False and Misleading Statements Leading to an Unreliable Source of Information Regarding Early Research into Radiation Dose-Response: Part 1. A Response to Beyea

A commentary written by Jan Beyea claimed that the HPS interview of Edward Calabrese on the historical evolution of the linear no-threshold model was unreliable because it overlooked key historical text and statistical concepts. Beyea states that the purpose of his commentary was to defend the integrity of historical figures and committees from the accusation of scientific misconduct as presented by Calabrese. Based on his review of the video series and other documents, he provided what he defined as evidence of errors of fact, reasoning, and statistics to support his position. If true, Beyea's work would have the effect of impugning the reputation of Calabrese, myself, and the credibility of the HPS. This response intends to expose the issues with Beyea's commentary, including mischaracterization of Calabrese's work, lack of objectivity, misleading and factually incorrect statements, reliance on secondary sources, ignoring evidence specifically provided in the video series, and failing to address evidence provided in primary-sourced documents that contradict his conclusions. As a result, the reliability of Beyea's commentary is highly compromised, representing a serious lack of scholarship, research, and objectivity such that it should be retracted by Health Physics Journal based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. The HPS interview-style documentary reflects historical events based on primary-sourced documents as discovered by Calabrese. Scientific debate on this topic is necessary to progress our field, but the debate must be supported by facts with primary-sourced evidence and not driven by outdated public policies, logical fallacies, or ideology.