NRI and "peer review"

["Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>]

On Thu, 04 Feb 99 09:17:24 
Col. Daxon <col_eric__daxon@medcom2.smtplink.amedd.army.mil> wrote:

>    The first point, the correct avenue for the release of research 
>    results is in the peer reviewed literature.  It is not uncommon for 
>    this process to uncover errors or additional work that needs to be 
>    done.  Once completed, the peer review process helps to guarantee the 
>    validity of the work and substantially reduces the potential 
>    publishing incorrect data.  This is especially critical for health 
>    effects data.  It is very important that the data and conclusions 
>    drawn be right.

If review and acceptance of Dr. Yeh's dissertation by her thesis committee 
does not comprise peer review justifying consideration of the results, 
perhaps JHU ought to get out of the business of offering Ph.D. degrees in 
this field of study. 

On the basis of the evidence provided by Stewart Farber and others, Johns 
Hopkins University's official handling of this admittably embarrassing 
episode is, to be charitable, ethically challenged.  That said, they might 
be credited for supporting and publishing (even if they chose not to admit 
they had published) Dr. Yeh's dissertation research.

A shortened Abstract of Dr. Yeh's dissertation can be found by going to the 
University Microfilms International web site at  www.umi.com/dissertation  
and doing an author search on "Yeh".  It would appear that, if you are ready 
to pony up whatever UMI is asking for a copy of the dissertation, you could 
immediately download the 8.9Mbyte Adobe Acrobat version of the 
dissertation.

The research, as reported in the abstract, has some tantalizing aspects.  
For instance: 

   "A suggestively decreased risk in the combined category of breast cancer 
   and female genital cancers was observed in the exposed females as 
   compared to the unexposed women.  Irradiated men had a lower risk of 
   prostate cancer compared to non-irradiated men, but it was not 
   significant.  If hormonal factors are postulated to be associated with 
   all three cancer sites and risks are combined, the rates for this group 
   are significantly lower in the exposed population.  ... <snip> ...  The 
   low risk of breast cancers and female genital cancers in the irradiated 
   females suggests damage to the pituitary, with consequent reduction in 
   pituitary hormone output and altertions in sexual as well as other 
   hormonal maturation and development in early life.  Nevertheless, this 
   speculation cannot be confirmed without serum hormone assays."

Since incidence rates for breast and genital cancers are much higher than 
for some of the tumors with elevated rates in the exposed population (brain 
tumors and cancers of the pharynx, larynx, and thyroid), this result raises 
the possibility of a net reduction in cancer at all sites.  The abstract 
does not answer that question. 

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, Washington
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my 
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html