In our world where ‘alternative facts’ hold water and scientific evidence is pushed to the side, it is paramount that our state policymakers weed through the noise and identify critical information to support strong policies.
Utah policymakers can generally be commended for doing so successfully. In fact, earlier this year, Pew Charitable Trusts and the MacArthur Foundation found Utah to be one of the top five states in the country for evidence-based policymaking.
So, it is concerning when Utah legislators invite a scientist to speak whose credibility and scientific integrity have been continually questioned by his own academic peers.
Tuesday, the Clean Air Caucus, a group of legislators who care about developing robust air quality policy, are hosting Dr. James Enstrom, a physicist from UCLA who studies the impacts of air quality on public health. Enstrom is one of the only scientists in his field who asserts there is no relationship between air pollution and cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
Earlier this year, Enstrom published a questionable and weak ‘re-analysis’ of a small subset of data collected in the 1980s through an ongoing project of the American Cancer Society. This re-analysis claims to debunk the pioneering research led by BYU economist Dr. C. Arden Pope, which established a causal link between fine particulate matter exposure, or PM2.5, and premature death from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and lung cancer.
These foundational studies spurred a vast body of scientific literature based on increasingly representative data and sophisticated analyses that overwhelmingly corroborate the initial findings. The Environmental Protection Agency relies on this literature to set regulatory limits of ‘safe’ levels of air pollution.
In essence, there is scientific consensus that exposure to PM2.5 pollution causes premature death. Scientific consensus is only established after years, often decades, of intense debate within a field of experts. It is the primary reason that our understanding continues to evolve and improve. Slowly but surely, issues are studied from every angle, critiqued and criticized from many sides, and eventually data and analyses converge on an answer.
This is exactly what the science that underpins air quality policy has endured. And through that same process, Enstrom’s research has consistently been rejected (and these rejections from top-tier journals can, curiously, be read on his own website). If policymakers give the same weight to his research as they do to the scientific consensus, this is a problem.
It is understandable that policymakers want to hear from all sides of an issue. Indeed, considering impacts to all stakeholders is the foundation of good policymaking. However, it is irrelevant when it comes to considering the science. Science, fundamentally, is non-partisan. There are not ‘both sides.’ Yes, there is often active and ongoing debate of an issue among scientists that is critical for moving science forward. But that is not what is going on here.
There is no active scientific debate regarding the causal link between PM2.5 and cardiovascular and respiratory disease. In fact, recent work has started to shed light on the physiological mechanisms of this link – what is actually happening in our bodies. Thus, listening to the supposed ‘other side’ of air pollution science makes no sense.
Ensuring that science is credible and well-accepted by the scientific community is vital to crafting policy that has strong legs to stand on and contributes to solving the complex issues we face at both a local and global level. Scientific consensus, not just any random scientist, deserves a voice.
Legislators can and should debate the balance of regulations, economic growth, public health, and job creation. What they can’t debate is the science behind the air quality problem itself. Less pollution exposure is healthier for all of us. And the science supports that.
Jessica Reimer has a master of science in ecology and has spent many years communicating with both scientists and policymakers. She is currently a policy associate at HEAL Utah.