Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Impression Management Techniques II: Ingratiation01:29

Impression Management Techniques II: Ingratiation

135
Ingratiation refers to deliberate behaviors aimed at increasing one’s attractiveness or likability to a target person, often for strategic interpersonal or social gain. This set of impression management tactics is especially prevalent in hierarchical contexts, where influencing someone with greater power or authority can yield significant benefits. Several distinct ingratiation strategies have been identified, each leveraging psychological cues to foster favor and affiliation.Opinion...
135
Understanding Deception01:14

Understanding Deception

145
Deception is a pervasive aspect of human communication. Empirical studies have shown that most individuals engage in some form of deceit on a daily basis, with approximately 20% of social exchanges involving deceptive elements. Lying follows a developmental trajectory, peaking during adolescence and declining with age, possibly due to the maturation of cognitive control and social accountability.Cognitive and Social Factors in Deception DetectionDespite its prevalence, accurately detecting...
145
Impression Management Techniques III: Aligning Actions01:29

Impression Management Techniques III: Aligning Actions

118
Aligning actions are communicative strategies individuals employ to maintain social harmony and preserve personal identity in the face of potential disruptions to social norms. These actions are particularly important in managing social impressions when one's behavior might be seen as inappropriate, incompetent, or morally questionable.Types of Aligning ActionsThe three principal types of aligning actions are disclaimers, accounts, and apologies.DisclaimersDisclaimers are preventive; they are...
118
Deindividuation00:57

Deindividuation

30.2K
Deindividuation is a form of social influence on an individual’s behavior such that the individual engages in unusual or non-normal behavior while in a group setting. Why? Because in these group settings, the individual no longer sees themselves as an individual anymore, disinhibiting their behavior and personal restraint.
30.2K
Impression Management Techniques IV: Altercasting01:14

Impression Management Techniques IV: Altercasting

160
Altercasting is a strategic communication technique in which an individual imposes a specific identity or social role onto another person to influence their behavior and shape the interaction. By presuming a role—such as “responsible leader” or “patient person”—altercasting encourages the target to conform to that identity, often aligning their behavior with the expectations associated with the role. The power of this tactic lies in its subtlety; once a role...
160
Dark Triad and Person Perception01:29

Dark Triad and Person Perception

248
Person perception is influenced by both external behaviors and the observer’s internal characteristics, including personality traits. Individuals with dark personality traits, comprising psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism — collectively known as the dark triad – exhibit manipulative and exploitative tendencies in social contexts. These traits affect how they perceive others and how they are perceived.The Role of Dark Personality Traits in Person PerceptionBlack et...
248

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The crucible of resilience: hormesis as the unifying principle of evolution, genetics, and epigenetics.

Archives of toxicology·2026
Same author

Hormesis in biomedical and toxicological models: A generalizable phenomenon induced by per- and polyfluoroalkyl agents.

Chemico-biological interactions·2026
Same author

Canine environmental health: An EPA blind spot? Canine physiology, environmental exposure, and the regulatory gap in U.S. policy.

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP·2026
Same author

Hormetic effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on ecologically relevant animal models: Generality, quantitative features, and risk assessment implications.

Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)·2026
Same author

How the US NAS BEAR I Genetics Panel scientific misconduct could have been avoided, but was not.

Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene·2026
Same author

BEAR I Genetics Panel: An unexpected and troubling historical twist: The untold story of Hermann Muller's significant scientific confusion.

Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 9, 2026

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling
06:51

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

Published on: April 6, 2018

8.8K

Embracing dishonesty: How LNT became king.

Edward J Calabrese1, Paul B Selby1

  • 1School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I-N344, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.

Chemico-Biological Interactions
|December 3, 2025
PubMed
Summary

The 1956 US NAS report recommending linear no-threshold (LNT) models for radiation risk is challenged. Falsified data and eugenics frameworks may have influenced its adoption, impacting radiation protection standards.

Keywords:
Cancer risk assessmentDose responseEPAEugenicsHermann MullerMutation

More Related Videos

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

8.9K
Imaging InlC Secretion to Investigate Cellular Infection by the Bacterial Pathogen Listeria monocytogenes
14:05

Imaging InlC Secretion to Investigate Cellular Infection by the Bacterial Pathogen Listeria monocytogenes

Published on: September 19, 2013

10.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 9, 2026

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling
06:51

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

Published on: April 6, 2018

8.8K
An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

8.9K
Imaging InlC Secretion to Investigate Cellular Infection by the Bacterial Pathogen Listeria monocytogenes
14:05

Imaging InlC Secretion to Investigate Cellular Infection by the Bacterial Pathogen Listeria monocytogenes

Published on: September 19, 2013

10.3K

Area of Science:

  • Radiation Biology
  • Genetics
  • Public Health Policy

Background:

  • The 1956 US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Genetics Panel recommended the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced genetic and somatic effects.
  • This recommendation has profoundly influenced radiation risk assessment and regulatory standards globally.
  • Concerns exist regarding the scientific integrity and motivations behind the panel's conclusions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the scientific basis and credibility of the 1956 NAS report.
  • To investigate potential biases, including eugenics frameworks, influencing the panel's recommendations.
  • To challenge the continued reliance on LNT models for radiation risk assessment by regulatory agencies.

Main Methods:

  • Historical analysis of the 1956 NAS report and its panel members.
  • Examination of the scientific publication records and expertise of the panelists.
  • Investigation into the influence of eugenics ideologies on the panel's composition and recommendations.
  • Analysis of the scientific rationale and potential manipulation of data supporting the LNT model.

Main Results:

  • Evidence suggests the 1956 NAS report relied on falsified data, inflating estimates of radiation-induced mutational risks.
  • Panelists' expertise in radiation genetics was limited, and panel selection may have been influenced by eugenics commitments.
  • The adoption of the LNT model appears linked to a eugenics strategy to reduce population genetic variability.
  • Potential conspiracy between key figures to manipulate the panel's findings to support the LNT model and eugenics principles.

Conclusions:

  • The scientific integrity and credibility of the 1956 NAS report are significantly undermined.
  • The adoption of the LNT model for radiation risk assessment may be based on flawed science and eugenics-driven agendas.
  • Regulatory agencies' reliance on these recommendations warrants re-evaluation.
  • The findings suggest a historical manipulation of radiation science to align with eugenics goals.