Health scares are all the rage in Europe this summer. It’s not just mad cow disease. The detection of dioxin in some animal feeds has removed many foodstuffs from the shelves. Millions of cans of Coke have been withdrawn following allegations of contamination. There is mounting public outcry against genetically modified foods. And there is a growing fear that mobile phones can cause adverse health effects.
Media reporting of health scares often makes comparisons with hazards in other areas. Health risks associated with mobile phones are now a frequently cited hazard, included as if they were known facts. The perception that mobile phones can be dangerous has entered the public consciousness.
Only a year ago things were different. Health risk from mobile phones was an issue, as it had been since 1994, but was not treated as an established fact by the media. All that has changed.
Sustained pressure from some activists is one factor behind this change. Increased coverage in the media from a growing band of campaigning journalists is another. But there is a third community that has fueled the issue so effectively that the results are probably irreversible.
The results of scientific experiments establishing biological effects from mobile phones have been widely quoted in the media. But these are not reliable results from reliable experiments. They are results that have been leaked to the media before being subjected to the scrutiny of other scientists. They have bypassed the peer review process.
Publication by press release is not part of the scientific process. These results are not science; they are pseudoscience. The community of pseudoscientists is a major driver behind the creation of the perception of risk in the public consciousness.
Not all scientific results reported in the media are pseudoscience. But many genuine published experiments have been misreported by the media. Inaccurate and purposefully misleading conclusions have been drawn and falsely attributed to the scientists concerned.
Sometimes the inaccuracies extend to the scientists themselves. Recent television programs in the United Kingdom and the United States claimed that using mobile phones increased the risk of getting a rare brain tumor. But the person reporting this result did not conduct the study, contrary to the impression given in the programs. This was an unauthorized and inaccurate presentation of someone else’s unpublished results.
Many people in the mobile communications industry are aware of what is going on, but few seem prepared to react in an open and proactive fashion. Ever since potential health hazards from mobile phones emerged as a source of public concern, the mobile industry has tried to play down the issue, relying on bald and somewhat patronizing statements about adherence to standards and lack of proven scientific evidence.
Much of the mobile community, particularly the manufacturing sector, is still in that mode. A pattern of behavior that goes against all the established principles of issue and risk management. The experiences of other industries have shown the need to acknowledge the phenomenon of public outrage and react accordingly.
Reacting accordingly means responding to questions, not refusing to comment. It means nominating knowledgeable spokespersons with the resources to research the issues. It means addressing the legitimate concerns of the public in an open and sympathetic fashion, not hiding behind prepared statements.
Pseudoscience is creating a problem. Pseudoresponse is not the way to tackle that problem.
