Gina McCarthy’s mission to protect public health and defend science

{***Pause/Music***}
{***Noah***}

Coming up on Harvard Chan: This Week in Health…

Protecting health and standing up for science.

{***Gina McCarthy Soundbite***}
(Everywhere I go, I’m learning things, where little light bulbs go off in my head and say, why didn’t I know that? How do we let people know about this? There is just a wealth of information that’s actionable. And so I think this could be a really great opportunity for the School of Public Health.)

In this week’s episode, we sit down with Gina McCarthy, former head of the EPA and new Director of the Harvard Chan School’s Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment.

You’ll hear how she’s hoping to change how we communicate about climate change—and how we can empower people and businesses to make better choices for our environment.

{***Pause/Music***}
{***Noah***}

Hello and welcome to Harvard Chan: This Week in Health…

It’s Thursday, May 31, 2018. I’m Noah Leavitt.

As the head of the EPA under President Obama, Gina McCarthy led the Administration’s efforts to combat climate change.

She spearheaded the Clean Power Plan, which set the first federal standards for power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and also pushed for rules to increase fuel efficiency in cars and protect the drinking water supply.

Now she’s at the Harvard Chan School, as the Director of the new School-wide Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment, which was just launched this week.

The mission is simple: Science for a healthy, just, and sustainable world.

McCarthy is an outspoken advocate for public health—often calling the EPA one of America’s most important public health agencies—and someone who fiercely defends the importance of science.

Last year we spoke to McCarthy before she delivered the Commencement address at the School and she called climate change an opportunity for innovation.

We sat down with her again this week—for a passionate conversation about climate change, public health, and science.

McCarthy explained why scientists need to change how they communicate about climate change to convey the human health effects and how we all can get involved to drive environmental changes at the local level.

She also spoke about the Trump Administration’s attacks on science and the mission of the EPA.

Take a listen.

{***Gina McCarthy Interview***}

NOAH LEAVITT: I’m going to start with an obvious question. It’s probably one you’ve been getting a lot lately. Why Harvard? Why C-CHANGE? Why is this the best place for you right now?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, why Harvard and why the School of Public Health is because the School of Public Health has been enormously influential in delivering world class science that really has mattered, in terms of how it responded to public health challenges in the United States. They provided the basis for terrific information in my world on air pollution that helped us drive public health benefits, including thousands of lives saved every year.

If we can use the same science, and we can get it out to the public in the same way, and make it relevant to people, I think we can broaden and deepen our ability to protect public health and to address the challenge of climate change. It’s pretty simple. The best is here. And this is where I want to be.

NOAH LEAVITT: And you talk about communicating with the science, and this recent– this great Boston Globe magazine article, you talk about that, about making the Center a bridge between the scientific research that’s coming out, but then also connecting that in a way that non-scientists can understand. So how, as the leader of the Center, do you kind of hope to accomplish that, put that into action?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, first of all, we’re going to be sort of diving into what folks across the school know that are relevant to human beings where the message hasn’t been heard, where people don’t understand the relevance. And that’s going to be in areas like the intersect between public health and climate change. But even more broadly– what’s a healthy diet? What does it mean for that diet in terms of how you produce it in a low carbon future? You can think really creatively.

And so we want to find out what that information is, that our professors, and our faculty, and our researchers think are really important messages. I think we can get them out. I wanted to translate that science, but also bring in folks from the outside world that I see as decision makers who can take that information and make it actionable, and really take action.

So we’re going to try to be that bridge, to get a really good understanding among the public, and the business community, and government entities about what’s happening in the world that science tells us. And I want to make that science relevant, and have people digest it in a way where they can– whether a government tells you this or not, you can take action in your own lives.

We can save lives well beyond what government’s able to do, and in a time frame that’s much quicker, and could end up being very systemic– changing markets. Why not use the academic community to spread the word?

NOAH LEAVITT: Not to put you on the spot too much, but is there an example of that where there is very clear research in one area that is impacting people, but just hasn’t been translated well, so people don’t understand what’s going on?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think people are still baffled that public health is actually connected to climate change. I know– I mean, that’s not a specific enough issue. But for example, we’ve done a ton of research on basically heat stress and the elderly, or how that impacts cardiovascular disease. And we still have people that are scratching their heads. And we still have very little information on kids, and how heat stress actually impacts our kids.

Why are we baffled by that? Why don’t people naturally assume that changes in our environment will actually have a profound impact on how we as organisms function? But I’ll give you other specific example.

One of the first convenings we’re going to try to do is to look at basically how toxic products in a tight building will emit different types of toxics into the air that are probably not good for you, and I, and especially kids to breathe. Now, let me give you an example– flame retardants are used on those chairs. We no longer at Harvard actually use those types of chairs because they do off-gas, and they produce toxics.

I don’t need any more study to identify it. We know flame retardants aren’t good for us. But the general public is not aware of that because there’s been no government entity that has confirmed it by putting a check mark beside it, and then going out and regulated those products to get rid of it.

Why do we need regulation when I can– be great to have it. But why do we need to wait when we know there are risks today? Why won’t we bring healthy buildings into the green buildings discussion? When you tighten a building, more is captured, more stays there. What does it mean for indoor air?

All those things matter, and matter to people. But they don’t have the information that provides them an ability to figure out what kind of products they should have in their home. We can do that.

NOAH LEAVITT: So is part of that, I guess, kind of changing the model, where for so long it’s been reliant on government regulation to make change? Whereas, now it can come from people making decisions or businesses making decisions.

GINA MCCARTHY: I don’t know if it’s a change of model, or it’s we have more ability to communicate today than we ever had through social media. Why wouldn’t we take advantage of that? You have monitoring technologies that citizens can actually access that’s cheap and effective.

So they can know the water quality in the rivers and streams of their own community. They can see what the air quality looks like right at their own home. They can measure it inside, and have their HVAC systems work to make sure that people are breathing healthier air. So there’s advances in technology, as well as advances in how you share information that begs to have somebody make sure we’re doing that effectively so that people everywhere can access this and get engaged.

No, it’s no question that I think that government today is not functioning– at least in Washington, DC– the way that I think it should. They’re losing their focus on the mission of agencies like EPA, and they’re backing off. Well, that leaves a gap in the system that, to me, needs to be filled.

And so we shouldn’t be shy about that. We should actually step in and make sure that science is understood, that it’s defended, that it’s spoken with compassion and passion, that we make the case for ourselves if the government is denying us the ability to do that. I have no problem in filling that gap, especially when you have world-class scientists like we have at the School of Public Health. They created the basis of knowledge for EPA to move forward in so many ways. If EPA is not able to do it, we can find a way to make that information accessible to everybody.

NOAH LEAVITT: So I want to talk about EPA, because then we spoke a year ago– I think, in a way trying to kind of ease the fears, you were busy talking about how there’s only so much that one administration can do.

GINA MCCARTHY: Yep.

NOAH LEAVITT: Seeing what’s happened the past year with EPA with Scott Pruitt, do you feel differently about that? Do you feel like there will be lasting damage with what’s happening at the federal level?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think, no, the thing that bothers me– that I worry about the most, let’s just put it that way, is the attack on science. I really didn’t anticipate that they would so blatantly attack the science and try to negate EPA from being able to pay attention or make decisions on the basis of the science. That is very concerning. And the continued budget challenges are going to be hard to regroup from.

There’s no question about it. We’re losing talent in the agency, and we’re losing its central focus. But still, the real world is moving in the direction that we would want it. We still have to have really good rules done to undo the specific actions that we took under the Obama administration to protect public health and address climate.

And the rules and I’m seeing them propose are simply not going to cut it when it gets to court. So many of the sort of calming statements that I tried to make before continue to hold. I don’t want people to overreact, but I do want them to react.

And that means we all have to engage. We have to be prepared to regroup and take over the field when this administration moves away. We have to participate in providing comment on these rules so that it’s clear to the courts that is that this is not in the interest of the public, that this is not consistent with the law, or this is not based on sound science, so that we can win those battles and fight effectively to make sure that we continue progress moving forward as quickly as we can.

NOAH LEAVITT: And so you’ve talked a lot about getting involved. I wanted to ask about that because you spoke– I think it was during a webcast hosted by the forum about this idea of grassroots activism, about really getting involved at a local level, whether it’s in your city, or your elementary school, et cetera. So what would your advice for people who are concerned about what’s going on federally, but want to take action in their communities? How can they take action? What are some effective ways to have a voice locally?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, I think that is where a lot of the benefits are going to come from is local action. And one of the reasons I mention that is only because I don’t want young students to think that the federal government is the only place where change gets made. It actually happens below. And it makes its way up the chain, until years later, the government tends to think about a new thought. And it was what everybody was pushing at the grassroots level years before.

But there are ways that you can get involved. First and foremost, people have to register to vote, and they have to vote. You know, that is a fundamental– not just right that we have, but it’s our responsibility. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

You need to find out who’s running. Run yourself. I love the fact that there are so many women running, that there are young people getting involved, there are nontraditional candidates getting into the system– scientists are running. Veterans are running. They kind of want to take back the field and recognize that these are not partisan issues.

It drives me absolutely insane when people talk about climate as a political issue. Someone might have made it that, but it’s not fundamental. It is science. And so I’d want them to get involved. Get involved in local community work. Talk to the city of Boston about what they’re doing on climate. Go to other cities where you live and find out what they’re doing to protect themselves in the public they serve.

Get involved in citizen science. In every city, there’s citizen science groups that are using monitors so they can understand what the challenges are in their communities, and they can take action, and they can go to their local legislators.

Go to the business community. I think the business community is the sleeper here that just might wake up. Because the business community knows that climate change is happening. They understand that they have to be part of the social fabric of our communities and they’re vulnerable if they’re not. Because young people can use social media and call out businesses that aren’t contributing, that are falling on the wrong side of what science demands. And they want investments made in people’s health that also improve our economy and grow jobs.

We’ve been doing this for decades. And I think– you know, the one thing I think this administration might not have factored in was when you go so extreme on one side, you leave a whole opportunity for people, and a demand that that gap be filled. And I think it’s going to re-spark democracy.

So I was, and I remain concerned. But I also remain tremendously optimistic about what the world could do, and the mistakes this administration is doing in ignoring what the public really needs and wants, which is really a healthy today and in a sustainable future.

NOAH LEAVITT: And I like that frame where you’ve talked about this idea that climate change is this opportunity, especially economically– green energy. Do you see progress in the US where the business community is kind of running with that? Or are maybe other countries outpacing the US in that area?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think we’re actually doing very well. But I think a lot of the benefits of the new technology and innovation may be actually going to other countries because they are more heavily investing. And if there’s one thing you need as a federal government, it’s investing in innovation. We tend to help to get products and technologies out there until there’s a good footing and a market. And it’s important for us to do that.

And so I think we may be losing some of the future jobs and economic strength that this country would have if we had a federal government that continued to push. But I still see progress being made here tremendously at every levels. And I think the business community is on the right side of these issues, and increasingly wanting to invest in new technologies. So it’s a shame that the federal government isn’t leading that effort. But others can.

NOAH LEAVITT: You spoke a few minutes ago about kind of this growing body of knowledge about links between climate change and health, whether it’s heat stroke, et cetera. And I know you talk a lot about this idea that we need to shift the climate change away from– it’s not about the polar bears, it’s about human health. Have scientists been doing a good enough job of shifting that conversation? And what still needs to be done to shift that so people understand those links better?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think scientists are beginning to speak up more clearly. But scientists tend to learn in language that only other scientists can understand. So I do think there needs to be translators. There needs to be an ability for other people to take the information, and not do it in a way that in any way misinterprets or doesn’t properly caveat what is known.

But you just need people with other skill sets to complement that. And you need to have an ability to do outreach. That’s the reason for the Center, is to try to be helpful with that. And also, to give experience and expertise to young scientists who we’re training. So they understand that they can be vocal and be clear, and still be independent.

And so I think that that’s a transition that scientists are going to be careful about, and rightly so. And in the meantime, I think there are those of us who have paid attention to the science a long time, and translated into policies, and rules, and programs that can just lend a helping hand at this point, and help train the next generation.

And so I think it’s a great opportunity because I do think that the one thing I have seen across every country and every generation is that parents care about their kids. They care about their kids’ health. And if you can capture that passion, if you can capture that momentum and energy, you can make change in the world no matter where you are and at what level you speak to.

NOAH LEAVITT: Do you think there are– I mean, we’ve seen this huge momentum of student-led activism around gun violence, the March for Our Lives. Are there lessons that can be pulled from that kind of movement which seems to have gained a ton of momentum quickly that can be adapted for something like climate change or environmental health?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, we envision gun violence, at least in this school, as a public health issue. And it is. And we have experts here. And we have a dean that’s very interested in making sure that we continue to focus on this as a public health issue, and build a more systemic way to continue to talk about it, rather than wait for the next disaster to happen. And it’s very challenging.

But the lesson that I learned was the fresh voice of those young students– how articulate they are, and how they were able to make change even in Florida, which I would never have been able, sitting in my little room, to have figured out what would I have to do in order to make that change happen? I could not have designed a strategy.

And they did it based on their energy, their understanding, their fear that they’re bringing to the table. And they brought real-life passion to it. It’s a shame that they had to experience what they did. But this is how change can happen quickly.

And there’s a lesson to be learned about who speaks? Who’s best to be articulate about it? How do you raise awareness at a time when there is visibility on an issue and capture that moment, instead of thinking about doing a conference about it a year later?

There’s an immediacy to these issues that demand immediate response– information to be pulled out and spoken clearly. And those students knew how to do it. And I’m excited about issues like the WeToo movement that raise issues about the women’s and the science marches.

Really, I don’t know whether young people realize how infrequently in the United States we actually get up off our butts, gather together, and march. I haven’t done it in decades. And now it feels like a thing to do. And that just says to me that people are taking back their democracy. They’re not relying on people that they voted for it to actually speak for them. They’re going to speak for themselves. And then they’re going to demand more of the people that are supposed to serve them. And I think that’s great.

NOAH LEAVITT: I mean, I definitely think there is more of an energy. I know you talk about it like, don’t be hopeless. Be hopeful. Do you think that is starting to maybe– we’re starting to see more of that? There is less hope. Like maybe in the wake of the Trump election, there was a little bit of a hopelessness. People were freaking out for lack of a better description. But now it’s kind of transformed into a little bit of an energy. Do you see that happening nationwide?

GINA MCCARTHY: I do. I do see that happening. And that’s why I see businesses stepping up. I think they want to be part of the right side of this issue. If people are demanding that their politicians be straightforward about what they’re going to do for them, then they want the business community to do the same. And you can see that.

I mean, there have been reactions through social media that have caused the CEOs of very large companies to say, oops. I didn’t really think this through. Maybe I don’t want to do what I was planning to do.

There is a whole way now, I think, for people to speak that we never had before. We just need to make sure at Harvard that it’s underpinned by real facts and real science. I think that’s part of what people are reacting to, is they need trusted institutions and professionals to provide information. And that’s what I think the value of Harvard can bring to the table. We are seen as a world-class place, where our voices are based on reality, based on well-established facts.

And I think that’s the one piece that you always want to have as a rudder in these conversations. Because I want people to march. I want social media really to speak. But I want them to speak truth to power. I want them to get that truth from a trusted institution, one that’s always been there for them.

And frankly, Harvard University and this school fits that bill, at least when it comes to climate change and public health. There’s been no stronger voice to talk about the link between exposures to pollution, like air pollution, and what that means for kids, what that means for our health moving forward, how many lives you can save, how you can start a new generation of technology and information that continues to create jobs and grow our economy in a way that’s healthy. That’s the connection that I want to nurture, and where I want Harvard to always be.

NOAH LEAVITT: And so I want to ask about that. Because, I mean, you’re making the transition from government to higher ed. Do you feel that you can speak out differently now in this role? Are there things that you think you can accomplish at Harvard that you could not have accomplished in the public sector?

GINA MCCARTHY: Yeah, I think it’s a wholly different role, Noah. And it’s one that I’m learning and trying to get comfortable with. But I’m trying to find my voice. And I think Harvard School of Public Health and the C-CHANGE here is a way to do that. I want to now ground myself in the science. I want to stay in my lane.

But I want people to understand that there are challenges in the world that we need to face, that science is telling us. But I want to be very clear about how much science you need to know to act. I want to be very clear that people everywhere can make a change, not wait around for government to do it.

I think the one thing I’ve learned is that in government, especially at the federal level, you need to have absolutely overwhelming science to actually take action. I need only a certain portion of that as an individual to convince myself that I can choose better options. And I want to be able to have people do that, and especially today when you have a federal government that isn’t focused on protecting people.

When you’re focused on protecting polluters, somebody needs to speak to the public about what’s real and what isn’t, and how they can continue to make their own choices, how states can continue to act and have the expertise they need to figure out what the best actions are– how you could look at climate change through a public health lens, and instead of it being a burden, it is the opportunity for you to keep your kids healthy. This is what you can do outside of government with a freedom that inside government doesn’t allow.

NOAH LEAVITT: Do you envision your role at all as also kind of being– I mean, you’re such a great communicator. You have this energy when you talk. I mean, people react to what you say. Do you feel at all that you have a role of mentorship of younger scientists so they can find their voices, as well?

GINA MCCARTHY: No. The reason why I’m at Harvard now is that when I left the administration, I got a level of energy from the students that I hadn’t seen or felt in a very long time. It wasn’t that I didn’t love my work in government. I do, and I always will. And the federal government was full of work in action, and I loved it.

But the passion that young people have, and the sophistication of the thinking of the students here in this university, and their commitment to social justice is really– it’s unparalleled. And I want that to be captured. I want them to understand that they don’t have to feel like the world is collapsing just because the federal government isn’t moving. I want them to reach communities– know how to talk to them. Speak to the public in a way they can understand. And make the change that they know that needs to be made.

It’s just incredible what I think they can do when they move out into the world. And they want to know. They don’t want to leave here just understanding how to do research. They want to understand how to do research that matters. They want to talk about it. They want to make sure people understand it so change can happen.

That’s what this C-CHANGE is all about. We can make change without waiting around on the basis of really good science and great communication skills.

NOAH LEAVITT: So you have the launch of it this week, but you’ve, obviously, I mean, you’ve been around the campus now off and on for the past year or so. So as you’ve been around here, what gives you hope going for the future? Is the energy of the students? Is it seeing the research that’s coming out of the school? What makes you hopeful going forward?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, I think what makes me hopeful is, without question, the students, without question, the openness of the faculty to recognizing that they know things that the rest of the world should really know and digest. Everywhere I go, I’m learning things, where little light bulbs go off in my head and say, why didn’t I know that? How do we let people know about this?

There is just a wealth of information that’s actionable. And so I think this could be a really great opportunity for the School of Public Health to really show just how good it is, just what it knows, and how much that information can mean to people out there who are– especially those most vulnerable, who are struggling to make ends meet. They’re the ones we need to give hope to. They’re the ones we need to give a voice to. They’re the ones that need more power.

And I think when people get healthier, they become a more visible and vocal participant in their democracy. And so change can happen. And this can be part of it. And I just love every minute of it.

{***Pause/Music***}

That was our conversation with Gina McCarthy.

If you want to learn more about her work with the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment, we’ll have information on our website, hsph.me/thisweekinhealth.

Just a note that we will be off next week. We’ll be back again in a couple of weeks with a new episode.