Commentary | Published:

Toxicology rethinks its central belief

Nature volume 421, pages 691692 (13 February 2003) | Download Citation


Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Radiation Hormesis (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991).

  2. 2.

    Mutat. Res. 403, 249–258 (1998).

  3. 3.

    & Hum. Exper. Toxicol. 19, 2–31 (2000).

  4. 4.

    & Toxicol. Sci. 71, 246–250 (2003).

  5. 5.

    & (eds) Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 31, 349–669 (2001).

  6. 6.

    , & (eds) Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 7, 779–942 (2001).

  7. 7.

    Hum Exper. Toxicol. 17, 431–438 (1998).

Download references


Our work is sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Our views do not necessarily represent those of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research or the US Government.

Author information


  1. Edward J. Calabrese and Linda A. Baldwin are at the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA.

    • Edward J Calabrese
    •  & Linda A Baldwin


  1. Search for Edward J Calabrese in:

  2. Search for Linda A Baldwin in:

About this article

Publication history



Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing