This commentary considers research needs for radiofrequency (RF) energy above 6 GHz, including in the “high band” of 5G New Radio (NR) communications systems that exists just beneath the mm-wave band (30–300 GHz). As of late 2020, approximately 100 RF bioeffects studies have been published involving exposures above 6 GHz, encompassing a wide range of exposure levels and frequencies. A majority of these studies report statistically significant effects of exposure, many at exposures within international safety limits. This commentary examines 31 genetic damage studies involving RF exposures above 6 GHz in the context of two sets of quality-assessment criteria: 1. “Risk of bias” (RoB) criteria used for systematic reviews of health-related studies; and 2. a broader set of criteria for research quality from a different scholarly approach (metascience). The 31 studies report several statistically significant effects of exposure on different markers for genetic damage. These effects, if real, would have great potential significance for carcinogen risk assessment. However, the studies as a group have significant technical weaknesses, including small size, failure to meet multiple RoB criteria, naïve use of statistics, and lack of prespecified hypotheses and methods of analysis, all of which increase the chances of false discovery. Here we propose a “carrot” (adequate funding to support high-quality research) and a “stick” (more stringent review of bioeffects manuscripts, including explicit instructions to reviewers to assess study quality) approach to increase the reliability of RF bioeffects studies to facilitate health agency reviews of this socially controversial topic.

该评论考虑了对 6 GHz 以上射频 (RF) 能量的研究需求，包括存在于毫米波频段 (30-300 GHz) 以下的 5G 新无线电 (NR) 通信系统的“高频段”。截至 2020 年末，已发表了大约 100 项射频生物效应研究，涉及 6 GHz 以上的暴露，涵盖广泛的暴露水平和频率。这些研究中的大多数报告了暴露的统计显着影响，其中许多是在国际安全限制范围内的暴露。本评论在两组质量评估标准的背景下审查了 31 项涉及 6 GHz 以上射频暴露的遗传损伤研究： 1. 用于健康相关研究系统评价的“偏见风险”(RoB) 标准；2. 一套更广泛的研究质量标准，来自不同的学术方法（元科学）。这 31 项研究报告了暴露对不同遗传损伤标志物的统计显着影响。这些影响如果真实存在，将对致癌物风险评估具有巨大的潜在意义。然而，作为一个整体的研究存在显着的技术弱点，包括规模小、未能满足多个 RoB 标准、统计数据的使用幼稚以及缺乏预先指定的假设和分析方法，所有这些都增加了错误发现的机会。在这里，我们提出了一种“胡萝卜”（支持高质量研究的充足资金）和“大棒”（对生物效应手稿进行更严格审查，包括对审查员评估研究质量的明确说明）方法，以提高射频生物效应研究的可靠性促进卫生机构对这一具有社会争议的话题的审查。