GOP, Harvard, EPA Grapple Over Landmark Health Study

Republicans see a window to undermine the Obama administration’s last, best argument for green regulations.

FILE - This Jan. 4, 2013, file photo, shows the haze from an inversion hanging over downtown Salt Lake City. The geography that makes Utah one of the world’s most beautiful places also brings the nation’s dirtiest air in winter, when an icy fog smothers mountain valleys for days or weeks at a time. A group of doctors is declaring a health emergency over northern Utah's lingering pollution problem. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment planned to deliver a petition Wednesday demanding immediate action by elected officials. The group wants Gov. Gary Herbert and mayors of northern Utah cities to cut the pollution. 
AP2013
Patrick Reis
Sept. 12, 2013, 4:10 p.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans are go­ing after en­vir­on­ment­al groups’ last, best line of de­fense.

The en­vir­on­ment­al lobby has long lever­aged three main ar­gu­ments in its fight for clean-air policies: cli­mate sci­ence, jobs, and pub­lic health. But ever since Pres­id­ent Obama took of­fice, Re­pub­lic­ans have made strong in­roads against the first two ar­gu­ments, turn­ing the once sol­id talk­ing points in­to ques­tion marks among mod­er­ates and out­right li­ab­il­it­ies among con­ser­vat­ives.

The con­nec­tion between glob­al warm­ing and hu­man activ­ity is settled sci­ence among cli­ma­to­lo­gists, but the pub­lic at large sees the is­sue very dif­fer­ently. Only 42 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve in hu­man-caused glob­al warm­ing, down from 47 per­cent in 2008, ac­cord­ing to a long-stand­ing Pew Re­search Cen­ter poll. And “green jobs” have be­come a fa­vor­ite top­ic of con­ver­sa­tion for Re­pub­lic­ans, who have been re­lent­less in their ef­forts to pub­li­cize the fail­ure of Solyn­dra, the sol­ar-pan­el com­pany that went bank­rupt des­pite re­ceiv­ing more than $500 mil­lion in fed­er­al loan guar­an­tees.

But while cli­mate sci­ence and green jobs have be­come politi­cized, can­cer and asthma have not, and the pub­lic health be­ne­fits of en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions re­main the green lobby’s most per­suas­ive ar­gu­ment.

Re­pub­lic­ans are now work­ing on a plan to un­der­mine even that. As the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion con­siders new clean-air reg­u­la­tions for coal-fired power plants and oth­er pol­luters, GOP law­makers on the Hill are at­tack­ing the fun­da­ment­al sci­ence the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency says proves that curb­ing emis­sions pro­tects the pub­lic from harm.

As first re­por­ted in The Bo­ston Globe, the House Sci­ence Com­mit­tee last month hit the ad­min­is­tra­tion with a sub­poena, de­mand­ing that it re­lease more in­form­a­tion about a land­mark 20-year-old pub­lic-health study by Har­vard Uni­versity that has provided the em­pir­ic­al back­bone for a host of clean-air reg­u­la­tions, in­clud­ing the rules now in the works.

Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue that the ad­min­is­tra­tion is over­stat­ing the pub­lic-health be­ne­fits of the reg­u­la­tions, and — be­cause the raw data back­ing the Har­vard study have nev­er been fully re­leased — they are ac­cus­ing EPA of us­ing “secret sci­ence” to provide cov­er for its ex­pec­ted re­stric­tions on power plants. “Our view is that if the [ad­min­is­tra­tion] is us­ing the data to jus­ti­fy its reg­u­la­tions, then it … should have ac­cess to that in­form­a­tion and be able to provide it to Con­gress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Re­pub­lic­an and the chair­man of the Sci­ence pan­el.

In aim­ing at EPA, however, these GOP mem­bers have put them­selves on a col­li­sion course with Har­vard. The ad­min­is­tra­tion says the uni­versity — and the uni­versity alone — has own­er­ship of the raw data that re­search­ers used for the study. And thus far, Har­vard is show­ing no signs of sur­ren­der­ing the data. In fact, it says it is leg­ally banned from do­ing so.

The study in ques­tion tracked the health of more than 8,000 par­ti­cipants in six cit­ies for 15 years, com­pared their health with in­form­a­tion about loc­al air qual­ity, and con­cluded that par­tic­u­late pol­lu­tion poses a ser­i­ous threat to hu­man health. The Har­vard sci­ent­ists also re­lied on gov­ern­ment death data­bases, and to get ac­cess to those data­bases, they signed bind­ing agree­ments not to pub­lish the data in any form that would al­low in­di­vidu­als to be iden­ti­fied. Vi­ol­at­ing those agree­ments would not only be il­leg­al, the uni­versity ar­gues, it would also make in­di­vidu­als less likely to vo­lun­teer for health stud­ies in the fu­ture.

Al­though the data have nev­er been made pub­lic, Har­vard in­sists the re­search has been sub­ject to more than enough scru­tiny to con­firm its in­teg­rity. The study’s design was sub­ject to an in­tern­al uni­versity re­view board be­fore it was al­lowed to go for­ward, and after the re­search was con­duc­ted, the res­ults were peer-re­viewed be­fore be­ing pub­lished in a top-tier sci­entif­ic journ­al. Since pub­lic­a­tion, the study’s design has been du­plic­ated sev­er­al times by oth­er re­search­ers, with each it­er­a­tion sup­port­ing the cent­ral con­clu­sion.

Those facts carry little weight with Smith, who said the meth­ods needed to ob­scure in­di­vidu­al iden­tit­ies are read­ily avail­able. At least for now, however, the pri­vacy ar­gu­ment has been strong enough to keep the data con­fid­en­tial. But even if Re­pub­lic­an op­pon­ents nev­er see the data they’re de­mand­ing, they may still be able to weak­en the pub­lic’s be­lief in a link between new en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions and pub­lic health. It’s worked be­fore.

Amer­ic­ans’ be­lief in hu­man-made glob­al warm­ing fell most sharply fol­low­ing “Cli­mateg­ate,” the mass hack­ing of sci­ent­ists’ e-mails that crit­ics in­sist re­vealed a con­spir­acy to sell the pub­lic on un­sound sci­ence. The scan­dal is best re­membered for an e-mail in which sci­ent­ists dis­cussed “hid­ing the de­cline.” But, con­trary to wide­spread pop­u­lar be­lief, that quote did not refer to a de­cline in glob­al tem­per­at­ures. And al­though the epis­ode caused plenty of em­bar­rass­ment for the hacked sci­ent­ists, the e-mails failed to pro­duce con­crete evid­ence of ef­forts to falsi­fy cli­mate sci­ence.

On the green-jobs front, Re­pub­lic­ans suc­ceeded in mak­ing Solyn­dra the best-known ex­ample, but it’s hardly the most rep­res­ent­at­ive. The loan-guar­an­tee money floated to Solyn­dra was part of a $34 bil­lion En­ergy De­part­ment loan port­fo­lio. And of that $34 bil­lion, only about 2 per­cent has been lost; the oth­er 98 per­cent has either been re­paid or is on track to­ward re­pay­ment.

For now, House Re­pub­lic­ans, EPA, and Har­vard ap­pear at a stale­mate. Smith is de­mand­ing that EPA re­lease the raw data by Sept. 30. The agency ap­pears un­likely to budge from its po­s­i­tion that only Har­vard can de­cide if the in­form­a­tion should be made pub­lic. As for sidestep­ping the ex­ec­ut­ive branch and go­ing after Har­vard, Smith hasn’t made any moves yet, but he isn’t rul­ing it out. “All op­tions,” a Sci­ence Com­mit­tee aide said, “are on the table.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×