The Island of Doubt

today's Science Times section of The New York Times catches up with the story, but makes no mention of the cell phone theory.

Ordinarily, I like my media to be open-minded. But, as has been said by many people, not so open that the reporter's brain falls out. So does the cell phone theory warrant serious coverage? Here's what The Independent story says:

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines. Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real.

That's it. Hmmm.

The wise folks at Effect Measure point out that

the appearance of the disease, first in the US, which has less cell phone use than Europe, and the pattern of geographic spread, doesn't sound like cell phones would be the cause.

That seems like a good reason enough to remain highly skeptical of the notion. That and the absence of any known mechanism. Not that we understand everything about bee neurophysiology, behavior and navigation. It's theoretically possible that cell phones are the problem, but my first reaction is it doesn't seem like there's enough science for prime time.

[UPDATE: The actual paper explored the effects of cordless phones, not cell phones, but the basic idea that non-ionizing radiation can affect hymenopteran neurophysiology is the same. Thanks to Dave for bothering to find it.]

So, The Independent of London thought it worth reporting. The New York Times didn't. That's the difference between leading newspapers in the UK and the USA. There's a similar theme evident when comparing coverage of other environment stories. The British papers tend to give more credence to the more dire warnings coming from the climatological community than do their American counterparts. Essentially, the US papers are more skeptical and less willing to embrace ideas from the edge. [Plus, it turns out that the Independent didn't even contact the researchers, suggesting that the Brit journalists could use a few lessons from their Yankee friends in remedial reporting. But I'm willing to bet that the story would still have gotten major attention even if the error regarding which frequencies of non-ionizing radiation were involved hadn't been made.]

Which approach serves readers better? There's no easy answer. The NYT, for one, is no paragon of skepticism. Its editors have much to answer for when it comes to buying the party line in foreign affairs, for example. One could easily argue (and many have) that George W. Bush managed to cow Congress into letting him invade Iraq in large part a credulous mainstream media wasn't willing to question the consensus of those calling the shots. (While Tony Blair also took his nation to war, he did it without the overwhelming support of either his country's Parliament or the news media. He could because UK government powers are centralized exactly the way US government powers aren't.)

A willingness to give attention to the weird and not-quite-kosher, within reason, is a good thing. Sure, that means that every now and then some kooky idea gets some traction it doesn't deserve. But the alternative is blind obeisance to authority. Which is never a good thing.