• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

癌症风险评估基础遭瓦解:新的历史证据显示,美国国家科学院(US NAS)、原子辐射生物效应(BEAR)委员会遗传学小组伪造研究记录以促使线性无阈模型(LNT)被接受。

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.

作者信息

Calabrese Edward J

机构信息

Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I, N344, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA,

出版信息

Arch Toxicol. 2015 Apr;89(4):649-50. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1455-3. Epub 2015 Jan 20.

DOI:10.1007/s00204-015-1455-3
PMID:25600588
Abstract

The NAS Genetics Panel (1956) recommended a switch from a threshold to a linear dose response for radiation risk assessment. To support this recommendation, geneticists on the panel provided individual estimates of the number of children in subsequent generations (one to ten) that would be adversely affected due to transgenerational reproductive cell mutations. It was hoped that there would be close agreement among the individual risk estimates. However, extremely large ranges of variability and uncertainty characterized the wildly divergent expert estimates. The panel members believed that sharing these estimates with the scientific community and general public would strongly undercut their linearity recommendation, as it would have only highlighted their own substantial uncertainties. Essentially, their technical report in the journal Science omitted and misrepresented key adverse reproductive findings in an effort to ensure support for their linearity recommendation. These omissions and misrepresentations not only belie the notion of an impartial and independent appraisal by the NAS Panel, but also amount to falsification and fabrication of the research record at the highest possible level, leading ultimately to the adoption of LNT by governments worldwide. Based on previously unexamined correspondence among panel members and Genetics Panel meeting transcripts, this paper provides the first documentation of these historical developments.

摘要

美国国家科学院遗传学小组(1956年)建议在辐射风险评估中从阈值剂量反应转变为线性剂量反应。为支持这一建议,该小组的遗传学家提供了对后代(一到十代)中因跨代生殖细胞突变而受到不利影响的儿童数量的个人估计。人们希望个人风险估计之间能有密切的一致性。然而,极大的变异性和不确定性范围是专家们差异极大的估计的特征。小组成员认为,与科学界和公众分享这些估计会严重削弱他们的线性建议,因为这只会突出他们自己的重大不确定性。本质上,他们发表在《科学》杂志上的技术报告省略并歪曲了关键的不良生殖研究结果,以努力确保对其线性建议的支持。这些遗漏和歪曲不仅掩盖了美国国家科学院小组公正独立评估的概念,而且相当于在尽可能高的层面上伪造和编造研究记录,最终导致全球各国政府采用线性无阈模型。基于此前未审查的小组成员之间的通信和遗传学小组会议记录,本文首次记录了这些历史发展情况。

相似文献

1
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.癌症风险评估基础遭瓦解:新的历史证据显示,美国国家科学院(US NAS)、原子辐射生物效应(BEAR)委员会遗传学小组伪造研究记录以促使线性无阈模型(LNT)被接受。
Arch Toxicol. 2015 Apr;89(4):649-50. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1455-3. Epub 2015 Jan 20.
2
An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment.风险评估的滥用:监管机构如何不当采用线性无阈模型进行癌症风险评估。
Arch Toxicol. 2015 Apr;89(4):647-8. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1454-4. Epub 2015 Jan 18.
3
On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.线性无阈值(LNT)教条的起源是通过谎言、巧妙回避和盲目信仰。
Environ Res. 2015 Oct;142:432-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 4.
4
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.美国国家科学院生物效应评估委员会第一委员会遗传学小组(1956年):书信证据表明,自身利益可能促使人们夸大辐射风险,从而导致采用了线性无阈癌症风险评估模型。
Arch Toxicol. 2014 Sep;88(9):1631-4. doi: 10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7. Epub 2014 Jul 4.
5
EPA adopts LNT: New historical perspectives.EPA 采用 LNT:新的历史视角。
Chem Biol Interact. 2019 Aug 1;308:110-112. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2019.05.027. Epub 2019 May 17.
6
From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment.从 Muller 到机制:LNT 如何成为癌症风险评估的默认模型。
Environ Pollut. 2018 Oct;241:289-302. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.051. Epub 2018 May 22.
7
Ethical failings: The problematic history of cancer risk assessment.伦理缺陷:癌症风险评估的问题历史。
Environ Res. 2021 Feb;193:110582. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110582. Epub 2020 Dec 5.
8
LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: Where LNT began.线性无阈模型(LNT)与癌症风险评估:其有缺陷的基础 1:辐射与白血病:LNT 的起源。
Environ Res. 2021 Jun;197:111025. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
9
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.美国国家科学院如何误导世界社会对癌症风险评估:新发现挑战线性剂量反应的历史基础。
Arch Toxicol. 2013 Dec;87(12):2063-81. doi: 10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6. Epub 2013 Aug 4.
10
LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment.线性无阈模型之殇:美国国家科学院的科研不端行为如何导致各国政府采用线性无阈模型进行癌症风险评估
Environ Res. 2016 Jul;148:535-546. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.040. Epub 2016 Apr 28.

引用本文的文献

1
It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.是时候超越低剂量辐射防护的线性无阈理论了。
Dose Response. 2018 Jul 1;16(3):1559325818779651. doi: 10.1177/1559325818779651. eCollection 2018 Jul-Sep.
2
Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.心血管成像中的放射生物学
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;9(12):1446-1461. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.09.012.
3
Model Uncertainty via the Integration of Hormesis and LNT as the Default in Cancer Risk Assessment.通过整合毒物兴奋效应和线性无阈模型将模型不确定性作为癌症风险评估的默认方法。
Dose Response. 2015 Dec 10;13(4):1559325815621764. doi: 10.1177/1559325815621764. eCollection 2015 Oct-Dec.
4
Commentary on Inhaled (239)PUO2 in Dogs - A Prophylaxis Against Lung Cancer?关于犬吸入(239)钚二氧化物的评论——对肺癌的预防作用?
Dose Response. 2015 May 4;13(1). doi: 10.2203/dose-response.15-003.Cuttler. eCollection 2015 Jan-Mar.