· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00660-15 Muller v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Karl Muller complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Mobile
phones unlikely to harm human health, scientists find”, published on 10
December 2014.
2. The article reported on a scientific study conducted
by the University of Manchester and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of
the Royal Society Interface. The study had considered the effects of weak
magnetic fields on flavoproteins. The article reported that the University
found that “magnetic fields created by mobile phone and power lines are not
harmful to human health”. It said that it was previously “thought that magnetic
fields could harm key proteins in the human body [but] the University of
Manchester has now found that they have no detectable impact at all [having
looked at] how weak magnetic fields affected flavoproteins, which are crucial
to health and control the nervous system and DNA repair”.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate
as the study did not demonstrate that mobile phones are safe. While he accepted
that the article accurately reflected the information provided by the authors
of the study in a press release, he said that the conclusion reached by the
authors could not be supported by the findings of the study.
4. He said that the study had measured the effect of
static magnetic fields on certain proteins. As it found no effect, it had
concluded that mobile phones were likely to be safe. The complainant said that
concerns have been raised about electromagnetic fields radiation and
low-frequency magnetic fields, rather than static magnetic fields. As the study
had only tested static magnetic fields, conclusions could not be drawn regarding
the safety of mobile phones. The complainant also said that inferences drawn by
the researchers, based on a limited study of a few proteins, had been “highly
questionable”.
5. The complainant said that other studies in this area
had produced different results. He was concerned that that the newspaper had
not sought comment from independent ”experts” on the subject. Nor had it
investigated the funding of the research and the backgrounds of the
researchers.
6. The newspaper said it was entitled to publish details
of a study which had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and did not
accept that the article was inaccurate or significantly misleading. It said
that the possible health effects of mobile telephones and other electronic
equipment is a controversial issue and a matter of scientific debate. The
newspaper had not been obliged to rehearse all the scientific literature on the
topic. The article had made clear the relevant facts of the study. It had also
provided NHS advice on using mobile phones and had explained that other studies
were ongoing and that more work needed to be done in this area. It made clear
that prior to publication the journalists had assessed both the original study
and the press release.
7. After receiving the complaint, the newspaper said that
it had contacted the University and had been told that the article “was an
accurate reflection of the findings of our researchers, with appropriate
caveats to the findings”.
8. The newspaper said that the concerns of the complainant
fell outside of scope of the Editors’ Code of Practice as it is not the role of
newspapers to be the arbiter of researchers’ methodology.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading
or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Findings of the Committee
10. Scientific papers, and their possible implications,
will often be the subject of intense and robust debate. The Committee made
clear that while it is important that newspapers and magazines report
scientific studies accurately, Ipso is not the appropriate body to consider
concerns about the methodology employed in scientific research. There is a
clear value in newspapers reporting scientific developments, and the press
releases issued by those involved in studies can facilitate accurate coverage.
11. The complainant did not dispute that the article had
accurately reported the conclusions drawn by the authors of the study, based on
what they considered to be the possible implications of the research. Neither
did the complainant contend that the newspaper had inflated the conclusions set
out in the University press release. Rather, the complainant’s concern was that
the article was inaccurate as the conclusions reached by the scientists could
not be supported by the findings of the study. The study had been published in
a scientific journal and been subject to peer review. In these circumstances,
the newspaper had not been obliged to independently evaluate the validity of
the authors’ conclusions or the rigour of the methodology employed. The newspaper
had taken steps to ensure that the article reflected the views of the authors
of the study. There had not been a failure to take care over the accuracy of
the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).
12. The article had quoted the co-lead author of the
paper as saying that the study “definitely takes us nearer to the point where
we can say that power-lines, mobile phones and other similar devices are likely
to be safe for humans”. The Committee expressed some concern in this context
about the claim, in the sub-headline, that “key proteins in the human body are
completely unaffected by the magnetic fields of mobile phones, scientists have
found” and, in the first line of the article, that “the magnetic fields created
by mobile phones and power lines are not harmful to human health, the
University of Manchester has found”. The article had, however, made clear that
that the findings represented conclusions drawn by the researchers from their
laboratory study, rather than an undisputed consensus in the scientific
community. It had explained the research methodology and set out the basis on
which the conclusions had been reached, including the explanation that “the
most plausible candidates for sensitivity” to the magnetic fields were “likely
to be rare in human biology”. It had included NHS advice on mobile phone usage,
said that “more work on other possible links will need to be done “and
explained that other studies were on-going. The Committee concluded that there
was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 11/02/2015
Date decision issued: 04/06/2015