Funding Source, Quality of Publications and Outcome in Genetic Damage in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Non- Ionizing Radiofrequency Fields

Abstract

Overview

The study investigates the potential influence of funding sources on research outcomes, particularly in studies assessing genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields (RF).

Findings

• A total of 225 publications were analyzed, involving 2,160 genetic damage assessment tests.
• A significant portion (53%) of studies acknowledged funding from government agencies, while a smaller percentage (9%) mentioned funding from the mobile phone industry.
• Industry-funded research tended to be of higher quality and often reported no significant genetic damage compared to government-funded studies. This includes more rigorous quality control measures and a lower effect size (d values) indicating less deviation between exposed and control groups.
• 80% of industry-funded studies found no difference in genetic damage between RF-exposed and sham-exposed cells, compared to 49% in government-funded studies.
• Industry-funded studies were less likely to report an increase in genetic damage (10%) in comparison to government-funded studies (23%).

Conclusion

Given the disparity in the percentage of publications funded by government versus industry, it is crucial to consider the possible biases introduced by funding sources. The findings underscore the importance of disclosing funding sources and implementing stringent quality controls in studies.