martin sims article oman economic review

8/7/2019 Martin Sims article Oman economic review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/martin-sims-article-oman-economic-review 1/3

112 May 2010

T

he question of whether the

media gives an accurate

picture of health issues

associated with mobile

phones belongs within a

wider area of research in the social

issues. Public opinion on mobiles phones

they read, hear and see in the media and

an important parallel here is the reporting

To put it succinctly, almost all scientists

think global warming is happening, yet

the public think this is an area in which

expert opinion is evenly divided.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change’s fourth report in 2007made its strongest ever recommendation

stating that global temperatures are

rising and there is a 90 per cent or

more possibility of this being caused

by human activity. So scientists agree

there is a crying need for more action

to reduce emissions. And no national

dissenting opinion on the topic. 32

national science academies back the UN

view and have called for reduction in

greenhouse gases. On the other hand,

there are a tiny number of individualscientists who question the prevailing

view.

To see how well the public understands

World Bank in 2009 took a poll of 13,000

people in 15 nations. While 99 per cent of

the scientists think that the “problem is

urgent and enough is known for action”,

the general public has a very different

impression. The survey showed that

only in countries like Bangladesh and

Vietnam does the public have anything

approaching the correct understanding.

Across the 15 countries on average only

51 per cent of the public have a correct

cent think this is an area in which expertopinion is evenly divided or not enough

is known to justify action being taken.

Mobile phones and healthSo what do the scientists say about

the impact of mobile phones on

health? According to the World Health

Organisations’ (WHO) Factsheet 2000,

emitted by mobile phones and their base

stations, is unlikely to induce or promote

cancers.” This premise is embellished

by other sources like the Stewart report

like the UK 2000, “…on the basis of the

evidence currently available, there is no

need for the general population to be

worried about the use of mobile phones.”

Health Canada 2003 states, “the weight

of evidence from animal, cell culture and

human studies does not indicate that the

energy emitted by cell phones is strong

enough to cause serious health effects.”

The public perception is far removed

from such a standpoint. In 2007

Eurobarometer carried out a survey

which involved face-to-face interviews

with approximately 30,000 EU citizens

at their homes. The survey found that

concerns about mobile phones and healthhad increased since 2002. The results

showed considerable cultural variations.

For example people in Italy, Greece and

Cyprus were most concerned while in

Sweden, Finland and Denmark they

were least concerned. Remarkably, there

was little variation within the survey

in the responses of people due to their

level of education or between the sexes.

Close to 76 per cent thought that mobile

phone masts affected their health “to a

big extent” or “to some extent”, while 63

per cent thought the same about mobilephone handsets.

Overall, around 48 per cent of the

public was fairly concerned about the

implications of mobile phone handsets,

while 49 per cent were not very

concerned or not concerned at all. The

depth of the misunderstanding is shown

by comparing public opinion on global

phone related health risks, where there

GIVING AN ACCURATE PICTUREon health, public concerns persist. To dispel such notions it is imperative for the

media, mobile companies, government and regulators to work in tandem

TECHNOLOGY

By Martin SimsManaging Editor, PolicyTracker



113May 2010

around 52 per cent of the respondents

were concerned or very concerned about

mobile handsets, while 65 per cent were

concerned or very concerned about

climate change.

The perceived risk has made this

a common reason for the public to

complain to their elected representatives.

In 2005 UK MPs like Ian Gibson stated

that constituents raised concerns about

health risks from mobile phones and

masts ‘incessantly.’ The constituents of

Andrew Mitchell MP Praised concerns

‘extensively.’ Andrew Stunell MP went on

record saying, “In the last four years, I’ve

probably had seven or eight communities

send me petitions about mobile phone

technology.”

In popular perception scientists are seen

try to disprove the currently accepted

orthodoxy. Hypotheses are not ‘true’:

while scientists who believe a theory

will often try their best to disprove a

hypotheses. When a theory is disproved

exposed. Accepted theories rarely explainevery conceivable circumstance: science is

far less certain than the public imagine.

The internet has changed the traditional

relationship between science and the

media as it has empowered the public

Self-diagnosis is a new frontier for

medicine but whether this is a blessing

or a curse remains unanswered. The

internet also empowers small groups

to communicate with each other and it

is a boost for special interest lobbying.Much of internet content though lacks

the discipline of the traditional media

like balance and a separation of fact

and comment. The growing importance

of search engines further clouds the

picture – the best researched and most

balanced views doesn’t necessarily get

the most google hits! The power of the

internet does as much to spread false

rumours as it does to empower the

public. Remember the video showing

that you could use your mobile phone

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Is it your impression that among scientists:

174338US

134443Japan

93753France

342723Russia

113948Mexico

151752Turkey

81960Iran

82757China

281850Egypt

163533Indonesia

141143India

81469Vietnam

13562Senegal

91470Bangladesh

231361Kenya

152451Average

Most think problem is urgent and enough is known for action

Views are pretty evenly divided

Most think problem is not urgent, not enough known for action

Blank space at end of bars represents Don’t Know /Refused

to make popcorn? Nonsense, but it hasbecome an urban myth. It was in fact

a viral marketing scam by Cardo, a

company making Bluetooth headsets for

motorbikes and it got nine million views

in 180 days.

As these rumours have the power to

adversely affect public perceptions, it

is important for various constituents to

play their respective roles responsibly.

The media needs to give an independent

critical assessment and an accurate

public about possible health risks. They

must resist the temptation to exaggerate

and recognise that one experiment or an

individual experience does not add up to

should protect the public, have a legal

and stimulate economic development.

Regulators on their part need to ensure

compliance with regulations, stimulate

competition, improve services to public

and stimulate economic development. It

Source: World Bank (2009) Public attitudes towards climate change



114 May 2010

WHAT GOALS DO WE NEED TO BALANCE?

The mediaIndependent critical assessment

Alert public to possible health risks

Commercialsector

Make money for shareholders

Improve communications infrastructure

GovernmentProtect public

Stimulate economic development

RegulatorsEnsure compliance with regulations

Stimulate competition

Improve services to public

Stimulate economic development

ScientistsAdd to knowledge

Independent assessment of possible risks

is tempting for journalists to demonise

the commercial sector: in fact there are

the communications infrastructure and

many members of the public, either

personally or through their pension

funds are shareholders in mobilecompanies.

Scientists on their part need to add to

knowledge and public safety cannot be

guaranteed without their independent

assessment of possible risks. In fact, the

public feel poorly informed and want to

know more, preferably on TV, according

to a recent Eurobarometer study. What

can public bodies do to address this

lacunae? I would argue that regulators

and governments have the resources to

public protection while emphasising that

their risk assessment is based on the

try to become the public’s No.1 trusted

source by promoting a balanced view and

challenge inaccurate and balanaced media

reporting. They should also make reliable

and easy to understand information

available in print and online.

Consultation wins friendsOperators need to realise that applications

used to erect base stations are a key

In the UK opposition to base stations is

often driven by poor public consultation,

mobile companies are often perceived

as arrogant – assuming that no-one will

object to the mast. Many people believe

that masts are a health risk: so they think

it is arrogant if operators try to install one

without trying to persuade them that it is

safe. Failure to persuade feeds into public

distrust of governments and big business

while openness counteracts claims of

conspiracy. Operators wanting to put

up base stations need to put resourcesinto convincing the public by attending

or convening public meetings, carrying

The government and regulators need to

produce information packs for the public

about base stations.

There should be media guidelines on

such matters. New research must be

reported but journalists should make

clear where this research stands in

whether it is unpublished or published

(and therefore peer reviewed) and

how much credence it is likely to be

Research saying there is no health risk

should be given similar prominence tothat which suggested there was a danger.

The language used by the media should

also be well thought out. Lines like “A

new study proves…” does not make a

claim incontrovertible? Single studies

are rarely conclusive. It is better to say

that the study ‘indicates’ or ‘suggests’

rather than implying it is conclusive.

It is important to give journalists better

training on science issuesas most

journalists are arts graduates. Science

is not the same as risk assessment.Risk assessment is usually done by

governments on which they are advised

bodies. It’s not just a question of what

the media say…it’s a question of what

the public understands. People don’t

understand the science in detail, they “are

aware of the main themes or frameworks

of media coverage” and use these as

“building blocks” to make sense of an

issue, according to a recent academic

study in this area.*

Developing this idea, what framework

have people taken from media coverage

of mobiles and health? I would argue

that for many members of the public

it is the following: there is a scientific

debate about whether mobiles harmhealth, therefore there is good reason

to doubt claims that there is no

health risk.

It is therefore important to provide

the public with another framework

and this can come from friends, family

or education. For example the study

of mobile phones and health can be

part of the health or science agenda

in schools and colleges. Regulators or

government representatives can talk to

parents’ organisations, clubs, societies,workplace organisations and trade

associations about the issue. Combined

with a communications strategy by

governments and regulators, all these

measures will go a long way in helping

the public form balanced assessments

of mobile phone health issues based on

*Hargreaves, Lewis and Spears (2003)

Towards a better map: science, the

public and the media

TECHNOLOGY

martin sims article oman economic review

Documents