Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News (MWN), comments on conflicts of  
interest in the wireless industry when it comes to scientific discovery.

His comments on Dr. John Moulder are most important so we accentuate them here
(you may have seen his research summary reports that usually give cell phones 
a clean bill of health):

An account of the conflicts of interest in this case would not be complete 
without mentioning the role of Dr. John Moulder. The journal to which the 
Bartsch study was submitted is Radiation Research,one of the principal 
journals for RF/MW health studies, and Moulder is the associate editor 
with primary responsibility for non-ionizing radiation. Yet Moulder is 
also a paid consultant to the wireless industry in several different countries.

This is conflict of interest, "squared." It's bad enough that Moulder gets 
payments from the mobile phone industry while acting as a gatekeeper of 
cientific information. It's worse that this adds to the industry's advantage. 
Does anyone think that Moulder does not draw on his privileged access to 
research when he acts as a corporate consultant? Does he somehow "forget" the 
findings of a study which the rest of us may not read for another year? We doubt it.

Here is Louis Slesin's full article from Microwave News:

November/December 2000

Views on the News

The Politics of Information: Public Health vs. Private Control

. 
There's an old saying that, "Information is power." That's certainly true for 
mobile phone health research.

Suppose wireless phone radiation were shown conclusively to cause cancer. Just 
to delay the news by six months could be worth billions of dollars. And as the 
tobacco and global warming debates show, corporations are not inclined to 
passively accept the findings of science when it hurts their bottom line.

What's good for the balance sheet is not always good for public health. And 
that's a conflict that is played out every day —in small increments, in slow 
motion, in ways that may not be dramatic but are still corrosive in their effects. 

Let's take the example of the work of Drs. Christian and Hella Bartsch, 
funded by Deutsche Telekom (DT) (see p.4). Their first experiment yielded 
important results and made waves among wireless industry insiders. It was 
identified as a key topic for industry-funded replication, worthy of no 
fewer than four follow-up studies—two in the Bartsch lab and two elsewhere. 
But few people were allowed to know what the original study found.

The public was excluded, as was the scientific community at large. Only DT 
had access to the data, and they shared it with few others. Though the 
experiment was completed nearly two years ago, both DT and the Drs. Bartsch 
have refused to say anything about its results or even describe the study 
protocol. If a summary had not temporarily appeared on the WHO's Web site, 
we would still have no idea what they found.

There was no good reason to keep this information secret. We have now lost 
a year and a half in which other researchers could have used this knowledge 
to sharpen their own investigations. And clearly, the question of wireless 
health effects is too complex to be resolved by one lab working alone.

But when industry has advance knowledge of research results, it has more 
power to define what comes next. PR departments have time to figure out how 
to spin the results and shape public opinion. (Remember Motorola's memo on 
"war-gaming Lai-Singh"? See MWN,J/F97.) This in turn affects political 
decisions about the pace and funding of research.

Corporate spin sometimes extends into the wording of a published paper. 
In 1998 Dr. Michael McIvor told Microwave News,"When Sensormatic saw an 
advance copy of the abstract, they wanted me to change the wording" (see 
p.16 and MWN,N/D98). 

Like the Bartsches, Dr. Ross Adey has observed a tumor-inhibiting effect 
from a digital phone signal. Motorola's attempt to limit Adey's discussion 
of this finding was the talk of the 1996 BEMS meeting (see MWN,J/A96). 

Did DT play a role in delaying the publication of the Bartsch study? 
Unfortunately, the company does not have a record of openness and transparency- 
so we may never know. DT has been one of the most secretive firms in the 
mobile phone industry, perhaps exceeded only by France Telecom. The inevitable 
consequence is that journalists and the public are not sure when the company's 
statements can be trusted.

An account of the conflicts of interest in this case would not be complete 
without mentioning the role of Dr. John Moulder. The journal to which the Bartsch 
study was submitted is Radiation Research,one of the principal journals for RF/MW 
health studies, and Moulder is the associate editor with primary responsibility 
for non-ionizing radiation. Yet Moulder is also a paid consultant to the wireless 
industry in several different countries.

This is conflict of interest, "squared." It's bad enough that Moulder gets 
payments from the mobile phone industry while acting as a gatekeeper of scientific 
information. It's worse that this adds to the industry's advantage. Does anyone 
think that Moulder does not draw on his privileged access to research when he acts 
as a corporate consultant? Does he somehow "forget" the findings of a study which 
the rest of us may not read for another year? We doubt it.

Medical and scientific journals have strict standards about disclosing potential 
conflicts of interest for authors of research papers. Radiation Research should 
at least apply the same principle to its editors. We would suggest going further. 
Notice of conflicts of interest is good. Not to have them is better. 

Cellular phone companies and their consultants should not have advance knowledge 
of research results. We need a level playing field in access to information. 
Until we have it, private interests will continue to have an unhealthy advantage.