James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. Update
The recent firing of Dr. James Enstrom from the position he has held for the past 34 years at the UCLA School of Public Health.
8/18/10
By Michael Siegel, MD, MPH UCLA School of Public Health Fires Professor James Enstrom, Apparently Because It Does Not Like the Direction of His Research Findings Apparent Disrespect for Academic Freedom and Violation of Due Process Should Alarm Everyone Concerned about Academic Integrity UCLA School of Public Health professor James Enstrom has been fired from his position in the School's Department of Environmental Health Sciences under the primary claim that his "research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department." Dr. Enstrom received official and final notice of the School's decision not to reappoint him (as of August 30, 2010) in a June 30 letter from the Chair of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. This decision was confirmed in a July 29 letter from the Associate Dean for Academic Programs at the School. The decision to terminate Dr. Enstrom's appointment followed a vote of the Environmental Health Sciences Department's faculty regarding his re-appointment. In both letters, the primary reason for Dr. Enstrom's non-reappointment was that the Department faculty determined that his research was not aligned with the Department's mission. In one letter, the primary reason for non-reappointment is that: "the faculty of [the Department of] Environmental Health Sciences have determined that your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department...". In the other letter, the primary reason for non-reappointment is that: "the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department...". Thus, the primary stated reason for Dr. Enstrom's firing was that the faculty of his academic department had come to the decision that his research was not aligned with the Department's academic mission. The story was reported in an article in the Bakersfield Californian and another article in the Sacramento Bee. It was also reported on Dr. Carl Phillips' blog Ep-ology, at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, and at the American Council on Science and Health's Facts and Fears blog. The Rest of the Story Dr. Enstrom has held a continuous academic appointment at the UCLA School of Public Health for the past 34 years. Initially, his position was based in the Dean's Office. Since 2004, his position has been based in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. The stated mission of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences is to: "explore the fundamental relationship between human health and the environment." In particular, the specific mission of one of the major centers housed in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences - the Southern California Particle Center (SCPC) is: "to identify and conduct high priority research to better understand the effects of particulate matter (PM) and ensure protection of public health." The SCPC is led by Professor John Froines of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, and its research focus in the past decade has been on studying the health effects of particulate matter. In fact, a presentation by Dr. Froines summarizing the work of the SCPC highlights its investigations into the effects of fine particulate air pollution. Dr. Froines' major research interest is described as: "Chemical mechanisms and exposure assessment related to the health effects from exposure to airborne particulate matter." In fact, an enormous amount of research by many faculty in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences involves investigation of the health effects of particulate matter, including fine particulates (PM2.5) and diesel particulate exhaust. The following are publications out of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences faculty, all of which focus on the health effects of particulate matter air pollution: AK Di, Stefano E, You Y, Rodriguez CE, Schmitz DA, Kumagai Y, Miguel AH, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Kobayashi T, Avol E, Froines JR. Determination of Four Quinones in Diesel Exhaust Particles, SRM 1649a and Atmospheric PM2.5. Aerosol Science and Technology 2003. Li N, Sioutas C, Cho A, Schmitz D, Misra C, Sempf J, Wang M, Oberley T, Froines J, Nel A. Ultrafine particulate pollutants induce oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage. Environmental Health Perspectives 2003; 111(4): 455-60. Li N, Kim S, Wang M, Froines J, Sioutas C, Nel A. Use of a stratified oxidative stress model to study the biological effects of ambient concentrated and diesel exhaust particulate matter. Inhalation Toxicology 2002; 14(5): 459-86. Yifang Zhu, Arantzazu Eiguren-Fernandez, William Hinds and Antonio H. In-vehicle exposure to ultrafine particles on Los Angeles freeways. Environmental Science and Technology 2007; 41: 2138-2145 . Zhu, Y., Fung, D.C., Kennedy, N., Hinds, W.C. and Eiguren-Fernandez, A. "Measurements of Ultrafine Particles and Other Vehicular Pollutants inside a Mobile Exposure System on Los Angeles Freeways". J Air & Waste Mgmt Assoc 2008; 58: 424-434. Zhu, Y., Eiguren-Fernandez, A., Hinds, W.C., and Miguel, A.H. "In-Vehicle Exposure To Ultrafine Particles On Los Angeles Freeways". Environ Sci. & Technol 2007; 41: 2138-2145. Zhu, Y.F., Kuhn, T., Mayo, P., and Hinds, W. "Comparison of Daytime and Nighttime Concentration Profiles and Size Distributions of Ultrafine particles near a Major Highway". Environ Sci & Technol 2006; 40: 2531-2536. Zhu, Y., Hinds, W.C., Shen, S., and Sioutas, C. "Seasonal Trends of Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles near Major Highways in Los Angeles". Aerosol Sci Tech 2004; 38(S1): 5-13. Zhu, Y., Hinds, W.C., Kim, S., Shen, S., and Sioutas, C. "Study on ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty traffic". Atmospheric Environment 2002; 36: 4323-4335. Hinds, W.C. "Particulate Air Pollution". In Southern California Environmental Report Card 2001, A. M. Winer, ed. 2001; UCLA Institute of the Environment, Los Angeles, CA. Wu, J., D. Houston, F. Lurmann, P. Ong and A. M. Winer. Exposure of PM2.5 and EC from Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles in Communities near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. Atmospheric Environment 2009; 43: 1962-1971. Wu, J., A. M. Winer and R. J. Delfino. Exposure Assessment of Particulate Matter Air Pollution Before, During and After the 2003 Southern California Wildfires. Atmospheric Environment 2006; 40: 3333-3348. Fruin, S. A., A. M. Winer and C. E. Rodes. Black Carbon Concentrations in California Vehicles and Estimation of In-Vehicle Diesel Exhaust Particulate Matter. Atmospheric Environment 2004; 38: 4123-4133. P. Cicero-Fernandez, V. Torres, A. Rosales, H. Cesar, K. Dorland, R. Muñoz, R. Uribe, A. P. Martinez. Evaluation of Human Exposure to Ambient PM10 in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City using a GIS-Based Methodology. Journal of Air and Waste Management 2001; 51: 1886-1593. P. Cicero-Fernández, W.A. Thistlewaite, Y.I. Falcon, and I.M. Guzmán. Analysis of TSP, PM10 and PM10/TSP Ratio Distributions in Mexico City Metropolitan Area, A Temporal and Spatial Approach. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 1993; 3(1). And What About Dr. Enstrom's Research? It turns out that a major focus of Dr. Enstrom's work during the past six years has been ... ... the health effects of fine particulate matter air pollution on human health. In fact, Dr. Enstrom was just invited by the Health Effects Institute to submit a full proposal under an RFP related to the health effects of air pollution. His preliminary application was accepted, meaning that (had he not been fired) he was about to submit a full proposal, entitled: "Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study Cohort." In 2005, Dr. Enstrom published a study that examined the relationship between fine particulate exposure and total mortality among nearly 50,000 elderly Californians. This was one of the largest studies ever to look at the relationship between PM2.5 and mortality rates. Clearly, Dr. Enstrom's research is directly related to the mission of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. In fact, his work is directly aligned with the stated mission of the Department and one of its major centers and his research area is exactly the same as that of several other faculty members in the Department. Since it is clear that Dr. Enstrom's research is directly aligned with the mission of the Department, how can the Department and the School claim that his research is "not aligned with the academic mission of the Department"? Apprently, the problem with Dr. Enstrom's research is not the nature of the research, which obviously aligns perfectly with the mission of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. Instead, the problem appears to be the direction of his research findings. Dr. Enstrom happened to find that there was no significant relationship between PM2.5 exposure and overall mortality, at least during the time period 1983-2002. This is apparently what the UCLA School of Public Health and the Department of Environmental Health Sciences mean when they conclude that Dr. Enstrom's research does not align with the "mission" of the Department. The nature of his research aligns perfectly, coinciding closely with the work of several other faculty members and coinciding perfectly with a major center housed in the Department. But apparently, the direction of his findings does not align with the Department's mission. In other words, the mission of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences is not to "explore the fundamental relationship between human health and the environment." Instead, its mission is to show that fine particulate matter pollution and other environmental exposures adversely affect human health. If your research fails to show an adverse effect of an environmental exposure on human health, then your research is apparently no longer "aligned" with the mission of the Department and School. As long as your research results are "favorable" to increased regulation, then it appears your research is aligned with the School's mission. But as soon as you obtain negative findings and report them, you have deviated from the School's mission and you are at risk of being fired. Think about the negative implications of this mentality for the integrity of research and of science. If your career success - and your ability to maintain your job - are going to measured by your ability to produce positive findings of the adverse effects of whatever you are studying - then you are going to become biased in your research. How can we ever have objective environmental science research if faculty members are scared that if they report negative findings, they are going to lose their jobs? You want to talk about publication bias? The actions of the UCLA School of Public Health with respect to Dr. Enstrom's firing may well contribute toward publication bias. If you can't report the findings of your research as they actually come out because you are afraid of losing your job, then negative findings would never be reported and there would be a complete destruction of scientific integrity. Moreover, the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA appears to be interfering with academic freedom. If they are going to conclude that a faculty member's research doesn't align with the mission of the Department because they are unhappy with the direction of the research findings, then faculty are no longer free to express their opinions. Expressing a dissenting opinion could be grounds for termination. The actions of UCLA in this case appear to be an alarming threat to the integrity of academic freedom and scientific integrity in academia. As it turns out, Dr. Enstrom's findings about the lack of a significant relationship between PM2.5 exposure and overall mortality are not an anomaly. Nor are they a result of poorly conducted science. A study by Dr. Michael Jerrett at UC Berkeley, using data from the Cancer Prevention Study - II, found exactly the same result. Dr. Jerrett reported no increased relative risk for all-cause mortality associated with PM2.5 exposure. Specifically, he reported "null PM2.5 effects on all cause mortality." Dr. Jerrett is a well-respected scientist who conducted research similar to that of Dr. Enstrom and found essentially the same result. In fact, he reported the results of another California study which found no evidence of increased heart disease mortality associated with PM2.5 exposure among males. I am not arguing here that PM2.5 is not a major health threat. There are reasons why one might not detect effects on overall mortality and any conclusion must be based on the totality of the evidence, not based on a single study. Dr. Jerrett was apparently struggling to find an explanation for the lack of a significant association between particulate exposure and overall mortality. The finding does not necessarily rule out a positive association between fine particulates and cardiovascular disease. My point is simply to show that Dr. Enstrom's findings were validated in an independent study, thus refuting any argument that his research was invalid. It appears that his finding of a lack of a significant association between fine particulate exposure and overall mortality is not an anomaly. Is there no room for a difference of opinion in a public health institution? Must all faculty members tow a certain party line, regardless of what their research shows? Well, at UCLA School of Public Health, at least in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, the answer to both questions appears to be yes. If your research happens to report negative findings, you are apparently in danger of being terminated because your research suddenly becomes misaligned with the Department mission. You know, there are a large number of reasons why a faculty member can be terminated. In fact, a non-tenured faculty member can essentially be terminated simply because the Department Chair no longer wants that faculty member in the Department. Great deference is given to the School in making faculty re-appointments. In light of this, it is striking that the Department and the School would go to such an effort to emphasize that the reason for Dr. Enstrom's firing is that his research is not aligned with the mission of the Department. It creates the appearance that the faculty was out to get him because they didn't like the direction of his findings. Not only is this a danger to academic freedom and academic integrity, but it also is a form of censorship. If we suppress dissent by making sure that those with differing opinions cannot freely publish their findings without the threat of losing their jobs, then we are in essence censoring dissenting opinions. In fact, what we have just seen occur at UCLA is a very effective form of censorship. It cuts right to the heart: it threatens to destroy a faculty member's career and possibly livelihood if he or she publishes negative findings. I need to make an important point at this time. I am not arguing here either for or against Dr. Enstrom's reappointment. There could be valid reasons for his non-reappointment. However, that his research does not align with the Department's mission is not one of them. My argument is related to the primary reason given for his termination in the official termination letter and to the process by which he was terminated. These arguments do not depend on whether or not there was merit in the decision to terminate Dr. Enstrom. They depend, instead, on an analysis of the validity of the stated reason for his termination and the process that led to the decision. In the Bakersfield Californian article, Department Chair Dr. Richard Jackson alludes to "poor quality science" being the reason for Enstrom's termination. If that is the case, then why does the termination letter fail to mention poor quality science and instead, list the primary reason for termination as Enstrom's research not aligning with the Department's mission? And if poor quality science was the reason for his termination, why was a vote of the Department faculty an appropriate way to make the decision? The UCLA School of Public Health has every right to fire Dr. Enstrom because of poor quality science, or because they are unhappy with his funding sources, or because they are displeased with his productivity (the second reason stated in his termination letter), or for any number of other reasons. However, these reasons do not require or merit a vote of the Departmental faculty, nor do they warrant a statement in the termination letter falsely stating the primary reason for the termination. We have to, therefore, take the School's and the Department's word for it and assume that when they say he was fired because the Department faculty do not view his research as being aligned with the Department's mission, they mean it. Something just doesn't smell right and perhaps that is why Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee speculated that there is something more sinister going on. Walters reveals that Enstrom was the one who exposed the fact that a previous member of the Air Resources Board - Hien Tran - whose report on diesel emissions was the basis for tough regulations, had falsified his academic credentials. Walters wrote: "By all appearances, not only did the ARB cover up Tran's falsification but its sycophants on the UCLA faculty are punishing the man who blew the whistle. If the legislature's oversight committees and investigative staffs were doing their jobs, they'd delve into this mess." Violation of Due Process I find it distasteful that the decision to terminate Dr. Enstrom's employment was made by a secret vote of his faculty colleagues - the Departmental faculty. In general, I think employment decisions - especially firing decisions - should be made by the Department Chair in consultation with the Dean of the School. It seems inappropriate to have faculty making firing decisions about one another. This is especially problematic because faculty compete with each other. To have one faculty member making a firing decision about another faculty member is inappropriate. There are numerous conflicts of interest that are inevitably going to enter into the process - conflicts that have nothing to do with the actual qualifications or merit of the faculty member to continue in his or her appointment. In this case, there are a number of conflicts of interest, some of them blatant. For one, Dr. Enstrom's research findings conflict with those of several other faculty members. Thus, these faculty members have a potential vested interest in ousting Dr. Enstrom from the faculty, or at least, they were given the opportunity to exercise any grudges that might have against Dr. Enstrom because of his conflicting research findings. More blatant is the fact that Dr. Froines was allowed to participate in the decision. Dr. Froines has the serious potential to have an incentive to retaliate against Dr. Enstrom, because it was Enstrom's actions that led recently to the removal of Dr. Froines from his position on the California Scientific Review Panel for Toxic Air Contaminants, a position that Dr. Froines held for 26 years. Although state law (Health and Safety Code Section 39670-39671 states that members of the Scientific Review Panel shall have terms of three years, Dr. Froines was apparently on the panel for 26 years. Dr. Enstrom was the one who pointed this out to the legislature and the Air Resources Board. A lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation and eventually, the administrators of the Scientific Review Panel complied with state law and dismissed Froines from the panel. Surely, one would not want Dr. Froines to be participating in a decision on whether to fire Dr. Enstrom, given the potential incentive for him to retaliate against Enstrom. To make matters worse, it seems that Dr. Froines had a history of holding a grudge against Enstrom, as he apparently publicly ridiculed Dr. Enstrom during a June 20, 2003 Scientific Review Panel meeting. The panel appears to have been discussing Dr. Enstrom's research and Dr. Froines stated: "As a member of the UCLA School of Public Health, I apologize." This was followed by laughter. Then Dr. Stan Glantz said: "You should." This was followed by more laughter. Then Dr. Glantz said: "We're doing a study of how that paper came to pass. And it's going to get even more unpleasant." Froines said: "James Enstrom's paper." And Glantz said: "that dreamt up by Philip Morris." That UCLA would allow a decision about Dr. Enstrom's firing to be made by faculty colleagues with these potential conflicts - especially with Dr. Froines participating - is beyond me. Once again, I am not arguing the merit of Dr. Enstrom's research on secondhand smoke - the topic of the paper that was apparently ridiculed at the SRP meeting. I am simply stating that there is an apparent reason why Dr. Froines should not participate in the decision about whether to fire Dr. Enstrom because of the conflict between them. To me, the worst part of the story, however, is that in my view, due process was violated because although the departmental faculty were entrusted with the responsibility of making the decision whether to retain or fire Enstrom, Dr. Enstrom was apparently not given the opportunity to directly address the faculty and present his side of the story prior to the departmental vote on his job. In fact, he had been scheduled to give a presentation on his research regarding fine particulate matter and mortality, but that presentation was canceled by the department chair and Dr. Enstrom apparently never had the opportunity to directly address the faculty, answer questions, and present his side of the story about his research prior to the vote to fire him. I believe that the opportunity to directly address the people who are accusing you of violating your contract or violating the mission of the school is an essential part of due process, especially if they are going to directly make a decision about your employment status. It is not a fair trial if the accused is not given the opportunity to testify in his defense. In the end, regardless of the reasons for terminating Dr. Enstrom, I do not believe that it was appropriate for the decision to be made by the department faculty through a secret vote after a discussion at which Enstrom was not present and without Enstrom being given the opportunity to directly address the voting faculty and present his side of the story. I think that violates due process and is an inappropriate way to terminate a faculty member, even if the reasons given for termination were true and accurate. As you can see, this is a complicated story and I have done my best to present it accurately and with a focus on the most relevant issues. Based on my assessment, I agree with Dan Walters that an investigation is warranted into the process of this firing decision and the validity of the stated reasons for the termination. This story is very concerning for the principles of academic freedom and academic and scientific integrity, as well as for the principle of due process in academic employment decisions. I therefore hope that this commentary is just the beginning of what appears to be a much-needed investigation and discussion. Read
Secondhand Smoke Revisited!
Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research; Combatting Lysenko Pseudoscience
By James Enstrom
Abstract: This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship. The popular claims tend to damage the credibility of epidemiology.
In addition, I address the omission of my research from the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking and the inclusion of it in a massive U.S. Department of Justice racketeering lawsuit. I refute erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about me and my research and I defend the funding used to conduct this research. Finally, I compare current ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet U nion during the period of Trofim Devisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience."" (James E. Enstrom, Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11 doi:10.1186/1742-5573-4-11)
UC faculty votes to keep Big Tobacco sponsorships
Academic freedom cited as reason for voteBy: Bo Hee Kim
5/16/07
After several months of discussion, the University of California faculty has voted to continue to allow researchers to accept funding from tobacco-related companies, voting May 9 to reject a proposal to ban tobacco-related funding 43-4. "There are concerns about the tobacco industry promoting information that may obscure what's actually real," said Linda Bisson, chair of the Academic Senate at UC Davis. "Tobacco companies have been known to manipulate and misrepresent data. There are ways to market data incorrectly, so as to make it appear in favor of smoking." Bisson said the ban was introduced by researchers at UC San Francisco who are activists against the misrepresentation of data by tobacco companies. "On the UC Davis campus, the tobacco companies funding the research have not tried to affect the results," Bisson said. "We haven't heard any reports of them trying to sway results. The only advantage they have from funding the researchers is that they receive the research before the public, in separate reports, to help them prepare for what might be the next angle against them." There are currently nine active grants from tobacco-related companies at UC Davis. Barry Klein, vice chancellor of the Office of Research at UC Davis, said it is important to note the concern about the ban is not about harmful effects of smoking; it is about another issue altogether. "I am very much against smoking and urge all people, young and old, to avoid smoking," said Klein in an e-mail interview. "Banning research funding from tobacco companies is a separate issue of academic freedom." Bisson agreed that the issue of academic freedom was the biggest at hand. "The faculty is currently free to accept research [funding] from anyone regardless of how [the donor] stands politically," Bisson said. "The bottom line is that if you don't trust [the researchers], then they shouldn't be working here." Bisson said even though there are instances of misrepresentation by the tobacco companies as well as instances of "swaying" the results, other researchers would have been negatively affected had this bill passed. "There are valid researchers who would have been impacted and lost their funding," Bisson said. Klein supported the decision of the Academic Senate. "I am supportive of the recommendation of the UC faculty that within broad guidelines, that include the freedom to publish and free speech, decisions on accepting research awards should follow the good judgment of our faculty," Klein said. "I trust our faculty members' diligence and integrity and prefer not to broadly stigmatize every research award from tobacco-related companies," he said. "The proposed regents' resolution would open the door to second-guessing our research faculty, a result that could politicize research awards and stifle many good things that flow from our university." Read
Stanford divided on tobacco dollars TOP ACADEMICS DEBATE USE OF INDUSTRY MONEY 05/06/2007 By Lisa M. Krieger A group of prominent Stanford University academics are urging the school to reject money from the tobacco industry, triggering a prickly debate about the best way to safeguard the integrity of a university's research, reputation and academic freedoms. Read
Stigma of tobacco splits faculty
Hennessy finds himself opposite Pizzo in FacSen April 20, 2007
By Nick Parker Tensions ran high at yesterday afternoon’s Faculty Senate meeting as members butted heads over a proposed resolution that would bar tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research projects. Introduced by Electrical Engineering Prof. Bernd Girod, chair of the Committee on Research, the resolution elicited strong reactions on both sides of the debate. Some administrators and faculty members called the motion a moral obligation while others condemned it as setting a dangerous precedent. The resolution — which proposes that “Stanford University will not enter into sponsored research agreements with companies that make or market tobacco products” — passed by a 7-5 margin in the Committee on Research. It was sponsored by History Prof. Robert Proctor and co-signed by Medical School Prof. Robert Jackler and Law Prof. Hank Greely ‘74. Supporters of the resolution said the University has an obligation to disassociate itself from the tobacco industry, which they said manipulates University research for its own ends. “[Tobacco companies] never fund projects that would implicate themselves,” Girod said. “They select projects that help them develop theories about alternative explanations for tobacco-related diseases, such as air pollution or genetic predisposition.” Greely also voiced strong support for the proposal and castigated tobacco companies as disingenuous. “Using the guise of academic research, [the tobacco industry] has perverted academic research to its own ends for 50 years,” he said. “The tobacco industry is using Stanford to whitewash [itself]. They are using us for their nefarious ends, and we should stop it.” “If any human endeavor deserves the term ‘evil,’” he added, “I think the tobacco industry probably deserves it.” The resolution’s opponents, however, said that prohibiting tobacco industry-funded research could lead to a slippery slope for the banning of more research. “It’s dangerous to target a specific industry,” said Civil and Environmental Engineering Prof. Jeffrey Koseff MS ‘78. “Who’s to judge what comes next? This time it’s tobacco. Next it could be alcohol; it could be oil.” Provost John Etchemendy Ph.D. ‘82 agreed, arguing that preventing tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research could create a troubling precedent. “If we were to go this way, I think we would get similar efforts to ban funding from oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, the Department of Defense,” he said. “Changing research policy is not a good way to make a statement.” President John Hennessy denounced the resolution, calling it “political.” “This is a political message, and I am very concerned that we are changing our academic policy to send a political message,” he said. “And I worry about whether or not that is a wise change in our policy.” Medical School Dean Philip Pizzo disagreed with Hennessy, saying he supported the resolution on ethical grounds. “There is a difference between the tobacco industry and any other industry that exists today,” he said. “I don’t agree that this is political or politics per se.” The Senate did not vote on the resolution yesterday and has yet to decide when it will discuss the matter further. The Steering Committee will make that decision at their meeting on Tuesday. Read
Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American Cancer Society Owes Him An Apology 3/30/07 By Michael Siegel
After an internal investigation, the University of California has cleared UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom of all charges of scientific misconduct - charges that were leveled by the American Cancer Society. According to an article in a recent issue of Nature, the American Cancer Society (ACS) had accused Dr. Enstrom of scientific misconduct in his role in a 2003 British Medical Journal study which questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer among nonsmokers. That article - which used data from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study and found no significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to spousal smoking - has received massive publicity, serving as the focal point for a campaign to eliminate tobacco industry funding of research at the University of California. According to the article, the accusation from the ACS prompted an internal University investigation to determine whether any scientific misconduct occurred: "The latest round of debate began last autumn when the chief executive of the American Cancer Society, John Seffrin, wrote a letter to the University of California's board of regents arguing that tobacco funding should be banned. In the 12 October letter, Seffrin argued that tobacco-funded front groups "publicized misleading results" while giving "the false implication" that the society had endorsed the study. He cited Enstrom's BMJ article in particular, alleging that Enstrom "ignored" complaints of "fundamental methodological problems". ... Wyatt Hume, provost at the University of California's president's office, wrote to Seffrin saying that the university "takes allegations of scientific misconduct extremely seriously". If there is "specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Enstrom", he wrote, he would relay it to officials at the Los Angeles campus so that they "can pursue the matter further". Shortly after, officials at the cancer society sent a seven-page list of what they cited as issues with the BMJ article." Both authors of the study -- Dr. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, formerly of SUNY Stony Brook, vehemently denied any scientific misconduct:
"In an interview, Enstrom acknowledged receiving the various letters and corresponding with the University of California's authorities. "I am working on this with regents' approval," he said. "I am being allowed to defend myself by the appropriate people." He "absolutely" denies any misconduct in the study. And Kabat objects to the university's regent policies being based "on allegations motivated by a political agenda and unsupported by any facts"."The internal investigation failed to find any evidence of scientific misconduct. Dr. Enstrom was officially cleared in a March 22 letter from UC Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic and Health Affairs Wyatt R. Hume, who wrote: "Chancellor Abrams initiated a thorough review of the materials forwarded by Dr. Thun. He asked two senior campus officials, both of them scientists, to independently review the materials. Both officials independently reached the conclusion that these materials provide no evidence of scientific misconduct."
"The materials Dr. Thun provided reflect the robust debate in the scientific literature about the research methodologies used by Dr. Enstrom in conducting the work that was the basis for the 2003 article published in the British Medical Journal. Disagreements regarding research methodology, and disputes about the soundness of scientific conclusions do not, however, constitute scientific misconduct. There is room for vehement and heartfelt disagreement about the soundness of particular scientific analysis and conclusions, and the scientific and academic community has well-established mechanisms for judging which results are ultimately deemed to withstand lose and sustained scientific scrutiny."The Rest of the Story
As I stated in my commentary on this issue, the presence of deficiencies in research (taking the ACS position to be true) and the publication of results that do not accord with the views of others does not represent scientific misconduct. Taking money from the tobacco companies is not scientific misconduct. While the ACS has every right to criticize the methodology of the study and dispute its findings and conclusions, it is inappropriate to attack the researcher - and to charge him with scientific misconduct - rather than to focus on the research. In this case, there was no scientific misconduct. Since Dr. Enstrom has now been cleared of these charges, I believe that the American Cancer Society owes him an apology. In the academic community, scientific misconduct charges are taken very seriously and these charges could literally ruin someone's career. Thus, if a group ends up falsely bringing scientific misconduct charges against a researcher, they certainly owe him an apology for making what turns out to be false charges that could have ruined his career. What the American Cancer Society has done amounts to character assassination. If they want to criticize the research itself, point out methodologic flaws, or attack the tobacco companies for using this kind of research in a campaign to undermine public health messages about the harms of smoking or secondhand smoke, then that's fine. They have every right to do that. But to issue the attack on the individual researcher and attempt to denigrate the character of that individual by making what amount to false allegations of scientific misconduct is not appropriate. Read
UC to review the tobacco industry's funding of research James Enstrom, who studies the effects of smoking at UCLA's School of Public Health, receives money from cigarette makers. He has become a symbol for activists who hope to bar the practice. March 27, 2007
By Richard C. Paddock, Times Staff Writer For more than three decades, epidemiologist James Enstrom has labored quietly at UCLA, studying the effect of tobacco smoke on human health. In recent years, his work has challenged the conventional view that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk. He calls himself a lone wolf, a maverick and a rebel. His critics call him a turncoat. Enstrom once worked closely with the American Cancer Society, but today his sponsor is the tobacco industry. Over the last 15 years, he has received $1.4 million plus undisclosed consulting fees from the industry while producing research that supports industry views. One study used the American Cancer Society's database to contend that second-hand smoke was not a serious health hazard. Now Enstrom has become a symbol of industry influence for activists who support a proposal to bar University of California researchers from receiving tobacco industry money. The regents will take up the issue in May. Mirroring divisions elsewhere in UC, some university regents back a ban, while others oppose it on grounds of academic freedom. The 63-year-old Enstrom maintains that he is simply a scholar in "pursuit of truth." "If I was so corrupt, how could I survive for 33 years at UCLA?" he asks. "The effort is to smear me and libel me." Unfortunately for Enstrom, much of his correspondence with the tobacco industry became public during lawsuits filed by government agencies against the companies. Some of his letters are more revealing than he would have wished. Seven months ago, his research and correspondence were cited by a federal judge in a racketeering case as evidence of the tobacco industry's manipulation of the scientific process. In January, the ethics of his research were called into question at a public meeting of the UC Board of Regents. Enstrom, tall, forceful and passionate, believes the proposed ban at UC is aimed personally at him and says he is being vilified by a powerful lobby that places "political correctness" above science. He denies that tobacco money influenced his results, says no one has found errors in his calculations and contends that other studies corroborate his findings. "It's unfortunate to end up in a racketeering lawsuit for writing an article in a British medical journal," he said ruefully. University officials have kept their distance from Enstrom but note that he has faced tremendous pressure from his critics. "In some sense I will stand up for Dr. Enstrom," said Roberto Peccei, UCLA vice chancellor for research. "He's got all these people beating on him. I'm not here to defend him, but I do think he was hit by a Mack truck." Enstrom went into the field of health research by chance. A native of Alhambra, he earned a doctorate in physics at Stanford University. He was doing post-doctoral work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory when he happened on a map showing cancer rates in the U.S. He was intrigued to see that Utah had the lowest incidence of all 50 states. Theorizing that Utah fared better because Mormons don't smoke or drink, he began collecting cancer data in his spare time. In 1973, he abandoned physics and got a post-doctoral fellowship in epidemiology at UCLA. In 1975, he produced a well-received study funded by the American Cancer Society concluding that Mormons in California had lower cancer rates than other Californians. He has remained at UCLA since, not on faculty but as a researcher in the School of Public Health. He receives no salary and has no university staff but supports himself through grants and contracts, using the money to hire part-time assistants. During the first half of his career in epidemiology, he received funding from the cancer society and collaborated with two of its top scientists. In the late 1980s, the society gave him permission to use data from a survey of 1 million Americans conducted between 1959 and 1972. But by 1992, the society deemed his work marginal and refused to fund more research. A grant from the state's anti-smoking fund was short-lived. Enstrom said he reluctantly turned to the tobacco industry. "If you want to do research, you have to get money from somewhere," says Enstrom, a lifelong nonsmoker from a family of nonsmokers. "In an ideal world, I would not have taken it." According to documents filed by prosecutors in the racketeering case, Enstrom received $94,500 from the industry between 1992 and 1997, becoming "a key tobacco industry researcher and consultant." From 1993 to 1996, he also worked as a consultant for the North Carolina law firm of Womble Carlyle, analyzing other scientists' studies for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. He declines to say how much he was paid. Despite his industry funding, Enstrom kept the cancer society data. In 1996, he sought industry funds to use the data to study the effect of second-hand smoke by analyzing the cause of death of survey participants who never smoked but were married to smokers. The society had earlier rejected his plan, noting that there had been no follow-up since 1972 to learn whether subjects had remained married or changed their smoking habits. "I told him repeatedly that the results would not be meaningful," said Michael Thun, the American Cancer Society's chief epidemiologist. Without informing the society, Enstrom asked Philip Morris for funding. In a letter to the company — cited in court documents — he wrote: "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 [environmental tobacco smoke] and active smoking." Enstrom says the letter was part of the normal grant process and his words were "taken out of context" by the court. In 1997 and 1998, he received three grants from the tobacco industry totaling $700,000, most of it for his study using the cancer society database. Industry officials also lined up a coauthor, Geoffrey Kabat of the American Health Foundation in New York, court documents show. Thun alleges that Enstrom misled the cancer society by not alerting the group when he began seeking industry funds or disclosing that he had begun receiving the money. "He's a double agent, really," Thun said. Enstrom denies misleading anyone. "I told the American Cancer Society in 1998 that I got tobacco funding," he said. "There was no reason to tell them in 1992 because I was not using their data." In 2003, Enstrom and Kabat published their study in the British Medical Journal concluding that the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. Since then, the tobacco industry has cited the study — and its connection to the American Cancer Society and UCLA — when arguing against local smoking bans. "They are misusing the research process," said Thun, "by sponsoring invalid studies and then using them as part of their public relations campaign." Among Enstrom's harshest detractors was another UC scientist: UC San Francisco professor Stanton Glantz, a bulldog of an activist who has fought the tobacco industry for decades. Glantz and the cancer society blasted Enstrom's assumptions as flawed. In a radio interview, Glantz called his findings "crap." In July 2005, Enstrom brought charges of misconduct against Glantz, alleging he made "blatantly false statements" about Enstrom. After an eight-month inquiry by UC officials, Glantz was exonerated. Last August, Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry took on a higher profile when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington, D.C., ruled in a lawsuit that had been in court for seven years that the major U.S. cigarette companies were guilty of racketeering, a crime usually associated with the Mafia. Kessler concluded that the companies conspired for decades to deceive the public and had manipulated research to make it appear that scientists disagreed on the effects of second-hand smoke. As evidence, she cited the study by Enstrom and Kabat. Enstrom's inclusion in the lawsuit has made him Exhibit A in the continuing clash between anti-smoking activists and tobacco companies as the battle shifts to academic research, one of the last bastions of tobacco industry influence in the U.S. Across the nation, more than 20 academic institutions have banned tobacco industry funding of tobacco research. Within the 10-campus University of California, seven academic units attempted to ban tobacco funding in 2004, including the UCLA School of Nursing, but were overruled by UC President Robert Dynes, who said the schools lacked that authority. Opponents of the ban maintain that academic freedom means researchers should be free to study whatever they wish and to receive money from whomever they want. Under UC's code of conduct, researchers can accept money from any source to finance their work. UC does not review any research projects except to ensure that human and animal subjects are not mistreated. "There is no oversight at all," said Peccei, the vice chancellor. Enstrom says there is no reason to restrict research money because the peer review process safeguards scientific integrity. The issue came to a head at the January meeting of the Board of Regents. Glantz, described by one regent as a "national treasure," presented the argument for the ban. Enstrom, listening in on the Internet from UCLA, bristled at the praise showered on Glantz. "Basically, we have a group of racketeers funding research," Glantz told the regents. Unable to reach consensus, the regents agreed to reconsider the issue in May. Regent John Moores argued in an interview that that taking tobacco money damages UC's reputation. Of researchers who take tobacco money, he added, "I don't know how these people live with themselves." According to UC, scientists at four campuses — UCLA, Berkeley, Davis and San Diego — are getting $15.8 million from Philip Morris for 19 tobacco-related research projects. For a study on smoking and mortality, Enstrom is receiving $661,443. In October, the American Cancer Society wrote to the regents, urging them to adopt the ban and accusing Enstrom of "scientific misconduct." After a two-month inquiry, the university concluded March 22 that evidence provided by the group did not show misconduct. Enstrom recently founded the Scientific Integrity Institute to air his views. He says it gets no tobacco money and consists mainly of a website, www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org. The website mounts a spirited and lengthy defense of his life's work. "The American Cancer Society turned on me because they didn't like my results," he said. "It's outrageous what they have done." Read
Dr Enstrom states the conclusions of the 2006 Surgeon generals report are exaggerated
One must scroll about half way down to see where Dr Enstrom says , among other things, that the referees of the 2006 SG Report did not disclose conflicts of interest, and the other main point is that studies published as recently as 2006 were included, but not his study, which was published in 2003.
DR. Enstrom has recalculated the results of the 2006 Surgeon General's report, with his 35,000 Californians study and another important study included, and he found:
"Given the fact that the two largest epidemiologic studies on ETS and tobacco-related mortality (1,41) have been omitted from the Surgeon General’s Report and the fact that these two studies substantially weaken the ETS and mortality relationship in the US, the Forward of the Surgeon General’s Report makes the inaccurate statement that “In 2005, it is estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke kills more than 3,000 adult nonsmokers from lung cancer, approximately 46,000 from coronary heart disease, . . . .” Based on a complete and objective evaluation of all the peer-reviewed US epidemiologic evidence, a more appropriate statement is that ETS exposure is associated with a small fraction of lung cancer and CHD deaths in US never smokers."
Read: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY INSTITUTE The Scientific Integrity Institute has been established to complement the epidemiologic research conducted by Dr. James Enstrom at the University of California, Los Angeles. The first role of the Institute is to conduct research on weak and/or controversial epidemiologic relationships with the highest level of scientific integrity. The second role of the Institute is to publish epidemiologic findings in a detailed and transparent way and to vigorously defend the validity of these findings. Additional details about the Institute are currently being prepared. James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. 914 Westwood Boulevard #577 Los Angeles, CA 90024 president@scientificintegrityinstitute.org
3/11/07
- A Newsletter Reader
Anti-Smoking Group Attacks UCLA Researcher, Accusing Him of Scientific Misconduct; Trying to Make Him Fall Guy for Unfavorable Research Findings? 3/21/07 By Michael Siegel According to an article in a recent issue of Nature, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has accused UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom of scientific misconduct in his role in a 2003 British Medical Journal study which questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer among nonsmokers. That article - which used data from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study and found no significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to spousal smoking - has received massive publicity, serving as the focal point for a campaign to eliminate tobacco industry funding of research at the University of California. According to the article, the accusation from the ACS has prompted an internal University investigation to determine whether any scientific misconduct occurred: "The latest round of debate began last autumn when the chief executive of the American Cancer Society, John Seffrin, wrote a letter to the University of California's board of regents arguing that tobacco funding should be banned. In the 12 October letter, Seffrin argued that tobacco-funded front groups "publicized misleading results" while giving "the false implication" that the society had endorsed the study. He cited Enstrom's BMJ article in particular, alleging that Enstrom "ignored" complaints of "fundamental methodological problems". ... Wyatt Hume, provost at the University of California's president's office, wrote to Seffrin saying that the university "takes allegations of scientific misconduct extremely seriously". If there is "specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Enstrom", he wrote, he would relay it to officials at the Los Angeles campus so that they "can pursue the matter further". Shortly after, officials at the cancer society sent a seven-page list of what they cited as issues with the BMJ article. ... Officials at the Los Angeles campus "will conduct a thorough review of the documents" ... and "will take further steps to determine whether any research misconduct took place"."
Both authors of the study -- Dr. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, formerly of SUNY Stony Brook, have vehemently denied any scientific misconduct:
"In an interview, Enstrom acknowledged receiving the various letters and corresponding with the University of California's authorities. "I am working on this with regents' approval," he said. "I am being allowed to defend myself by the appropriate people." He "absolutely" denies any misconduct in the study. And Kabat objects to the university's regent policies being based "on allegations motivated by a political agenda and unsupported by any facts"."
The Rest of the Story
According to the article, among the allegations that are part of the ACS complaint are the following: "top scientists at the cancer society say they repeatedly warned Enstrom of possible deficiencies in his analysis — particularly a 25-year gap in which exposure to second-hand smoke could not be verified. The society also says that when it gave Enstrom computerized records of study subjects, it was not aware that he was receiving funding from the tobacco industry. Later tobacco-related lawsuits revealed he had received money from industry funnelled through an organization called the Center for Indoor Air Research. And court records show Enstrom previously did consulting and research for attorneys defending the tobacco companies R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris."
If these allegations are representative of the complaints in the ACS letter, then I don't see how this is anything more than a witch hunt to try to harass and vilify Drs. Enstrom and Kabat simply for having come to a conclusion that is unfavorable to the position of anti-smoking groups.
The presence of deficiencies in research is not scientific misconduct. Almost all research has some deficiencies. The inability to verify exposure of subjects at follow-up is not scientific misconduct, it is simply a limitation in the study methodology. This limitation could bias the results toward not finding an effect of secondhand smoke, but it is not misconduct to conduct a study that has methodologic limitations.
The failure to disclose one's other sources of funding to the ACS does not appear to me to be scientific misconduct. Unless Dr. Enstrom lied about having received tobacco industry funding (and I've seen no allegations of such), there is no misconduct. At the time he received funding, the ACS did not have a policy of refusing to fund anyone who has received tobacco money; thus, I don't immediately see why Dr. Enstrom would have had any obligation to disclose his previous funding sources. If the ACS failed to ask, then it's their problem.
Dr. Enstrom's previous work for the Center for Indoor Air Research and his consulting with attorneys representing tobacco companies are also not scientific misconduct. Failing to disclose his tobacco industry funding would be misconduct, but this funding was noted in a detailed disclosure in the paper. Since the conflict of interest was disclosed, I don't see what the basis is for a claim of scientific misconduct regarding the receipt of tobacco industry funding.
For the record, the article discloses the tobacco industry funding: "follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies."The article also discloses Dr. Enstrom and Kabat's work for tobacco companies: "In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients. He has served as a consultant to the University of California at Los Angeles for this paper. JEE and GCK have no other competing interests. They are both lifelong non-smokers whose primary interest is an accurate determination of the health effects of tobacco."It's clear that the American Cancer Society is unhappy with the results of the study and I can understand that. It's also clear that the ACS thinks the methodology of the study was severely flawed. And I can understand that as well. It's also clear that the ACS thinks that the tobacco industry used this study as part of its public relations campaign to undermine public health messages about the hazards of secondhand smoke. And I understand that as well. But where we part company is when the ACS attacks the individual investigators, questions their personal character and integrity, and accuses them of scientific misconduct. Based on my knowledge of the situation, this appears to me to basically be a witch hunt in which the ACS and others in the anti-smoking movement are taking out their displeasure at the publication of unfavorable results through an ad hominem attack against the dissenting voice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (Regular readers of The Rest of the Story will know what I am talking about). The appropriate manner in which to respond to the paper is through an analysis and critique of its scientific validity. The funding source is a valid consideration as well, as it could be seen as a potential source of bias. That's all fair game. But turning this into a personal attack and crossing over from scientific validity concerns to scientific misconduct is crossing the line. Questioning Dr. Enstrom's integrity as an individual is not appropriate in this situation. In fact, Dr. Enstrom is an individual and a scientist of the highest integrity. Those who are attacking him need to question their own integrity in turning to an ad hominem approach rather than sticking with a discussion of the scientific merits of the research. Of note, the American Cancer Society is perhaps not in the best position to be questioning the integrity of others. This is a group whose president called the tobacco companies | 
