OXFORD, United Kingdom-“Mobile Phones-Is There A Health Risk?” was the title of a conference held mid-October in London. “Mobile phones-Is there a health risk?” is also a complex question that has been the subject of considerable study, debate and publicity over the past five years.
Some people, however, think there is a simple answer to this complex question. A poll of the hundred or so delegates at the start of the conference revealed more than one-third believe there are no health risks from the use of mobile phones. When asked if anyone was convinced that mobile phones definitely pose a health hazard, just a single hand was raised.
Conference speakers included experts and representatives from all sides of the issue: scientific and medical researchers, mobile network operators, the media, consumer activists, risk management consultants, lawyers and insurers. Manufacturers of mobile phone shielding devices spoke. Manufacturers of mobile phones and infrastructure did not; they were invited, but declined.
Encouragingly, support for the concept of constructive dialogue was voiced by all sides. But it is clear that some people merely are paying lip service to the concept. A few aggrieved members of the mobile communications community believe the industry is being unfairly targeted by activists using innuendo and uncritical interpretations of selected and suspect data.
The “activists” seem convinced the mobile industry deliberately is dismissing relevant data and manipulating scientific funding to ensure positive results. Researchers who produce unwelcome results are being persecuted and silenced, they claim.
The lawyers and the scientists looked on bemused. But they have some clear messages to contribute. From the scientific side, the need for proper assessment and genuine peer review of experiments was emphasized repeatedly. Almost all of the results regularly quoted by the activists are suspect when submitted to standard rigorous criteria; the few that retain any credibility have yet to be verified. Until experiments are replicated independently, it is irresponsible to react to their results. The problem is that this takes time. The general consensus was that it will be 2003 before any reliable results emerge.
Waiting until 2003 is irresponsible, argue the activists. The evidence is there now. It may be anecdotal or ignored by the scientific establishment, but there are lots of signs. The activists can, and do, quote chapter and verse to support their sincerely held beliefs. Don’t forget history, they say. From Galileo onward, great scientists who make breakthroughs have been shunned by the scientific establishment.
Such arguments are familiar to the editors of refereed scientific journals. They carry little weight, but create considerable uncertainty. For the proponents of such arguments are often sincere in their beliefs. And no one wants to be remembered as the editor who rejected Einstein’s paper.
Other elements of the media have less concern for absolute truth. Their mission is to inform or entertain. They just love David and Goliath situations.
In terms of media coverage and popular perception, David is clearly ahead at the moment. The scientific credentials and credibility of the activists may be questionable, but their persistence and effectiveness in the area of public and media relations is streets ahead of the mobile industry Goliath.
The messages from the legal and insurance communities seemed to strengthen David’s prospects. The mobile communications community was dismayed to learn that, on its own, adherence to standards provides little protection in law and that company directors could be personally liable for some repercussions of the health-risk issue. The activists were no doubt pleased to hear about the conditional fee system being introduced in the United Kingdom that will lower the financial barriers that currently curtail litigation.
Litigation in the pipeline will further highlight the differences between the mobile communications community and their self-appointed opponents. But the speakers who addressed risk management and communications made it clear that the issue will never be resolved by scientific argument alone. The question is not just about the absolute or relative level of a hypothetical risk; the key issue is perception of risk and the perception of corporate commitment to risk.
The initial reaction of mobile-industry executives, in Europe at least, was to keep their heads down and hope the issue would go away. Responsible actions and initiatives went on in the background, but communicating the issues to the public was never a priority. Now the emphasis is changing. Mobile operators reported on how they are working together with community groups and the media to help dispel the many myths surrounding the health issue. Trade associations are beginning to work pr-actively to achieve a more balanced media environment.
They have a long way to go. The activists have long-established, close working relationships with certain elements of the media. Such as the journalist from the tabloid press who published the latest in a series of revelations about the dire effects caused by mobile phones, using data announced at the conference which conveniently bypassed the peer review process. But such details are of no concern. This is a man with a mission, somehow graced with the conviction of absolute truth. His was the sole hand raised at the start of the conference.
