Calabrese Edward J
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Morrill I, N344, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Jun 6;13(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0060-5.
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.
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。
