The inhibitory effect of serum from diethyldithiocarbamate treated rats on bovine adrenal dopamine‐β‐hydroxylase activity

The dose-response relationship is central to the biological and biomedical sciences. During the early decades of the twentieth century consensus emerged that the most fundamental dose-response relationship was the threshold model, upon which scientific, health and medical research/clinical practices have been based. This paper documents that the scientific community made a fundamental error on the nature of the dose response in accepting the threshold model and in rejecting the hormetic-biphasic model, principally due to conflicts with homeopathy. Not only does this paper detail the underlying factors leading to this dose response decision, but it reveals that the scientific community never validated the threshold model throughout the twentieth century. Recent findings indicate that the threshold model poorly predicts responses in the low dose zone whereas its dose response "rival", the hormesis model, has performed very well. This analysis challenges a key foundation upon which biological, biomedical and clinical science rest.

show abstract

The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment

Calabrese

2009

Arch Toxicol

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article assesses the historical foundations of how linearity at low dose became accepted by the scientific/regulatory communities. While the threshold model was used in the 1920s/1930s in establishing radiation health standards, its foundations were challenged by the genetics community who argued that radiation induced mutations in reproductive cells followed a linear response, were cumulative and deleterious. Scientific foundations of linearity for gonadal mutations were based on non-conclusive evidence as well as not being conducted at low doses. Following years of debate, leaders in the genetics community participated in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1956) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) BEAR I Committee, getting their perspectives accepted, incorporating linearity for radiation-induced mutational effects in risk assessment. Overtime the concept of linearity was generalized to include somatic effects induced by radiation based on a protectionist philosophy. This affected the course of radiation-induced and later chemically-induced carcinogen risk assessment. Acceptance of linearity at low dose from chemical carcinogens was strongly influenced by the NAS Safe Drinking Water Committee report of 1977 which provided the critical guidance to the U.S. EPA to adopt linear at low dose modeling for risk assessment for chemical carcinogens with little supportive data, much of which has been either discredited or seriously weakened over the past 3 decades. Nonetheless, there has been little practical change of regulatory policy concerning carcinogen risk assessment. These observations suggest that while scientific disciplines are self correcting, that regulatory 'science' fails to display the same self-correcting mechanism despite contradictory data.

show abstract

The inhibitory effect of serum from diethyldithiocarbamate treated rats on bovine adrenal dopamine‐β‐hydroxylase activity

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Evaluation and Interpretation of Carcinogenesis Bioassay Results

Evaluation and Interpretation of Carcinogenesis Bioassay Results

Getting the dose–response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted

The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About