Panel to probe wireless health risk accused of conflict of interest

A consumer group has raised conflict-of-interest and qualification issues regarding a proposed National Academy of Sciences panel spawned by a government-wireless industry research program to examine where additional research is required on possible biological effects from mobile-phone radiation.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest said two people on the seven-person provisional NAS committee “have received funding from the industries whose products are the topics of the committee’s investigation and have clear conflicts of interest that may prevent an unbiased analysis of the true health risks from use of these devices.” CSPI, whose work has been recognized by the Food and Drug Administration, said the two appointees should not be permitted to remain on the committee.
CSPI said Dr. Leeka I. Kheifets of the UCLA School of Public Health, an NAS panel appointee, has worked in various capacities the past two decades with the Electric Power Research Institute, the research unit of the electric power industry.
“Dr. Kheifets’ longstanding relationship with EPRI may affect her ability to objectively assess the potential human health risks associated with the products of companies that financially support EPRI,” CSPI stated in a letter to Dr. Rick Jostes, NAS’ point-man for the wireless health research committee. Jostes was not available for comment.
CSPI said Dr. Bernard Veyret of the University of Bordeaux, another committee appointee, is on the consulting board of French mobile telephone operator Bouygues Telecom. In addition, according to CSPI, Veyret has contracts with Alcatel-Lucent and other telecom firms, and has received research funding from French electricity grid operator Electricite de France.
CSPI said no nominee has sufficient expertise to identify possible health effects of chronic exposure to electromagnetic radiation. As such, CSPI offered its own list of candidates. “The conflicts of interest and imbalance of the current committee roster are inconsistent with the policy of the National Academies and could undermine the creditability of the committee’s report.”
The committee’s first meeting is set for July 9, at which time conflict-of-interest issues are set to be examined. A follow-up meeting is planned for Aug. 7. The NAS said the panel would issue a report in approximately eight months on gaps in knowledge and future research needed on wireless health implications. The industry-funded NAS initiative is the last component of a 1999 cooperative research agreement between the FDA and U.S. cellphone trade association CTIA.
“We solicit public comment about the composition of our study committees as they are formed. Interest groups-including those from industry, associations, and CSPI-frequently comment on their make-up and sometimes offer us their own preferences for . committee membership,” said William Skane, an NAS spokesman. “We take all public comments into consideration in deciding committee composition, and treat the issue of conflict of interest very seriously. We have a detailed published conflict-of-interest policy.”
Skane said NAS keeps comments on committee membership private, but at least one other comment obtained by RCR Wireless News raised serious concerns about the panel’s makeup-particularly the lack of divergent scientific viewpoints of appointees and the absence of expertise in life sciences.
In addition to Kheifets and Veyret, other tentative committee members are Dr. Frank Barnes of the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Om Gandi of the University of Utah, Dr. Maila Hietanen of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Rudiger Matthes of Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection and Dr. David L.McCormick of the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute.
Government authorities here and abroad say science does not point to a health risk from mobile phones, but they refuse to dismiss an association entirely. As such, most support more research. Many scientific studies are being conducted in Europe. While the FDA holds direct legal sway over wireless device safety, the Federal Communications Commission is charged with ensuring cellular carriers, mobile phones and base stations adhere to human exposure limits set by industry and government experts and certified by the American National Standards Institute. The FCC radio-frequency exposure standard has been affirmed by the courts.
The FDA did not respond to a request for comment, and CTIA declined to comment.
The cellular industry has not lost a health-related lawsuit since late 1992, when the question of a cellphone-brain cancer link was raised in Florida litigation. Still, a handful of suits remain.
Indeed, a federal judicial panel last week issued a final order remanding a class-action headset and a brain-cancer lawsuit to federal courts in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively. Plaintiffs in both cases are expected to fight to have the cases returned to state courts. The class-action seeks to force mobile-phone operators to supply consumers with headsets to reduce exposure to handset radiation and compensate subscribers who already purchased such devices.
Separately, the Superior Court of the District of the District of Columbia is getting closer to deciding whether six brain-cancer suits against wireless companies will go forward or be dismissed. The same court is also handling a suit against wireless companies for marketing service and products without publicly disclosing differences in the scientific community on whether cellphones pose a health risk to the nation’s 238 million mobile-phone users.