LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment.

This paper provides a detailed rebuttal to the letter of Beyea (2016) which offered a series of alternative interpretations to those offered in my article in Environmental Research (Calabrese, 2015a) concerning the role of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Committee Genetics Panel in the adoption of the linear dose response model for cancer risk assessment. Significant newly uncovered evidence is presented which supports and extends the findings of Calabrese (2015a), reaffirming the conclusion that the Genetics Panel should be evaluated for scientific misconduct for deliberate misrepresentation of the research record in order to enhance an ideological agenda. This critique documents numerous factual errors along with extensive and deliberate filtering of information in the Beyea letter (2016) that leads to consistently incorrect conclusions and an invalid general perspective.

[1]  E. Calabrese.  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 , 2013, Archives of Toxicology.

[2]  H. Muller,et al.  Some present problems in the genetic effects of radiation. , 1950, Journal of cellular physiology. Supplement.

[3]  E. Calabrese.  On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. , 2015, Environmental research.

[4]  P. Ebbesen,et al.  TGF-B3 Dependent Modification of Radiosensitivity in Reporter Cells Exposed to Serum From Whole-Body Low Dose-Rate Irradiated Mice , 2015, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[5]  W. R. Singleton,et al.  The Use of Radiocobalt as a Source of Gamma Rays and Some Effects of Chronic Irradiation on Growing Plants , 1953, The American Naturalist.

[6]  E. Calabrese.  An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[7]  Richard D. Thomas.  Drinking Water and Health , 1986 .

[8]  M. Lyon,et al.  Induction of mutations in mice by chronic gamma irradiation; interim report. , 1956, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  J. Drake.  Environmental mutagenesis: evolving strategies in the USA. , 1975, Mutation research.

[10]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept , 2013, Archives of Toxicology.

[11]  E. Calabrese.  Hormetic mechanisms , 2013, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[12]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Model Uncertainty via the Integration of Hormesis and LNT as the Default in Cancer Risk Assessment , 2015, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[13]  J. Beyea.  Response to, "On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.". , 2016, Environmental research.

[14]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment , 2009, Archives of Toxicology.

[15]  Edward J. Calabrese.  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 , 2014, Archives of Toxicology.

[16]  K. Arrow,et al.  Nuclear power issues and choices , 1977 .

[17]  E. Caspari,et al.  The Influence of Chronic Irradiation with Gamma-Rays at Low Dosages on the Mutation Rate in DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. , 1948, Genetics.

[18]  Alfred Moore,et al.  Should We Aim for Consensus? , 2010, Episteme.

[19]  E. Calabrese.  An allegation of scientific misconduct in the Bucci et al. article concerning the effects of DIMP on mink. , 2005, Reproductive toxicology.

[20]  B. Glass.  The Rockefeller Foundation: Warren Weaver and the Launching of Molecular Biology , 1991, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[21]  E. Calabrese.  Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: New historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[22]  Environmental mutagenic hazards. , 1975, Science.

[23]  M. Parascandola.  A turning point for conflicts of interest: the controversy over the National Academy of Sciences' first conflicts of interest disclosure policy. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  J. Beatty.  Masking Disagreement among Experts , 2006 .

[25]  S. Abrahamson.  70 years of radiation genetics : Fruit flies, mice and humans : Lauriston Taylor lecture , 1996 .

[26]  A. Creager.  Radiation, cancer, and mutation in the atomic age , 2015 .

[27]  E. Calabrese.  Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned , 2011, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[28]  W. Russell.  Mutation frequencies in female mice and the estimation of genetic hazards of radiation in women. , 1977, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  E. Calabrese.  Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture: when ideology prevailed over science. , 2012, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[30]  H. Rossi.  Comments on the somatic effects section of the BEIR III report. , 1980, Radiation research.

[31]  Gilbert F. Whittemore.  The national committee on radiation protection, 1928-1960 : from professional guidelines to government regulation , 1986 .

[32]  H. Muller.  Radiation damage to the genetic material. , 1950, American scientist.

[33]  J. Fabrikant.  THE 1979 REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION (THE BEIR REPORT). THE EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF IONIZING RADIATION. IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY AND MEDICAL RADIATION , 1979 .

[34]  E. Calabrese.  Response to Letter of Ralph J Cicerone and Kevin 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.” [DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6, Review Article] , 2013, Archives of Toxicology.

[35]  C. Stern,et al.  Experiments to Test the Validity of the Linear R-Dose/Mutation Frequency Relation in Drosophila at Low Dosage. , 1948, Genetics.

[36]  W. Russell,et al.  Radiation Dose Rate and Mutation Frequency , 1958, Science.

[37]  E. Calabrese.  Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? , 2011, Archives of Toxicology.

[38]  J. Hamblin.  ‘A Dispassionate and Objective Effort:’ Negotiating the First Study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation , 2007, Journal of the history of biology.

[39]  D. Uphoff,et al.  The Genetic Effects of Low Intensity Irradiation. , 1948, Science.

[40]  R. H. Clarke,et al.  The History of ICRP and the Evolution of its Policies , 2009 .

[41]  N. Giles.  Spontaneous Chromosome Aberrations in Tradescantia. , 1940, Genetics.

[42]  E. Radford.  Human health effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: the BEIR III controversy. , 1980, Radiation research.

[43]  J. Fabrikant.  The BEIR III controversy. , 1980, Radiation research.

[44]  H. H. Plough.  The harmful genetic effects of radiation. , 1962, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[45]  R. Albert,et al.  Carcinogen risk assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. , 1994, Critical reviews in toxicology.