‘A Dispassionate and Objective Effort:’ Negotiating the First Study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation

Abstract

The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective and independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it.

Radiation protection biology then and now

“…The results, together with pre-war studies on the genetic effects of radiation in Drosophila convinced some scientists, notably Herman Muller, that there is no safe dose of radiation and that atmospheric atomic bomb testing must stop. In U.S.A., this opinion was rejected by employees of the governmental Atomic Energy Commission, set up to promote the development of nuclear technology, who were convinced that the nuclear tests were safe (Hamblin 2007). In order to solve the issue, an independent study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) was initiated under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).…”

“…Despite some disagreements regarding the assessment of genetic risks, both studies reached similar conclusions that the genetic effects of radiation increase linearly with dose and no threshold of dose exists. The reports were published back to back in June 1956 (Hamblin 2007). The BEAR committee was later renamed to National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) and since 1972 published seven reports on biological and health effects of ionizing radiation.…”

“…How and to what extent did the achieved results influence ICRP's recommendations for radiological protection? After 1950recommendations were published in 1954, 1958, 1966, 1977, 1990and 2007(Clarke and Valentin 2009). However, anyone expecting a direct impact of radiobiological results on radiation protection standards will be disappointed.…”

Bad Weather

“…The atomic bomb was the core technology in producing two rival notions of security -one in the form of a nuclear arsenal supported by deterrence theory, the other in the form of the closed world earth sciences producing increasing evidence of radiological damage from the nuclear test program itself. Key scientists who called for an end to nuclear detonations as a matter of public health were, at this moment, positioned as enemies of the state, and subject to intimidation (Wang, 1999;Hamblin, 2007). In other words, those who offered an alternative definition of security based on recognition of the accumulating industrial effects of the global nuclear complex were positioned as national security threats.…”

Global Regulation: Controlling and Accepting Radioactivity Risks

“…22 In the United States, Detlev Bronk, the president of the NAS, coordinated the study. 23 He brought together about 100 of the most distinguished people in their fields, including those who had publicly criticized the AEC, to conduct an ongoing study of the biological effects of atomic radiation in relation to genetics, pathology, meteorology, oceanography and fisheries, agriculture and food supplies, and the disposal of radioactive waste. Six committees were established to study the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR).…”