Search

This paper represents the first systematic effort to describe the historical foundations of radiation hormesis. Spanning the years from 1898 to the early 1940's the paper constructs and assesses the early history of such research and evaluates how advances in related scientific fields affected the course of hormetic related research. The present effort was designed to not only address this gap in current knowledge, but to offer a toxicological basis for how the concept of hormetic dose-response relationships may affect the nature of the bioassay and its role in the risk assessment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the underlying factors that contributed to the marginalization of radiation hormesis in the early and middle decades of the 20th century. The most critical factor affecting the demise of radiation hormesis was a lack of agreement over how to define the concept of hormesis and quantitatively describe its dose-response features. If radiation hormesis had been defined as a modest overcompensation to a disruption in homeostasis as would have been consistent with the prevailing notion in the area of chemical hormesis, this would have provided the theoretical and practical means to blunt subsequent legitimate criticism of this hypothesis. A second critical factor undermining the radiation hormesis hypothesis was the generally total lack of recognition by radiation scientists of the concept of chemical hormesis which was markedly more advanced, substantiated and generalized than in the radiation domain. The third factor was that major scientific criticism of low dose stimulatory responses was galvanized at the time that the National Research Council (NRC) was organizing a national research agenda on radiation and the hormetic hypothesis was generally excluded from the future planned research opportunities. Furthermore, the criticisms of the leading scientists of the 1930s which undermined the concept of radiation hormesis were limited in scope and highly flawed and then perpetuated over the decades by other ‘prestigious’ experts who appeared to simply accept the earlier reports. This setting was then linked to a growing fear of radiation as a cause of birth defects, mutation and cancer, factors all reinforced by later concerns over the atomic bomb. Strongly supportive findings on hormetic effects in the 1940s by Soviet scientists were either generally not available to US scientists or disregarded as part of the Cold War mindset without adequate analysis. Finally, a massive, but poorly designed, US Department of Agriculture experiment in the late 1940s to assess the capacity for low dose plant stimulation by radionuclides failed to support the hormetic hypothesis thereby markedly lessening enthusiasm for research and funding in this area. Thus, the combination of a failed understanding of the hormetic hypothesis and its linkage with a strong chemical hormesis database, flawed analyses by prestigious scientists at the critical stage of scientific research development, reinforced by a Cold War mentality led to marginalization of an hypothesis (i.e., radiation hormesis) that had substantial scientific foundations and generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the historical developments of chemical and radiation hormesis from their respective inceptions in the late 1880's for chemical hormesis and early 1900's for radiation hormesis to the mid 1930's to 1940 during which both hypotheses rose to some prominence but then became marginalized within the scientific community. This analysis documents that there were marked differences in their respective temporal developments, and the direction and maturity of research. In general, the formulation of the chemical hormesis hypothesis displayed an earlier, more-extensive and more sophisticated development than the radiation hormesis hypothesis. It was able to attract prestigious researchers with international reputations from leading institutions, to be the subject of numerous dissertations, to have its findings published in leading journals, and to have its concepts incorporated into leading microbiological texts. While both areas became the object of criticism from leading scientists, the intensity of the challenge was greatest for chemical hormesis due to its more visible association with the medical practice of homeopathy. Despite the presence of legitimate and flawed criticism, the most significant limitations of both chemical and radiation hormesis and their respective ultimate undoing were due to their: (1) lack of development of a coherent dose-response theory using data of low dose stimulation from both the chemical and radiation domains; (2) difficulty in replication of low dose stimulatory responses without an adequate study design especially with respect to an appropriate number and properly spaced doses below the toxic threshold; (3) modest degree of stimulation even under optimal conditions which was difficult to distinguish from normal variation; and (4) lack of appreciation of the practical and/or commercial applications of the concepts of low dose stimulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]