10 Key Points
-
LNT model advanced through ethically questionable actions and Science’s editorial practices
-
Muller’s 1927 Science paper claimed gene mutation without data, bypassed peer review, was later shown to be flawed
-
Stadler and others produced stronger, data-backed studies contradicting Muller’s claims
-
Uphoff & Stern’s 1949 Science note summarized missing/unpublished data, never peer-reviewed
-
Their report dismissed Caspari’s threshold evidence and propped up linearity
-
NAS BEAR I Genetics Panel suppressed disagreements, falsified record and hid wide uncertainty
-
Bentley Glass, panelist and Science editor was central in promoting LNT
-
Lewis’s 1957 Science paper on radiation–leukemia gained huge influence despite being bias and having weak analysis
-
Science’s prestige amplified these flawed works, embedding LNT in regulatory policy
-
Authors call for retractions, stronger ethics, and transparency in science and risk policy
This paper illustrates how the acceptance of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model was unethically
advocated and advanced both by key scientists within the radiation genetics community, and by editorial
practices in Science, a leading international scientific journal. Four