Slide 1:
The purpose of this presentation is to explain my view of the origin and nature of the present debate regarding whether electromagnetic fields in the environment constitute a risk to human health.
Slide 2:
I will conclude that there exists, today, two distinct forms of scientific reasoning, and that most scientists primarily employ one or the other form. This situation differs markedly from that which existed prior to the development of molecular biology commencing in the 1970s, when the prevailing scientific paradigm envisioned only one valid scientific methodology. The present-day EMF disputants do not differ on the basis of scientific facts, but rather on the basis of the form of reasoning that each side maintains ought to be employed to decide whether environmental EMFs are a health risk.
Slide 3:
What is the evidence that the disputants are reasoning differently? One line of evidence is provided by the recent action taken by 6 physicists and a chemist, all Nobel Prize winners regarding a private legal dispute in California. The Nobelists obtained the services of a lawyer who drafted a legal brief on their behalf to the Supreme Court of California to explain why they felt powerline EMFs were safe. Thus, on the one hand, renowned physical scientists felt so strongly about the issue they were motivated to inject themselves into a private dispute. Yet, many other scientists profoundly disagree with the arguments and conclusions advanced by the Nobelists, and at least 4 scientific societies have been founded for the express purpose of studying phenomena that the Nobelists claim do not exist.This dichotomy suggests, I think, that the basis of a dispute is not simply the facts, but rather the underlying scientific reasoning.
Slide 4:
Further evidence of the strongly held views of physicists is provided by the recent statement by the Board of Councillors of the American Physical Society. Thirty-five of the APS Councillors (of 36) issued a press release claiming that powerline EMFs were not a health risk. In the minds of the Councillors (not one of whom has published a peer-reviewed paper on the topic) the issue was so crystal-clear, it could be resolved in a short document that reviewed the scientific literature. It was not the facts that goaded the Councillors into action, but rather the inappropriate way (in the eyes of the Councillors) that some scientists were employing the facts.
Slide 5:
A second line of evidence that indicts the scientific reasoning process as the responsible factor in the EMF bioeffects dispute. A pattern of scientific results has emerged consisting in reports of positive effects, subsequently followed by replicative studies that do not find effects. Typically, the negative study is performed at Pacific Northwest Laboratories or IIT, or is funded by the Electric Power Research Institute or the Department of Energy. Scientists involved with these groups have a remarkable penchant for not finding something in the same general location where scientists from outside those orbits did find something. This dichotomy can be partially explained in particular cases on the basis of an analysis of the reasoning that was followed.
Slide 6:
For example, consider the mouse multi-generation study performed at Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The study involved the effects of long-term exposure to simulated powerline electric fields on the growth rate of mice. One group was exposed to the field and the other served as the control, and three generations of mice were produced during the course of the experiment. The result was that the mice in the exposed group were significantly smaller, on average, compared with the controls in the first and third generation. The result was unexpected, and the experimentwas repeated. This time, however, the exposed mice were significantly larger (in the second and third generations) than the controls. If the data from each study was evaluated separately, which was the initial plan, it would be concluded that exposure to electromagnetic fields can decrease or increase growth in mice, depending upon the presence or absence of other, unascertained factors. What the investigators did, however, was average the results of the two studies and conclude that the field had no effect on growth in mice. Clearly, the issue raised has little to do with the facts themselves (what the animals in various generations actually weighed); rather, the issue is what form of reasoning shall be employed.
Slide 7:
Still another line of evidence that forces us to consider the role of the reasoning process followed (rather than the facts employed) is provided by the work product of various blue-ribbon committees appointed to consider the issue of health risks due to EMFs. The role played by blue-ribbon committees in the EMF bioeffects dispute raises many ethical, sociological, legal, and scientific issues, foremost among them is the question of how the committees arrived at their conclusion - which universally tends to exonerate EMFs as a causative factor in human disease. The blue-ribbon committees, typically, were staffed by prominent scientists, and their reports were larded with opinion, buttressed by numerous citations, but essentially devoid of scientific reasoning. I cannot find a single instance in which the methods, procedures, or rules that were followed by the committee members were explicitly recited.This suggests to me that scientists who reach different conclusions are following different methodologies.
Slide 8:
If it is true that the fundamental dispute involves the form of reasoning employed, then it should be possible to delineate the reasoning patterns that could operate on a given database and lead to opposite conclusions. Further, since we have no indication that either of the two putative forms of reasoning are invalid in themselves, there ought to be evidence of exactly what the reasoning forms are in any first-rate, peer-reviewed scientific journal. How, then, do modern-day top-drawer practicing scientists reason?
Slide 9:
As a basis for an answer, I chose Science Issue #5248 (January 26, 1996) for the analysis to be presented here. I can show that a similar analysis applies to any other issue of Science or Nature. Consequently, accepting Science as an appropriate journal for use in assessing current scientific reasoning, the issue for consideration is the appropriateness of the analysis, not its generality.
Slide 10:
The Issue contained 16 reports. Four of the reports were not pertinent to the proposed analysis because the involved the process of discovery (Reports 3, 4, and 10) for which there is no logic, or measurement (Report No. 5) which simply involved a comparison with the standard.
Slide 11:
The remaining reports fell into one of two groups. In one group, a physical phenomenon was explained in the sense that it was shown to be a necessary result of a mathematical equation that itself was either derived from physical theory (Reports No. 1 and 2) or obtained heuristically (Report No. 6). In these cases, the phenomenon was deduced from the equation which was regarded as a law necessitating the observation.
Slide 12:
In the second group of studies, no attempt was made to explain observations (in the sense of showing them to be a necessary result of an equation). Instead, the studies demonstrated cause-and-effect relationships. For example, Report No. 11 showed (in the manner typical for such studies, as judged by the reviewers of Science) that osteopontin caused signal transduction via CD44 receptors.
Slide 13:
In Report No. 12, the investigators showed that transition from a relaxed state to a state of high vigilance caused an increased blood flow in a particular area of the brain in 10 human subjects.
Slide 14:
All of the remaining reports in the issue manifested reasoning of the form "X caused Y", where X was an independent variable manipulated by the investigator, and Y was the dependent response.
Slide 15:
The reasoning followed in the issue of Science considered can, therefore, be summarized as indicated. Three reports purported to explain phenomena in a deductive fashion. Most of the reports, however, involved a demonstration of a cause-and-effect relationship, followed by abductive reasoning.
Slide 16:
Thus, two distinct forms of scientific reasoning were manifested. Type 1 reasoning involves equating scientific validity with expectability under physical laws. In the second type of reasoning, however, validity was associated with demonstrating a causal relationship, using laboratory procedures appropriate for the particular system under study. Use of the latter form of reasoning was followed by abductive arguments. What are abductive arguments?
This slide illustrates the 3 types of scientific reasoning (employing an example first used by C.S. Peirce). Physics is a mature science in the sense that the inductive stage is essentially complete. With a few exceptions that are not important here, physicists can explain virtually all physical phenomena on the basis of one or more of 4 forces. Physicists, therefore, employ these forces (along with auxiliary hypotheses) to provide deductive explanations of particular phenomena. However, as the reports in the issue of Science amply demonstrate, biologists almost never reason in that fashion. Instead, they proceed by first demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship, and then making an abductive argument (clearly recognized by the use of "suggests" or related euphemisms).
Slide 18:
The received view of science, one that those of us who received our degrees in the 60s or 70s were taught, was that physics, and the methods of physics, fundamentally defined the scientific method. In this view, biology and its problems and observations are merely a subset of the domain of physics, and will ultimately be explained by the laws of physics. I think this model no longer applies. It might even be the case that physics is a dead science - a victim of its own success (since it can explain everything). In this view, physics is in the process of being replaced as a methodological paragon by biology, and in its practical applications by various forms of engineering.
Slide 19:
This is probably a more realistic metaphor regarding modern-day science. No one seriously believes that the four laws of physics don't apply to biology. The simple fact is they are ignored in workaday biological research because no one knows how to apply them in a practical way. It was for this reason that the biologists developed the cause-and-effect approach and abductive reasoning. Since physics neither predicts nor precludes almost anything in biology, it is difficult to envision any significant role of physics in biology.
Slide 20:
I conclude that the reasoning of the physicists is not invalid, it is simply irrelevant to the issues raised by the studies involving biological effects of EMFs. The irrelevance actually exists on two levels. The reasoning processes followed by physicists are irrelevant with regard to individual reports purporting to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships involving EMFs and biological changes. For an even greater reason, the reasoning of the physicist simply does not apply to an evaluation of the significance of those reports with regard to human health risks.
Slide 21:
I admit to deep amazement at the chutzpah of the APS. Their press release said "Physicists are frequently asked to comment on the potential danger of cancer from electromagnetic fields that emanate from common powerlines and electrical appliances." I suppose it's also true that physicists are frequently asked to comment on whether O.J. is guilty or Dole would have made a better president than Clinton. The frequency with which physicists may be asked questions seems to me to be an exceedingly poor basis for the APS to attempt to influence public opinion.
Slide 22:
There are 4 people who I wish to explicitly acknowledge because they have been pivotal in helping me to understand the EMF bioeffects scene. Dr. Becker, my mentor for many years, was the first scientist to publicly indicate that EMFs could be a health risk. He acted selflessly, and paid a terrible price. He is a true American hero. Herman Schwan is the father of the APS point of view. No subsequent physicist has added anything to the arguments first developed by Dr. Schwan. Whatever opinion one may have of their merits, one must be impressed by the clarity, consistency, and intellectual honesty that he consistently manifested. Thomas Kuhn elevated the philosophy of science from the sterile exercise it had become in the hands of the logical positivists, and helped me see that science is not simply an objective, dispassionate activity. Albert St. Gyorgyi, who won a Nobel Prize (and once told me that he should have won a second one) was the first scientist in the modern era who emphasized the importance of electrical factors in explaining and understanding life.
Marino Home Page | Research Interests
| 36250 |
