Institutions Matter: A Pathway to More Robust Public Health Protections
Institutions matter. This was the core lesson imparted by Carlos Santos-Burgoa, professor of Global Health and Environmental and Occupational Health and director of Global Health Policy at George Washington University, the 2026 Granville H. Sewell Distinguished Lecturer. Science should not begin and end in the laboratory, he argued. Rather, it is incumbent on scientists and others to pay attention to how regulatory bodies do—and don’t—translate research into policies that protect the health of individuals and communities.
Organized by the Columbia Mailman School Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), the annual Sewell Lecture honors individuals who have made outstanding contributions to environmental health sciences. The lecture series was established in memory of Granville Sewell, who directed the educational programs in environmental health sciences at Columbia for more than 20 years. EHS Chair Ana Navas-Acien, Columbia Mailman Dean Jonathan Mermin, Emerita EHS Professor Regina Santella, and EHS Professor Marcela Tamayo-Ortiz each delivered opening remarks. “[Events like these] really help us learn our history and legacy to inspire us to reimagine our present and our future,” Navas-Acien said.
In 1988, in his doctoral dissertation, Santos-Burgoa discovered a human carcinogen called 1,3-butadiene, a gas found in automobile exhaust, cigarette smoke, and industrial emissions. Ever since, the chemical industry has challenged his science by sponsoring its own research; the number of industry-funded studies far surpasses independent analyses. In 1996, regulators set new rules to lower the limit on safe workplace exposures, but broader regulations to protect the public have largely stalled. According to Santos-Burgoa, regulators still deny the existence of community risk. “We are not getting protected,” he said.
Why are public health protections so slow to be implemented when any medical advance would receive regulatory approval in a fraction of the time? “Would we wait 50 years [for a medical advance to be approved]? I don't think we would,” Santos-Burgoa observed. Addressing researchers in the audience, he said, “We have an obligation to follow up on our findings.” To this end, Santos-Burgoa led a study of regulatory bodies in 12 countries to understand the organizational mechanics and structural vulnerabilities. Across the board, regulators were unable to account for the impact of their work on public health. Moreover, they had little institutional capacity to defend themselves against regulatory capture by both industrial and political interests. “A lot of these institutions are oriented to satisfy corporate needs,” he explained.
Going forward, regulatory institutions should be remade to be effective public health protection authorities, Santos-Burgoa asserted. In an ongoing effort, he is building a network between regulatory agencies, NGOs, universities, and professional organizations. A broad public coalition that recognizes the social value of public health science and regulations is needed to bring about a transformation, he said, “from the traditional regulatory institution to an effective public health protection authority.”
