What is the impact of cellphones on human bodies? This is a hotly debated issue in scientific circles and it is clear that the jury is still out of the final decision. On the one hand studies – many industry sponsored – show that there is little evidence of a causal relationship between cancer and radiation from cellphones; other studies suggest that the link exists and is deadly. I don’t intend to discuss the merits of this specific case with you. Whatever the final verdict on the electromagnetic pollution and its toxicity, I will discuss two of what I believe are related and critical issues.

First, is the issue of the role of private funding for public research. There is growing concern about the need to promote transparency in funding of research that affects public policy. The growing influence of the drug industry funding on academic research and the growing number of cases where data are withheld, spun or otherwise manipulated when results are disadvantageous to the funder is now a frequent and frightening phenomenon.

A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), reveals that published statistics on new drugs are a scam like Enron. Washington Post wrote how a pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia Corporation, funded a study to show that Celebrex, a medicine, works better than cheap alternatives such as Ibuprofen.The study collected 12 months of data,

Which showed no major advantage. But the authors selectively published the first six months of results, claiming that Celebrex had fewer side effects and this trick made patients spend US $3 billion. Rigging data is very profitable.

This is hardly surprising. Science is hard money and in politics the stakes are high. Starting from tobacco research to drug trials and now the extremely contentious health and safety issues concerning genetically modified organism (GMOs) and cellphones, it is important to ensure that public policy is not allowed to get manipulated or be confusing. The role of independent and credible research, therefore, becomes all the more important especially in an increasingly technocratic society.

What is worrying is that while industry has always supported some research, the balance of power in the collaboration between companies and academic institutions is shifting. Corporate research budgets are rising much faster than government and charitable foundations, making these institutions more dependent on industry sponsorship. Academics are facing increasing competition from the fast growing consultancy research sector, which is less constrained by traditions of independence and objectivity.

The second issue is that we have to exercise the precautionary principle in making decisions. Science often cannot give us a precise assessment of the problem. It is because of this that we need to often apply the precautionary principle so that even if the final risk assessment is still not concluded and the final scientific certainty is not known, we know enough to say that there could be a possible risk. Caution and precaution is what is needed. It is important because the stakes are too high. After all we are dealing with life here. Not money. Not politics.