News
Page 8
Street Roots •
on, but the majority of them did choose to
stay on and wait out their terms to see what
would happen. I personally couldn’t do that.
Personally and professionally. One, I can’t
be privy to any kind of messaging that is
counter to what scientific evidence
supports. Two, I didn’t see it as a tenable
strategy to be an insider trying to push for
change, when there was no evidence that
that was going to be effective.
J.Z.: You were talking a bit about the
pressures coming down from this
administration Can you give our readers a
sense of what was coming at you? What were
you seeing happening?
Inside out
Carlos M artin very publicly walked away from
an advisor role to the EPA: Fortunately his day
job still keeps him focused on social solutions -
sm art housing and healthy com m unities
But it was not to last.
BY JOANNE ZUHL
S T A F F W R IT E R
s a civil engineer, Carlos Martin could
expect to get a few “likes” now and
again on his social media feed -
occasional affirmations for posts on
designing missions, for example, or links to
stories about smart sewer flows or the
potential of cross-laminated timber.
But when he posted his letter of
resignation from the Environmental
Protection Agency’s research and
development subcommittee, the tweet went
viral. More than 10,000 retweets and likes
from people responding to his stand against
threats to stifle scientific research and the
EPA altogether.
On May 12, Martin, along with Peter B.
Meyer, resigned from the EPA’s Sustainable
and Healthy Subcommittee of the Board of
Scientific Counselors, or BOSC, of the EPA.
The BOSC is an outside advisory panel for
the EPA that serves to counsel the EPA on
the validity and significance of the scientific
research it conducts. The decision came
after the administration did not renew - as
was standard practice and expected - the
BOSC membership of Courtney Flint and
Robert Richardson, who also serve as
co-chairs on the committee. In fact, Flint
and Richardson were among 9 members of
the 18-member BOSC that incoming EPA
Director Scott Pruitt summarily dismissed.
In Martin and Meyer’s letter, the two said
the effective removal of the co-chairs
suggests that their knowledge was not
valued by the current EPA administrators.
“Like so many of our colleagues in the
broader research community, we have deep
concerns about the leadership at EPA and
its continued obfuscation of scientific
evidence and the research enterprise.”
The letter notes the proposed 40 percent
reduction for the Office of Research and
Development.
Joanne Zuhl: That had to be very difficult
to resign from your role with the EPA, because
this is a position, at least from our vantage,
where you can make a difference - and then to
find it’s made untenable.
A
Carlos Martin
“We cannot in good conscience be
complicit in our co-chairs’ removal, or in the
watering down of credible science,
engineering and methodical rigor that is at
the heart of that decision,” Martin and
Meyer wrote.
Martin came to the EPA no stranger to
federal service. For eight years he worked at
the Bureau of Housing and Urban
Development, under both the Clinton and
Bush administrations, as part of the
Partnership for Advancing Technology and
Housing, or PATH program.
Today, Martin is a senior research
associate in the Metropolitan Housing and
Communities Policy Center at the Urban
Institute. In his work there, he directs
research and evaluations on the physical
qualities of housing and communities, as
well as the industry behind them. To the
federal agency, Martin came with the
mindset around making housing equitable
and sustainable, and understanding its role
in creating social outcomes.
Carlos Martin: It was a painful decision
for me. It was a hard one to come by. I
really liked being on this committee, but I
feel like to be an effective insider you have
to be on the inside. And there was no
evidence that anything the subcommittee
produced would be listened to by anybody. I
just didn’t want to be a shill for that - for
somebody putting out a message that I, in
many ways, was complicit with. I couldn’t do
it.
It’s been interesting seeing the tweet
replies that have come back. Clearly we got
responses from other subcommittee
members, and I did get a response from the
Office of Research and Development saying
we’re sorry to hear this.
But the bigger reaction that I’ve gotten is
from the Twitter world. The majority of the
replies are really positive. There were a
couple of responses that I would think
would typify a right-wing response. And
there were some responses from the left
that were actually critical of the decision
because now there’s an opportunity to put
more industry people in or fill the board
with climate change deniers. And I totally
get that, I totally respect that opinion. That
was not my decision.
J.Z.: I have that same question about the
remaining membership, and those left behind.
What’s your response to the criticism that if
you leave you can’t be in the right place at the
right time?
C.M.: I respect that. I won’t speak for the
subcommittee members who chose to stay
C.M.: Even just from the gut punch of
Courtney (Flint) and Robbie (Richardson)
not being renewed, without any notification
after it happened, was clearly a sign that
something was off. They had been told, and
they had told us, that they were likely to be
renewed. That was the straw that broke the
camel’s back. But clearly the proposed
budget cuts to the EPA’s Office of Research
and Development, the language around
climate change in particular, is one of the
environment issues I’m most concerned
with. And the rhetoric we’ve been seeing
around changing the composition of
scientific advisory boards in the federal
government in general, but particular the
EPA, to include more industry
representation.
J.Z.: For a lot of people concerned about the
environment and climate change, it’s scary to
hear about the changes happening. What can
we do about this? Are you looking at other
ways to engage?
C.M.: I still have my day job. I’m still a
researcher, and I feel like part of my
obligation - as the professional tradition I’ve
chosen to enter - is to continue doing my
own research, and doing it rigorously and
soundly.
I’m an engineer by training, and
engineers aren’t taught to be good activists,
but I think we’re seeing a sea change in the
civil commitments: Everybody from
scientists, to engineers to medical physicans
and public health practitioners are starting
to see. I always point to people like Dr.
Mona Hanna-Attisha in Flint, Mich., who
started noticing that all the kids she was
seeing had high lead exposure. And the civil
engineer (Marc Edwards) from Virginia
Tech who was the one who started testing
the water in Flint on their behalf. These are
people who are realizing that, you know
what, we have a commitment. Part of our
job has been to uphold public safety, in
addition to ensuring that our work is
rigorous and peer reviewed.
Technically my doctorate is in civil
engineering. Just the beginning of that
phrase - civil - means we’re inherently tied
to the public infrastructure to promote the
public good. The early civil engineers were
the ones who created sanitation systems,
water delivery systems, transportation for
people to get from one place to another.
These were civil goods - public goods. I’m
lucky enough to be an engineer in that way.
J.Z.: You joined the EPA about two years
ago. There has been real progress made over
the 50year history of the EPA. What progress
was there to be made? There’s a lot at stake.