|
|
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 231 Back› Oldest» |
| Is her cellphone safe? | |
| USA | Created: 14 Aug 2005 |
|
Some scientists trying to find the answer say they've been pressured to soften controversial findings What you know about the potential health risks of your cellphone may be clouded by powerful corporate interests anxious to protect the image of the world's most successful gadget. In the high-stakes world of cellphone research, where a $120 billion North American industry's fortunes could rest on the latest findings, scientific interests often collide with corporate bottom lines. Some scientists say they have been pressured to produce the right answers. "There's so much money involved, that the only thing industry sees is the money," says Dr. Jerry Phillips, a well-known cellphone researcher in the U.S. with dozens of peer-reviewed papers published under his name. "They couldn't give a damn about basic science." Allegations by several U.S. scientists interviewed by the Toronto Star include corporate intimidation and having their work altered to soften concerns about potential risks. And they say manipulation of scientific studies is slanting public debate around a legitimate health concern as the cellphone industry, using popular images such as Barbie and Hilary Duff, shifts its marketing efforts to pre-teens. The U.S. industry vigorously denies the allegations. Joe Farren, a spokesperson for the U.S.-based Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, says his members have a strictly hands-off relationship with scientists. "We have nothing to do with them. We write the cheque and they do the studies." Dr. Louis Slesin, founder and publisher of New York-based scientific newsletter Microwave News, has spent more than 20 years watching the science around cellphones unfold. He says the public is getting a sanitized version. "If people had any understanding of what goes on in the trenches, people would change their view. ... If you really go in there and dig into it, you see this is really a sordid business." An analysis of 252 published studies worldwide on cellular radio frequencies out of the University of Washington, obtained by the Toronto Star, shows a clear difference in results between independent research and studies directly funded by industry. According to the analysis, research is considered independent when funded by governments, government agencies or academic institutions. Among the peer-reviewed, published studies with no direct industry funding, biological effects from cellphone frequencies were noted 81 per cent of the time, according to researcher Dr. Henry Lai. When corporate money is directly funding the science, effects are noted only 19 per cent of the time. Not everyone agrees scientists are pushed to come up with favourable conclusions. "Certainly not with the research I've been involved in and with the research my Canadian colleagues have been involved in," says Dr. Mary McBride, senior scientist in cancer control research at the B.C. Cancer Agency. "There are ways to arrange (industry) support that puts the researcher at arm's length and in an independent position. The studies I've seen have been designed in that way." But some scientists who have conducted industry-funded studies say that, far from being the model of pure, objective research, they've seen their results misrepresented or discredited. Phillips recalls the sudden concern washing over the faces of Motorola executives in 1995 when he began detailing his findings on the impact of cellphone signals on rat cells. What began as a friendly chat between Phillips and officials with the cellphone giant took an unpleasant turn when he explained that his Motorola-funded experiments revealed biological effects from cellular radio frequency signals, he says. "There was a lot of agitation, frowning and long faces," Phillips recalls. "Rather than talking about the implications of the work, the (Motorola) attorney and the (public relations) guy immediately asked, `What are you going to do if people call and ask for this?' It was at that point our relationship with Motorola changed." |
|
|
|
|
| Source: ROBERT CRIBB AND TYLER HAMILTON. staff reporters | |
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 231 Back› Oldest» |