And here we get into perverse incentives in scientific research distorting what you see. Public health agencies generally care more if there is a threat to public health. So if you are a researcher looking for grant $$$ over the long term, repeatedly not finding a link between WiFi and health makes you uninteresting to funding agencies. Note that I’m not suggesting nefarious intent, it’s more bias than anything else.
For purely scientific pursuits the “other camp” on any given issue often has a voice. Unfortunately in this situation, the other camp is largely made up of industry folks. They are happy to fund your research that finds no link as many times as you want. The cost to you as a researcher is being labeled an industry shill. The problem here is sometimes people are industry shills. So separating the good from the bad is nontrivial. This problem is pervasive in scientific research and solutions are non-obvious. Never forget that humans are biased creatures and scientists are not magical. They carry all the same baggage the rest of us do. Many are self aware enough to know it. But doing something about it is quite hard.
For purely scientific pursuits the “other camp” on any given issue often has a voice. Unfortunately in this situation, the other camp is largely made up of industry folks. They are happy to fund your research that finds no link as many times as you want. The cost to you as a researcher is being labeled an industry shill. The problem here is sometimes people are industry shills. So separating the good from the bad is nontrivial. This problem is pervasive in scientific research and solutions are non-obvious. Never forget that humans are biased creatures and scientists are not magical. They carry all the same baggage the rest of us do. Many are self aware enough to know it. But doing something about it is quite hard.