If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.

 

Academic Mission or UCLA Speech Code?

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

If you think that academia is not the exclusive playground of the academic left, consider the fate of UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom. 

In 2008, Enstrom thought that a report on the health effects of diesel emissions presented by the California Air Resources Board was faulty. As it turns out, CARB's nitrous oxide emission estimates were overstated by 340 percent. Enstrom and others had trouble believing that a Ph.D. statistician would make up some of CARB's findings. They dug around and found that CARB researcher Hien Tran had falsely claimed to have a doctorate in statistics from UC Davis. In fact, Tran had a master's degree from UC Davis, but his doctorate came from an unaccredited school. 

CARB has since scaled back the diesel regulations it had previously approved -- although spokesman Stanley Young asserts that the policy change "was not related to the research" -- which officials have maintained were overestimated because of calculations made prior to the recession. CARB did demote Tran and cut his monthly pay by $1,066 to $7,899 per month. 

Enstrom didn't fare as well.  

In February 2010, after renewing his research grants regularly since 1976, UCLA notified Enstrom that he had lost his funding. Unlike Tran, he would be out of a job. 

A July 2010 memo later informed Enstrom that Department of Environmental Health Sciences faculty had determined his work did not meet department requirements and "your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department." 

Not aligned with the academic mission? That reads like academic-speak for: politically incorrect. Enstrom has little doubt that UCLA cut his cord because he was a CARB whistle blower. Worse, his 2005 study on the health effects of fine particulate matter essentially found that the diesel exhaust has slight, if any effect, on premature death. 

"The timing is almost unmistakable because I had essentially no problems for a position that started July 1, 1976," Enstrom told me over the phone. "This is extremely dangerous for academic freedom and scientific integrity." 

Enstrom has been fighting his sacking. Last week, the university held hearings on his case. The university won't comment, citing privacy issues. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up Enstrom's cause in the name of academic freedom. FIRE Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel explained, "We don't know who's right or wrong on the science, but we know that everyone has a right to challenge one another on the quality of the science if they do it in good faith."

CARB research chief Bart Croes said Enstrom's fine-particulates health study was not "inconsistent with ones we've used in our work," but he saw "deficiencies" in Enstrom's methodology. Some critics suggest that while his study aligned with other research, and has been cited by the U.S. EPA, his test group was too old; besides, Enstrom is too stingy with caveats and too activist in his interpretations. 

Maybe the critics are right. Or maybe that's how they always go after conservatives. It's not simply that they disagree, it's that the scientist in question doesn't meet this hallowed academic standard that is rarely if ever applied to left-leaning scientists/activists. They believe in academic freedom, but that doesn't mean they should have to tolerate dissent. 

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentary

See Other Commentary by Debra J. Saunders

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.  Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.    

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.