The UCLA School of Public Health is trying to get rid of epidemiologist James Enstrom, and the media is taking notice. Enstrom has made news before. In 2003, Enstrom co-authored a paper, which looked at a 100,000-person cohort over almost 40 years and concluded that second hand smoke was no big deal (British Medical Journal, 326, 1057 – 1061, 2003). The study was partly funded by the tobacco industry and roundly pooh-poohed by the British Medical Association (which publishes the BMJ) and the American Cancer Society. [See our story from 2003].

More recently, Enstrom has tangled with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which sets policy in the state on matters affecting air pollution—policy that is often more protective of human health and the environment than elsewhere in the United States. Thanks to California’s huge size, its policies can have national and even international influence on the standards and practices of carmakers, power companies, fuel refiners and other industries.

Enstrom has challenged the idea that diesel soot, and fine particulate matter more generally, can be linked to deaths in California. He has also expressed annoyance that his study on the subject (funded, in part, by the Electric Power Research Institute, an organization of power companies) hasn’t been taken seriously by the CARB (Inhal. Toxicol. 17: 803–816, 2005).

Earlier this year, the ousted epidemiologist also caught some members of a scientific advisory panel that does peer review for the CARB sitting on their positions years after their terms were supposed to expire.

Enstrom wasn’t tenured or on a tenure track, so UCLA simply did not renew his appointment. Enstrom isn’t going quietly, however. He believes his termination is related to his views and he has filed a whistle-blower complaint, which will keep him in his job until at least March 31st. In a statement, UCLA denied that the decision on Enstrom’s appointment was influenced by “the nature of [his] research results, political views or popularity.”

When interviewed today, Entrom called the timing of his dismissal “almost unbelievable,” as it was within days of the release of a new CARB report on mortality and fine particulate matter—a report that blames soot for 9,000 premature deaths a year in California, and that does not make use of Enstrom’s study. The CARB counters that the choice of a large recent study by Daniel Krewski of the University of Ottawa as the “core analysis” was made by the federal EPA.

Enstrom says his conclusions are robust, and not slanted in favor of his industry funders. “The issue of trying to judge research by the funding source is complicated. In the end you judge research on how well it stands up,” he says.

“I am an honest scientist, believe it or not.”