{"title":"The unraveling of a Nobel Prize: How Hermann Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize: A front for eugenics.","authors":"Edward J Calabrese, Dima Yazji Shamoun","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2024.2440558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper asserts that the Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology that Hermann J. Muller received in 1946 was a front to enhance the legitimacy, acceptance, and application of eugenics, a strategy to guide the direction and rate of human evolutionary change. Seven of the nine people nominating (1932-1946) Muller were proponents of eugenics with Muller being among the most visible of the scientific leaders. Muller's nominators never cited his Nobel Prize research in scientific literature, lacked expertise in radiation-induced mutations, and were not qualified to evaluate Muller's research. Muller's claim of induced \"gene\" mutations with extremely high radiation dose rates remained highly uncertain, undercutting legitimate Nobel Prize consideration. Despite their diverse range of educational, research, and political backgrounds, they nominated Muller based on the convergence of their respective eugenic ideologies. The Chair of the Nobel Prize committee not only was a committed eugenicist but also nominated Muller the previous year and had invited these nominators under the belief they would support his prolonged advocacy for Muller. While the underlying intent of the nominations was to associate extremely high scientific achievement with eugenics, the Prize was ironically awarded immediately after World War II, and eugenics would be profoundly stigmatized due to its association with horrific actions against humanity by the Nazis. However, Muller's Nobel Prize became a fear-based lightning rod for the environmental revolution, inspiring the book <i>Silent Spring</i> (1962), and providing the central framework for cancer risk assessment by regulatory agencies worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":"22 3","pages":"149-168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2440558","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper asserts that the Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology that Hermann J. Muller received in 1946 was a front to enhance the legitimacy, acceptance, and application of eugenics, a strategy to guide the direction and rate of human evolutionary change. Seven of the nine people nominating (1932-1946) Muller were proponents of eugenics with Muller being among the most visible of the scientific leaders. Muller's nominators never cited his Nobel Prize research in scientific literature, lacked expertise in radiation-induced mutations, and were not qualified to evaluate Muller's research. Muller's claim of induced "gene" mutations with extremely high radiation dose rates remained highly uncertain, undercutting legitimate Nobel Prize consideration. Despite their diverse range of educational, research, and political backgrounds, they nominated Muller based on the convergence of their respective eugenic ideologies. The Chair of the Nobel Prize committee not only was a committed eugenicist but also nominated Muller the previous year and had invited these nominators under the belief they would support his prolonged advocacy for Muller. While the underlying intent of the nominations was to associate extremely high scientific achievement with eugenics, the Prize was ironically awarded immediately after World War II, and eugenics would be profoundly stigmatized due to its association with horrific actions against humanity by the Nazis. However, Muller's Nobel Prize became a fear-based lightning rod for the environmental revolution, inspiring the book Silent Spring (1962), and providing the central framework for cancer risk assessment by regulatory agencies worldwide.
本文认为,1946年Hermann J. Muller获得的诺贝尔医学奖是提高优生学的合法性、接受度和应用的前线,是指导人类进化变化方向和速度的策略。提名穆勒的9人中有7人(1932-1946)是优生学的支持者,穆勒是最引人注目的科学领袖之一。穆勒的提名者从未在科学文献中引用他的诺贝尔奖研究,缺乏辐射诱导突变方面的专业知识,也没有资格评价穆勒的研究。穆勒声称用极高的辐射剂量率诱发“基因”突变的说法仍然高度不确定,削弱了诺贝尔奖的合法考虑。尽管他们的教育、研究和政治背景各不相同,但他们基于各自的优生意识的融合而提名穆勒。诺贝尔奖委员会主席不仅是一位坚定的优生学家,而且在前一年提名了穆勒,并邀请了这些提名者,相信他们会支持他对穆勒的长期倡导。虽然提名的潜在意图是将极高的科学成就与优生学联系起来,但具有讽刺意味的是,该奖是在第二次世界大战后立即颁发的,优生学因与纳粹的可怕反人类行为联系在一起而受到深刻的污名化。然而,穆勒的诺贝尔奖成为了环境革命的一个基于恐惧的避雷针,激发了《寂静的春天》(1962)一书的出版,并为全球监管机构提供了癌症风险评估的核心框架。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene ( JOEH ) is a joint publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) and ACGIH®. The JOEH is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enhancing the knowledge and practice of occupational and environmental hygiene and safety by widely disseminating research articles and applied studies of the highest quality.
The JOEH provides a written medium for the communication of ideas, methods, processes, and research in core and emerging areas of occupational and environmental hygiene. Core domains include, but are not limited to: exposure assessment, control strategies, ergonomics, and risk analysis. Emerging domains include, but are not limited to: sensor technology, emergency preparedness and response, changing workforce, and management and analysis of "big" data.