FW: Ethical Questions and more studies
Wenzl, Thurman
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, ty...@cdc.gov <mailto:ty...@cdc.gov>
(These are my own opinions.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Boorman.Gary [SMTP:boo...@niehs.nih.gov]
<mailto:[SMTP:boo...@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: nob...@net.bio.net <mailto:nob...@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 ty...@cdc.gov <mailto:ty...@cdc.gov>
<mailto:ty...@cdc.gov <mailto:ty...@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.)
>