False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.

In reviewing a video series that they created for the website of the Health Physics Society (HPS), past leaders of the Health Physics Society have treated as authoritative and trustworthy the scientific misconduct theories of University of Massachusetts Professor Edward Calabrese. No mention is made of detailed critiques of Calabrese's work. I show that Calabrese's historical work as presented by HPS's authors is unreliable because it overlooks key historical text and key statistical concepts about the limits of an early atomic bomb genetics study. When these errors are corrected, claims of scientific misconduct on the part of historical figures evaporate. Claims of threshold behavior in early radiation genetic experiments are wrong for atomic bomb data. Calabrese's unique claims about thresholds in early animal genetic data are not credible for human cancer, given the doses at which they were carried out (>30 R). Recent epidemiological studies of both acute and protracted exposure in humans fail to show dose-rate effects or a dose threshold above 30 R. Such results from human data should be more relevant for most regulators and review committees than Calabrese's claims about old data on animals. Disclaimers, errata, and links to critiques should be added to the HPS webpage hosting the 22-part video series. Failure to do so can cause damage to reputations and historical accuracy because it erroneously validates Calabrese's inflammatory claims of scientific misconduct against past scientists, including three Nobel Prize winners, members of the NAS, and presidents of the AAAS.