Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 13 (1):15 (2018)
Abstract |
BackgroundThis paper assesses possible reasons why Hermann J. Muller avoided peer-review of data that became the basis of his Nobel Prize award for producing gene mutations in male Drosophila by X-rays.MethodsExtensive correspondence between Muller and close associates and other materials were obtained from preserved papers to compliment extensive publications by and about Muller in the open literature. These were evaluated for potential historical insights that clarify why he avoided peer-review of his Nobel Prize findings.ResultsThis paper clarifies the basis of Muller’s belief that he produced X-ray induced “gene” mutations in Drosophila. It then shows his belief was contemporaneously challenged by his longtime friend/confidant and Drosophila geneticist, Edgar Altenburg. Altenburg insisted that Muller may have simply poked large holes in chromosomes with massive doses of X-rays, and needed to provide proof of gene “point” mutations. Given the daunting and uncertain task to experimentally address this criticism, especially within the context of trying to become first to produce gene mutations, it is proposed that Muller purposely avoided peer-review while rushing to publish his paper in Science to claim discovery primacy without showing any data. The present paper also explores ethical issues surrounding these actions, including those of the editor of Science, James McKeen Catell and Altenburg, and their subsequent impact on the scientific and regulatory communities.ConclusionThis historical analysis suggests that Muller deliberately avoided peer-review on his most significant findings because he was extremely troubled by the insightful and serious criticism of Altenburg, which suggested he had not produced gene mutations as he claimed. Nonetheless, Muller manipulated this situation due to both the widespread euphoria over his claim of gene mutation and confidence that Altenburg would not publically challenge him. This situation permitted Muller to achieve his goal to be the first to produce gene mutations while buying him time to later try to experimentally address Altenburg’s criticisms, and a possible way to avoid discovery of his questionable actions.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1186/s13010-018-0066-z |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Man and His Science.Lindley Darden - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):662-666.
Muller’s Nobel Prize Research and Peer Review.Edward J. Calabrese - 2018 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 13 (1):6.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Muller’s Nobel Prize Research and Peer Review.Edward J. Calabrese - 2018 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 13 (1):6.
The Nobel Prize as a Reward Mechanism in the Genomics Era: Anonymous Researchers, Visible Managers and the Ethics of Excellence. [REVIEW]Hub Zwart - 2010 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (3):299-312.
Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, 1901-1950 by Niels H. De V. Heathcote; Nobel Prize Winners in Medicine and Physiology, 1901-1950 by Lloyd G. Stevenson; Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry, 1901-1950 by Eduard Farber. [REVIEW]I. Cohen - 1954 - Isis 45:407-408.
Arrhenius Vs. Ehrlich on Immunochemistry: Decisions About Scientific Progress in the Context of the Nobel Prize.Franz Luttenberger - 1992 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (2).
Oswald T. Avery: Nobel Laureate or Noble Luminary?Frank Portugal - 2010 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (4):558-570.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
The Multiple Faces of X-Ray Crystallography: André Authier: Early Days of X-Ray Crystallography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, Xiv+441pp, £45.00, $79.95 HB.Michael Eckert - 2015 - Metascience 24 (1):95-97.
„Prisvärdig“ Forschung? Wilhelm Roux und sein Programm der Entwicklungsmechanik.Thorsten Halling, Nils Hansson & Heiner Fangerau - 2018 - Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 41 (1):73-97.
Tu Youyou Winning the Nobel Prize: Ethical Research on the Value and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine.Wei‐Rong Zheng, En‐Chang Li, Song Peng & Xiao‐Shang Wang - 2020 - Bioethics 34 (2):166-171.
The Universal Values of Science and China’s Nobel Prize Pursuit.Cong Cao - 2014 - Minerva 52 (2):141-160.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2018-10-17
Total views
23 ( #452,212 of 2,411,839 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,761 of 2,411,839 )
2018-10-17
Total views
23 ( #452,212 of 2,411,839 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,761 of 2,411,839 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads