

So much for academic freedom at UCLA - yummyfajitas
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/21/so-much-for-academic-freedom-at-ucla/
A more detailed source, which I should have posted to begin with. My mistake. Unfortunately I can't edit the URL, so here it is.<p>http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/08/ucla_researcher_james_enstrom_not_reappointed_to_position
======
bbatsell
Digging a bit more, it seems that this editorial isn't nearly the whole story.
The professor's main area of interest appears to be in studies showing that
particulate matter in secondhand smoke isn't at all harmful.[1]

Completely coincidentally, I'm sure, he has also taken significant payments
from Phillip Morris and other tobacco corporate interests.

[1]: His own website, which is dedicated to defending his research on
secondhand smoke: <http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/>

~~~
jimwise
And most of the research showing harmful effects of second-hand smoke has
funding from either the American Cancer Society or similarly interested
bodies.

Indeed, the whole question of second-hand smoke is sort of microcosm of what's
wrong with science today. We have two large biased bodies of research, almost
no reproducible conclusions or event truly independent analyses, and a popular
wisdom which treats the question as `settled' based on which set of
conclusions is more in line with the political mood of the times.

I don't know this professor or his work, and I don't have a dog in this fight
-- but I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less
suspect than a grant from the American Cancer Society; both are large
organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on one possible
outcome of such research.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less suspect
than a grant from the American Cancer Society_

Doesn't Altria have a long history of pushing fake science about the health
effects of smoking on smokers that directly contradicted its own internal
research? The American Cancer Society has no equivalent scandals in its
history. The fact that Altria spent many years actively lying to the public
about the health effects of a dangerous and highly addictive drug it was
selling seems relevant in assessing its credibility.

 _both are large organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on
one possible outcome of such research_

This comparison seems...not right. If we invented an absolute 100% cure for
lung cancer tomorrow that cost almost nothing, the American Cancer Society
would still have plenty of funding. There are a great many cancers that have
nothing to do with cigarette smoking.

------
mbreese
I'm not sure linking to an editorial is a good way to present this story...

~~~
yummyfajitas
I should have googled for other sources rather than just posting the link I
was forwarded. The email also had information not contained in the link, and I
didn't think before submitting. My bad.

Here is the college paper, which goes into more detail:
[http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/08/ucla_res...](http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/08/ucla_researcher_james_enstrom_not_reappointed_to_position)

Also a mainstream news site: [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-
professors-firing-fu...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-
firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/)

(I wish I could edit the URL of the submission, oh well.)

------
DanielBMarkham
Aside from the particulars of this case, I just got through reading a book
recommended by another HN'er: "Wrong: Why experts keep failing us--and how to
know when not to trust them" <http://amzn.to/aNY2rL>

And while I have always been a skeptic of just about anything, even I was
struck by the perverse disincentives there are for reporting scientific
malpractice. If you're a student, then you're side-tracked and black-listed.
If your'e a colleague, you're shunned. Even professional publications get in
on the act -- positive findings outrank negative findings when it comes to
publication by a factor of 10-1.

Good book. A little over-the-top, but powerful and relevant.

