Cell Phone Radiation Industry Belated
Background Check Or Mis-information? Part
Wheeler listened intently to Carlo's explanation.
I had the sense that he saw this as an issue on two levels:
First, could he trust me to carry his interests forward? It
surely appeared to him that I may have turned against the
Chlorine Institute. And second, would there be any spillover
onto the SAG program? Had the "flap" as
Wheeler termed it, harmed my reputation as a scientist?
I tried to reassure him on both counts. I saw the "flap" as
a simple indication that I played by the rules, and that I
expected those with whom I was working to play by the rules
as well. The feedback I had gotten about the controversy
from my scientific colleagues in the months following the
Science article was overwhelmingly positive. Many of my
friends in the chemical industry thought the situation was
unfortunate but did not blame me for my response.
"I am satisfied with your explanation, George, but I still
don't think you can be out there alone on this," Tom said.
"That is precisely why we'll have a Peer Review Board," I
answered. "With some of the world's top scientists helping
us, our science will be above reproach. It will speak for
"Not good enough," Tom responded. "Politically, and from a
public-relations view, we need more cover."
I disagreed with him and argued that everyone's interests
would be served if we trusted in the science and did the
best science we could. Everything would flow from that. We
didn't need to contaminate this with politics.
Tom gave me an angry rebuke: "You do the science. I'll take
care of the politics."