• 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

相似文献

1
Was Muller's 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer-reviewed?穆勒1946年关于辐射诱发基因突变的诺贝尔奖研究经过同行评审了吗?
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Jun 6;13(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0060-5.
2
Muller's nobel prize research and peer review.穆勒的诺贝尔奖研究及同行评审。
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Oct 19;13(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0066-z.
3
How did Hermann Muller publish a paper absent any data in the journal Science? Ethical questions and implications of Muller's Nobel Prize.赫尔曼·穆勒是如何在《科学》杂志上发表一篇没有任何数据的论文的?穆勒诺贝尔奖的伦理问题和影响。
Chem Biol Interact. 2022 Dec 1;368:110204. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110204. Epub 2022 Oct 7.
4
Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture: when ideology prevailed over science.穆勒的诺贝尔奖演讲:当意识形态凌驾于科学之上。
Toxicol Sci. 2012 Mar;126(1):1-4. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr338. Epub 2011 Dec 13.
5
Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?穆勒的诺贝尔演讲:电离辐射的剂量反应——是意识形态还是科学?
Arch Toxicol. 2011 Dec;85(12):1495-8. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0728-8. Epub 2011 Jun 30.
6
Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture.确认赫尔曼·穆勒在诺贝尔奖演讲中不诚实。
Arch Toxicol. 2023 Nov;97(11):2999-3003. doi: 10.1007/s00204-023-03566-5. Epub 2023 Sep 4.
7
Muller and mutations: mouse study of George Snell (a postdoc of Muller) fails to confirm Muller's fruit fly findings, and Muller fails to cite Snell's findings.缪勒与突变:乔治·斯内尔(缪勒的博士后)的小鼠研究未能证实缪勒的果蝇研究结果,而缪勒也未能引用斯内尔的发现。
Arch Toxicol. 2024 Jun;98(6):1953-1963. doi: 10.1007/s00204-024-03718-1. Epub 2024 Apr 4.
8
Thresholds for radiation induced mutation? The Muller-Evans debate: A turning point for cancer risk assessment.辐射诱导突变的阈值?穆勒-埃文斯的辩论:癌症风险评估的转折点。
Chem Biol Interact. 2023 Sep 1;382:110614. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2023.110614. Epub 2023 Jun 23.
9
Muller's Nobel Prize data: Getting the dose wrong and its significance.米勒诺贝尔奖数据:剂量错误及其意义。
Environ Res. 2019 Sep;176:108528. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108528. Epub 2019 Jun 8.
10
Newly discovered letter: why Muller failed to cite the negative mouse mutation findings of Snell, preserving his chances to receive the Nobel Prize.新发现的信件:为何 Muller 未能引用 Snell 的阴性小鼠突变发现,从而保留了自己获得诺贝尔奖的机会。
Arch Toxicol. 2024 Aug;98(8):2739-2741. doi: 10.1007/s00204-024-03807-1. Epub 2024 Jun 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Questioning the Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Lessons From Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Fukushima.质疑线性无阈模型(LNT):来自广岛/长崎和福岛的教训。
Dose Response. 2025 Sep 6;23(3):15593258251367588. doi: 10.1177/15593258251367588. eCollection 2025 Jul-Sep.
2
The need for unbiased genetic screens to dissect aggression in .需要进行无偏倚的基因筛选来剖析……中的攻击性。 (原句不完整)
Front Behav Neurosci. 2022 Aug 1;16:901453. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.901453. eCollection 2022.
3
Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering.放射恐惧症过度反应:不列颠哥伦比亚省脊椎按摩师学院基于有缺陷的研究和辐射恐惧宣传撤销了全部X光检查权。
Dose Response. 2021 Aug 16;19(3):15593258211033142. doi: 10.1177/15593258211033142. eCollection 2021 Jul-Sep.
4
Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy.对辐射的恐惧、对医学参考文献的挪用以及对相关数据的忽视构成了反对在整脊疗法和手法治疗中使用常规和重复放射成像的错误立场。
Dose Response. 2021 Feb 11;19(1):1559325820984626. doi: 10.1177/1559325820984626. eCollection 2021 Jan-Mar.
5
X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays.X射线犹豫:患者对医用X射线的辐射恐惧症担忧
Dose Response. 2020 Sep 18;18(3):1559325820959542. doi: 10.1177/1559325820959542. eCollection 2020 Jul-Sep.
6
Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals.与未受辐射的个体相比,原子弹产生的低剂量辐射延长了寿命并降低了癌症死亡率。
Genes Environ. 2018 Dec 19;40:26. doi: 10.1186/s41021-018-0114-3. eCollection 2018.
7
Muller's nobel prize research and peer review.穆勒的诺贝尔奖研究及同行评审。
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Oct 19;13(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0066-z.

本文引用的文献

1
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.
2
Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: An historical assessment.LNT 单击模型在癌症风险评估中的缺陷:历史评估。
Environ Res. 2017 Oct;158:773-788. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
3
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate.阈值与线性无阈模型的对决:剂量率研究结果揭示了线性无阈模型的缺陷 第1部分。拉塞尔 - 穆勒辩论。
Environ Res. 2017 Apr;154:435-451. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.006. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
4
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.阈值与线性无阈模型的对决:剂量率研究结果揭示了线性无阈模型的缺陷 第2部分。一个错误是如何导致辐射效应研究委员会第一委员会采用线性无阈模型的。
Environ Res. 2017 Apr;154:452-458. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.024. Epub 2016 Dec 11.
5
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.
6
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.
7
The voice of American botanists: the founding and establishment of the American Journal of Botany, "American botany," and the Great War (1906-1935).美国植物学家的声音:《美国植物学杂志》、《美国植物学》的创立和建立,以及第一次世界大战(1906-1935 年)。
Am J Bot. 2014 Mar;101(3):389-97. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1300434. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
8
ARTIFICIAL TRANSMUTATION OF THE GENE.基因的人工嬗变
Science. 1927 Jul 22;66(1699):84-7. doi: 10.1126/science.66.1699.84.
9
A Cytological and Genetical Study of Triploid Maize.三倍体玉米的细胞学与遗传学研究
Genetics. 1929 Mar;14(2):180-222. doi: 10.1093/genetics/14.2.180.
10
The Production of Mutations by X-Rays.X射线诱发突变
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1928 Sep;14(9):714-26. doi: 10.1073/pnas.14.9.714.

穆勒1946年关于辐射诱发基因突变的诺贝尔奖研究经过同行评审了吗?

Was Muller's 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer-reviewed?

作者信息

Calabrese Edward J

机构信息

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

出版信息

Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Jun 6;13(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0060-5.

DOI:10.1186/s13010-018-0060-5
PMID:29875023
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5991452/
Abstract

This historical analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that the Nobel Prize winning research of Hermann J. Muller was peer-reviewed. The published paper of Muller lacked a research methods section, cited no references, and failed to acknowledge and discuss the work of Gager and Blakeslee (PNAS 13:75-79, 1927) that claimed to have induced gene mutation via ionizing radiation six months prior to Muller's non-data Science paper (Muller, Science 66(1699):84-87, 1927a). Despite being well acclimated into the scientific world of peer-review, Muller choose to avoid the peer-review process on his most significant publication. It appears that Muller's actions were strongly influenced by his desire to claim primacy for the discovery of gene mutation. The actions of Muller have important ethical lessons and implications today, when self-interest trumps one's obligations to society and the scientific culture that supports the quest for new knowledge and discovery.

摘要

这一历史分析表明,赫尔曼·J·穆勒获得诺贝尔奖的研究极不可能经过同行评审。穆勒发表的论文没有研究方法部分,未引用参考文献,也未承认和讨论盖格和布莱克斯利(《美国国家科学院院刊》13:75 - 79, 1927年)的工作,而后者声称在穆勒没有数据的《科学》论文(穆勒,《科学》66(1699):84 - 87, 1927a)发表六个月前就已通过电离辐射诱导基因突变。尽管穆勒很好地融入了同行评审的科学界,但他却选择在其最重要的出版物上避开同行评审过程。穆勒的行为似乎受到他渴望宣称自己是基因突变发现者的强烈影响。在当今自我利益凌驾于个人对社会以及支持新知识和新发现探索的科学文化的义务之上时,穆勒的行为具有重要的伦理教训和启示意义。