UCSF heart doctors uncover significant bias in TASER safety studies

The ongoing controversy surrounding the safety of using TASER® electrical stun guns took a new turn today when a team of cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco announced findings suggesting that much of the current TASER-related safety research may be biased due to ties to the devices' manufacturer, TASER International, Inc.

In a research abstract presented at the Heart Rhythm Society's 32nd Annual Scientific Sessions at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, study author Peyman N. Azadani, MD, research associate at UCSF's Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, and senior author Byron K. Lee, MD, associate professor of medicine in UCSF's cardiology division, set out to gauge the accuracy of 50 published studies on the potential dangers of using ® products. Lee directs the Electrophysiology Laboratories and Clinics in UCSF's Cardiology Division, and first published research on the safety of law enforcement use of TASERs in 2009.

The new study's authors report that among the product safety studies they analyzed, the likelihood of a study concluding TASER® devices are safe was 75 percent higher when the studies were either funded by the manufacturer or written by authors affiliated with the company, than when studies were conducted independently.

Azadani, Lee and three colleagues divided TASER safety study outcomes into four categories: harmful, probably harmful, unlikely harmful and not harmful. Of the 50 articles studied, 23 were funded by TASER International, Inc. or written by an author affiliated with the company. Nearly all (96 percent) of the TASER-supported articles concluded the devices were either "unlikely harmful" (26 percent) or "not harmful" (70 percent). In contrast, of the 27 studies not affiliated with TASER International, 55 percent found that TASERs are either "unlikely harmful" (29 percent) or "not harmful" (26 percent).

TASERs are the most popular brand of electrical stun guns, used primarily by law enforcement agencies to incapacitate combative suspects. The devices, also marketed for home use, deliver electrical pulses that stimulate the nervous system and cause involuntary muscle contractions. Advocates of using such conductive energy devices, or CEDs, say that they are effective and cause only temporary physical symptoms. Critics and scientists have raised concerns about the potential dangers of using TASER® devices, particularly on pregnant women, the elderly and very young, and individuals with underlying medical conditions.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

British Lords hold ten-hour debate on assisted dying

Jul 19, 2014

Members of Britain's unelected House of Lords spent almost ten hours on Friday discussing whether to legalise assisted dying, in an often emotional debate putting the question back on the agenda, if not on the statute books.

AbbVie, Shire agree on $55B combination

Jul 18, 2014

The drugmaker AbbVie has reached a deal worth roughly $55 billion to combine with British counterpart Shire and become the latest U.S. company to seek an overseas haven from tax rates back home.

Safety problems at US germ labs acknowledged

Jul 16, 2014

(AP)—The director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Wednesday that systemic safety problems have for years plagued federal public health laboratories that handle dangerous ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
not rated yet May 09, 2011
From my reading and participation in rights advocacy by the resistant community, "combative suspects" might better be characterized as resistant. To a cop carrying a hammer, all is nail. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.
frajo
not rated yet May 09, 2011
Critics and scientists have raised concerns about the potential dangers of using TASER® devices, particularly on pregnant women, the elderly and very young, and individuals with underlying medical conditions.
"Potential dangers"? Why didn't they tell how many people already have been killed with tasers?
This article is omitting important facts. Cui bono?