Muller letter reveals scientific scandal that discredits evidence used to support LNT

A newly discovered letter written by Hermann J. Muller in August 1948, reveals that he claimed to have evidence that multiple papers by Frederick Hanson and Florence Heys, including those that supported the linear non threshold (LNT) dose response model for hereditary and cancer risk assessment, were fraudulent and thus untrustworthy. Muller failed to bring this issue, which he referred to as a major scientific scandal, to the attention of the scientific community, remaining silent for the remainder of his career. Since Muller was a recipient of substantial funding by the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and Hanson was a senior RF program director, instrumental in the process that awarded funding for Muller and other geneticists, it suggested that Muller may have been conflicted in his recognized obligation to the scientific community to expose possible scientific misconduct, and his desire to ensure both continuing funding from the RF and his advocacy for the adoption of the LNT model of radiation risk assessment. In this conflicted situation, Muller seems to have opted for self-interest, failing to bring his concerns/challenges about the publications of his RF funding colleague Hanson to public forum via acceptable venues that typically permit full exposition of disputes. Muller's decision to act in this manner permitted the papers that he deemed as untrustworthy to be widely, and continuously cited (to the present), and in this way, affect worldwide acceptance of the LNT model by the scientific community and regulatory agencies in ways that may negatively impact radiation science, subsequent LNT interpretation, and the public health.

Automated summary

A newly discovered letter written by Hermann J. Muller in August 1948 reveals his claim that papers by Frederick Hanson and Florence Heys, including those supporting the LNT dose response model, were fraudulent. Muller's silence on this issue, which he referred to as a major scientific scandal, suggests a conflict of interest between his obligation to the scientific community and his desire for continued funding and advocacy for the LNT model. This decision allowed the papers to be widely cited and negatively impact radiation science, LNT interpretation, and public health.