From: baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Jonathan Baron)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Subject: EMF and health, and other topics about risk
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:52:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Here is some more information from Ken Foster.  Please do not
expect me to respond to questions or criticisms.  Foster's himself
says he is overwhemed with requests just now, but he suggests
that those who want to write him can get his (snail-mail) address
from the article in Health Physics.  I myself am willing to
defend the "phantom risk" thesis in general, as a plausible
statement about human psychology, but I am not qualified to
debate any particular case, such as EMFs. - Jonathan Baron
(Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania,
baron@cattell.psych.upenn.edu).

     recent article: 
 
     Health effects of low-level electromagnetic fields: phantom or
     not-so-phantom risk?  K. R. Foster.  Health Physics, vol. 62, pp.
     429-436 (1992).
 
     older articles:
 
     The VDT debate.  K. R. Foster.
        The American Scientist, Vol: 74(2), Pages 163-168, 1986. 
 
     The microwave problem.  K. R. Foster and A. W. Guy.
        Scientific American, Vol: 255(3), Pages 32-39, 1986.
 
 
     book review:
 
     Currents of Death.  Paul Brodeur.
     IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine Vol: 9, Page
     89, 1990; 
     Reprinted in Proc. IEEE Vol: 78, Pp. 1763-4 (1990). 
 
 
     book chapters:
 
     Power line fields: a cancer connection?  K. R. Foster, in Phantom
     Risk:  Scientific Inference and the Law  (in press)
 
     Health effects of video display terminals.  K. R. Foster, in
     Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law  (in press)
 
     book in press:
 
     Phantom Risk:  Scientific Inference and the Law, D. Bernstein, K.
     R. Foster, and P. W. Huber, Eds. (MIT Press, in press).


By the way, I will be talking at a forum on reporting health issue
by the media, in New York next week.  Here is a press releast the
University is sending out:

                 Uncertainty in science can sometimes have a large effect
        in the courtroom.
 
             Questions about power lines causing cancer, Agent Orange
        causing maladies of Vietnam veterans, and morning sickness
        drugs causing birth defects have led to large settlements for
        plaintiffs who brought suits against companies who made these
        and other products.
 
             ~Yet no strong scientific evidence ever developed that
        the substances caused the injuries in question" say the
        editors of a forthcoming book on the subject of science and
        law.
 
             Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law, analyzes
        the disparity between science and the law.  It was edited by
        Kenneth R. Foster, associate professor of bioengineering at
        the University of Pennsylvania; Peter W. Huber, senior fellow
        at the Manhattan Institute, and David Bernstein (a recent
        Yale law graduate who will join the firm of Crowell and
        Moring in the fall).  The book will be published this fall by
        MIT Press.
 
             "It is very hard to prove cause and effect relationships
        in science," says Foster, "particularly when dealing with
        subtle hazards.  But people who had bad things happen to them
        are quick to assume the causes, particularly if there are
        prospects of getting a large settlement in court.  Filing
        speculative claims can be financially rewarding to lawyers,
        even if they only sometimes pay off."  For the issues
        discussed in the book, it was never clear to scientists that
        people were actually injured.  Foster adds that 40
        epidemiologic studies still do not show a clear link between
        power lines and cancer.
 
             Because of the rise in litigation, pharmaceutical and
        other companies avoid developing some kinds of drugs for fear
        of lawsuits, says Foster.  One example is morning sickness
        drugs, after fears (later shown to be unwarranted) developed
        that one drug, Bendectin, caused birth defects.  "Some women
        who used the drug had children with birth defects," says
        Foster.  "Other women who did not use the drug also had
        children with birth defects - but they didn't sue.  The
        threat of litigation has kept effective morning sickness
        drugs off the market."
 
 
             "By 'phantom risk' we mean cause-and-effect
        relationships whose existence is unproven and in the view of
        most scientists is unprovable," says Foster. "Phantom risk
        isn't pelvic inflammatory disease from the Dalkon Shield;
        phantom risk is, arguably, birth defects from using video
        display terminals, birth defects caused by the drug Bendectin
        or cancer from low level magnetic fields."
 
             "One problem arises from the confusion and false alarms
        of risk research, particularly in early stages.  Lots of
        initial studies suggest the presence of a risk, that cannot
        be confirmed by later, more careful studies.  But the initial
        studies can trigger a lot of litigation.  This happened, for
        example, when a preliminary study linked use of spermicides
        with birth defects.  The finding was eventually repudiated by
        the original investigators, but led to lots of litigation
        nevertheless."  
 
             Another problem are expert witnesses with novel
        theories.  "Take the case of radiation," says Foster. "A few
        expert witnesses constantly reappear in cases alleging injury
        from exposure to low-level radiation, who present scary- and
        scientifically indefensible -- estimates of risk.  They might
        have negligible impact on science, but exert considerable
        influence in courtrooms.  Because many cases are based on the
        views of these scientists, many suits wouldn't have been
        filed if these experts weren't available."
 
             The  16  chapters  in  Phantom  Risk  offer  scientists'
        perspectives  on drugs,  products,  chemicals,  or  forms  of
        radiation  whose supposed hazards  have attracted interest by
        lawyers  and   scientists.     The  scientific   evidence  is
        accompanied  by a summary of the legal context in which these
        issues  arose. The  essays illustrate  how a  scientist might
        evaluate the sometimes discordant evidence.
 
             Foster  and  his  coeditors point  out  that speculative
        litigation may be  one of  the costs of  democracy, and  that
        there  is no way  to end the  problem completely.   It can be
        reduced, they  write, by more careful  scrutiny of scientific
        evidence by  courts, and by making sure that expert witnesses
        present testimony that is consistent with mainstream science.
 
 
        Editor's Note: Poster and  Huber will appear at a  forum July
        30th   at  the  Union  League   Club  in  New  York  entitled
        "Journalistic Standards in Reporting on Science and  Health."
        Other panelists are Nicholas  Wade, Health and Science Editor
        of the  New York Times, and  Peter D. Hart, of  Peter D. Hart
        Research  Associates who  presents  the results  of his survey
        comparing scientists'  and  journalists' perceptions  of  the
        quality of journalistic reporting of health issues.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU