Select Page

Research Studies on Industry Influence and Involvement in the Science of EMF

 

This page contains an ongoing list of published studies and reports on industry involvement in the science of EMFs. Please review the videos of scientists speaking on the issue at the bottom of this page.

The Tobacco company Phillip Morris released papers clearly showing that the strategy to protect the tobacco industry as well as the pesticide and cell phone companies was to downplay legitimate science via a well funded public relations effort by a coalition of groups funded by corporations. Electromagnetic fields, tobbacco and pesticies are mentioned HERE in one of Phillip Morris’ 1994 papers. 

Scientific analyses show industry funding can and does influence research on radiofrequency radiation. Please take the time to review  these studies and to review the documentation provided by experts. This webpage has published citations on the influence of industry and vested interests (scroll down to ensure you see all the listings).

The paper the Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice details the tactics of industry to hide the fact their products create a toxic exposure. All of the tactics used by tobacco are now in use by the wireless industry.

Published Research on Industry Influence into EMF

Investigative reports on industry influence:

Investigations into the ICNIRP “Cartel”

A report released by European Members of Parliments Michèle Rivasi  and Dr. Klaus Buchner  accuses the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an organization many governments consider an authority on the safety of 5G and cell phone radiation, of being under the influence of the telecommunications industry and ignoring the science showing their harmful effects.

Investigate Europe’s Three Part Investigation on 5G details how ICNIRP is industry tied and plagued with conflicts of interest. The journalists identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a non- governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. ICNIRP’s self-selected members argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines.  “The ICNIRP Cartel: Who’s Who in the EMF Research World,” an interactive graphic developed by Investigate Europe (German ICNIRP Cartel). Dr. Moskowitz PDF of ICNIRP Cartel

“At least three studies over the years have documented that there is often a link between conclusions of studies and the source of the money that paid for the research. Science funded by industry is less likely to find health risks than studies paid for by institutions or authorities….Studies which are solely financed by industry are likely to be biased” – Investigate Europe, 2019 Investigate Europe alleges the existence of an “ICNIRP cartel.”

Watch the Investigative Europe video summary below.

Informative Investigative News Stories Over the Years

Is the industry aware of the health effects?  Yes. For example, the  2000 Ecolog report commissioned by T-Mobile and Deutsche Telecom MobilNet GmbH describes the the science showing biological effects from cell phone radiation including gene toxicity, cellular processes, effects on the immune system, central nervous system, hormone systems and connections with cancer and infertility. The report states that:

  • “Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.” “Impairment of cognitive functions was found in animal experiments at power flux densities of 2W/m2. In humans, there are indications that brain functions are influenced by fields such as they occur when using a mobile telephone.” “An epidemiological study of children who had been exposed to pulsed high frequency fields, found a decrease in the capability to concentrate and an increase in reaction times.” “Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines.
“Any study in my country which is funded by private industry, I am not going to accept it.”  Dr. R S Sharma, Indian government Senior Scientist, Deputy Director General & Scientist of the Indian Council of Medical Research
  Documentation that ICNIRP and the EMF Project are connected to industry money.  Watch details of how radiation limits were developed in the documentary “A Radiant Day. ”  Microwave News, Microwave News Responds to Mike Repacholi November 17, 2016

  • “Up to half, if not more, of the WHO’s EMF project’s funding came from industry.”

  • “Repacholi states that he always followed the WHO rules on funding and that, “NO funds were EVER sent to me.” [His emphasis.] “This is financial legerdemain. As Microwave News has previously reported, Repacholi arranged for the industry money to be sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where he used to work. The funds were then transferred to the WHO. Seven years ago, Norm Sandler, a Motorola spokesman, told us that, “This is the process for all the supporters of the WHO program.” At the time, Motorola was sending Repacholi $50,000 each year. That money is now bundled with other industry contributions and sent to Australia by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), which gives the project $150,000 a year.” “ What is the difference between sending money directly to the WHO and sending it via Australia?,” we asked Repacholi last December. He never re- sponded. We don’t think there is any difference. We don’t understand how the WHO can see this as anything other than money laundering. On numerous occasions we have asked Repacholi to reveal all the sources of the funding of the WHO EMF project. He has consistently refused.”

    “Repacholi writes that: “To say that I am or was ever influ- enced by industry in any way is completely ludicrous.” Those of us who have watched Repacholi sell out the public health at the WHO for the last ten years know just how ridiculous that state- ment is.”
     

PUBLISHED RESEARCH IN INDUSTRY INFLUENCE

Hardell, L., Carlberg, M.”[Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest”. Oncology Letters 20.4 (2020): 15. Download PDF

Hardell L, Nyberg R. Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Mol Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar;12(3):247-257. doi: 10.3892/mco.2020.1984. Epub 2020 Jan 22. PMID: 32064102; PMCID: PMC7016513.

 

Pascual, G. D. (2013). Not Entirely Reliable: Private Scientific Organizations and Risk Regulation–The Case of Electromagnetic Fields. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 29-4

  • “Private scientific organizations exert a great deal of influence in the regulation of some technological risks. The high level of expertise of their members is arguably a good reason for them to participate in making and monitoring risk regulations, in order to adjust these to scientific progress. Nevertheless, there are also sound reasons why governments shouldn’t uncritically follow the views expressed by such organizations. Taking the role played by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in the regulation of electromagnetic fields as an illustrative example, this paper shows that private scientific organizations such as these are structurally less well suited than democratic authorities when it comes to managing those risks.”

 

David O. Carpenter, Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results, Environmental Research, Volume 178, 2019 

  • “A major goal of this study is to examine how source of funding influences the reported results and conclusions. Several meta-analyses dating from about 2000 all report significant associations between exposure and risk of leukemia.”
  • “By examining subsequent reports on childhood leukemia it is clear that almost all government or independent studies find either a statistically significant association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia, or an elevated risk of at least OR = 1.5, while almost all industry supported studies fail to find any significant or even suggestive association.” 
  • “Based on pooled or meta-analyses as well as subsequent peer-reviewed studies there is strong evidence that excessive exposure to magnetic fields increases risk of adult leukemia, male and female breast cancer and brain cancer. There is less convincing but suggestive evidence for elevations in several other cancer types. There is less clear evidence for bias based on source of funding in the adult cancer studies. There is also some evidence that both paternal and maternal prenatal exposure to magnetic fields results in an increased risk of leukemia and brain cancer in offspring. When one allows for bias reflected in source of funding, the evidence that magnetic fields increase risk of cancer is neither inconsistent nor inconclusive. Furthermore adults are also at risk, not just children, and there is strong evidence for cancers in addition to leukemia, particularly brain and breast cancer.”

Legg T, Hatchard J, Gilmore AB (2021) The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253272

Through interpretive analysis we developed the Science for Profit Typology and Model. We identified eight corporate sectors repeatedly engaging in activities to influence science, including: manipulation of scientific methods; reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific “proof”; threats against scientists; and clandestine promotion of policy reforms that increase reliance on industry evidence. The typology identifies five macro-level strategies used consistently across the eight industries, comprising 19 meso-level strategies. The model shows how these strategies work to maximise the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while minimising these same aspects of industry-unfavourable science. This creates doubt about harms of industry products/practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promotes industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimises industry’s role as scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise use of industry products/practices—maximising corporate profitability. We provide an accessible way to understand how and why corporations influence science, demonstrate the need for collective solutions, and discuss changes needed to ensure science works in the public interest.

Hardell, Lennart. “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review).” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 51, no. 2, 2017, pp. 405-13. 

“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.”

Baur, X et al. Ethics, morality, and conflicting interests: how questionable professional integrity in some scientists supports global corporate influence in public health, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2015

  • "Clinical and public health research, education, and medical practice are vulnerable to influence by corporate interests driven by the for-profit motive. Developments over the last 10 years have shown that transparency and self-reporting of corporate ties do not always mitigate bias. In this article, we provide examples of how sound scientific reasoning and evidence-gathering are undermined through compromised scientific enquiry resulting in misleading science, decision-making, and policy intervention. Various medical disciplines provide reference literature essential for informing public, environmental, and occupational health policy. Published literature impacts clinical and laboratory methods, the validity of respective clinical guidelines, and the development and implementation of public health regulations. Said literature is also used in expert testimony related to resolving tort actions on work-related illnesses and environmental risks."

Prasad, M., et al. “Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes.” Neurological Sciences, 2017.

“In our review of the literature and meta-analysis of case–control studies, we found evidence linking mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours especially in long-term users (greater than 10 years). We also found a significantly positive correlation between study quality and outcome in the form of risk of brain tumour associated with use of mobile phones. Higher quality studies show a statistically significant association between mobile phone use and risk of brain tumour. Even the source of funding was found to affect the quality of results produced by the studies.”

The study Funding Source, Quality of Publications and Outcome in Genetic Damage in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Non-Ionizing Radiofrequency Fields published in the journal Radiation Research

  • In a study of 225 publications, in which we sought to determine a possible association between the funding source(s), quality and outcome in a total of 2,160 genetic damage assessment tests of mammalian cells exposed to RF energy, we made several observations. One finding was that a great majority of researchers had acknowledged government agencies as the funding source (53%, 120 of 225 publications), while a small number of scientists mentioned mobile phone industry as the financial source (9%, 20 of 225 publications). Numerous investigators did not mention the funding source (26%, 58 of 225 publications). Secondly, industry-funded investigations were of better quality and utilized quality control measures, i.e., blind evaluation, adequate description of dosimetry, positive controls and/or sham-exposed controls, compared to those funded by the government. Another observation was that in industry-funded studies, the d values (effect size or standardized mean difference between the cells exposed to RF energy and sham-exposed controls) were consistently lower than in government-funded studies. In addition, compared to government-funded studies, a higher percentage of industry-funded studies reported no difference in genetic damage between RF- and sham-exposed cells (80% for industry-funded studies versus 49% for government-funded studies). Finally, we observed that industry-funded studies were less likely to report an increase in genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy (10%) compared to government-funded studies (23%). In view of the large difference between the percentage of publications funded by government and industry (53% or 122 of 225 publications for government, compared to 9% or 29 of 225 publications for industry), caution should be used when debating and discussing the above observations. Overall, it is important to include the quality control measures in the investigations, and also mention the funding source in published studies.

 

Pockett, S. Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels. Magnetochemistry 2019, 5, 31.

  • The present paper first shows the origin of this “thermal-only” dogma in the military paranoia of the 1950s. It then reveals how financial conflict of interest and intentionally misleading statements have been powerful factors in preserving that dogma in the face of now overwhelming evidence that it is false, using one 2018 report to ministers of the New Zealand government as an example.
  • The founding chairman of IRPA was Michael Repacholi, an Australian also committed to the thermal-only dogma. In 1992, IRPA morphed into ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection), with Repacholi still as the chair. And in 1998, ICNIRP brought out the Guidelines document which still enshrines the ANSI thermal-only dogma as the basis of national standards throughout the English-speaking world.
  • In 2004, Repacholi stated in a conference presentation that the IEMFP was able to “receive funding from any source through Royal Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect funds for the project”—an arrangement that reportedly enabled receipt of annual payments of $150,000 from the cellphone industry"

 

Carlberg, Michael and Lennart Hardell. “Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation.” BioMed Research International, vol. 2017, no. 9218486, 2017. Hardell and Carlberg analyze the current body of science- including the National Toxicology program results- with the Bradford Hill viewpoints to conclude that RF is a human carcinogen. They also point out that several scientific bodies have declined from acknowledging an increased risk for brain tumours from wireless phones. They explain how the same persons appear in these different expert groups and are therefore citing their own conclusions.

“It is striking how ICNIRP has infiltrated the WHO Monograph core group making it less likely that the conclusions in that Monograph will differ from ICNIRP’s conclusions.”
“There seems also to be conflict of interests among these members.”
Marino, Andrew A. and Simona Carrubba. "The Effects of Mobile-Phone Electromagnetic Fields on Brain Electrical Activity: A Critical Analysis of the Literature." Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 28, no. 3, 2009, pp. 250-74. The article stated that with 87% of brain activity studies sponsored by the mobile phone industry, the issue of conflicts of interest cannot be ignored.
“Overall, the doubt regarding the existence of reproducible mobile-phone EMFs on brain activity created by the reports appeared to legitimate the knowledge claims of the mobile-phone industry. However, it funded, partly or wholly, at least 87% of the reports. From an analysis of their cognitive framework, the common use of disclaimers, the absence of information concerning conflicts of interest, and the industry’s donations to the principal EMF journal, we inferred that the doubt was manufactured by the industry. The crucial scientific question of the pathophysiology of mobile-phone EMFs as reflected in measurements of brain electrical activity remains unanswered, and essentially unaddressed.”
Huss, Anke, et al. "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies." Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-4. This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found  industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
“We examined the methodologic quality and results of experimental studies investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe. We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.”
Starkey, Sarah J. “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation” Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 31, no. 4, 2016. This review analyzes the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report which guides Public Health England and details the inaccuracies,  omissions and conflict of interest“which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment”. The review states that the “executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available” and the “conflict of interest critically needs to be addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields”.

  • Dr. Starkey  presented how the government authorities are misleading the public and dismissing evidence of harm. Dr. Starkey's PPT is a critical look going point by point over the misinformation.

Valentini, E., et al. "Republished review: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychomotor effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields." Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 87, no. 1031, 2011, pp. 643-51. This 2011 published review focused on studies published since 1999 on the human cognitive and performance effects of mobile phone-related electromagnetic fields and found the existence of sponsorship and publication biases.

“The existence of sponsorship and publication biases should encourage WHO intervention to develop official research standards and guidelines. In addition, future research should address critical and neglected issues such as investigation of repeated, intensive and chronic exposures, especially in highly sensitive populations such as children.”
Hardell L., et al. "Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research." American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 50, no. 3, 2007, pp. 227–33.
“Another example of industry ties to research, but not one where there was a failure to disclose, involves the potential association between cellular phones and brain tumors. In 2002 the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) hired two US epidemiologists to review published epidemiological studies on the relationship between the use of cellular telephones and cancer risk. They were Dr. John D. Boice, Jr. and Dr. Joseph K. McLaughlin from the private company International Epidemiology Institute (IEI).”
“A number of research projects have taken place at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm with participation of Boice and McLaughlin, with a funding model through IEI. One of the studies was published in British Medical Journal [Nyre´n et al., 1998] with Adami as a co-author. A cohort of Swedish women with breast implants was studied with regard to connective tissue disease. No risk was found. Thanks to strict rules of stating conflicts of interest in the British Medical Journal it can be seen that the project was initiated by IEI, and that the funding from IEI was on behalf of Dow Corning, producer of silicon breast implants.”
Walker, Martin J. Corporate Ties That Bind: An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interest in Public Health. Skyhorse, 2017. Corporate Ties that Bind is a collection of essays addressing corporations influence to the scientific discussion on the products they sell. Dr. Lennart Hardell’s Chapter in this book is titled, “Chapter 3:  A Battleground--From Phenoxyacetic Acids, Chlorphenyls and Dioxins to Mobile Phones--Cancer Risks, Greenwashing and Vested Interests.’

Additional Documentation on Industry Influence

"‘Radiation Research’ and The Cult of Negative Results.” Microwave News, vol. 26, no. 4, 2006. This analysis reviewed a subset of health studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They selected papers on microwave-induced genotoxicity and identified 85 radiofrequency (RF)/microwave-genotox papers published since 1990 and detail the following findings: 43 found some type of biological effect and 42 did not. 32 of the 35 studies that were paid for by the mobile phone industry and the U.S. Air Force show no effect. These make up more than 75% of all the negative studies. They looked at the journal Radiation Research which in over the last 16 years, only one positive paper on microwave genotoxicity has appeared and found:

  • 80% of the negative papers (17 out of 21) published in Radiation Research were paid for by either industry or the U.S. Air Force.
  • The lead author of the lone positive paper, was denied money for a follow-up and soon moved on to other research areas.
  • They suspect the Radiation Research's bias against EMF effects is attributed to John Moulder, (editor in 1991 and senior editor in 2000) a long standing consultant to the power, electronics and communications industries.
  • “Radiation Research has become a repository for negative papers and thus an important part of the industry and military strategy to neutralize those who dare to challenge the no-effects dogma. Their work had been made much easier with John Moulder on the inside to ease industry papers into print.”

This research is cited in a Seattle Magazine 2011 article. Ishisaka, Naomi. “UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry.” Seattle Magazine, 2011.

“Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.”
Ledford, Brandon. "Cell Phones, Electromagnetic Radiation, and Cancer: A Study of Author Affiliation, Funding, Bias, and Results." Proceedings of the Policy Studies Organization, no. 11, 2010. This 2010 paper detailed a qualitative and quantitative review of the current research with statistical analysis and concludes “there appears to be a relationship between the place of funding or author affiliation of a study and whether or not the author(s) find a correlation between cell phones and cancer.” Systematic reviews of the influence of financial interests in medical research have found strong associations between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions. Bekelman, Justin E., Li, Yan and Cary P. Gross. "Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review." Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 289, no. 4, 2003, pp. 454-65. This 2003 review found widespread relationships between industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions.
“Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.”
Yaphe, J. ,et al. "The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials." Family Practice, vol. 18, no. 6, 2001, pp. 565-8. This 2001 study found an association between source of support of research and published outcomes of randomized controlled drug trials in general interest medical journals.
“An association was found between the source of study support and the published outcome. Though the reason for this association cannot be determined from the data collected, future studies may clarify the importance of this finding for readers concerned with the relationship of funding bodies to the publication of research outcomes.”
Systematic reviews of the influence of financial interests in environmental health have found strong associations between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions. Published science backs media has coverage on how the lead industry, asbestos industry and petroleum industry funded science that minimized health effects. Friedman, Michael and Lee Friedman. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Study Results in Environmental and Occupational Health Research." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 58, no. 3, 2016, pp. 238-47. A 2016 comprehensive analysis published in the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine found a relationship between financial conflict of interest and a potential publication bias in environmental and occupational health studies concludes:
“Results: Of the 373 studies included in the analysis, 17.2% had a financial COI associated with organizations involved with the processing, use, or disposal of industrial and commercial products, and studies with this type of COI were more likely to report negative results (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.31), as were studies with any COI associated with the military (employment or funding; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 9.15). Conclusions: Our findings show a clear relationship between direction of reported findings and specific types of financial COI.”

Research on Industry in Environmental Science 

Soskolne, C.L., Kramer, S., Ramos-Bonilla, J.P. et al. Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods. Environ Health 20, 90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00771-6

Part A of the Table 1 reflects on how the findings from epidemiological inquiry are affected by the design of studies, as well as on the how and what is being measured. We have compiled epidemiology-specific methods/techniques used to foment uncertainty and cast doubt about cause-and-effect through biased study designs and measurements producing invalid science.

Part B of the Table 1 reveals arguments that impose inappropriate standards and methods of suppression counter to the principle of openness and transparency. We have compiled arguments used to delay action, maintain the status quo, and create divisions among scientists by imposing inappropriate standards and methods of suppression.

Part C of the Table 1 identifies tactics imposed by those serving special interests to upset the very foundation of reason as it pertains to the core values and methods of the discipline. We have compiled tactics invoked to misdirect policy priorities through influence imposing undisclosed values from the positions taken by special interests.

Soskolne, C.L., Slides 

Goldberg, R.F., Vandenberg, L.N. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ Health 20, 33 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0

We recognized 28 unique tactics used to manufacture doubt. Five of these tactics were used by all five organizations, suggesting that they are key features of manufactured doubt. The intended audience influences the strategy used to misinform, and logical fallacies contribute to their efficacy.

We identified 28 unique strategies (Table 1) used by organizations either to combat scientific evidence and facts (referred to in the table as Information A) or to promote narratives that are favorable to the industry (referred to in the table as Information B) (Table 1). Five of these strategies were used by all five organizations (Fig. 1): attacking study design used to produce Information A (#1), gaining support from reputable individuals to defend Information B (#2), misrepresentation of Information A (#3), employing hyperbolic language (#8), and influencing government agencies or laws (#21). We argue that these five strategies are the most effective features of manufactured doubt (i.e., highly successful at delivering a message to an intended audience) and together provide the strongest indication that an industry is communicating manufactured rather than authentic doubt.

Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN. Distract, display, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries. Rev Environ Health. 2019;34(4):349–63.

The deceptive actions of five different industries or organizations, chosen for their unique and varied contributions to the list of methods used to manufacture doubt among diverse audiences with ultimate impacts on environmental or public health. The first, Big Tobacco, is widely considered to have “written the playbook” on manufactured doubt. The tobacco industry has managed to maintain its clientele for many decades in part due to manufactured scientific controversy about the health effects of active and secondhand smoking.

Ruff, Kathleen. "Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made?" Environmental Health, vol. 14, no. 45, 2015. This 2015 published commentary “addresses the failure of the scientific community to create an effective mechanism to protect the integrity of the scientific literature from improper influence by vested interests.”  5 prominent journals are used as examples by the author showing the failure of COPE member journals (with initiatives to establish international standards for Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure)  to comply with COPE’s Code of Conduct. Additional Documentation on Conflicts of Industry in Health and Environmental Health Research

Baur X, et al. "Ethics, morality, and conflicting interests: How questionable professional integrity in some scientists supports global corporate influence in public health." International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 21, no. 2, 2015, pp. 172–5.

“Both privately and publicly funded research should be scrutinized for potential bias, and research funding should be transparent through full disclosure of any potential financial interests….However, developments over the last 10 years have shown transparency alone is not enough to mitigate bias. Widely distributed “pro-industry habit of thoughts” perpetuated by corporate sponsoring of undisclosed grants, contracts, travel expenses and accommodation, honoraria, consultation, and gifts should be banned.”
“Members of guideline panels and decision-making regulatory boards and researchers should be scrutinized and demonstrate integrity by remaining independent from vested interests.”
“Hardell and colleagues have called for actions to ensure the ethical credibility of medical research. They referenced a publication evaluating funding sources in published manuscripts from two well-recognized medical journals. They found that when one or more of the authors reported a financial association with the funding source, the resulting research was twice as likely to report results supporting the funding sources’ products or views. Others have also identified this so-called “funding effect.”

Bes-Rastrollo, Maira, et al. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews." PLoS Medicine, vol. 10, no. 12, 2013.

“Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them. Conclusions: Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.”
Dunn, Adam G., et al. "Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency." Research Integrity and Peer Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016. A 2016 article in Research Integrity and Peer Review found conflicts of interest are common and underreported and that these COI introduce biases that lead to harm
“Researchers with conflicts of interest were found to be more likely to choose comparators that would produce favorable results selectively include only certain outcomes in published reports publish conclusions that are inconsistent with the study results or complete a clinical trial without subsequent publication of the results. These types of biases can also impact the quality and reliability of systematic reviews, arguably the most critical publications guiding clinical care. When authors of systematic reviews hold financial conflicts of interest, they are more likely to interpret data as evidence supporting an intervention. Contributors to clinical practice guidelines are more likely to recommend the intervention in clinical practice if they hold a conflict of interest.”

Rosner, David and Gerald Markowitz. "The politics of lead toxicology and the devastating consequences for children." American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 50, no. 10, 2007, pp. 740-56.

“At virtually every step in the history of the uncovering of lead’s toxic qualities, resistance was shown by a variety of industrial interests to the association of lead and toxicity. During the first half of the last century, three primary means were used to undermine the growing body of evidence: first, the lead industry sought to control lead research by sponsoring and funding university research. In the 1920s, the General Motors Company, with the aide of DuPont and Standard Oil Companies, established the Kettering Labs, a research unit at the University of Cincinnati which, for many decades was largely supported by industry funds. In the same decade, the lead industry sponsored the research of Joseph Aub at Harvard who worked on neurophysiology of lead. A second way was to shape our understanding of lead itself, portraying it as an indispensable and healthful element essential for all modern life. Lead was portrayed as safe for children to use, be around, and even touch. The third way that lead was exempted from the normal public health measures and regulatory apparatus that had largely controlled phosphorus poisoning, poor quality food and meats and other potential public health hazards was more insidious and involved directly influencing the scientific integrity of the clinical observations and research. Throughout the past century tremendous pressure by the lead industry itself was brought to bear to quiet, even intimidate, researchers and clinicians who reported on or identified lead as a hazard. This article will draw on our previous work and add new documentation of the trajectory of industry attempts to keep out of the public view the tremendous threat of lead poisoning to children.”

"Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice." Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, 2009.

“Several systematic reviews and other studies provide substantial evidence that clinical trials with industry ties are more likely to have results that favor industry. There are multiple cases in which industry sponsors have withheld important study results and in which the conclusions presented in the reports appear to overstate the study findings. In addition, a study of materials submitted to the FDA in support of successful new drug applications found that clinical trials with statistically favorable results were almost twice as likely to be published as industry-funded studies that did not have favorable results (Lee et al., 2008). Overall, the results of more than half of clinical trials submitted to the FDA in support of a new drug application remained unpublished more than 5 years after approval of the drug.”

 

Heath, David. “Meet the ‘rented white coats’ who defend toxic chemicals. How corporate-funded research is corrupting America’s courts and regulatory agencies” The Center for Public Integrity, 2016. The 2016 article by the Center for Public Integrity  details a story of  asbestos litigation involving Peter Valberg, a former professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and then a principal at the environmental consulting firm Gradient Corporation.  According  to the article, Evan Nelson of the law firm Tucker Ellis & West needed a scientist willing to publish a theory in a medical journal so that this science could be used win lawsuits and released emails detail how Peter Valberg “wrote back within hours, calling Nelson’s scientific theory “very intriguing.” He was game to try to disseminate it in peer-reviewed journals. He later sent Nelson a contract agreeing to write the first of three articles and even offered him a 10-percent discount. In the meantime, Valberg would adopt Nelson’s theory as an expert witness in lawsuits, using it against mesothelioma victims such as Pam Collins of Bellevue, Ohio..” Peter Valberg is now an expert witness on the issue of radiofrequency radiation. Read the final paragraph of the article:

“Pam Collins’s lawyer said efforts by industry consultants to absolve asbestos of blame show they will say almost anything. “Why are some of these companies putting so much money into research to be published in scientific and medical journals years and sometimes decades after they stop making the product?” Acton asked rhetorically. “Is its purpose for the advancement of medicine? Is its purpose to address a public health concern? Its purpose is for litigation. It’s science for sale.”

Caulfield, Timothy. "Profit and the production of the knowledge: the impact of industry on representations of research results." Harvard Health Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007, pp. 51-60.

“Industry involvement in biomedical research has been associated with less than ideal publication and research practices, such as ghost writing- that is, the use of unnamed industry writers to author some or all of research manuscripts. One recently published analysis found that of the forty-four industry initiated trials in the study, forty of the published results had some contribution from a ghost writer, usually an industry statistician.”
“In Canada, for example, most of the national funding agencies explicitly encourage collaborations with industry. Even the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the primary public funding agency for biomedical work, has embraced this trend. In fact, the federal  legislation that created the CIHR has declared “commercialization of health research” and “economic development through health research” to be central goals of the agency… As a result, many of the relevant players are acting as expected and as market forces would dictate.”

Gøtzsche et al. "Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials.". PLoS Medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, 2007.

“We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%–87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%–98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. Conclusions: Ghost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.”
Joly, Yann, Flora Wahnon and Bartha

Maria Knoppers. "Impact of the Commercialization of Biotechnology Research on the Communication of Research Results: North American Perspective." Harvard Health Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007.

“Evidence demonstrates that academic biotechnology research has become increasingly commercial in the last twenty years in Canada and in the US . This obvious realization does not only carry negative implications. Private funds have helped American universities remain on the cutting edge of scientific research and provide the best learning environment for their students. However, it would seem that this increasing emphasis on research commercialization has also created situations where university teachers and researchers could now find themselves in conflict between their traditional academic duties and the new commercial imperatives. This situation is especially worrisome in that it could lead researchers to delay the communication of  important findings over substantial periods of time in order to protect commercial interests. In our article, we first demonstrated the existence of a significant correlation between commercialization and withholding of information in the biotechnology research field in Canada and in the US . We then set out to find where and how, in the commercialization chain, the free dissemination of information was put in jeopardy. We conclude that policy changes may be required to improve the free flow of information.”
Sharma, R.S. “Radio Frequency Radiations and Human Health: An Indian Scenario.” George Washington University, 2015. “Any study in my country which is funded by private industry, I am not going to accept it” stated Dr. RS Sharma, Indian government Senior Scientist, Deputy Director General & Scientist of the Indian Council of Medical Research. Dr Sharma reviewed the research showing genetic damage and health effects from wireless exposures which are informing India’s new telecommunications policy. He put a slide up showing an analysis by Chris Busby and Roger Coghill in 2006 detailing how the majority of industry funded studies on radiofrequency radiation indicate no effect from EMR radiation and  the majority of independent studies do show adverse effects.
 

 

List of News Articles About Industry Involvement

Cellphone industry continues to control the safety message In the U.S., the industry has influenced science, regulators, public perception and government policy By Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Troy Media, May 16, 2019

GQ Magazine 2010, Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Alternet "What the Cellphone Industry Doesn't Want You to Know About Radiation Concerns" June 2013

Seattle Magazine, UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry

Investigate Europe : 5G The Mass Experiment (Part 1) and  How Much is  Safe? Finances Effect Research (Part 2) This must read  report in 2019 covers the 5G rollout and the history of industry influenced research on EMFS.

The Center for Public Integrity