James V. Neel and Yuri E. Dubrova: Cold War Debates and the Genetic Effects of Low-Dose Radiation

Abstract

This article traces disagreements about the genetic effects of low-dose radiation exposure as waged by James Neel (1915-2000), a central figure in radiation studies of Japanese populations after World War II, and Yuri Dubrova (1955-), who analyzed the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. In a 1996 article in Nature, Dubrova reported a statistically significant increase in the minisatellite (junk) DNA mutation rate in the children of parents who received a high dose of radiation from the Chernobyl accident, contradicting studies that found no significant inherited genetic effects among offspring of Japanese A-bomb survivors. Neel's subsequent defense of his large-scale longitudinal studies of the genetic effects of ionizing radiation consolidated current scientific understandings of low-dose ionizing radiation. The article seeks to explain how the Hiroshima/Nagasaki data remain hegemonic in radiation studies, contextualizing the debate with attention to the perceived inferiority of Soviet genetic science during the Cold War.

“I am a radioactive mutant”: Emergent biological subjectivities at Kazakhstan's Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site

“…These conclusions are grounded in the longitudinal studies of atomic‐bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, studies that tend to diminish the possibility of harm. This is perhaps because the status of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies as the “gold standard” in radiation science is partly a Cold War political phenomenon, in which scientists elevate US‐Japanese data at the expense of its Soviet counterpart (Brown ; Creager ; Goldstein and Stawkowski ; Walker ). For this reason, the radiological establishment often dismisses or critiques as unrigorous those studies that contradict the gold‐standard research (Balonov ; Neel )—studies that, for example, find that radiation causes serious mutations in the germ line even in low doses and that somatic mutations are, in fact, transmittable (Dubrova et al.…”

Commentary: Science, Politics, and Risk: Catastrophic Asia from the Perspective of a Brazilianist Anthropologist

“…One could potentially read this as a compelling chapter within a broader genre depicting nihilism in the post-Soviet era. But the dominant scientific understanding of this case is ultimately supported by a broad swath of global scientific institutions that ferociously defend the Western scientific findings of the Japan studies, even in the face of other evidence (Goldstein and Stawkowski 2015). In turn, the local desire to open the nuclear test site in Kazakhstan to mining and other industry coincides with a national desire to do the same.…”

Mass hysteria in Le Roy, New York: How brain experts materialized truth and outscienced environmental inquiry

“…More to the point, since the 1970s, the courts have moved away from precautionary impulses toward redefining safety as acceptable risk (Boyd ) and have raised the bar on what constitutes scientific evidence (Jasanoff ). They are demanding numbers that plaintiffs can rarely produce, such as large epidemiological studies of populations living in the area (Goldstein and Stawkowski ) or reliable baseline readings of toxicity before contamination allegedly occurred (Goldstein ). In addition, the majority of scientific studies on toxic harm utilize animals as “sentinels” to think through how humans might react (van der Schalie et al.…”