This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Calabrese, E J Articles by Baldwin, L A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Calabrese, E J Articles by Baldwin, L A Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Tales of two similar hypotheses: the rise and fall of chemical and radiation hormesis

L A Baldwin

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, N344 Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

This paper compares the historical developments of chemical and radiation hormesis from their respective inceptions in the late 1880‘s for chemical hormesis and early 1900‘s for radiation hormesis to the mid 1930‘s to 1940 during which both hypotheses rose to some prominence but then became marginalized within the scientific community. This analysis documents that there were marked differences in their respective temporal developments, and the direction and maturity of research. In general, the formulation of the chemical hormesis hypothesis displayed an earlier, more-extensive and more sophisticated development than the radiation hormesis hypothesis. It was able to attract prestigious researchers with international reputations from leading institutions, to be the subject of numerous dissertations, to have its findings published in leading journals, and to have its concepts incorporated into leading microbiological texts. While both areas became the object of criticism from leading scientists, the intensity of the challenge was greatest for chemical hormesis due to its more visible association with the medical practice of homeopathy. Despite the presence of legitimate and flawed criticism, the most significant limitations ofboth chemical and radiation hormesis and their respective ultimate undoing were due to their: (1) lack of development of a coherent doseresponse theory using data of low dose stimulation from both the chemical and radiation domains; (2) difficulty in replication of low dose stimulatory responses without an adequate study design especially with respect to an appropriate number and properly spaced doses below the toxic threshold; (3) modest degree of stimulation even under optimal conditions which was difficult to distinguish from normal variation; and (4) lack of appreciation of the practical and/or commercial applications of the concepts of low dose stimulation.

Key Words: honnesis • low dose • stimulation • ß-curve • radiation

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 85-97 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/096032700678815620


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. B Jonas and J. A Ives Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis? Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2008; 27(2): 123 - 127. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D Henschler The origin of hormesis: historical background and driving forces Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2006; 25(7): 347 - 351. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E J Calabrese and L A Baldwin Defining hormesis Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2002; 21(2): 91 - 97. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. J. Calabrese and L. A. Baldwin The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2001; 62(2): 330 - 338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Rattan Applying hormesis in aging research and therapy Human and Experimental Toxicology, June 1, 2001; 20(6): 281 - 285. [Abstract] [PDF]