Skip to main content
Log in

Toxicology rethinks its central belief

  • Commentary
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1: Hypothetical curves depicting (a) threshold, (b) linear non-threshold, and (c) hormetic dose-response models using cancer (number of tumours per animal) as the endpoint.

References

  1. Luckey, T. D. Radiation Hormesis (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Stebbing, A. R. D. Mutat. Res. 403, 249–258 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. Hum. Exper. Toxicol. 19, 2–31 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. Toxicol. Sci. 71, 246–250 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. (eds) Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 31, 349–669 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Callahan, B. G., Gaylor, D. & Stanek, E. J. (eds) Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 7, 779–942 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Renn, O. Hum Exper. Toxicol. 17, 431–438 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our work is sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Our views do not necessarily represent those of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research or the US Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calabrese, E., Baldwin, L. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 421, 691–692 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/421691a

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/421691a

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation