 | | | 
 |  | 
| |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive.) | | Bias in studies funded by industry
[8-Nov-2005]
| In summer 2005, the Toronto Star ran a series of articles exploring the controversy regarding the health risks of mobile technology. One of these articles quoted an analysis of 252 studies published worldwide, on mobile radio frequencies out of the University of Washington, which showed a clear difference in results between independent research and studies directly funded by industry. For this study, research was 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 mobile phone frequencies were noted 81 per cent of the time, according to researcher Henry Lai. When corporate money was directly funding the science, effects were noted only 19 per cent of the time. Lai's review of the science on the biological impacts revealed what he called a telling pattern.
| Nearly 60 per cent of published studies on mobile phone frequencies reported some biological effects, including altered gene expression, DNA breaks and even death of animal brain cells. In 36 studies focused upon genetic effects such as DNA damage, 53 per cent showed some kind of biological effect that might indicate concern. Of those studies, a vast majority - 79 per cent - were independent. Conversely, studies showing no effects had direct industry funding 82 per cent of the time.
| Published research on other potential effects, including behaviour, molecular and brainwave effects, shows a similar pattern of funding biases according to Lai. This bias in science is reflected in bias of this so-called spiked-debate.
| Andrea Klein, Alexandra Park Mast Action, UK
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
