IARC ./. Lerchl (Allgemein)

Alexander Lerchl @, Montag, 31.01.2011, 09:52 (vor 3836 Tagen) @ Dariusz

I have noticed your discussion about my involvement in the 2011 IARC evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of mobile phone radiation, about my criticism of Hardell re-evaluation study and about the Louis Slesin’s comments criticizing me in his ”Short Take” GIGO-story. Here are few answers from my side and my view-point.

IARC
• I have received the formal e-mail invitation to the IARC Working Group on 22.09.2010 at 16:27 (Finnish time).
• I am also aware of the composition of the Working Group. It is still not published but, as specified by IARC, it will be published on the Monograph 102 website before the meeting in Lyon.

...

Hi Dariusz,

Good to hear from you. I have also expressed my interest in participating in that IARC Working Group and submitted all relevant documents, including the "Declaration of Interests for WHO Experts", (DoI) i.e. the same form you must have signed, too. On 27 Aug, 2010, I was informed that I will not be invited: "We regret to inform you that your Declaration or the sponsorship of your recent papers did not meet this criterion." I was very surprised and aksed for clarification since I have submitted the very same DoI as for the previous WHO expert meeting where I have participated. On Aug 30, I received the following explanation:

"Listed under item 1b, we noticed in your Declaration of Interest (DoI) your activities as a consultant for the German Informationszentrum Mobilfunk (IZMF). We have become aware of the fact that this organization has been set-up and is maintained by the mobile-phone networks in Germany to defend the joint interests of the German mobile-phone industry. As such, this activity poses in our view at least an apparent conflict. As was stated in our previous message, an important selection criterion for Working Group members is the absence of such conflicts in their DoI."

I replied by explaining that I didn't work as a "consultant" in their understanding, but as an independent expert for their educational program ("ärztliche Fortbildung"). IARC accepted this argument, but they surprisingly came up with others (on Oct 26, 2010), namely that I have published "criticisms of studies that suggest a harmful effect of exposure to radiation emitted by mobile telephones" and that "some of [my] statements on the web pages of 'IZgMF' and 'Next-up' follow a similar strong stance."

They concluded: "Taking the above points into account, we feel that your participation would not contribute to a balanced search for consensus within the forthcoming Working Group." In other words: to be critical seems to indicate an inability to "contribute to a balanced search". What a nonsense.

You will understand that I am pretty upset and that I will have a close look at the list of participants for the monograph 102.

Best,

Alexander

--
"Ein Esoteriker kann in fünf Minuten mehr Unsinn behaupten, als ein Wissenschaftler in seinem ganzen Leben widerlegen kann." Vince Ebert

Tags:
IARC, Fortbildung, Sponsoren


gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum