Skip to main content
Log in

Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture

  • Guest Editorial
  • Published:
Archives of Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose–response for ionizing radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was ‘‘no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold’’. However, a newly discovered commentary by the Robert L. Brent (2015) indicated that Curt Stern, after reading a draft of part of Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture, called Muller, strongly advising him to remove reference to the flawed linear non-threshold (LNT)-supportive Ray-Chaudhuri findings and strongly encouraged him to be guided by the threshold supportive data of Ernst Caspari. Brent indicated that Stern recounted this experience during a genetics class at the University of Rochester. Brent wrote that Muller refused to follow Stern’s advice, thereby proclaiming support for the LNT dose–response while withholding evidence that was contrary during his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture gained considerable international attention and was a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model for radiation and chemical hereditary and carcinogen risk assessment.

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.

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Baskin P (2011) Seeing value in poisons, a toxicologist takes on a late laureate. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 2.

  • Brent RL (2015) Protection of the gametes embryo/fetus from prenatal radiation exposure. Health Phys 108:242–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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 Mut 52:595–606

    Article  CAS  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 (2013a) Origin of the linearity-no threshold (LNT) dose response concept. Arch Toxicol 87(9):1621–1633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2013b) How the U.S. National Academy of Sciences mislead 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 (2015) On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res 142:432–442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2017) Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: an historical assessment. Environ Res 158:773–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2019) The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations. Chem-Biol Interact 301(SI):6–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2022a) Key historical study findings questioned in debate over threshold versus linear non-threshold for cancer risk assessment. Chemico-Biol Interact 359:109917

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2022b) Linear non-threshold (LNT) fails numerous toxicological stress tests: implications for continued policy use. Chemico-Biol Interact 365:110064

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2023) Thresholds for radiation induced mutation? The Muller-Evans debate: a turning point for cancer risk assessment. Chemico-Biol Interact 382:110614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ, Selby PB (2022) Cover up and cancer risk assessment: prominent US scientists suppressed evidence to promote adoption of LNT. Environ Res 2010:112973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ, Agathokleous E, Giordano J, Selby PB (2023) Manhattan project genetic studies: Flawed research discredits LNT recommendations. Environ Poll 319:120902

    Article  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Crock M (2011) Attack on radiation geneticists trigger furor. Science, October 11, https://www.science.org/content/article/attack-radiation-geneticists-triggers-furor#:~:text=In%20two%20recent%20papers%2C%20Calabrese,Nobel%20acceptance%20speech%20in%20Stockholm.

  • Muller HJ (1930) Radiation and genetics. Am Nat 64:220–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1946) Nobel Prize Lecture. Stockholm, Sweden

    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 (1954) The manner of production of mutations by radiation. In: Hollaender A (ed) Radiation biology, vol 1. Mac Graw Hill, New York, pp 475–626 (Chapter, 8)

    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 Royal Soc Edinburgh 62:66–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby PB, Calabrese EJ (2023) How self-interest and deception led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold dose response (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment. Sci Tot Environ xx:165402

    Article  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stern C (1948) Letter to E. Novitski. American Philosophical Society, Stern Files, March 19

Download references

Acknowledgements

EJC acknowledges longtime support from the US Air Force (AFOSR FA9550-19-1-0413) and ExxonMobil Foundation (S18200000000256). The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing policies or endorsement, either expressed or implied. Sponsors had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and decision to and where to submit for publication consideration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward J. Calabrese.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calabrese, E.J. Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture. Arch Toxicol 97, 2999–3003 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03566-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03566-5

Keywords

Navigation