Harvard's Award to Erin Brockovich and the Public Health (Credibility) Impact

By ACSH Staff — Oct 12, 2005

Much has been written in the past two weeks on editorial pages and blogs -- including this one -- about the travesty of the upcoming presentation of the Harvard School of Public Health's highest award, the Julius Richmond Award, to environmental activist Erin Brockovich. But no commentator to date has identified the real victim of this ill-suited award: the credibility of all public health scientists.

Dean Barry Bloom will honor Ms. Brockovich's work "on behalf of all of us." In announcing the ward, he specifically cites her success in extracting $330 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which stood accused in court of making residents of Hinckley, CA ill when it released trace levels of chromium 6 into the water supply.

Ms. Brockovich, a paralegal with no training in public health, is being feted as a hero despite the fact that there was never any credible evidence supporting her claim that chemical traces in the water caused everything from nosebleeds to cancer. For her successful efforts in convincing people that chemical companies caused illlness, Erin Brockovich has, among mainstream scientists, secured for herself the reputation of "poster child" for junk science. But things are looking up for her, now that she will have the Harvard imprimatur to add to her resume -- and to her arsenal for future legal battles.

Over the past two weeks, I have been overwhelmed with e-mails and calls from members and supporters of the group I head, the American Council on Science and Health, expressing variations on this general sentiment: "I have long argued that public health is not a science, not a serious discipline. It is an ideologically-fueled movement, one which has disdain for science and facts. The so-called 'public health movement' has little if anything to do with protecting health, and it has everything to do with attacking the profit-making system, free enterprise, and traditional values -- and using the courts to manipulate a re-distribution of wealth."

In pondering the Harvard award to Erin Brockovich, how could one argue with that assessment? Ms. Brockovich has no appreciation or understanding of science. She represents herself as committed to helpless, voiceless "little people" who are being victimized by big, bad, greedy, uncaring corporations. She envisions herself as a modern-day Robin Hood, coercing resources from the "rich" to distribute to the "poor" -- whatever pennies are left over after she and her attorney colleagues take their generous cuts.

Erin Brockovich represents the new wave of anti-science in public health. She stands in stark contrast to health professionals who have committed their careers to reducing premature disease and death by focusing on epidemiological facts and observations, that is, fighting the real health threats around us: smoking, obesity, overexposure to sunlight, failure to use life-saving technologies like seatbelts, and more. Of course, science-based public health is not as glamorous or remunerative as the type Ms. Brockovich advocates. Those of us working in the public health trenches do not have movies made in our name. Our work does not involve blaming corporations for ill health but rather urges individuals to be introspective about what lifestyle factors may be putting them at risk. Science-based public health revolves around education, not litigation.

The HSPH award to Ms. Brockovich is a slap in the face to all science-based public health advocates. But it is more: the award is strong, compelling evidence that modern-day schools of public health have abandoned science and the traditional commitment to saving lives and protecting health. All that's left are glamour, glitz, plaintiffs' lawyers, and "science" that can be manipulated to advance ideological goals.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).