Document KJvx7OxKbVoReGbDx21pqdzGx

FILE NAME DuPont DUP DATE 1979 Jan 8 DOC DUP305 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Case Letters and DuPont Ethics Piece Monday January 8th 1979 Pandemonium Lower Bettesworth Rd RYDE Isle of Wight PO33 3EL England e Dear Dr Castlman kidness Thank you for your in of your article on The sending me a reprint to developing nations export of I am glad hazardous that this factories being pursues I am myself reduced to fight is or less helpless on the sidelines standing by more having been forced by ohbe ilae lth to retire early and having bein virtually imme and without contact with the since the end of 1971. I present situation can travel a little but am little better of course am quite now and obsolete far as modern hazards go as An old friend of mine a retired Medical of Factories in Bombay is still Inspector stop the manufacrure of naphthylafimgihnteinganda bbeanttzliedinteo being started in India I have given him your address and I am sure he would welcome a copy of its predecessor mentioned in your paper and ~ -- your preface I notice that you honour me by quoting a from my Hunterian Lecture to the passage Royal College of Surgeons This was picking up a thread from a few years earlier when I asked anonymously in an Annotation in the Lancet about the morality of importing naphthylamine by ICI when they had just closed there latest and most sophisticated plant for the manufacture of the substance because it had proved unsafe ; | Within a few days I was asked point blank by ICI if I had written this piece and having said yes I was informed that the then Chairman of ICI was summoning me to have lunch with him to talk it over Needless to say I declined since I was in London and he wished me to go the Manchester for this Appropriately enough his name was P.Chambers : However Britain is not alone in such villainy When I first started to study occupational bladder cancer in 1948 I attended an important International Congress on the subject in London and heard the much respected then of USA give a paper Chief Medical Officer of Du Ponts to show that benzidine was not a cause of of bladder industrial cancer and that all the cases cancer in his factories could be laid at the door of naphthylamine whose manufacture was to be abandoned In the early months of 1949 the Medical Officer to the ICI Dyestuffs Division the late Dr Michael Williams with another British research worker visited the Wilmington Factory of Du Ponts and were shown around by the Chief Medical Officer had given the paper He then kindly drove who Dr Williams and bis colleage there next a long drive Dr Williams who destination quite I often heard recount the story noticed that his companion in the back of the car had his eyes closed and said to the Du Pont expert Look You are a Company Man and I am a Company man and Dr and is asleep Can you explain to me why after the records and so on that you have shown to us day you are so certain that benzidine is not causing any of the " He trouble got Briton who was in the reply witnessed by the other fact not asleep but thinking Ga nat sat 5 Ain a AI CER Oe gee Cenaeoi sate Uae ae Pa a So g Ete ADR Hida ite ee ereme MOREY ersRD oat TA " very well Mehere know ate cancer only the one but it itshat BenziBendzidiine ne iis s Company policy substance naphthylamine- causing causing to incrimin- then recently industrial Dr Williams who although a Company man ardent joined and campaigner still only in particulay campaigner campaigner fight idealistic was industrial fight against this Again Again with many thanks -Yours sincerely [rut Hin oe Robert Emeritus A.M.Case Professor of MD Ph.D. F.I.Biol in the University Social of Medicine London \ ry - ~ eee - 7 T TO OP eR DE : ee L I ae a ; ee 2 ca Lf +? SENDER'S NAME AND ACORESS PLEASE SHOW YOUR POSTCCCE Prof R.A.M.Case R.A.M.Case Pandemonium Lower Bettesworth Bettesworth Road WIGHT P033 3EL ENGLAND _ _ Sf. oo _ AN AIR LETTER SHOULD NOT IT CONTAIN ENCLOSURE IF ORDINARY MAIL OR SEDNOTESBYIT MAY BE SURCHARGED SECOND FOLD HERE V . ,Ar ae ae REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBEiR REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBER sethel sethel . 4 OST sethel sethel CODEL CODEL - Dr Barry Castleman ee ee, Industrial Consultant ~~ ee, Valley Knoxville < Maryland 21758 . Emeritus Professor BEATTY Social Medicine in the University of London Late of the INSTITUTE OF CANCER ROYAL RESEARCC ANCH ER HOSPITAL TELEGRAMS CANCER SOUTH KENS LONDON XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXX X XXXXXXX XXXXXX X XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX % 35X 30. The Editor The Washington Post Washington D.C. U.S.A. July 30th 1979 FULHAM ROAD LONDON W. 3 Dear Sir Although now retired due write to you about two articles on have been brought to my notice and to health I feel obliged to the Business Ethics of DuPonts which which I have now seen for myself A few days ago I was astonished and not best pleased to receive a telephone call from a representative of DuPonts who had somehow identified me as someone referred to in the second of your articles which I had of course not seen and who had also managed to ferret out my retirement address with telephore number The reason for the call was to ask if I could remember an incident referred to by Barry Castleman and to ask me to confirm or deny it I am writing this letter in the hopes that if I make my reply public and also state such relevant facts as I know be spared further inquisition any other people who may feel about the by either involved subject being discussed I will party to the dispute or by for there is then no more for me to add The incident described related to a conversation between the then Medical Director now dead of medical officer at I.C.I.Ltd Duponts . and the late Dr Williams a . The conversation took place in the presence of a to be dozing in the back of the British scientist who was thought car and related to the state of scientif knowledge about the power of benzidine to cause cancer of the bladder in 1948. Since I was the dozy Brit referred to I informed the man from DuPonts that the tale as recounted was absolutely the Medical Director of DuPonts had stated that he and true and that the company were aware that benzidine was a carcinogenic hazard to workpeople The two articles that you published give two somewhat differing versions of the dates at which Duponts became aware that beta nap thylamine people to and benzidine were thought by cause cancer in human beings a large body of responsible In my view neither account is accurate Since this very topic of awareness of this type of risk was crucial to an important lawsuit by two workmen against I.C.I.Ltd in England in 1970-71 the Judgement in that case has passages that are ~~ important in relation to the argument between your contributors Carl B. Kaufmann of Duponts and Barry Castleman feel that I a should quote lengthy extracts of the salient points - Mr Justice O'Connor in his lengthy ' Judgement said By 1914 it was appreciated in Germany and Switzerland that men employed a definite cancer in the synthetic dyestuffs industry were hazard In 1921 the International Labour exposed to Office in Geneva published Cancer of the Bladder among workers in Aniline Factories I quote three passages from that paper The first ot " R,_C* ase x Letter to Washington Post continued 2 oT, The first In 1912 Luenberger published a with 1 cases observed among the very interesting study dealing dyes From that moment the workers at Basle handling Aniline the manipulation of existence of a very close connection between aromatic bases and tumours of the bladder workers was proved among ( following Among 4 4 It It the conclusions is is not possible possible at to page 22 the determine determine the are found gendering tumours At substance capable of en- the amino present one can go no further than to compounds and particularly benzidine and beta incriminate naphthylamine 7 It is therefore workers are exposed to absolutely the necessary that in factories in which nost rigorous application dangerous action of aromatic of hygienis bases precautions should be the required made A little later in Lis Judgement Mr the history as it relates to Justice reports made DuPonts quoting In 1930 available to the Court by one of Dupont sent a technical team Germany and Switzerland They individual ations and also some feint recommendations recommendations.... O'Counc continues with from unpublished company the defendents He says to Europe visiting England reports and recommend- 1 quote from Dr. Gebrmann's 9. We should consider aniline beta the causative materials and take taketake immediate iimmmmeeddiiaattee immediate so that there shall be absolutely no dust naphthylamine and benzidine as steps steps to no fuses construct all operations or any skin contacts Their joint report opens with an is remembered that Dupont did not interesting piece of information when it dyestuffs until 1915 go into the production of synthetic experience a few casesorof191b6laddaeprprtouxmiomuartsely two years ago we began to Dyeworks This is the most among our workmen at the ever encounteredThis serious occupational disease that we have . According to information that I collected col ected colected collected collected in 1949 when the car during my visit to DuPonts conversation incident incident incident incidentincident incident and use of the suspected aromatic amines amines amines occurred the manufacture cases of confirmed bladder tumours amines amines started in 1920 and the first been 139 cases 115 at the occurred in 1929. By 1948 there had Chambers works and 44 at Carrollville After some exchange of information about at the letter Haskell Laboratories during 1949 dated 30 December 1949 that my own researches Dr Gerhmann informed and researches me in a not be possible to send owing to legal difficulties it would me information that had been promised or new information that might arise However Kauffman's information being given to own statement relation to health and persons inside or outside the Company in have felt about making psuabfleitcy trheimsovehsithaenrytoscruples that I might otherwise undisseminated information All this may be summarized as DuPonts entered the follows From about the time that synthetic dyestuff had an awareness of the Company had or should have the dangers attendant on such surely be idle to pretend that such a manufactures It must company would not be expected to Letter to Washington Post Continu La H.Case _ ce Washington ~~ ee a et to be aware wf the Cond Cond Spiss publicatious about the hazard even selbe the factory was built Still less could it be claimed thaz they could reasonably be excused fox not knowing of the Inter- national Labour Ofiice publicatioonf 10 Daposts theclyes were experiencing the by 625 and by 1023 they were made awake tean that both bois naphthylamine and benziding the main culprits Thai By Gorhamn should in present a paper at the ninth Internat- ional Comes ional Comes betding was on not be scientifically scientifically claithat industrial one of the Bedicine I was otse claithat bladder carcinogens would not claithat in itself eple eple lur as the late Dancole Dancole Hoghen once said it is by no meantso the discredit of any philosopher to say that he has changed his views in the coun of a prolific career if the evidence desived from a stuey of one epidemiology of the disease at DuPonts had wor^flzrtedwor^flzrted such & volte face However the car conversation Tupport renders this explanation untenable and lenas Castlevan's strictures on Carl Kadies KadieKads ies Kadies Kadies to some of Barry Kadies Kadies ethics in May 1 reiterate whate 1st peace until 1st 1st whate whate whate whate baio ii cal -11 I am left Rovert ^.m.Case P.S. In order not to arouse unfounded it must be stressed that itself countries at DuPonts after alarm amongst chemical workers exhaustive research in many Aniline is not regarded as causing for cancer of the bladder It and workers are protected is of course poisonous those reasons in other ways August 1st 1979 ans Barry I.Castleman Industrial Consultant 8/15 8/15 8/15 | : Pl Pandemonium Lower Betteswort Road RYDE Isle of Wight ENGLAND PO33 3EL Barry I Castleman Environmental Environmental Consultant Box 230 Valley Road Knoxville Md U.S.A. August 1st 1979 Pandemonium' Lower Bettesworth Road RYDE Isle of Wight PO33 3EL ENGLAND : Dear Barry Thank you for sending me a photocopy of your article in the Washington Post Before this had arrived I received a phone call from a representative of DuPonts I was so astonished that I did not gather his name or status who recounted to me what you had written about the late Dr Williams in that article and said that me from their Company records as having accompanied they had identified Dr Williams to DuPonts and had I any comments to make on the matter Since I was the sleeping beauty concerned I had to say that I remembered the incident well and that the report was a truthful account of what had happened I relating to also made an unguarded the visit remark about still having records When I saw your article a day or so later and noted the tone of the controversity I wondered a whether some attempt might be made either to silence me or b to obtain or destroy the records or c to extract further information from me by some party interested in or peripheral to the dispute therefore felt it necessary to write a letter to the Editor of the Washington Post telling all that I know of the matter and since I can see errors in both Kaufmann's and your account of the chronology of the matter to try to set this right In this way I heart disease hope to be left following virus in peace in the future for my pneumonia following lying on a illness London pavement unconscious mugged requires the avoidance of undue stress one winter night of exertion in 1971 I have written to Kaufmann explaining my action in a letter similar in many but of course not all respects to this and enclosing a copy of my letter in the same vein I enclose to the WP I told him that I was writing to and also sending you a copy the WP letter you which Perhaps what I have written above will explain to you why I cannot even consider accepting your kind and flattering offer to attend or speak at your conference If my past work and actions have been helpful in stimulating recent activities I am well pleased but I cannot contribute appreciably more in the long and hard struggle This decision to have to retire did not kindness to try to entice me to vain effortscom te o easily and it is no recapture the past I informed Kaufmann and am now informing informing that I had have been sent away for safe you such records as custody Robert M.Case R.A.M.C The Washington OUTLOOK OUTLOOK OUTLOOK OUTLOOK OUTLOOK OUTLOOK Col SUNDAY JULY 1 1979 A Part Quiz on Corporate Corporate Ethics Drawing by Dana Fradon 1975 The New Yorker Magazine Inc. 55 Miss Dugan will you send someone in here who can distinguish rightfrom wrong By Carl B. Kaufmann V DRAMAS and film fare usually portray corporate executives as amoral men who live for power and care nothing for ethical values but this is one instance where pop culture does not mirror reality My experience in the corporate interior suggests that business executives approach ethical problems in much the same way as everybody else for better or worse The public's attention is usually directed to corporate crime understandably In the past decade there have been illegal payments to sell airplanes abroad the theft of trade secrets the use of corporate funds for political purposes or to reduce the scale to local levels such petty matters as bribing building inspectors and rolling back the odometer on used cars But there is no ethical question involved in these - these are Carl Kaufmann is executive assistant in DuPont's public affairs department and a former chairman of economic educa- tion research for the Business Roundtable easy calls They deal with violations of laws that reflect the public consensus of right and wrong No responsible voice in business oO or outside it claims a little bribery is good for the soul The tough calls for corporate executives are the ones where the hats are not black and white but all gray How do you behave when the law is nonexistent and the maxims learned at mother's knee do not quite cover the question Here are five tough calls which really confronted corporate executives including those at our company In my judgment the right and wrong answers are not as evident as business critics pretend Judge for yourself How would you decide Case No. 1 Your corporation has developed a prescription drug that helps prevent flu or cure it It has other potential uses too But the Food and Drug Administration won't grant clearance More test- ing please Your company experts think the U.S. regulators are dragging their feet beyond reason Other governments with high standards for judging the safety and efficacy have approved the drug for sale in their countries See ETHICS Page C4 --art Quiz on business Lunes THICS From Page C1 Should we go ahead and market the drug overseas Or wait for U.S. approval . Case No. 2 For years your corporation manufactures a dye intermediate called naphthylamine without any questions of risk Then alarming evidence begins turning up - an unusual number of tumors among workers in the plant malignant tumors Beta is identified by company scientists as a potent carcinogen - but hundreds of your workers were already exposed Would you blow the whistle on yourself or try to do a clean quietly to prevent future injuries Case No. As the head of a multinational cor- poration you learn that one of your plant managers has been arrested in a distant republic His - alleged crime is that goods found in your warehouse lack the proper customs stamps and papers - But the truth is more complicated For years grease has been a way of life in this country's bureaucracy and your plant manager has been paying gratuities to the customs officers But he knows it is against home office policy and so he stops Their inspection follows The price for dropping all charges 18 000 Would you pay up Or let your man be put in jail Which alterna- tive is more ethical Case No. Federal health investigators are pursuing a report that one of your manufacturing plants has a higher average incidence of cancer among its employes The plant happens to keep excellent medical re- cords on all its employes stretching back for decades which might help identify the source of the problem The government demands the files But the company turns them over it might be accused of violating the privacy of all those workers who had submitted to private medical exams The company offers an ab- stract of the records but the government insists on the complete files with employe names Then the company tries to obtain releases from all the workers but some of them refuse If you give the records to the feds the company has broken its commitment of confiden- tiality What would you do Case No. 5 South Africa _ in or out Many people have a ready answer Ameri can business should ban South Africa as long as South Africa bans some of its people Should your com- pany do business there including production operations The apartheid policies are morally indefensible in the eyes of many and U.S. capital investment props up a racist government That's one side The other side argues economic development stimulated by outside investment is making conditions better for nonwhites and that specific terms can be drawn to cover the business operations guaranteeing equal pay and promotions for nonwhites How do you vote your shares Ol I hope it is obvious by now that case by case there is no certain right answer Here is how real company executives decided each one Case No. 1 - DuPont went ahead and marketed its new viral drug overseas supported by highquality judgments from governments of Western Europe that the drug can be used safely and that it works U.S. clearance came later and the product is now sold in the United States Case No. 2 - DuPont follows what is called the Reasonable Man Rule on questions of disclosure If a reasonable person given informa- tion would follow a different course / of action to the advantage of health and safety then the information must be given to him or her in- side or outside the company Whether or not it happens to in- crease or decrease the profits of the company is irrelevant This case of Beta incidentally occurred back in the 1930s at our plant in New Jersey We made full \\ disclosure in the medical journals cleaned up the process and took care of employes to the best of med ; ical science's ability For the future the company created its Haskell Lab to try to prevent such sur- prises in the future - oo Case No. 3 The company paid the 18,000 to keep their man out of jail for obvious reasons I'm not going into identities It seemed more ethical to rescue the company manager from his real predicament than to hold out for the abstract principle Case No. 4 -The -The issue of private medical files involved DuPont's Belle W.Va. plant and note in passing that the ethical argument came up only because DuPont does scrupulously maintain employe health records The company de- cided not to comply with the Gov. ernment demands and the issue was - decided by an outside referee - as federal judge - who ruled that DuPont must turn over the records but that the government must ob- serve strict limits to protect confi- |: dentiality This is how this type of -tough case should be decided I think by a third party in a legiti- ' mate process where all sides can be : fairly considered Case No. 5 - DuPont doesn't happen to have any production in South Africa but the ethical point is that corporate executives should not try to make foreign policy for the United States That is not our role or our privilege So long as this country recognizes South Africa corporations must make their own - decisions on the basis of inter. est . That point has broad relevance to business ethics Business executives : should not try on their own to de- cide whether the safety standards ought to be tightened in the ma- chine shop Nor is any other segment of society entitled to be the appointed Solomon of corporate conduct Standards of conduct - to de- serve respect - should be drawn from a public process reflecting many views For its part business should participate in that process to the full limits of its knowledge but only as one actor laying no no greater or lesser claim to wisdom than any other actor and not expec- - ting any special forgiveness if it viol- ates the norms that are set There is a quid pro quo in ethical judgments As the late Alexander Bickel of Yale pointed out the process by which ethical judgments are | shaped must itself be morally ac- ' ceptable In no other way he argued can there be a morality of consent Too often discussions of business ethics fail to meet Bickel's test They start off polarized and go | downhill from there . Would it be too simple to suggest that more headway will be made if we give up the Moral Rectitude Race If we consider the possibility that most people in business have * pretty much the same base of values ; as most of their critics Then at least we could set aside . the issues - where conduct is already covered by law - and exam- ine other problems to see if the facts . really indicate that ethical judg- ments must be made This would put the energy of the democratic system into the tough ethical questions that remain - the hard calls - which really thought require - collective .