Research >
Research ethics
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
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 by 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 |
back
|
