It’s been a week since Herberman of University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute publicly declared his fear of a link between cell phones and cancer. Several more mainstream media sources have since covered this topic, including Larry King Live.

Larry King’s segment (scroll down to the cell phone transcript) featured only scientists and physicians. This has not been typical in the MSM where health – or science – related panels often include consumer/patient advocates or industry marketing professionals.

Thank god there was a scientist who can talk clearly on camera and whose position reflects the scientific consensus. Ted Schwartz, director brain tumor surgery at Weil Cornell, introduced his perspective (“First let me say…”), then clearly stated that “there is no conclusive evidence” and we don’t create health policy based on inconclusive evidence.

Devra Davis of UPCI’s Center for Center for Environmental Oncology was also on the show, and in fact stayed on for the entire segment (unlike most others who came in mid-way or dropped off). Davis has had good media training, and her message comes across very clearly and rationally. Unfortunately, the first two doctors to appear on the segment with her could not get their message across to counter her claims.

Dr. Keith Black, Chairman, Dept. of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center:

We know that microwave radiation can damage cells, and there’s been some experimental evidence to suggest there are harmful effects. As Dr. Davis said, at this point, they’re looking at the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer. We have conflicting studies. Some studies, which are not absolutely perfect, showed no correlation. We also have some studies that tend to suggest a correlation.

Ok, that’s not terrible – but definitely not great. Compare it to Schwartz’s “there is no conclusive evidence.” Also, the opening statement about microwave radiation is misleading since it’s such a vague statement (what dose damaged cells, and what constitutes damage to cells?). Black continues with:

One of the recent studies from Sweden show that if you use cell phones an hour a day for ten years, your risk may be increased as much as two-fold. The real concern is analogous to this: we’ve only been using cell phones for a short period. Most of the studies are for a short period of time. So if you have a 14-year-old who smokes cigarettes, we don’t expect that 14-year-old to develop lung cancer at 24. We expect them to develop lung cancer at 54. If you have an eight-year-old using a cell phone, we don’t expect them to [do you feel get] lung cancer at 18, but at 48.

He just lost everyone who is not an epidemiologist. There are too many numbers in there, and honestly, don’t think that many people understand the timing of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer – at least not when it’s articulated like this.

Later on, Paul Song, a radiation oncologist from somewhere in LA (institution not identified), injects the idea that your phone getting hot while in use implies radiation exposure:

I think the most important thing is that when we look at any type of radiation exposure, whether or not it’s radio waves or gamma waves, is that the duration of your exposure. So clearly if you’re on the cell phone for a long period of time — I think we all have been in situations where our ear gets warm — that clearly means maybe we’re on a little too long.

There is no direct association here, but the implication is there. My understanding is that the heat from cell phones is a byproduct of the electrical processes that take place in the phone. It’s the same thing with the CPU in your computer. The radiowaves being emitted by phones are not like the waves emitted by your microwave, so your brain is not being cooked. Think about it – the phone itself gets hot. If radiation were heating your ear, the phone would stay cool and your ear would warm up.

The CTIA (wireless company association) sent a great statement saying that this issue needs to be guided by science:

This is an issue that should be guided by science. The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the world show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk. Furthermore, this is the public position of leading health organizations, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization. Public statements and declarations not guided by published scientific research can have the effect of misinforming the general public. As technology continues to evolve, the industry supports continued research. But we want to stress the fact that this a consensus among leading health organizations concerning published scientific research, and they show no reason for concern.

Sanjay Gupta (CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent) and Otis Brawley (Chief Medical Officer of ACS) inject a rational discussion of the issue.

Later that night (July 29th), I watched the Colbert Report where author Eric Roston talked about the role of science and technology in our society. One statement really stood out to me:

Science is the foundation of our technology, technology is the foundation of our economy, and if we don’t follow the carbon and we are serious about our future we should go back and look at the fundamental architect, builder and building block of civilization.

His new book is about carbon, but I thought the sentiment also applied to this cell phone debate and the role of science in our society. Just replace the word carbon with science in the quote above.

The announcement from University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s (UPCI) director today is completely irresponsible and should not be covered by the mainstream media (MSM). In his letter to the UPCI faculty and staff about the cancer-causing capabilities of cell phones, Ron Herbeman cites a document which acknowledges that epidemiological studies show nothing conclusive. In short, in broad population-based studies, no association has been found.

The international expert committee which released (I see no information about whether this document was published) the report includes Devra Davis, director of UPCI’s Center for Environmental Oncology. Everytime I have broached the subject of responding to Davis’ claims in the media, epidemiologists I work with tell me she has no standing in academia and that her claims cannot be taken seriously because there is no data behind them. And yet, the MSM continues to invite her on their shows.

Science works through peer-review. We all know that a lot of science is far too complicated for people without specialized training to understand. Most of us take it as a matter of faith that the scientists know what they’re doing. (I similarly take it as a matter of faith that my broker is appropriately managing my 401k – maybe not always a great idea.)

But in science, the vetting is done by peers through the publishing process. Scientists publish their data in peer-reviewed journals where subject area experts examine the methods, results, and conclusions with a fine-tooth comb, sometimes sending the paper back for additional analyses to be completed. Only after a study has gone through this process and is being published do scientists consider the work complete and accurate. At this point, the media is notified of the discoveries, NOT BEFORE.

Furthermore, the PR team at UPCI and at Pitt should never have allowed the internal email or the public announcement to go out. Communications professionals are there to be gatekeepers to prevent inappropriate announcements from being released. We have a responsibility to protect the reputation of our institutions. I believe this can and should be done in a responsible way (let’s not hide our faults, acknowledging them is not only the right thing to do but also helps you put it behind you sooner – take the Lewinski scandal as an example).

Of course, the MSM had to cover this story. Here are a couple examples:

• Tara Parker-Pope at Well,
• WebMD provides an overview of reactions to the statement,
• The Chicago Tribune offers pros and cons of cellphone use while noting the unusualness of Herbeman’s statement,
• The Washington Post emphasizes the many studies that do not show a link between cellphones and cancer, and
• The BBC unfortunately titled it’s article “US cancer boss in mobiles warning,” which does far less to minimize the damage of the announcement.

Like the evolution “debate,” media coverage of this issue needs to be clear about the actual amount of debate within the scientific community. By and large, I think the articles above are accurate representations. I hope, though, that the splash of this announcement quickly fades as the real scientific message comes through.

I can’t wait to hear from Epi Wonk and Orac – the real scientists in the blogosphere – on this latest dose of woo. PalMD at the denialism blog has already posted on this. Check out a couple older posts on the topic from others at ScienceBlogs: Framing Science, Pure Pedantry, denialism blog, and The Island of Doubt.

Talk about way cool science. The Scientist is reporting on their blog that a vaccine grown in tobacco plants has successfully completed a phase 1 clinical trial. The paper comes out in PNAS tomorrow.

The vaccine treats non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and the use of plants as a medium is so important because the vaccine must be personalized to each individual patient – a typically expensive and time consuming process. I just wanted to expand on The Scientist’s explanation of how this works.

Each patient treated in the trial received a vaccine made up of proteins found on their own tumor’s B-cell surface Ig proteins. These antigens are expected to create an immune response against this protein found on the cancer cells, activating the body’s own immune system to fight the disease.

In this case, the researchers produced the human proteins using plants – by loading a plant virus with the patient’s Ig gene (which becomes the antigen). The virus replicates in the plant and makes millions of copies of the Ig protein which are then purified and injected into a patient.

In simple terms, the plants are the host for viruses producing human proteins. And not just generic human proteins, but proteins found on a specific patient’s tumor. This isn’t the first time someone has done this, but commercialization of this method hasn’t taken off yet.

Aside from the coolness factor, the benefit to doing this in plants (instead of animals) is speed and cost. From The Scientist:

Total time from biopsy to treatment averages three to four months, according to the paper. Animal-based vaccine production for B-cell lymphoma takes double that time, said Levy.

So a new methodology looks like it may be able to put treatments within reach of many more patients. Of course, this was only Phase 1, so there’s no data on how well it worked yet.