Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec 6;12(2):185-201.
doi: 10.2203/dose-response.13-046.Doss. eCollection 2014 May.

Correcting systemic deficiencies in our scientific infrastructure

Affiliations

Correcting systemic deficiencies in our scientific infrastructure

Mohan Doss. Dose Response. .

Abstract

Scientific method is inherently self-correcting. When different hypotheses are proposed, their study would result in the rejection of the invalid ones. If the study of a competing hypothesis is prevented because of the faith in an unverified one, scientific progress is stalled. This has happened in the study of low dose radiation. Though radiation hormesis was hypothesized to reduce cancers in 1980, it could not be studied in humans because of the faith in the unverified linear no-threshold model hypothesis, likely resulting in over 15 million preventable cancer deaths worldwide during the past two decades, since evidence has accumulated supporting the validity of the phenomenon of radiation hormesis. Since our society has been guided by scientific advisory committees that ostensibly follow the scientific method, the long duration of such large casualties is indicative of systemic deficiencies in the infrastructure that has evolved in our society for the application of science. Some of these deficiencies have been identified in a few elements of the scientific infrastructure, and remedial steps suggested. Identifying and correcting such deficiencies may prevent similar tolls in the future.

Keywords: LNT Model; Radiation Hormesis; Scientific Infrastructure; Scientific Method.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Albert JM. Radiation risk from CT: implications for cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W81–7. - PubMed
    1. Anand P, Kunnumakkara AB, Sundaram C, Harikumar KB, Tharakan ST, Lai OS, Sung B, Aggarwal BB. Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes. Pharm Res. 2008;25:2097–116. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ. 2000;321:255–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–84. - PubMed
    1. Bromet EJ. Mental health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32:N71–5. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources