0 Cell phones and health? A debate worth having

If you cover the wireless industry, you're never far from the ongoing debate over whether cell phones are harmful. And the debate usually goes something like this: the scientific community produces a study that explores the issue, and then the wireless industry rushes to interpret that study to its advantage.

Such was the case with a report published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health found that in healthy volunteer participants, cell phone exposure was associated with increased metabolism of glucose in the region of the brain closest to the antenna. So as CNET blogger Lance Whitney put it, the study suggested that cell phone use "excites" the brain.

Whether that increased brain activity is harmful, however, remains to be seen. The study's authors also concluded that their findings were of "unknown clinical significance" and that more research is needed. And, not surprisingly, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the wireless industry's lobbying arm in Washington, D.C., highlighted the former point in a statement.

"The authors acknowledge that the results provide no information as to potential health effects of cell phones," the statement said. "As with any study, scientific organizations will review the results of this one in the context of the significant body of research and published literature on cell phone safety that has already been amassed."

What's really important
So, as I said, the scientific community reports a study and the wireless industry takes the study and highlights the points that it likes the best. Yes, that's much how the debate between science and industry has largely progressed throughout history, but it bothers me that in the process, consumers get only the information that organizations like the CTIA want them to hear.

Absolutely, CTIA is correct to highlight that the study makes no conclusions as to whether cell phones are harmful. Yet, dwelling on that point misses the most significant aspect of the study, which is that cell phone use can affect how your brain functions, even temporarily. Proving that point alone--and I realize that this one study doesn't "prove" anything, but it does demonstrate it--has been the focus of much of the previous research over whether cell phones were potentially harmful. Lots of other things also affect the brain--food, sex, alcohol, drugs, to name a few--but not everything pumps out electromagnetic radiation next to your brain.

Dr. Devra Davis--an epidemiologist, environmental health researcher, and founder of Environmental Health Trust--characterizes the finding as stunning. "This demonstrates that cell phone use affects brain activity," she told CNET. "The study used real people and was as close as you can get to a biopsy on a living brain."

Davis, who authored the 2010 book "Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide it and How to Protect Your Family," also cautioned against making firm conclusions from the study, but she takes a forceful role in advocating for more research. "The notion that we have enough information is completely wrong," she said.

More research
As other, and usually inconclusive, studies continue to be published, I would be skeptical of anyone arguing that the case should be closed. Even the CTIA has argued for more research, and a spokeswoman confirmed that point with me today. Yet, I see a gap between the industry group's actions and its vow to take the issues seriously.

For example, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law last year requiring cell phone manufacturers to display the specific absorption rate (SAR) for each handset sold, the CTIA effectively stopped playing, took its ball, and went home. Not only did it blast San Francisco in a statement, but it also decided to move its autumn trade show to San Diego to punish the city.

Some standards
I'm not a staunch defender of San Francisco's law--indeed, there's plenty about my city's government that makes me roll my eyes--but the CTIA's reaction suggested that the "are they harmful/not harmful?" debate wasn't worth its time. Yes, there's no proof that a lower-radiation cell phone is safer. And, yes, information about a phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) is widely available. Yet, as long as San Francisco is not making scientific claims about cell phone use, I don't see the problem in giving consumers information and making it available when they buy the phone.

The CTIA mainly argued that San Francisco didn't have the authority for such legislation. That's possible, but as with most things, it's never about what it's about. As it has done in response to almost every study (including the one above), the industry also fell back on the notion that all cell phones sold in the United States are safe because they conform to FCC standards for safety (a SAR of 1.6 watts per kilogram or lower is legally considered "safe"). This is unfortunate. What most consumers don't know is that the FCC's standards were developed in 1993 using a model of a human who was 6 feet 2 inches tall, weighed 200 pounds, and had an 11-pound head. That's hardly a fair representation of the average adult, let alone a child (remember, also, that kids have thinner skulls and their brains are still developing). What's more, the digital phones we use today weren't around 18 years ago. So maybe I'm a pessimist, but perhaps we should take a look at developing new standards.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not about to interpret the findings of this or any study. But if cell phone use can really affect brain activity, then we are nowhere near laying this argument to rest. Though much of my job is devoted to helping CNET readers find the best phone, neither CNET nor I has any interest in putting our heads in the sand and guaranteeing you that cell phones are safe. To do so would be irresponsible.

Until we can determine if cell phone use can adversely affect your health through DNA mutation--and frankly, we may not be able to determine that for many years, if we ever can at all--the industry needs to take the issue seriously. Blowing off concerned parties, alarmist as they may be, doesn't help the situation. Nor does it help to continually point to government reports and convenient studies that find that nothing is wrong. I hear from CNET readers every day who want to know more about this issue. They deserve answers and not just assurances.

Read more

0 Cell phones and health? A debate worth having

If you cover the wireless industry, you're never far from the ongoing debate over whether cell phones are harmful. And the debate usually goes something like this: the scientific community produces a study that explores the issue, and then the wireless industry rushes to interpret that study to its advantage.

Such was the case with a report published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health found that in healthy volunteer participants, cell phone exposure was associated with increased metabolism of glucose in the region of the brain closest to the antenna. So as CNET blogger Lance Whitney put it, the study suggested that cell phone use "excites" the brain.

Whether that increased brain activity is harmful, however, remains to be seen. The study's authors also concluded that their findings were of "unknown clinical significance" and that more research is needed. And, not surprisingly, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the wireless industry's lobbying arm in Washington, D.C., highlighted the former point in a statement.

"The authors acknowledge that the results provide no information as to potential health effects of cell phones," the statement said. "As with any study, scientific organizations will review the results of this one in the context of the significant body of research and published literature on cell phone safety that has already been amassed."

What's really important
So, as I said, the scientific community reports a study and the wireless industry takes the study and highlights the points that it likes the best. Yes, that's much how the debate between science and industry has largely progressed throughout history, but it bothers me that in the process, consumers get only the information that organizations like the CTIA want them to hear.

Absolutely, CTIA is correct to highlight that the study makes no conclusions as to whether cell phones are harmful. Yet, dwelling on that point misses the most significant aspect of the study, which is that cell phone use can affect how your brain functions, even temporarily. Proving that point alone--and I realize that this one study doesn't "prove" anything, but it does demonstrate it--has been the focus of much of the previous research over whether cell phones were potentially harmful. Lots of other things also affect the brain--food, sex, alcohol, drugs, to name a few--but not everything pumps out electromagnetic radiation next to your brain.

Dr. Devra Davis--an epidemiologist, environmental health researcher, and founder of Environmental Health Trust--characterizes the finding as stunning. "This demonstrates that cell phone use affects brain activity," she told CNET. "The study used real people and was as close as you can get to a biopsy on a living brain."

Davis, who authored the 2010 book "Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide it and How to Protect Your Family," also cautioned against making firm conclusions from the study, but she takes a forceful role in advocating for more research. "The notion that we have enough information is completely wrong," she said.

More research
As other, and usually inconclusive, studies continue to be published, I would be skeptical of anyone arguing that the case should be closed. Even the CTIA has argued for more research, and a spokeswoman confirmed that point with me today. Yet, I see a gap between the industry group's actions and its vow to take the issues seriously.

For example, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law last year requiring cell phone manufacturers to display the specific absorption rate (SAR) for each handset sold, the CTIA effectively stopped playing, took its ball, and went home. Not only did it blast San Francisco in a statement, but it also decided to move its autumn trade show to San Diego to punish the city.

Some standards
I'm not a staunch defender of San Francisco's law--indeed, there's plenty about my city's government that makes me roll my eyes--but the CTIA's reaction suggested that the "are they harmful/not harmful?" debate wasn't worth its time. Yes, there's no proof that a lower-radiation cell phone is safer. And, yes, information about a phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) is widely available. Yet, as long as San Francisco is not making scientific claims about cell phone use, I don't see the problem in giving consumers information and making it available when they buy the phone.

The CTIA mainly argued that San Francisco didn't have the authority for such legislation. That's possible, but as with most things, it's never about what it's about. As it has done in response to almost every study (including the one above), the industry also fell back on the notion that all cell phones sold in the United States are safe because they conform to FCC standards for safety (a SAR of 1.6 watts per kilogram or lower is legally considered "safe"). This is unfortunate. What most consumers don't know is that the FCC's standards were developed in 1993 using a model of a human who was 6 feet 2 inches tall, weighed 200 pounds, and had an 11-pound head. That's hardly a fair representation of the average adult, let alone a child (remember, also, that kids have thinner skulls and their brains are still developing). What's more, the digital phones we use today weren't around 18 years ago. So maybe I'm a pessimist, but perhaps we should take a look at developing new standards.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not about to interpret the findings of this or any study. But if cell phone use can really affect brain activity, then we are nowhere near laying this argument to rest. Though much of my job is devoted to helping CNET readers find the best phone, neither CNET nor I has any interest in putting our heads in the sand and guaranteeing you that cell phones are safe. To do so would be irresponsible.

Until we can determine if cell phone use can adversely affect your health through DNA mutation--and frankly, we may not be able to determine that for many years, if we ever can at all--the industry needs to take the issue seriously. Blowing off concerned parties, alarmist as they may be, doesn't help the situation. Nor does it help to continually point to government reports and convenient studies that find that nothing is wrong. I hear from CNET readers every day who want to know more about this issue. They deserve answers and not just assurances.

Read more

0 Medical Technology Industry in India

The Indian healthcare market was estimated at US$ 35 billion in 2007, and has been witnessing double digit growth rates in recent years. However, this growth is largely fuelled by demand from major cities. India’s healthcare system is paradoxical - on the one hand, it boasts of ‘best in class’ healthcare delivery attracting medical tourists from across the world, and on the other, it is characterised by a near absence of accessible, affordable quality health services for a large part of its population. Existing infrastructure, especially in smaller towns/ rural areas, is inadequate to meet the evergrowing needs of the Indian population. Less than 10% of the population is covered under health insurance, and India has less than 1/3rd doctors per capita compared to China, and almost one hundredth compared to that of USA.

Adding infrastructure and medical professionals alone will not be able to solve India’s huge unmet needs in healthcare. It needs to be supported by technology. An effective and innovative use of medical technology, supported by ICT, has the potential of increasing access, significantly reducing the burden of disease and the load on healthcare delivery services through early diagnosis, better clinical outcomes, less invasive procedures and shorter recovery times.

Currently, the market for medical technology in India is small, but rapidly expanding. It is nascent and highly fragmented with limited indigenous manufacturing - imports constitute over 75% of the estimated US$2.75 billion market.

A transforming medical technology landscape, improving healthcare delivery and financing mechanisms, and changing patient profile are driving growth in the medical technology industry. However, the industry has been stifled by some key impediments to growth.

The foremost among these is the lack of - affordability, accessibility, awareness and availability. A key question, therefore, is how to increase penetration of medical technology to improve health outcomes in India?

The answer lies in innovation. Medical technology innovation can be the tool to make modern care accessible, available and affordable to all by lowering the cost of the product or delivery. Innovation need not only be restricted to products. Business model innovation across the value chain (manufacturing, distribution, marketing etc.) and frugality can often generate significant benefits to all stakeholders, including patients/end users.

For innovation to make an impact, collaboration between the stakeholders in the medical technology ecosystem is a key success factor. The industry must move from ‘company-centric’ innovation, towards ‘co-creation’. All stakeholders – government, industry, academia, healthcare and insurance providers - need to co-ordinate/ strategise and move in step for their actions to resonate and bring about lasting change. Apart from this, there is also what can perhaps be the biggest opportunity for improvement - an ambiguous regulatory framework with no distinct legal status for the medical technology industry, which has been acknowledged as a key constraint for the industry.

CII’s 3rd Medical Technology Conference is an ideal forum to discuss the way forward in addressing these challenges, and Deloitte is privileged to collaborate as the knowledge partner for the conference. Read the report.

Read more

0 Medical Technology Industry in India

The Indian healthcare market was estimated at US$ 35 billion in 2007, and has been witnessing double digit growth rates in recent years. However, this growth is largely fuelled by demand from major cities. India’s healthcare system is paradoxical - on the one hand, it boasts of ‘best in class’ healthcare delivery attracting medical tourists from across the world, and on the other, it is characterised by a near absence of accessible, affordable quality health services for a large part of its population. Existing infrastructure, especially in smaller towns/ rural areas, is inadequate to meet the evergrowing needs of the Indian population. Less than 10% of the population is covered under health insurance, and India has less than 1/3rd doctors per capita compared to China, and almost one hundredth compared to that of USA.

Adding infrastructure and medical professionals alone will not be able to solve India’s huge unmet needs in healthcare. It needs to be supported by technology. An effective and innovative use of medical technology, supported by ICT, has the potential of increasing access, significantly reducing the burden of disease and the load on healthcare delivery services through early diagnosis, better clinical outcomes, less invasive procedures and shorter recovery times.

Currently, the market for medical technology in India is small, but rapidly expanding. It is nascent and highly fragmented with limited indigenous manufacturing - imports constitute over 75% of the estimated US$2.75 billion market.

A transforming medical technology landscape, improving healthcare delivery and financing mechanisms, and changing patient profile are driving growth in the medical technology industry. However, the industry has been stifled by some key impediments to growth.

The foremost among these is the lack of - affordability, accessibility, awareness and availability. A key question, therefore, is how to increase penetration of medical technology to improve health outcomes in India?

The answer lies in innovation. Medical technology innovation can be the tool to make modern care accessible, available and affordable to all by lowering the cost of the product or delivery. Innovation need not only be restricted to products. Business model innovation across the value chain (manufacturing, distribution, marketing etc.) and frugality can often generate significant benefits to all stakeholders, including patients/end users.

For innovation to make an impact, collaboration between the stakeholders in the medical technology ecosystem is a key success factor. The industry must move from ‘company-centric’ innovation, towards ‘co-creation’. All stakeholders – government, industry, academia, healthcare and insurance providers - need to co-ordinate/ strategise and move in step for their actions to resonate and bring about lasting change. Apart from this, there is also what can perhaps be the biggest opportunity for improvement - an ambiguous regulatory framework with no distinct legal status for the medical technology industry, which has been acknowledged as a key constraint for the industry.

CII’s 3rd Medical Technology Conference is an ideal forum to discuss the way forward in addressing these challenges, and Deloitte is privileged to collaborate as the knowledge partner for the conference. Read the report.

Read more

0 New Molecular Imaging Technologies for Detecting Cellular Processes

ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011) — A group of researchers at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) has designed and developed a biomedical scanner that detects cellular processes at the molecular level and indicates malfunctioning of an organ before said malfunction can produce an anatomical change.

The work carried out by these scientists has ranged from the initial design of an electronic architecture for gamma ray detectors to industry transfer of a complete scanner, after having adequately validated a prototype through experimental studies at the Gregorio Marañón Hospital. The results of this research, headed by professors Juan José Vaquero and Manuel Desco, from the Department of de Bioengineering and Aerospace Engineering at UC3M, have been recently published in the journals IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (two articles) and Physics in Medicine and Biology (one article).

The electronic technology equipment designed by the researchers- which is in patent process-is based on molecular imaging, a type of biomedical imaging capable of detecting live cellular processes. "These techniques differ from conventional medical imaging in that the information they show is function not form, which means that they are capable of showing the malfunctioning of an organ before the malfunction turns into an anatomical change," Juan José Vaquero explained. "In other words," he added, "they allow for earlier detection of a possible anomaly, which enormously facilitates treatment." In addition to making an earlier diagnosis possible these types of scanners are used in biomedical research and in pharmaceutical laboratories, for example, to speed up the development of new medicines

The growth of molecular imaging in recent years, according to experts, is chiefly due to the narrowing of the gap between molecular biology and imaging technologies, and it is expected that an acceleration of the transfer of these techniques to clinical practice will be produced. In fact, some of the characteristics of molecular imaging itself are already present in techniques for clinical use in humans such as nuclear medicine imaging or magnetic resonance imaging. "Computerized tomograhy by a sole photon emission, better known by its Anglo-Saxon acronym SPECT, is probably the most widespread molecular imagining technique in clinical practice, and from there stems the interest in having preclinical systems which allow the study of human illnesses to be carried out on animals," Professor Manuel Desco pointed out.

The Department of Bioengineering and Aerospace Engineering at UC3M focuses on the development of preclinical molecular imaging scanners used in research work on animals. Obtaining good quality in these applications constitutes a much more difficult technical challenge than with humans, due to the large difference in size (with animals being approximately 280 times smaller). The research group has completed the development of SPECT type of system for laboratory animals at University installation, which has features placing it among the top on an international scale in terms of facilities and cost.

This UC3M research group, in addition to carrying out research which leads to scientific publications, focuses a large part of its interest on technology transfer so that it can be commercialized. The company, SEDECAL, the largest domestic manufacturer and exporter of electro-medical imaging equipment, is going to commercialize the system in the immediate future. The research team from this Madrid public university continues to work on new developments in the area of technology, in close contact with national industry. Part of the developments are under the framework of the AMIT (Advanced Molecular Imaging Technologies) Project from the most recent CENIT public funding, whose scientific coordination oversees this equipment at the UC3M.

Read more

0 New Molecular Imaging Technologies for Detecting Cellular Processes

ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011) — A group of researchers at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) has designed and developed a biomedical scanner that detects cellular processes at the molecular level and indicates malfunctioning of an organ before said malfunction can produce an anatomical change.

The work carried out by these scientists has ranged from the initial design of an electronic architecture for gamma ray detectors to industry transfer of a complete scanner, after having adequately validated a prototype through experimental studies at the Gregorio Marañón Hospital. The results of this research, headed by professors Juan José Vaquero and Manuel Desco, from the Department of de Bioengineering and Aerospace Engineering at UC3M, have been recently published in the journals IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (two articles) and Physics in Medicine and Biology (one article).

The electronic technology equipment designed by the researchers- which is in patent process-is based on molecular imaging, a type of biomedical imaging capable of detecting live cellular processes. "These techniques differ from conventional medical imaging in that the information they show is function not form, which means that they are capable of showing the malfunctioning of an organ before the malfunction turns into an anatomical change," Juan José Vaquero explained. "In other words," he added, "they allow for earlier detection of a possible anomaly, which enormously facilitates treatment." In addition to making an earlier diagnosis possible these types of scanners are used in biomedical research and in pharmaceutical laboratories, for example, to speed up the development of new medicines

The growth of molecular imaging in recent years, according to experts, is chiefly due to the narrowing of the gap between molecular biology and imaging technologies, and it is expected that an acceleration of the transfer of these techniques to clinical practice will be produced. In fact, some of the characteristics of molecular imaging itself are already present in techniques for clinical use in humans such as nuclear medicine imaging or magnetic resonance imaging. "Computerized tomograhy by a sole photon emission, better known by its Anglo-Saxon acronym SPECT, is probably the most widespread molecular imagining technique in clinical practice, and from there stems the interest in having preclinical systems which allow the study of human illnesses to be carried out on animals," Professor Manuel Desco pointed out.

The Department of Bioengineering and Aerospace Engineering at UC3M focuses on the development of preclinical molecular imaging scanners used in research work on animals. Obtaining good quality in these applications constitutes a much more difficult technical challenge than with humans, due to the large difference in size (with animals being approximately 280 times smaller). The research group has completed the development of SPECT type of system for laboratory animals at University installation, which has features placing it among the top on an international scale in terms of facilities and cost.

This UC3M research group, in addition to carrying out research which leads to scientific publications, focuses a large part of its interest on technology transfer so that it can be commercialized. The company, SEDECAL, the largest domestic manufacturer and exporter of electro-medical imaging equipment, is going to commercialize the system in the immediate future. The research team from this Madrid public university continues to work on new developments in the area of technology, in close contact with national industry. Part of the developments are under the framework of the AMIT (Advanced Molecular Imaging Technologies) Project from the most recent CENIT public funding, whose scientific coordination oversees this equipment at the UC3M.

Read more