title: Tales of two similar hypotheses: the rise and fall of chemical and radiation hormesis.
abstract: 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 of both chemical and radiation hormesis and their respective ultimate undoing were due to their: (1) lack of development of a coherent dose-response 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, N344 Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
authors.forename: E J
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Calabrese
authors.forename: L A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Baldwin
mesh_terms: D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D011832:Radiation Injuries / Q000266:history* / Q000503:physiopathology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D014116:Toxicology / Q000266:history*; D015262:Xenobiotics / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000266:history* / Q000494:pharmacology
chemical_list: D015262:Xenobiotics