To the Editor:
I am appalled by the unprincipled attack on the WTR carried in last Monday’s issue of RCR. The unverified story was replete with untruths, half-truths, misinformation, innuendo and unattributed statements. I am compelled to clarify for your readership at least some of the inaccuracies, and to repeat the information that was conveyed to your reporter prior to the appearance of the article.
The independent Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. is a unique innovation in the scientific research arena that was created to address important public health questions about wireless communication technology. The program is funded appropriately by the industry through a deposit-only escrow mechanism so that millions of public tax dollars are not used to provide answers to commercial technology questions. The rigorous scientific program is structured as an independent legal entity, and managed by scientists independent of industry influence to ensure that the research results are credible, unbiased and can be relied upon by decision makers in public health, government and industry. The ongoing results of the program impact millions of Americans and are critical to balancing technological advancement with protection of public health and safety.
The confused story in RCR unfairly attempted to impugn the integrity of the WTR by stating false information. While I will not dignify untrue and ridiculous allegations about meetings in exotic places and absurd claims about “emperors with no clothes” with a response, I must clarify the misperceptions perpetrated by your story regarding the management and content of the WTR program.
As chairman of the WTR, I make difficult decisions every day about the direction of our research, funding priorities and contracts. My goal is to have the best and most useful research possible completed with our finite resources. I rely on advice from esteemed scientists who specialize in specific research areas, including my WTR colleagues Drs. Bill Guy, Ian Munro and Don McRee, our Peer Review Board coordinated through Harvard University, various WTR-supported expert panels and other scientists from around the world. Indeed, as I explained to your reporter, those scientists who are denied funding or have contracts canceled could be expected to express discontent, and there certainly will be differences of opinion in a program as large and complex as the WTR’s.
The WTR scientific process has been, from its inception, open. Our decision-making rationale is readily available to anyone who is interested through our 400-page published peer-review research agenda, regular newsletters, other peer-reviewed publications, progress reports and presentations at scientific meetings. It is well known around the world, and contrary to the assertions put forth in the RCR story, that WTR-sponsored laboratory research relevant to the cancer question has been underway at prestigious institutions such as Northwestern University and the University of Maryland since the inception of the WTR effort. Ironically, the RCR story quoted Dr. C.K. Chou of the City of Hope National Medical Center, who has the WTR’s largest laboratory research contract to date. Dr. Chou is developing the critical head-only exposure system that is a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful experiments addressing potential cancer risk from wireless instruments. Pilot testing of that laboratory exposure system is underway. The story made no mention of Dr. Chou’s other WTR-supported laboratory work, yet proceeded to criticize WTR for having done none.
Our advisors, peer reviewers and publications have clearly stated that any laboratory experiments done without the well characterized in vitro and in vivo exposure systems directly applicable to wireless exposures that are being developed by WTR would yield speculative and unreliable results with respect to the health risks of wireless instruments. Indeed, in light of this publicly available and scientifically grounded information, those anonymous sources in the RCR story who are calling for premature laboratory experiments clearly are not interested in the truth about health risks but are more interested in propagating the controversies fed by unreliable data. Experiments with inappropriate exposure systems will produce research results that do not simulate accurately the exposure to wireless instruments and will further confuse the public health issues. It appears that the RCR story emphasized the views of those proposing the premature approach and propagating additional controversies.
Further, our health research program has continually generated results, including the publication in the most recent issue of the prestigious scientific journal, Epidemiology, three peer-reviewed epidemiology papers, with research findings and an accompanying editorial praising the WTR scientific effort. Your reporter and his sources simply did not do their homework or they ignored the obvious public information that is contrary to their preconceived story line.
The misinformation in the RCR story about hearing aids and pacemaker interference inaccurately represented WTR’s role. WTR has refused to be involved in work addressing the cellular phone-hearing aid interference issue because it would dilute our focus from health risk questions. Initially, WTR also refused to do work related to interference between phones and implanted pacemakers for the same reason. However, when it became clear this interference could pose a public health risk, the CTIA requested and U.S. government agencies encouraged the involvement of the WTR. Only then did WTR agree to oversee this work. We are preparing to release our findings regarding pacemaker interference during the next two months, beginning with a scientific report at a cardiology meeting May 16, and ending with a symposium releasing WTR’s corrective intervention recommendations on July 16. We have been praised by government officials for our focused and time efficient attention to the pacemaker question.
The issue of funding the WTR is not complicated, but unfortunately, the RCR story did not get this right either. The responsibilities of the WTR and the wireless industry are clear and a matter of public record. The job of the WTR is to manage and conduct the research. The job of the industry is to provide the money to the WTR’s one-way escrow fund. Tom Wheeler of CTIA has the unenviable job of collecting millions of dollars from members of a very competitive industry, for a program that the industry is not unanimously in favor of, and for a program over which the industry has absolutely no control. That he is able to collect any money under these circumstances is a testimony to his acumen, and the commitment of a majority of the industry to the WTR program. Over the past six months, a number of unanticipated events have occurred including unsubstantiated lawsuits against WTR with resultant legal expenses and the CTIA requested clinical work regarding pacemakers, that has caused the WTR to temporarily realign these issues. This is the type of “bump in the road” that should be expected in the development of an unprecedented and unique program such as the WTR, but one that does not compromise the integrity of the WTR work, its independence or its importance. The RCR story improperly interjected WTR into a controversial industry funding problem.
Finally, both the work of the WTR addressing potential health effects from wireless communication technology and the independent process embodied by WTR demonstrate the necessary integrity which is critical to public confidence in a mechanism to provide the accurate scientific data and recommendations that could protect them from potentially dangerous technical innovations. The erroneous information and innuendo carried by the RCR story is not only a disservice to the WTR, the scientific community and the industry that your publication represents, but a disservice to the public.
Sincerely yours,
George L. Carlo, Ph.D., M.S., J.D.
WTR Chairma
n
