Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Scott Sommerdorf | Tribune file photo) Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah.
Two Utahns have stake in pollution health data fight
Environment » Is congressional inquiry into pollution-health studies after truth or partisan gain?
First Published Aug 27 2013 01:01 am • Last Updated Feb 14 2014 11:33 pm

Two Utahns have emerged at the center of an ugly fight in Washington over the nation’s clean-air laws.

One is newly elected GOP Rep. Chris Stewart. As chairman of the House Environment Subcommittee, he’s become a leader this summer in his party’s campaign to poke holes in scientific research supporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s health-based pollution regulations over the past 40 years.

At a glance

More on air pollution science

C. Arden Pope, a Brigham Young University economist whose research on the air pollution-and-health link is seminal, gave a short history of air pollution research this spring at the University of Utah. Here’s a link: http://stream.utah.edu/m/dp/frame.php?f=aa1124c99a69e6102525.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The other is C. Arden Pope, a Brigham Young University economist. He’s been snagged in the controversy — and even reviled as a "scoundrel" by one blogger — because two key studies he’s famous for were targeted in an Aug. 1 subpoena from congressional panels headed by Stewart and Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who oversees the House Science Committee.

In the decades since President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, the studies have become the foundation of scientific understanding of the links between heart attacks, early death and other health damage.

The EPA has relied on the studies, fortified with the scientific building blocks of thousands of other studies, to justify limits on power plants and other major pollution sources that opponents have been challenging from the start.

In recent months, Senate and House Republicans have revived old complaints about the studies, labeling as "hidden data sets" and "secret science" what scientists regard as confidential data. And, in a letter last month to the EPA, Stewart and Smith demanded the source data, insisting Americans "have a right to know whether EPA’s rules are based on sound science or a partisan agenda."

The EPA forwarded the committee’s request to Pope, who restated why he cannot give the lawmakers the private data — containing patient records for hundreds of thousands of study volunteers — they’ve demanded.

"We will be as responsive as we can be without violating the confidentiality agreements," Pope said in an interview.

On Aug. 19, the EPA delivered its response to the subpoena, which Democrats had opposed.

"We are now in the process of reviewing the documents they have provided," said Stewart in an email statement to The Salt Lake Tribune. "Hopefully, they will respect the rights of the American people for a transparent government."

story continues below
story continues below

Seminal studies » The data the lawmakers want were created around 30 years ago for what are commonly called the Harvard Six Cities study (1993) and American Cancer Society study (1995). But, to use the information, Pope’s team, like all researchers, had to agree to safeguard the privacy of around 1.5 million people who had volunteered to share their health and medical information on a confidential basis.

That confidentiality was not just a promise but legally binding, and it’s treated as a sacred duty by health care providers, as anyone who’s tried to find out the condition of a hospitalized friend knows. Health care providers are barred from giving any information to people who are not family, and they are strictly limited even in what they can tell family.

Meanwhile, the two studies have achieved rock-star status in the health sciences. Pope’s work has been scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court — and the laws it supported were upheld — when industry challenged the EPA’s proposed controls on air pollution, including the brown smog that sometimes leaves northern Utahns gasping for weeks at a time in winter. The studies also survived a grueling re-analysis by an independent government-industry panel called the Health Effects Institute. The review took 31 researchers three years to complete, Pope noted.

"The administration has a responsibility to be honest and open with the American people," Stewart said in his statement. "And the agency has readily admitted the limited information that they had made public was not sufficient for independent validation, replication, or re-analysis of the findings."

Meanwhile, Pope, who got his start looking at the pollution-health link during the Geneva Steel plant shutdowns of the 1980s, noted that this is only the latest attack on research that has withstood the test of time — and the wrath of industry and powerful politicians such as Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch.

In addition, the BYU researcher and his supporters note, the air-pollution papers were not just published in premier peer-reviewed journals, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, but also used in the peer-reviewed research of hundreds of other scientists who arrived at the same general conclusions — many of them using different raw data.

In the world of science, tests of time and of independent validation like these are gold standards, noted Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association. And these key studies co-written by Pope have achieved that.

"There are thousands of studies that are used in determining the effects of these pollutants," she said. "These are just two of the biggest and the best."

‘Scientific misconduct’ » Meanwhile, in the world of politics, the studies are being attacked as suspect "secret science."

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.