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

mammalian/insect species) and procedures disappeared when normalized within a doubling dose framework, which was well known to them. The Panel's decision to commit scientific misconduct (i.e., alter the research record by excluding widely divergent absolute mutation estimates, most notably from Milisav Demerec) was therefore not necessary to ensure support for their ideologically based LNT policy recommendations. Ironically, their ethical misconduct, which has damaged the reputation of the US NAS and their individual reputations, was not needed for the Panel to achieve its ideological goals. Finally, while the doubling dose offered an apparent convenient vehicle for hereditary risk assessment, this concept has numerous limitations that have restricted some of its risk assessment applications.