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.
Enstrom contended that the short explanation given for his nonreappointment is invalid and filed an appeal on Friday.
“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.
The stated mission of the department is to study the relationship between environment and health, according to its website.
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.
“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.
Held in suspense
James Enstrom is anxiously anticipating this day, yet hoping for his circumstances to change.
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.
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.
His multiple layoff notices all cite that his research is not aligned with the department’s mission.
The details of research
Enstrom, who describes himself as a loner, has created unexpected ripples in the world of academia with his divergent research in air pollution.
He believes that as a result of publicizing his work, his department has responded by refusing his reappointment as a researcher.
In particular, his research on fine particulate air pollution in California implies that miniscule diesel particles do not have a significant effect on mortality.
His findings contradict conventional wisdom and other studies, which contend that this type of air pollution causes thousands of deaths each year.
“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.
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.
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 Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at UC Irvine and has known Enstrom for years.
“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.
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.
But standards passed down from the Environmental Protection Agency are uniform nationwide, making it more difficult and expensive for California to meet these conditions.
“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.”
The price of pollution
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.
The repercussions apply to businesses across the state, as they are required to fit their trucks with filters or buy new trucks.
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.
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.
Because Enstrom has tried to publicly highlight his results, he has stirred up far more attention than scientific research usually receives.
“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.”
Yet many other scientists have agreed with Telles, citing a number of published studies.
“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.”
Burning bridges
Enstrom suspects his nonreappointment is in part a response to his investigation into the backgrounds of Hien Tran and John Froines, both of whom disputed his research findings. Enstrom discovered that Hien Tran, one of the lead CARB staffers who compiled a review on diesel mortality studies, had faked his doctorate degree from UC Davis.
Enstrom was also involved in removing Froines from the Scientific Review Panel, which advises CARB. 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.
Enstrom said he believes Froines used his weight in the department to force Enstrom’s nonreappointment.
After multiple requests, Froines still declined to comment.
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.
“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.
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.
The School of Public Health strongly maintains that research results are not part of the reappointment process.
Enstrom remains concerned about the outcome of truck regulations on business owners – one of the primary reasons he took up this battle.
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.
“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.
More than 20 California legislators have signed a letter to Chancellor Gene Block, highlighting their concerns about Enstrom’s situation.
Enstrom is in discussion with administration officials and is waiting for the results of his appeal.
By KELLY ZHOU, Dailybruin

Watch NBC TODAY Show – Getting Saucy With Trisha Yearwood online. In this episode:

The country singer, who is also known for her great cooking, shows TODAY’s Hoda Kotb how to prepare some of her favorite recipes.

The episode was first available online: Thu Aug 26 17:52:08 2010This episode first aired Thu Aug 26 2010The total duration of this episode is 05:25

Watch NBC TODAY Show – Getting Saucy With Trisha Yearwood Online
View it via right at this link

Related Posts

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache mod_fcgid/2.3.5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at trevoro.com Port 80

This Week's Review -- September 5, 1970

Eleven new singles made their debut this week. Five would eventually reach the Top 40, with four of those hitting the Top 10. The songs on this week's list have a largely retro feel to them. Among the tunes are a remake of a #1 song from 1958 and a remake of a 1961 Impressions tune. Also, the Impressions themselves appear, as does Little Richard. Many of the songs are either from the soul arena or inspired by it. A song about how the music business treats its performers is here, as well as one that needed to be altered by its record company after inflicting an unintended result when played on a car radio.

Among the archive of past Billboard issues at Google Books, the September 5, 1970 edition is available to read for free. The full Hot 100 list can be found on page 80. Two stories on page one are interesting. One recounts how an official from the Nixon administration was pressuring the tape industry to develop a set of industry standards, showing that using the media to exert political pressure on a private industry isn't a new concept, and it's ironic considering the effect the tape industry's products had on Nixon's future. The other front page article explains how certain programmers are dealing with what was labeled "filth" in the lyrics of certain recent singles. The words in question: "hell" and "Goddamned." Forty years after that article was written, that seems rather quaint.



The New Seekers - "Look What They've Done To My Song Ma"

(Debuted #70, Peaked #14, 12 Weeks on chart)



The New Seekers were formed by Keith Potger in 1969 after the original Seekers disbanded. The Seekers were an Australian band that had moved to England to make their mark in the music business, The New Seekers were based in the U.K. Potger recorded with the band and performed with them but was not an official member of the group until many years later.

Their first hit single in the U.S. was "Look What They've Done to My Song, Ma," a song written by Melanie Safka (who recorded as simply Melanie). Using a similar folk-influenced approach Melanie used in her own recording of the song at first, more instruments are added as the song progresses. Eva Graham sings lead, as she did with most of The New Seeker's hit singles. The song has a verse sung in French ("Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma") as the music sounds like it's evoking gay Paree.

The lyrics are interesting. Melanie was known as an artist who was unconventional and something of a nonconformist. The lyrics express disappointment that "they" (the record company's executives, perhaps, or producers) are taking a song she thought was perfect and "tied it up in a plastic bag and turned it upside down." As one of Melanie's most-recorded and best-remembered tunes, it seems like the process of writing a song to express disillusionment over the way the music business works may have been quite cathartic indeed.
This Week's Review -- September 5, 1970

Eleven new singles made their debut this week. Five would eventually reach the Top 40, with four of those hitting the Top 10. The songs on this week's list have a largely retro feel to them. Among the tunes are a remake of a #1 song from 1958 and a remake of a 1961 Impressions tune. Also, the Impressions themselves appear, as does Little Richard. Many of the songs are either from the soul arena or inspired by it. A song about how the music business treats its performers is here, as well as one that needed to be altered by its record company after inflicting an unintended result when played on a car radio.

Among the archive of past Billboard issues at Google Books, the September 5, 1970 edition is available to read for free. The full Hot 100 list can be found on page 80. Two stories on page one are interesting. One recounts how an official from the Nixon administration was pressuring the tape industry to develop a set of industry standards, showing that using the media to exert political pressure on a private industry isn't a new concept, and it's ironic considering the effect the tape industry's products had on Nixon's future. The other front page article explains how certain programmers are dealing with what was labeled "filth" in the lyrics of certain recent singles. The words in question: "hell" and "Goddamned." Forty years after that article was written, that seems rather quaint.



The New Seekers - "Look What They've Done To My Song Ma"

(Debuted #70, Peaked #14, 12 Weeks on chart)



The New Seekers were formed by Keith Potger in 1969 after the original Seekers disbanded. The Seekers were an Australian band that had moved to England to make their mark in the music business, The New Seekers were based in the U.K. Potger recorded with the band and performed with them but was not an official member of the group until many years later.

Their first hit single in the U.S. was "Look What They've Done to My Song, Ma," a song written by Melanie Safka (who recorded as simply Melanie). Using a similar folk-influenced approach Melanie used in her own recording of the song at first, more instruments are added as the song progresses. Eva Graham sings lead, as she did with most of The New Seeker's hit singles. The song has a verse sung in French ("Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma") as the music sounds like it's evoking gay Paree.

The lyrics are interesting. Melanie was known as an artist who was unconventional and something of a nonconformist. The lyrics express disappointment that "they" (the record company's executives, perhaps, or producers) are taking a song she thought was perfect and "tied it up in a plastic bag and turned it upside down." As one of Melanie's most-recorded and best-remembered tunes, it seems like the process of writing a song to express disillusionment over the way the music business works may have been quite cathartic indeed.