News that the #ExxonKnew suit is rolling along in court got us to wondering what Exxon’s stalwart congressional defender has been up to lately. So let’s check in on House Science chair Lamar Smith.
To explain his consistently anti-science activities, we always point out the fact that fossil fuels fund Smith’s political career. But perhaps his convictions run deeper than money. In a story about the emergence of electoral challenges in Smith’s traditionally deep-red district, Sharon Lerner at the Intercept offers up a sad but pertinent piece of Smith’s past.
In a section about why he’s an odd choice to head the House Science committee, Lerner mentions Smith’s deeply held religious beliefs: “Like many Christian Scientists, he seems to eschew medicine. (Smith’s first wife, Jane, who was trained in the Christian Science practice of healing through prayer, died in 1991 in a Christian Science hospice, reportedly after refusing medical treatment.)”
So Smith’s anti-science agenda might actually stem from something more than money. Which, in a way, says something about his integrity, in that being anti-science for religious reasons is slightly more honorable than doing it for the money...
Meanwhile, matters of scientific integrity do seem to be on Smith’s mind. Case in point: Smith sent a letter to Pruitt last week asking why a meeting on scientific integrity only invited one industry group. According to Smith, inviting a group of “respected scientists” and nonprofit groups over more industry groups makes this meeting “exclusive” and requires it be opened up to the public.
Smith’s faux-transparency request into this scientific integrity meeting at the EPA (which UCS explains well in a blog post) dovetails nicely with Pruitt’s recent attempts to kick independent scientists off of EPA advisory boards and replace them with industry voices. Pruitt disguises his tactics to give industry more input by claiming to prevent “bias” by “balancing” the boards. The Wall Street Journal echoed this strategy in a recent editorial that parrots attacks somewhat recently launched by tobacco shill and fossil fuel flack Steve Milloy.
That the Journal is taking talking points from an industry attack dog like Milloy should tell you everything you need to know about the WSJ editorial board’s scientific integrity--or lack thereof. (If you know of people with integrity who should serve on the EPA’s advisory boards, nominations are now open! Please suggest lots of folks so that the administration has no excuse for stacking the board with shills and then let us know who you nominated.)
Now perhaps Smith really truly believes that independent scientists are corrupt, and industry scientists are more credible and honest. But the public sure doesn’t. Recent research finds that if a company is listed as a sponsor of a study, the public trusts the study less than findings funded by nonprofits or government institutions.
The question then, is whether Pruitt and Smith’s calls for more industry involvement in the EPA’s science stems from their ignorance of public mistrust of industry, or is driven by it.
Like Vladimir Putin’s strategy of spreading fake news to undercut real reporting, Pruitt and Smith promoting fake science would achieve a similar result--eroding public trust in the institutions that stand opposed to polluter’s agendas. But as the Santer smackdown of Pruitt’s pause claim proves, evidence is not on their side; if it’s a science fight they want, Soviet.