From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 02 23:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Wenzl, Thurman" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: FW: Ethical Questions and more studies Date: 3 Aug 1998 15:58:22 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 76 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <75AC0E50AB70D111830700A02461F8E2176E29@MCDC-CIN-1> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net G Boorman sent me the following explanation in response to my comment about Ken Foster's note. Since Friday, I've re-read Frey's letter and Boorman's response, and I continue to believe that Foster is mistaken. Background to my remark is the observation large highly exposed (to power freq mag fields) human populations are likely to exist in areas served by overhead powered electric trains, such as in UK, Japan, and between NYC and New Haven. For a variety of non-scientific reasons, little investigation of these passenger groups has been considered. I hope that Boorman chooses to suggest further epi research in his report this fall. T Wenzl, tyw1@cdc.gov (These are my own opinions.) -----Original Message----- From: Boorman.Gary [SMTP:boorman@niehs.nih.gov] Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 4:57 PM To: 'Wenzl, Thurman' Subject: RE: Ethical Questions and more studies The decision on NOT to fund EMF epidemiology studies was not based on hypothesis or lack of hypothesis, rather on a very limited program with a report to Congress due within five years (actually the first EMF RAPID funds arrived at NIEHS on September 23, 1994) so the EMF Advisory Committee instructed NIEHS to conduct studies that could reasonably be expected to generate data that could be used for the report to Congress. The EMF Advisory Committee instructed NIEHS that since it was highly unlikely that an epidemiology study could be proposed, peer reviewed, funded, carried out, reported and evaluated within 5 years, we were not to fund epidemiology studies. We hope to have our report to Congress in November 1998 which is just over 4 years since reception of funds. Gary > ---------- > From: Wenzl, Thurman > Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 4:35 PM > To: nobody@net.bio.net > Subject: RE: Ethical Questions and more studies > > Ken Foster says in part, in response to a Frey letter: > > "Clearly, an infinite number of rocks can still be turned over in this > already well-studied field. If Frey thinks that there is something > important remaining to be discovered, he should develop testable (and > falsifiable) hypotheses-not shift the burden of justifying research > choices onto other people." > I'll have to read the background this weekend, since I think I disagree > with what I understand this paragraph to mean. Does this mean that only > the quality of the science, and the testability of the hypotheses, > determine what gets funded?? > If so, then this is surely not so - especially in the field of emf epi - > where an a priori decision was make to fund NO such work with rapid > funds. > Thurman Wenzl ScD tyw1@cdc.gov > > The usual disclaimers apply; these are my own opinions. > (And if anyone is interested, I'll be glad to offer as examples a few > very testable hypotheses about rail commuters and their emf exposure > between NYC and New Haven.) > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 03 23:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Allan Frey Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Ethical Questions and more studies Date: 4 Aug 1998 07:44:47 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 27 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <35C71C90.50C@uu.net> Reply-To: afrey@UU.NET NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net What Foster has to say has nothing to do with what I said. He concludes: > =85have the burden >of developing and defending specific testable hypotheses -- not shifting= the >burden of developing hypotheses onto somebody else I didn't talk about developing and testing hypotheses. The following is what I talked about. If a person wishes to base a public health decision on a set of data, he has the burden of establishing that the set of data is relevant. It's simply a question of logic. Does the decision follow from the data.=20 An example might help. Lets say Foster wishes to decide if autos are safe to drive. If he chooses to base his decision on a set of data on the frequency of train derailments, then he has the burden of proving that the train derailment data is relevant. Allan =20 --=20 Allan H. Frey Email: afrey@uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane Voice: 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 03 23:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Kenneth R. Foster" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: FW: Ethical Questions and more studies Date: 4 Aug 1998 07:42:47 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 168 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199808041333.JAA10047@home.seas.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net My comments had nothing to do with funding or lack therof in EMF research. = My comments were in response to Frey's statement=20 >Thus, if one wants to use the results of these studies in >setting health policy for people exposed to power line fields, one must >first prove that a pure sine-wave field is the relevant parameter for >inducing biological effects. and other statements by him elsewhere that EMF does not follow a "chemical model" of toxicity and therefore normal dose-response considerations are irrelevant. =20 The designers of the NTP study should not have the burden of proving that= any exposure parameter is " the relevant parameter for inducing biological effects". At best, they should identify the most sensible exposure= parameters to use in their tests, given the fact that the tests are very expensive and can only be done using a limited number of exposure parameters. From my= knowledge of how the NTP study was designed, I think that the investigators did a= pretty conscientious job of that. In the absence of any generally accepted= hypothesis for the mechanism for an effect, if any exists, that is about the best that could be done. Also, one does not set policy on the basis of one study, but on a holostic assessment of all available data.=20 There are, in fact, several hypotheses that are logically consistent, with= the epi data which suggests a small and inconsistent increase in relative risk (see my article with Moulder and Erdreich in IEEE Proceedings, Vol. 86 (6), pp. 733-746, 1997): 1) There is a small elevation in risk (RR < 1.5) for a significant fraction of the population.=20 2) There is a large elevation in risk (RR > 5) for a small number of people who are particularly sensitive, but who are as yet unidentified.=20 3) There is a large risk, but the adverse health outcome requires= co-exposure with an as yet unidentified agent, or exposure under conditions that are as yet unknown.=20 4) The exposure is ubiquitous and the exposure -- response= relationship is shallow, so that the difference in risk between "exposed" and=20 "unexposed" groups is small. =20 5) There is no health effect at all, but the apparent elevation in risk= arises from small errors and biases in the studies (not necessarily the same in= each study), or by chance. The fifth, and perhaps fourth, of these is unprovable but remains a possibility in the absence of a more definite explanation. Those who believe that the correct alternative is 1,2,3 (or another hypothesis entirely) have the= burden of developing and defending specific testable hypotheses -- not shifting the burden of developing hypotheses onto somebody else At 01:41 PM 8/3/1998 -0400, you wrote: >G Boorman sent me the following explanation in response to my comment >about Ken Foster's note. >Since Friday, I've re-read Frey's letter and Boorman's response, and I >continue to believe that Foster is mistaken. >Background to my remark is the observation large highly exposed (to >power freq mag fields) human populations are likely to exist in areas >served by overhead powered electric trains, such as in UK, Japan, and >between NYC and New Haven.=A0 For a variety of non-scientific reasons, >little investigation of these passenger groups has been considered. > > I hope that Boorman chooses to suggest further epi research in his >report this fall. > >T Wenzl,=A0=A0 tyw1@cdc.gov <mailto:tyw1@cdc.gov>=20 >(These are my own opinions.) > >-----Original Message----- >From: Boorman.Gary [SMTP:boorman@niehs.nih.gov] ><mailto:[SMTP:boorman@niehs.nih.go v]>=20 >Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 4:57 PM >To: 'Wenzl, Thurman' >Subject: RE: Ethical Questions and more studies > >The decision on NOT to fund EMF epidemiology studies was not based on >hypothesis or lack of hypothesis,=A0 rather on a very limited program with >a report to Congress due within five years (actually the first EMF RAPID >funds arrived at NIEHS on September 23, 1994) so the EMF Advisory >Committee instructed NIEHS to=A0 conduct studies that could reasonably be >expected to generate data that could be used for the report to Congress. >The EMF Advisory Committee instructed NIEHS that since it was highly >unlikely that an epidemiology study could be proposed, peer reviewed, >funded, carried out, reported and evaluated within 5 years, we were not >to fund epidemiology studies.=A0 We hope to have our report to Congress in >November 1998 which is just over 4 years since reception of funds. >Gary > > ---------- > > From: Wenzl, Thurman > > Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 4:35 PM > > To: nobody@net.bio.net <mailto:nobody@net.bio.net>=20 > > Subject: RE: Ethical Questions and more studies > >=20 > > Ken Foster says in part, in response to a Frey letter: > >=20 > > "Clearly, an infinite number of rocks can still be turned over >in this > > already well-studied field.=A0 If Frey thinks that there is >something > > important remaining to be discovered, he should develop >testable (and > > falsifiable) hypotheses-not shift the burden of justifying >research > > choices onto other people." > > I'll have to read the background this weekend, since I think I >disagree > > with what I understand this paragraph to mean.=A0 Does this mean >that only > > the quality of the science, and the testability of the >hypotheses, > > determine what gets funded?? > > If so, then this is surely not so - especially in the field of >emf epi - > > where an a priori decision was make to fund NO such work with >rapid > > funds. > > Thurman Wenzl=A0 ScD=A0=A0=A0 tyw1@cdc.gov <mailto:tyw1@cdc.gov> ><mailto:tyw1@cdc.gov >=20 > > The usual disclaimers apply; these are my own opinions. > > (And if anyone is interested, I'll be glad to offer as >examples a few > > very testable hypotheses about rail commuters and their emf >exposure > > between NYC and New Haven.) > >=20 >=20 >=20 Kenneth R Foster Department of Bioengineering University of Pennsylvania 220 S. 33rd St. Philadelphia PA 19104-6392 215-898-8534 fax 215-573-2071 President IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology 1997-8=20 Chair, EMBS Committee on Man and Radiation 1997- ****************************************************************************= * SSIT Website: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jherkert/ COMAR website http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/comar.htm Blurb for latest book http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/book.htm Recent Papers http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/papers.htm