Document XODabgaqbxMbndZrk42d3xjJy

Scott Trial Testimony -- September 2, 1987 1933 1 THE COURT: All right. You may 2 proceed. 3 4 5 (WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE VIDEO 6 DEPOSITION WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY.) 7 8 9 Q Would you state your full name, please? 10 A My name is George J. Levinsksas. 11 Q After leaving American Sign in 1971, how 12 were you employed? 13 A I worked with Monsanto Company. 14 Q Do you remember the month? 15 A July, 1971. 16 Q What was your position when you were first 17 hired? 18 A The formal title was manager of product 19 evaluation. 20 Q What was your job assignment and what were 21 your duties and responsibilities as manager of 22 product evaluation? . 23 A It was to start a program in the product 24 evaluation -- 25 HARTOLDMONOQ23654 TTT3ir 1 (WHEREUPON THE VIDEO DEPOSITION WAS INTERRUPTED) 2 3 MR. POHL: Your Honor, we have 4 introduced the witness to the jury. Now we 5 will proceed with our summary, if I could 6 call upon Mr. Musslewhite to assist me. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. POHL: Dr. Levinsksas received his 9 Ph.D. from the University of Rochester in 10 pharmacology in 1953. He joined Monsanto in 11 July of '71 as manager of product 12 evaluation. He is currently employed by 13 Monsanto as senior toxicology consultant. 14 Levinsksas is familiar with the IBT Aroclor 15 studies. IBT was an independent laboratory 16 which means it was self-governing or not 17 subject to control by others. 18 Elmer Wheeler of Monsanto approached 19 Paul Wright and asked him to leave IBT and 20 rejoin Monsanto. After Dr. Hunt died, Paul 21 Wright took over some of Dr. Hunt's 22 functions at Monsanto.which included 23 coordination with IBT regarding ongoing 24 Monsanto studies. 25 Levinsksas proposed a report entitled HARTOLDMON0023655 ---------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- rgrs 1 Toxicity and Enviromental Effects of 2 Commercial PCBs. It is identified as 3 Exhibit No. 29 to his deposition. Exhibit 4 29 is a report prepared by Dr. Levinsksas. 5 Questions regarding that record: 6 7 (Reading from video deposition) 8 Q All right. Page 1 of the report and 9 continuing over to Page 2 of the report there is 10 a topic entitled conclusions based on Monsanto 11 studies. Do you see that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q The first numbered paragraph as those 14 conclusions reads as follows: .and I will quote 15 Doctor: "As a class, the Aroclors are relatively 16 harmless materials for routine industrial 17 handling under ambient conditions." 18 Now, sometime after 1975, at or about the 19 time that this paper was authored marked 20 Levinsksas 29, did you agree or disagree with 21 that statement? 22 A I think it's a valid statement then and now. 23 Q So, your position is to today that Aroclors 24 as a class are a relatively harmless material? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0023656 1936 1 Q However - 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MR. POHL: Continuing with the summary. 5 However, in response to further 6 questions by counsel for plaintiffs 7 regarding the adverse human health effects 8 of exposure to PCBs, Levinsksas testified as 9 followst 10 11 (Reading from video deposition) 12 Q What type of liver injury could human beings 13 sustain under conditions of severe exposure? 14 A I'm not a good enough clinician to give a 15 very good description, 16 Q Just in laymans terms so the Court and jury 17 can understand. 18 A Yes. 19 Q The first numbered paragraph of those 20 conclusions reads as follows: 21 (End of reading) 22 ' 23 MR. POHL: I'm sorry. They duplicated 24 that. Go to Page 3. 25 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: All right. HARTOLDMON0023657 1937 1 (Reading from video deposition) 2 Q In your discussions with people such as Dr. 3 Kimbrough and others and in your review of the 4 literature, did you uncover any other hazards to 5 human beings that might result from severe 6 exposure to PCBs? 7 A The -- basically that, those directed to the 8 liver, the chloracne, the skin, other 9 manifestations of skin eruptions, swelling of the 10 eyelids, distortion of surface of skin, 11 fingernail distortion. But things that are 12 generally related to the surface of the body or 13 the body surfaces. I don't believe there are any 14 other demonstrated consistent effects. ' 15 Q These damages to the skin, to the surface of 16 the body that could be caused by the severe 17 exposures to PCB, would that include skin cancer? 18 A No. 19 Q What more specifically would it include? 20 A There is a blacking of fingernails, 21 fingernails turned inward, lost of facial hair, 22 head hair, body hair. Apart from chloracne, a 23 general breakout of a rash, generalized skin 24 rash, swelling of the eyelids, probably some 25 difficulty breathing because of swelling of the HARTOLDMON0023658 1938 1 nasal tissues, pigmentation, darkening of the 2 skin, most of them are -- that's related to the 3 skin surface., 4 Q Levinsksas Exhibit No. 6 refers to 5 conversations with Dr. Renate Kimbrough regarding 6 her study of Aroclor 1260. 7 The Aroclor 1260 used by Dr. Kimbrough was 8 the same as that used by IBT in its tests. In 9 connection with Exhibit 6, Dr. Levinsksas notes 10 chloracne and liver hazards. Dr. Levinsksas 11 passed on to Drs. Kelly and Johnson of Monsanto 12 the questions raised by Dr. Kimbrough regarding 13 prophyria. They had no particular reaction to 14 Dr. Kimbrough's comments and Monsanto did not, 15 "sponsor any studies to further determine whether 16 or not Aroclor products caused prophyria in 17 rather." 18 Regarding Dr. Kimbrough1s 1974 Aroclor 19 study, Dr. Levinsksas assisted efforts to 20 reconcile the findings of IBT and Dr. Kimbrough. 21 Dr. Levinsksas accompanied Dr. Donovan Gordon and 22 Dr. Ward Richter when they met with Drs. 23 Kimbrough and Squire in Washington, D.G. to 24 review Dr. Kimbrough's slides. 25 Did you a company them on that review? HARTOLDMON0023659 1939 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did youactually look at the slides 3 yourself? 4 A No. 5 Q And what was the conclusion of the IBT 6 pathologists, Drs. Gordon and Richter upon their 7 review of Dr. Kimbrough's slides? 8 A In general,the lesions that they described 9 and Dr. Kimbrough's slides were more advanced and 10 they concurred with those -- that those were 11 carcinomas. 12 The lesions that they had seen in the 13 Monsanto-sponsored studies were less advanced and 14 they did not regard them as carcinomas. 15 Q So, ino the rats fed Aroclor 1260 or fed 16 Aroclor by Dr. Kimbrough, the liver damage was 17 more advanced than that in those rats fed the 18 same Aroclor product by IBT? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, what explanation did you consider to 21 explain that variance? 22 A They used a difficult strain of rats. So, 23 the source and origin of the animal was 24 different; the housing conditions, while 25 superficially similar were different, one was in HARTOLDMON0023660 1940 1 Chicago, one was in Atlanta; despite 2 air-conditioning and such, there are variations. 3 The sources of feed and the contaminants or 4 other materials, the composition of the feed 5 could vary, the water supply is different, the 6 subtleties of handling the animals day in and day 7 out and so for, could vary. So, there are a 8 variety of potential distinguishing features. 9 Q I think you indicated a moment ago that 10 subtleties and the handling of the animals, the 11 course of their feed and their housing could make 12 a difference in the result of the test. 13 A Yes. 14 Q And so that if two different groups of rats 15 were fed the same Aroclor products but one group 16 was handled differently than the other and one 17 was- housed differently than the other and one 18 received watering differently than the other, 19 that could result in a variance? 20 A Those are potential variances. 21 Q Now, is one of the goals of a 24-month 22 chronic rat study to try to keep the rats on the 23 study for the full 2 4 months? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And is one of the reasons that you do that HARTOLDMON0023661 1941 1 is because that will expose the rodents to the 2 product being tested for the substantial balance 3 of their natural life? 4 A Yes* 5 Q PCBs the are the type of product that 6 accumulate in the system. Rats exposed to PCBs 7 for a shorter time would have less product 8 accumulated in their bodies than rats exposed for 9 a longer period of time. 10 "If animals are started late, their response 11 could be expected to be less severe than those 12 started earlier." 13 Although Dr. Parvis Poor disagreed with Dr. 14 Kimbrough's finding of carcinogenicity, he did 15 find that PCBs caused toxic effects in rodents. 16 This fact was communicated to Dr. Levinsksas. 17 Dr. Levinsksas sent Dr. Poor's report to Dr. 18 Gordon who responded by reaffirming his finding 19 of carcinogenicity and disagreeing with Dr. 20 Poor's report. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MR. POHL: With regard to studies whose 24 validity had been jeopardized, Dr. 25 Levinsksas testified on Pages 77 through 79 HARTOLDMON0023662 1942 1 of his deposition as follows: 2 3 (Reading from video deposition) 4 Q If you are reviewing a toxicological study 5 that was done by somebody on a product that you 6 were involved with and animals had been 7 substituted during the course of the study and 8 that fact had not been recorded in writing, if 9 some animal's data such as body weight data, 10 feeding data or other data had not been 11 accurately recorded, and in instances had been 12 fabricated, and you learned that in connection 13 with your study, would you rely on the validity 14 of that study as a toxicologrst?" 15 A The confidence I have in the data would 16 depend on the quality from which it came, yes. 17 Q Well, to put it more simply, Doctor, if you 18 have learned of facts that would indicate to you 19 that the validity of a particular toxicological 20 study was jeopardized, would you rely on that 21 study? 22 A I would want to confirm the information that 23 I had. . 24 Q Well, just assume with me for purposes of 25 this question that you had confirmed that there HARTOLDMON0023663 1943 1 were events which had occurred in connection with 2 one of your studies that jeopardized that study's 3 validity. Should you, as a professional 4 toxicologist rely on that study whose results had 5 been jeopardized? 6 A Since we are dealing with evaluations and 7 assessment of information, I think one would have 8 to take into account the totality of the 9 information available to properly assess the 10 results of that particular study. 11 Q I just want to understand. I want the Court 12 and jury to be able to understand. 13 You don't know, then, today, or can't answer 14 more directly whether you would rely on a study 15 whose validity had been jeopardized? 16 A You would have to define whose validity had 17 been jeopardized. 18 Q So,withoutany further explanation, you are 19 not able to answer the question? 20 A No. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MR. POHLs Continuing with the 24 summary. 25 Levinsksas Exhibit 17 is a letter from HARTOLDMON0023664 1944 1 Paul Wright dated September 30, 1971, which 2 refers to "a general indication of the 3 toxicity of the material," referring to 4 Aroclor 1254. 5 "A toxic effect would be a general 6 adverse effect caused by the chemical, which 7 includes death." 8 The letter goes on the say that, "There 9 appears to be a reduction in the pup 10 survival in the group fed the highest level, 11 100 ppm of. Aroclor 1254, which means that 12 there was a problem with the survivability 13 of the offspring of the rats fed Aroclor 14 1254." -- 15 Regarding the editing of IBT papers by 16 Monsanto, Dr. Levinsksas testifies as 17 follows: 18 19 (Reading from video deposition) 20 Q Did you review any papers that were prepared 21 by employees of IBT with regard to Aroclor 22 studies that had been conducted by IBT for 23 Monsanto? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And would you, from time to time, make HARTOLDMON0023665 1945 1 changes in their proposed papers? 2 A I would make editorial comments, yes. 3 Q In addition to your reviewing papers to be 4 published by IBT personnel, either in the 5 literature or at seminars, did others in the 6 medical department at Monsanto also review papers 7 to be published by IBT personnel? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And was that review done typically before 10 the papers were put out in final form? 11 A The review would be on the proposed papers. 12 Q If a paper was to be published under the 13 name of a person conducting independent research 14 on Monsanto's products, whose opinions should 15 have been expressed in the papers: those of the 16 independent researcher or those of Monsanto? 17 A The ones which were technically correct. 18 Q Let me show you Exhibit 18 to your 19 deposition and see if you can recognize that 20 document. 21 "QUESTION: The letter goes on to say, 22 quote, "I hope to get copies of all of the 23 studies in the hands of Bill Papageorge, Scott 24 Tucker and the lawyers next week. I do not 25 anticipate a lot of changes from them and hope HARTOLDMON0023666 1946 1 that the attorneys agree that we can go ahead 2 with publication." 3 Was it the practice of the medical 4 department at Monsanto to additionally have 5 Monsanto1s lawyers review publications of studies 6 by independent laboratories on Monsanto1s Aroclor 7 products? 8 A It's a practice in all companies by 9 member -- or all publications by members of the 10 company have to have clearance. 11 Q By the legal department? 12 A Individuals that Mr. Wheeler picked for 13 that, I don't -- I have no knowledge of how or 14 why. -- 15 Q Well, what knowledge do you have about why 16 the lawyers at Monsanto would review -- would be 17 reviewing a proposed publication by an 18 independent entity, such as IBT? 19 A I have no knowledge of why that was there. 20 Q Is that a practice that was companywide or 21 was companywide back in the 1970' s or is that a 22 practice that was limited strictly either to IBT 23 or to Aroclor products? 24 A I said I have no knowledge on it. 25 Q Either way? HARTOLDMON0023667 1947 1 A Either way. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MR. POHL: Levinsksas identifies 5 Exhibit 18, which a letter dated April 18, 6 197 5, from Dr. Calandra. In that letter, 7 Dr. Calandra of IBT states: 8 "Please let me know of any action that 9 you contemplate in the way of seeking 10 additional assitance in pathology or in 11 contacting federal agencies. We will be 12 pleased to be of help in any way that you 13 may. " 14 Levinsksas says that IBT helped 15 Monsanto in presenting Monsanto's position 16 to governmental agencies. Regarding changes 17 to the IBT Aroclor study reports, Levinsksas' 18 testifies on Page 119 of his deposition. 19 TO' save time, we have prepared a short 20 summary, a blowup of that page. 21 22 (Reading from video deposition) 23 Q Did you request IBT to change any of its ' 24 reports to Monsanto with regard to IBT's 25 examination of Aroclor products? HARTOLDMON0023668 TSTB1 A No. 2 Q You never did that? 3 A NO. 4 Q Let me show you Exhibits 21 and 22 to your 5 deposition and see if you can recognize these 6 documents. Dr. Levinsksas, let me see if I can 7 refresh your recollection. 8 In July of 1975, did you request that an IBT 9 report of a study of Aroclor 1252 be amended to 10 say, "Does not appear to be carcinogenic," in 11 lieu of the phrase, "slightly tumorigenic?" 12 Answer? 13 A That's correct. 14 (End of reading) 15 16 MR. POHL: The summary continues. The 17 changes requested by Dr. Levinsksas were 18 made by IBT. The wording "slightly 19 tumorigenic" was deleted and the wording 20 "does not appear to be carcinogenic" was 21 substitute. Therefore, Levinsksas testifies 22 as follows: 23 24 (Reading from video deposition) 25 Q The language that IBT uses in the conclusion HARTOLDMON0023669 1949 1 that you just read to the Court and jury is an 2 exact, verbatim quote of the language which you 3 set forth in your letter dated July 18, 1975; is 4 it not? 5 A Yes. 6 (End of reading) 7 MR. POHL: Levinsksas' letter 8 requesting his change is dated July 18, 9 1975. 10 On August 8, 1975, IBT responded and 11 forwarded revised conclusion pages to 12 Monsanto. Those conclusion pages were dated 13 March 24, 1975. 14 Regarding revisions to the Aroclor 15 reports, Levinsksas testifies as follows, on 16 Page 278 of his deposition: 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q Yesterday, we talked about these and the 20 documents did not include the full text of the 21 report. Let me hand to you Levinsksas Exhibits 22 41, 42 and 43 and ask if these are the reports 23 that you were referring to yesterday? 24 A Based on the amount I read, they appear to 25 be the reports. HARTOLDMON0023670 1 Q And they are the ones that Dr. Caland ra sent 2 to you after you sent to Dr. Calandra your letter 3 dated July 18, 1975? 4 A They appear to be the same. 5 Q After having reviewing all three of t he 6 reports on the Aroclor products, is a fact that 7 each of the three contains a verbatim reci tat ion 8 of the language which you suggested in you r 9 letter of July 1975? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And the fact is, from the correspondence 12 that you authored and from the response that you 13 testified yesterday that you received, you know 14 that the revised report that you got as a 15 consequence of your recommendation was backdated, 16 was it not? 17 A' I know that now. 18 Q In connection with Dr. Kimbrough's speech to 19 the Society of Toxicologists regarding her 20 findings of carcinogenicity in connection with 21 her PCB study, Monsanto intended to issue a press 22 release noting Dr. Parvis Poor's disagreement 23 with Dr. Kimbrough's finding. 24 This proposed press release did not mention 25 the fact that Dr. Gordon, Dr. Richter and Dr. HARTOLDMON0023671 1951 1 Squire agreed with Dr. Kimbrough's findings. 2 The Epily (spelled phonetically) Institute, 3 Dr. Poor's employer, requested that this press 4 release not been issued. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MR. POHL: Referring to Exhibit 29, the 8 report prepared by Dr. Levinsksas, the 9 witness testifies as follows: 10 11 (Reading from video deposition) 12 Q Under the section that you referred to a 13 moment ago entitled "comments," a reference is 14 made, is it not, to a review of the Kimbrough 15 results by Drs. Gordon, Richter and Poor? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Let me read this sentence to you and tell me 18 if I read it correctly. Talking about 19 Kimbrough's slides. 20 "The slides were read independently by 21 Dr. D. Gordon of Industrial Biotest 22 Laboratories, professor W. Richter of the 23 University of Chicago and by professor P. Poor of 24 the Epily Institute for Research in Cancer." Did 25 I read that correctly? HARTOLDMON0023672 1952 1 A Yes. 2 Q "In addition, Dr. Poor evaluated the 3 Kimbrough slides and does not agree with the 4 reported findings." Is that correct? 5 A That1s correct. 6 Q And so, this paper is telling the reader 7 that Dr. Poor disagreed with Kimbrough's finding 8 of carcinogenicity in the Aroclor products, 9 correct? 10 A Correct. Yes. Q Where do you tell the reader that both Dr. 12 Gordon and Dr. Richter agreed with Dr. 13 Kimbrough1s findings of carcinogenicity in her 14 study? Show me the language. 15 A That is not in thatsummary. 16 (End of reading) 17 18 MR. POHL: Monsanto attempted to 19 validate IBT's Aroclor tests. Levinsksas 20 was in charge of that validation. 21 Levinsksas concluded that IBT's Aroclor 22 tests were, "adequately conducted." 23 The following testimony appears: 24 25 (Reading from video deposition.) HARTOLDMON0023673 T9T3----- i 1 Q Who assisted you in that endeavor? 2 A I did it myself. 3 Q Now, in conducting your review and 4 validation of IBT's Aroclor studies, did you go 5 to the facilities of IBT and visit their offices? 6 A No. 7 Q When you did your attempted validation of 8 the IBT Aroclor studies in 1981, did you consult 9 with Dr. Wright? 10 A No. 11 Q How did you determine that the rats were 12 properly housed during the course of the IBT 13 study? 14 A I made no attempt to do so. 15 Q What about the source of feed, how did you 16 determine what the source of feed was for the 17 rats while they were on the IBT Aroclor studies? 18 A I can't specifically recallwhether we had 19 records on the source of feed or not. 20 Q So, that's not an element that you can 21 recall having validated, correct? 22 You will have to answer verbally. 23 A Correct. 24 Q Now, another element that you saidwas 25 important was water supply. Do you remember HARTOLDMON0023674 T93T 1 that ? 2 A Yes. 3 Q How did you validate the water supply to the 4 rats while they were on IBT Aroclor study? 5 A I did not validate. And I'm not sure that 6 validation in that since has -- I said that the 7 different water supplies could contribute to 8 different outcomes. I do not know that anybody 9 would make an attempt to validate water supply. 10 Q You didn1t? 11 A I did not. 12 Q What subtletiesof handling animals? You 13 remember when you told me about that this 14 morning? 15 A Yes . 16 Q How did youvalidate the subtletiesof the 17 way that the people at IBT handled - 18 A I did not. 19 Q --- the rats that were on the Aroclor 20 studies? I 21 A I did not. ! 22 Q Didn't make any effort to? 23 A No. 24 Q In terms ofvalidatingthe actual raw data 25 itself, in terms of confirming that the actual HARTOLDMON0023675 1 body weights listed were the true body weights of 2 the animals at the time, that the actual amounts 3 of the Aroclor product was fed to each of the 4 test animals, that the animals were properly 5 watered and housed, you didn't make any 6 validation of those facts, did you, Doctor? 7 A I did not. 8 Q Did you ever retest any of the Aroclor 9 products that had been tested by IBT? 10 A No. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MR. POHL: Continuing with the summary. 14 Body weight data would assist one in 15 determining whether or not animals had been 16 substituted during the course of the test. i 17 The sequential intervals of weighing an 18 animal attest to the animal's existence on 19 test over a period of time. 20 Levinsksas prepared employee 21 evaluations with regard to Dr. Paul Wright. 22 Exhibit 38 is a personnel evaluation of Dr. 23 Wright. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) HARTOLDMON0023676 1 Q No. You speak in your evaluation of Dr. 2 Wright, in your recommendation of him for merit 3 award that he forestalled EPA's promulgation of 4 unrealistic regulations. Is that what you just 5 read to the Court and jury? 6 A Yes . 7 Q What unrealistic regulations of the EPA was 8 Dr. Wright successful in forestalling? 9 A There was talk of a 0 discharge. 10 Q What is a 0 discharge? 11 A None could be permitted. 12 Q To escape into the environment? 13 A Yes . 14 Q Okay. And that was unrealistic in your 15 opinion? 16 A Yes . 17 Q And that's how you characterized it in your 18 memorandum marked Levinsksas Exhibit 38? 19 A Yes . 20 Q And when you say that Dr. Wright was 21 successful in forestalling the EPA's prohibition 22 about the discharge of any PCBs into the 23 environment, do you mean by that that he was 24 ultimately able to prevent such regulation by the 25 EPA or that he was simply able to delay the HARTOLDMON0023677 TT5T 1 implementation of such a regulation? 2 A It permitted time for review of the 3 situation so EPA could issue realistic 4 regulations. 5 Q All right. And who was the one that charged 6 Dr. Wright with the responsibility of 7 forestalling the EPA's promulgation of regulation 8 preventing any discharge of PCBs into the 9 environment? 10 A He was not charged with forestalling. 11 Q Was he reported to you at the time that he 12 undertook these activit ies -- 13 A Yes. 14 Q -- on behalf ofMonsanto? 15 A Yes . 16 Q All right. And did he undertake the 17 activities strictly on his own volition or did 18 you give him guidance in what he was to do? 19 A He presented the information to the agency. 20 With other considerations and that informat ion, 21 the agency took its action. So, the outcome of 22 Dr. Wright's action was a forestalling. 11 was 23 not his charge to forestall. 24 Q It was the result that he was able to 25 achieve as noted by you in your recommendation of HARTOLDMON0023678 1958 1 him for a merit award, correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q Why did you note in your written 4 recommendations of Dr. Wright for a merit award 5 that, "EPA's proposed regulations would have 6 precluded the use of these materials by 7 Monsanto 1s customers," again referring to _ 8 Aroclors? 9 A I have indicated earlier a that 0 discharge 10 is impractical for the use of any products. 11 Q Well, I understand. You were making the 12 point that if the EPA had implemented the 13 regulations which Dr. Wright was able to 14 forestall, then the customers of Monsanto 15 wouldn1t have been able to continue their use of 16 PCBs or the discharge of any of those PCBs into 17 the environment; is that correct? 18 A That's correct. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MR. POHL: Levinsksas toured the 22 facilities of IBT on various occasions. He 23 told IBT of each planned trip before his 24 arrival. Levinsksas thought that the 25 facilities and operations were in accordance HARTOLDMON0023679 115? 1 with acceptable standards. He did not 2 notice anything unusual about the way IBT 3 handled the feeding of its rodents or the 4 administration of dosages. 5 Levinsksas concluded that, "Their 6 facilities were acceptable and their work 7 was valid." 8 Regarding Levinsksas Exhibit 25, a 9 letter dated August 14, 1975, from 10 Levinsksas to IBT, reference was made to 11 discrepancies or inconsistencies with regard 12 to rodents used in connection with the IBT 13 Aroclor study. 14 Question on Page 359: 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q Now, you pointed out to Dr. Calandra in your 18 letter that there was some confusion in this 19 numbering, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q For example, there was some male rats that 22 were shown to be in the control group and yet 23 they were also shown to be in the one parts per 24 million group and also in the 10 parts per 25 million group at the same time; is that cor rect ? HARTOLDMON0023680 htfu 1 A Yes. 2 Q And below that, under female rats, you 3 expressed that you were confused because two of 4 the animals appeared -- at least two of the 5 animals appeared in more than one experimental 6 group; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q For example, Rat No. 3 waspurported by IBT 9 to be in the one part per million dose group, the 10 10 part per million dose group, as well as the 11 100 part per million dose group; is that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And you found if confusing that a rat could 14 have been in three separate dose groups at the 15 same time, correct? 16 A I asked him to check the numbering, the 17 numbers to see whether the basis for the 18 inconsistency, yes. 19 Q And so theCourt and jurywill understand 20 it > when a rat is placed in a toxicological study 21 and administered a particular dose, such as 10 22 parts per million, that rat is supposed to stay 23 confined to that particular group; is that 24 correct? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0023681 THT5T 1 Q And so that same rat couldn't be at the same 2 time in the one part per million dose group and 3 the 100 part per million dose group, correct? 4 A It could not. 5 Q And when the female control rats, which you 6 identified on Page 1 as Nos. 46 through 48 and 7 Nos. 50 , 52, 59 , 64, and 69 are some of the same 8 numbers that you referred to on the second page, 9 are they not? 10 A Yes. 11 Q For example, at top of the second page, you 12 have question concerning animals 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 13 52 , 59 , 64 , and 66; is that right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And let me see if I understand the concerns 16 that you're having in your letter to Dr. 17 Calandra. 18 You note that Animal 52, for example, was 19 1isted as a control animal, but at the same time 20 was shown as a 10 parts per million test animal, 21 correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Page 1, you reflect that IBT showed that Rat 24 Noo 52 was a female control, correct? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0023682 TT6~2 1 Q On the second page, you note -- on Page 11 2 of IBT's report, Rat No. 52 was shown as a 10 3 parts per million dose group male rat, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And then on Page 83 ofIBT's report, it was 6 shown as a control group female; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And RatNo. 64, just to pick one more 9 example -- I won't try to belabor this -- on Page 10 1 of your letter to Dr. Calandra, you note that 11 Rat No. 64 was designate by IBT as a control 12 female rt; is that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q On Page 2, you note that that same rat, No. 15 64, was listed as a 100 parts per million male 16 rat, correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And then you go on to note on Page 83 of 19 IBT's report, that the same rat, 64, was shown as 20 , a control female? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Then, there are other similar instances on 23 this second page of your letter, dated August 14, 24 1975; is that correct? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0023683 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MR'. POHL: That conclude our offer f rom 4 the deposition of Dr. Levinsksas. 5 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the 6 jury, we are going to stand recess until 7 1:30. Please return to your places at 1:30. 8 9 10 (WHEREUPON AT 11 : 52 A.M., COURT WAS IN RECESS 11 UNTIL 1:30 P.M., AT WHICH TIME THE FOLLOWING 12 PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD AND DONE.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HARTOLDMONOQ23684