Below is the latest report in the continuing saga about uncovering the role of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Committee Genetics Panel in the adoption of the linear-dose theshold (LNT) response model for cancer risk assessment. Does this sound increasingly like scientific fraud, complete with cover-up, in its purest of forms?
In the attached paper by Edward J. Calabrese, he provides a detailed rebuttal to a recently published Letter by Jan Beyea (Environ Res, 2016), Chief Scientist, Consulting in the Public Interest, Lambertville, NJ. Beyea’s Letter offers a series of alternative interpretations to those offered in Calabrese’s earlier article in Environ Res (Calabrese, 2015a).
Calabrese presents significant newly uncovered evidence that further supports and extends his previous serious findings (Calabrese, Environ Res, 2015), –– reaffirming the conclusion that the Genetics Panel should be evaluated for scientific misconduct for deliberate misrepresentation of the research record, in order to enhance their own agenda and careers. This present critique [attached] documents numerous factual errors, along with extensive and deliberate filtering of information, in the Beyea Letter (2016) that leads to consistently incorrect conclusions and an invalid general perspective.
Environ Res 2o16; in press