Presentation at the BioEM2014 in Cape Town, South Africa, June 2014

1. Ethical and Conflict of Interest
issues in Bioelectromagnetics
Dariusz Leszczynski
University of Helsinki, Finland
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

2. My own CoI disclosure
• Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki
• Chief Editor of ’Radiation and Health’; a specialty of
the ’Frontiers in Public Health’
• Member of the Advisory Board of Cellraid Ltd;
develops cellphone applications for evaluation of
wireless exposures
• Travel grant from Pandora Foundation, Germany, to
attend BioEM2014
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

3. The Institute of Medicine of The US National Academies defines
Conflict of Interest (CoI) as:
“a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment
or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a
secondary interest”.
Quotes selected/modified from
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2009
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

4. From the blog by Nathan A. Schachtman, lawyer representing industry
…“Co nflict o f inte re st in scie nce is a ve ry im po rtant issue , and it is a ve ry
big pro ble m , be cause if unco ntro lle d, it can le ad to biase d, m isle ading
and e ve n false o pinio ns abo ut scie ntific e vide nce . ” Dariusz Le sz cz ynski,
“
Co nflicting state m e nts by the two e xpe rts o f the Ro yalSo cie ty o f Canada
, ” (No v. 1 , 20 1 3)
This statement and the remainder of the blog post is an example of the
current
obsession and delusion over conflicts of interest (COIs). COIs do not
lead to false opinions (assuming an opinion can be false); fraud,
misrepresentation, errors in data collection and analyses, fallacies, and
inferential mistakes are what lead to misleading and false statements in
science. COIs may perhaps trigger greater scrutiny for error, but there is
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

5. Central goal of conflict of interest policies is to protect the integrity
of professional judgement and to preserve public trust rather than to
remeditate bias or mistrust after it occurs
Quote modified from
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2009
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

6. Not every conflict of interest is equal
Not every conflict of interest is of significance for every
circumstance
The disclosure of individual and institutional financial relationships
is a critical but limited first step in the process of identifying and
responding to conflict of interest
• Person with conflict of interest will be making decisions
• How reliable will be decisions made by person with conflict
of interest
• How reliable the past decisions are of persons who left
committee for work with industry
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

7. Criteria for evaluating conflict of interest policies
Proportionality Is the policy most efficiently directed at the most
important conflicts?
Transparency Is the policy comprehensible and accessible to the
individuals and institutions that may be
affected by the policy?
Accountability Does the policy indicate who is responsible for
enforcing and revising it?
Fairness Does the policy apply equally to all relevant groups
within an institution and in different institutions
from
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2009
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

8. Some examples of the conflict of interest in bioelectromagnetics
• Sponsored by industry
• Consulting agreement
• Sitting on advisory board to industry
• Employed by industry funded research institution
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

9. Bioelectromagnetics is a narrow research area. Unavoidably, all
science is done, evaluated and presented, to the general public
and decision-makers, by a small group of “influential players”.
Large research consortia, appointed committees and self-
appointed committees consist of the same “influential players”.
The same applies to the narrow field of “influential” peer-
reviewers of new research projects and of articles published in
peer-reviewed journals.
As if by default, all of the “influential players” claim in their
disclosures to either have no CoI or, if they have it, they claim to
be unaffected in their scientific decisions by CoI.
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

10. David Heath of the Center for Public Integrity, Washington,
DC, wrote in December 2013:
Case of Patricia Buffler, Dean of the School of Public Health
at the University of California, Berkeley
Buffler’s own research found strong evidence suggesting that
preschoolers should stay away from wet paint.
Yet, in the past three years, Buffler was paid more than
$360,000 to work as an expert witness on behalf of
companies that used to sell lead-based paint.
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

11. Commonly, the disclosures of CoI, even in very influential
committees, are not standardized and seemingly not checked for
their accuracy.
Therefore, relying entirely on the willingness of the discloser to
make full disclosure.
There is no accountability for any false, erroneous or incomplete
disclosures.
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

12. ICNIRP members are asked to declare any personal interests in
relation to the activities of ICNIRP. Members' declaration of
personal interests are available on ICNIRP’s website.
Accuracy checks missing… avoidance of “straight” answers
or…?
• Do yo u have re se arch suppo rt fro m industry?
• Ihave no pe rso nalsuppo rt fro m the industry.
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

13. Examples of problems in bioelectromagnetics committees
●Committee ●Selection ●Disclosures ●Accountabilit
y
●Funding
●ICNIRP ●”private club” ●yes, but... ●no ●?
●SCENIHR ? ●yes, but... ●yes ●EU
●BioInitiative ●”private club” ●? ●no ●by members
themselves
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa
Funding column was added after the
talk, at the request of Carl Blackman,
member of BioInitiative

14. Examples of the scientific problems in bioelectromagnetics committees
• Selectiveness in collecting/admissing evidence
• All evidence listed but not considered in practice
• Selection of predominantly supportive evidence
• Single scientist making judgement/writing opinion paper
• BioInitiative
• SCENIHR
• Committees do not want talk to each other
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

15. “Firewalls” between the industry funding research and the
scientists executing this research.
Current system of “firewalls” does not work:
• the industry knows whom they are funding
• the scientists know who is funding them
• “firewall” keeper is profiting from providing “firewall” and
administrating the industry’s money for the scientists
This situation resembles the proverbial ‘public secret’ –
everyone knows but no one publicly admits to know…
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

16. Even in a situation when disclosure of the potential CoI is
done in full, what impact the disclosed CoI has on the
decisions made by the discloser?
Even after the full disclosure of the potential CoI, person
having the potential CoI will be making decisions.
Are these decisions influenced or not influenced by the CoI,
also when it was disclosed?
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

17. As the society at large and as the scientific society, should we
be solely dependent on the ethics and consciousness of the
persons having potential CoI or should we intervene and
exclude persons with potential, and significant CoI, from the
advisory or decision-making role?
Are there irreplaceable experts?
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

18. In dealings with experts, as a society and as
scientists, should we exercise trust or limited trust,
and make sure that the ”skeletons” do not remain
hidden?
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa

19. Lots of mistrust has accumulated over the years.
Harmonization attempts do not work.
Safety policies are being de-harmonized through political influencers.
Current CoI and ”firewalls” policies do not work.
How to reverse the mis-trust situation to trusted one?
Dariusz Leszczynski; BioEM2014, Cape Town, South Africa