A Vietnamese-American top scientist on the air quality board has been accused of faking a Ph.D. degree in statistics from UC Davis, says the San Diego Union-Tribune on its blog site here.
Hien T. Tran is the lead author and project coordinator for a study by the California Air Resources Board. The study’s conclusion was the main justification for the air board’s sweeping new efforts to limit diesel emissions.
Apparently, in a letter, California EPA Secretary Linda S. Adams wrote, “Regarding the professional background of the authors, the lead author and project coordinator, Hien Tran, holds a doctorate degree in statistics from the University of California at Davis….”
An epidemiologist at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, James E. Enstrom, called on this piece of information. He sent a letter to the air board that includes this part:
“However, I have determined from the UC Davis Office of the University Registrar and the UC Davis Department of Statistics that Hien Tran holds NO Ph.D. in statistics from UC Davis. Also, I searched ProQuest Dissertation Express and found NO evidence of a dissertation on any subject from any university awarded to the Hien T. Tran employed by CARB.”
When Enstrom received no responses, he sent the letter to the Union-Tribune’s reporter Chris Reed. The air board refused comment, saying an investigation has been launched and citing employee privacy.
When the Bolsavik looked in ProQuest, he did find two Ph.D. dissertations by a Hien T. Tran.
One is from Harvard, in neurology/molecular biology, and the other is from Rensselaer, in mathematics.
Hien T. Tran is not an uncommon Vietnamese name. And if the scientist is a she, and her maiden name was something else, then, well, the field widens.
Enstrom himself is a controversial figure. He once was investigated by the UC for authoring a study on the effects of smoking, funded by the tobacco industry, in which he concluded that second-hand smoking (also called ETS, or environment tobacco smoke) does not cause cancer.
In a funding request sent to the Philip Morris Company (copy kept by the University of California here), Enstrom made a statement that appeared to be outright promising a pre-ordained favorable outcome in exchange for the tobacco company’s funding:
“A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking.”
Talk about twisting facts. Enstrom may have credentials, but his record shows him to be highly discredited. Paid by the tobacco industry, he manipulated the data in the past to say that smoking is good for your health. One thing to have credentials, what one does with it matters more. I would not trust this guy. He has a agenda of his own.
Some professors can be pretty bad at doing whatever it takes to earn money. According to sourcewatch.org, this Enstrom guy almost got removed from UCLA for twisting the data to show that smoking is not bad for your health. Who in the world would believe such a finding? What kind of modeling did this “physics” doctorate do to get this conclusion?
Who do you trust? ARB going through a careful vetting process for scientific findings that meet the rigorous test of the scientific community, or a single professor irritated with the community’s consensus that he seeks ways to bad mouth ARB’s reports? It’s irrelevant whether the lead author of the ARB report has a Ph.D. I’d rather trust the contents of a report that is reflective of the scientific community than the claims of a single professor with hidden motives driven by industry $.
Mr Bolsavik,
Do you really mean reducing diesel emission or high sulfur emission in diesel fuel?
Sounds like Enstrom is trying to attack the source rather than the topic at hand, which is does sulfur emission impact air quality? Have him dispute the non causal relationship between sulfur emission and human health and environmental impact with the scientists in Europe. He would be the laughing stock.
First, professional credentials are listed in that person’s curriculum vitae. The guy working at Walmart or the college kid at the Gap has a resume.
I love that the default and knee-jerk position/reaction is to side with the minority. There’s no allegation that Enstrom padded his CV, even if his prior finding/studies are suspect.
Tran needs only to produce either his redacted transcript or his diploma to substantiate his doctorate. If he doesn’t have a doctorate and is parading that fact around, it’s a fairly big deal. People work a substantial period in their adult life to earn one.
Those can’t do can teach.
For the report Tran was lead, there’s no need for a Ph.D. degree. Whether he has it or now is irrelevant. The report was about interpreting the data, not an original study. It’s very sad that the industry folks have so little to talk about, so they try to create a story out of irrelevant info.
James E. Enstrom is an academic prostitute. This is the heart of the issue:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-sci-air22-2009jan22,0,3402233.story
The truth came out today at the CARB meeting. Tran faked his Ph.D. You may want to attack Enstrom but he has a real Ph.D.
Today Dr. Telles, a Board member of the CARB indicated that not only did Tran lie about his Ph.D. but was convicted of fraud and dishonesty. You can listen to Dr. Telles testify on this matter at http://www.box.net/carb/1/30974484/357905264
You can also read about Tran’s deceit at http://www.box.net/carb/2/30974484/322244786