Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

Abstract

This paper extends several recent publications indicating that Hermann J. Muller: (1) Made deceptive statements during his Noble Prize Lecture on December 12, 1946, that were intended to promote the acceptance of the linear dose-response model for risk assessment for ionizing radiation and (2) that such actions of Muller were masked by a series of decisions by Muller’s long-time colleague and esteemed radiation geneticist Curt Stern, affecting key publications in the mutation literature. Such actions further enhanced acceptance of the linearity dose-response model while preventing Muller’s deceptions from being discovered. This paper provides documentation that Muller reinforced such practices within the scientific literature in the early 1950s, by supporting scientifically questionable actions of Stern. Detailed documentation is provided that demonstrates how these actions affected national and international risk assessment policy for ionizing radiation and chemical carcinogens via the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation committee in 1956, to adopt the linear dose-response model.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • American Philosophical Society (1946) Muller letter to Stern. Stern Papers, Muller File—Box 16, 12 Nov

  • American Philosophical Society (1947a) Stern letter to Muller, 22 Jan 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947b) Stern letter to Muller, 23 July 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947c) Stern letter to Muller (cable), 7 Aug 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947d) Muller letter to Stern, 8 Aug 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947e) Stern letter to Muller, 9 Sept 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947f) Caspari letter to Stern. Stern Papers, 25 Sept 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1947g) Caspari letter to Stern. Stern Papers, Box 21, 7 Oct

  • American Philosophical Society (Undated) Stern letter to Caspari, July-Aug 1947

  • American Philosophical Society (1949) Stern letter to Caspari. Stern Papers, 9 Feb 1949

  • American Philosophical Society (1973) A geneticists’ journey, pp 1–19, Stern Nov 1973

  • Barron ESG (1954) The effect of x rays on systems of biological importance. In: Hollaender A (ed) Radiation biology, volume I: high energy radiation, chapter 5. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 283–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Beadle GW (1959) Ionizing radiation and the citizen. Sci Am 201:219–232

    Google Scholar 

  • BEAR I (1956) Genetic effects of atomic radiation. Science 124:1157–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnier G, Lüning HG (1949) Studies of X-ray mutations in the white and forked loci of Drosophila melanogaster. I. A Statistical analysis of mutation frequencies. Hereditas 35:116–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnier G, Lüning HG, Perje AM (1949) Studies of X-ray mutations on the white and forked loci of Drosophila melanogaster. II. A study of the formation of Gynandromphs and other kinds of mosaics. Hereditas 35:301–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers L (1954) Thermal effects on the spontaneous mutation rate in mature spermatozoa of Drosophila melanogaster. Caryologia Suppl 1(6):694–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers L, Muller HJ (1952) Influence of ageing at two different temperatures on the spontaneous mutation rate in mature spermatozoa of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 37(5):570–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2009) The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 83:203–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2011a) Toxicology rewrites its history and rethinks its future: giving equal focus to both harmful and beneficial effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 30(12):2658–2673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caspari E, Stern C (1948) The influence of chronic irradiation with gamma rays at low dosages on the mutation rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 33:75–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Catcheside DG (1950) Radiations and genetics. Practitioner 165(990):590–593

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crow JF (1957a) Testimony—Statement of Dr. James F. Crow, Professor of Genetics and Zoology, University of Wisconsin. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. 85th Congress, 1st session, part 1. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC

  • Crow JF (1957b) Genetic considerations in establishing maximum radiation doses. Radiology 69(1):18–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crow JF (1995) Quarreling geneticists and a diplomat. Genetics 140:421–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Demerec M, Fano U (1944) Frequency of dominant lethal induced by radiation in sperms of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 29:348–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erk FC (2009) Biographical memoirs. H. Bentley Glass. Proc Am Philos Soc 153(3):327–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans RD (1949) Quantitative inferences concerning the genetic effects of radiation on human beings. Science 109:299–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giles N (1940) Spontaneous chromosome aberrations in Tradescantia. Genetics 25:69–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glass B (1957a) Testimony—Statement of Dr. Bentley Glass, Professor of Biology, the Johns Hopkins University. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. 85th Congress, 1st session, part 1. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC

  • Glass B (1957b) The genetic basis for the limitation of radiation exposure. Am J Roentgen Radium Ther Nucl Med 78(6):955–960

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksmann A (1950) Cytological aspects of protection from ionizing radiations. Br J Radiol 23(265):41–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graf U (1972) Spontaneous mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Humangen Hum Genet 16(1):27–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haas Fl, Clark JB, Wyss O, Stone WS (1950) Mutations and mutagenic agents in bacteria. Am Nat 84(817):261–274

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin JD (2007) A dispassionate and objective effort: negotiating the first study on the biological effects of atomic radiation. J Hist Biol 40(1):147–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson FB, Heys F (1929) An analysis of the effects of the different rays of radium in producing lethal mutations in Drosophila. Am Nat 63:201–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins E (1951) Atomic radiation hazards for fish. J Wildl Manag 15(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollaender A, Stapleton GE (1959) Ionizing radiation and the living cell. Sci Am 201(3):94–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1957) 85th Congress, 1st session. Summary-analysis of hearings 27–29 May, and 3–7 June, 1957 on the nature of radioactive fallout and its effect on man. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC, Aug 1957

  • Jolly JC (2004) Thresholds of uncertainty: radiation and responsibility in the fallout controversy. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis

  • Kaufmann BP (1947) Spontaneous mutation rate in Drosophila. Am Nat 81:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelner A, Bellamy WD, Stapleton GE, Zelle MR (1955) Symposium on radiation effects on cells and bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 19:22–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre G Jr (1950) X-ray induced genetic effects in germinal and somatic tissue of Drosophila Melanogaster. Am Nat 84(818):341–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis EB (1957) Leukemia and ionizing radiation. Science 125(3255):965–972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly Library (1938a) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Stern letter to Demerec, 21 Jan 1938

  • Lilly Library (1938b) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Demerec letter to Stern, 16 Mar 1938

  • Lilly Library (1938c) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Stern letter to Demerec, 31 Mar 1938

  • Lilly Library (1946) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Muller letter to Stern, 13 Sept 1946

  • Lilly Library (1947a) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Muller letter to Stern, 14 Jan 1947

  • Lilly Library (1947b) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Muller letter to Stern, 3 Feb 1947

  • Lilly Library (1947c) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Muller letter to Stern, 4 Aug 1947

  • Lilly Library (1949) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Muller letter to Stern, 5 Feb 1949

  • Lipshitz HD (2005) From fruit flies to fallout: Ed Lewis and his science. Dev Dyn 232:529–546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lüning KG (1954) Effect of oxygen on irradiated males and females of Drosophila. Hereditas 40(3–4):295–312

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKey J (1951) Neutron and x-ray experiments in barley. Hereditas 37(3):421–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1945) Age in relation to the frequency of spontaneous mutations in Drosophila. Yearb Am Philos Soc 150–153

  • Muller HJ (1946a) The production of mutations. Nobel Lecture, 1946. Nobleprize.org. http:www.nobelprize.org/nobel-prizes/medicine/laureates/1946

  • Muller HJ (1946b) Age in relation to the frequency of spontaneous mutations in Drosophila. In: Year book 1 Jan 1945, 31 Dec 1945. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, pp 150–153

  • Muller J (1947) The production of mutations. J Hered 38(9):259–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1948) Mutational prophylaxis. Bull N Y Acad Med 24(7):447–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1950a) Some present problems in the genetic effects of radiation. J Cell Comp Physiol 35(suppl 2):9–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1950b) Radiation damage to the genetic material. Am Sci 38(1):32–59, 126

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1952) Genetic effects of cosmic radiation. Chapter XVII. (Reprinted from Physics and Medicine of the Upper Atmosphere)

  • Muller HJ (1954a) The nature of the genetic effects produced by radiation. In: Hollaender A (ed) Radiation biology. Volume I: high energy radiation, chapter 7. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 351–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1954b) The manner of production of mutations by radiation. In: Hollaender A (ed) Radiation biology. Volume I: high energy radiation, chapter 8. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 475–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1956) How radiation changes the genetic constitution. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Volume 11, biological effects of radiation, held in Geneva Aug 1955. United Nations, New York, NY, pp 387–399

  • Muller HJ (1957a) How radiation changes the genetic constitution: congressional testimony [reprinted from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov 1955]

  • Muller HJ (1957b) Potential hazards of radiation—congressional testimony. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. 85th Congress, 1st session, part 1. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC

  • Muller HJ, Carlson E, Schalet A (1961) Mutation by alteration of the already existing gene. Genetics 46:213–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe B (1960) Genetic effects of ionizing radiation. Can J Biochem Physiol 38(3):330–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Norwood WD (1958) Common sense approach to the problem of genetic hazard due to diagnostic radiology. JAMA 167(16):1928–1935

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nybom N, Gustafsson A, Granhall I, Ehrenberg L (1956) The genetic effects of chronic-gamma irradiation in barley. Hereditas 42(1–2):74–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver CP (1930) The effect of varying the duration of x-ray treatment upon the frequency of mutation. Science 71:44–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver CP (1931) An analysis of the effect of varying the duration of x-ray treatment upon the frequency of mutations. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Texas. Austin, Texas

  • Rajewski BN, Timofeeff-Ressovsky NW (1939) Höhen-Strahlung und die Mutationsrate von Drosophila melanogaster. ZIAV 77:488–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray-Chaudhuri SP (1944) The validity of the Bunsen-Roscoe law in the production of mutations by radiation of extremely low intensity. Proc R Soc Edinb 62:66–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinehart RR (1969) Spontaneous sex-linked recessive lethal frequencies from aged and non-aged spermatozoa of Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat Res 7:417–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sankaranarayanan K, Wassom JS (2008) Reflections on the impact of advances in the assessment of genetic risks of exposure to ionizing radiation on international radiation protection recommendations between the mid-1950s and the present. Mutat Res 658:1–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sax K (1950) The cytological effects of low-intensity radiation. Science 112(2908):332–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton WR (1954a) The effect of chronic gamma radiation on endosperm mutations in maize. Genetics 39:587–603

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton WR (1954b) Radiation effect on living systems. J Hered 45:58–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow AH, Singleton WR (1953) The use of radiocobalt as a source of gamma rays and some effects of chronic irradiation on growing plants. Am Nat 87(832):29–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear FG (1958) Some biological aspects of experimental radiology. A historical review. Intern Rev Cytol 7:1–77

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern C (1950) Principles of human genetics. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern C (1960) Principles of human genetics, 2nd edn. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone RS (1952) The concept of a maximum permissible exposure. Radiology 58(5):639–661

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strömnaes O (1951) X-ray induced lethal mutations in several strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 37:533–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timoféeff-Ressovsky NW, Zimmer KG, Delbruck M (1935) Uber die Natur der Genmutation und der Genstruktur. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen:Mathematische-Physikalische Klass, Fachgruppe VI, Biologie 1(13):189–245

  • Uphoff DE, Stern C (1947) Influence of 24-hour gamma-ray irradiation at low dosage on the mutation rate in Drosophila. MDDC-1492, US Atomic Energy Commission, pp 1–6. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Available at http://www.hathitrust.org

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research on the topic of hormesis has 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 there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward J. Calabrese.

Appendix

Appendix

Stern–Muller temporal letter exchange concerning the aged-stored sperm control mutation rate (Source: Lilly Library, Stern–Muller correspondence)

Curt Stern wrote a letter to Hermann J. Muller on January 22, 1947 (American Philosophical Society 1947a), informing him that “At the present time it looks as if our new control data (probably the results of the first 3 months of the first Uphoff experiment; note that her first month’s reading was an especially low mutation rate of 0.005 %) for aged sperm are considerably below those of Caspari’s.” He then asked Muller to “send me your figures on rate of sex-linked lethal in sperm aged several weeks, (most desirably, if you have them, data on 3 weeks), in comparison to control data from non-aged sperm?”

On February 3, 1947 (Lilly Library 1947b, February 3), Muller answered by stating that “…. sperm of males which are about a week old and have been copulating freely (as in Caspari’s experiment) during that period have only about .07 or .08 % of lethal. Thus, the latter sperm, after 3 weeks, should contain something like .28 % of lethal.”

On July 23, 1947 (American Philosophical Society 1947b), Stern writes Muller again stating that “I have mislaid your letter of some months ago (February 3, 1947, letter) in which you gave me some details of your own on the mutation rate under various physiological conditions. May I therefore ask you two questions and will you permit me to use your answers in a report which I am just preparing for the Manhattan Project? Obviously, full credit for it would be given. The questions are: (1) What is the spontaneous mutation rate in sperm derived from Canton-special males of from 3- to 6 days old? (2) What is the weekly increase in mutation rate of sperm from such males stored in females?”

On August 4, 1947 (Lilly Library 1947c), Muller responds “When sperm were stored in females, there was a weekly increase in the mutation frequency of about 0.07 %, on the average.” On August 7, 1947 (American Philosophical Society 1947c), Stern cabled Muller asking him the temperature used and on August 8, 1947 (American Philosophical Society 1947d), Muller answered via cable indicating “25 °C.” A subsequent undated letter, but most likely prior to September 9, 1947 (American Philosophical Society 1947e), Muller noted “A recalculation of my data gives the figure of 0.08 % instead of 0.07 % as the frequency of lethal accumulating in mature sperm per week.” Since Uphoff and Stern (1947) did not include this correction in their report to the AEC it suggests that this undated letter was received after submittal of their report to the AEC.

The control value therefore used by Uphoff and Stern (1947) of 0.07 % for the estimated mutation rate of the sperm stored in the spermatheca was based on the earlier letter correspondence-supplied estimates of Muller (Lilly Library 1947b, c, February 3 and August 4) which Muller later clarified as being slightly in error.

The Caspari and Uphoff studies used Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, breeding Canton-wild-type (S) males with Muller-5 females. Muller claimed (Lilly Library 1947c, August 4) that he never conducted mutation experiments with aged males of the Canton-wild-type stock. Muller stated that he had tested the aged sperm mutation frequency in “a number of different stocks (of Drosophila males) without finding any difference.” The rate of increase on a weekly basis was said to be 0.07 % on average. This value of 0.07 % is believed to be prior to the correction to 0.08 %. This suggests that Muller did not observe significant inter-stock variation in mutation rates of the stored sperm.

Stern seems to have completed his Uphoff and Stern (1947) paper for the Manhattan Project during August, 1947. Stern knew that Uphoff’s mean mutation frequency was 0.1682 % (0.1365–0.2097 %). This suggests a weekly mean increase in mutation rate of 0.0227 % (0.0122–0.0366 %), far lower than the 0.07 or 0.08 % mean weekly increase in Muller. When Stern wrote to Muller on September 9, 1947, he stated that for the Canton-special stock “…the weekly increase is considerably less than that found by you and others. It seems to be much more of the order of 0.03–0.05.” This September 9, 1947, letter was written probably just after the submission of the Uphoff and Stern (1947) paper to the AEC, and definitely before the submission of the Caspari and Stern (1948) paper for publication by Genetics (i.e., November 25, 1947). Thus, the judgments of Uphoff and Stern that found that Uphoff’s data were “uninterpretable” and that supported the reliability of the Caspari control data were made with the information provided by Muller during the summer of 1947. The apparent argument that Stern seems to be suggesting in his September 9, 1947, letter to Muller is that the Canton-wild-type stored sperm in the female may yield uniquely lower control mutation values. The argument is tenuous as the far higher weekly rate was consistently shown by multiple investigators, and with multiple Drosophila stocks, only being low in two Uphoff experiments. In fact, significant inter-strain differences on the frequency of dominant lethal mutations as induced by radiation were not reported in various Drosophila strains, including the Canton-special wild-type strain (Demerec and Fano 1944; Strömnaes 1951). This suggestion by Stern was not included in the Uphoff and Stern (1947) report.

This letter exchange between Stern and Muller fails to provide support for the later statements of Muller that Caspari’s control group was unusually high. The Muller data and statements also do not provide support for the conclusion that the low Uphoff control data were in a normal range. None of this information was provided by Stern in his Science publication to permit the scientific community to better evaluate the Uphoff and Caspari control group data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calabrese, E.J. 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, 2063–2081 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6

Keywords

Navigation