enstrom bkup

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">guardian glitch on main, see E 2</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">html <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">StartmeupHK</span>
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see RICO tobacco poster boy, ironical if Particulate Holo BS led to GW RICO</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A </span><a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=James%20Enstrom&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Atrue%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=536159" title="" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large;">search of his name in the Tobacco Industry Documents</a></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b> database returns over 500,000 results.</b> An </span><span class="caps" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large;">LA</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Times article notes that Enstrom became “</span><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28/2" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large;">Exhibit A</a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">” in the fight between the tobacco industry and anti-smoking activists, a prime example of how the tobacco industry funded friendly studies for </span><span class="caps" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large;">PR</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> and lobbying purposes. </span></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28052020/contrarian-science-james-enstrom-epa-climate-change/">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2805<b>2020/</b>contrarian-science-james-enstrom-epa-climate-change/</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">no lnx many</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div><b>How a Contrarian Scientist Helped Trump’s EPA Defy Mainstream Science</b></div><div><b>James Enstrom’s work on particle pollution’s health effects contradicts the findings of dozens of studies, but that hasn’t stopped the agency from relying on it.</b></div><div>
</div><div>By Marianne Lavelle</div><div>May 28, 2020</div><div>
</div><div>In March 2017, a scientist named James Enstrom rattled many public health experts by publishing a study concluding that there was no link between fine soot air pollution and premature death.</div><div>
</div><div>The finding was drastically at odds with the consensus of medical researchers and with the evidence from nearly three decades of previous research.</div><div>
</div><div>But it was in line with arguments that Enstrom, a physicist-turned-epidemiologist, had been making for years. His dissent had played an essential role in his ascendance as a folk hero to far-right conservatives who oppose most environmental protection policies in the United States, especially those put in place by the Obama administration.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom argued that his analysis refuted one of the most influential papers in environmental health science: a 1995 study by the American Cancer Society showing that fine particulate matter pollution—or PM 2.5, as it is known—is associated with early death. PM 2.5 is produced primarily through the burning of oil, coal and wood.</div><div> </div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom, 76, said he based his study on long-hidden cancer society data from an inside source whom he did not name. Throughout the article, which appeared in the journal Dose-Response, he took jabs at institutions that he believed had long marginalized him, including the cancer society (ACS), leading scientific journals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other health researchers, who, he wrote, “need to promptly address my findings.” He hinted at scientific malfeasance and suggested that there was a conspiracy of silence against minority views like his. </span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Big-name journals, Enstrom wrote in the article, were biased against publishing results showing no association between air pollution and mortality, adding that seven other peer-reviewed scientific journals had rejected his study. In an unusual footnote, he also included a link to the rejection letters.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Over the next months, Enstrom’s paper drew fierce criticism. The cancer society said it could not confirm his data’s authenticity. The scientists whose work he had critiqued—including some of the world’s renowned experts in air pollution health science—published a withering point-by-point take-down of Enstrom’s methods and analysis.</div><div>
</div><div><b>But in at least one realm, his paper won acceptance. Eight weeks before the study was published, President Donald Trump took office. And in an administration disdainful of scientific consensus and intent on dismantling restraints on the fossil fuel industry, Enstrom found a receptive audience.</b></div><div>
</div><div>When, last month, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the agency’s decision that it would not raise the standards for air pollution because the science of PM 2.5 was too uncertain to justify doing so, he was relying in part on Enstrom’s work. Enstrom’s research was among the studies cited by Wheeler’s hand-picked committee of science advisers to raise doubts about the PM 2.5 consensus. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">More broadly, Enstrom’s work has helped provide the underpinning for the Trump administration’s wide-ranging assault on environmental protection policy, from its retreat on climate change to its current effort to restrict the type of science used by the EPA by disqualifying studies that critics say are some of the most important in human health science. </span></div><div>
</div><div><b>In a way, Enstrom’s journey from outsider to influencer is the story of the Trump administration’s monumental campaign to remake the rules of scientific evidence, and how that effort could shape U.S. environmental protection for years to come.</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“These are changes that could have very major impacts on human health and on the environment itself,” said Bernard Goldstein, dean emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Health. “All of the laws we passed that cleaned up the environment so well—even with the challenges we still have—these have all been science-based. Well, if you knock the science out of the process, you can base the decisions on politics.”</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Goldstein, who served as EPA’s assistant administrator for research and development under President Ronald Reagan, recently wrote that the leadership of the scandal-ridden agency in the early Reagan years “did nothing that even came close to the assault on the independence and expertise of the scientific advisory processes carried out by Wheeler and his predecessor, Scott Pruitt.”</b></div><div>
</div><div>‘Everything’s Been Turned on its Head’</div><div>
</div><div><b>Critics often call the Trump administration “anti-science,” but in fact, its retreat on climate change and public health and safety has only been possible with the help of science—the work of contrarians like Enstrom who have devoted themselves to challenging the mainstream consensu</b>s. </div><div>
</div><div>Trump’s appointees have found justification for their actions in the work and ideas of this stable of scientists, most of them industry aligned, who for years have provided ammunition to foes of federal regulation.</div><div>
</div><div>These contrarians have helped make the case in agencies, in Congress and in the courts, for coal, oil and other industries intent on maintaining their way of doing business in the face of increasing attention to the threats posed by climate change, and the growing imperative for cleaner air and cleaner energy.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>President Trump has made clear decisions to upend environmental policy, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, but he has also made more subtle moves, like the purging of experts from science advisory committees, limiting the science that can be used by the EPA and the relying on contrarian studies like Enstrom’s work on PM 2.5. Credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images]</div><div>
</div><div>Fossil fuel companies were losing ground in this battle when Trump entered the White House: The Obama administration’s actions on global warming seemed as if they might presage the industry’s last stand. To change course, the Trump administration has sought to change fundamentally how science is evaluated in environmental decision-making. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Trump’s grand moves to upend environmental policy, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, are well known. But his legacy may be sealed more deeply in scores of arcane changes deep in the bureaucratic process, like the purging of experts from science advisory committees; the overhaul of cost-benefit analyses; the effort to limit the science that can be used by the EPA; and the reliance on contrarian studies like Enstrom’s work on PM 2.5.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>“Everything’s been turned on its head by EPA, so that the consultants are considered the good guys and the academics are all biased,” said Goldstein.</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Carol Browner, board chairwoman of the League of Conservation Voters, who was EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton and climate adviser to President Barack Obama, puts it this way: “What they’re doing in this whole line of insidious actions is to dismantle and fundamentally change how the agency does its business.</span>”</div><div>
</div><div>A Plan to Discredit Pollution Science</div><div>
</div><div>A number of the actions have been aimed at neutralizing the power of one of the most important findings in environmental health science: The science showing that air pollution kills. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">In the 1990s, two large, long-term studies, by the American Cancer Society and <b>Harvard </b>researchers, showed that breathing higher levels of PM 2.5—microscopic particles 2.5 microns in diameter or less that spew into the air when something is burned—was associated with premature death.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Virtually everyone is exposed to the PM 2.5 because it is produced by the burning of coal, oil and wood.</div><div>
</div><div>[PM 2.5 Explainer infograpic]</div><div>
</div><div>Groups allied with the fossil fuel and tobacco industries led an effort to discredit the science, but a reanalysis of the data by the Boston-based Health Effects Institute (HEI), a nonprofit research organization funded by the EPA and the auto industry, affirmed the findings. Since then, dozens of studies, including more than 30 long-term human health studies in North America, have documented the link between PM 2.5 and premature death.</div><div>
</div><div>Based on the science, Clinton enacted the first national air quality standards on PM 2.5 in 1997. </div><div>
</div><div>Even more important, the large-scale studies of PM 2.5 allowed policy makers to quantify the benefits of cleaner air in a way that had not been possible before. The EPA, after peer-reviewing the science, began using the number of lives saved from reduced PM 2.5 exposure in the cost-benefit analysis it was required to perform to justify new cuts in pollution from cars, trucks and power plants. </div><div>
</div><div>In 2011, the EPA estimated that the benefits yielded by U.S. air pollution rules from 1990 to 2020 at $2 trillion, a figure that outweighed the costs of the regulation by 30-to-1, savings primarily attributable to reduced PM 2.5. In addition, the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature climate initiative, was to result in PM 2.5 reductions that would account for up to 60 percent of the plan’s projected $34 billion to $54 billion in benefits, far outweighing its $8.4 billion in costs.</div><div>
</div><div>That lopsided calculus stood in the way of what Trump said was his plan to “quickly, very quickly” end U.S. climate policy and other restraints on the oil and coal industries. This was well understood by appointees like Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, and William Wehrum, Trump EPA’s assistant administrator for air pollution policy until 2019. </div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>In 2014, Wehrum, a former industry lawyer, led an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn the Obama EPA’s PM 2.5 standards</b>, by invoking the work of contrarian scientists like Enstrom. But a federal court disagreed. “Petitioners simply have not identified any way in which EPA jumped the rails of reasonableness in examining the science,” wrote then-U.S. District Judge Brett Kavanaugh.</div><div>
</div><div>Still, that loss pointed to an avenue for a future attack on PM 2.5 science. And soon after taking office, Trump’s appointees followed that path, overhauling EPA’s science advisory boards and replacing every member of its legally mandated<b> Clean Air Science Advisory Committee or CASAC, </b>which had sided with the mainstream consensus on PM 2.5.</div><div>
</div><div>By last year, the reshaped CASAC made clear that it had a far different view of the risks posed by PM 2.5. In a key review, the committee not only disputed EPA’s staff scientists on the need to act on new evidence of PM 2.5 health risks, the CASAC members were divided on the long-standing consensus that PM 2.5 caused premature death.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the studies the committee cited in its final report raising doubts about the science on PM 2.5 was Enstrom’s 2017 research report. It had taken a long time for Enstrom to have his work recognized, and he expressed his satisfaction when he called into a public teleconference of a CASAC meeting last December.</div><div>
</div><div>“This is a tremendous group, and I don’t believe it’s ever been done better in the 50-year history of EPA,” Enstrom said of the committee.</div><div>
</div><div>A Turning Point</div><div>
</div><div><b>In the Trump era, Enstrom may be a scientific influencer, but he has spent much of the last two decades as an outsider vocal about feeling unfairly maligned.</b></div><div>
</div><div>The point in his life when mainstream scientists turned against him, he believes, came 17 years ago, when he published a paper in the British Medical Journal challenging the scientific consensus that second-hand tobacco smoke causes heart disease and cancer.</div><div>
</div><div>The American Cancer Society condemned the study, funded by the tobacco industry through its now-defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, saying it misrepresented the cancer society’s data. The data Enstrom based his research on was from an early ACS long-term study group, whose members were recruited in the 1950s. But at that time, smoking was so ubiquitous that it was impossible to conduct a valid study comparing people who’d been exposed to second-hand smoke with people who hadn’t, the ACS argued in rebutting Enstrom’s study. </div><div>
</div><div>[ cf The Anti-Scientists series]</div><div>
</div><div>A host of other scientists also joined in: The medical journal published 10 letters disputing Enstrom’s method, findings and the conflict of interest they said was created by the industry sponsorship. </div><div>
</div><div>But Enstrom insisted that the work was sound. “This was peer-reviewed, and there’s not been one error identified in my paper,” he said in an interview with InsideClimate News.</div><div>
</div><div>As for the conflict of interest, Enstrom said he saw no difference between his acceptance of funding from a group controlled by tobacco executives and the practice of accepting research money from state cigarette tax funds and tobacco legal settlement money, as his scientist critics had. Both, he said, “originated with” the tobacco industry.</div><div>
</div><div>In Enstrom’s eyes, he was the target of relentless persecution, smears that had all but obscured the early achievements of his career. </div><div>
</div><div>“Up until 2003, I basically had a third of a century where I had a perfect record of integrity,” said Enstrom. Since then, he said, “my entire career has been under attack and the attack has never let up.”</div><div>
</div><div>‘If I Didn’t Fight I Could Have Disappeared’</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom grew up in a middle class home in southern California, part of a wave of aspiring young Cold War-era scientists inspired by stories of the physicist Albert Einstein and Russia’s launch of Sputnik, the first manmade satellite.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom’s father, Elmer, was a courtroom clerk who longed to argue cases instead of swear in witnesses. Elmer Enstrom taught himself law and passed the California bar at 41, eventually serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in San Diego. But he became best known for his pro bono legal work in retirement, representing residents who were fighting court-ordered busing in the San Diego public schools.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The younger Enstrom said he learned the value of perseverance from his father’s example.</div><div>
</div><div><b>As a student at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, </b>California, a then-new institution aiming to nurture the technological talent the United States needed for the space race, Enstrom was co-valedictorian of the class of 1965. He went on to obtain a Ph.D. in physics at Stanford, where his dissertation adviser was Melvin Schwartz, who later won the Nobel Prize. Enstrom’s post-doctoral work at what is now known as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was carried out under another luminary,<b> Luis W. Alvarez, </b>also a Nobelist and a veteran of the Manhattan Project. </div><div>
</div><div>Physics, Enstrom recalled recently, was “exciting, exhilarating, because you’re on the very forefront of science.” But his studies left him unfulfilled.</div><div>
</div><div>“If you’re doing elementary particle physics, you’re basically doing something that’s not really that understandable to most people,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Through a college friend, Enstrom met Lester Breslow, California’s top health official in the 1960s, who promoted a healthy diet and abstention from smoking as key to a long life. Enstrom became so drawn to the study of human health that he switched fields, working with Breslow, the dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, for many years on a multi-part study on the longevity of Mormons, work supported by the American Cancer Society.</span></div><div>
</div><div>But Enstrom, who obtained a master’s degree in epidemiology, was not on a tenure track at UCLA, and he relied on grant money to maintain his research position.  </div><div>
</div><div>Over the next years, after public health advocates began blasting his work as suspect, Enstrom struck back. He accused those who questioned his integrity of liberal bias, and repeatedly clashed with his previous sponsors, colleagues, other scientists and government officials.  </div><div>
</div><div>Among those Enstrom said were biased was a colleague, John Froines, a professor in UCLA’s environmental health sciences department. Froines was a science adviser to California regulators, and had supported strong air pollution rules. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Politically, the two men could not have been further apart. While Enstrom spent the Vietnam War studying in a defense-related field,<b> Froines was one of the “Chicago Seven,”</b> anti-war activists arrested during the riots outside of the Democratic National Convention in 1968.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>In 2009, Enstrom helped initiate a lawsuit by a conservative legal group charging that Froines had overstayed his tenure on California’s air pollution science review panel. Amid the controversy, Froines was temporarily removed from the board, but later reinstated</b>. Froines, contacted by email, declined comment for this story.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">In 2010, UCLA gave Enstrom notice that he was being terminated. His research, the university said, was “not aligned” with the school’s academic mission and his research output and ability to secure continued funding did not meet the department’s minimum requirements.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom sued UCLA, charging that his termination, which came after a confidential vote by his department’s faculty, was in retaliation for his activism and his “whistleblowing” regarding Froines. </div><div>
</div><div><b>The case was eventually settled, with UCLA denying Enstrom’s allegations. UCLA “vigorously supports the principles of academic freedom,” the university said in an emailed statement. “Enstrom’s presence as a researcher for decades, despite his minority positions defending diesel emissions and tobacco, demonstrates that fact</b>.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">” In the settlement, UCLA paid Enstrom $140,000 and gave him continued access to university resources, as well as permission to use the title “retired researcher.”</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Enstrom told UCLA’s student newspaper, The Daily Bruin, that he was not entirely satisfied with the settlement, but thought it was the best compromise that could have been reached in the case.</b></div><div>
</div><div>“I am a good scientist, a very honest scientist,” Enstrom said. <b>“If I didn’t fight I could have disappeared.”</b></div><div>
</div><div>A War Over PM 2.5</div><div>
</div><div><b>For Enstrom, a major battleground has always been his home state of California, which historically has led the way in U.S. air pollution regulation. Thousands of pages documenting his advocacy against air pollution regulations are collected at the website of the Scientific Integrity Institute, a nonprofit organization he founded in Los Angeles.</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the 1990s, while he was still at UCLA, he began consulting for the tobacco industry,</span> <b>a role that would lead eventually to his study on second-hand smoking and his rift with the American Cancer Society. </b></div><div>
</div><div>Around the same time, Enstrom was contacted by Frederick Lipfert, a consultant for the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute, who had seen Enstrom’s work with the early ACS research cohort. </div><div>
</div><div>Lipfert asked if Enstrom could delve into the cancer society data to explore a question of crucial importance to the operators of the nation’s power plants, more than half of which were fired by coal at the time: Were the invisible particles that their operations released into the air deadly? </div><div>
</div><div>With that, Enstrom joined the war over PM 2.5.</div><div>
</div><div>He soon became a one-man exemplar of the wide-ranging and high-stakes conflict over the pollutant. He testified before California state regulators, advised a Congressional committee, and filed a lawsuit over the makeup of EPA’s science advisory boards. </div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b> In 2005, Enstrom published a study funded by the Electric Power Research Institute </b>that found no association between PM 2.5 and premature death in Californians from 1983 to 2002. That finding again put him at odds with the cancer society because it purported to shed doubt on the ACS’s influential PM 2.5 work. It had the flavor of personal payback, as well: A co-author of the cancer society’s PM 2.5 study was Michael Thun, then ACS’s vice president for research, the same scientist who had condemned Enstrom’s tobacco research two years earlier.</span></div><div>
</div><div>But at the time, Enstrom’s findings did not gain traction with government regulators.</div><div>
</div><div>For the EPA, the decisive flaw in Enstrom’s study was his reliance on county-level air pollution data. Rates of premature death in lightly polluted rural areas could skew the rates in heavily polluted cities in the same county, especially in a state like California, with some of the largest counties in the nation.</div><div>
</div><div>The original ACS study in 1995 also had inexact exposure estimates, based on urban census tracts that in some cases encompassed several counties. But the ACS researchers had recently published a follow-up study that used smaller zip code areas in Los Angeles and found an even stronger association between PM 2.5 and deadly health effects. The correlation between the pollutant and harmful health effects also was holding up in research that had begun to use satellite remote sensing to pinpoint PM 2.5 pollution levels in the vicinity of individual people’s homes.</div><div>
</div><div>So regulators gave little weight to Enstrom’s study in comparison with the original Harvard and ACS studies; the reanalysis of that data; the cancer society’s follow-ups; as well as research on the effects of PM 2.5 carried out in other places, using different groups of subjects and different methodologies. These studies were augmented by work in lab animals that provided evidence of how PM 2.5 can disturb the cardiovascular system. In 2009, the EPA concluded that a broad body of evidence affirmed PM 2.5’s deadly toll.</div><div>
</div><div>“The evidence that combustion-related fine particle pollution contributes to both respiratory and cardiovascular diseases is just pretty compelling,” said C. Arden Pope, an economist at Brigham Young University and a co-author of both the original Harvard and ACS studies and follow-up studies.</div><div>
</div><div>“There are probably no two studies in environmental health that have been more independently reanalyzed,” Pope said. “They have been scrutinized in really remarkable ways and have held up.”</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">A Campaign Against ‘Secret Science’</span></div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom, however, was convinced that the findings of the Harvard and ACS studies were biased and politically motivated, carried out by scientists who favored more U.S. government regulation.</div><div>
</div><div>“What I’m watching is the descent of epidemiology from what used to be a legitimate public health science into just pure activism,” he said. </div><div>
</div><div>The legal battle with UCLA had earned Enstrom stature on the right. The libertarian publication Reason Magazine produced an online video on his mistreatment at the hands of what it called “the Green Regulation Machine.” The conservative American Freedom Alliance honored Enstrom as a “Hero of Conscience,” along with his wife, Marta Villanea, an administrative law judge, who supported him throughout his trials.</div><div>
</div><div>“All I did is what a good wife should do,” Villanea said in her acceptance speech.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom joined the board of trustees of the American Council on Science and Health, an industry and Libertarian-funded group that describes itself as a “a pro-science consumer advocacy organization,” although critics note that its advocacy invariably takes the form of battling government regulation.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom also became a science advisor to the Heartland Institute, the conservative think tank that has long supported and promoted work that disputes the science on climate change. </div><div>
</div><div>Steve Milloy, a former tobacco and coal industry adviser who had been leading attacks on PM 2.5 science from the beginning, said that Enstrom brought to the fight a “personal story of persecution.”</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s hard for people to understand what’s going on unless you’ve been really intimately involved in this saga, and Jim has been,” said Milloy. “He’s actually had his career damaged by it, and so he feels it very personally.”</div><div>
</div><div>Milloy, working with a fossil fuel-industry funded legal advocacy group, represented Enstrom in a lawsuit against EPA in 2016, alleging bias in the choice of scientists who served on its scientific advisory boards. </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom also began advising U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who after becoming chairman of the House Science Committee in 2013 took up the cause of discrediting the science on PM 2.5.</div><div>
</div><div>Smith derided the ACS and Harvard studies as “secret science,” adopting a line of attack launched two decades earlier by industry foes of regulation who characterized the studies’ routine protections of patients’ confidential medical data as nefarious. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Smith pelted the EPA with subpoenas seeking the raw data, and continued his efforts even after he was reminded that the studies had already been re-analyzed. However, he said he knew one legitimate researcher whose request for access to the raw data had been turned down by the American Cancer Society: James Enstrom.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The EPA ultimately complied with Smith’s subpoena, but Smith did nothing further with the data. Instead, he sponsored a “secret science” bill seeking to bar the EPA in the future from relying on studies that used confidential data in regulatory decision-making. Critics said it would bar the public health agency from using some of the most important human health science. The legislation, first introduced in 2014, passed three times in the GOP-led House, but was never taken up by the closely divided Senate.</div><div>
</div><div>By the time of the last vote in March 2017, however, Trump was in the White House, and the prospects for Smith’s proposal suddenly improved.</div><div>
</div><div>The Trump administration was in a position both to enact limits on the EPA’s use of mainstream science and to give more weight to contrarian work of scientists like Enstrom, who had just published his new study challenging the foundations of PM 2.5 science. </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom’s ‘Odd Man Out’ Study</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom’s study almost wasn’t published. “I have never read a paper that so willfully ignored the breadth of scientific evidence and attacked a specific study/group of investigators,” said a reviewer for the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the scientific journals that rejected the manuscript.</div><div>
</div><div>But Enstrom finally got the paper in print by reaching out to Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts, who had submitted a letter in support of Enstrom during his fight with UCLA.</div><div>
</div><div>Calabrese was a founder of the International Dose Response Society, an organization that holds that exposure to low doses of toxic agents can be beneficial—a position embraced by many industry groups and rejected by many advocates of strong environmental protection policies.</div><div>
</div><div>He was also the editor of the society’s journal, Dose-Response. Aware of the controversy Enstrom’s study would stir, Calabrese agreed to publish, but warned Enstrom he would give the authors Enstrom challenged a chance to respond. “I said you’ll have to take your whacks by the people you’re going to hit, and they’re formidable people,” Calabrese recalled.</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, the authors of the original ACS study and the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reanalysis soon published a detailed response, citing a litany of problems they had identified in Enstrom’s work.</div><div>
</div><div>The most significant fault, they wrote, was Enstrom’s use of old, county-level PM 2.5 readings instead of employing newer methods now widely used to estimate exposure more precisely. The authors of the critique had just published their latest follow-up study of the ACS cohort, using seven different methods of estimating pollution, including satellite remote sensing, and finding even more significant associations between PM 2.5 exposure and premature death. </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom rejected the critiques of his study—in fact, in an interview last year, he refused to accept that the substance of his work had been called into question at all. </div><div>
</div><div>“This is an old tactic that’s used by people who don’t want to address fundamental issues,” Enstrom said. “Instead of addressing what I did, they use the tactic of looking at what I didn’t do, and which they know I can’t do. It’s a miracle that I was able to do what I did do, because of all the efforts to stop me, and the fact that this data is not available outside their little clique.”</div><div>
</div><div>Changing the Rules</div><div>
</div><div><b>Enstrom’s study was well-timed to figure into U.S. air pollution policy decision-making.</b> As Trump took office, the EPA was already launching its re-assessment of the state of current science on PM 2.5, as the law requires the agency to do every few years for key pollutants to ensure that Clean Air Act regulations are adequate.</div><div>
</div><div>This time around, there was major new science on PM 2.5 to consider, including one of the largest studies ever, a Harvard analysis of the health records of 60 million Medicare recipients. It indicated that lowering PM 2.5 pollution nationwide by just 1 microgram per cubic meter would save 12,000 American lives annually. The research found the risk of premature death for African Americans in the study was three times as great as that for the general population.</div><div>
</div><div>But how the EPA weighed the science was affected profoundly by the changes made at the agency by Trump’s team, who borrowed the ideas and rhetoric that industry foes of regulation had honed in the 25-year battle over PM 2.5. Several members of Trump’s transition team, including Milloy, were longtime warriors in the campaign to discredit the science. </div><div>
</div><div>Trump’s first EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, accelerated the schedule for considering the adequacy of the national PM 2.5 science by two years, so that the review could be concluded by the end of Trump’s first term in office. And in the name of “sound science” and “independence,” Pruitt barred recipients of EPA grants from serving on agency science advisory boards. Since the EPA is one of the largest funders of environmental science, the move had the effect of knocking prominent experts off the committees.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">To replace them, Pruitt and his successor, Wheeler, named industry-friendly state regulators and consultants for regulated industries, who faced no similar conflict-of-interest bar. Wheeler eliminated altogether a separate 20-person expert panel on particulate matter. It was precisely the sort of overhaul that Milloy and Enstrom had sought in their 2016 lawsuit against the EPA.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The agency’s rank and file was still staffed with scientists who predated Trump, and they gave Enstrom’s paper little weight when they considered it against the bulk of evidence on PM 2.5. The staff scientists cited more than 2,600 scientific studies in a nearly 2,000-page analysis finalized on Dec. 31, 2019. It affirmed the EPA’s long-standing conclusion that PM 2.5 was a cause of early death. In a separate analysis, EPA staff recommended a stricter national standard for fine particulate matter pollution. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But the Trump administration’s revamped six-member Clean Air Science Advisory Committee saw things differently. Chaired by statistician Louis Anthony Cox, a Denver consultant for the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, the CASAC urged that the agency require a much higher burden of proof for assessing pollution’s health harms.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom’s 2005 study was included in the list of studies that the committee said raised doubt about the link between PM 2.5 and premature death. And one CASAC member, Sabine Lange, a toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, wrote in a separate attachment that Enstrom’s 2017 study could be an effective challenge to the seminal American Cancer Society research. </div><div>
</div><div>“The Enstrom study had a finer resolution, so one would guess that it had less exposure error and therefore possibly a greater effect estimate, or one with narrower confidence intervals,” she wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>Last month, when the EPA announced it would not strengthen the pollution standard, Wheeler cited the committee’s report and the doubts about the  PM 2.5 science to justify the decision. “We’ve identified a lot of uncertainties,” he said.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>Currently, Wheeler is moving forward with an initiative to change how the agency weighs science in the future</b>. The proposal, called “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” is essentially the idea that Smith attempted to move through Congress three years ago, barring the EPA from basing decisions on studies that rely on patients’ confidential medical data, as the original ACS and Harvard Six Cities PM 2.5 studies did.</div><div>
</div><div>A wide array of health, medical and science organizations oppose Wheeler’s decision not to raise the PM 2.5 standard decision. On April 14, 19 health and medical organizations, led by the American Lung Association, said in a statement that the Trump EPA had employed a “deeply flawed” process and ignored “powerful, overwhelming evidence” that the current PM 2.5 standard is inadequate. </div><div>
</div><div>Scientists and health organizations are also fighting the so-called “transparency” rule—critics say even the name has an Orwellian ring to it, because the proposed regulation is not transparent about its purpose.</div><div>
</div><div>The public comment period on the proposed rule ended May 18, while the deadline for the public to weigh in on the PM 2.5 standard is June 29. “The way I see it, now, all the pieces are falling into place” in the Trump administration’s plan for weakened regulation, said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. </div><div>
</div><div>She said the purge of the science advisory boards, the appointments of industry consultants to the advisory committee and other changes to the process have helped obscure the strong scientific consensus around the risks of PM 2.5, while elevating the importance of the work of scientists like Enstrom. </div><div>
</div><div>“These contrarian scientists really have the ear of the EPA in ways they never had before,” Goldman said. “People like Enstrom provide the appearance of an independent scientist weighing in, and It all works together to get where we are—a rule that does not protect health with an adequate margin of safety.”</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">H. Christopher Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, who was a member of the particulate matter expert panel that Wheeler disbanded, said that the changes made under the Trump administration amounted to a rigging of the process. “If I wanted to design a science review that would have a predetermined outcome favorable to the regulated industries, I would get rid of the real experts,” he said.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Members of the disbanded panel, in fact, felt so strongly about the issue that they met on their own and submitted a report to EPA endorsing the agency staff’s finding that the PM 2.5 standard needed to be strengthened.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Frey said Enstrom’s argument—that his study has refuted the 1995 ACS study, and therefore, the EPA’s PM 2.5 standard should be withdrawn—reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. </div><div>
</div><div>“The standards are not set based on a single study, and they’re not withdrawn based on a single study,” Frey said. “It’s the overall body of evidence that is important.”</div><div>
</div><div><b>‘A Journey Almost Impossible to Comprehend’</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom said recently that although he thinks there is no need for a PM 2.5 standard at all, he is gratified by Wheeler’s decision to maintain the current standard and to move forward with the “transparency” rule.</span></div><div>
</div><div>“It shows the value of persistence in terms of believing in honest science and trying to penetrate what seems like an impenetrable wall of dishonesty and deception,” he said. His struggle to be recognized, he added, was “a journey that is almost impossible to comprehend. It’s just been incredibly contentious and for what purpose I’m not sure I know, other than just deliberate power, power and ego.”</div><div>
</div><div>During a recent phone interview, Enstrom detoured frequently into speculation about “the other side” in the air pollution science debate. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He complained that air pollution studies authored by “activist Canadians” should not be the basis for U.S. environmental regulations. And he noted that a Chinese businessman’s family foundation has helped fund the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and that Chinese doctoral students were co-authors on the school’s air pollution studies.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>“Do you see any of these Harvard people going over to China or central Africa where you do have air pollution problems?” Enstrom asked. “No. Their only goal is to force more regulation on Americans.”</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Enstrom expressed particular outrage about a pre-publication study recently released by a Harvard group that found PM 2.5 levels in the United States to be associated with higher death rates from Covid-19</span>. (The researchers have since revised their findings to reflect a lower, but still significant, association). Enstrom has published his own calculations of the pandemic’s effects in the conservative Heritage Foundation’s publication, The Daily Signal. Averaging counts of total mortality in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the five weeks ending April 4, early in the pandemic, he concluded that deaths were no higher than expected. And based on those numbers, <b>Enstrom wrote, “It’s possible that the lethality of Covid-19 is no greater than that of the seasonal flu.” </b></div><div>
</div><div>Since then, the CDC’s weekly death counts have been as much as 36 percent higher than expected, and the agency estimates that Covid-19 is at least 10 times more deadly than the flu. Enstrom said he remains convinced that the impact in the U.S. is limited geographically, primarily to New York, and that public officials have overreacted. Although the loss of life was significant in the flu pandemic of 1917-1918, Enstrom said, “The country dealt with it. It was terrible, but it was not something to shut down the entire economy.”</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Recently, Enstrom has sent personal emails to scientists and public interest groups who have criticized the Trump administration’s review of PM 2.5 science, asking them to discuss his evidence that “there is NO causal relationship between PM 2.5 and total mortality in the U.S.” </span></div><div>
</div><div>So far, he lamented recently, no one has responded.</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052020/contrarian-science-james-enstrom-epa-climate-change"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052020/contrarian-science-james-enstrom-epa-climate-change</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many no pix graf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>How a Contrarian Scientist Helped Trump’s EPA Defy Mainstream Science</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Enstrom’s work on particle pollution’s health effects contradicts the findings of dozens of studies, but that hasn’t stopped the agency from relying on it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Marianne Lavelle</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MAY 28, 2020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In March 2017, a scientist named James Enstrom rattled many public health experts by publishing a study concluding that there was no link between fine soot air pollution and premature death.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The finding was drastically at odds with the consensus of medical researchers and with the evidence from nearly three decades of previous research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But it was in line with arguments that Enstrom, a physicist-turned-epidemiologist, had been making for years. His dissent had played an essential role in his ascendance as a folk hero to far-right conservatives who oppose most environmental protection policies in the United States, especially those put in place by the Obama administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom argued that his analysis refuted one of the most influential papers in environmental health science: a 1995 study by the American Cancer Society showing that fine particulate matter pollution—or PM 2.5, as it is known—is associated with early death. PM 2.5 is produced primarily through the burning of oil, coal and wood.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b> </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Enstrom, 76, said he based his study on long-hidden cancer society data from an inside source whom he did not name.</b> Throughout the article, which appeared in the journal Dose-Response, he took jabs at institutions that he believed had long marginalized him, including the cancer society (ACS), leading scientific journals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other health researchers, who, he wrote, "need to promptly address my findings." He hinted at scientific malfeasance and suggested that there was a conspiracy of silence against minority views like his. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Big-name journals, Enstrom wrote in the article, were biased against publishing results showing no association between air pollution and mortality, adding that seven other peer-reviewed scientific journals had rejected his study. In an unusual footnote, he also included a link to the rejection letters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over the next months, Enstrom's paper drew fierce criticism. The cancer society said it could not confirm his data's authenticity. The scientists whose work he had critiqued—including<b> some of the world's renowned experts in air pollution health science—published a withering point-by-point take-down of Enstrom's methods and analysis.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Enstrom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Enstrom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">But in at least one realm, his paper won acceptance. Eight weeks before the study was published, President Donald Trump took office. And in an administration disdainful of scientific consensus and intent on dismantling restraints on the fossil fuel industry, Enstrom found a receptive audience.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>When, last month, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the agency's decision that it would not raise the standards for air pollution because the science of PM 2.5 was too uncertain to justify doing so, he was relying in part on Enstrom's work.</b> Enstrom's research was among the studies cited by Wheeler's hand-picked committee of science advisers to raise doubts about the PM 2.5 consensus. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More broadly, Enstrom's work has helped provide the underpinning for the Trump administration's wide-ranging assault on environmental protection policy, from its retreat on climate change to its current effort to restrict the type of science used by the EPA by disqualifying studies that critics say are some of the most important in human health science. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a way, Enstrom's journey from outsider to influencer is the story of the Trump administration's monumental campaign to remake the rules of scientific evidence, and how that effort could shape U.S. environmental protection for years to come.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"These are changes that could have very major impacts on human health and on the environment itself," said Bernard Goldstein, dean emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Health. "All of the laws we passed that cleaned up the environment so well—even with the challenges we still have—these have all been science-based. Well, if you knock the science out of the process, you can base the decisions on politics."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Goldstein, who served as EPA's assistant administrator for research and development under President Ronald Reagan, recently wrote that the leadership of the scandal-ridden agency in the early Reagan years "did nothing that even came close to the assault on the independence and expertise of the scientific advisory processes carried out by Wheeler and his predecessor, Scott Pruitt."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>'Everything's Been Turned on its Head'</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Critics often call the Trump administration "anti-science," but in fact, its retreat on climate change and public health and safety has only been possible with the help of science—the work of contrarians like Enstrom who have devoted themselves to challenging the mainstream consensus. </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's appointees have found justification for their actions in the work and ideas of this stable of scientists, most of them industry aligned, who for years have provided ammunition to foes of federal regulation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These contrarians have helped make the case in agencies, in Congress and in the courts, for coal, oil and other industries intent on maintaining their way of doing business in the face of increasing attention to the threats posed by climate change, and the growing imperative for cleaner air and cleaner energy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Trump has made clear decisions to upend environmental policy, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, but he has also made more subtle moves, like the purging of experts from science advisory committees, limiting the science that can be used by the EPA and the relying on contrarian studies like Enstrom’s work on PM 2.5. Credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fossil fuel companies were losing ground in this battle when Trump entered the White House: The Obama administration's actions on global warming seemed as if they might presage the industry's last stand. To change course, the Trump administration has sought to change fundamentally how science is evaluated in environmental decision-making. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's grand moves to upend environmental policy, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, are well known. But his legacy may be sealed more deeply in scores of arcane changes deep in the bureaucratic process, like the purging of experts from science advisory committees; the overhaul of cost-benefit analyses; the effort to limit the science that can be used by the EPA; and the reliance on contrarian studies like Enstrom's work on PM 2.5.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Everything's been turned on its head by EPA, so that the consultants are considered the good guys and the academics are all biased," said Goldstein.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carol Browner, board chairwoman of the League of Conservation Voters, who was EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton and climate adviser to President Barack Obama, puts it this way: "What they're doing in this whole line of insidious actions is to dismantle and fundamentally change how the agency does its business."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A Plan to Discredit Pollution Science</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A number of the actions have been aimed at neutralizing the power of one of the most important findings in environmental health science: The science showing that air pollution kills. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the 1990s, two large, long-term studies, by the American Cancer Society and Harvard researchers, showed that breathing higher levels of PM 2.5—microscopic particles 2.5 microns in diameter or less that spew into the air when something is burned—was associated with premature death.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Virtually everyone is exposed to the PM 2.5 because it is produced by the burning of coal, oil and wood.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PM 2.5 Explainer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Groups allied with the fossil fuel and tobacco industries led an effort to discredit the science, but a reanalysis of the data by the Boston-based Health Effects Institute (HEI), a nonprofit research organization funded by the EPA and the auto industry, affirmed the findings. Since then, dozens of studies, including more than 30 long-term human health studies in North America, have documented the link between PM 2.5 and premature death.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Based on the science, Clinton enacted the first national air quality standards on PM 2.5 in 1997. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even more important, the large-scale studies of PM 2.5 allowed policy makers to quantify the benefits of cleaner air in a way that had not been possible before. The EPA, after peer-reviewing the science, began using the number of lives saved from reduced PM 2.5 exposure in the cost-benefit analysis it was required to perform to justify new cuts in pollution from cars, trucks and power plants. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2011, the EPA estimated that the benefits yielded by U.S. air pollution rules from 1990 to 2020 at $2 trillion, a figure that outweighed the costs of the regulation by 30-to-1, savings primarily attributable to reduced PM 2.5. In addition, the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature climate initiative, was to result in PM 2.5 reductions that would account for up to 60 percent of the plan's projected $34 billion to $54 billion in benefits, far outweighing its $8.4 billion in costs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That lopsided calculus stood in the way of what Trump said was his plan to "quickly, very quickly" end U.S. climate policy and other restraints on the oil and coal industries. This was well understood by <b>appointees like Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, and William Wehrum, Trump EPA's assistant administrator for air pollution policy until 2019. </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014, Wehrum, a former industry lawyer, led an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn the Obama EPA's PM 2.5 standards, by invoking the work of contrarian scientists like Enstrom. But a federal court disagreed. "Petitioners simply have not identified any way in which EPA jumped the rails of reasonableness in examining the science," wrote then-U.S. District Judge Brett Kavanaugh.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, that loss pointed to an avenue for a future attack on PM 2.5 science. And soon after taking office, Trump's appointees followed that path, overhauling EPA's science advisory boards and replacing every member of its legally mandated Clean Air Science Advisory Committee or CASAC, which had sided with the mainstream consensus on PM 2.5.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By last year, the reshaped CASAC made clear that it had a far different view of the risks posed by PM 2.5.</b> In a key review, the committee not only disputed EPA's staff scientists on the need to act on new evidence of PM 2.5 health risks, the CASAC members were divided on the long-standing consensus that PM 2.5 caused premature death.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the studies the committee cited in its final report raising doubts about the science on PM 2.5 was Enstrom's 2017 research report. It had taken a long time for Enstrom to have his work recognized, and he expressed his satisfaction when he called into a public teleconference of a CASAC meeting last December.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This is a tremendous group, and I don't believe it's ever been done better in the 50-year history of EPA," Enstrom said of the committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Turning Point</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the Trump era, Enstrom may be a scientific influencer, but he has spent much of the last two decades as an outsider vocal about feeling unfairly maligned.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The point in his life when mainstream scientists turned against him, he believes, came 17 years ago, when he published a paper in the British Medical Journal challenging the scientific consensus that second-hand tobacco smoke causes heart disease and cancer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Cancer Society condemned the study, funded by the tobacco industry through its now-defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, saying it misrepresented the cancer society's data. The data Enstrom based his research on was from an early ACS long-term study group, whose members were recruited in the 1950s. But at that time, smoking was so ubiquitous that it was impossible to conduct a valid study comparing people who'd been exposed to second-hand smoke with people who hadn't, the ACS argued in rebutting Enstrom's study. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Anti-Scientists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A host of other scientists also joined in: The medical journal published 10 letters disputing Enstrom's method, findings and the conflict of interest they said was created by the industry sponsorship. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Enstrom insisted that the work was sound. "This was peer-reviewed, and there's not been one error identified in my paper," he said in an interview with InsideClimate News.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As for the conflict of interest, Enstrom said he saw no difference between his acceptance of funding from a group controlled by tobacco executives and the practice of accepting research money from state cigarette tax funds and tobacco legal settlement money, as his scientist critics had. Both, he said, "originated with" the tobacco industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In Enstrom's eyes, he was the target of relentless persecution, smears that had all but obscured the early achievements of his career. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"Up until 2003, I basically had a third of a century where I had a perfect record of integrity," said Enstrom. Since then, he said, "my entire career has been under attack and the attack has never let up."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">'If I Didn't Fight I Could Have Disappeared'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom grew up in a middle class home in southern California, part of a wave of aspiring young Cold War-era scientists inspired by stories of the physicist Albert Einstein and Russia's launch of Sputnik, the first manmade satellite.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's father, Elmer, was a courtroom clerk who longed to argue cases instead of swear in witnesses. Elmer Enstrom taught himself law and passed the California bar at 41, eventually serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in San Diego. But he became best known for his pro bono legal work in retirement, representing residents who were fighting court-ordered busing in the San Diego public schools.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The younger Enstrom said he learned the value of perseverance from his father's example.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a student at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California, a then-new institution aiming to nurture the technological talent the United States needed for the space race, Enstrom was co-valedictorian of the class of 1965. He went on to obtain a Ph.D. in physics at Stanford, where his dissertation adviser was Melvin Schwartz, who later won the Nobel Prize. Enstrom's post-doctoral work at what is now known as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was carried out under <b>another luminary, Luis W. Alvarez, also a Nobelist and a veteran of the Manhattan Project. </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Physics, Enstrom recalled recently, was "exciting, exhilarating, because you're on the very forefront of science." But his studies left him unfulfilled.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"If you're doing elementary particle physics, you're basically doing something that's not really that understandable to most people," he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Through a college friend, Enstrom met Lester Breslow, California's top health official in the 1960s, who promoted a healthy diet and abstention from smoking as key to a long life. Enstrom became so drawn to the study of human health that he switched fields, working with Breslow, the dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, for many years on a multi-part study on the longevity of Mormons, work supported by the American Cancer Society.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Enstrom, who obtained a master's degree in epidemiology, was not on a tenure track at UCLA, and he relied on grant money to maintain his research position.  </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over the next years, after public health advocates began blasting his work as suspect, Enstrom struck back. He accused those who questioned his integrity of liberal bias, and repeatedly clashed with his previous sponsors, colleagues, other scientists and government officials.  </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among those Enstrom said were biased was a colleague, John Froines, a professor in UCLA's environmental health sciences department. Froines was a science adviser to California regulators, and had supported strong air pollution rules. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Politically, the two men could not have been further apart. While Enstrom spent the Vietnam War studying in a defense-related field, Froines was one of the "Chicago Seven," anti-war activists arrested during the riots outside of the Democratic National Convention in 1968.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2009, Enstrom helped initiate a lawsuit by a conservative legal group charging that Froines had overstayed his tenure on California's air pollution science review panel. Amid the controversy, Froines was temporarily removed from the board, but later reinstated. Froines, contacted by email, declined comment for this story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2010, UCLA gave Enstrom notice that he was being terminated. His research, the university said, was "not aligned" with the school's academic mission and his research output and ability to secure continued funding did not meet the department's minimum requirements.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Enstrom sued UCLA</b>, charging that his termination, which came after a confidential vote by his department's faculty, was in retaliation for his activism and his "whistleblowing" regarding Froines. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The case was eventually settled, with UCLA denying Enstrom's allegations. UCLA "vigorously supports the principles of academic freedom," the university said in an emailed statement. "Enstrom's presence as a researcher for decades, despite his minority positions defending diesel emissions and tobacco, demonstrates that fact." In the settlement, UCLA paid Enstrom $140,000 and gave him continued access to university resources, as well as permission to use the title "retired researcher."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom told UCLA's student newspaper, The Daily Bruin, that he was not entirely satisfied with the settlement, but thought it was the best compromise that could have been reached in the case.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I am a good scientist, a very honest scientist," Enstrom said. "If I didn't fight I could have disappeared."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A War Over PM 2.5</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Enstrom, a major battleground has always been his home state of California, which historically has led the way in U.S. air pollution regulation. Thousands of pages documenting his advocacy against air pollution regulations are collected at the website of the Scientific Integrity Institute, a nonprofit organization he founded in Los Angeles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the 1990s, while he was still at UCLA, he began consulting for the tobacco industry, a role that would lead eventually to his study on second-hand smoking and his rift with the American Cancer Society. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Around the same time, Enstrom was contacted by Frederick Lipfert, a consultant for the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute, who had seen Enstrom's work with the early ACS research cohort. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lipfert asked if Enstrom could delve into the cancer society data to explore a question of crucial importance to the operators of the nation's power plants, more than half of which were fired by coal at the time: Were the invisible particles that their operations released into the air deadly? </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With that, Enstrom joined the war over PM 2.5.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The buildings of downtown Los Angeles are partially obscured by smog at midday on Nov. 5, 2019. Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The buildings of downtown Los Angeles are partially obscured by smog at midday on Nov. 5, 2019. Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He soon became a one-man exemplar of the wide-ranging and high-stakes conflict over the pollutant. He testified before California state regulators, advised a Congressional committee, and filed a lawsuit over the makeup of EPA's science advisory boards. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b> In 2005, Enstrom published a study funded by the Electric Power Research Institute that found no association between PM 2.5 and premature death in Californians from 1983 to 2002</b>. That finding again put him at odds with the cancer society because it purported to shed doubt on the ACS's influential PM 2.5 work. It had the flavor of personal payback, as well: A co-author of the cancer society's PM 2.5 study was Michael Thun, then ACS's vice president for research, the same scientist who had condemned Enstrom's tobacco research two years earlier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But at the time, Enstrom's findings did not gain traction with government regulators.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the EPA, the decisive flaw in Enstrom's study was his reliance on county-level air pollution data. Rates of premature death in lightly polluted rural areas could skew the rates in heavily polluted cities in the same county, especially in a state like California, with some of the largest counties in the nation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The original ACS study in 1995 also had inexact exposure estimates, based on urban census tracts that in some cases encompassed several counties. But the ACS researchers had recently published a follow-up study that used smaller zip code areas in Los Angeles and found an even stronger association between PM 2.5 and deadly health effects. The correlation between the pollutant and harmful health effects also was holding up in research that had begun to use satellite remote sensing to pinpoint PM 2.5 pollution levels in the vicinity of individual people's homes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So regulators gave little weight to Enstrom's study in comparison with the original Harvard and ACS studies; the reanalysis of that data; the cancer society's follow-ups; as well as research on the effects of PM 2.5 carried out in other places, using different groups of subjects and different methodologies. These studies were augmented by work in lab animals that provided evidence of how PM 2.5 can disturb the cardiovascular system. In 2009, the EPA concluded that a broad body of evidence affirmed PM 2.5's deadly toll.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The evidence that combustion-related fine particle pollution contributes to both respiratory and cardiovascular diseases is just pretty compelling," said C. Arden Pope, an economist at Brigham Young University and a co-author of both the original Harvard and ACS studies and follow-up studies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"There are probably no two studies in environmental health that have been more independently reanalyzed," Pope said. "They have been scrutinized in really remarkable ways and have held up."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A Campaign Against 'Secret Science'</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom, however, was convinced that the findings of the Harvard and ACS studies were biased and politically motivated, carried out by scientists who favored more U.S. government regulation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"What I'm watching is the descent of epidemiology from what used to be a legitimate public health science into just pure activism," he said. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The legal battle with UCLA had earned Enstrom stature on the right. The libertarian publication Reason Magazine produced an online video on his mistreatment at the hands of what it called "the Green Regulation Machine." The conservative American Freedom Alliance honored Enstrom as a "Hero of Conscience," along with his wife, Marta Villanea, an administrative law judge, who supported him throughout his trials.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"All I did is what a good wife should do," Villanea said in her acceptance speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom joined the board of trustees of the American Council on Science and Health, an industry and Libertarian-funded group that describes itself as a "a pro-science consumer advocacy organization," although critics note that its advocacy invariably takes the form of battling government regulation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom also became a science advisor to the Heartland Institute, the conservative think tank that has long supported and promoted work that disputes the science on climate change. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Steve Milloy, a former tobacco and coal industry adviser who had been leading attacks on PM 2.5 science from the beginning, said that Enstrom brought to the fight a "personal story of persecution."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It's hard for people to understand what's going on unless you've been really intimately involved in this saga, and Jim has been," said Milloy. "He's actually had his career damaged by it, and so he feels it very personally."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Milloy, working with a fossil fuel-industry funded legal advocacy group, represented Enstrom in a lawsuit against EPA in 2016, alleging bias in the choice of scientists who served on its scientific advisory boards. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Enstrom also began advising U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who after becoming chairman of the House Science Committee in 2013 took up the cause of discrediting the science on PM 2.5.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Smith derided the ACS and Harvard studies as "secret science," adopting a line of attack launched two decades earlier by industry foes of regulation who characterized the studies' routine protections of patients' confidential medical data as nefarious. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, during the House Judiciary oversight hearing with U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on the Department of Justice. Credit: Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Smith pelted the EPA with subpoenas seeking the raw data,</b> and continued his efforts even after he was reminded that the studies had already been re-analyzed. However, he said he knew one legitimate researcher whose request for access to the raw data had been turned down by the American Cancer Society: James Enstrom.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA ultimately complied with Smith's subpoena, but Smith did nothing further with the data. Instead, he sponsored a "secret science" bill seeking to bar the EPA in the future from relying on studies that used confidential data in regulatory decision-making. Critics said it would bar the public health agency from using some of the most important human health science. The legislation, first introduced in 2014, passed three times in the GOP-led House, but was never taken up by the closely divided Senate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the time of the last vote in March 2017, however, Trump was in the White House, and the prospects for Smith's proposal suddenly improved.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration was in a position both to enact limits on the EPA's use of mainstream science and to give more weight to contrarian work of scientists like Enstrom, who had just published his new study challenging the foundations of PM 2.5 science. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Enstrom's 'Odd Man Out' Study</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom's study almost wasn't published. "I have never read a paper that so willfully ignored the breadth of scientific evidence and attacked a specific study/group of investigators," said a reviewer for the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the scientific journals that rejected the manuscript.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But Enstrom finally got the paper in print by reaching out to Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts, who had submitted a letter in support of Enstrom during his fight with UCLA.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Calabrese was a founder of the International Dose Response Society,</b> an organization that holds that exposure to low doses of toxic agents can be beneficial—a position embraced by many industry groups and rejected by many advocates of strong environmental protection policies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He was also the editor of the society's journal, Dose-Response. Aware of the controversy Enstrom's study would stir, Calabrese agreed to publish, but warned Enstrom he would give the authors Enstrom challenged a chance to respond. "I said you'll have to take your whacks by the people you're going to hit, and they're formidable people," Calabrese recalled.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, the authors of the original ACS study and the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reanalysis soon published a detailed response, citing a litany of problems they had identified in Enstrom's work.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The most significant fault, they wrote, was Enstrom's use of old, county-level PM 2.5 readings instead of employing newer methods now widely used to estimate exposure more precisely. The authors of the critique had just published their latest follow-up study of the ACS cohort, using seven different methods of estimating pollution, including satellite remote sensing, and finding even more significant associations between PM 2.5 exposure and premature death. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom rejected the critiques of his study—in fact, in an interview last year, he refused to accept that the substance of his work had been called into question at all. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This is an old tactic that's used by people who don't want to address fundamental issues," Enstrom said. "Instead of addressing what I did, they use the tactic of looking at what I didn't do, and which they know I can't do. It's a miracle that I was able to do what I did do, because of all the efforts to stop me, and the fact that this data is not available outside their little clique."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Changing the Rules</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's study was well-timed to figure into U.S. air pollution policy decision-making. As Trump took office, the EPA was already launching its re-assessment of the state of current science on PM 2.5, as the law requires the agency to do every few years for key pollutants to ensure that Clean Air Act regulations are adequate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This time around, there was major new science on PM 2.5 to consider, including one of the largest studies ever, a Harvard analysis of the health records of 60 million Medicare recipients. It indicated that lowering PM 2.5 pollution nationwide by just 1 microgram per cubic meter would save 12,000 American lives annually. The research found the risk of premature death for African Americans in the study was three times as great as that for the general population.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But how the EPA weighed the science was affected profoundly by the changes made at the agency by Trump's team, who borrowed the ideas and rhetoric that industry foes of regulation had honed in the 25-year battle over PM 2.5. Several members of Trump's transition team, including Milloy, were longtime warriors in the campaign to discredit the science. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's first EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, accelerated the schedule for considering the adequacy of the national PM 2.5 science by two years, so that the review could be concluded by the end of Trump's first term in office. And in the name of "sound science" and "independence," Pruitt barred recipients of EPA grants from serving on agency science advisory boards. Since the EPA is one of the largest funders of environmental science, the move had the effect of knocking prominent experts off the committees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>To replace them, Pruitt and his successor, Wheeler, named industry-friendly state regulators and consultants for regulated industries, who faced no similar conflict-of-interest bar. </b>Wheeler eliminated altogether a separate 20-person expert panel on particulate matter. It was precisely the sort of overhaul that Milloy and Enstrom had sought in their 2016 lawsuit against the EPA.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The agency's rank and file was still staffed with scientists who predated Trump, and they gave Enstrom's paper little weight when they considered it against the bulk of evidence on PM 2.5. The staff scientists cited more than 2,600 scientific studies in a nearly 2,000-page analysis finalized on Dec. 31, 2019. It affirmed the EPA's long-standing conclusion that PM 2.5 was a cause of early death. In a separate analysis, EPA staff recommended a stricter national standard for fine particulate matter pollution. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the Trump administration's revamped six-member Clean Air Science Advisory Committee saw things differently. Chaired by statistician Louis Anthony Cox, a Denver consultant for the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, the CASAC urged that the agency require a much higher burden of proof for assessing pollution's health harms.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's 2005 study was included in the list of studies that the committee said raised doubt about the link between PM 2.5 and premature death. And one CASAC member, Sabine Lange, a toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, wrote in a separate attachment that Enstrom's 2017 study could be an effective challenge to the seminal American Cancer Society research. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The Enstrom study had a finer resolution, so one would guess that it had less exposure error and therefore possibly a greater effect estimate, or one with narrower confidence intervals," she wrote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last month, when the EPA announced it would not strengthen the pollution standard, Wheeler cited the committee's report and the doubts about the  PM 2.5 science to justify the decision. "We've identified a lot of uncertainties," he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, arrives for a House Appropriations Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 4, 2020.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Currently, Wheeler is moving forward with an initiative to change how the agency weighs science in the future. The proposal, called "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," is essentially the idea that Smith attempted to move through Congress three years ago, barring the EPA from basing decisions on studies that rely on patients' confidential medical data, as the original ACS and Harvard Six Cities PM 2.5 studies did.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A wide array of health, medical and science organizations oppose Wheeler's decision not to raise the PM 2.5 standard decision. On April 14, 19 health and medical organizations, led by the American Lung Association, said in a statement that the Trump EPA had employed a "deeply flawed" process and ignored "powerful, overwhelming evidence" that the current PM 2.5 standard is inadequate. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists and health organizations are also fighting the so-called "transparency" rule—critics say even the name has an Orwellian ring to it, because the proposed regulation is not transparent about its purpose.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The public comment period on the proposed rule ended May 18, while the deadline for the public to weigh in on the PM 2.5 standard is June 29. "The way I see it, now, all the pieces are falling into place" in the Trump administration's plan for weakened regulation, said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">She said the purge of the science advisory boards, the appointments of industry consultants to the advisory committee and other changes to the process have helped obscure the strong scientific consensus around the risks of PM 2.5, while elevating the importance of the work of scientists like Enstrom. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"These contrarian scientists really have the ear of the EPA in ways they never had before," Goldman said. "People like Enstrom provide the appearance of an independent scientist weighing in, and It all works together to get where we are—a rule that does not protect health with an adequate margin of safety."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">H. Christopher Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, who was a member of the particulate matter expert panel that Wheeler disbanded, said that the changes made under the Trump administration amounted to a rigging of the process. "If I wanted to design a science review that would have a predetermined outcome favorable to the regulated industries, I would get rid of the real experts," he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Members of the disbanded panel, in fact, felt so strongly about the issue that they met on their own and submitted a report to EPA endorsing the agency staff's finding that the PM 2.5 standard needed to be strengthened.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Frey said Enstrom's argument—that his study has refuted the 1995 ACS study, and therefore, the EPA's PM 2.5 standard should be withdrawn—reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The standards are not set based on a single study, and they're not withdrawn based on a single study," Frey said. "It's the overall body of evidence that is important."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>'A Journey Almost Impossible to Comprehend'</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom said recently that although he thinks there is no need for a PM 2.5 standard at all, he is gratified by Wheeler's decision to maintain the current standard and to move forward with the "transparency" rule.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It shows the value of persistence in terms of believing in honest science and trying to penetrate what seems like an impenetrable wall of dishonesty and deception," he said. His struggle to be recognized, he added, was "a journey that is almost impossible to comprehend. It's just been incredibly contentious and for what purpose I'm not sure I know, other than just deliberate power, power and ego."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During a recent phone interview, Enstrom detoured frequently into speculation about "the other side" in the air pollution science debate. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He complained that air pollution studies authored by<b> "activist Canadians"</b> should not be the basis for U.S. environmental regulations. And he noted that a Chinese businessman's family foundation has helped fund the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and that Chinese doctoral students were co-authors on the school's air pollution studies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Do you see any of these Harvard people going over to China or central Africa where you do have air pollution problems?" Enstrom asked. "No. Their only goal is to force more regulation on Americans."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Enstrom expressed particular outrage about a pre-publication study recently released by a Harvard group that found PM 2.5 levels in the United States to be associated with higher death rates from Covid-19. </span>(The researchers have since revised their findings to reflect a lower, but still significant, association). Enstrom has published his own calculations of the pandemic's effects in the conservative Heritage Foundation's publication, The Daily Signal. Averaging counts of total mortality in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the five weeks ending April 4, early in the pandemic, he concluded that deaths were no higher than expected. And based on those numbers, Enstrom wrote, "It's possible that the lethality of Covid-19 is no greater than that of the seasonal flu." </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since then, the CDC's weekly death counts have been as much as 36 percent higher than expected, and the agency estimates that Covid-19 is at least 10 times more deadly than the flu. Enstrom said he remains convinced that the impact in the U.S. is limited geographically, primarily to New York, and that public officials have overreacted. Although the loss of life was significant in the flu pandemic of 1917-1918, Enstrom said, "The country dealt with it. It was terrible, but it was not something to shut down the entire economy."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Recently, Enstrom has sent personal emails to scientists and public interest groups who have criticized the Trump administration's review of PM 2.5 science, asking them to discuss his evidence that "there is NO causal relationship between PM 2.5 and total mortality in the U.S." </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So far, he lamented recently, no one has responded.</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">desmog 917</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/search/google/Enstrom">https://www.desmogblog.com/search/google/Enstrom</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Tobacco Gun for Hire James Enstrom, Willie Soon and the Climate ..</b>.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/.../tobacco-gun-hire-james-enstrom-willie-soon -climate-change</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Mar 13, 2015 ... In fact, Enstrom did so much work for Big Tobacco that when the United States Department of Justice summed up its civil RICO case against the ...</div><div>EELI's Anti-EPA Suit Uses 'Exhibit A' from Tobacco's RICO Loss ...</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/.../eeli-s-anti-epa-suit-uses-exhibit-tobacco-s- rico-loss</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>May 19, 2016 ... But who is Dr. James Enstrom? Oh, he's just your run of the mill epidemiologist who took funding from tobacco giant Philip Morris and produced ...</div><div>western states trucking association 1 | DeSmogBlog</div><div>www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/23461</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>May 19, 2016 ... But now one of their own, Dr. James Enstrom, has provided a painfully ... Western States Trucking Association (WSTA) and Dr. James Enstrom.</div><div>Energy and Environment Legal Institute 1 | DeSmogBlog</div><div>www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/21588</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/19/eeli-s-anti-epa-suit-uses-exhibit-tobacco-s-rico-loss</div><div>
</div><div><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup cross-posted from <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/19/1528357/-EELI-s-Anti-EPA-Suit-Uses-Exhibit-A-from-Tobacco-s-RICO-Loss" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">DailyKos</a>.</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">Apologies dear reader, this is a long post. It’s worth reading, though, we promise!</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">With few exceptions (like this <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-is-big-tobacco-tell-me-another-1463526311" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">weak <span class="caps" style="">WSJ</span> column</a>), the folks defending Exxon from <span class="caps" style="">RICO</span> accusations focus their attention on the free speech argument and avoid the tobacco comparison. But now one of their own, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E.Enstrom" title="" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Dr. James Enstrom</a>, has provided a painfully clear connection between the beleaguered industries.  </p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">The Daily Caller carries <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/17/lawsuit-epas-indpendent-science-advisers-got-190-million-in-agency-grants/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the news that</a> the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <b>Energy <span class="amp">&</span> Environment Legal Institute’s (<span class="caps" style="">EELI</span>) l</b>atest attempt to waste its (<a href="https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/23/1505265/-EELI-Continues-Wasting-Coal-Money" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">probably coal</a>) funders' money is a lawsuit against the <span class="caps" style="">EPA</span>, claiming an independent review panel for air quality regulations isn’t actually independent</span>. <b>Their reason is that members of the panel have received funding from the <span class="caps" style="">EPA</span> for past studies.</b></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><b>Obviously, that’s ridiculous, since public and private funding are vastly different in terms of conflict of interest.</b>  [WHAT-ABOUT-ISM?]</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">So what does a real conflict of interest look like? For a prime example, look no further than the plaintiffs <span class="caps" style="">EELI</span> is representing: The Western States Trucking Association (<span class="caps" style="">WSTA</span>) and<b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> Dr. James Enstrom. </b></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">Now, the <span class="caps" style="">WSTA</span> has a legitimate stake here, as the regulation in question deals with particulate matter emissions from trucks, so the organization's members would face a cost to upgrade their trucks to meet stricter <span class="caps" style="">EPA</span> standards. Fine. </p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">But who is Dr. James Enstrom? Oh, he's just your run of the mill epidemiologist who took funding from tobacco giant Philip Morris and produced a study in 2003 downplaying the connection between second-hand smoke and cancer. Enstrom was such a pivotal player in the pro-smoking propaganda that when the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Department of Justice wrapped up its successful <span class="caps" style="">RICO </span>case against the tobacco industry, it dedicated an entire chapter to Enstrom—one of just three researchers to receive such a distinction.</span> (H/T <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/13/tobacco-gun-hire-james-enstrom-willie-soon-climate-change" title="" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">DeSmog</a>)</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=James%20Enstrom&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Atrue%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=536159" title="" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">search of his name in the Tobacco Industry Documents</a> database returns over 500,000 results. An <span class="caps" style="">LA</span> Times article notes that Enstrom became “<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28/2" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Exhibit A</a>” in the fight between the tobacco industry and anti-smoking activists, a prime example of how the tobacco industry funded friendly studies for <span class="caps" style="">PR</span> and lobbying purposes. </span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since then, Dr. Enstrom has turned his attention to other epidemiology questions, namely the dangers from<b> particulate matter. </b>And who funded his work? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Power_Research_Institute" title="" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">None other than an electric utility group</a>, which used his study to argue against stricter <span class="caps" style="">PM</span> standards that would force utilities to reduce the pollution from coal plants. </span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">So even as the fossil fuel industry fights off <span class="caps" style="">RICO</span> accusations and denies the tobacco parallels, its surrogate <span class="caps" style="">EELI</span> is fighting to give “Exhibit A” from the tobacco corruption case a chance to use his industry-funded science to shape the <span class="caps" style="">EPA</span>’s regulations.  </p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">Though connecting the dots between tobacco corruption and fossil fuels looks like a colossal own-goal, maybe <span class="caps" style="">EELI</span> isn’t as foolish as this makes them seem. After all, if the fossil fuel industry needs to defend itself from a <span class="caps" style="">RICO</span> suit like the tobacco industry did, surely <span class="caps" style="">EELI</span> will offer their services?  </p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">And odds are slim they’d do it pro bono…</p></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>May 19, 2016 ... But now one of their own, Dr. James Enstrom, has provided a painfully ... Western States Trucking Association (WSTA) and Dr. James Enstrom.</div><div>Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Behind the Wegman Report ...</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/.../ plagiarism%20conspiracies%20felonies%20v1%200%201.pdf</div><div>File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat</div><div>Feb 11, 2010 ... Enstrom and Nichols are Trustees, Singer is a Scientific Advisor. Worrying about proper use of science, and avoiding over-interpretation of ...</div><div>Bottling Nonsense</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.../bottling.nonsense.pdf</div><div>File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat</div><div>Aug 6, 2010 ... Enstrom was fired in retaliation for his role as a whistleblower. Its nine-minute video treats the CARB regulations on fine particulate pollution as ...</div><div>Energy & Environment Legal Institute | DeSmogBlog</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) sued the EPA on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a retired ...</div><div>archived a full copy of the Singer email thread (PDF)</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/.../ Fred%20Singer%20emails%20re%20Merchants%20of%20Doubt.pd...</div><div>File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat</div><div>At 11:39 PM 10/21/2014, James E Enstrom wrote: Prepare one detailed grievance that you can submit simultaneously to Harvard Stanford and UC.start with ...</div><div>Patrick Michaels | DeSmogBlog</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>... James Delingpole · David Paul Driessen · James Enstrom · Steve Goddard; Pierre Gosselin; Greenie Watch; William Happer; Jim Lakely; Patrick J. Michaels  ...</div><div>Willie Soon | DeSmogBlog</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon</div><div><span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Tim Ball · Charles G. Battig · E. Calvin Beisner · H. Sterling Burnett · Kenneth Chilton · Donn Dears · John Droz · James E. Enstrom · Joseph Farah · Steve ...</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">....</font></div><div><div><div data-reactid=".ti.1.0.1.2.0.0.1.0.4.$p-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><a class="DocumentPreview" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3445520-Horner-to-RJR-Reynolds-1996-Bracewell-Giuliani.html#document/p1" target="blank" data-reactid=".ti.1.0.1.2.0.0.1.0.4.$dc-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; display: block; width: 680px; margin-bottom: 20px; max-height: 400px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; letter-spacing: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Horner already saw that the secret science approach could subvert far more than the imminent regulations based on the science about second-hand smoke. “Our approach is one of addressing process as opposed to scientific substance, and global applicability to industry rather than focusing on any single industrial sector,” he wrote, going on to explain how the strategy could be used to interfere with the EPA’s efforts to address mercury emissions, hazardous waste, and dioxins as well as restrictions on air pollution.</font></a></p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; margin: 1em 0px; font-kerning: normal; font-feature-settings: 'kern' 1;"><a class="DocumentPreview" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3445520-Horner-to-RJR-Reynolds-1996-Bracewell-Giuliani.html#document/p1" target="blank" data-reactid=".ti.1.0.1.2.0.0.1.0.4.$dc-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; display: block; width: 680px; margin-bottom: 20px; max-height: 400px; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Attack on Air Pollution Protections</font></a></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><a class="DocumentPreview" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3445520-Horner-to-RJR-Reynolds-1996-Bracewell-Giuliani.html#document/p1" target="blank" data-reactid=".ti.1.0.1.2.0.0.1.0.4.$dc-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; display: block; width: 680px; margin-bottom: 20px; max-height: 400px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; letter-spacing: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">By 1998, Powell Tate, a lobbying firm that represented R.J. Reynolds, had helped organize a secret science working group to look at questions of “data access,</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">” according to </font></a><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=klyc0069" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">one internal memo</a>. The memo clarified that its intentio</font>n was to “focus public opinion on the importance of requiring the disclosure of tax-payer funded analytical data.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Though it was the brainchild of tobacco strategists, the <b>energy industry soon followed Horner’s advice and adopted the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">secret science </span>approach as a way to hamper air quality improvement efforts.</b> In the 1990s, the EPA began efforts to reduce the amount of tiny particles in the air, a kind of pollution known as PM 2.5, that are produced by combustion from power plants, cars, and manufacturing. The clearest evidence of the need to limit such particles came from the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Six Cities” <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401#t=article" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">study</a></span>, in which a team of<b> Harvard researchers clearly tied higher levels of PM 2.5 particles to increased mortality</b>, as well as lung cancer, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">While the new limits were designed to save lives — preventing 15,000 premature deaths annually, according to EPA projections — the rules would also increase costs in some sectors by, for instance, making energy companies install pollution equipment. In response, a group funded by the Koch brothers rose up to challenge the EPA and the scientists on the grounds that scientists were hiding their data from the public. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Citizens for a Sound Economy</a>, a forerunner of the Koch brothers’ current <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Freedom Works</a>, demanded that the Harvard researchers provide their original data so an “independent” scientist could analyze it.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At first the researchers refused to share the data, which they had collected from individuals with the promise that their health information would remain confidential. Eventually, after an elaborate and expensive pressure campaign, the Six Cities researchers agreed to allow their data to be reanalyzed by two separate teams of researchers. Both confirmed the group’s findings that rates of PM 2.5 were correlated with increased mortality.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EPA went on to institute the changes. And scientists throughout the world have since come to recognize the <b>dangers posed by small particle air pollution, which accounted for “over 2.1 million premature deaths and 52 million years of healthy life lost in 2010,</b></span><b>”</b> according to the 2010 <a href="http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/gbd/en/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Global Burden of Disease</a> report. The report drew on research by more than 450 experts from around the world and was led by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington; the World Health Organization; the University of Queensland, Australia; Johns Hopkins University; and Harvard University.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Despite the scientific consensus, a small group of extremists has continued to fixate on the idea that the science on the dangers of air pollution is somehow a sham. Even more disturbingly, this small extreme group now holds sway in key parts of the U.S. government. Not least among them is Rep. <b>Lamar Smith</b>, who in 2013 <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/house-panel-subpoenas-epa-air-pollution-data" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">subpoenaed</a> the EPA in yet another effort to obtain the data from the Six Cities study.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>In an <a href="https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682?mg=r" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">op-ed</a> that ran in the Wall Street Journal </b>shortly afterward, Smith noted that “the data in question have not been subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists.” Smith pressed his point in a House Science Committee hearing a few days later, insisting that independent scientists were being denied access to the air pollution data.<b> When Democrat Donna Edwards pressed Smith about who these scientists were, he mentioned the name </b></font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><b>Jim Enstrom.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Enstrom,</b> you may not be surprised to learn, has been a research fellow at E&E </span>and has <a href="http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/case-footnote-wagging-article" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">received money</a> from the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, Philip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> In part because he didn’t disclose his tobacco industry ties in a study he did on the connection between second-hand smoke and mortality (which he <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">found</a> to be inconclusive), he was widely criticized by the scientific community, including the American Cancer Society, and was subsequently <b><a href="https://dailybruin.com/2015/03/05/former-ucla-researcher-james-enstrom-reaches-settlement-with-uc/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">dismissed</a> from UCLA.</b></span></font></p></div></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bs</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://eelegal.org/ee-legal-letters-xi-ee-legal-sues-epa%E2%80%88for-stacking-independent-science-panel/</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>by Steve Milloy, Senior Policy Fellow</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On May 13, The <b>Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal)</b> sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for illegal formation of a key science advisory committee.</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The committee at issue is the EPA’s Clean Air <b>Scientific Advisory Committee</b> Particulate Matter Review Panel for 2015-2018 (CASAC PM Panel).</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> E&E Legal filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of its members who include the Western States Trucking Association and </span><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Dr. James </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Enstrom,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> a Research Fellow and epidemiologist retired from the University of California, Los Angeles.</span></b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>EPA has stacked the panel,</b> [LOOK AT DJT LS VERSION TO SEE WHAT BALANCED MEANS?] which is required by law to be independent and unbiased, with researchers who have received over $190 million in discretionary EPA grants.  This clearly violates the law and makes a mockery of the notion of <b>‘independent</b>’ scientific review.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We are asking the court to prevent the EPA from convening the panel until the panel can be formed in a balanced manner in compliance with applicable laws,” said Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel and a<b> 33-year veteran of the EPA.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EPA’s regulation of ambient airborne fine particulate matter, soot or dust in outdoor air also called “PM2.5” (pronounced Pee-Em-Two-Point-Five”), has been scientifically controversial since the EPA began the process of regulating it in the early 1990s. </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The EPA claims that any inhalation of PM2.5 can cause death within hours and that PM2.5 in outdoor air kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Not only has the EPA hidden from public scrutiny for over 20 years key scientific data that its PM2.5 regulation relies on, but also the agency stacks the legally required CASAC panel with EPA-paid researchers.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>EPA’s claims about the lethality of PM2.5 have been a primary basis for the agency’s justification of its air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, as well as regulations key to the Obama administration’s so-called “war on coal</b>”, including the: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Mercury Air Transport Standard and Clean Power Plan. State implementation of EPA’s PM2.5 standards is also quite costly as evidenced by E&E Legal member Western States Trucking Association, whose own members are forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars retrofitting truck engines to comply with California state PM2.5 emissions requirements as mandated by the EPA.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Not only does the EPA pay researchers to produce <b>controversial </b>research that advances its PM2.5 regulatory<b> agenda</b>, </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">but the agency pays the very same researchers to review their own controversial work. Of the 26 members the EPA selected to be on the CASAC PM Panel, 24 of them have been paid or are currently being paid by the EPA a total sum in excess of $190 million</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. [note no cite]The EPA’s supposedly ‘independent’ review process is entirely rigged to advance EPA’s agenda.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act require that the CASAC PM Panel be independent and unbiased,” Schnare said. “We are asking the court to determine that an</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> EPA advisory panel that operates on a consensus basis but that is 90 percent comprised of <b>highly-paid EPA cronies</b> does not meet the requirements of the law,” Schnare added.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EPA process for commissioning and evaluating PM2.5 research has been<b> so rigged and so biased for so long that many scientists don’t even try to get nominated for CASAC panels any more</b>. They’ve simply given up</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""> <b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A case study of this is E&E Legal member and PM2.5 researcher Jim </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Enstrom</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> </span></font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">who, in questioning EPA’s PM2.5 science, has lost professional opportunities because of the extreme biases of the EPA, CASAC and current and former CASAC panel members. CASAC is a cabal, not an independent committee.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“As the EPA is at the very beginning a new round of review of PM2.5 regulation, as required by the Clean Air Act, our lawsuit is intended to make sure that process is conducted in an independent and unbiased manner as required by the law and expected by the public and Congress,” Schnare said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Joe Rajkovacz, with the Western States Trucking Association, noted in a Truck.com article, that it’s important to have an impartial committee review the EPA’s findings because of the negative financial impact the agency’s rulings could have on small-business truckers.  “Federal law requires the EPA to run all of its rule-makings through an advisory committee, who is supposed to be an independent committee that weighs the science they are basing their rule-makings on,” he said. “What kind of science do you think we will get if most of the independent researchers’ financial well-being is dependent on grant money from the EPA?”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Also according to Truck.com, “James E. Enstrom, a retired UCLA epidemiologist, also is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He published a critical analysis in the peer-reviewed medical journal Inhalation Toxicology that failed to support a relationship between PM2.5 and premature deaths in California.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Subsequently, E&E Legal has filed a petition for a temporary restraining order to prevent any action by the panel until the suit is heard.</b></font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><b style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FIRE BS</font></b></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font><div><span class="entry-header" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.1em; float: left; width: 510px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">University of California at Los Angeles: Non-Reappointment of Controversial Professor</font></span><div class="entry-content" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p class="category selectionShareable" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.3em; list-style: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Category: <a href="https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/free-speech/" rel="category tag" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;">Free Speech</a> <br style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;" /></font><span class="category-item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; clear: both; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schools: <a href="https://www.thefire.org/schools/university-of-california-los-angeles/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;">University of California, Los Angeles</a></font></span></p><p class="selectionShareable" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) refused to reappoint an environmental health sciences professor, stating that his controversial research failed to accord with the department’s “mission.” Dr. James Enstrom engaged in successful whistleblowing against a prominent member of the department, and there had been many years of debate between Enstrom and some of his colleagues over research on air pollution. After <b>FIRE</b> intervened, Enstrom was given a reprieve while his appeals continued. Enstrom filed a lawsuit against UCLA in June 2012, assisted by the American Center for Law and Justice. The case is currently before a federal district court.</font></p><div id="tabs" class="ui-tabs ui-widget ui-widget-content ui-corner-all" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0.2em; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; border: none !important; background: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><ul class="ui-tabs-nav ui-helper-reset ui-helper-clearfix ui-widget-header ui-corner-all" role="tablist" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0.2em 0.2em 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; line-height: 1.3; min-height: 0px; font-weight: bold; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; border: none !important; background: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><li class="ui-state-default ui-corner-top ui-tabs-active ui-state-active" role="tab" tabindex="0" aria-controls="tabs-1" aria-labelledby="ui-id-1" aria-selected="true" aria-expanded="true" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(203, 203, 203); list-style: none; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; float: left; position: relative; top: 0px; white-space: nowrap; width: calc(25% - 0.2em); box-sizing: border-box; flex: 1 0 calc(50% - 5px); text-align: center; display: flex; flex-flow: column nowrap; justify-content: center; margin: 1px !important; padding: initial !important; border: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-california-at-los-angeles-non-reappointment-of-controversial-professor/#tabs-1" class="ui-tabs-anchor" role="presentation" tabindex="-1" id="ui-id-1" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; float: none; cursor: text; width: 245px; display: inline-block; white-space: initial; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 15px 0px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Case Materials</font></a></li><li class="ui-state-default ui-corner-top" role="tab" tabindex="-1" aria-controls="tabs-2" aria-labelledby="ui-id-2" aria-selected="false" aria-expanded="false" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(203, 203, 203); list-style: none; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; float: left; position: relative; top: 0px; white-space: nowrap; width: calc(25% - 0.2em); box-sizing: border-box; flex: 1 0 calc(50% - 5px); text-align: center; display: flex; flex-flow: column nowrap; justify-content: center; margin: 1px !important; border: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-california-at-los-angeles-non-reappointment-of-controversial-professor/#tabs-2" class="ui-tabs-anchor" role="presentation" tabindex="-1" id="ui-id-2" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; float: none; cursor: pointer; width: 245px; display: inline-block; white-space: initial; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 15px 0px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Media Coverage</font></a></li><li class="ui-state-default ui-corner-top" role="tab" tabindex="-1" aria-controls="tabs-3" aria-labelledby="ui-id-3" aria-selected="false" aria-expanded="false" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(203, 203, 203); list-style: none; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; float: left; position: relative; top: 0px; white-space: nowrap; width: calc(25% - 0.2em); box-sizing: border-box; flex: 1 0 auto; text-align: center; display: flex; flex-flow: column nowrap; justify-content: center; margin: 1px !important; border: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-california-at-los-angeles-non-reappointment-of-controversial-professor/#tabs-3" class="ui-tabs-anchor" role="presentation" tabindex="-1" id="ui-id-3" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; float: none; cursor: pointer; width: 492px; display: inline-block; white-space: initial; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 15px 0px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Commentary</font></a></li></ul><div id="tabs-1" aria-labelledby="ui-id-1" class="ui-tabs-panel ui-widget-content ui-corner-bottom" role="tabpanel" aria-hidden="false" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 1em 1.4em; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: none !important; background: none !important; border-radius: 0px !important;"><section class="posts-list" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 20px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/order-in-enstrom-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-et-al-granting-in-part-and-denying-in-part-defendants-motion-to-dismiss/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Order in Enstrom v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">March 18, 2013 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/order-in-enstrom-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-et-al-granting-in-part-and-denying-in-part-defendants-motion-to-dismiss/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-ucla-academic-senate-june-20-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter to UCLA Academic Senate, June 20, 2012</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">July 03, 2012 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-ucla-academic-senate-june-20-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/whistleblowing-scientist-who-challenged-environmental-regulation-sues-ucla-2/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Whistleblowing Scientist Who Challenged Environmental Regulation Sues UCLA</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 14, 2012 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/whistleblowing-scientist-who-challenged-environmental-regulation-sues-ucla-2/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/complaint-filed-in-us-district-court-central-district-of-california-by-james-enstrom-against-university-of-california-los-angeles-june-13-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California by James Enstrom against University of California, Los Angeles, June 13, 2012</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 13, 2012 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/complaint-filed-in-us-district-court-central-district-of-california-by-james-enstrom-against-university-of-california-los-angeles-june-13-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-james-enstrom-from-senate-committee-on-academic-freedom-chair-david-b-teplow-june-4-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter to James Enstrom from Senate Committee on Academic Freedom Chair David B. Teplow, June 4, 2012</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 04, 2012 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-james-enstrom-from-senate-committee-on-academic-freedom-chair-david-b-teplow-june-4-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-fire-to-ucla-school-of-public-health-dean-search-committee-january-3-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from FIRE to UCLA School of Public Health Dean Search Committee, January 3, 2012</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 03, 2012 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-fire-to-ucla-school-of-public-health-dean-search-committee-january-3-2012/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/email-from-university-of-massachusetts-amherst-professor-edward-j-calabrese-to-richard-jackson-august-8-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Email from University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Edward J. Calabrese to Richard Jackson, August 8, 2011</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 08, 2011 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/email-from-university-of-massachusetts-amherst-professor-edward-j-calabrese-to-richard-jackson-august-8-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-ucla-academic-freedom-committee-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-block-april-15-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from UCLA Academic Freedom Committee to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, April 15, 2011</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">April 15, 2011 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-ucla-academic-freedom-committee-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-block-april-15-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-chief-republican-whip-dan-logue-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-and-provost-scott-waugh-march-29-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from Chief Republican Whip Dan Logue to UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block and Provost Scott Waugh, March 29, 2011</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">March 29, 2011 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-chief-republican-whip-dan-logue-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-and-provost-scott-waugh-march-29-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-associate-dean-for-academic-programs-hilary-godwin-to-professor-james-enstrom-january-28-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from Associate Dean for Academic Programs Hilary Godwin to Professor James Enstrom, January 28, 2011</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 28, 2011 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-associate-dean-for-academic-programs-hilary-godwin-to-professor-james-enstrom-january-28-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-richard-j-jackson-to-james-e-enstrom-january-3-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">E-mail from Richard J. Jackson to James E. Enstrom, January 3, 2011</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 03, 2011 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-richard-j-jackson-to-james-e-enstrom-january-3-2011/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-fire-from-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-september-17-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter to FIRE from UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block, September 17, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">September 17, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-to-fire-from-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-september-17-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/fire-letter-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-august-26-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">FIRE Letter to UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block, August 26, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 26, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/fire-letter-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-august-26-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/emails-concerning-james-enstrom-august-and-september-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Emails concerning James Enstrom, August and September 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 19, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/emails-concerning-james-enstrom-august-and-september-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-third-district-assemblymember-dan-logue-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-and-provost-scott-waugh-august-16-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from Third District Assemblymember Dan Logue to UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block and Provost Scott Waugh, August 16, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">August 16, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-third-district-assemblymember-dan-logue-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-d-block-and-provost-scott-waugh-august-16-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-hilary-godwin-to-james-enstrom-july-29-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from Hilary Godwin to James Enstrom, July 29, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">July 29, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-hilary-godwin-to-james-enstrom-july-29-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/professor-james-enstrom-directory-listings-1998-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Professor James Enstrom directory listings, 1998-2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">July 01, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/professor-james-enstrom-directory-listings-1998-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-richard-jackson-to-james-enstrom-june-9-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Letter from Richard Jackson to James Enstrom, June 9, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 09, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-richard-jackson-to-james-enstrom-june-9-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-environmental-health-sciences-chair-richard-jackson-to-dr-james-enstrom-february-10-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">E-mail from Environmental Health Sciences Chair Richard Jackson to Dr. James Enstrom, February 10, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 10, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-environmental-health-sciences-chair-richard-jackson-to-dr-james-enstrom-february-10-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-dr-james-enstrom-to-environmental-health-sciences-chair-richard-jackson-february-9-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">E-mail from Dr. James Enstrom to Environmental Health Sciences Chair Richard Jackson, February 9, 2010</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 09, 2010 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-dr-james-enstrom-to-environmental-health-sciences-chair-richard-jackson-february-9-2010/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/pacific-legal-foundation-lawsuit-press-release-june-18-2009/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Pacific Legal Foundation Lawsuit Press Release, June 18, 2009</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 18, 2009 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/pacific-legal-foundation-lawsuit-press-release-june-18-2009/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/notice-of-adverse-action-to-hien-t-tran-april-9-2009/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Notice of Adverse Action to Hien T. Tran, April 9, 2009</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">April 09, 2009 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/notice-of-adverse-action-to-hien-t-tran-april-9-2009/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/ucla-environmental-health-sciences-department-mission-2008/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">UCLA Environmental Health Sciences Department Mission, 2008</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">December 31, 2008 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/ucla-environmental-health-sciences-department-mission-2008/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/environmental-health-sciences-department-faculty-staff-directories-2005-and-2006/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Environmental Health Sciences Department Faculty-Staff Directories, 2005 and 2006</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">April 26, 2006 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/environmental-health-sciences-department-faculty-staff-directories-2005-and-2006/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li><hr style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; height: 1px; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-image: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;" /><li style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none;"><div class="item" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><h3 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-ucla-dean-linda-rosenstock-to-associate-resident-professor-james-e-enstrom-april-1-2004/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">E-mail from UCLA Dean Linda Rosenstock to Associate Resident Professor James E. Enstrom, April 1, 2004</font></a></h3><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">April 01, 2004 | <a href="https://www.thefire.org/e-mail-from-ucla-dean-linda-rosenstock-to-associate-resident-professor-james-e-enstrom-april-1-2004/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none; text-decoration-line: none;">» Read More</a></font></div></div></li></section></div></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">oreskes hit</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">new? 2x? desmog grandia 3/15</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.<b>desmogblog.com</b>/2015/03/13/tobacco-gun-hire-james-enstrom-willie-soon-climate-change</font></div><div><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article was co-written by Dan Zegart, author of <u>Civil Warriors, the legal siege on the tobacco industry.</u></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A leaked email chain <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/10/merchants-doubt-debut-fred-singer-deniers-lawsuit" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reported earlier this week on DeSmog</a> shines a harsh light on the behind-the-scenes coordination between well-known climate deniers and fossil fuel funded spindoctors. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But it turns out that there is much more to this story than just climate change, and we find ourselves once again reaching back into the rich history of scientists paid by tobacco companies to conduct research bringing into question the links between cigarette smoke and cancer. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The October 2014 email discussion, </span>led by infamous </span><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">climate denier Fred Singer</a>, <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">asks whether it would make sense to file a lawsuit to try and stop the release of the new feature length documentary, <a href="http://sonyclassics.com/merchantsofdoubt/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Merchants of Doubt </a>– a film tracing the tactics used by Big Tobacco to spread misinformation and how those same tactics are now being used by those attacking climate change science and the <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">97% consensus</a>. </span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">As an expert-for-hire who has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">taken money from both Big Tobacco</a> and fossil fuel companies over the span of his career, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S.Fred_Singer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">S. Fred </a></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S.Fred_Singer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Singer</a> is a major focal point in Merchants of Doubt.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But where the really interesting story lies, is in two of the recipients of the Singer email who share an uncannily similar history.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One recipient is <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Willie Soon</a>, a name familiar to loyal DeSmog readers who have no doubt seen stories on the <a href="http://www.climateinvestigations.org/willie-soon-harvard-smithsonian-documents-reveal-southern-company-scandal" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Willie Soon Harvard-Smithsonian scandal</a> over the past few weeks. Dr. Soon, has been making headlines for his funding from utility (coal) and oil companies, in exchange for publishing peer reviewed scientific papers that question the role of carbon dioxide pollution in warming the planet. </font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Another recipient on the Singer email chain, </span><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">James Enstrom,</span> </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">advised Singer to launch grievances with Stanford, Harvard and University of California against Naomi Oreskes and Stanton Glantz — an intimidating 'attack the messenger' tactic we'll revisit in a moment.   </span>

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom is a former </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); letter-spacing: 0.39px;">University of California Los Angeles epidemiologist who </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">has been</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;"> making</span><a href="http://watchdogwire.com/california/2014/02/13/the-firing-of-dr-james-enstrom-the-dangers-of-bucking-fashionable-science/" rel="nofollow" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;"> headlines as of late</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;"> after <span class="caps" style="">UCLA</span> settled a wrongful termination suit that Enstrom had filed. Some right-wing blogs have portrayed Enstrom as a hero for winning the suit last month, in which he claims he was let go by <span class="caps" style="">UCLA</span> in an attempt to “purge an academic dissenter.”</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; letter-spacing: 0.39px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/dissident-air-pollution-researcher-sues-university-over-firing.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;">At the crux of the suit </a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;">was Enstrom's research concluding that there is no causal link between diesel soot and deaths in California — a conclusion that runs contrary to the California Air Resources Board's claim that new fuel standards on diesel emissions in that State will save close to 10,000 lives over the next 14 years and save billions in health care costs.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom says it was his contrarian view that resulted in <span class="caps" style="">UCLA</span> not renewing his contract</span>.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the recently exposed Singer emails, Enstrom suggests that instead of suing those behind the Merchants of Doubt film, that Singer instead go on the attack and lodge complaints to Harvard and Stanford against Dr. Naomi Oreskes, the professor whose <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">book</a> with Erik Conway of the same name serves as a foundation for the film. </font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom writes:</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Fred%20Singer%20emails%20re%20Merchants%20of%20Doubt.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img alt="merchants of doubt" src="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/merchants%20of%20doubt.jpg" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: 120px; width: 550px; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;" /></font></a></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom elaborates on how this attack could unfold:</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Fred%20Singer%20emails%20re%20Merchants%20of%20Doubt.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img alt="" src="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/james%20enstrom.png" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: 191px; width: 550px;" /></font></a></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Apparently the academic freedoms Enstrom appears to hold so dear in his wrongful dismissal suit, do not extend past himself.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.39px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But it is not the <span class="caps" style="">UCLA</span> lawsuit, or Enstrom's name alongside Soon's on the Singer email string, where the similarities lie between Enstrom and Soon.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is instead the willingness of both men to take large sums of money from industry-related interests and then to produce science that suits those interests' needs.  </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Soon was recently exposed for taking money from fossil fuel interests and failing to disclose it to Congress or science journals, while Enstrom has been taking large sums of money from tobacco companies over the years and often not disclosing it. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For almost thirty years, <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/search/basic;jsessionid=0400C3B020AF5559DE9D627A91AAF2D6.tobacco03?fd=0&q=james+enstrom" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Enstrom's research into smoking and health</a> was funded by the cigarette makers.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In fact, Enstrom did so much work for Big Tobacco that when the United States Department of Justice summed up <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rmd17a00/pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">i</a></span><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rmd17a00/pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">ts civil <span class="caps" style="">RICO</span> case against the cigarette makers</span></a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> [<span class="caps" style="">PDF</span>] at the end of a months-long trial in a lengthy legal filing, Enstrom got his own chapter — one of just three scientists singled out by <span class="caps" style="">DOJ</span> out of many dozens of tobacco-funded researchers for having been vital to the industry's efforts to sow confusion about the health effects of smoking.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="caps" style="">U.S.</span> District Court Judge Gladys Kessler apparently agreed on Enstrom's role, singling out his work for extensive treatment in a scathing <a href="http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">1652-page final opinion in 2006</a> [<span class="caps" style="">PDF</span>] in which she ruled that the tobacco companies were indeed a “racketeer influenced and corrupt organization” under the <span class="caps" style="">RICO</span> law, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a section entitled “Defendants and Their Paid Consultants Controlled <span class="caps" style="">ETS</span> Research Findings,” Kessler zeroed in on a 2003 study published in the <em>British Medical Journal</em> by Enstrom and co-author Geoffrey Kabat claiming that links between secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke (<span class="caps" style="">ETS</span>) and lung cancer or coronary heart disease “may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The study was “funded and managed” by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Indoor_Air_Research" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Indoor Air Research</a>, a scientific front group set up to cast doubt on the link between <span class="caps" style="">ETS</span> and disease, to the tune of $525,000 in 1998, after Enstrom did a “pre-cursor” study for $150,000 in 1997 — a year in which he was already being paid by another tobacco front called the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Council for Tobacco Research</a>.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Kessler wrote that Enstrom chose </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 1.5em;">to examine</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> data that was the least likely to show an association between <span class="caps" style="">ETS</span> and disease, despite being “repeatedly warned” by the American Cancer Society that using the data,</span></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px;"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Enstrom used only a small subset of the overall data, and, more importantly, the data corresponded to participants who enrolled in 1959, a time when exposure to tobacco smoke was common.”</span></font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kessler noted that the Center for Indoor Air Research funded two types of research proposals. One set were pre-screened by the <span class="caps" style="">CIAR</span>'s Scientific Advisory Board, made up of scientists from outside the industry.

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But Enstrom's study was funded as an “Applied Project.” <b>Applied Projects by-passed the <span class="caps" style="">SAB</span></b> and were chosen directly by the <span class="caps" style="">CIAR</span>'s Board of Directors, made up of in-house tobacco scientists, executives and a high-ranking industry lawyer. </span></font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In fact, legal considerations — and lawyers — were at the very heart of the decision-making process at <span class="caps" style="">CIAR</span>.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gjl67e00/pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Wrote Don Hoel</a>, an attorney with Shook Hardy and Bacon (<span class="caps" style="">SHB</span>), which represented tobacco company Philip Morris (<span class="caps" style="">PM</span>):</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Within that organization [<span class="caps" style="">CIAR</span>], <span class="caps" style="">SHB</span> represents the interests of <span class="caps" style="">PM</span> in evaluating research proposals and in determining which existing projects should be continued.” </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's contracts specified that among the “deliverables” his research was expected to produce was publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With the source of his funding kept confidential, Enstrom became a high profile authority in articles in the mainstream press which cited him as an independent scientist who was convinced that the evidence linking <span class="caps" style="">ETS</span> to disease was weak.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Back to present day.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While as far as we know Soon has no ties to big tobacco, nor has he done any work that brings into question the links between cancer and tobacco smoke, the similarities in the stories of Soon and Enstrom, and the trajectories of their careers, are uncanny.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two scientists found to have been paid large sums of money by companies that benefit from their conclusions.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Enstrom, his research bringing into question the links between tobacco smoke and cancer, with his Big Tobacco sponsors hoping the effect will be to slow proposed regulations limiting exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Soon, his research downplaying the role fossil fuels play in climate change, with his Big Oil and Coal sponsors hoping the effect will be to slow down government regulations that would curtail carbon emissions from dirty fossil fuels.   </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some might say this has all the makings of a grand conspiracy theory. But when something is documented this well and the links are made based on solid evidence there is very little theory left to prove.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And while this story is about two of the main characters, there is a larger question about where the corporations fit in. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the case of the tobacco companies, that question has already been answered in the form of a massive class action lawsuit by 50 <span class="caps" style="">US</span> State Attorneys General that was settled for a whopping $206 billion. </font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the case of the fossil fuel companies paying the likes of Soon to deliver science that suits their needs, that story has yet to reach its final chapter. </font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">404 wayback</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><h2 style="padding-bottom: 2px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">Enstrom and the tobacco industry</font></h2><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Author: Jon Krueger</span><br style="line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></font><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1975: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldi79c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldi79c00</a> Enstrom writes to <b>CTR </b>to ask for money; his bait: he thinks he can find causes of cancer other than smoking. Of course, the bait wouldn't be very tempting for his industry funders if it turned out that one cause was secondhand smoke. Thus Enstrom has had over 25 years of incentive to find otherwise.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1975: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qdi79c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qdi79c00</a> Enstrom writes again to CTR asking for money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1976: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/quk2aa00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/quk2aa00</a> Enstrom writes to <b>Tobacco Institute</b> asking for help in getting CTR money; please could you do me this favor.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1979: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gov10f00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gov10f00</a> His research finds that <b>lung cancer rates are rising in nonsmokers (see below).</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1976: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/guk2aa00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/guk2aa00</a> Enstrom writes to CTR about his grant application</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1978: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hgi89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hgi89c00</a> Enstrom writes to CTR to ask for money again</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1990: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xoj52d00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xoj52d00</a> writes <b>Philip Morris</b> asking for money "My epidemiological research does not deal directly with the issue of environmental tobacco smoke...However my research does deal extensively with cancer and other diseases among nonsmokers."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1991: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aix89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aix89c00</a> applies for more CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1992: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xix89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xix89c00</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>CTR gives Enstrom a three year grant</b>; goal of research: answer "questions regarding the amount of current mortality that can be considered directly due to cigarette smoking and the amount of current mortality that can be prevented by smoking cessation".</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's previous research (see e.g. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gov10f00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gov10f00</a>) has focused on the fact that nonsmokers get lung cancer too, so (he concludes) smoking itself can't be blamed for all those deaths.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1993: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iix89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iix89c00</a> Enstrom gets $34,500 of CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1994: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mix89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mix89c00</a> gets another $34,500 of CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1995: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gjx89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gjx89c00</a> gets another $35,000 of CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1996: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jkx89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jkx89c00</a> applies for more CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1997: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elx89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elx89c00</a> CTR offers Enstrom more money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1997: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lkx89c00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lkx89c00</a> gets another $35,000 of CTR money</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1997: </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oxw91d00" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oxw91d00</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> asks CIAR for<b> $425,000</b> to research passive smoking (grant application); probably the stuff <b>published this month</b></span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1997: </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tww91d00" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tww91d00</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> cover letter for the grant application: "For the past three years I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Jeffrey. L. Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of R J Reynolds and Philip Morris</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">."</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The bait: "This research has found a number of results that raise serous questions about several published findings on the relationship of passive smoking to lung cancer and other diseases".</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1997: </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cmr29c00" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cmr29c00</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Internal industry review of Enstrom's proposal doesn't think much of it, but notes he "seems to have good connections/resources which might be useful in the future for other issues." </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is the same document that has been cited recently by health groups.</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1997: </span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/imf37d00" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/imf37d00</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> grant application to</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> "Philip Morris Research Center" The bait: "there may be a threshhold (on the order of 1 cigarette per day) below which tobacco use is not related to mortality". (What he doesn't mention is that this highly addictive product will seldom remain consumed at those levels for long).</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1998: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mjc36d00" style="text-decoration: none;">http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mjc36d00</a> writes to CTR asking for more money or time (?)</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In BMJ's competing interests, Enstrom states: "In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry". The facts are, he's been getting tobacco industry money for over 10 years -- and asking for it for over 25 years. Is this "in recent years"?</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In BMJ's competing interests, Enstrom further states he took tobacco industry money "because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources". He's been asking for tobacco industry money for over 25 years. It's been impossible for him to get other funding for over 25 years?</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom's disclosure of his industry connections comes across pretty mild in BMJ. He has "received funds" and only "in recent years"; the purpose is just to conduct "epidemiological research". That's not how he puts it when he's asking the tobacco industry for money. He points up his track record of work "on behalf of R J Reynolds and Philip Morris."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom also stresses his interest in being and appearing independent of his tobacco industry funding. But that's not how he puts it when he's asking the tobacco industry for money. He practically dangles results before them: I could find that not all lung cancer comes from smoking, I could find that a little smoking isn't as bad as thought<b>, I could find that secondhand smoke isn't that bad for you</b>. That's what the record here shows.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In short, Enstrom's 25 years of begging the tobacco industry for money does not square with his claim today that he's just "received" money and just "in recent years". He's been trying to get tobacco industry money for a quarter century, and it finally started to pay off about 10 years ago, to the tune of <b>over half a million dollars</b>. In return, it appears he has delivered a study amazingly useful to his sponsor.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 16.8px;">https://web.archive.org/web/20150310112918/http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/dcouments/030520enstromyears.html</span></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><table bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="center" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#000080" border="1" cellpadding="5" width="760" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr><td align="left" width="100%"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057"><b>BMJ 2003;326:1057 (17 May)</b> 
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2 
- Full Text <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057">- Abstract <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 
<a href="http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32294">- Lettre à l'éditeur de Martin McKee <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> <b>Need for clarification on competing interest</b> 
<a href="http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32472">- Lettre de Martin McKee et Pascal Diethelm <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> <b>More details on competing interests</b> 
<a href="http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057">- Rapid responses published <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a></font></td></tr></tbody></table><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br style="" /></font><table align="center" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="5" width="760" style=""><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the co-authors is <b>Geoffrey Kabat</b>, who in 1997 co-authored a paper with Ragnar Rylander and Linda Koo entitled <a href="http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&if=avpidx&bool=2502400372&docid=2502400372/0382&docnum=1&summary=0&sel1=">"Dietary and Lifestyle Correlates of Passive Smoking in Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden and the U.S.A." (PM Bates 2502400372/0382) <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a>. A Swiss court has found that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ragnar Rylander "was secretely employed by Philip Morris"</span>, that he "was one of Philip Morris' most highly paid consultants", that he "did not hesitate to deceive the general public in order to show himself favourable to the tobacco company that was paying him", and that he organized symposia that were "favorable to the tobacco industry", and that he conducted studies that were "fraudulent". <a href="http://www.prevention.ch/ryjueng130103.htm">For full text of the Swiss judgment, see </a><a href="http://www.prevention.ch/ryjueng130103.htm">http://www.prevention.ch/ryjueng130103.htm <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

<a href="http://www.prevention.ch/515638685.pdf">Letter from Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, counsel for R.J. Reynolds. <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> This letter seems to indicate that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom worked with the lawyers of RJR, </span>siding with the industry in the EPA litigation, making proposals of studies that could be used as ammunition by the tobacco industry to undermine good research. 

<a href="http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&if=avpidx&bool=2065122062&docid=2065122062&docnum=1&summary=0&sel1=">Réponse, en 1996, de l'American Medical Association <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

<a href="http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&if=avpidx&bool=2505540920&docid=2505540920&docnum=1&summary=0&sel1=">Document that shows that the analysis of the CPS-I and CPS-II data by Enstrom was "developed" under the close supervision of Philip Morris (Ted Sanders is with PM), with Ragnar Rylander as a resource person, and Peter Lee <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

<a href="http://www.medicalforum.ch/pdf/pdf_f/2003/2003-50/2003-50-244.PDF">L'avis de M. Theodor Abelin, Prof. Université de Berne <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

<a href="http://www.tobacco.org/resources/dcouments/030520enstromyears.html">La liste des contacts industrie du tabac - Dr. Enstrom <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

<a href="http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/Enstrom-TC.pdf">La liste des financements du Dr. Enstrom par l'industrie (p. 119) : <img src="http://www.prevention.ch/click.gif" width="31" height="12" border="0" /></a> 

</font><table bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="center" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#000080" border="1" cellpadding="5" width="760"><tbody><tr><td align="left" width="100%"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><center><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Communiqué de Presse de Pascal Diethelm</b> 

<b>Subject: Article "explosif" du BMJ sur la fumée passive</b></font></center><center><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[img]</font></center><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
Bonjour,
Le British Medical Journal publie aujourd'hui une étude qui tendrait à démontrer que le tabagisme passif est inoffensif. Il est fort à parier que cet article sera très largement exploité et médiatisé par l'industrie du tabac, et que la presse risque de recevoir force communiqués mettant en avant ses conclusions. Hors, il se fait que cette étude a été financée par l'industrie du tabac et est totalement déficiente du point de vue scientifique. On ne comprend pas pourquoi le BMJ, l'une des plus prestigieuses revues biomédicales du monde, a accepté de publier un tel article, si ce n'est pour exposer ceux qui l'on rédigé et leurs sponsors. 
Nous joignons ci-dessous les commentaires qui émanent des milieux de santé publique américains, qui sont montés les premiers au créneau pour dénoncer cette publication. Toute information équilibrée sur ce sujet se doit donner une large place à leur prise de position, et en particulier à celle de l'American Cancer Society dont les données ont été détournées de leur but initial par les auteurs de l'article du BMJ. 
Il faut aussi noter que l'un des deux auteurs, Geoffrey Kabat, a co-signé en 1997 un article avec le Prof. Ragnar Rylander, consultant secret de Philip Morris, dont la Cour de justice de Genève a dit qu'il "n'a pas hésité à tromper le public afin de se montrer favorable au cigarettier qui le rémunérait." Une première version du travail de l'auteur principal de l'article a été sévèrement rejetée par le prestigieux Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA - copie de la lettre ci-jointe, tirée du site de Philip Morris). Le rédacteur du JAMA a observé que le travail du Dr Enstrom était un "tissu d'opinions fait d'hypothèses spéculatives de valeur scientifique douteuse". 
C'est une coincidence surprenante que cet article soit publié deux jours avant l'ouverture de l'Assemblée mondiale de la santé, au cours de laquelle le texte final du traité international de l'OMS, connu sous le nom de Convention-cadre pour la lutte antitabac doit être approuvé par les 190 pays membres de l'organisation mondiale. Le texte du traité indique notamment, dans son Article 8, que "Les Parties reconnaissent qu'il est clairement établi, sur des bases scientifiques, que l'exposition à la fumée du tabac entraîne la maladie, l'incapacité et la mort." Effectivement, l'écrasante majorité des publications traitant des effets du tabagisme passif sur la santé concluent à la haute nocivité de la fumée ambiante. Les seules rares études qui arrrivent à des conclusions contraires ont toutes été financées par l'industrie du tabac, ouvertement ou de façon occulte. 
Nous ne pouvons nous empêcher de voir dans l'article du BMJ une tentative de la dernière heure par l'industrie du tabac d'alimenter une "controverse scientifique", qui n'existe plus que dans les souhaits de cette industrie, et de polluer la litérature médicale avec une étude dont le seul but est d'affaiblir les résultats de la recherche lorsque ces résultats sont considérés dans des analyses groupées (méta-analyses). Cette tentative est naturellement vouée à terme à l'échec, comme l'ont été toutes les tentatives similaires précédentes, mais elle risque entre temps de semer le trouble dans l'esprit du public et dans celui des décideurs, trouble dont l'industrie du tabac saura, nous n'en doutons pas, tirer le meilleur parti pour prolonger ses néfastes activités. 
<b>Pascal A. Diethelm, Président d'OxyGenève</b> - 2, rue de la Fontaine - CH-1204 Genève - Suisse<a href="http://www.oxygeneve.ch/">www.oxygeneve.ch</a></font></td></tr></tbody></table><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><table bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="center" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#000080" border="1" cellpadding="5" width="760"><tbody><tr><td align="left" width="100%"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>U.S. Public Health Groups Statements re. Industry-funded<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> British Medical Journal</span> study on secondhand smoke</b> 
The new issue of the British Medical Journal includes a tobacco industry-funded study that claims to find no causal link between exposure to secondhand smoke and risk for lung cancer and coronary heart disease. The study has two major problems: It is funded by the industry and it uses flawed methodology. 
<b>
The study was funded by an industry-created organization called the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR)</b> that was disbanded under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. The U.S. Department of Justice, in January 2003 court filing in its lawsuit against the tobacco industry, said "CIAR was officially created... to act as a coordinating organization for Defendants' efforts to fraudulently mislead the American public about the health effects of ETS exposure." The Justice Department also found CAIR "funded research designed not to find answers to health questions, but solely to attack legislative initiatives related to ETS exposure." 

The study uses data from an American Cancer Society cancer prevention study despite the fact that ACS scientists repeatedly advised one of the researchers that using these data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results. The attached ACS statement (the first of the statements below) provides an excellent summary of the methodological flaws in the study. ACS concludes: "The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not." 

This<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> study's conclusions are contrary to the findings of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Public Health Service, and virtually every other major public health organization and authority. </span>The vast majority of studies of secondhand smoke have concluded that secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease, chronic lung ailments such as bronchitis and asthma, and low birth-weight births. Most industry-funded studies have concluded otherwise. 
Below are statements from the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and American Legacy Foundation and a press release from a press conference held Thursday by former Surgeon General Julius Richmond and other scientific experts. 
EDITORS: EMBARGOED UNTIL 7:00 PM EDT MAY 15, 2003 
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: David Sampson
<b>American Cancer Society </b>213 368-8523
david.sampson@cancer.org
Shawn Steward
American Cancer Society
404 417-5850
shawn.steward@cancer.org 

American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data Study Part of Organized Effort to Confuse Public About Secondhand Smoke 

ATLANTA - May 15, 2003 - The American Cancer Society today strongly criticized a misleading tobacco industry-funded study that compromises Society data by using flawed methodology to falsely conclude environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) may not affect lung cancer risk. Dr. James Enstrom, the author of the study published in the British Medical Journal, received funding from a tobacco industry group linked to coordinated attempts to confuse the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke. "We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant," said Michael J. Thun, MD, the Society's national vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research. "The American Cancer Society welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data. But this study is neither reliable nor independent." Scientific Flaws of the Study The new study uses data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I). During the course of the analysis, Society researchers repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results. 
* The analysis is based on a small subset (10%) of the CPS-I data. 

* The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not: o Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to ETS, whether or not they were married to a smoker. o No information was collected on other sources of ETS exposure besides spousal smoking. o No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years. o Study participants were, on average, 52 years old at enrollment. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow-up, yet their surviving partners are still classified as "exposed" to ETS in this analysis. o Much of the follow-up of CPS-I through 1998 pertains to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent. Study Problems Lead to Tobacco Money The study was initially funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, the group that oversees research funds earmarked from proceeds raised by California's state cigarette tax. When Dr. Enstrom was denied additional funding from the program's scientific, peer-review panel, he sought and received substantial funds from the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a tobacco company 'research group' funded by Philip Morris, among others.

<b>A confidential 1988 industry memo points to CIAR as part of a strategy to "set up a team of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">scientists organized by one national coordinating scientist and American lawyers, to... carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive</span>."</b> News of that memo was reported in the British Medical Journal, the journal publishing the current study (BMJ, May 31, 1997). In a January 15, 1997 letter, Dr. Enstrom tells Richard Carchman, PhD, Philip Morris' director of scientific affairs, that "[a] substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinion that already exists regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."

Philip Morris apparently shared doubts about his methods. An internal document dated February 6, 1997 ("Short Comments to the Proposed Research... Submitted by J.E. Enstrom") reads:<b> "Death certificates are generally considered to be not the best source of information</b>," and "the amount of money asked for seems rather high when considering the work proposed. The outcome, most probably, will not add much new scientific information." The reviewer did see at least one use for Dr. Enstrom: "The applicant seems to have good connections/resources which might be useful in the future for other issues." Dr. Enstrom received the funds.

What Is the Relationship Between Secondhand Smoke and Lung Cancer? Far more reliable data exist which clearly show an effect of secondhand smoke. One of those is a much more comprehensive study, also done by the American Cancer Society, called the Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II). CPS-II: 
* Enrolled patients in the 1980s, when there was much less exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home, and therefore far less 'background noise' 

* Is about 10 times as large as Dr. Enstrom's study 
* Has much better follow up, with more than 99% of those originally entered into the study having been successfully contacted and followed up 
* Clearly shows an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease 
"CPS-II is one of more than 50 studies now published that have shown non-smokers married to smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer," said Harmon J. Eyre, MD, the Society's national chief medical officer. "These studies have been scrutinized by multiple independent scientific consensus committees, as well as the U.S. Surgeon General, all of which certify their credibility. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the evidence and concluded secondhand or environmental tobacco smoke is carcinogenic to humans. "Bad science can haunt us for generations," added Dr. Eyre. "And regrettably, if questionable studies make it to publication, the damage is done."

The American Cancer Society is dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by saving lives, diminishing suffering and preventing cancer through research, education, advocacy and service. Founded in 1913 and with national headquarters in Atlanta, the Society has 17 regional Divisions and local offices in 3,400 communities, involving millions of volunteers across the United States. For more information anytime, call toll free 1-800-ACS-2345 or visit www.cancer.org <http www.cancer.org="">.<hr />For Immediate Release Contact: Charles Hodges Charles.Hodges@heart.org
Eric Bolton Eric.Bolton@heart.org 202-785-7900 

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>American Heart Association</b> questions validity of new second-hand smoke study Study questioning second-hand smoke's role in chronic diseases is based on flawed science </span>

WASHINGTON (May 15, 2003) - A new study about second-hand smoke and health is seriously flawed and contradicted by decades of credible scientific research that clearly and irrefutably shows a connection between passive smoking and serious health problems, according to the American Heart Association. The study, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," contends that there is little or no correlation between environmental tobacco smoke, also known as second-hand tobacco smoke, and death from various diseases like coronary heart disease and lung cancer. The study will be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal. 

"Respected, science-based organizations have agreed for over twenty years that second-hand smoke is linked to coronary heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases," said Robert O. Bonow, M.D., president of the American Heart Association. "Credible health organizations from around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization and several U.S. Surgeons General, have all concluded that second-hand smoke is responsible for thousands of deaths each year." 
Recent evidence has added to this scientific consensus. Just last month, researchers in Helena, Montana, showed that the incidence of heart attacks dropped by 60 percent following the city's adoption of a smoke-free policy in local restaurants and bars. 
Chief among the scientific concerns with the study is that the measure of exposure to second-hand smoke was whether or not a person was married to a smoker. "The conclusion that there was no measurable difference in mortality between people married to smokers and those married to non-smokers during the period 1960-1998 implies that living with a non-smoker constituted no exposure to second-hand smoke," Bonow said. 

"Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to second-hand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to second-hand smoke, whether or not they were married to a smoker," said Bonow. This is especially true for data from the 1960s, the 1970s, and even the 1980s, because of the prevalence of second-hand smoke in many venues outside the home, such as offices, restaurants, bars, even airlines and trains, during these decades. Indeed, the concept of "environmental tobacco smoke" was not even acknowledged at the time this study was begun. 
Another concern about the study involves its source of funding. The authors received funding from the tobacco industry. "Although acceptance of tobacco industry funding does not, in and of itself, prove malicious intent or incompetent research, when the result of that funding is a study that offers conclusions contrary to the consensus of the world's scientific community, it may be necessary to question whether the design of the study was adequate and appropriate. It would seem the only studies that have not found a correlation between second-hand smoke and heart disease and lung cancer are those funded by the tobacco industry," Bonow concluded.<hr />EMBARGOED UNTIL 7 PM EDT, MAY 15, 2003 CONTACT: Abby Nash 
212/315-8814 

Statement of John L. Kirkwood, President and CEO 

<b>American Lung Association 
</b>
American Lung Association Questions Credibility Of Tobacco Industry-Funded Study on Secondhand Smoke 
Tobacco industry-funded researchers writing in today's British Medical Journal claim that nonsmokers living with smokers are not at increased risk of developing serious health problems. This contention runs counter to a large body of credible research linking exposure to secondhand smoke to respiratory illness, lung cancer and heart disease. Consider the source. The study was funded by tainted money from Big Tobacco - Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard - through the Center for Indoor Air Research, which was so spurious that it was disbanded under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. The lead researcher, Geoffrey Kabat, has well-known ties to the tobacco industry. This study used good data from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and, according to the ACS itself, distorted it. Not surprisingly, the study was funded by the same people who in 1994 stood before Congress and swore that "tobacco is not addictive," and now they want the public to believe that "secondhand smoke is not harmful." Their latest pack of lies should not be believed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a body of the World Health Organization, have all concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. CalEPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 35,000 to 62,000 deaths each year. Sadly, some smokers will see this study as an excuse to continue to smoke around their families. The bogus study also may be used by policymakers to dismiss efforts to enact laws to protect everyone from secondhand smoke. People who live with smokers are at increased risk. They should take no comfort in the latest data manipulations being promoted by tobacco industry-funded researchers. We are greatly concerned about the death and disease caused by secondhand smoke. The American Lung Association, now in its second century of existence, will use expanded means through policy, research and education to address scientific misinformation put forth on secondhand smoke. 

The American Lung Association has been fighting lung disease for nearly 100 years. With the generous support of the public and the help of volunteers, we have seen many advances against lung disease. However, our work is not finished. As we look forward to our second century, we will continue to strive to make breathing easier for everyone through programs of education, community service, advocacy, and research. The American Lung Association's activities are supported by donations to Christmas Sealâ and other voluntary contributions. You may obtain additional information via the American Lung Association Web site at <a href="http://www.lungusa.org/">http://www.lungusa.org</a>.<hr />EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE CONTACT: Joel Spivak 7 p.m. EDT May 15, 2003 202-296-5469 
Statement of Matthew L. Myers, President
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
New Study on Secondhand Smoke
Is Based on Flawed Science and Funded by the Tobacco Industry 

WASHINGTON, DC (May 15, 2003) - A study being published today that claims to show there is no link between exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer is based on flawed science and, not surprisingly, is funded by the tobacco industry. This study's conclusions are contrary to the findings of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Public Health Service, and virtually every other major public health organization and authority in the United States. These scientific authorities and the vast majority of studies of secondhand smoke have concluded that secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease, chronic lung ailments such as bronchitis and asthma (particularly in children), and low birth-weight births. Like the new study, which is being published in the British Medical Journal, almost every study that has concluded secondhand smoke does not cause disease has been funded by the tobacco industry. 

The new study must be placed in the context of the tobacco industry's long history of funding junk science aimed at discrediting legitimate studies about secondhand smoke and sowing doubt and confusion among the public, the media and policy makers. In fact, the tobacco industry organization that funded the new study - the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) - was created for the very purpose of spearheading these deceptive industry efforts and was shut down by the state attorneys general as part of the 1998 state tobacco settlement. In January 29, 2003 court filings to support its racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry, the U.S. Department of Justice stated, "CIAR was officially created ... to act as a coordinating organization for Defendants' efforts to fraudulently mislead the American public about the health effects of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure." The Justice Department also stated that CIAR "was not only used for litigation and public relations, but it was [sp] also funded research designed not to find answers to health questions, but solely to attack legislative initiatives related to ETS exposure. Lawyers specifically engineered and constructed scientific studies to get results that would be useful for public relations, litigation, and legislative battles, as opposed to results that would assist the scientific community in further understanding the health effects of ETS exposure." (Brackets added.) 

It is a tremendous disservice to the public, the scientific community and the media that the tobacco industry's funding of the new study and the involvement of CIAR were disclosed only in the fine print at the end of the study. In addition to CIAR's involvement, the fine print also notes that one of the researchers "conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients." 

The new study analyzed data from an American Cancer Society cancer prevention study and tracked 118,094 California adults from 1959 to 1998. The American Cancer Society has stated that its scientists repeatedly advised one of the researchers that using these data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results. According to the Cancer Society, "The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not." Among its methodological problems, the study used a flawed measure of exposure to secondhand smoke based on whether a non-smoker was married to a smoker in 1959, when smoking was much more pervasive than today and non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke in most workplaces and other settings. It did not collect information on other forms of exposure to secondhand smoke or fully track changes in exposure in the home over time. (For more information on the American Cancer Society's analysis, please contact David Sampson at 213-368-8523). 
A larger and more recent study, which was also based on American Cancer Society data and began in the 1980s, when there was less exposure to secondhand smoke outside the home, clearly showed an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. Based on a review of more than 3,000 studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, concluded in June 2002 that there is a "statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes." The IARC also found that "epidemiological studies have demonstrated that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is causally associated with coronary heart disease." (Summaries of studies on the health harms of secondhand smoke can be found at www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0103.pdf <http www.tobaccofreekids.org="" research="" factsheets="" pdf="">.) 
It is not surprising that the new study is being published as a growing number of governments in the United States, Britain and around the world are enacting smoke-free indoor workplace policies to protect workers and customers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. In addition to protecting non-smokers, such measures are proven effective at preventing non-smokers from starting to smoke and spurring smokers to quit or reduce smoking, all of which reduce cigarette sales and hurt the tobacco industry's bottom line. State and local governments should act on the vast majority of studies showing the health harms of secondhand smoke, not on studies funded by the tobacco industry, and protect the public's right to breathe clean, smoke-free air. 
Nicole Dueffert Assistant Manager, Media Relations
Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids 1400 I Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20005 - USA - 202-296-5469 (p) - 202-296-5427 (f) <a href="http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/">www.tobaccofreekids.org</a></http></http></font></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BS</font></div><div><h1 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ACSH</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> advisor asks: “What is the EPA hiding?”</span></font></h1><div class="authorline" style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Posted on</span> <a href="http://acsh.org/2013/09/acsh-advisor-asks-what-is-the-epa-hiding/" title="12:59 pm" rel="bookmark" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">September 24, 2013</a> <span class="meta-sep" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">by</span> <span class="author vcard" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="url fn n" href="http://acsh.org/author/admin/" title="View all posts by admin" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">admin</a></span></font></div><div class="pf-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-24-at-12.58.10-PM.png" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><img class="alignleft wp-image-62509" alt="Screen Shot 2013-09-24 at 12.58.10 PM" src="http://acsh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-24-at-12.58.10-PM-150x150.png" width="120" height="120" style="margin-top: 10px !important; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 20px !important; margin-left: 8px; padding: 0px; border: 4px solid black; display: inline; float: left;" /></a>
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A big shoutout to ACSH advisor (and junk science debunker extraordinaire)</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Dr. </span></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Geoffrey Kabat</a><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> for </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/09/23/what-is-really-at-stake-in-the-republican-partys-subpoena-of-epa-data/" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">his recent <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes</em> op-ed</a><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> entitled “What Is Really At Stake In The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subpoena Of EPA Data.”</span></span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This time, Dr. Kabat, a Senior Epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a member of ACSH’s scientific advisory panel, takes on the “science” of air pollution regulation. In reality, the science is really based on politics — something that he regularly writes about.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In particular, Dr. Kabat asks whether the EPA’s regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act—first passed in 1963, and amended multiple times—is based on science.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He says, “For the first time in 21 years the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a subpoena requiring the EPA to hand over the data from two scientific studies, which provide the basis for most of the regulations.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Why is this necessary? It would seem that the reason is purely bureaucratic and political.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kabat continues, “According to the committee’s chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R – TX), the subpoena comes after nearly two years of requests for EPA to make the data available.  He argues that the scientific evidence used to justify new regulations that will cost billions of dollars should be accessible to independent researchers and other groups, rather than hinging on the analysis and interpretation of a small group of academic researchers.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom comments, “Fighting the pollution of science by special-interest groups and politics is one of the guiding principles upon which ACSH was founded. Dr. Kabat’s op-ed is a fine example of what we deal with all the time. I encourage you to read it, although any idealists out there who still believe that sound science is reliably transformed into sound policy better have a strong stomach.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">http://acsh.org/2013/09/acsh-advisor-asks-what-is-the-epa-hiding/</span></font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">huffpo college</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-kissel/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/speakers.cfm?Cat=11</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">bruce fein</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Adam Kissel </b>graduated from <b>Harvard University and from the University of Chicago,</b> where he served as Student Liaison to the Board of Trustees and earned a master's degree from the <b>Committee on Social Thought.</b> Over five years at the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)</span>, he has spoken about free speech, religious liberty, academic freedom, and due process on college campuses in more than 15 states, at CPAC, and for professional and community organizations. His academic interests include the<b> history and theory of liberal education and rhetoric's relationship</b> with philosophy. He also has served as a professional editor for Nobel laureate James Heckman and for faculty in a variety of disciplines. In recent years, Mr. Kissel won a First Prize in education reporting from the National Education Writers Association and was named a “Champion of the First Amendment” at Iowa State University. He now works in<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> higher education philanthropy in the D.C. area.</span></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Cost: $1,000 negotiable; prefers to make own travel arrangements</div><div>
</div><div>Invite Adam to your campus!</div><div> </div><div>Topics: Academic Freedom Constitution Education Free Speech Religious Liberty</div><div>also kchsucker</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>http://www<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.wsj.</span>com/articles/SB105303450520004600</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><div class="clearfix byline-wrap" style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><div class="byline" style="margin: 0px 150px 2px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 2.2rem; position: relative; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">By</span> </font><div class="author hasMenu" data-scrim="{" type="type" author="author" header="header" marilyn="Marilyn" chase="Chase" subhead="subhead" the="The" wall="Wall" street="Street" journal="Journal" list="list" itemscope="" itemprop="author" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block; position: relative; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: 600; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">MARILYN CHASE</span> and</font></div><div class="author hasMenu" data-scrim="{" type="type" author="author" header="header" vanessa="Vanessa" o="O" apos="apos" connell="Connell" subhead="subhead" the="The" wall="Wall" street="Street" journal="Journal" list="list" itemscope="" itemprop="author" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block; position: relative; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><span itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: 600; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">VANESSA O'CONNELL</span> Staff Reporters of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Wall Street Journal</span></div></div><time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Updated May 16, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2003 </span>12:01 a.m. ET</font></time></div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A newly released study claiming that the danger of secondhand smoke is greatly overstated has provoked protests from antismoking advocates.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>According to the study, which will appear in the prestigious <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">British Journal of Medicine,</span> exposure to secondhand smoke had no significant effect on death rates from lung cancer or heart disease.</b> The rates were similar for those with spouses who smoked and those with nonsmoking spouses, the study found.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the study, which was conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, was funded by tobacco industry money and has a long and tangled history. Its release coincides with efforts on the local and state level to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places on the basis that secondhand smoke poses a safety hazard in the workplace.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As word of the study's findings began to circulate, antismoking activists released a barrage of data showing the health dangers of secondhand smoke. The American Cancer Society's top epidemiologist, Michael Thun, called the paper "critically flawed" and "<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">a bad study in a good journal.</span>" Sidney Smith, a past president of the American Heart Association, added: "This won't change my advice to my patients."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to experts in the fields of cancer and heart disease, existing research shows that secondhand smoke boosts cancer and heart disease mortality by 10% to 30%. A 2002 summary of 58 studies by the International Agency for Research on Cancer blames exposure to secondhand smoke for a 22% increased risk of lung-cancer death in women and a 36% higher risk in men.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"There's definitely a dispute on passive smoking," says George Davey Smith, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol in Britain whose editorial accompanied the new study's results. "The effects from passive smoke are small -- nobody says they are large, especially compared to active smoking. That means you need huge numbers and large studies to demonstrate the health effects epidemiologically."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This remains a contentious issue, where the science has been challenged on multiple occasions," agrees Terry Pechacek, associate director for science at the office on smoking and health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. But, he says, the risks are well documented in the scientific evidence.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" style="" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The new study dates back to 1959, when the American Cancer Society assembled one million Americans for study. [Framington? Selzer?]</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> James Enstrom</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, now a researcher at the UCLA School of Public Health and the study's lead author, began working with the society's data in 1988, eventually using funding from Proposition 99, a citizen's initiative that set aside California tobacco-tax money to fund health research. Dr. Enstrom was trying to update the data on the Californians in the study, eventually following 35,561 nonsmoking Californians through 1998.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But when the society found out that Dr. Enstrom wanted to use the data to determine the dangers of secondhand smoke, it urged him not to, saying that any conclusions would be misleading</span>. For one thing, in 1959, secondhand smoke was ubiquitous in planes, bars, restaurants and the workplace as well as homes. As a result, even study volunteers married to nonsmokers could have been exposed to hefty amounts of passive smoke. Moreover, many of the subjects could have died, quit smoking or ended their marriages during the follow-up period but were still classified as being married to smokers.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Despite the warnings, Dr. Enstrom kept working with the data. "He just plowed on," says Dr. Thun of the Cancer Society. When the Prop 99 money dried up, Dr. Enstrom took <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">$400,000 in grant funding from the Center for Indoor Air Research, </span>a tobacco industry group that has since been disbanded under a settlement between the tobacco industry and state attorneys general.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Cancer Society charges that Dr. Enstrom had other ties to the tobacco industry. In a 1997 letter to Richard Carchman, Phillip Morris's director of scientific affairs, Dr. Enstrom said that a "substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinion that already exists regarding the health effects of [environmental tobacco smoke] and active smoking."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And in a letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Carchman wrote to Dr. Enstrom on Jan. 30, 1998: "Dear Jim, Philip Morris is pleased to enclose the second installment in the amount of $75,000 for a grant totaling $150,000" for a separate study on low levels of active smoking and mortality.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Enstrom isn't a medical doctor but holds a<b> Ph.D. in physics</b>. He also holds a <b>master's degree in public health and did postdoctoral training in epidemiology at UCLA. </b>"I'm putting my reputation on the line," he says, adding that he doesn't smoke and doesn't allow smoking at home.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Before being accepted by the British Journal of Medicine, the study was<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> rejected by the New England Journal of Medicine</span> and the American Journal of Epidemiology.</b> "The decision to publish a paper is only taken after careful consideration and following a strict submission process, which includes peer review," says Franca Tranza, a spokeswoman for the British Medical Association. "It is inevitable that some research may at times be regarded as controversial."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, the British doctors group itself -- which doesn't set day-to-day Journal policy -- has denounced the study. The data were "inadequate to accurately measure passive smoking," said a statement by the association, which has been calling for a ban on smoking in public places since 1988.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 28px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: 600; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial;">Write to</span> Marilyn Chase at <a href="mailto:marilyn.chase@wsj.com" target="blank" class="icon " style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: 30px 30px; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat;">marilyn.chase@wsj.com</a> and Vanessa O'Connell at<a href="mailto:vanessa.o'connell@wsj.com" target="blank" class="icon " style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: 30px 30px; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat;">vanessa.o'connell@wsj.com</a></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://en.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">wikipedia</span>.org/wiki/James_Enstrom</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div id="mw-content-text" lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" style="direction: ltr;"><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>James Eugene Enstrom</b> (born <abbr title="circa" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; cursor: help;">c.</abbr> 1943) is an American epidemiologist who has worked at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,Los_Angeles" title="University of California, Los Angeles" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">University of California, Los Angeles</a> since 1976, where he is currently a retired researcher.<sup id="cite_ref-sketch_3-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-sketch-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-nr_4-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-nr-4" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a></sup></font></p><div id="toc" class="toc" style="line-height: 22.4px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#Education" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Education</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#Research" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Research</span></font></a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#BMJ_study_and_controversy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">BMJ study and controversy</span></font></a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#Termination" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Termination</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></font></a></li></ul></div><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><h2 style="line-height: 1.3; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Education">Education</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Enstrom&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Education" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Enstrom received his B.S. from </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Mudd_College" title="Harvey Mudd College" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Harvey Mudd College</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in 1965 in physics, and his</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> M.S. and Ph.D., also in physics, from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University" title="Stanford University" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Stanford University</a> in 1967 and 1970</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, respectively.</span><sup id="cite_ref-sketch_3-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-sketch-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> He became interested in epidemiology when conducting postdoctoral research at </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Berkeley_National_Laboratory" title="Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, when he noticed a map which showed that </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah" title="Utah" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Utah</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> had the lowest cancer incidence rate of any state in the United States.</span><sup id="cite_ref-paddock_1-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1976, he received his MPH from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,Los_Angeles" title="University of California, Los Angeles" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">University of California, Los Angeles</a> in epidemiology</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-sketch_3-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-sketch-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="line-height: 1.3; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Research">Research</span></font></h2><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 1975, Enstrom published a study which found that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon" title="Mormon" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Mormons</a> in California had lower cancer rates than did other Californians.<sup id="cite_ref-paddock_1-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a></sup>This study, like several subsequent studies by Enstrom, was funded by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cancer_Society" title="American Cancer Society" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">American Cancer Society</a> (ACS), but in 1992, the society decided to stop funding his research, leading him to<b> reluctantly</b> turn to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry" title="Tobacco industry" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">tobacco industry</a> for funding.<sup id="cite_ref-paddock_1-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a></sup> In 2008, he published a study, along with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Breslow" title="Lester Breslow" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Lester Breslow</a>, which found that Mormons had longer life expectancies than non-Mormons.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a></sup></font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="BMJ_study_and_controversy">BMJ study and controversy</span></font></h3><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline"><div><span style="line-height: 18px; white-space: nowrap;">AT LEAST TO 1975 solicited 50K$</span></div><div style="line-height: 22.4px;">
</div></span></font></div><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 1996, Enstrom requested that the tobacco industry provide him with funds to conduct research into the health effects of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking" title="Passive smoking" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">passive smoking</a>. From 1997 to 1998, he received three tobacco industry grants, the combined value of which was $700,000; most of this money was dedicated to his study on passive smoking.<sup id="cite_ref-paddock2_7-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock2-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a></sup> This study, published in <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMJ" title="BMJ" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">BMJ</a></i> in 2003,<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a></sup> used data from one of the American Cancer Society's databases, which Enstrom had requested and received from the society.<sup id="cite_ref-thacker_9-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-thacker-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a></sup> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Thun" title="Michael Thun" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael Thun</a> of the American Cancer Society criticized Enstrom for not informing the ACS that he had requested or received funding from the tobacco industry.<sup id="cite_ref-paddock2_7-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock2-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a></sup> In September 2006, the <b>ACS sent the University of California, Los Angeles a letter charging Enstrom with misrepresenting scientific evidence to deny that passive smoking was harmful</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-thacker_9-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-thacker-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a></sup></font></p><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2006, prosecutors in a federal racketeering case filed documents which stated that Enstrom had received $94,500 from the tobacco industry between 1992 and 1997.<sup id="cite_ref-paddock_1-4" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[1]</a></sup> The following year, the judge in this case, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Kessler" title="Gladys Kessler" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Gladys Kessler</a>, ruled that major tobacco companies were guilty of racketeering and misleading the public regarding the dangers of second-hand smoke, citing the paper co-authored by Enstrom in the <i>BMJ</i> as evidence of this.</span><sup id="cite_ref-paddock2_7-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-paddock2-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="line-height: 1.3; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span class="mw-headline" id="Termination" style="">Termination</span></font></h2><p style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 2010, the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health announced that it would not be rehiring Enstrom because it felt his research was "not aligned with the academic mission" of their department.</span><sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In 2012, Enstrom filed a lawsuit in federal court against UCLA in response to them terminating his position there. In the suit, Enstrom said that UCLA administrators "discriminated against Dr. Enstrom based on his ideological and political affiliations and sought to purge an academic dissenter from their ranks."</span><sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> In <b>2015, the case was settled,</b> with UCLA allowing Enstrom to use the title "retired researcher" and continue to access university resources.<sup id="cite_ref-nr_4-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_note-nr-4" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[4]</a></sup></span></font></p><h2 style="line-height: 1.3; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Enstrom&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><div class="reflist" style="line-height: 22.4px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; list-style-type: decimal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ol class="references" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: inherit;"><li id="cite_note-paddock-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock_1-0" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up to:</span><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock_1-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock_1-2" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock_1-3" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>d</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock_1-4" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>e</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Paddock, Richard C. (28 March 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"Tobacco funding of research reviewed"</a>. <i>Los Angeles Times</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">10 May</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Tobacco+funding+of+research+reviewed&rft.aulast=Paddock%2C+Richard+C.&rft.au=Paddock%2C+Richard+C.&rft.date=28+March+2007&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.latimes.com%2F2007%2Fmar%2F28%2Flocal%2Fme-tobacco28&rft.jtitle=Los+Angeles+Times&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-2" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://acsh.org/about-acsh/meet-the-team/james-e-enstrom-ph-d-m-p-h/" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"James E. Enstrom"</a>. American Council on Science and Health<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">20 August</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.btitle=James+E.+Enstrom&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Facsh.org%2Fabout-acsh%2Fmeet-the-team%2Fjames-e-enstrom-ph-d-m-p-h%2F&rft.pub=American+Council+on+Science+and+Health&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-sketch-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-sketch_3-0" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up to:</span><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-sketch_3-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-sketch_3-2" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=grdx0075" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"James Eugene Enstrom Biographical Sketch"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">10 May</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.btitle=James+Eugene+Enstrom+Biographical+Sketch&rft.genre=book&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Findustrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu%2Ftobacco%2Fdocs%2F%23id%3Dgrdx0075&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-nr-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-nr_4-0" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up to:</span><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-nr_4-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">French, David (9 March 2015). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415100/victory-academic-freedom-and-defeat-junk-environmental-science-david-french" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"A Victory for Academic Freedom and a Defeat for Junk Environmental Science"</a>. <i>National Review</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">9 June</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=A+Victory+for+Academic+Freedom+and+a+Defeat+for+Junk+Environmental+Science&rft.au=French%2C+David&rft.aulast=French%2C+David&rft.date=9+March+2015&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2F415100%2Fvictory-academic-freedom-and-defeat-junk-environmental-science-david-french&rft.jtitle=National+Review&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-5" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation journal" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Enstrom, James E.; Breslow, Lester (February 2008). "Lifestyle and reduced mortality among active California Mormons, 1980–2004".<i>Preventive Medicine</i> <b>46</b> (2): 133–136. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ypmed.2007.07.030" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.030</a>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Lifestyle+and+reduced+mortality+among+active+California+Mormons%2C+1980%E2%80%932004&rft.au=Breslow%2C+Lester&rft.au=Enstrom%2C+James+E.&rft.aufirst=James+E.&rft.aulast=Enstrom&rft.date=February+2008&rft.genre=article&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.ypmed.2007.07.030&rft.issue=2&rft.jtitle=Preventive+Medicine&rft.pages=133-136&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.volume=46" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-6" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Cannon, Mark W. (13 April 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377709/UCLA-study-proves-Mormons-live-longer.html?pg=all" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"UCLA study proves Mormons live longer"</a>. <i>Deseret News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">6 September</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=UCLA+study+proves+Mormons+live+longer&rft.au=Cannon%2C+Mark+W.&rft.aulast=Cannon%2C+Mark+W.&rft.date=13+April+2010&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseretnews.com%2Farticle%2F705377709%2FUCLA-study-proves-Mormons-live-longer.html%3Fpg%3Dall&rft.jtitle=Deseret+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-paddock2-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock2_7-0" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up to:</span><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock2_7-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-paddock2_7-2" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Paddock, Richard C. (28 March 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28/2" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"Tobacco funding of research reviewed"</a>. <i>Los Angeles Times</i>. p. 2<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">10 May</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Tobacco+funding+of+research+reviewed&rft.aulast=Paddock%2C+Richard+C.&rft.au=Paddock%2C+Richard+C.&rft.date=28+March+2007&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.latimes.com%2F2007%2Fmar%2F28%2Flocal%2Fme-tobacco28%2F2&rft.jtitle=Los+Angeles+Times&rft.pages=2&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-8" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation journal" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Enstrom, JE; Kabat, GC (17 May 2003). "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.". <i>BMJ (Clinical research ed.)</i> <b>326</b> (7398): 1057. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" title="Digital object identifier" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.326.7398.1057" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier" title="PubMed Identifier" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">PMID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12750205" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">12750205</a>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Environmental+tobacco+smoke+and+tobacco+related+mortality+in+a+prospective+study+of+Californians%2C+1960-98.&rft.au=Enstrom%2C+JE&rft.aufirst=JE&rft.au=Kabat%2C+GC&rft.aulast=Enstrom&rft.date=17+May+2003&rft.genre=article&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1136%2Fbmj.326.7398.1057&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F12750205&rft.issue=7398&rft.jtitle=BMJ+%28Clinical+research+ed.%29&rft.pages=1057&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.volume=326" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-thacker-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-thacker_9-0" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up to:</span><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-thacker_9-1" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><sup style="line-height: 1;"><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Thacker, Paul D. (8 February 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/08/regents" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"Tobacco on Trial in California"</a>. <i>Inside Higher Education</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">10 May</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Tobacco+on+Trial+in+California&rft.aulast=Thacker%2C+Paul+D.&rft.au=Thacker%2C+Paul+D.&rft.date=8+February+2007&rft.genre=article&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insidehighered.com%2Fnews%2F2007%2F02%2F08%2Fregents&rft.jtitle=Inside+Higher+Education&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-10" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Macedo, Diane (31 August 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA"</a>. <i>Fox News</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">9 June</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Scientist%27s+Firing+After+36+Years+Fuels+%27PC%27+Debate+at+UCLA&rft.aulast=Macedo%2C+Diane&rft.au=Macedo%2C+Diane&rft.date=31+August+2010&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2F2010%2F08%2F31%2Fpc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate%2F&rft.jtitle=Fox+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li><li id="cite_note-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#cite_ref-11" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up</span>^{</a></b></span> }<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web" style="word-wrap: break-word;">Gordon, Larry (15 June 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/local/la-me-ucla-20120615" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">"Researcher sues UCLA, says his firing was political"</a>. <i>Los Angeles Times</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap" style="white-space: nowrap;">9 June</span> 2015</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AJames+Enstrom&rft.atitle=Researcher+sues+UCLA%2C+says+his+firing+was+political&rft.au=Gordon%2C+Larry&rft.aulast=Gordon%2C+Larry&rft.date=15+June+2012&rft.genre=article&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.latimes.com%2F2012%2Fjun%2F15%2Flocal%2Fla-me-ucla-20120615&rft.jtitle=Los+Angeles+Times&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988" /></span></font></li></ol></div><table class="navbox" style="text-align: left; line-height: 22.4px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); width: 830px; margin: 1em auto auto; clear: both; padding: 1px; border-spacing: 0px; background: rgb(253, 253, 253);"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 2px;"><table class="nowraplinks hlist navbox-inner" style="width: 826px; border-spacing: 0px; background: transparent;"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="padding: 0.25em 1em; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: right; white-space: nowrap; background: rgb(221, 221, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Authority_control" title="Help:Authority control" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Authority control</font></a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="line-height: 1.5em; border-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 698px; padding: 0px; background: transparent;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0.125em 0px; list-style-image: url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20version%3D%221.1%22%20width%3D%225%22%20height%3D%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle%20cx%3D%222.5%22%20cy%3D%229.5%22%20r%3D%222.5%22%20fill%3D%22%2300528c%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><li style="margin: 0px; display: inline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File" title="Virtual International Authority File" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">VIAF</a>: <span class="uid"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://viaf.org/viaf/37929981" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">37929981</a></span></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li style="margin: 0px; display: inline;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Authority_File" title="Integrated Authority File" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">GND</a>: <span class="uid"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://d-nb.info/gnd/12707788X" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">12707788X</a></span></li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div id="catlinks" class="catlinks" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px; margin-top: 1em; clear: both; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category" title="Help:Category" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Categories</a>: </font><ul style="list-style: none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-style: none; padding: 0px 0.5em 0px 0.25em; zoom: 1;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1943_births" title="Category:1943 births" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1943 births</a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people" title="Category:Living people" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Living people</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Epidemiologists" title="Category:Epidemiologists" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Epidemiologists</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_California,Los_Angeles_faculty" title="Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">University of California, Los Angeles faculty</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Harvey_Mudd_College_alumni" title="Category:Harvey Mudd College alumni" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Harvey Mudd College alumni</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stanford_University_alumni" title="Category:Stanford University alumni" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Stanford University alumni</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UCLA_School_of_Public_Health_alumni" title="Category:UCLA School of Public Health alumni" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">UCLA School of Public Health alumni</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_from_Alhambra,California" title="Category:People from Alhambra, California" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">People from Alhambra, California</a></li></ul></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>daily bruin (name? libtard?)</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>
</b></font></div><div><span style="line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Epidemiologist James Enstrom’s appointment ended today because his research on air pollution did not align with the department mission and failed to reach funding requirements, according to a June 9 layoff notice from Richard Jackson, environmental health sciences department chair.</font></span><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom contended that the short explanation given for his nonreappointment is invalid and filed an appeal on Friday.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />“When (people) make an outrageous statement like my research isn’t aligned with the mission of the department … it’s patently false,” said Enstrom, who has worked at UCLA’s School of Public Health for more than 34 years.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The stated mission of the department is to study the relationship between environment and health, according to its website.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing the confidentiality of personnel issues, various representatives from the School of Public Health did not comment on the matter but emphasized that the potentially controversial content of Enstrom’s research was not the reason for his layoff.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The nature of research results, political views or popularity are not appropriate factors and are not considered when evaluating individuals for reappointment,” said Hilary Godwin, associate dean of academic programs in the School of Public Health, in a written statement.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Held in suspense</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Enstrom is anxiously anticipating this day, yet hoping for his circumstances to change.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jackson notified Enstrom he would be laid off on Feb. 10, when funding for his position would end in April. In May, the department faculty voted against his reappointment, Enstrom said. On June 9, he received a second layoff notice that extended his term to June 30.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom wrote to Linda Rosenstock, dean of the School of Public Health, arguing that he was not given the expected 60-day notice before being laid off and that funding actually did exist to support his position, contrary to Jackson’s explanation. Enstrom’s term was extended, but only until Aug. 30.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His multiple layoff notices all cite that his research is not aligned with the department’s mission.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The details of research</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom, who describes himself as a loner, has created unexpected ripples in the world of academia with his divergent research in air pollution.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He believes that as a result of publicizing his work, his department has responded by refusing his reappointment as a researcher.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In particular, his research on fine particulate air pollution in California implies that miniscule diesel particles do not have a significant effect on mortality.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>His findings contradict conventional wisdom and other studies, which contend that this type of air pollution causes thousands of deaths each year.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s plenty of data from other studies that show this is pretty dangerous,” said Dr. John Telles, a member of the California Air Resources Board, a government agency working to protect air quality.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The controversy over his research refers to his work on fine particulate air pollution, which refers to dirt, soot, chemicals and other particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom’s studies have shown that California’s mixture of chemicals in the air is different from that of the East Coast, but national standards remain based on the conditions in the East, said<b> Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at UC Irvine and has known Enstrom for years</b>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“For us (in California) to try to meet the national standard is very, very costly, and Enstrom’s study implies that it will not improve public health,” Phalen said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Phalen explained, California’s air is cleaner mainly because electricity is generated using oil, rather than coal. Most of the particulate matter in California air is natural and not as toxic, such as dust and dirt. In the East, particulate matter is more toxic because it includes coal, soot and other metals.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But standards passed down from the Environmental Protection Agency are uniform nationwide, making it more difficult and expensive for California to meet these conditions.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The analogy I can think of is, let’s say you’re a person that’s really overweight and someone says, “˜Lose 30 pounds.’ That’s the way (the air) is kind of back East,” Phalen said. “Now let’s say you’re a person who weighs 90 pounds and you have to have a national standard and you have to lose 30 pounds. That’s going to be bad.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The price of pollution</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whereas tightened requirements might force states in the East to clean up certain fuels, California may not have the same toxic materials in the air. Thus, the state has to find other particles to clean up in order to meet federal standards. Regulations in California are now clamping down on diesel trucks, since they produce more emissions than cars, Phalen said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The repercussions apply to businesses across the state, as they are required to fit their trucks with filters or buy new trucks.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom said there are many more studies supporting that these particles cause health damage but still argued that this public health finding is false, making these new expensive regulations unnecessary.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom defended his results, as UC Berkeley scientist Michael Jerrett has presented similar conclusions about the effect of fine particulate air pollution in California. Jerrett was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because Enstrom has tried to publicly highlight his results, he has stirred up far more attention than scientific research usually receives.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I tried to help these businessmen, I don’t want to see these people going out of business,” Enstrom said. “I went out of my way to bring (this study) to the attention of a lot more people.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet many other scientists have agreed with Telles, citing a number of published studies.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The weight of evidence is yes, there is an effect,” said Shane Que Hee, a fellow professor in Enstrom’s department, speaking generally about diesel pollution. “There’s maybe a degradation in effects, but the effects are still present.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Burning bridges</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom suspects his nonreappointment is in part a response to his investigation into the backgrounds of <b>Hien Tran and John Froines</b>, both of whom disputed his research findings. Enstrom discovered that Hien Tran, one of the lead <span class="caps" style="box-sizing: inherit;">CARB</span> staffers who compiled a review on diesel mortality studies, had faked his doctorate degree from UC Davis.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom was also involved in removing Froines from the Scientific Review Panel, which advises <span class="caps" style="box-sizing: inherit;">CARB</span>. Froines, another environmental health sciences professor, served on the panel for 26 years, Enstrom said. However, appointments were supposed to be limited to three years so a lawsuit was filed to enforce this rule. Froines thus had to leave the panel this year, Enstrom said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom said he believes Froines used his weight in the department to force Enstrom’s nonreappointment.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />After multiple requests, Froines still declined to comment.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to exposing Tran and Froines, Enstrom advocated for his research, regardless of the numerous studies stating that these tiny particles do make a difference on human health.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Science isn’t based on how many people vote on something, it’s based on the truth, and the truth can be determined by just one scientist,” Enstrom said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom believes he has upset a number of people in his department, as they have done research on these topics, and because he took it upon himself to make it a publicized issue.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The School of Public Health strongly maintains that research results are not part of the reappointment process.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom remains concerned about the outcome of truck regulations on business owners ““ one of the primary reasons he took up this battle.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additionally, he described worry for faculty members’ degree of freedom in expressing honest thoughts and research results, if this type of response is the result.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s sad that (the department) has chosen this approach to not allow a divergent point of view. They’re not going to tolerate dissent to the level I’ve generated it,” Enstrom said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than 20 California legislators have signed a letter to Chancellor Gene Block, highlighting their concerns about Enstrom’s situation.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Enstrom is in discussion with administration officials and is waiting for the results of his appeal.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.9rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 17.28px;">http://dailybruin.com/2010/08/30/ucla_researcher_james_enstrom_not_reappointed_to_position/</span></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">Enstrom915</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>promoted to primary 3/15, evil pending</div><div></div><div>has she finally gone too far?...Maybe this is the right time for legal action. What say you?”</div><div>
</div><div>The cry for help got an immediate response. Monckton offered to help draft a legal complaint against Oreskes.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who dismisses the public health dangers of air pollution, advised Singer he had “a very strong case” for complaining to Oreskes’s employers.</span></div><div>
</div><div>“I suggest you attack Oreskes by filing short grievances with Harvard and Stanford,” Enstrom wrote.</div><div>
</div><div><b>“Good thought,” Singer said.</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>[Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre</div><div> Read more]</div><div>
</div><div>By 6 March, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Singer had moved on to challenging Kenner </span>directly, raising the prospect of legal action. In a letter, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">he claimed he was called “a liar for hire” in the documentary.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The phrase does not appear in the film, Kenner said. However, it does appear in media coverage of the film.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“I have some experience with libel suits,” [grad student?!] Singer writes in the letter. “I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail.”</span></div><div>
</div><div>He goes on to criticise Kenner for basing his film on the Oreskes book, saying: “It is rather too bad that you got mixed up with Naomi Oreskes. She claims to be a historian of science; unfortunately, she has only demonstrated that she’s a great polemicist with a rather well-defined bias.”</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>On 9 March, Enstrom also wrote to Kenner, echoing Singer’s claims.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“I am concerned that your film makes statements about Dr Singer that could be considered defamatory,” he wrote. “Because your film is based on the book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ by Naomi Oreskes, PhD, you need to know about her contentious and controversial background.”</span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Enstrom</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> called on Kenner to arrange a debate between Oreskes and Willie Soon, the Harvard-Smithsonian researcher exposed for taking industry funding, when his film is screened in Boston later this month.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Singer did not respond to requests for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>interesting to use Enstrom to debunk myth of brave dissenting scientist being punished (vs Hayes, you're own your own]</div><div>
</div><div>wow how went from linus pauling and wheat germ vit E to dark side? got prop 99 $ at first, but then went to tobacco industry</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Pauling1975.pdf  foto</div><div>
</div><div>2005 brit study , 2010 fired from ucla</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study</span> was initially funded by a grant from the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program, an organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition 99 California state cigarette tax. After the program’s scientific, peer-review panel, denied continued funding for the project, Enstrom sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted an application for,6 and ultimately received,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> $210,000 from Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco Research (</span>CTR)7,8,9, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on smoking and health.10 It became well known over the years for sponsoring flimsy scientific research that promoted tobacco industry positions.</div><div>
</div><div>THE AUTHORS</div><div>
</div><div>“For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for Jeffery L. Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.”</div><div>
</div><div>-- Dr. James Enstrom to the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Center of Indoor Air Research</span>11</div><div>
</div><div>Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has received from the tobacco industry, but his involvement with the industry can be traced back for many years. As early as 1975, Enstrom solicited the CTR for $50,000 to “assess the possible role which other factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer.”1</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Summary Biography</div><div>
</div><div>December 21, 2013</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">linkedin.</span>com/pub/james-enstrom/10/530/59</div><div>
</div><div>In 1965 Dr. Enstrom graduated co-valedictorian of his class at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA, where he obtained a B.S. in <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">physics.</span> In 1970 Dr. Enstrom obtained his Ph.D. in elementary particle physics at Stanford University from Nobel Laureate Melvin Schwartz. During 1971-1973 he worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in research group o<b>f Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez</b>. He then came to the UCLA School of Public Health as a postdoctoral fellow in cancer epidemiology and received an M.P.H. and postdoctoral certificate in 1976 from renown public health epidemiologist Dr. Lester Breslow.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He then joined the UCLA School of Public Health faculty as a Research Professor / Researcher and he held that position for 36 years until June 2012.</span> He currently retains a similar affiliation with UCLA, although he is now drawing retirement. He has been a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology since 1981, he has been listed in Who’s Who in America since 1990, and he has been President of the Scientific Integrity Institute since 2005.</div><div>
</div><div>During his long career, he has explored many important epidemiological issues, particularly focusing on California. A major theme of his research has been identifying lifestyle factors which reduce mortality from cancer and heart disease and increase longevity. An example is his long-term study of religiously active California <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mormons.</span> Their healthy lifestyle, which includes avoidance of tobacco and alcohol and emphasis on education and marriage, results in an increase in longevity of about 10 years.</div><div>
</div><div>He has also examined the influence of environmental factors on mortality. In <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">December 2005 he published a major paper on fine particulate matter and mortality in California. Since then he has conclusively documented that fine particulate matter does not cause premature death in California</span></div><div>
</div><div> (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ASAS092812.pdf) . Since <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>August 1, 2013</b> he has been assisting the US House Science Committee with its<b> subpoena of the secret science data that EPA</b> has used to improperly justify its fine particulate and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and related regulations in California and the United States.<b> E&E? circa 2012 doc</b></span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He has an ongoing <b>Federal [?] </b>lawsuit against UCLA </span>in order to resolve the issues associated with his academic freedom and his faculty position at UCLA (http://thefire.org/article/15587.html).</div><div>
</div><div>Contact: jenstrom@<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ucla.edu</span></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><b>BS</b></div><div>
</div><div>By Will Creeley March 26, 2013</div><div>
</div><div>After 35 years of employment, and many years of disagreement over research on air pollution and its implications for environmental regulations, Dr. James E. Enstrom, assisted by the <b>American Center for Law and Justice, </b>filed a federal lawsuit against various University of California and UCLA administrators in June 2012. Enstrom’s complaint alleged that UCLA had refused to reappoint him after he engaged in successful <b>whistleblowing</b> against a member of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences.  </div><div>
</div><div>Last week, a federal district court issued an encouraging ruling in Enstrom’s case. On March 18, United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal signed an order denying some defendants’ motions to dismiss Enstrom’s First Amendment retaliation claims. [looks like all nearly all, dismissed just the bookkeeping stuff left?] 14 days to refile? result?</div><div>
</div><div>Specifically, Judge Bernal’s ruling denies motions to dismiss Enstrom’s First Amendment claims against former Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel Thomas Rice and Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel Carole Goldberg. The ruling further grants Enstrom leave to amend his complaint’s First Amendment claims against UC President Mark Yudof, UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block, Dean of the UCLA School of Public Health Linda Rosenstock, and UCLA administrator Barbara Housel. (Department Chair Richard Jackson and former School of Public Health Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Hilary Godwin did not challenge Enstrom’s complaint, at least on the grounds that others did, which was that Enstrom had supposedly failed to plead specific facts to support his claims.) <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">To sum this up, some of Enstrom’s First Amendment claims are going forward, and none of them are permanently off the table. </span></div><div>
</div><div>Judge Bernal also found that Enstrom may have a due process right to an accounting of how UCLA spent the research and grant funds he brought into the university. Accordingly, the judge denied the motions by Jackson, Godwin, and Housel to dismiss Enstrom’s due process claim and granted him leave to amend his complaint with respect to this claim against other defendants. </div><div>
</div><div>In other words, Enstrom’s case will proceed, having cleared an important early hurdle. As<b> former FIRE President and current ACLJ senior counsel David French</b> observed, this is an important step toward vindicating Enstrom’s rights. </div><div>
</div><div>Torch readers will be familiar with Enstrom’s case, which we’ve been covering since 2010, when Enstrom came to FIRE for help. FIRE wrote UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block on August 26, 2010, pointing out that it is unconstitutional to refuse to rehire a faculty member because of his protected expression. FIRE also assisted Enstrom with internal grievances at UCLA and ultimately helped him win two additional years at UCLA. </div><div>
</div><div>Here’s the full story of Enstrom’s ordeal, as explained in the press release we issued after Enstrom filed suit last year: </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom has worked at UCLA as a researcher and professor since 1976, being rehired consistently each year until his ordeal began. Beginning in 2004, he worked in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS). Over the years, he and a few of his colleagues have sometimes disagreed strongly about research on environmental health issues—for example, on the extent of the threat to public health posed b<b>y certain </b>air pollutants, a topic of Enstrom’s research which has been the subject of intense debate in California because of its implications for state environmental regulations.  </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom also was a successful whistleblower whose activism led to fellow EHS faculty member John Froines being replaced on a panel for the California Air Resources Board (CARB)[b/c of term limit, not misconduct]. Several members of the panel, including Froines, had been serving beyond the three-year legal limit on their terms of office, and Enstrom’s whistleblowing provided part of the grounds for a June 2009 lawsuit on the issue. Enstrom also blew the whistle on a fake Ph.D. degree claimed by a CARB researcher.</div><div>
</div><div>UCLA’s retaliation against Enstrom first became apparent in December 2009, when Enstrom discovered that UCLA had cut off his salary fund and charged his salary against his research funds without his knowledge. In February 2010, Environmental Health Sciences Chair Richard J. Jackson told Enstrom that UCLA was laying him off. Enstrom fought back and kept his job. </div><div>
</div><div>After UCLA’s first attempt failed, Enstrom learned of further retaliation in June 2010 when the EHS faculty (including Froines) voted not to rehire him because his<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> "research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department.</span>" UCLA also invoked vague and previously unmentioned "minimum requirements," even though his research output was similar to or greater than that of other professors in his department. Enstrom learned he was going to be "indefinitely laid off" effective June 30, 2010.  </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom has demonstrated that his research on environmental health is fully aligned with EHS’ research mission of furthering <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"extremely interdisciplinary"</span> research "at the interface between human health and the environment." </div><div>
</div><div>And here’s a video produced by<b> ReasonTV l</b>ast year focusing on Enstrom’s case: trucking, CARB 9 min "Green Regulation Machine" 2k premature deaths, enstron says zero; he says largest study (76K?)</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>2006 study hien tran phd stats from thornhill notUCD, but actually from cf mary D  nichols CARB chair ucla</div><div>
</div><div>froines 26 yrs ucla (implies fired in retliation for "whistleblow"</div><div>
</div><div>whitney 15K muffler truck work 5k the wheels</div><div>
</div><div>phelen uci health effects lab  job loss hurts public health</div><div>
</div><div>34 yrs at ucla? kissel</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div><div>Max Eisenberg, Ph.D. - Center for Indoor Air Research</div><div>
</div><div>CENTER FOR INDOOR AIR RESEARCH</div><div> </div><div>According to the minutes of a meeting of the Tobacco Institute's Executive Committee, the Center for Indoor Air Research was initially formed and funded by Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds to "sponsor and foster research in indoor air issues with emphasis on environmental tobacco smoke."</div><div>(http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/; accessed 5/15/02)</div></div><div><table width="570" border="0" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr><td width="520"><h2>The Tobacco Institute's Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR)</h2><p>  December 10, 1987</p></td></tr><tr><td width="50"> </td><td width="520"><a href="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p1.gif"><img src="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p1a.gif" align="LEFT" width="100" height="132" border="1" /></a>
<b>Summary of Image</b>
Page One
"A meeting of the Executive Committee of The Tobacco Institute, Inc., was held at 8:30 a.m. on December 10, 1987... the meeting afforded an opportunity for the presentation of a proposal for the formal organization of a research organization to deal with issues relating to indoor air quality."
[click on image to enlarge to full size -- 11K]<p>
</p></td></tr><tr><td width="50"> </td><td width="520"><a href="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p2.gif"><img src="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p2a.gif" align="LEFT" width="100" height="132" border="1" /></a>
<b>Summary of Image</b>
Page Two
"Dr. Osdene, in opening the presentation, stated that an industry program for research on indoor air quality is already ongoing, with representatives of most of the cigarette manufactures participating... a basic aspect of the program would be to broaden research into the field of indoor air quality generally and to expand interest beyond the misplaced emphasis solely on environmental tobacco smoke."
[click on image to enlarge to full size -- 15K]<p>
</p></td></tr><tr><td width="50"> </td><td width="520"><a href="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p3.gif"><img src="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p3a.gif" align="LEFT" width="100" height="132" border="1" /></a>
<b>Summary of Image</b>
Page Three
"In the ensuing discussion there was a clear consensus that further research on indoor air quality was desirable."
[click on image to enlarge to full size -- 15K]<p>
</p></td></tr><tr><td width="50"> </td><td width="520"><a href="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p4.gif"><img src="http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/p4a.gif" align="LEFT" width="100" height="132" border="1" /></a>
<b>Summary of Image</b>
Page Four
"The representatives of R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris stated that their companies would participate in the CIAR and expressed the hope that the other companies also would join in the effort."
[click on image to enlarge to full size -- 13K]<p>
</p></td></tr><tr><td width="50"> </td><td width="520"><p>BACKGROUND NOTE: By 1987, the issue of secondhand smoke was heating up. The tobacco industry had to find a way to deal with it. Noting the lack of published studies showing that secondhand smoke was harmless, the Tobacco Institute commissioned "studies" that were done with obvious allies. The results of these studies (predictably) favored the tobacco industry. Problem was, when the time came for the Institute to present the results to the press, they found they had no credibility. Here is an example from the first page of a 1987 Tobacco Institute memo:</p><blockquote><p>Yesterday morning, the Texas Association of Wholesale Distributors and the Tobacco Institute held a news conference in Dallas to release the results of an environmental smoke study...The highly favorable results of the study were reviewed at our meeting last week....Questioning at the conference was skeptical but not hostile. The Institute's open sponsorship of the study affected the credibility of the results...
(http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025855771/5772)</p></blockquote><p>The lack of credibility was exasperating for the industry. Worse yet, they could not get respected scientists to do work for them, because of the stigma associated with doing research for the tobacco industry.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The industry was stuck. It needed favorable research (and/or research that would effectively muddy the waters on the secondhand smoke issues), AND have it emanate from a reputable, prestigious source. To solve this dilemma, several cigarette companies colluded to form a scientific front group called the Center for Indoor Air Research or CIAR.</span></p><p>CIAR was initially formed and funded by Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, in late 1987-early 1988. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The formation of CIAR was kept confidential. Many of the documents about hiring staff and recruiting scientists for it were stamped "confidential."</span> Much of the work to form CIAR was conducted through<b> Philip Morris' law firm, Covington and Burling</b>, which allowed documents to be labeled "Attorney Work Product." That helped keep the origin of CIAR under wraps. A proposed budget was put together by Peter Sparber (whom you will remember was responsible for creating the TI's anti-insurance industry program featured a few Daily Documents back). John Rupp, an attorney with Covington and Burling, was hired to recruit other tobacco companies around the world to join (translated: help fund and spread the work of) CIAR.</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">CIAR had to operate "at arm's length" from the industry so the Tobacco Institute incorporated it as a completely separate, non-profit entity. They rented separate offices for it (near other respected scientific agencies) and hired a separate executive director. The purpose of CIAR was to give grants to scientists who would in turn do research, produce and publish studies that would bolster the industry's arguments against regulation of environmental tobacco smoke. Another <b>goal was the eventual creation of its own scientific journal,</b> the contents of which could be controlled completely by the tobacco industry.</span></p><p>The following document belies the real purpose behind the Center for Indoor Air Research:</p><blockquote><p><b>Quotes:</b>
A meeting of the executive committee of the Tobacco Institute, Inc. was held at 8:30 am on December 10, 1987, at the Park Lane Hotel, New York, New York. The following members of the Executive Committee were present: Frank E. Resnick, Chairman, Thomas F. Ahrensfeld, Vice Chairman, J. Robert Ave., Paul C. Bergson, K.V.R. Dey, Jr., Gerald H. Long, Josiah S. Murray, III, Ernest Pepples, Arthur J. Stevens. There were also present Dr. Alexander W. Spears of<b> Lorillard</b>, Inc., Guy L. Smith IV of <b>Philip Morris</b> Incorporated; Samuel Chilcote, Jr. President of The Institute and <b>Stanley L. Temko, of counsel to the Institute.</b></p><p>The Chairman stated that the meeting afforded an opportunity for the presentation of a proposal for the formal organization of a research organization to deal with issues relating to indoor air quality. He said that the matter had been under discussion for some time and that the proposal would be presented by...Tom L. Ogburn and Dr. Charles Green of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Dr. Thomas Osdene of Philip Morris Incorporated.</p><p>Mr. Ogburn summarized the objectives of the program and the strategies for its development. A basic aspect of the program would be to broaden research in the field of indoor air quality generally and expand interest beyond the misplaced emphasis solely on environmental tobacco smoke. As outlined by Mr. Ogburn, the new organization would sponsor and foster research on indoor air issues with emphasis on environmental tobacco smoke, and also would communicate research findings to the broad scientific community...</p></blockquote><p>Title: The Tobacco Institute, Inc. Minutes of meeting of the Executive Committee, December 10, 1987, New York, New York. [confidential]
Type of Document: Minutes
Author: Temko, SL - acting secretary of the Tobacco Institute
Date: 19871210
Site: Tobacco Institute document site http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/
Bates No. TIMN0014390/4393
Page Count: 4
URL:
http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=TIMN0014390/4393</p><p>source: Anne Landman, Regional Program Coordinator
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>see<b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">kabat (gmu) stats</span></b></div><div>
</div><div>sr epidem</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Albert Einstein College of Medicine</div><div>Department of Epidemiology and Population Health</div><div>1300 Morris Park Avenue</div><div>Bronx, NY 10461 </div><div>E-mail: geoffrey.kabat@einstein.yu.edu</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>[Now in its second century, Yeshiva University is the oldest and most comprehensive educational institution under Jewish auspices in America. It is an independent university that ranks among the nation's leading academic research institutions and, reflecting the time-honored tradition of Torah Umadda, provides the highest quality Jewish and secular education of any Jewish university in the world. Since its inception the University has been dedicated to melding the ancient traditions of Jewish law and life with the heritage of Western civilization, and each year we celebrate as future leaders make YU their home.]</div><div>
</div><div>Montefiore to takeover Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx</div><div>A deal is in the works to transfer day-to-day operations and financial management of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Morris Park from Yeshiva University to healthcare giant Montefiore.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/montefiore-talks-takeover-einstein-college-article-1.1809100#ixzz37llpQTl4</div><div>
</div><div><b>My interests include a range of environmental and lifestyle exposures that may play a role in the development of various cancers,</b> either as risk factors or protective factors. Major focuses include the following: 1) the roles of tobacco and alcohol in cancers of different sites; this includes the earliest studies of use of mentholated cigarettes in relation to risk of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract and early studies of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; 2) the roles of diet and specific nutrients in relation to the risk of various cancers, including glycemic index/glycemic load and intake of iron and heme iron, antioxidants, and B-vitamins; 3) risk factors for lung cancer in people who have never smoked; 4) exposure to endogenous hormones (including estrogens and insulin), hormone therapy, and metabolic factors; and 5) the role of obesity, anthropometric factors (including body mass index, waist circumference, and height), and physical activity in relation to the risk of different cancers.</div><div>
</div><div>Book</div><div>The media constantly bombard us with news of health hazards lurking in our everyday lives. But many of these alleged hazards turn out to have been greatly overblown. Starting from the premise that <b>health scares </b>must be understood as "social facts," in HYPING HEALTH RISKS, I explore a variety of factors contributing to the inflating of miniscule risks and emphasize the importance of focusing on exposures and behaviors that have a palpable effect on health.</div><div> </div><div>HYPING HEALTH RISKS: ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IN DAILY LIFE AND THE SCIENCE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Columbia University Press, 2008.</span></div><div> </div><div>For more information go to: www.hypinghealthrisks.com</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div> </div><div></div><div>kabat</div><div>
</div><div>Summary</div><div>
</div><div>For thirty years I have been involved in primary research on the causes of cancer and have published extensively on a wide range of environmental and lifestyle exposures thought to contribute to the risk of specific cancers. Knowledge derived from epidemiology holds tremendous potential for reducing the toll of cancer and other chronic diseases.</div><div>
</div><div>At the same time, there is considerable confusion about what factors actually have an important impact on health. Too often, hypothetical risks become the focus of attention in the media and regulatory agencies and get blown out of proportion, causing needless anxiety and distracting people from well-established and important factors that they can actually do something to modify.</div><div>
</div><div>We are faced with enormous societal issues regarding health, health care costs, energy, and the environment. But, all too often, certain aspects of these issues get focused on, and other crucial aspects get ignored. Examples of high-profile issues that are highly contested and on which the relevant information can be skewed are: the future of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">nuclear power (following the<b> Fukushima</b> incident in Japan),<b> hydraulic fracturing</b> to exploit natural gas deposits, and the health effects of extremely low-level exposures to chemicals such as <b>bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates, and various pesticides.</b></span></div><div>
</div><div>In a recent book and articles, I have attempted to demonstrate how crucial it is to put aside political ideology and to critically assess all of the relevant scientific evidence to arrive at a dispassionate assessment of what is firmly known on a specific topic and what uncertainties remain. Such assessment is essential to the process of formulating sound policy and putting specific issues in perspective.</div><div>
</div><div>I address current issues of health risks and risk perception in my regular Forbes column:</div><div>http://www.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">forbes.</span>com/sites/geoffrey<b>kabat/</b></div><div>Experience</div><div>
</div><div>Albert Einstein College of MedicineSenior Epidemiologist</div><div>Albert Einstein College of Medicine</div><div>July 2006 – Present (8 years 1 month)Bronx, NY</div><div>Stony Brook UniversityAssociate Professor</div><div>Stony Brook University</div><div>November 1996 – January 2001 (4 years 3 months)Stony Brook, New York</div><div>Albert Einstein College of MedicineAssociate Professor</div><div>Albert Einstein College of Medicine</div><div>October 1992 – October 1996 (4 years 1 month)Bronx, NY</div><div>Senior Epidemiologist</div><div>American Health Foundation</div><div>June 1982 – October 1992 (10 years 5 months)New York City</div><div>Languages</div><div>
</div><div>French</div><div>Full professional proficiency</div><div>Russian</div><div>Professional working proficiency</div><div>Japanese</div><div>Limited working proficiency</div><div>Skills & Endorsements</div><div>
</div><div>Top Skills</div><div>17Epidemiology</div><div>
</div><div>13Cancer</div><div>
</div><div>9Literature Reviews</div><div>
</div><div>9Health Research</div><div>
</div><div>6Books</div><div>
</div><div>6International Health</div><div>
</div><div>5Cancer Research</div><div>
</div><div>5Community Health</div><div>
</div><div>4Medical Research</div><div>
</div><div>4Medical Writing</div><div>
</div><div>Geoffrey also knows about...</div><div>4Research</div><div>4Preventive Medicine</div><div>3Environmental Health</div><div>3Public Health</div><div>3Evidence-based Medicine</div><div>3Pharmacoepidemiology</div><div>2Biostatistics</div><div>2Statistics</div><div>2Research Design</div><div>2Reproductive Health</div><div>1SAS</div><div>1Infectious Diseases</div><div>1Global Health</div><div>1Oncology</div><div>1Molecular Biology</div><div>See 22+ </div><div>Publications</div><div>
</div><div><b>Hyping Health Risks:</b> Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology(Link)</div><div>Columbia University Press</div><div>June 2008</div><div>The media constantly bombard us with news of health hazards lurking in our everyday lives, but many of these hazards turn out to have been greatly overblown. According to author and epidemiologist Geoffrey C. Kabat, this hyping of low-level environmental hazards leads to needless anxiety and confusion on the part of the public concerning which exposures have important effects on health and which...more</div><div>Start worrrying -- details to follow(Link)</div><div>Columbia University Press blog</div><div>January 2011</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Hyping health risks in Brazil</span>(Link)</div><div>Columbia University Press blog</div><div>May 2010</div><div>Defending the achievements, if not the style, of the anti-smoking movement.(Link)</div><div>In: R. Veras (ed.) Myths and Misconceptions about Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Dissenting Views. Rio de Janeiro: UnATI, 2010, pp. 29-35.</div><div>2010</div><div>Misdiagnosing cell threat(Link)</div><div>The Daily</div><div>June 2011</div><div>scientific publications (130)(Link)</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Behind the World Health Organization's Pronouncement on Cell Phones(Link)</span></div><div>Forbes</div><div>August 23, 2011</div><div>Does coffee drinking really protect against devastating diseases?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>December 6, 2011</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Why UCLA's firing of a lone dissenting voice should worry us(Link)</span></div><div><b>National Association of Scholars</b></div><div>December 5, 2011</div><div>The Bad News about the Good News about Chocolate(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>April 1, 2012</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">How Activism Distorts the Assessment of Health Risks(Link)</span></div><div>Forbes</div><div>November 20, 2012</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Natural does not mean safe(Link)</span></div><div>Slate</div><div>November 26, 2012</div><div>How Useful Is Body Mass Index In Predicting Long-Term Health?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>January 6, 2013</div><div>Making Room for the Unseen in Tackling Complex Problems(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>January 17, 2013</div><div>What Caused A Billion Dollar Federal Study Of Child Health To Implode?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>February 4, 2013</div><div>After 40 Years Of Research, What Do We Know About Preventing Breast Cancer?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>February 24, 2013</div><div>Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer? The Diehards Cling Desperately To Opinion(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>March 5, 2013</div><div>Finer Grained Data Transform Our Understanding of the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Holocaus</span>t(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>March 13, 2013</div><div>Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer? The Conspiracy Theorists Say Yes(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>March 10, 2013</div><div>To Combat some Big Diseases We Should Focus on the Basics(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>March 27, 2013</div><div>Should the FCC Re-examine Cell Phone Radiation?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>April 4, 2013</div><div>Modish, anti-scientific thinking will not advance breast cancer prevention(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>April 23, 2013</div><div>Can Setting a Deadline Put an End to<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Breast Cancer</span>?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>April 29, 2013</div><div>New Research Holds Promise for the Most Deadly Form of Cancer(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>May 2, 2013</div><div>Why Do Some People Live to 100 Years?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>May 29, 2013</div><div><b>HPV Vaccination in India:</b> An Historic Opportunity...and A Daunting Challenge(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>June 28, 2013</div><div>Why Labeling Obesity As a Disease is a Big Mistake(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>July 9, 2013</div><div>Why Labeling Obesity As a Disease is a Big Mistake, part 2(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>July 15, 2013</div><div>How Abysmal Scientific Research Is Used To Scare America's Parents(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>August 20, 2013</div><div>Yet Another Large Study Discredits the Link Between Cell Phones and Brain Cancer(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>September 4, 2013</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">What is Really at Stake in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Supoena of EPA Data(Link)</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Forbes </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">ESTrOM</span></div><div><b>September 23, 2013</b></div><div>Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Bans Dietary Supplements from Its Pharmacy(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>October 18, 2013</div><div>Over-Reaching California EPA Regulators Promoted A False Breast Cancer Link(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>October 25, 2013</div><div>Maintaining A Healthy Body Weight Is Key To A Healthy Body(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>November 19, 2013</div><div>Does Peanut Consumption Lead to Decreased Mortality?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>November 24, 2013</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Six Solid Ways to Reduce Your Cancer Risk</span> -- and That of Your Children(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>December 6, 2013</div><div><b>The Passive Smoking</b> Issue Is A Rorschach Test For The Ability To Think Scientifically(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>December 21, 2013</div><div>Is the <b>Obesity</b> Epidemic Reversible, or Does Obesity Represent a New Stage of Human Evolution?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>January 6, 2014</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Weight Gain Starting in Adolescence is Linked to Greater Mortality Later in Life(Link)</span></div><div>Forbes</div><div>January 17, 2014</div><div>There Is An Urgent Need To Address The "Terrible Situation Of Chronic Disease In Developing Countries"(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>February 2, 2014</div><div>Sochi and Syria: How Can We Watch The Olympics Knowing What is Going on a Few Hundred Miles Away in Syria?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>February 19, 2014</div><div>How Credible Is CDC's 43 Percent Decline In Obesity In Young Children?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>February 27, 2014</div><div>The Disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 Represents An Affront To Our Most Basic Assumptions About Reality(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>March 16, 2014</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A New Report Documents How Smoking and its Consequences Are Increasingly Confined to the Poor -- A Trend Which Was Pointed Out Forty Years Ago!(Link)</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Forbes</span></div><div>March 30, 2014</div><div>We Worry About Trace Amounts Of BPA While Playing Russian Roulette With Dietary Supplements</div><div>http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2014/04/11/we-worry-about-trace-amounts-of-bpa-while-playing-russian-roulette-with-dietary-supplements/</div><div>April 11, 2014</div><div>Top Scientists Call For Reform Of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"Unsustainable" Biomedical Research Enterprise</span>(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>May 5, 2014</div><div>Should Mammography Be Abolished?(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>May 24, 2014</div><div>Much Coventional Wisdom about the Causes of the Obesity Epidemic May be Wrong(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>June 2, 2014</div><div>We Are Nowhere Near Understanding the Causes of Obesity and How to Prevent it(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>June 9, 2014</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Do We Really Have to Worry about Shower Curtains Causing Weight Gain?(Link)</span></div><div>Forbes</div><div>June 18, 2014</div><div>The New York Times Revisits The "Debate" Over Electromagnetic Fields, Reviving Baseless Fears, While Ignoring What Has Been Learned(Link)</div><div>Forbes</div><div>July 8, 2014</div><div>Education</div><div>
</div><div>Columbia University School of Public Health</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">M.S., Epidemiology</span></div><div>1982 – 1984</div><div>Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences</div><div><b>Ph.D., Slavic Languages and Literatures/Comparative Literature</b></div><div>1971 – 1976</div><div>Leningrad State University</div><div>Russian literature - dissertation research</div><div>1971 – 1972</div><div>Stanford University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences</div><div>Slavic Languages and Literatures/Comparative Literature</div><div>1967 – 1968</div><div>Haverford College</div><div>B.S., Classics, French</div><div>1963 – 1967</div><div></div><div>forbes opinion</div><div>
</div><div>OPINION 7/22/<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2013</span> @ 8:00AM 5,465 views</div><div>
</div><div><b>The Real Motivation Behind Park And Beach Smoking Bans</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Campaigns to restrict smoking in public places first emerged in the 1970s and have continued to expand apace over the past 3 decades.  Over this time period there has been a dramatic change in the landscape – many states and municipalities now have statutes prohibiting smoking in public buildings, bars and restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other venues.</div><div>
</div><div>These laws and statutes were largely justified by reference to the 1993 EPA report that classified secondhand tobacco smoke as a Class A (human) carcinogen.  Although that report stuck many scientists as putting activism above a careful reading of the evidence, there is no question that it achieved the intended aim of providing an official sanction – a founding text — for statutes protecting nonsmokers from the allegedly lethal effects of breathing other people’s tobacco smoke.....</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.<b>scientificintegrityinstitute</b>.org/documents.html</div><div>bogus</div><div><table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="line-height: 18.656px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr><td align="middle">James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H.</td></tr><tr><td align="middle">President</td></tr><tr><td height="20" /></tr><tr><td align="middle">914 Westwood Boulevard #577</td></tr><tr><td align="middle">Los Angeles, CA 90024</td></tr><tr><td align="middle">jenstrom@ucla.edu
</td></tr><tr><td align="middle">(310)472-4274</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>huffpo replies:</div><div>
</div><div> http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/dcouments/030520enstromyears.html</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">And this from Proctor's book: "Federal Judge Kessler in her 2006 ruling in USA v. Philip Morris commented on the flawed nature of Enstrom's work, much of which was 'litigation oriented'; the court also noted that the cigarette makers had gone so far as to organize a scientific collaborator for the man- Geoffrey C. Kabat, a long-standing Wynder sidekick- who went on to coauthor further denialist papers with Enstrom</span>...Enstrom continues even today to defend his work against the medical mainstream, aided by a total of at least $1.4 million in research support from the tobacco racketeers along with an undisclosed sum from years of private consulting for their co-conspiring legal arms."</div><div>
</div><div><b>In other words, in the federal racketeering case brought against American tobacco companies, the judge specifically mentioned Enstrom's work as evidence of Big Tobacco's attempts to corrupt science and undermine science in the minds of the general public. </b>The tobacco companies were found guilty of said racketeering charges. The Supreme Court let this decision stand in 2010.</div><div> </div><div>---</div><div>04:56 PM on 06/16/2012</div><div>
</div><div>From Robert Proctor's new book, Golden Holocaust: "Enstrom was attractive to the industry as a classic 'we need more research' skeptic. From the 1970s into the 2000s he published a steady stream of articles challenging the significance of tobacco to health. The documents reveal a certain combative streak and sense of an uphill fight, as in 1997, when Enstrom requested $150,000 from Philp Morris's director of scientific affairs to explore the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), insisting that a 'substantial research commitment' was required 'to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom is a mercenary scientist for Big Tobacco. "An honest scientist"? I don't think so, Mr. Kissel.</div><div>---</div><div>BS?</div><div>09:41 AM on 06/15/<b>2012</b></div><div>
</div><div>Dr. James E. Enstrom’s peer-reviewed research challenged California’s status quo by contending that exposure to fine particulate matter, like diesel particles, does not kill. The majority of his colleagues believe the particles cause lung cancer and death, a popular belief that Enstrom said ignores evidence to the contrary.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom charged in 2008 that his colleagues exaggerated the adverse effects of particulate matter in order to justify expensive diesel fuel regulations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Enstrom testified in the same year to the state Senate that the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">lead contributor to the CARB report, Hien T. Tran, paid $1,000 for his Ph.D. from a fake university, </span>and members of a CARB panel had exceeded their mandated three-year term limits by decades.</div><div>
</div><div>Shortly after Enstrom revealed the misconduct, UCLA began sending him notices of termination and has refused to compensate him for more than a year’s worth of work.</div><div>
</div><div>“The facts of this case are astounding,” said senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud, but violated California law.”</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Tran was eventually suspended for 60 days,</span> and one professor who had served on the CARB panel for 26 consecutive years was removed and later put back on the panel. John Froines, who has publicly supported diesel fuel regulations, was on a committee that voted to dismiss Enstrom.</div><div> </div><div></div><div> </div><div>
</div><div><b>Dissident</b> air pollution researcher sues university over firing</div><div>
</div><div>16 Jun <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2012</span> | 11:21 BST | Posted by Ivan<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Semeniuk </span>| Category: Health and medicine, Policy</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>James Enstrom</div><div>
</div><div>Posted on behalf of Zoë Corbyn.</div><div>
</div><div>A controversial epidemiologist who lost his job is suing the University of California, Los Angeles claiming the decision is an attempt to<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “purge an academic dissenter”</span> from its ranks after his work questioned the link between diesel particulates and deaths in Californians.</div><div>
</div><div>James Enstrom, a non-tenured researcher in the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, is due to finish work this month after over 35 years and a lengthy grievance procedure in which he challenged the university’s 2010 decision not to renew his appointment.</div><div>
</div><div>On 13 June he filed a lawsuit against the university and its administrators claiming it was retaliation for his criticism of UCLA air pollution research and his whistle-blowing activities.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom – who is seeking his job back and financial damages – is represented by lawyers from the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christan organization which amongst other things has fought to protect the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom’s research has provoked fierce criticism in the past. A 2003 study, which received tobacco industry funding, played down the dangers of second-hand smoke<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. Questions were raised about whether the article, published in the British Medical Journal, involved scientific misconduct because it relied on purportedly faulty smoke-exposure data, though no formal inquiry or investigation was launched.</span></div><div>
</div><div> </div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>[Passive-smoking study faces review</b></div><div>
</div><div>Nature 446, 242 (15 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446242a; Published online 14 March 2007</div><div>
</div><div>Rex Dalton</div><div>
</div><div>Top of page</div><div>Abstract</div><div>
</div><div>Did the tobacco industry skew results of survey?]</div><div>
</div><div>But it was his work which found no relationship between diesel particulates and mortality of Californians, including a 2005 study published in journal Inhalation Toxicology, which the lawsuit really claims is the wellspring of his termination.</div><div>
</div><div>He became an “aggressive and lone critic at UCLA of air pollution research” and spoke out against  “draconian” air quality regulations, which put him at odds with several senior faculty members and created embarrassing publicity for UCLA, claims the lawsuit. He also exposed wrongdoing on state air pollution boards which led to the removal of several members, it adds.</div><div>
</div><div>The ultimate result was a retaliatory campaigning against him that caused “permanent damage” to his reputation and “effectively ended” his career, it says. “Defendants discriminated against Dr. Enstrom based on his ideological and political affiliations and sought to purge an academic dissenter from their ranks,” it adds.</div><div>
</div><div>The university said in a statement that it planned to “vigorously contest” the lawsuit in court and Enstrom had been given a “full and fair” grievance hearing consistent with procedures for non-tenured academics.</div><div>
</div><div>“UCLA zealously protects the intellectual independence of members of our academic community and has long maintained that Enstrom’s political and scientific views and outside activities were not considered during his reappointment process,” the statement says.</div><div>
</div><div>The lawsuit claims UCLA violated Enstrom’s rights with regard to free speech and due process.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom’s lawyers said he was unavailable for comment.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>Partly for this reason, other investigations have also found little effect of second-hand smoke on lung cancer or heart disease. But when the results of different studies are lumped together - a technique called<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> meta-analysis - passive smokers tend to show a 20-30% increased risk of suffering these diseases.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Data revisited</div><div>
</div><div>To cloud the issue further, the original data - from an American Cancer Society study that was set up in 1959 - were used in previous studies led by the tobacco industry. The current study also received industry money.</div><div> </div><div></div><div>404: http://<b>cns</b>news.com/news/article/64583</div><div>
</div><div>logue threatens hearing in protest letter</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>Second-hand Smoke Study Sparks Controversy</b></div><div>
</div><div>By Mike Wendling</div><div>July 7, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2008</span></div><div>Subscribe to Mike Wendling's posts</div><div>
</div><div>London (<b>CNS</b>News.com) - A study about to be published in this week's British Medical Journal indicates that second-hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or lung cancer, but the publication and the study's authors have come under attack by anti-smoking groups.</div><div>
</div><div>Two American researchers analyzed data from an American Cancer Society survey that followed more than 118,000 Californians from 1960 until 1998.</div><div>
</div><div>James E. Enstrom, of the University of California at Los Angeles and Geoffrey C. Kabat of the <b>State University of New York </b>at Stony Brook concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke (second-hand smoke) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."</div><div>
</div><div>"The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed," the researchers wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>The study was roundly condemned by anti-smoking groups including the American Cancer Society and even by the British Medical Journal's parent organization, the British Medical Association. They said the researchers received money from the tobacco industry, a statement that was confirmed by the journal Friday.</div><div>
</div><div>The American Cancer Society (ACS) pointed out what it called several flaws in the research. The researchers based their study on a small subset of the original data, the ACS said, and because of the greater prevalence of smokers in the 60s and 70s, "virtually everyone was exposed to environmental tobacco smoke."</div><div>
</div><div>Smoking opponents also pointed out in the original study, although the health of the subjects were monitored until 1998, no information on smoking habits was collected after 1972.</div><div>
</div><div>"We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems," Michael J. Thun, ACS national vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research, said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>"The American Cancer Society welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data. But this study is neither reliable nor independent," Thun said.</div><div>
</div><div>Other studies have indicated that inhaling second-hand smoke on a regular basis increases the risk of heart disease by about 30 percent. But as the researchers pointed out in their BMJ article, exposure to second-hand smoke is difficult to measure and such studies necessarily rely on self-reported data that may or may not be accurate.</div><div>
</div><div>Figures are skewed, researchers said, by former smokers who are wrongly classified.</div><div>
</div><div>"The relation between tobacco-related diseases and environmental tobacco smoke may be influenced by misclassification of some smokers as never smokers," the researchers wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>However, several British groups agreed with the ACS assessment of the study. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The British Medical Association said that 1,000 people die every year in the U.K. as a result of passive smoking.</span></div><div>
</div><div>"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks," said Vivienne Nathanson, BMA's head of science and ethics. "In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."</div><div>
</div><div>A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said: "We are utterly surprised as to why the BMJ has published this. It's nothing but a lobbying tool."</div><div>
</div><div>"This is just one study," the spokesman said. "It will do nothing to change the massive body of evidence that has built up over the years."</div><div>
</div><div>The journal stood by its decision to publish research but editors turned down interview requests Friday. A spokeswoman said decisions on publication were made only after "careful consideration and peer review."</div><div>
</div><div>The study, which was available online and will be published in the BMJ on Saturday, was partially funded by money from the tobacco industry, the spokeswoman said, but could not provide further details.</div><div>
</div><div>Groups campaigning against further tobacco regulations in Britain welcomed the research. Smokers' lobby group FOREST said the "jury is still out" on the effects of second-hand smoke.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is typical of the anti-smoking lobby's bullying tactics," said <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">FOREST </span>director Simon Clark. "They attack not just the authors but the messenger ... the BMJ is one of the most respected journals in the world."</div><div>
</div><div>Attacks on the study in the U.K. have been led by proponents of a total ban on smoking in public places like pubs, clubs and restaurants, a position that Clark said was undermined by the study.</div><div>
</div><div>"People who want to ban smoking in public places use passive smoking as their number one argument," he said. "That's why this study is so significant."</div><div>=</div><div>BS <b>FIRE </b></div><font face="Times New Roman" /><div><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div><b>Whistleblowing Scientist Who Challenged Environmental Regulation Sues UCLA</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">June 14, 2012</span></div><div>
</div><div>LOS ANGELES, June 14, 2012—After 35 years at the University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. James E. Enstrom is suing UCLA to keep his job. Following many years of disagreement over research on air pollution and its implications for environmental regulations, UCLA finally refused to reappoint Enstrom after he engaged in successful whistleblowing against a member of the department. When UCLA told Enstrom he was being let go because his research failed to accord with the department's "mission," Enstrom turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. </div><div>
</div><div>"FIRE has been helping Dr. Enstrom to keep his job for two years now, but enough is enough," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "While a lawsuit should never have been necessary, we're grateful that the American Center for Law and Justice and former FIRE President David French have filed suit on Dr. Enstrom's behalf, and we hope that justice will finally be served."</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom has worked at UCLA as a researcher and professor since 1976, being rehired consistently each year until his ordeal began. Beginning in 2004, he worked in UCLA's Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS). Over the years, he and a few of his colleagues have sometimes disagreed strongly about research on environmental health issues—for example, on the extent of the threat to public health posed by certain air pollutants, a topic of Enstrom's research which has been the subject of intense debate in California because of its implications for state environmental regulations. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom also was a successful whistleblower whose activism led to fellow EHS faculty member John Froines being replaced on a panel for the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Several members of the panel, including Froines, had been serving beyond the three-year legal limit on their terms of office, and Enstrom's whistleblowing provided part of the grounds for a June 2009 lawsuit on the issue. Enstrom also blew the whistle on a fake Ph.D. degree claimed by a CARB researcher.</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>UCLA's retaliation against Enstrom first became apparent in December 2009, when Enstrom discovered that UCLA had cut off his salary fund and charged his salary against his research funds without his knowledge. In February 2010, Environmental Health Sciences Chair Richard J. Jackson told Enstrom that UCLA was laying him off. Enstrom fought back and kept his job. </div><div>
</div><div>After UCLA's first attempt failed, Enstrom learned of further retaliation in June 2010 when the EHS faculty (including Froines) voted not to rehire him because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department." UCLA also invoked vague and previously unmentioned "minimum requirements," even though his research output was similar to or greater than that of other professors in his department. Enstrom learned he was going to be "indefinitely laid off" effective June 30, 2010. </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom has demonstrated that his research on environmental health is fully aligned with EHS' research mission of furthering "extremely interdisciplinary" research "at the interface between human health and the environment." </div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom came to FIRE for help. FIRE wrote UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block on August 26, 2010, pointing out that it is unconstitutional to refuse to rehire a faculty member because of his protected expression. FIRE assisted Enstrom with internal grievances at UCLA and ultimately helped him win two additional years at UCLA. Reason.tv also produced a video about the case.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom's situation has received national attention as well as statements of concern from state legislators. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) also took up Enstrom's case and is representing Enstrom in a lawsuit filed late yesterday in Los Angeles federal court against UCLA officials and the University of California Regents. Enstrom is seeking a declaration that UCLA violated Enstrom's free speech and due process rights, as well as an injunction requiring UCLA to rehire him.</div><div>
</div><div>"Because of Enstrom's research and his whistleblowing against prominent advocates of environmental regulation in California, UCLA seemingly has decided to silence him any way it can," said <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">FIRE Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel. </span>"If there is anywhere we need honest scientists who aren't on a mission to exclude whistleblowers and skeptics, it is the American university."</div><div>
</div><div><b>FIRE </b>is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org. </div><div>
</div><div>CONTACT:</div><div>Adam Kissel, Vice President of Programs, FIRE: 215-717-3473; adam@thefire.org</div><div>Gene D. Block, Chancellor, University of California, Los Angeles: 310-825-2151; chancellor@ucla.edu</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>ref above</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.thefire.org/did-someone-lie-to-ucla-chancellor-gene-block/</div><div>
</div><div>Did Someone Lie to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block?</div><div>
</div><div>October 1, 2010</div><div>
</div><div>by Adam <b>Kissel</b></div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Chancellor Gene D. Block has responded to FIRE's August 26, 2010, letter in the matter of Associate Resident Professor James Enstrom. All signs are that UCLA retaliated against Dr. Enstrom's activism and research in the area of environmental health. Our letter explained that the faculty members in his department voted against his reappointment on nebulous grounds--that his research on environmental health "is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department, and that [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the [Environmental Health Sciences] department minimums." According to Enstrom, however, no minimum requirements had ever been communicated to him, and any reasonable person could infer that his research on environmental health—for example, on the extent of the threat to public health posed by certain air pollutants—has everything to do with the work of an environmental health sciences department.</div><div>
</div><div>The circumstances of Enstrom's non-reappointment are suspicious for additional reasons. One of the faculty members in Enstrom's department had lost his position on the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Air Contaminants for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) due to <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom's activism.</span> Enstrom had demonstrated that several SRP members had never been properly reappointed following the applicable rules. According to a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation in June 2009, the SRP members had been serving beyond the three-year legal limit on their terms of office without being properly re-nominated. Many of them subsequently were replaced.</div><div>
</div><div>Furthermore, over the years, Enstrom and a few of his colleagues in the School of Public Health have sometimes disagreed strongly about research on environmental health issues, such as the actual danger of diesel emissions. Enstrom's peer-reviewed research is one of the things at the center of the debate in California over regulation of diesel emissions—we're not talking about a petty department squabble.</div><div>
</div><div>In addition, while some faculty members in Environmental Health Sciences might not have had strong personal or political reasons for voting against Enstrom, it seems that the faculty members were never given a chance to properly assess Enstrom's reappointment dossier. Soon, I plan to<b> publish documents here on The Torch</b> relating to Enstrom's non-reappointment grievance that show the various ways that the faculty apparently were prevented from having access to Enstrom's full dossier, but that is a topic for another post.</div><div>
</div><div>Here, I am examining the strange claim in Chancellor Block's letter that "Dr. Enstrom is not a professor at UCLA, and is not a member of our faculty." According to Enstrom, he has continuously held a non-tenured faculty position in the School of Public Health since 1976. Take a look at these documents:</div><div>
</div><div>1. An e-mail from UCLA Dean Linda Rosenstock to "Assoc Resident Professor" James E. Enstrom on April 1, 2004. In the e-mail, Rosenstock calls Enstrom "a faculty member in good standing" and refers to his appointment as a "faculty appointment." I think it's safe to presume that "Assoc Resident Professor" means "Associate Resident Professor."</div><div>
</div><div>2. The 1998-99 UCLA directory listing which identifies Enstrom as "Assoc Res Prof."</div><div>
</div><div>3. The 2002-03 University of California directory listing which identifies Enstrom as "Assoc Res Prof."</div><div>
</div><div>4. The 2005 and 2006 faculty/staff directories in Enstrom's department, where he is listed as a "Researcher" in the Faculty section. (Specific titles are not given.)</div><div>
</div><div>5. The 2010 UCLA directory listing which identifies Enstrom as "Assoc Res Prof."</div><div>
</div><div>6. The July 1, 2010, electronic directory listing which identifies Enstrom as "Assoc Res Prof."</div><div>
</div><div>When I worked for the University of Chicago Directory, you bet we verified the exact status of every single member of every department, year after year, with the relevant departments. UCLA has a lot of explaining to do, because these documents make it look like Chancellor Block's letter is based on a flat-out lie. Who has fed Chancellor Block the apparently false information about Enstrom's status? Or is all of this just a huge misunderstanding?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/search/basic?fd=0&q=enstrom&Submit=Submit+Query</div><div>
</div><div>tobacco archive?</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333</div><div>
</div><div><b>Responding to the Enstrom and Kabat Study on Secondhand Smoke</b></div><div>
</div><div>November 2004</div><div>
</div><div>The tobacco industry has a long history of trying to cast doubt on the science of secondhand smoke. In its latest attempt, the industry has funded a new study, published in theBritish Medical Journal. The study, written by researchers funded by the tobacco industry, misrepresented data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), and used flawed methodology to come to the inaccurate conclusion that secondhand smoke does not cause an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease. Don’t be fooled by Big Tobacco. Secondhand smoke kills.</div><div>
</div><div>“The study is fundamentally flawed.”</div><div>
</div><div>–British Medical Association1</div><div>
</div><div>The British Medical Journal published a study in its May 2003 issue entitled, “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1998,” which was authored by Dr. James E. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat. The study claimed that no causal relationship was found between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality, after analyzing data from 35,351 adults over a period of thirty-eight years. As one might expect, the study generated an enormous amount of media attention. Speculation abounded that the unanimous conclusion of public health officials and medical practitioners, that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health, had been premature. Big Tobacco and its allies hailed the study as proof that the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Under closer scrutiny, the inevitable was found to be true<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">: the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was largely funded by tobacco industry dollars, conducted by industry allies, and riddled with methodological errors.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Although the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has now largely been discredited, the tobacco industry and its allies attempt to use the study to cast doubt upon the science of secondhand smoke. This document provides some basic information regarding the study, its funding, and its authors, and should help to counter any attempts to use the study to undermine the established body of research confirming the health hazards of secondhand smoke.</div><div>
</div><div>THE STUDY</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse.”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">—Letter from the Journal of the American Medical Association to James E. Enstrom2</span></div><div>
</div><div>The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized. Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the research as being “fundamentally flawed.”3 The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very significant faults in the study.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom and Kabat did not gather original data for their study. Instead, it drew on data from the ACS’s Cancer Prevention Study (CPS-I), and used only a small subset (approximately 10%) of the total CPS-I data. </span>Researchers at ACS repeatedly warned Enstrom that the data from CPS-I could not be used to determine the health effects of secondhand smoke, and they spoke out against the study upon its release, stating that their data had been misused.4</div><div>
</div><div>The study used cohort methodology to look at the rate of mortality from heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers who were married to smokers, covering a time period from 1959 to 1998.<b> A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke</b>. Other critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand smoke exposure from any source other than the spouse, including workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time); not taking into account either spouse’s smoking status after 1972, though the study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking spouse as still exposed to secondhand smoke in that 26 year period, during which time the “smoking spouse” could have quit smoking or died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated.</div><div>
</div><div>THE FUNDING</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking.”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">-- Dr. James E. Enstrom to Philip Morris Research Center5</span></div><div>
</div><div>The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was initially funded by a grant from the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program, an organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition 99 California state cigarette tax. After the program’s scientific, peer-review panel, denied continued funding for the project, Enstrom sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted an application for,6 and ultimately received, $210,000 from Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco Research (CTR)7,8,9, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on smoking and health.10 It became well known over the years for sponsoring flimsy scientific research that promoted tobacco industry positions.</div><div>
</div><div>THE AUTHORS</div><div>
</div><div>“For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for Jeffery L. Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.”</div><div>
</div><div>-- Dr. James Enstrom to the Center of Indoor Air Research11</div><div>
</div><div>Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has received from the tobacco industry, but his involvement with the industry can be traced back for many years. As early as 1975, Enstrom solicited the CTR for $50,000 to “assess the possible role which other factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer.”12The Competing Interests section of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study states: “In recent years [Enstrom] has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for his to obtain equivalent funds from other sources.”13 Although the CTR, the Tobacco Institute, and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) are all now defunct, Enstrom continued to contract with Philip Morris.14,15</div><div>
</div><div><b>Dr. Geoffrey Kabat:</b> Kabat’s connections with the tobacco industry over the years have been well documented. A search of internal industry documents finds Kabat’s name listed as an industry resource more than 7,000 times, showing his involvement with, among others, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco Company, and CIAR.16</div><div>
</div><div>CONCLUSION</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom and Kabat’s substantial methodological flaws, combined with the tobacco industry’s funding of the study, and other studies supported by the tobacco industry, can help you to inoculate others against this misinformation. Over one hundred independently funded, peer-reviewed studies show that secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death in nonsmokers. Don’t let this one study undermine the body of solid science that confirms the hazardous health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. For more information on Enstrom and Kabat or other studies that challenge the credible science of secondhand smoke, please contact us at (510) 841-3032 or at anr@no-smoke.org.</div><div>
</div><div>REFERENCES</div><div>
</div><div>end 915 capt</div><div><font face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">source?</font></div><div><div class="content" id="mainentrycontent" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman" style=""> the second in a three-part series. Read the first story <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/house-science-committee_n_5525609.html?1403707503" target="hplink" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">here</a>.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>The conservative “secret science” campaign</b> harkens back nearly twenty years.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In late 1996, industry was trying to fight the Environmental Protection Agency’s first efforts to set a fine particle pollution air quality standard of "PM2.5,"</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> the abbreviation used for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), an astroturf lobbying group founded by the petrochemical industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch in 1984, warned that the “effects of the new air quality standards on the economy would be devastating,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">” based in part on economic analyses conducted by the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University – a group also funded by the Koch brothers. The CSE co-founder and president was Koch Industries vice president Rich Fink, a George Mason economist who has sat on the board of the school's public choice center.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">CSE, the precursor to the Tea Party groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, was then led by C. Boyden Gray, an heir to the Reynolds tobacco fortune and GOP kingmaker. In addition to running the tobacco-and-polluter-funded “grassroots” CSE, Gray also managed the Orwellian-sounding “Air Quality Standards Coalition,” an industry coalition coordinated by the National Association of Manufacturers to fight EPA limits on soot and smog pollution.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">As industry was not getting much traction with the “it’s going to cost too much” argument, Gray’s group employed street theater as a political tactic.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In January 1997, attendees of a Senate hearing on the proposed EPA rules encountered a group of people wearing white lab coats holding signs saying,<b> “Harvard,</b> release the data!” The supposed scientists in fact came from CSE.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In addition, CSE took out ads in the Chicago Tribune attacking the Harvard brand, and writers in the libertarian-industrial network questioned the legitimacy of the studies and demanded the release of the private medical records at their core.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“The unwillingness of the study's authors to allow access to basic data is troubling; such secrecy is incompatible with the modern scientific process,” complained a CSE publication in June 1997.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">CSE also found an ideological hook for the economic-damage attacks, spinning pollution limits as an assault on freedom. “Imagine that – a new government regulation that takes away our freedom to celebrate our freedom," said a CSE radio advertisement in the summer of 1997. The ad claimed that the proposed air pollution regulations would ruin Independence Day by outlawing barbecues, lawn mowers, and fireworks.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The outcome of the campaign was threefold: a weakening and delay of ozone and particulate-matter rules; a $50 million taxpayer-funded project to reconfirm the results; and legislation compelling that the data generated by federally funded research be made available to industry and the public.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fast forward to last year.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“The data in question have not been subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) charged in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yet Smith’s claim that the studies and the underlying patient data did not undergo independent analysis is false.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In fact, in 1997, while Smith was serving his sixth term, Congress appropriated $49.6 million for a major research program into fine particulate matter, including a reanalysis of the Harvard and ACS studies by the Health Effects Institute. Smith voted for the bill.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“When we got the medical records from Harvard, I personally signed a confidentiality agreement, as did the investigators at University of Ottawa. The data was conveyed to a locked room with limited access,” said Health Effects Institute president Dan Greenbaum in an interview.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>In 2000, the group issued a 297-page report </b>entitled “Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” The explicit goal of that study was “to conduct a rigorous and independent assessment of the findings of the Six Cities and ACS Studies of air pollution and mortality.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In short, the HEI assessment confirmed the studies’ results. So did a separate HEI analysis of public records from 90 cities known as the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">A charitable interpretation is that this multi-year, multi-million-dollar taxpayer effort advanced epidemiological methodologies. Others might say that polluters knowingly gamed the system by unfairly casting doubt on well-founded science.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">The Shelby Amendment</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Following these EPA battles, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) drafted the <b>Data Access Act,</b> better known as the Shelby Amendment, in response to his inability to get the underlying medical records from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The Shelby amendment mandated that “all data produced under a [federally funded] award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The <b>Office of Management and Budget drafted rules to implement the Shelby amendment that limited the scope to research “used in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law”</b> and carved out exceptions for confidential data.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Efforts to repeal the Shelby amendment in 1999 led tobacco and oil industry consultant <b>Steve Milloy</b> to coin the term<b> “secret science.” </b>In February,<b> Milloy launched the “Stop Secret Science” sweepstakes, offering a Wall Street Journal subscription to people who sent a comment to OMB on the “secret science” rule</b>. Soon, the <b>Washington Times and the New York Post </b>published “secret science” editorials, and an oil executive attacked the “secret science” of the EPA rules. But the term failed to catch on, perhaps because most politicians couldn’t claim with a straight face that confidential medical records should be made public on industry’s behalf.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The Shelby amendment had little actual impact on the Harvard and ACS studies.</b> The ACS data is not funded by federal or public dollars, and is not subject to the Data Access Act. Essentially all of the non-confidential records and data from the Harvard Six Cities research has been made public, a process that was underway before the passage of the amendment.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Whatever the intent, the Shelby amendment marked an important shift in the balance of power between industry and the public, as corporate researchers could get access to federally funded work without any expectation of a quid pro quo.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">Forcing a Document Release</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fifteen years later, Rep. Lamar Smith was ready to go further.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">After two years of fishing expeditions begun during Ralph Hall’s chairmanship, Smith was fed up with the idea that the federal government wouldn’t –- or couldn’t –- force Harvard and the American Cancer Society to turn over private medical records to his committee.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“If the administration does not provide this data by the end of July, the science committee will force its release through a <b>subpoena,</b>” he warned.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Although the EPA complied with Smith’s previous demands, turning over all of the records under its control, Smith pushed the subpoena forward. On Aug. 1 of last year, the committee authorized subpoenas against the EPA, Harvard University, and the American Cancer Society on a party-line vote. That day, Smith issued a subpoena to the EPA.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">A month later, Smith expressed his anger at the EPA’s limited response, challenging the agency to force Harvard and the cancer society to turn over the medical records so that his Committee can “analyze the health effects of exposure to certain air pollutants.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a Sept. 3 letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, Smith claimed that the OMB’s implementation of the Shelby amendment means the EPA’s power to compel private institutions to turn over records is without limit, no matter what confidentiality agreements exist between the researchers and their subjects, or between the government and the researchers.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A March 2013 Congressional Research Service report on the <b>Shelby amendment notes that its scope “excludes personal and business-related confidential data.”</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">When Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) asked Smith who he wanted to pass along the research data to, he said, <b>“Dr. James Enstrom.”</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">It turns out that Mr. Smith’s preferred expert for more than two decades has been closely connected to the American tobacco industry, reviled for its promotion of deceptive marketing and faux-science.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">'I Understand Science Better'</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>Enstrom,</b> an epidemiologist, is perhaps best known for his work on tobacco industry-funded studies, including studies on the health effects of tobacco and second-hand smoke.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">His first published work as an epidemiologist, which wasn't funded by the industry, “Cancer Mortality Among Mormons” (1975), found that Mormons’ low consumption of tobacco and alcohol seemed linked to lower cancer rates than the general population.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">That said, Enstrom’s attempts to be funded by the tobacco industry go back to the beginning of his career, as communications as far back as 1975 indicate. Enstrom received $233,500 from 1992 to 1998 from the tobacco industry-sponsored </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Council for Tobacco Research. </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 1997, as anti-tobacco lawsuits were leading to the dissolution of CTR, Enstrom solicited and received $150,000 directly from Philip Morris for research based on his idea that </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“there may indeed be a threshold below which tobacco use is not related to mortality.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Given the tobacco industry’s widespread campaign of deliberate deceit about the health risks of smoking, tobacco-funded research is now considered tainted.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>In a 2007 essay, Enstrom accused the entire field of epidemiology of “science McCarthyism.”</b> He finds the move to restrict tobacco-industry funding for research into the health effects of tobacco to be the equivalent of the Soviet government’s efforts to create a "regime of truth" by outlawing research into genetics.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom has argued depictions of him as a “tobacco industry consultant,” including the one made by Johnson, are “defamatory.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As the tobacco money dried up, Enstrom switched over to industry-funded studies of air pollution.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">In a 2005 study funded by<b> Electric Power Research Institute,</b> Enstrom failed to find a “relationship between ﬁne particulate pollution and total mortality in elderly Californians,” in contrast to conclusions reached in previous work by the American Cancer Society.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In a telephone interview from his home in Los Angeles, Enstrom said he’s not biased towards industry but towards the science, and is so often at loggerheads with other researchers because he’s smarter than epidemiologists with medical or other backgrounds. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“I'm saying I understand science better,” he said.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Whether or not Enstrom’s views on science are better, many are unusual.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">For example, Enstrom had no explanation regarding how fine-particulate pollution could have been found to be deadly at various points in the past, as multiple studies around the globe have found, but are not now in California, as he hypothesizes.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> He told me that the burden of proof should be on the mainstream medical community, because there isn’t medical research that explains how soot causes cardiopulmonary diseases.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“We don't have a mechanism,” he said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">But just to cite one of many well-regarded studies on the topic, a decade-old report from the National Research Council noted that there is “growing clinical and epidemiological evidence that ambient air pollution can precipitate acute cardiac events, such as angina pectoris, cardiac arrhythmias, and myocardial infarction.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enstrom said he believed that there are <b>potential benefits </b>to exposure to air pollution and radiation.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> He cited the concept of "hormesis," a controversial scientific concept that hasn't gained widespread acceptance among scientists and is generally reviled by environmentalists. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He said hormesis posits that “below a certain level of pollution there's a loss of natural immunity; if the air is too clean the body doesn't necessarily protect itself.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“I believe there's a lot of evidence supporting the validity of hormesis,” he told me.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Unsolicited, Enstrom then made a point to defend the rampant climate-science denial among the Republican members of the House Science Committee. “We should be all thankful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is allowed,” he said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">Private Medical Records</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One of the main concerns from environmentalists, science advocates, Democrats and others about Smith's demands for the Harvard and American Cancer Society data is that the data includes confidential,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> personal health information from participants who were promised confidentiality.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Such a disclosure of the data would violate their trust, they maintain.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yet Smith and his aides (and Enstrom) insist there are ways that participants can be "de-identified."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Even if you were unable to de-identify the documents, you were still required to produce them,” Smith wrote in a September 3 letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “We are confident the data can be de-identified with relative ease.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But many, including the author of the Six Cities study, argue Smith's position is faulty.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Anonymizing doesn’t work,” said Frank Speizer. “To know enough from the medical records to be able to replicate the results gives you enough information to personally identify individuals.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Speizer added that the specter of being forced to disclose private data is a "stigma" on new research. “How do you get investigators to do this work?" he asked. "How are you going to get people to participate?”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The data included in Harvard Six Cities includes detailed medical records, tests, visits on 8,000 individuals,” explained Greenbaum of the Health Effects Institute. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“There are sworn signed statements</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that we will not disclose this information in any way.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“One of the principal rules that goes throughout science," said Greenbaum, is that "you are really constrained from presenting the data in more than aggregated form.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">For example, Greenbaum noted, when the studies were first done, researchers relied on having one or two air monitors in each city and estimating that the exposure reflects everyone in that city. There are now improved methodologies that are based on where people live. “If you know where somebody lives, and when they died, you know who they are,” he explained.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">When I presented Greenbaum’s points to Enstrom, he conceded that Greenbaum could be right. “You’re raising concerns that I don’t want to deal with in this phone call,” said Enstrom.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">The Secret Science Reform Act</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The August subpoena authorized the committee to directly mandate that Harvard University and the American Cancer Society turn over their confidential records. <b>Despite Smith’s rhetoric about the multi-trillion-dollar importance of getting access to the patient records, his committee has only gone after the EPA.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since the EPA doesn’t actually have the confidential medical records, he has changed course, with a new and much broader line of attack.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On February 6, Smith and Rep<b>. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) introduced the Secret Science Reform Act.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>The bill is less than a page long, but it is breathtaking in scope. It forbids the EPA from taking any kind of action – regulatory, advisory, or enforcement – unless the action relies entirely on scientific research that has had all of its data made public.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Unlike the “secret science” subpoena effort, the bill doesn’t try to force the disclosure of confidential data. <b>Instead, it calls for the exclusion of any such research in EPA actions. //E&E</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” said Smith in his press release announcing the bill. “The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Environmental advocates say it would have been difficult to launch a more potentially devastating attack on the EPA and its stated mission, "to protect human health and the environment."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Anyone who understood anything about EPA and the myriad responsibilities and legal authorities it has to undertake at the direction of Congress could not have written a two-paragraph bill that more thoroughly disrupts the agency’s ability to protect the public</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">,” said clean-air advocate John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “One gasps at how oblivious it is to a vast array of unintended and absurd consequences.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The potential public health implications go beyond preventing the EPA from regulating air pollution.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One example: In June, 2010, the Gulf Coast was reeling from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Millions of barrels of crude were gushing into the gulf, treated with millions of gallons of deep-sea chemical dispersants. In Jackson, Mississippi,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> state legislators convened a series of hearings on the disaster, which BP officials refused to attend.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Legislators – even Steven Palazzo, now a member of the House Science Committee and a co-sponsor the Secret Science Reform Act – asked if the dispersants could make made Gulf seafood toxic.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The chemical composition of those dispersants was and remains confidential.[logic? vs proprietary info?, oh see below]</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Another example: Walke noted that the Elk River chemical spill in West Virginia earlier this year involved one chemical the EPA knew about but was shrouded in secrecy, and another they didn’t know about at all. More than 100 people were made sick by exposure to the chemical, and about 300,000 residents were warned not to use their tap water in any capacity.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The Smith bill, if in effect, in both cases would have prevented the EPA from acting on known dangers that it learned about from confidential information</b> – so therefore, had the law been in place, the agency could not have acted to prevent the circumstances that led to either spill, nor could they have assisted in the spills' aftermath.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Said Walke: "That is ridiculous!"</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">Weird Science</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Smith hasn't used his perch as committee chairman only to try to make life miserable for environmental regulators. He's got a thing for scientists, too.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The bookish-appearing Smith, who wears round rimless glasses and generally has a quiet, respectful demeanor, has cast his agenda regarding the $7 billion National Science Foundation with Texas-sized swagger.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “I’m going to have a little fun with them,” he told the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce February 5. “I’m going to change the way the grants are awarded if I have my way.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>On April 18, 2013, Smith introduced a draft of the High Quality Research Act,</b> which would compel the NSF director to certify that every grant is for “groundbreaking” research that “solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Inasmuch as the grants come before the results of the research are known, the proposed act was rightly considered absurd.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Smith and other GOP members of the committee argue that the NSF awards far too many grants on topics of an unserious nature, which do little but </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">allow left-leaning scientists to travel to often-exotic locales on the federal dime.[recall miserable govt sci in tents vs catered yacht post exxonvaldez spill?]</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">He and the other committee Republicans looked at the most recent crop of 164 NSF grants issued the month before he introduced his NSF bill for examples. Looking at titles alone, and not the substance of the proposals -– which is what one prominent Democrat says Smith did -– questions might understandably be raised about whether taxpayers should be paying for the studies.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">One of the grants 164 the NSF announced in March, 2013, was titled, “Picturing Animals in National Geographic, 1888-2008.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Soon after, the Washington Times asked, “[C]an the government really afford to spend $227,437 to study pictures of animals in National Geographic magazines?”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>A month later, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) challenged John Holdren,</b> President Obama's top science advisor, to justify that and other NSF-funded studies, saying “it’s just hard to conceive how those are important to our national security or our national interest.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Smith sent a letter to acting NSF director Cora Merritt listing the abstract titles for five grants, including the one regarding National Geographic, questioning their “intellectual merit.” The other grants, which ranged from $152,000 to $435,000, were titled "Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation: Nature, Science, and Society in Patagonian and Amazonian South America”; “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice”; “Comparative Network Analysis: Mapping Global Social Interactions”; and “Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China’s Dairy Industry.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Yet put in context, it's clear that these studies could be defined as being in the national interest, using a wide range of definitions. According to the NSF Award Abstract, Megan Tracy, an anthropologist with James Madison University, is studying, in part, "how individuals, motivated by global scandals and the pressure to prevent future incidents, transmit and transform food safety regulations and best practices across international borders."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">And Maxine Kamari Clarke, a Yale-based anthropologist, will be studying the arrest warrants the International Criminal Court has pursued against African national leaders, as it pertains to "international justice and human rights as these concepts have been interpreted by the [ICC] and the African Union Commission."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">All five grants were issued by the NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">During his tenure as chair, Smith has attacked a total of 20 different NSF grants by name, 18 of which are in the social sciences. (</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The other two were related to climate change.)</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Remarkably, two-thirds of these grant recipients are </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">female </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">scientists. Smith’s attacks on research conducted by women took some effort, as females represent only about 30 percent of practicing scientists.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Democrats suspect that Smith's filter doesn’t appear to go beyond reading the names of the abstracts. “It has been my experience that some members read the titles of the research grants but seldom read the substance behind the headlines,” said Science Committee member Rep. Donna Edwards, (D-Md.), referring to Smith.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Just as she did when Smith tried to subpoena the Harvard and American Cancer Society data, Johnson, the panel's top Democrat, again issued a harsh rebuke to Smith after he introduced the High Quality Research Act.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">"This is the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF and intrudes political pressure into what is widely viewed as the most effective and creative process for awarding research funds in the world," Johnson wrote April 26 of last year. "In the history of this Committee, no Chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by the NSF."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Washington-based advocates for scientific research say the peer-review process by which NSF grants have been funded works well and is accepted as the best available system –- and that allowing politics to be interjected into the process would be potentially disastrous.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“The veiled attack on the merit review system is a serious concern. Scientists come together to volunteer their time and evaluate your competitors’ research. You’re only going to fund the best ideas. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best system we do have,” said Erin Cadwalader of the Association for Women in Science, herself a biomedical scientist. “It’s important science remain separate from partisan politics.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“It’s hard to predict what ideas are going to yield what’s useful and fruitful,” said Cadwalader. “You can’t study heart development without understanding how heart cells communicate with each other. It’s tedious and not very sexy, but it’s what has to be done to understand how to treat heart disease.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the American Association of Universities, which represents top public and private research universities, agreed. “Some of the most extraordinary results have come from research that sounds completely uninteresting, funny, weird, irrelevant,” he said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">After months of criticism, Smith slightly watered down the HQRA language into a provision in the FIRST Act, which stands for Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology. The bill is a 2-year reauthorization of NSF programs that still requires NSF officials to certify every research grant as “in the national interest.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">On May 1, Holdren told attendees of a forum sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that the FIRST Act "would have an extraordinarily unfortunate effect" on the NSF's grantmaking process, according to an account from ScienceInsider.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“I think that NSF’s peer-review process has proven itself over the years in a manner that has made it the envy of the world,” said Holdren. “Everybody else is trying to mimic the success NSF has had from funding research. I don’t think we should be trying to fix something that isn’t broken.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">In a question and answer session after his talk, Holdren got to the heart of the matter. The bill, he said, "appears aimed at narrowing the focus of NSF-funded research to domains that are applied to various national interests other than simply advancing the progress of science."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">Facing Draconian Funding Cuts</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“If you look at where we are as a nation, the greatest need is more jobs, to get our economy started,” Rep. Sherwood<b> Boehlert, (R-N.Y.), </b>the chairman of the House Science Committee from 2001 until his <b>retirement</b> in 2007, said in a telephone interview from his home in upstate New York. “Most jobs come from the development of new technology, which come from government investment, especially in the basic science enterprise.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">At the request of Boehlert, the National Academy of Sciences developed a 2007 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that set goals for greatly expanding the science workforce to ensure America’s future economic competitiveness. The first authorization of the bipartisan Competes Act was 2007, with initial reauthorization in 2010.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The goal was to double funding for key agencies in seven years.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The economy tanked and that didn’t happen. Today, the U.S. scientific enterprise is in retreat.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Since the Republican takeover of Congress, the gap between the goals of the 2010 Competes Act and actual science funding has widened into a chasm, with the cuts mandated by sequestration in 2013 adding insult to injury.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Only the engineering and computer science directorates at NSF have enjoyed funding in line with inflation, while the other directorates have remained flat or fallen into decline.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">“In science, when you cut research funding, you're cutting the research as well as the training of the next generation of scientists,” said Toiv. “Training researchers occurs at the same time as you get the research done. You're sending a message to potential young scientists: get out while you can.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The FIRST Act not only calls for funding that doesn’t even keep up with inflation, it intends to cut funding for the social and economic sciences by 45 percent. Social sciences have never been a major portion of NSF funding. This bill suggests even that is too much.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Smith's war on social science spells doom for his professed goals for American science in general.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Policy Objective D of the FIRST Act is “expanding the pool of scientists and engineers in the United States, including among segments of the population that have been historically underrepresented" in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">Yet, “it seems like a contradiction to say we’re going to prioritize doing these things without providing the funding to answer the questions of how to do this,” said Cadwalader.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman">The House Anti-Science Committee</font></strong></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The salvos against soot regulations and social science are examples of extreme rhetoric with potentially disastrous consequences to the scientific enterprise in return for relatively small gains to corporate polluters.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But the existence of climate change represents an existential threat to the fossil-fuel industry, and the Republican Party has become, as political historian and </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">former GOP operative Kevin Phillips writes, the vehicle for “petroleum-defined national security.” It's global warming that sparks the Science Committee’s most aggressive language.</span></b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The March 26 hearing before the Science Committee to review the President’s proposed science budget was a typical display.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">After Smith gaveled in the hearing, he launched directly into an attack on climate science. “Unfortunately, this administration’s science budget focuses, in my view, far too much money, time, and effort on alarmist predictions of climate change,” he said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>After the likes of Posey, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) took turns trying to mock and belittle White House science advisor John Holdren,</b> it became clear that by the time Smith called on the last committee member, Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, Swalwell had had enough. He had listened to more than his fill of climate denial, science-bashing and general hostility toward the witness.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Swalwell, at 33 the committee's youngest member, warned Holdren about where Republicans might try to lead him the next time he's called to testify.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"At this rate, frankly, I'd say you should be prepared to address whether the earth is round or flat – that might come up – or whether indeed gravity is happening," said Swalwell. "You never know what could fly at you from what we've seen already."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman" style="">This story was supported by The American Independent Institute.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman" style=""><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">CORRECTION</strong>: A previous version of this story misstated the meaning of "PM2.5," which refers to the diameter of fine particles, not their prevalence.</font></span></p></div><footer style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="follow bottom-tags" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 3px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; line-height: 1.2; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; float: left;"><font face="Times New Roman">MORE:</font></h2><span class="group" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/lamar-smith/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Lamar Smith</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/epa/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">EPA</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/science/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Science</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/richard-shelby/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Richard Shelby</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Climate Change</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/republican-war-on-science/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Republican War on Science</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/war-on-science/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">War on Science</a></span><span class="entrytag" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/house-science-committee/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">House Science Committee</a></span></font></span></div></footer></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">==</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">fake paper? nope houston chronicle, hearst seems legit</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/08/scientific-researcher-rebuts-rep-eddie-bernice-johnsons-defamatory-statements/">http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2013</span>/08/scientific-researcher-rebuts-rep-eddie-bernice-johnsons-defamatory-statements/</a></font></div><div>
</div><div>In an attempt to halt a subpoena of the EPA, Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson stirred the pot by questioning the motives and

qualifications of her Texas colleague Lamar Smith and a prominent scientific researcher.

After the Republican-controlled House Science, Space, and Technology Committee formally announced that it would summon

the EPA to release specific documents, Johnson sent a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith in opposition.

In the letter, she claimed that Smith used Dr. Jim Enstrom, a former UCLA epidemiologist whose removal made him a cause

celebre in the conservative community, as an example of a “legitimate researcher” but went on to attack his credentials.</div><div>
</div><div><b> Scientific researcher rebuts Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s ‘defamatory statements’ </b></div><div>
</div><div> Johnson, the committee’s top Democrat, noted that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Dr. Enstrom </span>has done studies that were funded by the tobacco industry and

that he has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the industry.<b>

Dr. Enstrom rebutted Johnson’s statement</b> and wrote a strongly worded letter to the San Antonio Republican and the Dallas

Democrat. </div><div>
</div><div> Dr. Enstrom stated that contrary to Johnson’s beliefs, he is an ideal legitimate researcher.

“Because of my education and my subsequent 43-year year scientific career, I have a deep understanding of elementary

particles, fine particles, epidemiology, statistical analysis, the ACS, and CPS data. These factors qualify me as a legitimate

researcher who should be allowed to independently analyze the CPS 2 data heavily relied upon by EPA,” said Enstrom.

According to Dr. Enstrom, Johnson’s letter “deliberately misrepresents” his qualifications and makes ad hominem statements. </div><div>
</div><div> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Johnson claimed that Enstrom was terminated by UCLA, but Enstrom stated that he is currently in the process of suing the

university for wrongful termination.</span> If he wins the case, Dr. Enstrom will regain his faculty position.

After further defending himself against Johnson’s claims, Dr. Enstrom asked that Johnson immediately withdraw her defamatory

statements and identify who originated the statements.

Dr. Enstrom’s response to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson</div><div>
</div><div><b> 9/17/2015 </b>Scientific researcher rebuts Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s ‘defamatory statements’ Texas on the Potomac

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/08/scientificresearcherrebutsrepeddiebernicejohnsonsdefamatorystatements/ 3/8

<b>Promoted Stories</b>

James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. President

SHOW ME MORE LIKE DR. ENSTROM'S RESPONSE TO REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

SIMILAR TO DR. ENSTROM'S RESPONSE TO REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

BACK TO DOC