Mobile Telecommunications and Health

Statement by Dr Hans-Peter Neitzke, ECOLOG-Institute

with regards to the comments by the HPA and the Department of Health about the ECOLOG report entitled Mobilfunk und Gesundheit – Bewertung des wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisstandes unter dem Gesichtspunkt des vorsorgende Gesundheitsschutzes.

This study was produced by a team of scientists, consisting of Dr Kerstin Hennes (veterinary medicine), Dr Hartmut Voigt (biophysics), Dr Gisa Kahle-Anders (biology) and myself.

Originally, it had been agreed that the results of our study would be presented to and discussed by an expert group nominated by T-Mobil. T-Mobil subsequently unilaterally changed the procedure and also commissioned Professor Glaser, Professor Silny and the Öko-Institut (Eco-Institute) to assess the available research from their respective point of view. The brief of the other consultants, however, only partly conformed to our own. The fact that T-Mobil did not formulate all commissions in an unambiguous and consistent manner, was one of the main reasons for the ensuing differences in the assessment (The Öko-Institut for example, included many studies covering the low frequency range, Prof. Silny focussed in detail on technical questions (pace makers) and did not address many biological effects at all). Prof. Glaser and Prof. Silny worked on their respective studies alone. The Öko-Institute worked with a team of four scientists.

In my view, T-Mobil chose the Öko-Institute (which we usually rate very highly), mainly for tactical reasons: They are an environmental research institute (an association with them should probably suggest a certain openness for a critical view), however, they have never done in single study in the field (and were therefore not sufficiently competent to give a critical assessment). It would have been more honest and also more appropriate if T-Mobil had commissioned a more competent institute such as Nova or Katalyse.

We only learned about the other studies being commissioned by T-Mobil after the event. Instead of the originally agreed discussion of the results by an expert group, T-Mobil instructed Dr Wiedemann of Forschungszentrum Jülich to conduct a discussion of the results of the four studies amongst the authors (one per study). I believe that this is how T-Mobil was trying to ensure that our assessment was going to be put into perspective: From Prof. Glaser and Prof. Silny, no critical comment was to be expected – both had positioned their respective opinions clearly in previous publications – and the Öko-Institute had withdrawn to the position that the subject matter was complicated and more research was needed.

There was no agreement to wait with the publication of the results until all four studies were finished (the other three were commissioned much later). On the contrary, on 7 March 2001, we received a letter from our client which stressed again that we could publish our results at any time. Dr Lauer and Dr Gerstenschläger, who had both been our assigned project managers within T-Mobil, wrote the following:

‘With regards to the use of the results, we would like to reiterate the statement made at the beginning of the project, that you have the unlimited right to publish the results and to use them for your own research purposes. This includes the mentioning of T-Mobil as the commissioning party of the study. It is incumbent on your own responsibility to decide how a publication will influence the ensuing discussion process. From T-Mobil, there are no restrictions. However, we kindly ask you to inform Dr Wiedemann about the publication.’

We informed Dr Wiedemann and made the results of our study public fourteen days after we received the letter from T-Mobil. I assume that T-Mobil felt obliged to write this letter since it was public knowledge that our study had been finished since April 2000 and T-Mobil did not want to be criticised for withholding results. Indeed, T-Mobil has never attempted to withhold or influence the results – which we would have never accepted anyway. However, T-Mobil did unilaterally break our original agreement with regards to the procedure and commissioned further experts from whom no critical results or recommendations were to be expected.

I hope the above explanations will help you to understand the context of the ECOLOG study of 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Dr H-Peter Neitzke

print-friendly page print-friendly page

top of page
top of page
 

© 2008 The h.e.s.e. Project : Human Ecological Social Economic About this site