There’s more ugliness like what went on recently with Oregon State University. This professor exposed corruption within the California University system that had ties to the California Air Resources Board’s botched PM2.5 rules. As we’ve seen recently, this PM2.5 regulatory action is so vile that the EPA does unannounced human experimentation.
From WND:
What’s academia’s response to a whistleblower who exposes fraudulent research and faked credentials on a panel of experts?
Fire the whistleblower, of course.
That’s the allegation in a new complaint filed against the regents of the University of California by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of former professor James E. Enstrom.
The lawsuit explains that Enstrom was a UCLA research professor for decades – until he blew the whistle on “junk environmental science and scientific misconduct at the University of California” and was dismissed.
“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “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 for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”
French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”
…
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles alleges the school violated Enstrom’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments.
Enstrom’s Ph.D. from Stanford is in physics. He’s worked in the university system for more than 30 years. His difficulties started after his peer-reviewed inhalation toxicology report titled “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and total Mortality Among Elderly Californians 1973-2002,” the claim explains.
That study “found no relationship between PM2.5 (particulate matter) and total mortality in California,” the lawsuit said.
His finding contradicted the opinions of “several senior … faculty members. [Environmental Health Sciences] chair Jackson, EHS professors John Froines and Aurthur Winer, epidemiology and EHS professor Bente Ritz, and Dean Rosenstock have all publicly supported the widely popular – though scientifically unfounded – argument that diesel particulate matter and/or PM2.5 results in increased mortality risks for California citizens.”
Enstrom then contradicted the other researchers in testimony to the state legislature and further exposed the fraudulent credentials of Hien T. Tran, “a key CARB scientist and lead author of the October 24, 2008 CARB report on PM2.5 and premature death.
“Mr. Tran’s research report served as the primary public health justification for a new diesel vehicle regulatory scheme approved by CARB … Dr. Enstrom’s statements brought to light that Mr. Tran’s Ph.D. was not awarded by the University of California at Davis as Tran claimed. Mr. Tran subsequently admitted that he purchased his Ph.D. at a cost of $1,000 from ‘Thornhill University,’ a fake institution and Internet diploma mill based at a UPS store in New York.”
The complaint also asserted that members of a university committee had been serving indefinite terms, in violation of state rules limiting terms to three years.
=============================================================
Full story at WND
=============================================================
An essay in 2009 lays out why Enstrom was right:
California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations
Claiming their action will save thousands of Californians’ lives and reduce health care expenditures, the California Air Resources Board has imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science.
Vigorous protests of the new regulations and the claims of benefits were submitted by Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA and others, amounting to more than 100 pages of written criticisms of the CARB scientific process and the studies that CARB claimed showed thousands of deaths from diesel small particles.
The year-long process of development of the new regulations resulted in some very revealing public commentary, accusations of complicity in the scientific review process, and even misconduct by CARB officials.
In the biggest scandal, opposition scientists found the lead author of the key study by CARB had faked his Ph.D. and lacked expertise in air pollution research. In addition, CARB hired reviewers to review their own papers, naturally resulting in approval of the scientific studies that claimed the death and health effects.
Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in a May 27, 2008 essay in The Washington Times, declared the new regulations, called the “Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan” (GMERP), an overreach by CARB based on bad science that will drive business out of California.
Miller cited a large and detailed 2005 study by Enstrom, who has a real Ph.D. from Stanford and a Masters in Public Health from his current university, UCLA. Enstrom found no death effect in the period between 1983 and 2002 from fine particulate matter in the air.
In any fair analysis of science, such a study disproves the claims of CARB of thousands of deaths. Miller pointed out the harm to the California economy created by the new CARB rules will induce additional deaths due to the “income effect.” Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.
In a valiant effort to push back on the CARB diesel regulations, Enstrom and others provided commentary and analysis in 2008 that showed the CARB scientific process was poisoned with bias and insider dealing, including a review panel that was clearly not objective and was set up to give CARB what it wanted.
During the effort to urge CARB to reconsider the bad effects for little benefit, the Enstrom group found out the lead author for CARB on the study, Hien Tran, in fact did not have the Ph.D. claimed by CARB in its major study of air pollution and that he had authored no significant studies in air pollution toxicology.
On December 10, 2008, in a last effort to change CARB votes and ask for reconsideration of the new regulations with a more disciplined peer review and scientific process, Enstrom authored a letter to CARB reminding the board of the public comments submitted already by many distinguished scientists.
Enstrom noted CARB had not adequately responded to the many criticisms in the public comments raising process and evidentiary questions and refutations of the CARB claims of thousands of deaths. Submitters included Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute, Joseph Suchecki of the Engine Manufacturers Association, Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, a prominent and nationally known epidemiologist, Dr. Fred Lipfert, also a national figure in public health, and Dr. John Dunn (the author of this essay), a 30-plus-year epidemiologist from UCLA.
They all asserted the CARB death projections were the product of an excessive zeal at CARB and unacceptably weak research on current California air pollution health effects. Moreover, the commentators pointed out the GMERP rules would impose new regulatory and economic burdens on industry and business that would result in hardship for the consuming public and harm the failing and frail California economy.
The public commentary, mostly from scientists and more than 140 pages, was negative, with the expected supportive letters from environmental organizations.
In his December 10 letter, Enstrom pointed out CARB’s disregard of public scientific commentary, the biased nature of the CARB consultants, lack of scientific qualifications of CARB lead author Hien Tran, and reasons why CARB should reconstitute its review process and committee members and restudy its scientific reports and projections of deaths.
In another December 2008 letter to CARB board members, Enstrom, Anthony Fucaloro, a 35-year chemist from Claremont McKenna University, Matt Malkan, a 25-year astrophysicist from UCLA, and Robert Phalen, a 35-year air pollution toxicologist from UC Irvine, pointed out their concerns:
General Concerns Regarding Air Pollution Health Effects and Regulations
1) Pollution levels are much lower today than in previous decades and current health risks are small.
2) Small epidemiologic associations are often spurious, rather than cause-and-effect relationships.
3) Regulations designed to solve one problem may have consequences that do more harm than good.
4) Scientists who are not popular activists are often marginalized and their important research is ignored.
5) Conflict of interest regarding power and funding exists between regulators and conforming scientists.
6) New regulations must be based on a fair evaluation of all available evidence from diverse sources.
Specific Concerns Regarding October 24, 2008 CARB Staff Report on PM 2.5 and Premature Deaths
1) Authors have no relevant peer-reviewed publications and lead author has misrepresented his “Ph.D.”
2) Report and public comments were never shown to outside reviewers as stated in Executive Summary.
3) Five independent sources indicate no current relationship between PM2.5 and deaths in California.
4) California has fourth lowest total age-adjusted death rate among US states and few “premature deaths.”
5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in California are currently at record low levels.
6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in California.
Conclusion
Important epidemiologic and toxicological evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until the above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.
The CARB board passed the rules unanimously. So much for the democratic process and scientific debate that results in good public policy.
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency
Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center
Fort Hood, Texas
John says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:58 am
Interesting links to ‘research’ on diesel particulates. I presume had this case been about the 2011 WHO study – you would have referenced the CARB study to show how these particulates are harmful?
Can you give a good solid reason why anyone should believe these ‘studies’? It seems that whenever any of these research papers are looked at in detail – the authors won’t release data or methods, the peer reviewers are pal reviewers and everyone is munificently remunerated for the research and given further research by political masters.
In short it is becoming more and more difficult to trust researchers and academia they have become servants of their paymasters.
The entire point of ‘tenure’ was to ensure that academics were not removed from post for unpopular research results. It follows that to retain academic freedom, a professor with tenure should also not be remunerated more for popular research results. Tenure should remove both carrot and stick. Yet now we see ‘rock star’ researchers earning huge sums for ‘the right results’. Science has sold its right to be trusted – but the eventual cost of that loss of trust will be far greater than these politicized researchers can conceive.
The initial reason for termination of Dr. Enstrom was given by EHS Chair Jackson as, “programmatically, your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department and your research output and ability to secure continued funding does not meet the minimum requirements of the Department.”
But in the subsequent review, Dr. Gold found, on this particular justification, that “Dr. Enstrom’s research is fully aligned with the department’s mission. By its very name, the Department of Environmental Health Sciences [EHS] embraces the research foci of Dr. Enstrom, i.e., determining the effect of diesel exhaust fine particulate matter on overall mortality in California …. ”
This makes it obvious that Dr. Enstrom was not let go because his research was not aligned with the “academic” mission of the department, but because his research was not aligned with the “political” mission of the department. What more evidence do you need to see that environmental extremists have corrupted academia?
The entire EPA is made up of bizarre left wing activists. It has evolved into a worthless institution. No science, all politics.
Grandpa Boris says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:16 am
I have found several legitimate, serious sources of that story that don’t have the WND’s taint of idiocy and gullibility.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Grandma says if the quote holds up……… 🙂
Bill Tuttle says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:22 am
“So, UCLA’s take on it is that the department’s academic mission is promulgating academic and governmental fraud.
At least they’re honest about their mendacity…”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well we do know UCLA has not debunked ANY of his studies. Soooo…it has to be political?
I took the time to read the legal complaint. Wow. Quite an eye opener. From what I read: He exposes that CARB lead scientists is a fraud. That oversight board members hold their positions illegally, one of which is a Uni colleague. He publishes a major study showing the CARB science is wrong. The regulations are simply a waste of money that will hurt the economy (and thus potentially kill more people than they save).
From the complaint: He is self-funded. He brings in the money for his own research and the Uni pays him a salary from this, while taking a cut for themselves. The Uni doubled their cut, diverted and depleted his funds without telling him, so there was no money for his salary, then wouldn’t provide him an accounting. When discovered, they wouldn’t pay back the money, so he got no salary. Then they applied a series of rules to fire him, that have never been applied to any other staff member. The folks doing the firing, they don’t meet the standards either, so if applied evenly they would have to fire themselves. One of the people voting to dismiss is the same colleague exposed as holding an illegal regulatory oversight position. As far as his research not being aligned, his area of research is the lead area the Uni department advertises.
“”””” John says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:58 am
EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, as early as 1998 urged EPA to investigate which particles are most harmful, or least harmful, which EPA has studiously avoided doing. EPA says there isn’t enough evidence to make such judgments, despite spending $50 million of research dollars every year since about 1998, ostensibly to make these judgments.
So it isn’t that surprising that Enstrom was able to show no relationship between PM2.5 and mortality, because PM2.5 is likely a mixture of harmful particles and non-harmful ones. EPA needs him to be fired, because otherwise his critique could be characterized as that of a respected scientist……”””””
John, I found your post to be very informative. It sounds like there is confusion, but some data suggesting diesel carbon particulates relate to lung diseases; but the death of someone from such a cause can never be proven. For me, it is not an academic question, as I lost my only brother to a cause related to diesel fumes in the lungs. He did NOT die of lung cancer, and had an alcoholism factor involved as well.(He did contract tractor work for other farmers).
But California particle pollution laws, have already made California air “cleaner” than it ever was before “white men” ever saw the place; so the CARB position is assinine; and simply beurocratic dictatorship. CARB and EPA gave us the mandated MTBE/ETBE “oxygenated” fuel scandal; and when backed up on that, to where they couldn’t sustain that mythology; they still dictated the ethanol option, even though major energy companies have already proved, they can meet and exceed ANY and all California Gasoline standards, without Oxygenated fuel.
Adding oxygen to a gasoline fuel, either an ether or an alcohol, is equivalent to adding ordinary water to the gasoline. The BTU obtained by burning H2, into H2O, is exactly the amount lost by turning a parrafin into the ether or alcohol equivalent; so you end up having to burn MORE fuel, which increases the CO2 output from the engine. The hydrogen combustion gives more energy than the carbon combustion, so oxygenating a saturated hydrocarbon molecule is simply insane..
Well considering the educational credentials of whatsername; the CARB dictator; insanity in California Government is endemic.
Maybe we need a PM2.5 sequestration program?
It has been known for years that living in cities causes lung cancer. Lung cancer rates for non-smokers in cities being almost identical to those of smokers that live in rural areas.
Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates, while smokers that live in cities have the highest. Thus it can be argued that living in a city is as dangerous as smoking.
If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.
so you end up having to burn MORE fuel, which increases the CO2 output from the engine.
==========
The exact same thing happened when they mandated air pumps be added to cars. The effect was to pump air into the tail pipe, and thus reduce the PPM of pollutants out the back end, while cutting mileage and increasing the total pollutants by 10-15%.
George Smith wrote, “EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality”
This stance has enabled them to equate the quiet burning of a few leaves wrapped in a thin sheet of paper producing PM 2.5 to the myriad industrial, chemical, and automotive processes that produce them (along with a lot of other pollutants) during deadly air pollution episodes. When I’ve written about this in the past I’ve spoken about it being similar to taking a teaspoon of sugar crystals and claiming that it’s just as deadly as a teaspoon of arsenic crystals because they’re both the same size. Heh, of course they then COMPOUND this basic problem by ignoring EPA guidelines and comparing one-hour measurements with 24 hour guidelines as though they were the same thing.
When university research is run by ideologues rather than science … the science is in very serious trouble.
– MJM
ferd berple says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:17 am
If this be true:
“Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates,”
Then this can not be true:
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
BUT I DO get what you are trying to say 🙂
Slightly OT but relevant to smoking. My father died at age 68 or 69 from cancer (not lung cancer) and had a cigarette in his hand every minute that I can remember. Both of my sisters were the same so family gatherings were miserable to me (non-smoker) caught up in a small closed room. It was usually hard to see across the room.
My father’s mother died at about age 42 – 45 from lung cancer. She never smoked or allowed anyone to smoke at her house. His sister died at early 50’s from lung cancer and never smoked or allowed it around her. From a non-smoker view, secondhand smoke stinks. Now pipe tobacco has a nice aroma. But the science regarding an issue affecting public policy should be just that, science and not advocacy science. I believe the tobacco issue was advocacy science.
While smoking causes an unpleasant atmosphere for those who don’t smoke, I’m uncertain as to the validity of the science. Would it be fair to use advocacy science to address unpleasant odors from someone who doesn’t bath or someone who farts often? How about women who put on so much perfume that you move to the rear of a different checkout line at the grocery store to escape them? These issues are personal choices of an individual that has an effect on others. I would not say that diesel exhaust has a pleasant smell but transportation is an important benefit / necessity to everyone. Science needs to be science. Leave the advocacy out.
I will now ‘pass wind’ before it becomes prohibited under ‘global warming’ gas regulations.
kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:05 am
Well we do know UCLA has not debunked ANY of his studies. Soooo…it has to be political?
From the smoking guns you (June 16, 2012 at 9:47 am), Louis (June 16, 2012 at 10:02 am) and ferd berple (June 16, 2012 at 10:07 am) found, yes, it’s political.
I think it’s Beate Ritz…not Bente.
Whenever I see this stuff and it’s based on the actions of irrational professors I immediately want to start digging into their other work. Incompetence in the simple stuff means there are bigger issues with the more complex.
There is only one way to explain it.
Corruption!!!!!!!!!
ferd berple says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:17 am
It has been known for years that living in cities causes lung cancer. Lung cancer rates for non-smokers in cities being almost identical to those of smokers that live in rural areas.
Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates, while smokers that live in cities have the highest. Thus it can be argued that living in a city is as dangerous as smoking.
If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.
==============================
Cause vs correlation? You make a good point.
Could it be that likely those in rural areas actually work hard and therefore exercise their respiratory and cardiac systems much more that those in the city? If someone doesn’t ‘cook the data’ perhaps we will discover that running and other activities that exercise the lungs reduces the risk of lung cancer as well as heart disease.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report
After All: Education IS a learning process ….ha ha ha ha
kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:34 am
If this be true:
“Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates,”
Then this can not be true:
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
========
I don’t see how that follows?? folks that don’t smoke and live outside of cities get almost no lung cancer. folks that don’t smoke but live in cities get lung cancer. Thus, according to climate science, lung cancer causes people to live in cities.
Ack my post got ate!
Bill Tuttle says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:44 am
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BUT I wonder if we can blame them entirely.
After all their heroes have taught them well.
Page 143
Mr Hansen teaches:
http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf
page 143 (emphasis added):
note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report
After All: Education IS a learning process ….ha ha ha ha
Well what do you expect when your own president and his cronies don’t seem to care about due process!
And the lead researcher for CARB, the one with the fraudulent credentials. Fired? Nope, suspension. Fraudulent credentials, not qualified, not a problem in Califorkingcrazy, so long as you do as you are told. Actual research, now that is a problem. We wouldn’t want our decisions clouded by evidence.
ferd berple says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:20 am
If this be true:
“Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates,”
Then this can not be true:
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
Bolded
If …Non smokers that live in rural areas STILL get Lung Cancer – You can’t END lung cancer…You Can REDUCE it with your logic…but not END it. 🙂
“He also discovered that, as a researcher whose compensation was paid entirely by grants and other resources he acquired for the university, the funding management had been changed and his salary could not be met. Also, his grant funds were charged for an on-campus office, when UCLA’s only space allocated to him was a .4-cubic foot mailbox.
Then came the termination notice, based on university statements that his funds, which he generated but the university administered, were depleted.”
Sounds to me like a fraud has possibly been committed by the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. This should go beyond a civil suit and the police should be involved. His grant providers need also to be made aware that their moneys have been misappropriated by this department for other purposes.
alex says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:27 am
Who knows whether it is dangerous or not.
But driving behind a car with a black tail – is really not a big fun.
Full support for cleaner technology!
You have been eading too much junk from California. Modern diesiels don’t spew particulates. My Mercedes shows no exhausr fumes whatever. Loads of filters, you see.
[snip – funny, but we don’t want to start that discussion on this thread – A]