Evaluating scientific literature on biological effects of microwave radiation

Abstract

In some cases, a publication - and more often, a conference presentation - reports preliminary results or work in progress. Results from these experiments, by nature, consist of a small number of cases and are first tests, to be repeated in further studies. It should be noted that presentation or publication of incomplete studies or preliminary results primarily serves as a means of communication among scientists to apprize each other of ongoing research activity. There are a number of general principles that should be applied in the evaluation of the scientific literature. For studies of biological effects of microwave radiation, it is important that the published description of methods should be given in sufficient detail that a critical reviewer would be convinced that all reasonable precautions were taken to meet requirements 1, 2, and 3. In analyzing the scientific literature to determine the probability of a biological response from exposure to microwave energy, one must consider: 1) the consistency of experimental results claimed; 2) the nature of the response and the biological system involved; 3) the ability to consistently replicate the results; and 4) whether results claimed and observations reported can be explained by previously accepted biological principles or must be explained only on the basis of new, untested hypotheses. Once an individual report has been reviewed to assure its reliability, results of that report must be considered in light of existing scientific principles and results of other studies of the same parameter under investigation. The results of an individual report should be compared to the rest of the literature being reviewed. Experiments with small animals, such as mice and rats that are undertaken to evaluate the potential effects of microwave exposure, must be carefully evaluated for their potential effects in humans. Differences in species, SAR, and specific absorption (SA) necessitate judicial extrapolations from experimental animals to humans based on J.C. Lin and O.P. Gandhi (1996). Moreover, any unrelated stressor - i.e., anesthetic, drugs, animal care, restrainers, ambient temperature, noise, etc. - could become a compounding factor. A reported observation may be the result of an unrelated stressor not intended to be studied.