‘Friendship dilemma’ in wireless radiation and health science

After almost 30 years of conducting research on wireless radiation and health, I have attended numerous conferences, both large and small. During these conferences, I have observed a recurring phenomenon that raises a ‘friendship dilemma’.

It usually goes like this: two scientists exit a lecture room and start discussing what was presented. One of them expresses a strong disagreement with the opinion of one of the presenters. The other scientist is surprised and wonders why the first scientist didn’t express their critical opinion openly in the conference room for everyone to hear and evaluate. The first scientist often responds by saying that they are friends with the presenter and didn’t want to embarrass them in public.

The dilemma in this situation is deciding what is more important — not embarrassing friends or ensuring that the audience, especially those who are not experts in the field, do not leave with the impression that the opinion presented at the conference was correct and valid. This means that many scientists, who listened to a lecture containing errors, would travel back to their laboratories with scientifically incorrect information because a friend did not want to embarrass another friend.

This is the ‘friendship dilemma’ in science.

Friendship between scientists can have both positive and negative impacts on their scientific opinions. On one hand, a strong friendship can foster an environment of trust and collaboration, allowing scientists to share and discuss their ideas freely. This can lead to fruitful discussions, constructive criticism, and the exchange of different perspectives, ultimately enhancing their scientific opinions.

Friendship can also provide emotional support, which is crucial for scientists to navigate the challenges and uncertainties that come with their work. It allows them to confide in each other, seek advice, and share personal experiences that may influence their scientific opinions. Having this support system can help scientists feel more confident in expressing and defending their perspectives.

However, it’s worth noting that friendship can introduce biases and potential conflicts of interest. Scientists who are close friends may have similar backgrounds, training, and research interests, which can sometimes create an echo chamber effect. This can lead to group-think, where dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints may be overlooked or dismissed. As a result, the scientific opinions of friends may become more aligned over time, potentially limiting the diversity of ideas and perspectives within their circles.

To mitigate these risks, scientists need to maintain a balance between friendship and critical thinking. They should actively seek out diverse perspectives, engage in rigorous peer review processes, and welcome healthy debate within their scientific communities. By promoting open-mindedness and considering a range of viewpoints, scientists can enhance the robustness and objectivity of their scientific opinions.

This ‘friendship dilemma’ is even more influential in self-appointed scientific committees.

The friendship among members of self-appointed scientific committees can potentially impact their scientific opinions. While personal relationships can foster collaboration, shared values, and trust, they can also introduce biases and group-think that may compromise the objectivity and reliability of their opinions. Here are a few ways in which friendship among committee members can potentially influence, in a negative way, their scientific opinions:

1. Confirmation bias: Friends may be more inclined to agree with one another’s opinions, potentially reinforcing existing beliefs or biases. This can hinder critical thinking and lead to a less objective evaluation of the evidence.

2. Group-think: When friends form a close-knit group, there can be a tendency to conform to the group’s opinions rather than expressing dissenting views. This can hinder open and robust scientific debate, leading to the suppression of alternative perspectives and potential flaws in the decision-making process.

3. Social pressures: Friendship dynamics can create social pressures to conform to the majority opinion within the group. To maintain harmony within the friendship circle, individual committee members may be reluctant to challenge and critically evaluate each other’s viewpoints, even when warranted.

4. Personal biases and conflicts of interest: Friendship can lead to personal biases that may unconsciously influence decision-making. Additionally, friends might have shared interests or financial ties, which can introduce conflicts of interest that compromise objectivity if not properly disclosed and managed.

However, it is important to note that the impact of friendship on scientific opinions will vary based on the individuals involved and the specific dynamics of the committee. It is crucial for members of scientific committees, regardless of their relationships, to maintain the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and objectivity in their decision-making processes.

To mitigate the potential negative effects of friendship, committees should adopt practices such as diversifying membership, encouraging open dialogue, fostering an atmosphere that welcomes constructive criticism, and promoting independent review processes to ensure a broader range of perspectives and minimize undue influence.

Hence, another potential problem caused by the ‘friendship dilemma’ is: what is the reliability of scientific opinions of self-appointed scientific committees that advise the governments, the public health organizations, and the industry?

The reliability of scientific opinions can vary depending on several factors, including the credibility and independence of the committee, the methods used to gather and analyze data, and potential conflicts of interest. When evaluating the reliability of opinions from self-appointed scientific committees that advise the industry, it is important to consider the following:

1. Expertise and credentials: Assess the qualifications of the committee members. Do they possess relevant expertise in the field? Are they recognized and respected by the scientific community for their research and publications?

2. Independence and transparency: Look for transparency in the committee’s funding and potential conflicts of interest. If the committee is financially tied to the industry it advises, it may introduce bias into their opinions. Independent committees, with no financial or ideological conflicts, are generally considered more reliable.

3. Scientific consensus: Determine if the committee’s opinions align with the broader scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is formed through rigorous peer-reviewed research, independent replication of results, and extensive scientific discussion. Opinions that deviate significantly from the scientific consensus should be critically evaluated.

4. Evidence-based approach: Assess whether the committee’s opinions are based on rigorous scientific evidence, including well-designed studies, robust data analysis, and peer-reviewed publications. Reliable committees ensure that their conclusions are supported by solid evidence.

5. Peer review process: Explore whether the committee’s work undergoes a peer review process. Peer review involves independent experts evaluating the committee’s methods, data, and conclusions for accuracy and validity. Peer-reviewed work is generally considered more credible.

But, overall, self-appointed scientific committees that advise the industry may have potential biases and conflicts of interest. It is crucial to critically evaluate the credibility, independence, and scientific rigor of their opinions by considering the factors mentioned above and seeking input from a range of reliable sources. In some self-appointed scientific committees, there is no external supervision or accountability of their dealings. All that some of the self-appointed scientific committees do is at their discretion.

Another problem caused by the ‘friendship dilemma’ is the generation of distrust between friends or groups of friends that have diverse and disagreeing scientific opinions.

Distrust between scientists, or groups of scientists, can have significant negative impacts on their scientific opinions and the overall scientific community. Here’s how distrust can affect scientific opinions:

1. Confirmation bias: When scientists distrust each other, they tend to be less receptive to ideas or evidence that contradict their own beliefs. This confirmation bias can hinder the acceptance of new findings and limit the exploration of alternative viewpoints, ultimately narrowing the scope and accuracy of their scientific opinions.

2. Lack of collaboration: Distrust can breed a competitive environment, where scientists are unwilling to share data, methodologies, or collaborate with others. Without collaboration, scientists may miss out on valuable insights, innovations, and the opportunity to expand their scientific opinions through collective efforts.

3. Discourages critical evaluation: Distrust can create an atmosphere where scientists are hesitant to critically evaluate the work of others. Objective scrutiny is an essential component of the scientific process, and without it, flawed conclusions or biased interpretations may go unchecked, impacting the quality and reliability of scientific opinions.

4. Replication challenges: If scientists distrust the work of their peers, they may be less inclined to replicate or reproduce their experiments or studies. Replication is a critical aspect of scientific validation, ensuring the reliability and generalizability of findings. Without trust, the replication process becomes challenging, potentially leading to erroneous or unreproducible scientific opinions.

5. Damage to the scientific community: Distrust can erode the foundation of scientific collaboration and undermine the credibility of the scientific community as a whole. It can lead to reduced public trust in scientific opinions, and skepticism about scientific discoveries, and hinder the application of scientific knowledge for societal benefits.

To address distrust among scientists, fostering an open and transparent scientific culture is crucial. Encouraging dialogue, promoting transparency in research practices, and establishing clear communication channels can help bridge gaps and foster trust within the scientific community.

Additionally, reinforcing ethical guidelines, peer review processes, and encouraging replication studies can also help improve the reliability and credibility of scientific opinions.

And here I am coming back to the wireless radiation science and opinions on what the science means for human health and the environment.

As I have presented in my recent article [1], the evaluations of the same scientific evidence come to different conclusions depending on the scientists performing the analysis.

Evaluations of the research conducted by two groups of scientists, forming the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE-ICES), are used to set international safety guidelines. Both ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES claim that scientific evidence shows a lack of harmful health effects. The opinion of ICNIRP is, historically already, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the opinion of ICES-IEEE is recommended by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the USA. Because of this, WHO and/or FCC recommendations are also followed by the telecommunication industry and the majority of the national governments.

However, the evaluation of the same scientific evidence by other teams of scientists including the BioInitiative, the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), or the recently established International Commission on Biological Effects of the Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) leads to conclusions that the scientific evidence shows definite harm to health.

To all of the above-mentioned self-appointed science committees (ICNIRP, ICES-IEEE, BioInitiative, ICEMS, and ICBE-EMF) apply the same concerns:

• They are ‘private clubs’ where members elect new members without the need to justify selection

• They lack accountability before anyone

• They lack transparency in their activities

• They completely lack any supervision of their activities

• Their evaluation of science is likely skewed because of the close pre-arranged similarity of the opinions of all committee members

The striking differences in interpretation of wireless radiation science between these self-appointed groups of scientists reflect a broader problem of wireless radiation research. When the results of experimental studies are difficult to interpret, and the outcomes of studies are mostly ambiguous, it is up to individual scientists and groups of scientists to determine the significance of the results of such studies. Scientists who are more worried about the possible health effects will provide a different final evaluation of the ambiguous science than the scientists who are less worried about the possible effects.

There is also an often expressed opinion that the majority of the wireless radiation and health studies are of poor quality, have too small a sample size for reliable statistics, and provide in vitro and in vivo evidence that has not been proven to occur in living humans. The most recent critical reviews showing the low quality of science have concerned the 5G technology and health [2, 3, 4]. Hence, there is a strong and urgent need for better-quality research [5].

Despite the general agreement that the currently available scientific evidence is of poor quality and that there are significant gaps in the knowledge, this poor and inadequate scientific evidence is being used to claim that there is either no evidence of harm or that evidence of harm has been established. Such statements not only lack logic but also are morally and ethically questionable. If the scientific evidence used either to support claims of safety or lack of it, is of poor scientific quality, then claims of safety, or lack of it, are unreliable because they lack solid support from quality scientific studies.

I consider [1] that the poor quality of research might have an impact on the reliability of safety guidelines based on such poor-quality scientific data. For this reason, I call for a scientific debate where all players would meet and debate science to reach a consensus opinion.

Following the publication of my opinion article [1], I have contacted several scientists, from organizations that evaluate the scientific evidence concerning possible health effects from exposures to man-made wireless radiation-emitting devices and networks, to gauge their interest and willingness to participate in the proposed debate. The responses, in general, are a very disconcerting read [6].

The following scientists from the following organizations responded as follows:

• T. Samaras, EU-SCHEER — interested in principle

• J. Keshvari, IEEE-ICES — not interested

• L. Giuliani, ICEMS — interested

• Ron Melnick, ICBE-EMF — interested in testifying (presenting own opinion) but not in debate

• E. van Deventer, WHO — not interested because of the ongoing WHO evaluation of EMF research

• J. Schuz, IARC — fully relies on WHO and IARC opinions

• C. Sage, BioInitiative — not interested

• R. Croft, ICNIRP — not interested

This, to me, indicates a far reaching scientific distrusts between different self-appointed committees that potentially harms the proper, correct and reliable evaluation of wireless radiation science. Governments and the telecom industry, instead of ignoring and turning a blind eye, should be interested in resolving this situation because they will bear all and every responsibility for the eventual incorrect or inadequate interpretation of science by the so-called independent, self-appointed, and unsupervised committees they follow for advice. Committees that have no responsibility before anyone but… themselves.

In the context of all that I said above it is important to ask:

In a situation when scientific studies on EMF and health are of known and proven insufficient quality, what is the scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility of scientists when they claim that human health safety is already assured?

In conclusion, there is something scientifically ‘wrong’ with all of the mentioned organizations that, generally, refuse to debate with scientists of opposite opinions and prefer to ‘sizzle’ in their own, likely biased, ‘echo-chambers’.

*****

References

1. Leszczynski D. Call for consensus debate on mobile phone radiation and health: Are current safety guidelines sufficient to protect everyone’s health? Front Public Health. 2022; 10:1085821. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1085821

2. Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G wireless communication and health effects-A pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:3406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406

3. Karipidis K, Mate R, Urban D, Tinker R, Wood A. 5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low level RF fields above 6 GHz. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. (2021) 31:585–605. doi: 10.1038/s41370–021–00297–6

4. Leszczynski D. Physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin and skin cells: an overview of the to-date published studies. Rev Environ Health. (2020) 35:493–515. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020–0056

5. Foster KR. Needed: more reliable bioeffects studies at “high band” 5G frequencies. Front Comms Net. (2021) 2:721925. doi: 10.3389/frcmn.2021.721925

6. Leszczynski D. Editorial: Experts’ opinions in radiation and health: Emerging issues in the field. Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1168971. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1168971.