NIEHS' purpose is "(1) To review the overall quality of research findings relating to the interaction of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) with biological endpoints focusing on biophysical observations and experimental findings and (2) to evaluate if the biological effect is reproducible and if there is sufficient evidence to support a causal linkage between EMF and the effect. The focus of this symposium will be on the use of experimental systems below the level of the whole animal (e.g., in vitro cell culture assays)." But as described previously, the plan is flawed.

Summary of Flaws in Purpose #1.

Summary of Flaws in Purpose #2.

One consequence of the flaws is that the results of the Symposium are predictable.

 

 

 

 

 

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1997 BIOPHYSICAL MECHANISMS	PREDICTED RESULT OF THE SESSION
8:00 AM - 12:30 PM Plenary Session
Epidemiological studies on EMF	None (no known biophysical mechanisms pertinent to the epidemiological studies)
Nongenotoxic mechanisms of carcinogenesis	None known (pertinent to EMF)
EMF dosimetry - internal fields resultingfrom environmental exposures	Meaningless mathematical formulas
Implications of biophysical mechanisms on the detection of effects from weak fields	Speculation
Theory versus experimentation: how great isthe burden of proof?	Extreme idiosyncratic opinions
2-5:30 PM Breakout Groups
Magnetochemistry and magnetite	Speculation
Magnetochemistry and magnetite	Speculation
Internal fields produced by EMF, dosimetry,and endogenous fields	Meaningless mathematical formulas
Physical theory and human health risks	No risks predicted
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 CELLULAR REPLICATION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND CONTROL OF GENE EXPRESSION
8:00 AM - 12:30 PM Plenary Session
EMF effects on cellular replication	None conclusively established
EMF effects on cellular differentiation	None conclusively established
EMF effects on the molecular biology of the cell	None conclusively established
2-5:30 PM Breakout Groups
EMF effects on cellular replication	None conclusively established
EMF effects on cellular differentiation	None conclusively established
EMF effects on the molecular biology of the cell	None conclusively established
The role of in vitro assays in clarifying and quantifying human health risks	Practically none
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1997 ENZYMES, INTRACELLULAR PATHWAYS, AND SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION
8:00 AM - 12:30 PM Plenary Session
EMF effects on calcium	None conclusively established
EMF effects on enzymes and polyamines	None conclusively established
EMF effects on signal transduction	None conclusively established
2-5:30 PM Breakout Groups
EMF effects on calcium	None conclusively established
EMF effects on enzymes and polyamines	None conclusively established
EMF effects on signal transduction	None conclusively established
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1997 IMPLICATIONS OF THEORETICAL MECHANISMS AND IN VITRO RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK	Practically none

ANALYSIS

It seems to me that the NIEHS is walking directly into an ambush cleverly arranged by Thomas Watson, an attorney who has represented the electric power industry on numerous occasions during the past 15 years. Watson, formerly of Crowel & Moring, and presently a partner in Watson & Renner, has assembled an enormous documentary archive of scientific reports, testimony, and other pertinent documents dealing with the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. He has assimilated and understood the evidence far better than one might expect could be done by a layman, and has confected and manipulated the evidence into a powerful series of sophist arguments that can be delivered in court by scientists previously identified by Watson and his former chief of staff, H.B. Graves, in an unprecedented and systematic search of American scientists to find friendly witnesses.

Watson's arguments can be used in high-frequency cases or low-frequency cases, depending on the interests of his clients. Watson's stunning successes during the past 15 years are a tribute to both his own lawyerly abilities, and the enormous financial and logistic resources that he can bring to bear in each case. His successes, however, are generally inconsistent with basic notions of scientific truth or societal justice, both of which fare poorly when Watson has an opportunity to implement his strategy.

The key elements in Watson's strategy that threaten to flatten the NIEHS effort to find the truth regarding the health risks of EMFs involve Watson's specific aims of (1) divide-and-conquer, (2) creation of a fictional facade to suggest that scientists involved in the EMF dispute, including those whom he has hired directly, are dispassionate investigators, rather than partisan advocates, and (3) fostering confusion.

Divide-and-Conquer

Watson has encouraged and exploited the natural antagonism between physicists and biologists regarding the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. The press release of the American Physical Society illustrates the growing sense of irrelevance felt in the physics community regarding what is somehow felt to be a stimulus that should be within the jurisdiction of physicists. The fact that NIEHS is holding the present symposium is mute testimony to Watson's success in exploiting the anger of physicists. NIEHS has, apparently, bought into the notion that physicists can say something relevant to the charge that NIEHS received from Congress, even though I can find no evidence supporting that view. It is understandable, perhaps, that Watson can exploit the situation in a courtroom setting because of his vast knowledge of the mechanics and details of the EMF dispute, and the relative unfamiliarity with the area on the part of his opposing counsel. This explanation, however, cannot excuse the NIEHS, which was specifically consulted by Congress because of its expertise.

Partisan Scientists

Watson has cleverly encouraged the perception that scientists are objective, unbiased, and free of the passions and prejudices manifested by other human beings. For this reason, a scientist can be both an advocate, as well as a judge of the position that he advocates.

This fundamental miscalculation regarding human nature has been accepted by NIEHS, as best I can tell, because it appears that the offices of advocate and judge are to be combined in the procedure planned by NIEHS.

It is excessively naive to ignore the influence that money exerts in the judgment of individuals and in the positions that they champion. It seems reasonable to expect that any fair adjudicatory procedure intended to serve the public interest will not ignore the influence of money, but will take it into consideration in designing the truth-seeking procedure to be followed.

The NIEHS need look no farther than the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to appreciate what effect Watson's large bankroll can produce. Watson was able to hire Stuart Aaronson, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute and one of the country's foremost molecular virologists and elicit from him, in open court, testimony to the effect that EMFs from high-voltage powerlines were not a health risk. For a few hours' testimony in court, Aaronson earned an amount roughly equal to his annual salary from the NCI.

Fostering Confusion

An important lesson that can be learned from the EMF controversy during the past 15 years - a lesson well understood by Watson - is that confusion and uncertainty always work to the benefit of his clients because judges and juries are unlikely to change the status quo in the face of apparent confusion. It is hard to imagine a more confused procedural design than that presently being followed by NIEHS. It is unclear exactly who will procedurally bring together the facts in evidence on each side of the issue, exactly who will testify or opine regarding the substance of that evidence, exactly who will be able to challenge the opinions proffered by individual scientists, and exactly who will actually decide the issue and draft the report sent to the Director of the NIEHS.

SUMMARY

Watson, his employers, and other proponents of EMF-emitting devices have effectively co-opted the mechanism of the blue-ribbon committee, thereby obviating the possibility that such a mechanism will function strictly in the public interest. If only one point-of-view is represented on the EMF blue-ribbon committee, as has usually been the case, then history shows that it will be to the industry point-of-view. This is what I expect will occur at the first NIEHS meeting. The symposium will not yield any affirmative evidence favoring the industry position, but rather will result in negative arguments, condescension, invocation of irrelevant criteria, speculation, and a falsely-created sense of an absence of appropriate scientific facts.

Despite this anticipated scenario, the symposium will not necessarily have a serious impact on the ability of the NIEHS to fulfill its responsibility under the law to advise Congress about the health risks of powerlines because there never was any serious possibility that the results of the symposium could produce information that was probative with respect to the EMF health-risk issue. What physicists have to say is simply not relevant.

The looming danger is that the reputation of the NIEHS may be adversely impacted if NIEHS does not modify its present plan for determining what is or is not a scientific fact in preparation for the second and third symposia. I think that Watson and his employers do not share the perspective of most independent American scientists that the integrity and independence of the NIH must be preserved at all costs, even at the cost of decisions that might adversely affect Watson's clients. He is a lawyer whose job is to represent the power industry, not to promote the interests of the NIH, the public, or unbiased science.

As the NIEHS contemplates its second and third symposia, it seems to me to be important that the fact-finding procedure be designed to blunt Watson's pervasive influence. I think that a science court, as described in my previous Comment, where the presiding officers would be senior federal judges, is one possible mechanism. There may be other possibilities, but the point is that it is impossible to reach decisions in the public interest unless the historical impact of Watson's strategies are recognized, and a mechanism for resolving the question posed by Congress is developed that effectively thwarts those strategies.

 Marino Home Page | Research Interests

65780