Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38909170›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2024

Newly discovered letter: why Muller failed to cite the negative mouse mutation findings of Snell, preserving his chances to receive the Nobel Prize.

Edward J Calabrese, Paul B Selby

Abstract readHistorical ArticleEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Edward J CalabreseDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I, N344, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA. edwardc@umass.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7659-412X
Paul B SelbyRetired from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN; 4088 Nottinghill Gate Road, Upper Arlington, OH, 43220, USA.

Funding

Air Force Office of Scientific Research AFOSR FA9550-19-1-0413ExxonMobil Foundation S18200000000256
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recently acquired letter between Hermann Muller and his wife (March 21, 1933) reveals that Muller had learned that he had been nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1932 with about 1/3 of the total votes being supportive. Muller was hopeful that over time sufficient votes would lead to receiving the award. The knowledge of Muller on this matter and its timing provide a likely explanation why Muller never cited the negative mouse mutation findings of George Snell, performed under Muller's direction during that time period. This action of Muller, along with the failure of Snell to promote his discovery, greatly reduced the chances that those findings would complicate his attempt to garner support for his LNT single-hit model and its application to hereditary and cancer risk assessment. It also helped Muller achieve the Nobel Prize, allowing him the necessary international visibility to promote his ideologically driven ionizing radiation-related LNT-based paradigm.

Indexed as

MutationNobel PrizeAnimalsHistory, 20th CenturyHumansMiceDose–responseGeorge SnellHermann MullerIonizing radiationLinear non-thresholdLNTMutation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.