, NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA e-mail: kcrowley@nas.edu 3). Calabrese also makes ad hominem remarks about Mul- ler to support his accusations: For example, “… it was well known that Muller would try to win arguments by exaggera- tion and overstatement” (p. 3). It seems clear from Calabrese’s factual descriptions that Muller and Stern were trying to make sense of experiments that yielded unexpected results. It is not surprising that they would question these results and seek to have them repli- cated. Calabrese clearly disagrees with Stern and Muller’s scientific judgments, but he is able to marshal only circum- stantial evidence to support his accusations that they sought to suppress the experiments. In the end, the experiments were published (Caspari and Stern 1948) and served to spur-on additional scientific investigations. Calabrese also asserts that Muller “[m]ade deceptive statements during his Noble (sic) Prize Lecture … that were intended to promote the acceptance of the linear dose–response model for risk assessment for ionizing radi- ation” (p. 1). This assertion is based on statements made by Muller in his lecture in support of the linearity hypothesis even though he had received the manuscript containing the experimental results some 5 weeks earlier. Given Muller and Stern’s reluctance to accept the results of these experi- ments without replication, Muller’s decision not to men- tion them is certainly not surprising. It is unfair to call his behavior deceptive. Calabrese provides no evidence that Muller inappropri- ately influenced the BEAR committee or that the NAS or the BEAR committee misled anyone. The BEAR commit- tee considered a large body of scientific work and exercised its own considerable scientific judgment in reaching a con- sensus conclusion that “the genetic harm [from radiation] is proportional to the total dose” (NRC 1956, p. 23). Moreo- ver, the BEAR committee noted that this conclusion was generally accepted by the genetics community (ibid).