Funding of research
When research is funded by industry, it is important that the integrity and independence of the research is not compromised. You can see an example of the contract used by the UK electricity industry to ensure this.
Communication of research results
As with research into any other public health issue, there is a risk that research on EMFs, if communicated to the public in a misleading, unbalanced or sensationalist way, could cause unjustified concern or anxiety. The way to avoid this is to follow the accepted standards for disseminating research, in particular, the element of peer-review publication.
This was expressed in a letter to several of the UK's national newspapers on 23 Feb 1999 from a group of Fellows of the Royal Society. The final paragraph read:
“It is a dangerous mistake, vividly illustrated by the events of the past week concerning GM foods, to assume that all statements claiming to be scientific can be taken at face value. Good science is work that has stood up to detailed scrutiny by independent workers in the field and contributes to new knowledge and understanding. Those who start telling the media about alleged scientific results that have not first been thoroughly scrutinised and exposed to the scientific community serve only to mislead, with potentially very damaging consequences.” [full letter at bottom of page]
A similar point was made by the then President of the Royal Society, Sir Aaron Klug OM, in his Royal Society Anniversary Address 1999, delivered on 30 November 1999:
“Thus the Society has an unparalleled record in promoting the role of the peer-reviewed journal as the vehicle for sifting and disseminating worthwhile science. This matters because I believe strongly that, before rushing to tell the world about a new finding, the scientist has a duty to make sure, so far as possible, that he or she is right. The best way to do that is to expose the finding to experts able to criticise the work. Of course, not everything that is published is right, even in peer-reviewed journals, but peer review is the best defence we have against broadcasting error. Much mischief has been caused by scientists seeking publicity for unreviewed ‘findings’ that turn out to be seriously wrong, and the Society has had to devote a great deal of time in the past year to the consequences.”
Several scientific journals have rules against publicising scientific work before it has been properly peer-reviewed and published:
A set of guidelines on good practice for both scientists and journalists has recently been published by the Social Issues Research Centre, the Royal Institution, and the Royal Society.
transcription of letter published in The Guardian, Tuesday 23 February 1999 (essentially the same letter also appeared in other broadsheet papers that day)
We believe that the time is right to bring good science into the centre of decision-making and focus its impact in our increasingly technologically-driven world. In many of the major policy issues that confront us today - global food security, energy needs, environmental conservation, climate change - it is impossible to make wise decisions without reference to the underpinning science. Three consequences follow.
First, you need good scientists for decision-makers to consult. The UK is therefore fortunate in having an exceptionally strong scientific community with the Royal Society promoting excellence in science. Second, decision makers must, and increasingly do, recognise when they are dealing with a science-related issue. And third, we all need to distinguish good science from bad science.
It is a dangerous mistake, vividly illustrated by the events of the past week concerning GM foods, to assume that all statements claiming to be scientific can be taken at face value. Good science is work that has stood up to detailed scrutiny by independent workers in the field and contributes to new knowledge and understanding. Those who start telling the media about alleged scientific results that have not first been thoroughly scrutinised and exposed to the scientific community serve only to mislead, with potentially very damaging consequences.
Prof Brian Heap FRS, The Royal Society et al
The letter as printed in The Guardian lists 8 names and says “and 11 others”. The fuller list of names printed in the Daily Telegraph on the same day was:
Prof Brian Heap
Prof Patrick Bateson
Sir Eric Ash
Prof Roy Anderson
Sir Alan Cook
Sir Roger Elliott
Prof William Hill
Prof Louise Johnson
Prof Sir John Kingman
Prof Peter Lachmann
Dr Paul Nurse
Prof Linda Partridge
Dr Max Perutz
Prof Sir William Rees
Sir Richard Southwood
Sir John Meurig Thomas
Prof Sir Ghillean Prance
Earl of Selbourne |