‘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.
Read more: https://blogbrhp.medium.com/friendship-dilemma-in-wireless-radiation-and-health-science-23c5ab91fd6d
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Thanks for the clarification Dariusz CheersMike
Hi Mike. The post didn’t deal with WHO’s systematic review. It was my mistake. The link is here:
The (unmentioned) Risk of Bias (RoB) of the Systematic Review on RF-EMF and Cancer. https://wp.me/pBbF9-1F6
I have also published another opinion on systematic reviews:
Systematic Reviews are not as reliable and unbiased as some claim… https://wp.me/pBbF9-1Gt
Hi DariusA little while back you criticized a WHO systematic review on animal studies and cancer. Could you please send me a copy of that study?Many thanks Mike
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Great articulo
Very good article, Dariusz. Science and human emotions can be in conflict. There might not be always a solution.
Dariusz:
You speak the truth here which underscores a serious present-day problem in terms of public health protection. However, this is not new and a look back at the history of how we got here with wireless radiation concerns is illustrative of what I would call ‘scientific drift’ away from ‘fact’ and into the abyss of ‘opinion’. This convolution is a serious shortcoming of our processes.
It was thirty years ago this month, October of 1993, that we in the Wireless Technology Research group released publicly the Research Agenda for our work to be done over the subsequent five years. The purpose of the program, funded with $28.5M assessed to the wireless industry, conducted independently, and overseen by a U.S. government Interagency Working Group with assistance of a Peer Review Board empaneled at the Harvard School of Public Health, was to provide ‘factual’ science in the areas where there was none. It is noteworthy that the ‘original sin’ was that wireless technology had been exempted from pre-market safety testing in 1984 and the data voids in 1993 were vast. In that program, our job was to provide ‘facts’ and based on those ‘facts’, responsible parties in government and industry could form their ‘best opinions’ that would be the basis for policy decisions regarding public health protection. There was a hard boundary in our program between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ — our job was ‘fact’ and it was the job of industry and government to derive ‘opinions’ from those ‘facts’ as the basis for action or non-action in terms of public health.
Today, those boundaries between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ have been conflated and the result has been twenty years of inertia that has proved ever more dangerous to the public. I can tell you from my experience in law that the rules and guidelines for decision making based on ‘opinion’ are far different from scientific rules leading to decisions based on ‘fact’. These differences in approach are important and, when applied properly, lead to the best decisions.
My view on this has become more firm over thirty years — scientists should stay in the ‘fact’ finding domain and out of the politics of ‘opinion’. Those who are duty-bound to protect public health and safety — that includes government legislators and regulators as well as responsible industry components — should use real ‘facts’ to create policies that are protective. Policy makers should definitely reach out to scientific groups for input on specific aspects which involve learned discernment so they are informed. But, the experience and training required for proper determination of ‘facts’ and ‘public policy’ are vastly different and decision-making should reflect that reality.
It’s about time we get this right. Public health depends on it.
George L. Carlo
Thanks André
Excellent article, Dariusz — André Fauteux, éditeur Magazine La Maison du 21e siècle 2955, rue du Domaine-du-lac-Lucerne Sainte-Adèle Qc J8B 3K9 https://www.google.ca/maps/place/2955+Rue+du+Dom.+du+Lac+Lucerne,+Sainte-Ad%C3%A8le,+QC+J8B+3K9/@46.0068853,-74.1058126,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4ccf3869279112e3:0xa8201fb675e5a676!8m2!3d46.0068853!4d-74.1036239
andre@maisonsaine.ca 450 745-0609 http://www.maisonsaine.ca http://www.facebook.com/maisonsaine
Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D’abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence. – Arthur Schopenhauer
>