↓ Skip to main content

How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Toxicology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response
Published in
Archives of Toxicology, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward J. Calabrese

Abstract

This paper extends several recent publications indicating that Hermann J. Muller: (1) Made deceptive statements during his Noble Prize Lecture on December 12, 1946, that were intended to promote the acceptance of the linear dose-response model for risk assessment for ionizing radiation and (2) that such actions of Muller were masked by a series of decisions by Muller's long-time colleague and esteemed radiation geneticist Curt Stern, affecting key publications in the mutation literature. Such actions further enhanced acceptance of the linearity dose-response model while preventing Muller's deceptions from being discovered. This paper provides documentation that Muller reinforced such practices within the scientific literature in the early 1950s, by supporting scientifically questionable actions of Stern. Detailed documentation is provided that demonstrates how these actions affected national and international risk assessment policy for ionizing radiation and chemical carcinogens via the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation committee in 1956, to adopt the linear dose-response model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 42%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,002,529
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#55
of 2,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,209
of 197,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.