From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment

Muller misled the Pugwash Conference on radiation risks

The Pugwash Conferences have been a highly visible attempt to create profoundly important discussions on matters related to global safety and security at the highest levels, starting in 1957 at the height of the Cold War. This paper assesses, for the first time, the formal comments offered at this first Pugwash Conference by the Nobel Prize-winning radiation geneticist, Hermann J. Muller, on the effects of ionizing radiation on the human genome. This analysis shows that the presentation by Muller was highly biased and contained scientific errors and misrepresentations of the scientific record that resulted in seriously misleading the attendees. The presentation of Muller at Pugwash served to promote, on a very visible global scale, continued misrepresentations of the state of the science and had a significant impact on policies and practices internationally and both scientific and personal belief systems concerning the effects of low dose radiation on human health. These misrepresentations would come to affect the adoption and use of nuclear technologies and the science of radiological and chemical carcinogen health risk assessment, ultimately having a profound effect on global environmental health.

Hermann Muller and his LNT scientific and policy leadership: Private communication reveals uncertainties

The present paper highlights numerous publications of Hermann J. Muller with a focus on his opinions concerning the validity of the linear no-threshold dose response model for hereditary and cancer risk assessment. These comments reflect a very consistent and powerfully supporting position for the LNT model. However, newly discovered correspondence between Muller and Robley D. Evans reveals that Muller was highly uncertain about the supportive science, and therefore hid his real opinions, deliberately misleading the scientific community and governmental agencies. Of further historical value is that in the correspondence with Evans, Muller proposed what might be the first articulation of an environmentally based Precautionary Principle. These perspectives have remained unknown since Muller requested Evans to keep this letter private.

Are dental x-rays safe? Content analysis of English and Chinese YouTube videos

Objective

This study provided a content analysis of English and Chinese YouTube videos related to dental radiation safety.

Method

The search string, entered in English and Chinese respectively, was: (dental x-ray safe). The searches were performed and exported with Apify YouTube scraper. By screening the resultant videos and their related videos (as recommended by YouTube), a total of 89 videos were screened. Finally, 45 videos (36 English and nine Chinese) were included and analyzed. The specific information regarding dental radiation was evaluated. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials was used to assess understandability and actionability.

Results

There was no significant difference between the English and Chinese videos in terms of view count, like count, comment count, and video duration. Half of the videos explicitly reassured the audience that dental x-rays are safe. Two of the English videos specifically stated that dental x-rays do not cause cancers. Numerous analogies were made in regard to radiation dose, such as equivalence to taking a flight or eating some bananas. About 41.7% of the English videos and 33.3% of the Chinese videos mentioned that patients could be further protected from scatter radiation by wearing a lead apron and thyroid collar. Videos had a good understandability score (91.3) but a poor actionability score (0).

Conclusions

Some of the analogies and the claimed radiation dose were questionable. One Chinese video even wrongly stated that dental x-rays are nonionizing radiation. The videos generally did not mention their information sources or the underlying radiation protection principles.

Evolution frames the dose response for all endpoints including application to cancer risk assessment: Time for a mid-course correction

An underappreciated perspective is that the quantitative features of the dose-response in the low dose zone are a genetically based biological characteristic with a highly conserved evolutionary basis. Failure to recognize and take this into account has been a major failing of toxicology and radiation biology, affecting regulatory agencies worldwide. The present perspective clarifies the historical foundations of this misstep and calls for a mid- course correction that replaces the public health based Precautionary Principle for risk assessment with one based on the principles of evolutionary biology.

Ethical challenges of the linear non-threshold (LNT) cancer risk assessment revolution: History, insights, and lessons to be learned

This paper provides historical review and evaluation of the development, adoption, and advocacy of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model for cancer risk assessment as applied in practices and policies worldwide. It extends previous historical assessments and provides novel insights regarding: 1) how LNT bias became institutionalized in US governmental agencies, 2) how improper editorial practices at the journal Science promoted the adoption of LNT, 3) how a Nobel Prize winning scientist unjustifiably espoused and influenced support for replacing the threshold dose response model with the LNT model, 4) how the cover-up of striking and substantial experimental cancer data by US government scientists reduced support for the threshold dose response model at a critical period of cancer risk assessment policy adoption, and 5) how these events have negatively influenced cancer risk assessment practices and environmental and public health decisions for decades. These findings are presented to illustrate how profound and recognized mistakes, biases and unethical activities, inclusive of frank scientific misconduct, converged, and should motivate regulatory agencies worldwide to critically evaluate any existing policies that apply the LNT model as well as to serve as object lessons for current and future ethical conduct of research, and the provision of ethico-legal education in and across scientific curricula and institutions.

Cover up and cancer risk assessment: Prominent US scientists suppressed evidence to promote adoption of LNT

This paper reports that William Russell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), conducted a large-scale lifetime study from 1956 to 1959 showing that exposure of young adult male mice to a large dose of acute X-rays had no treatment effects on male and female offspring concerning longevity or the frequency, severity, or age distribution of neoplasms and other diseases. Despite the scientific, societal and crucial timing significance of the study, Russell did not publish the findings for almost 35 years, nor did he inform governmental advisory committees, thereby significantly biasing decisions made during this period which supported the adoption of LNT for risk assessment. Of further significance, Arthur Upton, an ORNL colleague of Russell during this study and later Director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), was also fully knowledgeable of this study, its findings and its negative impact on the acceptance of LNT. Upton later worked along with Russell to publish these data (i.e., Cosgrove et al., 1993) to dispute the case-specific claim that children developed cancer because of the radiation exposure of their fathers as workers at the Sellafield nuclear plant. Thus, while Russell's data were available, but were not used to challenge the key radiation and leukemia paper of Edward B. Lewis, (1957) when LNT was being adopted by regulatory agencies, they were used in a major trial in the United Kingdom (UK) for the client (i.e., British Nuclear Fuels Plc) that hired Upton. While the duplicity of Russell's and Upton's actions is striking, the key finding of the present paper is that Russell and Upton intentionally orchestrated and sustained an LNT cover up during the key period of LNT adoption by regulatory agencies, thereby showing an overwhelming bias to enhance the adoption of LNT.

Transcriptomic profiling reveals gene expression in human peripheral blood after exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation

Although the health effects of exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation have been the focus of many studies, the affected biological functions and underlying regulatory mechanisms are not well-understood. In particular, the influence of radiation exposure at doses of less than 200 mGy on the regulation of genes and pathways remains unclear. To investigate the molecular alterations induced by varying doses of low-dose radiation (LDR), transcriptomic analysis was conducted based on ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing following exposure to 50 and 150 mGy doses. Human peripheral blood was collected, and the samples were divided into three groups, including two treatments and one control (no radiation). A total of 876 (318 upregulated and 558 downregulated) and 486 (202 upregulated and 284 downregulated) differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified after exposure to 50 mGy and 150 mGy, respectively. Most upregulated genes in both the 50 mGy and 150 mGy groups were associated with 'antigen processing and presentation,' which appeared to be the major targets affected by LDR exposure. Several interacting genes, including HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQA2, HLA-DQB2, HLA-DRB1, and HLA-DRB5 were mapped to 'antigen processing and presentation,' 'immune system-related diseases' and the 'cytokine-mediated signaling pathway,' suggesting that these genes might drive the downstream transmission of these signal transduction pathways. Our results suggest that exposure to LDR may elicit changes in key genes and associated pathways, probably helping further explore the biological processes and molecular mechanism responsible for low-dose occupational or environmental exposures in humans.

Radiography and Clinical Decision-Making in Chiropractic

The concern over x-ray exposure risks can overshadow the potential benefit of radiography, especially in cases where manual therapy is employed. Spinal malalignment cannot be accurately visualized without imaging. Manual therapy and the load tolerances of injured spinal tissues raise different criteria for the use of x-rays for spinal disorders than in medical practice. Current regulatory bodies rely on radiography risk assessments based on Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) risk models. There is a need to consider radiography guidelines for chiropractic which are different from those for medical practice. Radiography practice guidelines are summaries dominated by frequentist interpretations in the analysis of data from studies. In contrast, clinicians often employ a pseudo-Bayesian form of reasoning during the clinical decision-making process. The overrepresentation of frequentist perspectives in evidence-based practice guidelines alter decision-making away from practical assessment of a patient's needs, toward an overly cautious standard applied to patients without regard to their risk/benefit likelihoods relating to radiography. Guidelines for radiography in chiropractic to fully assess the condition of the spine and spinal alignment prior to manual therapy, especially with high velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM), should necessarily differ from those used in medical practice.

Low dose ionizing radiation and the immune response: what is the role of non-targeted effects?

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to trace the historical narrative surrounding the low dose effects of radiation on the immune system and how our understanding has changed from the beginning of the 20th century to now. The particular focus is on the non-targeted effects (NTEs) of low dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) which are effects that occur when irradiated cells emit signals that cause effects in the nearby or distant non-irradiated cells known as radiation induced bystander effect (RIBE). Moreover, radiation induced genomic instability (RIGI) and abscopal effect (AE) also regarded as NTE. This was prompted by our recent discovery that ultraviolet A (UVA) photons are emitted by the irradiated cells and that these photons can trigger NTE such as the RIBE in unirradiated recipients of these photons. Given the well-known association between UV radiation and the immune response, where these biophotons may pose as bystander signals potentiating processes in deep tissues as a consequence of LDIR, it is timely to review the field with a fresh lens. Various pathways and immune components that contribute to the beneficial and adverse types of modulation induced by LDR will also be revisited.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence for LDIR induced immune effects by way of a non-targeted mechanism in biological tissue. The literature examining low to medium dose effects of ionizing radiation on the immune system and its components is complex and controversial. Early work was compromised by lack of good dosimetry while later work mainly looks at the involvement of immune response in radiotherapy. There is a lack of research in the LDIR/NTE field focusing on immune response although bone marrow stem cells and lineages were critical in the identification and characterization of NTE where effects like RIGI and RIBE were heavily researched. This may be in part, a result of the difficulty of isolating NTE in whole organisms which are essential for good immune response studies. Models involving inter organism transmission of NTE are a promising route to overcome these issues.

Le cancer radio-induit, le kangourou, et le petit lapin. Ou « la déclinaison radiobiologique du mythe de la Licorne Rose »

La relation linéaire sans seuil (RLSS), devenue un véritable dogme, conduit à affirmer l’existence de la nocivité des faibles doses de rayonnements ionisants faute de pouvoir démontrer leur innocuité. Il semble important de comprendre comment on en est arrivé à rendre dogmatique une non-théorie scientifique. Nous nous proposons dans cet article, après avoir montré combien la RLSS relève du mythe et non d’une approche scientifique, d’en exposer les origines et la genèse, indispensables à la compréhension de son actuel caractère de soi-disant vérité incontestable, puis d’illustrer les conséquences pratiques et épistémologiques préoccupantes que cette référence à la RLSS entraîne. Nous nous appuyons pour cela sur l’analyse critique de quelques-unes des études épidémiologiques qui prétendent la démontrer ou la confirmer.

The Muller-Neel dispute and the fate of cancer risk assessment

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) human genetic study (i.e., The Neel and Schull, 1956a report) showed an absence of genetic damage in offspring of atomic bomb survivors in support of a threshold model, but was not considered for evaluation by the NAS Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel. The study therefore could not impact the Panel's decision to recommend the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose-response model for risk assessment. Summaries and transcripts of the Panel meetings failed to reveal an evaluation of this study, despite its human relevance and ready availability, relying instead on data from Drosophila and mice. This paper explores correspondence among and between BEAR Genetics Panel members, including James Néel, the study director, and other contemporaries to assess why the Panel failed to use these data and how the decision to recommend the LNT model affected future cancer risk assessment policies and practices. This failure of the Genetics Panel was due to: (1) a strongly unified belief in the LNT model among panel members and their refusal to acknowledge that a low dose of radiation could exhibit a threshold, a conclusion that the Néel/Schull atomicbomb study could support, and (2) an excessive degree of self-interest among panel members who experimented with animal models, such as Hermann J. Muller, and feared that human genetic studies would expose the limitations of extrapolating from animal (especially Drosophila) to human responses and would strongly shift research investments/academic grants from animal to human studies. Thus, the failure to consider the Néel/Schull atomic bomb study served both the purposes of preserving the LNT policy goal and ensuring the continued dominance of Muller and his similarly research-oriented colleagues.

The downfall of the linear non-threshold model

The linear non-threshold model (LNTM) is a theoretical dose-response function as a result of extrapolating the late effects of high-dose exposure to ionizing radiation to the low-dose range, but there is great uncertainty about its validity. The acceptance of LNTM as the dominant probabilistic model have survived to the present day and it is actually the cornerstone of current radiation protection policies. In the last decades, advances in molecular and evolutive biology, cancer immunology, and many epidemiological and animal studies have cast serious doubts about the reliability of the NLTM, as well as suggesting alternative models, like the hormetic theory. Considering the given evidences, a discussion between the involved scientific societies and the regulatory commissions is promtly required in order to to reach a redefiniton of theradiation protection basis, as it would be specially crucial in the medical field.

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body's adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician-not radiophobia.

Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

A global environmental health perspective and optimisation of stress

The phrase "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger" suggests the possibility that living systems have evolved a spectrum of adaptive mechanisms resulting in a biological stress response strategy that enhances resilience in a targeted quantifiable manner for amplitude and duration. If so, what are its evolutionary foundations and impact on biological diversity? Substantial research demonstrates that numerous agents enhance biological performance and resilience at low doses in a manner described by the hormetic dose response, being inhibitory and/or harmful at higher doses. This Review assesses how environmental changes impact the spectrum and intensity of biological stresses, how they affect health, and how such knowledge may improve strategies in confronting global environmental change.

Quantification of DNA Double Strand Breaks and Oxidation Response in Children and Adults Undergoing Dental CBCT Scan

Assessing the possible biological effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation (IR) is one of the prime challenges in radiation protection, especially in medical imaging. Today, radiobiological data on cone beam CT (CBCT) related biological effects are scarce. In children and adults, the induction of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in buccal mucosa cells and 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG) and antioxidant capacity in saliva samples after CBCT examination were examined. No DNA DSBs induction was observed in children nor adults. In children only, an increase in 8-oxo-dG levels was observed 30 minutes after CBCT. At the same time an increase in antioxidant capacity was observed in children, whereas a decrease was observed in adults. Our data indicate that children and adults react differently to IR doses associated with CBCT. Fully understanding these differences could lead to an optimal use of CBCT in different age categories as well as improved radiation protection guidelines.

Two decades (1998-2018) of research Progress on Hormesis: advancing biological understanding and enabling novel applications

This commentary briefly summarizes the extraordinary resurgence of hormesis within the biological, biomedical, toxicological and risk assessment domains over the past two decades. It places this resurgence within the context of challenging the scientific validity of the threshold and linear dose responses. It argues that conducting research on mechanisms that actuate and regulate the stimulatory response features of hormesis will provide the knowledge needed to develop potentially transformational applications aimed at protecting and enhancing biological resiliency as well as treating/curing a multitude of diverse medical conditions.

Hormesis: A Compelling Platform for Sophisticated Plant Science

The field of dose-response has received attention from the early modern period in the history of science. While it was thought that linear dose-response is the rule of thumb, significant efforts revealed that biphasic dose-response commonly occurs when the experimental design permits its detection. This phenomenon is called hormesis and suggests that a basal stress level is needed for optimum health. Extensive evidence has accumulated showing the occurrence of hormesis in numerous plant species and the induction of adaptive responses by low stress doses that precondition plants for a following massive environmental challenge. However, the ecological consequences of low-level stress remain underexplored. In this Opinion article, we propose that hormesis can provide a compelling platform for sophisticated, next-generation plant science.

Commentary: EPA's proposed expansion of dose-response analysis is a positive step towards improving its ecological risk assessment

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has recently proposed changes to strengthen the transparency of its pivotal regulatory science policy and procedures. In this context, the US EPA aims to enhance the transparency of dose-response data and models, proposing to consider for the first time non-linear biphasic dose-response models. While the proposed changes have the potential to lead to markedly improved ecological risk assessment compared to past and current approaches, we believe there remain open issues for improving the quality of ecological risk assessment, such as the consideration of adaptive, dynamic and interactive effects. Improved risk assessment including adaptive and dynamic non-linear models (beyond classic threshold models) can enhance the quality of regulatory decisions and the protection of ecological health. We suggest that other countries consider adopting a similar scientific-regulatory posture with respect to dose-response modeling via the inclusion of non-linear biphasic models, that incorporate the dynamic potential of biological systems to adapt (i.e., enhancing positive biological endpoints) or maladapt to low levels of stressor agents.

Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new paradigms and modern molecular studies

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is currently used to estimate low dose radiation (LDR) induced health risks. This model lacks safety thresholds and postulates that health risks caused by ionizing radiation is directly proportional to dose. Therefore even the smallest radiation dose has the potential to cause an increase in cancer risk. Advances in LDR biology and cell molecular techniques demonstrate that the LNT model does not appropriately reflect the biology or the health effects at the low dose range. The main pitfall of the LNT model is due to the extrapolation of mutation and DNA damage studies that were conducted at high radiation doses delivered at a high dose-rate. These studies formed the basis of several outdated paradigms that are either incorrect or do not hold for LDR doses. Thus, the goal of this review is to summarize the modern cellular and molecular literature in LDR biology and provide new paradigms that better represent the biological effects in the low dose range. We demonstrate that LDR activates a variety of cellular defense mechanisms including DNA repair systems, programmed cell death (apoptosis), cell cycle arrest, senescence, adaptive memory, bystander effects, epigenetics, immune stimulation, and tumor suppression. The evidence presented in this review reveals that there are minimal health risks (cancer) with LDR exposure, and that a dose higher than some threshold value is necessary to achieve the harmful effects classically observed with high doses of radiation. Knowledge gained from this review can help the radiation protection community in making informed decisions regarding radiation policy and limits.

EPA transparency proposal: testimony of Edward J. Calabrese, Ph.D, October 3, 2018

The historical foundations of cancer risk assessment and its adoption by the US EPA in the mid 1970s were based on the discovery of X-ray-induced gene mutations by Hermann J. Muller, its transformation into the linear nonthreshold (LNT) single-hit theory and the recommendations of the model by the US National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Atomic/Ionizing Radiation, Genetics Panels in 1956 and 1972. This testimony summarizes substantial recent revelations which profoundly challenge the use of LNT as a default in cancer risk assessment, showing multiple significant scientific errors and incorrect interpretations, mixed with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific record by leading ideologically motivated radiation geneticists. These novel historical and scientific findings demonstrate that the scientific foundations of the LNT single-hit model were seriously flawed and should not have been adopted for cancer risk assessment. The testimony supports the recommendation by the EPA to move away from the use of the LNT as a default in cancer risk assessment and to the formal consideration of alternative dose response models such as the threshold, hormetic and other non-linear modeling approaches.

Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT. The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans. Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis), essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes based not on policy but on science.

Building Biological Shields via Hormesis

Hormesis offers the potential to build biological shields to protect against a plethora of age-related diseases and acute trauma (e.g., brain traumatic injury) via the implementation of pre- and postconditioning strategies. These strategies have the potential to markedly enhance a broad spectrum of medical and public health practices.

Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science

This article presents the results of a study attempting to provide examples that implement transparency and communicability elements of Ethical Rules Principle of Best Available Regulatory Science (BARS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC). It starts with an overview of regulatory science and briefly summarizes principles of BARS and key pillars of MERSC. Subsequently, the BARS/MERSC system is used to evaluate the linear nonthreshold (LNT) process used in cancer assessments and the similar process used for evaluating in particulate matter (PM) exposure. The study identifies 3 parts in dose-response curves, where the first part is reproducible science and the second part includes uncertainties and often requires the application of precautionary principle. The primary reason for disagreements on LNT and PM is a lack of recognition that the third part is based on desire of regulators to be protective, a policy decision process. Two PM epidemiological examples are included in this study to demonstrate the point. The regulatory process would benefit from recognizing the distinction between science and policy and excluding policy from regulatory science. Furthermore, the society would greatly benefit from increased transparency in the regulatory process and compliance with the Jeffersonian communication principle.

Hormesis: Path and Progression to Significance

This paper tells the story of how hormesis became recognized as a fundamental concept in biology, affecting toxicology, microbiology, medicine, public health, agriculture, and all areas related to enhancing biological performance. This paper assesses how hormesis enhances resilience to normal aging and protects against a broad spectrum of neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, and other diseases, as well as trauma and other threats to health and well-being. This paper also explains the application of hormesis to several neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Huntington’s disease, macrophage polarization and its systematic adaptive protections, and the role of hormesis in enhancing stem cell functioning and medical applications.

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

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.