A “Gold Standard of Science”: Revisiting the Complex Ties Between Federal Power and Science Policy
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper examines the Trump administration’s 2025 executive orders aimed at reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to accelerate the expansion of nuclear power in the United States. Framed as a strategy to bolster national energy independence and meet the growing demands of data centers and artificial intelligence, the reforms revive longstanding debates about radiation safety standards, particularly the linear no-threshold model. While the administration claims to uphold scientific rigor, critics argue that the orders politicize science by favoring contested threshold-based models and sidelining concerns about low-dose radiation exposure. Such policies, they warn, could have direct consequences for public health and radiation safety, affecting not only the nuclear industry but society at large. The paper contextualizes these developments within the broader historical evolution of radiation protection standards. It argues that debates over radiation protection have always extended well beyond academic circles. They have carried profound implications for public health policy, regulatory standards, and environmental justice, while have often been historically shaped by the priorities of the nuclear industry. In addition, President Trump’s recent executive orders exercise power through nuclear science and technology in ways that fall short of democratic ideals—particularly the aspiration for meaningful public participation in decision-making processes that directly influence human health and shape radiation protection policies.
Keywords:
federal government, nuclear science, linear no-threshold model, science policy, nuclear industry
Article Details
How to Cite
RENTETZI, Professor Dr. Maria.
A “Gold Standard of Science”: Revisiting the Complex Ties Between Federal Power and Science Policy.
Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 9, sep. 2025.
ISSN 2375-1924.
Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6830>. Date accessed: 05 dec. 2025.
doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i9.6830.
Section
Research Articles
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
[1] The White House. Ordering the reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Published May 23, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ordering-the-reform-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/
[2] For an informative summary of the executive orders see: Office of Nuclear Energy, 9 key takeaways from President Trump’s executive orders on nuclear energy. US Department of Energy. Published June 10, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/9-key-takeaways-president-trumps-executive-orders-nuclear-energy
[3] Brown T. To boost nuclear power, Trump orders controversial rewrite of radiation safety rules. Science. Published May 29, 2025.
https://www.science.org/content/article/boost-nuclear-power-trump-orders-controversial-rewrite-radiation-safety-rules. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[4] On Calabrese’s work see for example: Calabrese EJ. The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations. Chem Biol Interact. 2019; 301:6-25. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020
[5] Beyea J. False and misleading claims of scientific misconduct in early research into radiation dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking key historical text. Health Phys. 2025;128(6):507-523. doi:10.1097/H P.0000000000001932; Beyea has strongly criticized Calabrese’s claims also in Beyea J. Response to, "On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.". Environ Res. 2016 Jul; 148: 527-534. doi: 10.1016/j.e nvres.2016.01.039.
[6] In 2018 the US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed a bill to revitalize low-dose radiation research, see: Beyea J. A better direction for low-dose radiation research. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Published February 12, 2018. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/a-better-direction-for-low-dose-radiation-research/
[7] Michaels D, Wagner W. Trump’s ‘gold standard’ for science manufactures doubt. The Atlantic. Published July 20, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/07/trumps-gold-standard-doubt-science/683590/
[8] For an extended presentation of this argument see Rentetzi M. The politics of radiation protection. NTM. 2022;30:125–135; Rentetzi M. Creager A. and Lindee S. Negotiating Radiation Protection in the Nuclear Age, Pittsburgh University Press; 2025.
[9] See for example: Dalton RJ. Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia. MIT Press; 1999.
[10] McClanahan AS. Zimmer: The Movement That Defeated a Nuclear Power Plant. University Press of Kentucky; 2025.
[11] Serwer DP. The Rise of Radiation Protection: Science, Medicine and Technology in Society, 1896 –1935. Informal Report. BNLL 22279. United States Energy Research and Development Administration; 1976.
[12] Cantril ST, Parker HM. The Tolerance Dose. Report MDDC-1100. Argonne National Laboratory, United States Atomic Energy Commission; 1945.
[13] Kathren R. Pathway to a paradigm: The linear no-threshold dose-response model in historical context. Health Phys. 1996;70(5):621–626.
[14] Patil K, Rentetzi M. Too Strict or Too Lax? IAEA and the Evolution of Nuclear Safety Standards. In: Rentetzi M, Creager A, Lindee S, eds. Negotiating Radiation Protection in the Nuclear Age. University of Pittsburgh Press; 2025:pp. 242-274.
[15] Campos L. Radium and the Secret of Life. University of Chicago Press; 2015.
[16] Carlson EA. Genes, Radiation, and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller. Cornell University Press; 1981.
[17] Hamblin JD. ‘A dispassionate and objective effort:’ Negotiating the first study on the biological effects of atomic radiation. J Hist Biol. 2007;40(1): 147–177.
[18] Lindee S. Performing Anger: H. J. Muller, James V. Neel, and Radiation Risk. In: Gausemeier B, Müller-Wille S, Ramsden E, eds. Human Heredity in the Twentieth Century. Pickering and Chatto; 2014:205–216.
[19] Although not being historians of science, Edward Calabrese and James Giordano have discredited Muller’s work, see: Calabrese E, Giordano J. Muller letter reveals scientific scandal that discredits evidence used to support LNT. Chem Biol Interact. 2023;386:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2023.110787; Their claim has been strongly undermined by Jan Beyea, see reference 4 above.
[20] On Failla’s early work see: Rentetzi M. Seduced by Radium: How Industry Transformed Science in the American Marketplace. University of Pittsburgh Press; 2022.
[21] On Failla’s later post-WWII work see: Clarke RH, Valentin J. The History of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. Ann ICRP. 2009;39(1):75–110. doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2009.07.009
[22] Taylor L. Judgment in achieving protection against radiation. IAEA Bull. 1980;22(1):15–22.
[23] On Lauriston Taylor see: Dimitrokali M, Rentetzi M. Lauriston Taylor: The radiation protection man. Med Res Arch. 2025;13(5). https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i5.6453. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[24] Minutes of the Permissible Doses Conference held at Chalk River, Canada, September 29–30, 1949. R.M.-10. p. 13. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/files/library/warren1949_permissible_dose_conference_tripartite_conference.pdf
[25] National Committee on Radiation Protection. Permissible Doses from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation. Handbook 59. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards; September 24, 1954
[26] Inkret W, Meinhold C, Taschner J. Radiation and Risk—A Hard Look at the Data. Los Alamos Sci. 1995;23:116–123. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326631.pdf
[27] Lewis E. Leukemia and ionizing radiation. Science. 1957;125(3255):965–972. doi:10.1126/science.125.3 255.965. He was awarded, jointly, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1995.
[28] Brues A. Critique of the linear theory of carcinogenesis. Science. 1958;128(3326):693–699. doi:10.1126/science.128.3326.693
[29] On the challenges that the AEC faced concerning the controversies around radiation safety see: Hacker B. Radiation safety, the AEC, and nuclear weapons testing. Public Historian. 1992;14:31–53. doi:10.2307/3378439
[30] United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly, Official Records, Thirteenth Session, Supplement no. 17 (A/3838). New York: United Nations; 1958:28-29. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1958.html
[31] Prăvălie R. Nuclear weapons tests and environmental consequences: a global perspective. Ambio. 2014 Oct;43(6):729-44. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0491-1.
[32] United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, Annex A - Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer, New York: United Nations; 2008. Accessed August 10, 2025.
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2006_1.html
[33] The Economist. Radiation complacency: The limits set for exposure to radiation are far too lax. The Economist. Published September 12, 1987.
[34] Walker S, Wellock TR. A Short History of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–2009. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2010:80.
[35] Myer C. Japan's nuclear cartel: Atomic industry too close to government for comfort. Spiegel
International. Published 2011.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/japan-s-nuclear-cartel-atomic-industry-too-close-to-government-for-comfort-a-764907.html. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[36] Hecht G. Nuclear janitors: Contract workers at the Fukushima reactors and beyond. Asia-Pac J. 2013;11(1):2. https://apjjf.org/2013/11/1/gabrielle-hecht/3880/article. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ordering-the-reform-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/
[2] For an informative summary of the executive orders see: Office of Nuclear Energy, 9 key takeaways from President Trump’s executive orders on nuclear energy. US Department of Energy. Published June 10, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/9-key-takeaways-president-trumps-executive-orders-nuclear-energy
[3] Brown T. To boost nuclear power, Trump orders controversial rewrite of radiation safety rules. Science. Published May 29, 2025.
https://www.science.org/content/article/boost-nuclear-power-trump-orders-controversial-rewrite-radiation-safety-rules. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[4] On Calabrese’s work see for example: Calabrese EJ. The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations. Chem Biol Interact. 2019; 301:6-25. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020
[5] Beyea J. False and misleading claims of scientific misconduct in early research into radiation dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking key historical text. Health Phys. 2025;128(6):507-523. doi:10.1097/H P.0000000000001932; Beyea has strongly criticized Calabrese’s claims also in Beyea J. Response to, "On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.". Environ Res. 2016 Jul; 148: 527-534. doi: 10.1016/j.e nvres.2016.01.039.
[6] In 2018 the US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed a bill to revitalize low-dose radiation research, see: Beyea J. A better direction for low-dose radiation research. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Published February 12, 2018. Accessed July 23, 2025.
https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/a-better-direction-for-low-dose-radiation-research/
[7] Michaels D, Wagner W. Trump’s ‘gold standard’ for science manufactures doubt. The Atlantic. Published July 20, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/07/trumps-gold-standard-doubt-science/683590/
[8] For an extended presentation of this argument see Rentetzi M. The politics of radiation protection. NTM. 2022;30:125–135; Rentetzi M. Creager A. and Lindee S. Negotiating Radiation Protection in the Nuclear Age, Pittsburgh University Press; 2025.
[9] See for example: Dalton RJ. Critical Masses: Citizens, Nuclear Weapons Production, and Environmental Destruction in the United States and Russia. MIT Press; 1999.
[10] McClanahan AS. Zimmer: The Movement That Defeated a Nuclear Power Plant. University Press of Kentucky; 2025.
[11] Serwer DP. The Rise of Radiation Protection: Science, Medicine and Technology in Society, 1896 –1935. Informal Report. BNLL 22279. United States Energy Research and Development Administration; 1976.
[12] Cantril ST, Parker HM. The Tolerance Dose. Report MDDC-1100. Argonne National Laboratory, United States Atomic Energy Commission; 1945.
[13] Kathren R. Pathway to a paradigm: The linear no-threshold dose-response model in historical context. Health Phys. 1996;70(5):621–626.
[14] Patil K, Rentetzi M. Too Strict or Too Lax? IAEA and the Evolution of Nuclear Safety Standards. In: Rentetzi M, Creager A, Lindee S, eds. Negotiating Radiation Protection in the Nuclear Age. University of Pittsburgh Press; 2025:pp. 242-274.
[15] Campos L. Radium and the Secret of Life. University of Chicago Press; 2015.
[16] Carlson EA. Genes, Radiation, and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller. Cornell University Press; 1981.
[17] Hamblin JD. ‘A dispassionate and objective effort:’ Negotiating the first study on the biological effects of atomic radiation. J Hist Biol. 2007;40(1): 147–177.
[18] Lindee S. Performing Anger: H. J. Muller, James V. Neel, and Radiation Risk. In: Gausemeier B, Müller-Wille S, Ramsden E, eds. Human Heredity in the Twentieth Century. Pickering and Chatto; 2014:205–216.
[19] Although not being historians of science, Edward Calabrese and James Giordano have discredited Muller’s work, see: Calabrese E, Giordano J. Muller letter reveals scientific scandal that discredits evidence used to support LNT. Chem Biol Interact. 2023;386:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2023.110787; Their claim has been strongly undermined by Jan Beyea, see reference 4 above.
[20] On Failla’s early work see: Rentetzi M. Seduced by Radium: How Industry Transformed Science in the American Marketplace. University of Pittsburgh Press; 2022.
[21] On Failla’s later post-WWII work see: Clarke RH, Valentin J. The History of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. Ann ICRP. 2009;39(1):75–110. doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2009.07.009
[22] Taylor L. Judgment in achieving protection against radiation. IAEA Bull. 1980;22(1):15–22.
[23] On Lauriston Taylor see: Dimitrokali M, Rentetzi M. Lauriston Taylor: The radiation protection man. Med Res Arch. 2025;13(5). https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i5.6453. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[24] Minutes of the Permissible Doses Conference held at Chalk River, Canada, September 29–30, 1949. R.M.-10. p. 13. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/files/library/warren1949_permissible_dose_conference_tripartite_conference.pdf
[25] National Committee on Radiation Protection. Permissible Doses from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation. Handbook 59. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards; September 24, 1954
[26] Inkret W, Meinhold C, Taschner J. Radiation and Risk—A Hard Look at the Data. Los Alamos Sci. 1995;23:116–123. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326631.pdf
[27] Lewis E. Leukemia and ionizing radiation. Science. 1957;125(3255):965–972. doi:10.1126/science.125.3 255.965. He was awarded, jointly, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1995.
[28] Brues A. Critique of the linear theory of carcinogenesis. Science. 1958;128(3326):693–699. doi:10.1126/science.128.3326.693
[29] On the challenges that the AEC faced concerning the controversies around radiation safety see: Hacker B. Radiation safety, the AEC, and nuclear weapons testing. Public Historian. 1992;14:31–53. doi:10.2307/3378439
[30] United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly, Official Records, Thirteenth Session, Supplement no. 17 (A/3838). New York: United Nations; 1958:28-29. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1958.html
[31] Prăvălie R. Nuclear weapons tests and environmental consequences: a global perspective. Ambio. 2014 Oct;43(6):729-44. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0491-1.
[32] United Nations. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, Annex A - Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer, New York: United Nations; 2008. Accessed August 10, 2025.
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2006_1.html
[33] The Economist. Radiation complacency: The limits set for exposure to radiation are far too lax. The Economist. Published September 12, 1987.
[34] Walker S, Wellock TR. A Short History of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–2009. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2010:80.
[35] Myer C. Japan's nuclear cartel: Atomic industry too close to government for comfort. Spiegel
International. Published 2011.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/japan-s-nuclear-cartel-atomic-industry-too-close-to-government-for-comfort-a-764907.html. Accessed July 23, 2025.
[36] Hecht G. Nuclear janitors: Contract workers at the Fukushima reactors and beyond. Asia-Pac J. 2013;11(1):2. https://apjjf.org/2013/11/1/gabrielle-hecht/3880/article. Accessed July 23, 2025.