Ethical Questions and more studies

[Wenzl, Thurman]

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>
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.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth R. Foster [SMTP:kfo...@seas.upenn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:53 AM
To: nob...@net.bio.net
Subject: Re: Ethical Questions

Frey's letter, repeated below, is posted on the Environmental
Health
Perspectives website at

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/106-7/toc.html

But readers should also note the (in my mind very effective)
reply by
Boorman that follows Frey's letter.