Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog
1 juin 2011 3 01 /06 /juin /2011 11:55

Cellular Phones Are Possibly Carcinogenic Say WHO Cancer Experts

 

 

Dear folks,

 

in my own time, I had the chance to meet Yves Berube, the former minister under Rene Levesque in the 70s and 80s for the Parti Quebecois. He was also vice-president of Lavalin when I met him before his death in 1993. This man told me, after his operation for brain cancer, that he truly believed that his cancer was the cause of his use and abuse of the cellular phones. Such words coming from a top engineer, graduated with a PhD from MIT, cannot be dismissed bluntly. You could also see that his operation

 

Knowing about electromagnetic compatibility problems, expecially important in robotics and general motor control with pulse-width modulators generating electro-magnetic waves, I always considered the use of cellular phones potentially dangerous.

 

My first serious concerns started on a train from Nancy to Paris when I was listening music on a portable cassette player. One person was using his mobile phone and each time he would receive a call, I would hear a distinctive train of sounds on my earphones. How powerful that phone had to be so I could pick up some signal on my walkman was the question. But, this only happens when the network needs to locate the phone, then the waves intensity increase significantly and this is when the EM levels in the brain will exceed the safe levels. 

 

Here is an article explaining more about this problem which surely needs more research urgently.

 

 

====================

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/676/395/Cell_Phones_Are_Possibly_Carcinogenic_Say_WHO_Cancer_Experts.html

 

Here is the article :

 

Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.

From May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X‐rays, gamma‐rays, neutrons, radio‐nuclides), and Volume 80 on non‐ionizing radiation (extremely low‐frequency electromagnetic fields).

The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.

The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
· occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves;
· environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and
· personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.

International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data.

Risk: however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).

Conclusions

Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "

The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in‐press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation.

A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online.

About IARC

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships.

Contacts and sources:
Nicolas Gaudin, Ph.D.
Head, IARC Communications
World Health Organization
150, cours Albert‐Thomas
69008 Lyon
France
Email com@iarc.fr
www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

 1. 237 913 new cases of brain cancers (all types combined) occurred around the world in 2008 (gliomas represent 2/3 of these). Source: Globocan 2008

2 'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

3 'Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.

4 a. 'Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case‐control study' (the Interphone Study Group, in Cancer Epidemiology, in press)

b. 'Estimation of RF energy absorbed in the brain from mobile phones in the Interphone study' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press)

c. 'Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones – results from five Interphone countries' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press)

d. 'Location of Gliomas in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: A Case‐Case and Case‐Specular Analysis' (American Journal of Epidemiology, May 24, 2011. [Epub ahead of print].

ABOUT THE IARC MONOGRAPHS
What are the IARC Monographs?
The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. These include chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and lifestyle factors. National health agencies use this information as scientific support for their actions to prevent exposure to potential carcinogens. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. The principles, procedures, and scientific criteria that guide the evaluations are described in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, of which approximately 400 have been identified as carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic to humans.

Definitions
Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.

Group 2.
This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.

Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans.

Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A

Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.

Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.

Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.

Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category.

An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non‐carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.

Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.

Definitions of evidence, as used in IARC Monographs for studies in humans.

The evidence relevant to carcinogenicity from studies in humans is classified into one of the following categories:

Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites.

Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.

Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure.

The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow‐up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded.

In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues.

Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.

Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure.

The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow‐up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded.

In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues.
Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
17 mai 2011 2 17 /05 /mai /2011 22:01

Cher tous,

 

je ne suis pas un grand fan de Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Mais, il reste un des meilleurs ministres des finances du temps ou le PS etait au pouvoir.

Et tout comme Gordon Brown, surement pas le profil de l'emploi pour un chef d'etat.

 

Un peu de lumiere sur l'affaire Strauss-Kahn. Pourquoi veut-on sa peau ?

Il semble qu'il avait adopte une approche beaucoup plus humaniste en FMI.

Meme maniere de faire taire un gars que pour Julian Hassange.

 

http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24822

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
12 mai 2011 4 12 /05 /mai /2011 23:00

Regardez cette femme! Ne l’oubliez jamais; Les prix ne vont pas toujours à ceux qui le mérite!

 

 


> >  


Irena Sendler ; 

 

Elle est récemment décédée à 98 ans, le12 mai 2008).

 

Allemande, elle demanda pendant la 2ème guerre mondiale à aller travailler dans le Ghetto de Varsovie, comme plombier, serrurier. Elle avait une motivation bien particulière. Elle connaissait les plans d’extermination des nazis envers les juifs, elle était allemande. Irena a  caché des enfants dans le fond de sa boite à outils qu’elle transportait à l’arrière de son véhicule ainsi qu’un grand sac (pour les enfants plus grands). Elle avait aussi un chien à l’arrière qu’elle a entrainé à aboyer quand les soldats allemands la contrôlait à l’entrée et à la sortie du ghetto. Les soldats ne pouvaient rien contre le chien qui couvrit en fait le bruit que pouvait faire les enfants. Elle sauva 2500 enfants en les cachant ainsi; Elle fut arrêtée et les nazis lui brisèrent les jambes, les bras et la torturèrent très sévèrement.

 

Irena garda tous les noms des enfants qu’elle avait fait partir du Ghetto et les garda dans une jarre en verre enterrée derrière un arbre au fond de son jardin derrière sa maison. Après la guerre, elle essaya de localiser tous les parents qui avaient pu survivre et tenta de réunir les familles. Mais la plupart avaient été gazés. Les enfants qui avaient été sauvés ont été placés dans des familles d’accueil ou ont été adoptés.


L’année dernière elle a été proposée pour le prix Nobel de la Paix, mais n’a pas été retenue. C’est AlGore qui fut primée, pour son film sur le réchauffement de la planète. Il faudrait bien faire justice et qu'elle soit primée cette année.

 

En sa mémoire 63 ans plus tard

 

Je participe aussi, très modestement en faisant suivre ce message. J’espère que vous ferez de même.


Cela fait maintenant plus de 60 ans que la seconde guerre mondiale est finie! Ce courriel a été créé pour faire une chaine en mémoire des 20 millions de Russes, des 10 millions de chrétiens, des  6 millions de juifs et des 1900 prêtres catholiques qui ont été massacrés, assassinés, brûlés et humiliés.

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
9 mai 2011 1 09 /05 /mai /2011 10:29

Le 9 mai 1950, Robert Schuman lance la CECA. 

Le 9 mai 1950, le ministre des Affaires étrangères Robert Schuman lance l'idée d'une Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier (CECA). Ce plan, mis au point par Jean Monnet, amorce le rapprochement franco-allemand et jette les bases d'une construction européenne.

- Encyclopedie Larousse

 

A juste titre, on peut dire que Robert Schuman est la pere de l'Europe Unie.

 

Il faut dire qu'il aura consacre sa vie a construire la paix entre les peuples europeens s'etant jusqu'en 1945 entre dechires avec d'enormes guerres fratricides dont la technologie avait amplifie la violence. 

 

Luc Rolland

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
25 avril 2011 1 25 /04 /avril /2011 20:23

Les forces de sécurité syriennes tirent à Deraa

 

Chers tous,

 

le vrai visage de l'elite politique syrienne commence a paraitre:

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2011/04/25/les-forces-de-securite-syrienne-tirent-a-deraa_1512343_3218.html#xtor=EPR-32280229-[NL_Titresdujour]-20110425-[zonea]&ens_id=1481132

 

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
25 avril 2011 1 25 /04 /avril /2011 20:21

Encore une raison pour defendre Wikileaks.

 

Plus, il est peut-etre temps que les USA ferment toutes leurs prisons qui ne sont pas sur leurs territoire et traitent les suspects avec dignite.

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/documents-wikileaks/article/2011/04/25/wikileaks-a-guantanamo-des-adolescents-victimes-de-machinations_1512383_1446239.html#xtor=EPR-32280229-[NL_Titresdujour]-20110425-[zonea]&ens_id=1512342

 

LHR

 

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
25 avril 2011 1 25 /04 /avril /2011 20:16

Chers lecteurs,

 

Je vous propose cet article d'un site de resitance base a Montreal. Il explique bien que c'est Bradley Manning qui est un homme integre qui nous montre, par ces actions et ces revelations, qui sont les vrais criminels dans notre monde.

 

http://radicarl.net/wikileaks-bradley-manning-et-le-sens-de-la-justice-internationale#more-3578

 

Plus on avance dans le temps, plus on note que les Republicains sont des conservateurs de droite extremistes et qui protegent des fous riches et puissants. J'ai peur que notre monde ne soit constitue que de gens de tendance faschos dirigeant des entreprises comme Mosanto et Nestle.

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
1 avril 2011 5 01 /04 /avril /2011 10:43

Dans le document, DoD News Briefing du US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen,
date le 28 avril 1997 :
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674
On y lit:

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

Dans le document europeen Sur l'environnement, la sécurité et la politique étrangère, de Mr Olsson, commissaire de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la protection des consommateurs
date 14 janvier 1999
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//FR

"- vu l'audition sur le projet HAARP et les armes non létales convoquée à Bruxelles, le 5 février 1998, par la sous-commission "sécurité et désarmement" de la commission des affaires étrangères, de la sécurité et de la politique de défense,"

Ces remarques nous donnent a croire que les craintes presentees dans une des bandes dessinees de Black et Mortimer datant de juste apres la seconde guerre mondiale ou on parle d'une organisation capable de causer des catastrophes avec les ondes EM sont fondees. Mais rien ne semble fait pour se premunir de l'action de differents "Dr Follamour" ou de generaux integristes au sein de nos propres institutions occidentales. A tort, nous croyons que nos responsables politiques sont hors de tout soupcons.

Il sera tres difficile de prouver que HAARP a cause les derniers tremblements de terre car cela signifierait des actes de guerre qui, une fois prouves, auraient un impact de Tsunami des les opinions publics. Il faudra attendre que d'autres Wikileaks ou Farewell puissent nous founrir cette information mais alors, sans compter les attaques en justice pour atteinte a la securite nationale, les assassinats, les enlevements arbitraires et les emprisonnements illicites en pays etrangers ne se feront pas attendre, activites que le CIA a eu recours plus que trop souvent ces dernieres annees.

Force est de constater que nos autorites politiques semblent etre au courant de l'ampleur su probleme et de meme la menace, mais ne font pas confiance aux citoyens pour leur presenter les potentialites incluant les risques. Cela nous amenera peut-etre a decouvrir qui sont les nouveaux ennemis de la liberte.

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
11 mars 2011 5 11 /03 /mars /2011 07:01

La femme grillagée - dedié a toutes les femmes du monde

 

Dans son nouvel album, on retrouve toutes les facettes de
Pierrot, la tendresse, l’humour, la poésie mais aussi des sujets
de société important comme la «burqa», dont voici les paroles.

 

Écoutez ma chanson bien douce,
Que Verlaine aurait su mieux faire,
Elle se veut discrète et légère,
un frisson d’eau sur de la mousse.
C’est la complainte de l’épouse,
de la femme derrière son grillage,
Ils la font vivre au Moyen-âge.
Que la honte les éclabousse.

 

Quand la femme est grillagée,
toutes les femmes sont outragées,
les hommes les ont rejetées dans l’obscurité…

 

Elle ne prend jamais la parole.
En public ce n’est pas son rôle.
Elle est craintive, elle est soumise,
pas question de lui faire la bise
On lui a appris à se soumettre.
A ne pas contrarier son maître.
Elle n’a droit qu’à quelques murmures,
les yeux baissés sur sa couture.

 

Quand la femme est grillagée,
toutes les femmes sont outragées,
les hommes les ont rejetées dans l’obscurité…

 

Elle respecte la loi divine,
qui dit par la bouche de l’homme,
que sa place est à la cuisine,
et qu’elle est sa bête de somme.
Pas question de faire la savante.
Il vaut mieux qu’elle soit ignorante.
Son époux dit que les études
sont contraires à ses servitudes.

 

Quand la femme est grillagée,
toutes les femmes sont outragées,
les hommes les ont rejetées dans l’obscurité…

 

Jusqu’aux pieds sa burqa austère,
est garante de sa décence
elle prévient la concupiscence,
des hommes auxquels elle pourrait plaire.
Un regard jugé impudique
serait mortel pour la captive.
Elle pourrait finir brûlée vive,
lapidée en place publique.

 

Quand la femme est grillagée,
toutes les femmes sont outragées,
les hommes les ont rejetées dans l’obscurité…

 

Jeunes femmes larguez les amarres,
refusez ces coutumes barbares.
Dites non au manichéisme,
au retour à l’obscurantisme.
Jetez ce moucharabieh triste,
né de coutumes esclavagistes,
et au lieu de porter ce voile,
allez vous-en, mettez les voiles.

 

Quand la femme est grillagée,
toutes les femmes sont outragées,
les hommes les ont rejetées dans l’obscurité…

 

Création sous droits protégés
contrat de droit d’auteur
Paroles et musique Pierre Perret
© 2010 Editions Adèle – NS 91678

 

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
11 mars 2011 5 11 /03 /mars /2011 06:49

http://science21.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2011/03/05/cnrs-freres-bogdanoff-medias-i.html

CNRS, frères Bogdanoff, médias... (I)

Le 5 mars, avec le titre « Mediator : "Je veux défendre les patients" », La Dépêche publie une interview d'Irène Frachon évoquant notamment les « conflits d'intérêts dans le monde des médicaments ». La veille, dans une note intitulée « Recommandations de bonne pratique et conflits d'intérêts » et se référant entre autres à un article du Figaro, le site Droit médical faisait grief à l'industrie pharmaceutique de vouloir « influencer des groupes de réflexion, voire même les créer en les finançant ». De son côté, Le Point évoque un guide sur les conflits d'intérêts diffusé par le MEDEF à l'adresse du patronat. S'agissant du secteur public, le rapport de la Commission de réflexion pour la prévention des conflits d'intérêts dans la vie publique a reconnu des carences sérieuses dans l'actuel dispositif légal et réglementaire français, principalement en matière préventive. Que penser, sur ce plan, du fonctionnement des institutions scientifiques, qu'il s'agisse des universités, des établissements publics à caractère scientifique et technologique (EPST) français comme le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), des instances d'évaluation, des modes de publication des articles... ? Un avis de septembre 2005 du Comité d'Ethique du CNRS (COMETS), intitulé « Ethique et expertise scientifiques », souligne notamment la nécessité d'anticiper et prévenir les éventuels conflits d'intérêts. Mais qu'en est-il dans la pratique ? La diffusion publique récente, manifestement irrégulière, d'un rapport interne au CNRS et à l'Université de Bourgogne sur les thèses d'Igor et Grichka Bogdanoff nous apparaît de nature à soulever plusieurs questions d'ordre déontologique. Y compris, en ce qui concerne l'apparence d'impartialité et d'indépendance des auteurs inconnus d'une telle « fuite ». Lesquels, à la place, auraient pu s'exprimer publiquement et dans la clarté, par des appréciations motivées portant leurs signatures et sans engager malgré elles les institutions propriétaires de droit du rapport diffusé. Au même moment, une dépêche Le Monde - AFP avec le titre « OGM : l'Agence de sécurité européenne à nouveau accusée de conflit d'intérêts » fait état d'un nouveau problème de conflit d'intérêts au sein du conseil d'administration de cette Agence, responsable notamment des avis scientifiques sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés.

[la suite, sur le lien http://science21.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2011/03/05/cnrs-freres-bogdanoff-medias-i.html ]

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article