The public controversy over possible health hazards from radioactive fallout from
atomic bomb testing began in 1954, shortly after a thermonuclear test by the United
States spread fallout world wide. In the dissertation, I address two of the fundamental
questions of the fallout controversy: Was there a threshold of radiation exposure below
which there would be no significant injury? What was the role of a responsible scientist
in a public scientific debate? Genetics and medicine were the scientific fields most
directly involved in the debate over the biological effects of radiation. Geneticists'
prewar experiences with radiation led them to believe that there was no safe level of
radiation exposure and that any amount of radiation would cause a proportional amount
of genetic injury. In contrast to geneticists, physicians and medical researchers generally
believed that there was a threshold for somatic injury from radiation. One theme of the
dissertation is an examination of how different scientific conceptual and methodological
approaches affected how geneticists and medical researchers evaluated the possible
health effects of fallout.
Geneticists and physicians differed not only in their evaluations of radiation
hazards, but also in their views of how the debate over fallout should be conducted. A
central question of the fallout debate was how a responsible scientist should act in a
public policy controversy involving scientific issues upon which the scientific community
had not yet reached a consensus. Based on their assumption that any increase in radiation
exposure was harmful, most geneticists believed that they had a responsibility to speak
out publicly about the deleterious effects of radiation. Physicians, who believed in the
likelihood of a threshold for significant radiation-induced injury, generally adopted the
opposite view. They believed that public discussion of possible, but improbable,
radiation hazards was irresponsible because it risked creating irrational public fear of
radiation exposure. In my dissertation, I examine how the different positions of
geneticists and physicians over what constituted responsible public scientific debate
affected the rhetoric of the controversy, as well as the implications of the debate in
matters of politics and policy. / Graduation date: 2004
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ORGSU/oai:ir.library.oregonstate.edu:1957/30847 |
| Date | 30 May 2003 |
| Creators | Jolly, J. Christopher |
| Contributors | Nye, Mary Jo |
| Source Sets | Oregon State University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds