ArticleJournal of the history of biology2007
'A dispassionate and objective effort:' negotiating the first study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation.
Article in Journal of the history of biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.Health physics · 2025Article
- The Electrophoretic Revolution in the 1960s: Historical Epistemology Meets the Global History of Science and Technology.Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte · 2022Article
- The Politics of Radiation Protection.NTM · 2022Article
- Article
- Connecting to the Living History of Radiation Exposure.Journal of the history of biology · 2021Article
- Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative.Journal of the history of biology · 2021Article
- The Molecular Basis of Evolution and Disease: A Cold War Alliance.Journal of the history of biology · 2019Article
- Educating about radiation risks in high schools: towards improved public understanding of the complexity of low-dose radiation health effects.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2019Article
- Molecular Evolution in Historical Perspective.Journal of molecular evolution · 2016Review
- Mice and the reactor: the "genetics experiment" in 1950s Britain.Journal of the history of biology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective and independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17993170What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.