Document peonVND10XvpXen5J7GxNeNz7

Scott Trial Testimony September 1, 1987 TdT? 1 will be overruled. And you may have a 2 running objection, the same objection, to 3 all of this line of testimony without 4 repeating the objection. 5 MR. JONES: That will be fine. Judge. 6 We don't want to disrupt the proceedings. 7 As I understand it then, we have a running 8 objection on not just this deposition but 9 all other depositions which - 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 MR. JONES: -- or testimony which 12 reference IBT matters. 13 THE COURT: If there are any additional 14 objections, of course, you may state those. 15 But for the objections that you have stated, 16 it will apply to all testimony which the 17 defendant objects to upon the grounds that 18 you have stated. 19 MR-. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor . 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MS. BAKER: All right. For our 22 . - summary, before proceeding with questions 23 and answers: George Roush, Jr., is 24 currently the director of medicine and 25 health sciences at Monsanto Company, a HARTOLDMONOQ24454 TooTJ 1 position he has held since 197 4. He is an 2 M.D. with a master's in public health, board 3 certified in occupational medicine. He 4 reported to Mr. Throdahl, with whom he 5 consulted on personnel decisions, including 6 salaries, incentive awards, and terminations 7 involving salaried persons. Through Dr. 8 George Levinsksas, he assigned 9 responsibilities to Dr. Paul Wright. 10 And we are beginning our offer with 11 Page 18 at line 12. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 Q What sort of conduct would give rise to a 15 recommendation or a decision by you to terminate 16 an employee whom you administered? 17 A Usually it would be for missing work, poor 18 performance at work. And usually it would be in 19 the hourly people. And I'm -- I'm speaking in 20 generality because I really can't recall any in 21 which I had a problem come up that we had to fire 22 someone. It's that rare. 23 Q Do you recall terminating any salaried 24 professional employee? 25 A We did have one who was terminated, and that HARTOLDMONOQ24455 1 was done without ray participation. 2 Q Who was that? 3 A Paul Wright. 4 Q When was Mr. Wright terminated? 5 A I can11 answer that; I don 11 remember the 6 date. . 7 Q Do you rememberapproximately when he was 8 terminated? 9 A It was such a long procedure, it's difficult 10 to say. I would expect it was four years ago, 11 something like that. 12 Q How was it that Mr. Wright1s termination 13 occurred without your involvement? 14 A There was a -- I don't know the legal term . 15 There was an investigation of the operations of 16 the Industrial Biotest laboratories in Chicago 17 concerning the conduct of experiments there. And 18 it was -- the investigation was by the 19 government. And I'm not sure what phase of it - 20 but it was started by -- the investigation, I 21 think, was by the FDA. And Paul Wright had 22 worked at Industrial Biotest before he,came to 23 Monsanto. And that was before I joined Monsanto; 24 so, I can't speak from -- as I recall, Paul had 25 been working for IBT for several years and then HARTOLDMON0024456 1662 1 came back to join our toxicology division. And 2 then when this lawsuit began -3 Q You're .talking about the investigation - 4 A Yes. 5 Q -- by thegovernment? 6 A No. When the lawsuit began. 7 Q What lawsuit? 8 A The lawsuit against IBT. 9 Q Okay. 10 A And Paul became one of the defendants. I 11 think that's the correct term. And the reason I 12 have to say "I think" is because we were not a 13 part of it, and I was not knowledgeable of what 14 was taking thing or anything. T was completely 15 beyond --- it was completely beyond my 16 understanding. When that lawsuit began -- and he 17 was now being on trial -- we put him on leave of 18 absence --- not my say so. That was the way the 19 legal or someone -- personnel had decided. 20 (End of reading) 21 22 THE COURT: Just a minute. 23 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Your Honor, on behalf 24 of Monsanto, I wanted to interpose the same 25 objection on the same grounds as Mr. Jones HARTOLDMONOQ24457 T5I 1 just interjected with regard to IBT matters. 2 I would also like to ask the Court for a 3 running.objection on the same grounds as to 4 any testimony concerning Mr. Paul Wright, 5 Dr. Paul Wright, and his relationship with 6 IBT, including the grounds of relevancy and 7 undue prejudice. 8 THE COURT: The Court will grant the 9 attorney's request. 10 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: You may have a running 12 objection. 13 14 (Reading from video deposition) 15 A -- that was the way legal or someone -- 16 personnel had decided. That was beyond me . 17 because it wasn't anything to do with his 18 function with us. 19 Q Uh-huh. 20 A And they put him on leave of absence. And 21 from then on, I don't know anything about - 22 anything about the trial or anything that took 23 place or why or anything substantive about that, 24 because that was nothing to do with me. And when 25 the trial was over and he was convicted -- if HARTOLDMONOQ24458 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - r6T4 1 that's the right term -- then he was separated 2 from Monsanto. 3 (End of reading) 4 5 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 38, 6 line 25. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q Now, let me ask you to look at the second 10 recommendation, the 1976 recommendation for the 11 incentive program participation. The award 12 category is stated on the document to be; 13 technical accomplishment of significant results 14 What does that mean? ; 15 A We could look at those who we were 16 recommending for incentive award that had done 17 something that was more than we expected out of 18 most -- the people who were clearly above what 19 the rest of the people in the department were 20 getting. 21 Q Well, I guess that1s what I'm trying to find 22 out, is whether that is a specific category for 23 the award. It says "award category," and it says 24 "technical accomplishment of significant 25 results." And the reason I'm asking, in that HARTOLDMON0024459 16 6 5 1 same blank on the preceding award in 1975, the 2 award category was quote, "solution to product 3 toxicity problem which permitted Monsanto to 4 continue product manufacturing and sale. " Is 5 that a different category from this category? 6 A No, sir, no, sir. I think it was just the 7 way George Levinsksas had decided to fill it in. 8 Q There weren't specific categories? 9 A No, no, sir. 10 Q Just a description of what was going? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 (End of reading) 13 14 MS. BAKER; And at Page 42 at line 2. 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q One could have described the 1976 award 18 exactly the same way the 1975 award was 19 described, couldn't they? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Because, in fact, the 1976 award was also 22 given for "solution to product toxicity problem 23 which permitted Monsanto to continue product 24 manufacturing and sale. " 25 A . Yes, sir. HARTOLDMON0024460 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 56, 4 line 16. 5 6 (Reading from video deposition) 7 Q If you will go to the middle of the s econd 8 paragraph and read with me, doesn' t it say , "in 9 the former instance" -- and that's talking about 10 the PCBs, isn't it? 11 A Yes. 12 Q ` "In the former instance, his excellent 13 analysis and synthesis of widely scattered 14 observations played a prominent role in 15 forestalling EPA1s promulgation of EPA's proposed 16 regulations -- would have precluded the use of 17 these materials by Monsanto's customers." 18 Isn't that what the award was all about? 19 A Yes, 20 (End of reading) 21 22 MS. BAKER . At Page 60, line 2. 23 24 (Reading from video deposition) 25 Q Had the government regulations not been HARTOLDMON0024461 ibb / 1 forestalled by Dr. Wright, Monsanto would have 2 had to stop producing and selling PCBs earlier 3 than it did, wouldn't it? 4 A If, in fact, they had put that regulation 5 through before we stopped selling them. 6 Q And the reason that Dr. Wright's work is 7 praised is because his work played a prominent 8 role in forestalling" the EPA's promulgation of 9 those regulations; isn't that correct? 10 A We^ forestalled the promulgation of 11 unrealistic regulations. 12 Q Now, the term "unrealistic" is what 13 Monsanto's view of the regulations was, wasn't 14 it? 15 A I think if we got that information out, you 16 would find that they were unrealistic in terms of 17 whether man could live with these kinds of 18 levels. That's what it really was. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 22 61 -- at the bottom of Page 60, with line 23 25 . 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) HARTOLDMON0024462 16 6 8 1 Q I see. Did you agree with the EPA that 2 discharges of PCBs above their proposed 3 regulation would be harmful to human health? 4 A No, sir. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MS. BAKER: Continuing at Page 63, line 8 23 . 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q Okay. Did you have any interest in 12 following this IBT matter? 13 A I liked Paul, and I was interested from a 14 personal viewpoint. 15 Q Did you have any professional interest in 16 it? 17 A I didn't even know what the subject was to 18 be able to have a professional interest. 19 Q Well, did you -- did you know that Monsanto 20 had had a long, extensive relationship with IBT? 21 A Yes. They sure did. 22 Q They tested a lot of chemicals? 23 A Yes, it did. 24 Q And did you understand that the charges that 25 were being made against Paul Wright and other IBT HARTOLDMON0024463 166 9 1 employees were that they had falsified studies? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Including studies done for Monsanto? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Didn't that cause you to have a professional 6 interest on behalf of Monsanto about whether or 7 not the studies that IBT had done for Monsanto 8 were accurate or inaccurate? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And among the studies that IBT had done for 11 Monsanto were studies of PCBs? 12 A Yes. 13 Q These products where there was a question or 14 a problem with their toxicity to humans, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Didn't the indictments and the progress of 17 the prosecution of that criminal case cause you 18 to have a professional interest with regard to 19 the validity- of the studies done by IBT for 20 Monsanto about PCBs? 21 A Yes. But I didn't relate them as when you 22 said "professional." 23 Q r see. You are aware, are you not, of the 24 fact that the only chronic toxicity studies done 25 for Monsanto with regard to PCBs are all done by HARTOLDMON0024464 ToTU 1 IBT, are not you? 2 A Yes. 3 Q So, the only source of data that Monsanto 4 had ever developed with regard to chronic 5 toxicity of PCBs related to the validity of the 6 work done for it by IBT? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Given that fact, wasn't it a matter of 9 concern to you about whether IBT ran a lab that 10 was accurate or whether it was a lab that 11 falsified its data? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And as a result of the criminal convictions, 14 did you reach the conclusion that IBT had been 15 shown to be a lab that falsified data? 16 A Again, I didn't know what the results of 17 that trial was. 18 Q You never knew that Paul Wright was 19 convicted? 20 A Oh, yes, I knew he was convicted; but I 21 wasn't sure of the substance of what -- what 22 that -- what they had really found. 23 Q You didn't follow itcloselyenough to know 24 what the allegations against IBT were? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0024465 1671 1 (End of reading) 2 3 THE COURT: Let's avoid the dramatics, 4 Ms. Baker. 5 MS. BAKER: Yes, sir . 6 THE COURT: Thank you. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 A Yes. But I wasn't sure what that meant in 10 terms of what was taking place. 11 Q Well, did you understand it meant that they 12 hadn't been running tests correctly? 13 A I knew that was the allegation, but I'm not 14 sure what the substance of that meant -- was. 15 Q Well, was it sufficient or of interest to 16 you that there was an allegation that the tests 17 hadn't been run correctly and a jury convicted 18 Mr. Wright of being involved in that scheme? 19 A Yes. - 20 Q And knowing that and no more than that, 21 didn't that cause you to have some serious doubts 22 about the validity of any study that IBT did for 23 Monsanto? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Including the PCBstudies? HARTOLDMON0024466 Ten 1 A Yes. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 74 5 at line 2. 6 7 (Reading from video deposi tion) 8 Q Let me stop right there. You looked at 9 slides taken from the rats that were studied by 10 IBT, with Aroclor 1260 ? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And those slides showed severe liver damage 13 as a result of chronic exposure? 14 A Yes. 15 (End of reading) 16 17 MS. BAKER: Continuing to Page 84, line 18 16 19 20 (Reading from video deposition) 21 Q The Japanese studies, do they have qualified 22 researchers to study cancer in Japan? 23 A They would say so. 24 Q Well, do you say so? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0024467 167 3 1 Q In fact, some of the foremost cancer 2 \ researchers in the world are in Japan, are they 3 not? ,,. 4 A Yes. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 86 8 at line 3. 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q Did you as medical director of Monsanto take 12 any interest in studies done of the 13 cancer-causing properties of PCBs, other than 14 those done in the United StatesT 15 A We looked at them, yes. 16 Q And they're relevant and material to the 17 question whether PCBs cause cancer, aren't they? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You can-' t write them off just because they 20 were done by theJapanese? 21 A No, sir. 22 (End of reading) 23 24 MS. BAKER: Continuing at 89, line 12. 25 HARTOLDMONOQ24468 1674 1 (Reading from video deposition) 2 Q Do you know enough about the history of PCBs 3 to know that -- that there was a very severe 4 issue or case of poisoning with people, with PCBs 5 in Yusho -- 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- in 1968? 8 A I participated in that 1975 meeting in 9 Chicago when they presented their data. 10 Q Which data are you talking about? 11 A Their Yusho -- 12 Q Yeah. 13 A -- incident. 14 (End of reading) ' 15 16 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 103 17 at line 2. 18 19 (Reading from video deposition) 20 Q I want you to tell me about the effects of a 21 high dose of PCBs on man. 22 A I don't know that I can. I don't know that 23 I have seen a case of a high-dose exposure to 24 PCBs in man. 25 Q Would you be able to describe what you have HARTOLDMON0024469 1675 1 determined f rom the literatur e is caused by high 2 dose of PCBs in man? 3 A The classic high dose would be the Yusho PCB 4 exposure. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MS. BAKER: Continuing on Page 44, line 8 22 . 9 MR. LACEY: 44? 10 MS. BAKER: Line 22. 11 MR. LACEY: Is it 44 or 144? 12 MS. BAKER: 144. I'm sorry. 13 MR. LACEY: What line? 14 MS. BAKER: Line 22 . 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q When was it that Dr. Wright's work was taken 18 out from under your supervision? Only at the 19 point he was' indicted? 20 A Yes. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MS. BAKER: Continuing at 145. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) HARTOLDMON0024470 1676 1 Q From the time of his indictment forward, did 2 he perform any work for Monsanto? 3 A No, sic. 4 Q Did he remain on your payroll? 5 A He was on a leave of absence; so, he was 6 paid. 7 Q But on your payroll? 8 A I'm sure it was. 9 (End of reading) 10 MS. BAKER: And 146, line 15. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 Q Did you work with the lawyers retained by 15 Monsanto to represent Monsanto itself in the 16 investigations? 17 A No, sir . 18 Q Who did they coordinate with in your 19 department? 20 A They -- they didn't work with our department 21 at all. George Levinsksas was a part of the 22 investigation. Whether that was IBT or whether 23 it was -- involved George, I haven't the 24 slightest -- or Paul. I don't have any 25 knowledge -- I wasn't told, and I wasn't -- I was HARTOLDMON0024471 TFT7 1 told not to get involved. 2 Q They tried to keep all of this from you? 3 A They told us not to get involved. 4 Q But Dr. Levinsksas was involved? 5 A Only because he was -- because they had 6 asked for his -- 7 Q They who? 8 A Whoever was doing the investigation in 9 Chicago. 10 Q The lawyers retained by Monsanto, or the 11 government? 12 A I -- I don 11 know. 13 Q I see. Were you aware of the fact that 14 Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago represented Monsanto 15 in connection with these investigations? 16 A I know that name was involved. 17 Q And are you aware of the fact that Wilmer 18 Cutler & Pickering in Washington, D.C., was 19 retained to represent by Dr. Wright and paid for 20 by Monsanto? 21 A I know that his was paid for, and I didn't 22 know it was paid for -- I might have heard it 23 sometime, but it didn't mean anything to me. 24 Q Did you know it was Wilmer, Cutler & 25 Pickering in Washington? . HARTOLDMON0024472 1678 1 A No. I say I may have been told. And sinee 2 it didn't mean anything to me, I -- it wasn't 3 something I would -- I would recall. 4 Q Who was it that directed you not to get 5 involved in this investigation? 6 A Personnel. 7 Q Who? 8 A I don't recall -- I would -- my guess would 9 be, if I had to say, would be Bob Shirley. 10 Q Who is Bob Shirley? 11 A He is our personnel man that was within our 12 enviromental policy staff. 13 Q Didn't it seem important to you as the 14 medical director of Monsanto to know what was 15 going on and to get to the bottom of this 16 problem? 17 A I was told not to get involved. 18 (End of reading) 19 20 MS. BAKERj And on 149 at line 24. 21 22 (Reading from video deposition) 23 Q Did anybody from the medical department 24 monitor the trial that took place? 25 A We were not permitted to. HARTOLDMON0024473 1679 1 1 Q Who prohibited you from observing the trial 2 and learning the evidence with regard to 3 Monsanto's and IBT's conduct in these studies? 4 A It was out of -- I had no authority, since I 5 didn't pay for it. If I had been using that - 6 Monsanto -- out of my budget -- I might have had 7 some authority. But it was not in my province. 8 It was not in my authority or responsibility, and 9 I was told I wasn't to be involved in it. 10 Q Who told you that nobody from the medical 11 department could monitor the trial to see what 12 the problems were? 13 A Personnel. 14 Q Who? 15 A Bob Shirley. 16 Q So, nobody in Monsanto's medical department 17 was allowed to have firsthand information' about 18 the evidence that came out in the IBT trial; is 19 that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Were you ever 22 evidence that came 23 anything like that 24 A No, sir. 25 Q So, the only HARTOLDMON0024474 1680 1 permitted to have about the evidence that came 2 out in that trial was what you could read in the 3 public press,? 4 A Yes. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MR. LACEY:, Continuing at line 24 on 8 ' Page 151. 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q Were youinterested enough in the problem 12 and what impact it might have on the studies that 13 had been done by Monsanto at IBT to want to know 14 what the evidence was? 15 A I would like to have known. 16 Q Did you ever request permission to find out 17 what the evidence was? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q You just took your or ders? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Did Mr. Shirley or anybody else ever provide 22 you with a summary of what the evidence was so 23 you could evaluate the effect of the evidence 24 that came out, on the validity of the work done 25 by IBT for Monsanto? HARTOLDMON0024475 1681 1 A No, sir. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MS. BAKER: And continuing now at Page 5 156, line 21. 6 7 (Reading from video deposition) 8 Q Do you know what Mr. Wright is doing since 9 he left Monsanto? 10 A He asked me for a letter of recommendation a 11 couple of weeks ago. 12 Q To whom? 13 A To whom it concerned, ' 14 Q I see. 15 A And he my impression that he is teaching, 16 and I'm not sure what he is teaching at one of 17 the city colleges in St. Louis. 18 Q Did you give him a letter of recommendation? 19 A Yes. 20 Q A good letter? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Did you mention in the letter anything about 23 his prior problems? 24 A No, I didn't mention that. I was talking 25 about his technical capability. That is what I HARTOLDMON0024476 ------- . ToW2 1 addressed. 2 Q I see. 3 A It was a very short letter, too, I might 4 add. 5 Q I understand. 6 A And it was approved by Monsanto. 7 Q Who approved it? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q Well, who did you send it to to get 10 approval? 11 A To personnel. It went to personnel. 12 Q Is that Mr. Shirley? 13 A No. Went through Mr. Pete Morrow. 14 Q Is that Mr. Shirley's replacement? 15 A He works for Mr. Shirley. 16 Q I see. Had you ever been asked for a letter 17 of recommendation by Mr. Wright until the last 18 couple of weeks? 19 A No, sir'. 20 Q This is the first request? 21 A (Witness nods head.) 22 Q Did you talk to Mr. Wright or Dr. Wright? 2 3 A On the phone. 24 Q What did he tell you? 25 A He just said, "I'm looking for a job. I HARTOLDMON0024477 1683 1 need a letter of recommendation." 2 Q Did he mention how he happened to call you 3 for a letter of recommendation? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q When you talked to Dr. -- to Mr. Morrow, 6 was he surprised that Dr. Wright had called for a 7 letter of recommendation? 8 A He didn't appear to be. 9 Q Let me show you Document 58742, which is a 10 form that was filled out. I assume that this is 11 Mr. Shirley's signature at the bottom? I want 12 make sure that that, in fact, is Mr. Shirley ' s 13 signature? 14 A That is Mr. Shirley's signature. 15 Q This is the person who was responsible for 16 handling the personnel matters associated with 17 the medical department? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Is the same Mr. Shirley who had indicated to 20 you that you should not attempt to find out what 21 was going on with the IBT matter? 22 A Either he or Pete Morrow was the one that 23 told me about it. 24 Q Is that Mr. Shirley's handwriting on the 25 form? HARTOLDMON0024478 1684 1 A Yes. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MS. BAKER s And continuing with Page 5 168, line 7. 6 7 (Reading from video deposition) 8 Q You went to IBT and looked at slides of 9 those rat livers, didn't you? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MS. BAKER: And at 169, line 6. 14 15 (Reading from video deposition) 16 Q Now, what IBT initially suggested to 17 Monsanto they would say about those very same 18 livers was slight tumorigenisis? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Isn't that correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Which is a less strong statement than you 23 felt was warranted by looking at the livers 24 yourself, correct? 25 A Yes. HARTOLDMON0024479 ToST 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MS. BAKER: And from there to 191, 4 please, line 22. 5 And at this point, I would like to 6 distribute another exhibit, Plaintiffs' 7 Exhibit No. 3129, which has already been 8 offered into evidence. 9 At line 22, on 191. 10 11 ( Reading from video deposition) 12 Q Let me show you a letter dated Apr il 18 th, 13 1975 from Dr. Calandra to you, Document 2274 5 14 with the attachment 22746 through 22750 and ask 15 you if that is a letter that you, in fa ct, 16 received from Dr. Calandra? 17 A Yes. 18 Q It references the letter, a meeting that 19 took place on April 18, 1975; is that correct? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Wereyou present at thatmeeting? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Where did thatmeeting take place? 24 A At IBT. 25 Q And what was the purpose of the meeting? HARTOLDMON0024480 ----- --.------------------------------------------------- ' ' ToTTF 1 A To have them explain to me why he hadn't -- 2 why he didn't find cancers and Kimbrough had 3 found them. 4 Q And that was a nagging question for you, was 5 it not? 6 A That was my nagging question. I wanted an 7 answer to that. 8 (End of reading) 9 10 MS. BAKER: And continuing at 193, line 11 4. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 Q And is that an accurate representation of 15 what was discussed at the meeting? 16 A I can't remember all of the things that 17 were -- here was a part of that discussion, bu t 18 it would be pertinent for that to be because o ne 19 of the first things is it related to the 20 Kimbrough study. 21 Q He also references in his letter a 22 willingness to be of help in any way that 23 Monsanto wishes. Do you see is that in the 24 second paragraph? 25 A Yes, sir. HARTOLDMON0024481 1687 1 Q And you did further call on IBT to help you 2 try and clear up that problem, did you not? 3 A Yes. 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MS. BAKER: And continuing at 195, line 7 4. 8 9 (Reading from video deposition) 10 Q In the last sentence, in the second 11 paragraph on Page 22746, he says, "It should be 12 ' noted that the earlier allegations by Kimbrough 13 that bladder cancers developed in female rats fed 14 PCBs was successfully countered by Biotest and 15 Monsanto personnel? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know what he is referring to there? 18 A No, I don ' t. 19 Q You don1' t know anything about how Biotest 20 and Monsanto personnel successfully counteracted 21 Kimbrough? 22 A I don11 know what he means by "successfully 23 counteracted," either. 24 (End of reading) 25 HARTOLDMON0024482 ToFF 1 MS. BAKER: And at 197 -- 196, line 1 2 3 (Reading from video deposition) 4 Q Okay. In the next paragraph, he talks about 5 Kamura. Kamura is one Japanese scientists, is he 6 not? 7 A Yes. 8 Q He did studies on a PCB product, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Using rats? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And found thatthere werecertain benign 13 neoplastic changes, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And Dr. Calandrapoints out thatKamura 16 expressed concern that the benign nodules in the 17 liver may progress to carcinoma if specific or 18 non-specific stimuli are introduced into the 19 animal. 20 Was that something that you discussed with 21 Dr. Calandra on that visit, the Japanese study by 22 Kamura? . 23 A I don't recall, but it could well be because 24 that was a subject of whether it was 25 carcinogenic. HARTOLDMON0024483 1689 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 197 4 at line 8. 5 6 (Reading from video deposition) 7 Q On the next page, there is a reference to 8 Itow? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Mr. Itow isanother Japanese cancer 13 researcher, is he not? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Mr. Itow is one of the foremost cancer 16 researchers in the world, is he not? 17 A I think he's a cancer specialist and whether 18 he is -- I don't know how to answer the question. 19 He is well recognized. 20 (End of reading) 21 22 MS. BAKER; On line 7 on 199. 23 24 (Reading from video deposition) 25 Q Dr. Itow found that PCBs did cause HARTOLDMON0024484 1690 1 hepatocellular carcinomas. And that's liver 2 cancer, is it not? 3 A Yes. _ 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MS. BAKER: Continuing to Page 203 at 7 line 9. 8 9 (Reading from video deposition) 10 Q And he finally indicates that "Biotest is 11 prepared to assist Monsanto in any adversary 12 situation, in or out of government." 13 Do you know what he means by that? 14 A I didn't ask him what he meant by it. 15 Q Did you ever -- that concludes our review o 16 this. 17 Did you ever ask Dr. Calandra or Biotest to 18 assist Monsanto in any adversary situation in or 19 out of government? 20 A We did go to the government after tha t. 21 Q And took Dr. Calandra with you? 22 A Yes, because he knew his data and we did 23 not. He had to speak for his own data. 24 Q And the purpose of that visit to the 25 government was to present the views that PCBs HARTOLDMON0024485 16 91 1 don't cause cancer? 2 A No. We took the Poor Report and gave that 3 to each one of the agencies that we visited, only 4 to again talk about that -- getting involved in 5 that discussion of what is a cancer -- a 6 cancerous lesion and how do you define them. 7 Q The visit that was made to the government is 8 the one that is referred to in the memo that Mr. 9 Papageorge wrote to Dr. Calandra, you, and Mr. 10 Weber on November 10th -- I'm sorry -- November 11 10 th, 1975, Document 1487, 1488, Plaintiffs' 12 Exhibit 1516, is it not? 13 A It wasn't written by -- oh -- it was from 14 Papageorge? Yes. 15 Q That is the visit where you took Dr. 16 Calandra to present the positions of the 17 noncarcinogenicity of PCBs? 18 A As well as to present them with the Poor 19 Paper. 20 Q Yes. Let me ask you a little bit about that 21 visit. 22 Did you advise the government of the Itow 23 study concluding that PCBs caused cancer? 24 A Well, they already had -- that's published. 2 5 Q That's not my question. HARTOLDMON0024486 1692 1 A No, we did not. 2 Q You did not call that study to anyone's 3 attention in that visit, did you? 4 A No, sir . 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 205 , 3 at line 12. 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q On this visit, what agencies did you go see? 12 A Went to NIOSH, andwent to CEQ. 13 Q That's the Councilfor Environmental 14 Quality? 15 A Yes, and NCI. 16 Q National Cancer Insitute? 17 A And apparently NIEHS was there -- came there 18 as well. And then we visited the EPA and the 19 FDA. 20 Q And wasn't there a visit to a Congressional 21 group as well? 22 A I don ' t ttfink so. 23 Q Okay. Did you advise any of these people 24 that Itow's study in mice found, "hyperplastic 25 nodules and well-differentiated hepatocellular HARTOLDMONOQ24487 , 1693 1 carcinomas," at a dose level of 500 parts per 2 million of Kanechlor 500? 3 A No, sir. 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MS. BAKER: And continuing with line 7 14 . 8 9 (Reading from video deposition) 10 Q Well, let me ask you this, then: At that 11 meeting, did you advise anybody, any of those 12 groups that Dr. Gordon or Dr. Richter had 13 reviewed the Kimbrough slides and found or agreed 14 with the findings of cancer? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q The only reports that you made to any of 17 those groups were that the IBT study did not show 18 cancer and that Dr. Poor concluded that the 19 Kimbrough study did not show cancer? 20 A That's right. And Kimbrough was there when 21 we did that. We gave it to Kimbrough, as well. 22 Q I understand. But the only -- only 23 information you gave to any of these groups was 24 that -- really that Dr. Poor had reviewed the IBT 25 studies and said "no cancer," and Dr. Poor had HARTOLDMON0024488 T5?4 1 reviewed the Kimbrough studies -- 2 A Yes. 3 Q -- and said "no cancer." Nothing else? 4 A That's right. 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MS. BAKER: Continuing at page 208, 8 line 5. 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q Let me show you a memo dated September 17th 12 1975, written by you to the corporate 13 administrative committee, Document 19722, 14 Plaintiffs 1 Exhibit 710. 15 (End of reading) 16 17 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, this has been 18 introduced into evidence and I would like to 19 pass tO' the jury a copy 20 21 (Reading from video deposition) 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Do you recall writing that memo? 24 A Yes, sir. I signed it. 25 Q One of the things that was of concern -- HARTOLDMON0024489 16 9s 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MS. BAKER: At line 22. To the. 4 5 (Reading from video deposition) 6 Q -- to the corporate administrative committee 7 in 1975 was what potential government action was 8 taking place with regard to PCBs, was it not? 9 A Yes. 10 Q In fact, this whole monthly report dealt 11 with nothing but the PCB issue, correct? 12 A The second paragraph deals with 13 epidemiologic study, and it was broader than just 14 PCBs. 15 Q It was inspired by questions about whether 16 or not PCBs were causing cancer among workers, 17 wasn't it? 18 A The interest of the government was not 19 related to cancer. It was the presence of PCBs 20 in the environment. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MS. BAKER: All right. Continuing at 24 210, line 12 . 25 HARTOLDMON0024490 1696 1 (Reading from video deposition) 2 Q The first sentence of this letter you say 3 that "State and federal agencies activities 4 related to PCBs continue to require medical 5 department attention to support business group 6 efforts." 7 What did you mean when you said "business 8 group efforts"? 9 A PCBs were an important issue to Monsanto in 10 general. 11 Q What was the business group effort? 12 A I -- I can11 answer that. It's a generic 13 business group because I -- I never knew who was 14 involved at this time or how I should talk about 15 what the business group effort means. 16 (End of reading) 17 18 MS. BAKER: Continuing at Page 212 , 19 line 8. 20 21 (Reading from video deposition) 22 Q Had you already formed the impression by 23 September 17th, 1975, that Monsanto needed to get 24 out of the PCB business? 25 A I'm not sure I went that far. That really HARTOLDMON0024491 16 9 7 1 wasn't my decision kind of thing. And I had no 2 contact with business people making such 3 decisions. _ 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MR. LACEY: At 213, line 5. 7 8 (Reading from video deposit ion) 9 Q At the time you wrote this memo, Monsanto 10 had never conducted a single epidemiological 11 study of workers at any of its plants, had it? 12 A I'm sure that's right. 13 (End of reading) 14 15 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 214 16 at line 4. 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q And it would be very difficult to represent 20 to anyone else that you had had no health 21 problems caused by any particular chemical your 22 people were exposed to without having done 23 epidemiological studies, wouldn't it? 24 A We can use our medical data under our 25 surveillance examinations, but it won't take the HARTOLDMONOQ24492 16yd 1 place of an epidemiologic study, that's right. 2 Q The first time you conducted an 3 epidemiological study with regard.to PCBs was 4 after you had learned that the Mobile study 5 suggesting a relationship between exposure to 6 PCBs and melanoma; isn't that correct? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And what you found in that study was a 9 relationship suggested between PCBs and lung 10 cancer, wasn't it? ' 11 A No, it doesn't -- all it says there is a 12 possible association. 11 doesn't say there is . 13 Q I see. One of the problems with 14 epidemiology is that it's almost impossible to 15 get clear-cut conclusions, isn't it? 16 A Not if you have -- if you represent a study 17 in a number of different locations and they all 18 come up with the same finding, then you have got 19 a cause-and-effect relationship. But if it is 20 not repeated in another location and if the 21 evidence isn't clear-cut, then you have a 22 problem. 23 Q Would you read the last sentence of you r 24 memo into the record, please. 25 A "We will have to do much more epidemiology HARTOLDMONOQ24493 _- 1699 1 in the future, although clear-cut conclusions are 2 almost impossible." 3 (End of reading) 4 5 MS. BAKER: Continuing at Page 219, 6 line 16. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q There was a press release that was proposed 10 to be released in connection with the Chicago 11 meeting on PCBs in 1975, was there not? 12 A You mean the big study? You mean that -- 13 that week-long thing on PCBs? 14 Q I believe that's correct, yes. 15 A I'm not sure it was. But public relations 16 decided they wanted to put out a press release 17 as -- as was possible. I don't remember. 18 Q Well, I -- wasn't there a proposed press 19 release with-regard to Dr. Poor' s work? 20 A That was different. 21 Q It was different? ' 22 A The public relations wanted to get something 23 out on the Poor Report, and Poor did not want it 24 to be part of the Chicago -- I don't know what to 25 call that -- the conference on PCBs. HARTOLDMON0024494 1700 1 Q Why was he interested in distancing himself 2 from that conference? 3 A He didn't want to get involved in 4 controversial discussions. He is quite -- he was 5 quite satisfied to have us take it to the 6 government agencies but didn't want to get 7 involved in a -- any controversy. 8 Q He wasn't interested in having his work 9 published so that other scientists in the general 10 domain could look at it, comment on it, criticize 11 it, and review it? Is that the bottom line? 12 A No. I don't -- I don't think that's the 13 same. He just didn't want to be involved in a 14 controversial discussion in a congress or a 15 seminar on PCBs. 16 Q Well, the people at the seminar were 17 scientific type people, were they not? 18 A Yes. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MS. BAKER: And on Page 2 21 at line 25 22 and continuing at 222. 23 24 (Reading from video deposition) 25 Q Putting out an opinion like Dr . Poor.'s HARTOLDMON0024495 1701 1 opinion at that Chicago symposium would have been 2 the equivalent of putting it out in a peer review 3 journal, wouldn1t it? It would have put it out 4 for review and comment and criticism by other 5 scientists, correct? 6 A It would be one form of doing it, but it 7 isn't exactly the same as publishing it 8 someplace. 9 Q Did he ever publish his study in a peer 10 review journal? 11 A I don't know. I don't think so. 12 Q And he was unwilling to put it out for 13 public comment to other scientists at the Chicago 14 symposium; is that correct? 15 A He didn't want to get -- he didn't want to 16 do that. 17 Q Didn't authorizeyou to do that? 18 A That's right. 19 Q And you' didn't do it, did you? 20 A No, sir. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MS. BAKER: And to 223, line 9. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) HARTOLDMON0024496 170 2 1 Q Did Monsanto ever engage in PCB studies in 2 higher animals than rats and dogs and chickens? 3 A Yes. _ 4 Q What animals were used? 5 A We used monkeys on a reproductive study. 6 Q What was the purpose of using higher 7 animals? 8 A Well, the general concept that you have 9 problems in relevance of an animal study to 10 man -- especially if you use a rat. That's 11 hardly a good surrogate for man. We use monkeys 12 or use rats because we know them quite well and 13 because we can do more animals. But if it were 14 possible, we would do all of our toxicology in 15 monkeys; and so, Dr. Allen had done a study of 16 monkeys. And we wanted to learn firsthand what 17 reproductive hazard -- problems -- are in 18 monkeys. 19 Q Dr. Allen's study showed that higher 20 primates, like monkeys, were more susceptible to 21 problems from PCBs than were animals like rats, 22 did they not? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So that one would expect toxic effects to be 25 greater in more highly developed primates than in HARTOLDMON0024497 17 0 3 1 rats, correct? 2 A Yes -- well, "greater" is not -- what was 3 learned is that at low concentrations, we saw an 4 effect, rather than necessarily that there was 5 more. 6 Q Well, what was learned in Dr. Allen's study 7 were that at concentrations that did not produce 8 substantial toxic 'effects in rats there were 9 substantial toxic effects - 10 A That's right. 11 Q -- in primates? 12 A That's right. 13 Q And of course, Dr. Allen's work could 14 therefore be interpreted to mean that any PCB 15 exposure would result in the same response in 16 humans, correct? 17 A 11 would be more likely to be correct. 18 Q Did you undertake studies in primates, 19 yourself? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Who did those studies? 22 A Litton Bionetics. L-i-t-t-o-n. 23 B-i-o-n-e-t-i-c-s. 24 Q And what was the conclusion? 25 A That, in fact, there were effects on HARTOLDMON0024498 1704 i 1 monkeys. And it was about as he suggested, but 2 his dose level was off by about 20, 20-fold. In 3 other wordswe didn't see the same effect until 4 we got to about 25 parts per million as opposed 5 to what he had found. 6 Q But your own -- 7 A Substantially the same finding. 8 Q Your own studies in primates confirmed that 9 higher animals like monkeys were more acceptable 10 to PCB effects at lower doses than rats? 11 A I think that' s correct. 12 Q And would those studies - 13 A The only difference was that the dose level 14 wasn't as low as he said it was and problem is 15 that it's hard to do it at that low a 16 concentration. 17 Q And the reasonable conclusion of your 18 primate studies is that you would anticipate 19 humans would' also be more susceptible to 20 PCB-induced problems at lower doses than rodents, 21 correct? 22 A That is a reasonable interpretation of that, 23 yes . 24 Q Do you know of any reason to reject that 25 interpretation? HARTOLDMON0024499 170 5 1 Well, the only problem you have got is being 2 as sure of the dose and the fact that there are 3 so few animals involved. And this -- that makes 4 it difficult. So, it's not as reliable as it 5 would- be if we had done 50 rats. 6 Well, Monsanto set up the protocol for that 7 monkey experiment -- 8 A Yes, it did. 9 Q -- did it not? 10 A Yes, it did. 11 Q You decided how many monkeys to use. 12 A That1s right. 13 Q And you used enough to feel that you were 14 going to get a meaningful result? 15 A Yes . 16 Q And the meaningful result confirmed the 17 result of Dr. Allen? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Suggesting that higher primates, like 20 monkeys, were more acceptable than lower animals 21 like rats? 22 A Yes . 23 Q 'And leading to the reasonable conclusion 24 that man, therefore, would be more susceptible to 25 problems with PCBs at lower doses than rats, HARTOLDMON0024500 1706 1 correct? 2 A Yes. 3 (End of reading) 4 5 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 248, 6 line 17. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q I first want to direct your attention to the 10 Exhibit 21 to Dr. Levinsksas' deposition, a 11 letter dated July 18th, 1975, from Dr. Levinsksas 12 to Dr. Calandra. In that letter Dr. Levinsksas 13 requested that the Aroclor 1254 report be amended 14 to say "does not appear to be carcinogenic"; is 15 that correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Their report had previously stated that the 18 Aroclor 1254 was slightly tumerogenic. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Is there any question in your mind but that 21 IBT made the change requested by Dr. Levinsksas? 22 A Is there any question that they did? Is 23 that -- 24 Q Is there any question in your mind but that 25 IBT made the change requested by Dr. Levinsksas? HARTOLDMON0024501 17 0 7 1 A My impress ion that they did, yes. 2 Q Okay. And that change consisted of taking 3 out the language "slightly tumerogenic" and 4 replacing it with the language "does not appear 5 to be carcinogenic." 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Now, in that regard, a product that is 8 tumerogenic is on that continuum of products from 9 a product that has no effect to a product that 10 causes cancer. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Isn't that correct -- and it would be 13 significant then to note or to know whether a 14 product created tumors, wouldn't it? 15 A Yes. 16 (End of reading) 17 18 MS. BAKER: Continuing at 259, line 4. 19 20 (Reading from video deposition) 21 Q What representations did you make to all the 22 governmental agencies when you went to them in / 23 November of 1975? That IBT studies had shown 24 that they were noncarcinogenic; isn't that 25 correct ? HARTOLDMON0024502 1708 1 A Plus the Poor Interpretation, something on 2 the same subject. 3 Q And when Monsanto went to the Senate, who 4 was investigating the issues of PCBs for whatever 5 reason, it reported that the IBT studies had 6 found PCBs to be noncarcinogenic, didn't it? 7 A Yes. 8 Q It wouldn't be nearly so pleasant to have to 9 report that the IBT study had concluded that PCBs 10 were tumerogenic, would it? 11 A I don't think so. I don't think there's 12 much difference between the two. 13 Q You can'tsee much difference -- 14 A No. 15 Q -- between the two? If there wasn't much 16 difference between the two, why in the worId did 17 Dr. Levinsksas bother to have it changed then? 18 A To be -- to try and get them to say what 19 they had said. ^ 20 Q Well, if the two mean the same thing, then 21 it really doesn't matter if you say one way or 22 the other, does it? 23 A It's more importantto say something is not 24 carcinogenic than to say that it is tumerogenic. 25 (End of reading) HARTOLDMON0024503 TTTTJ 1 2 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 277 , 3 line 12. 4 5 (Reading from video deposition) 6 Q Did you ever ask anyone to undertake a study 7 to determine whether furans were to be found in 8 Monsanto 1s PCBs? 9 A No, sir ,, 10 Q Do you know whether any such study has ever 11 been conducted? 12 A No, sir . 13 (End of reading) 14 15 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 278 , 16 line 1. 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q Well, certainly in trying to assess what the 20 toxicology of PCBs are, it would make a 21 difference if you knew that those PCBs had in 22 them furans produced as a byproduct, would it 23 not? 24 A It might. That's something you shouldn't - 25 it would -- you should -- it would be nice to HARTOLDMON0024504 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . 1 know. But we do it after we got it. It would be 2 something else. 3 Q You recognize, do you not, that furans may 4 be even more toxic than PCBs? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And so, the presence of furans in PCBs 7 produced by Monsanto would be likely to increase 8 the toxic effect of exposure to these PCBs. 9 A If they were present in sufficient quantity. 10 Q Okay. What is a sufficient quantity, in 11 your opinion? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q You have neverstudied -- 14 A I haven't studied it. 15 Q I see. Have you had somebody on your staff 16 study that? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Do you have any information onthat? 19 A No, sir* 20 Q So, trying to assess at what level furan 21 contamination in PCBs would be significant, you 22 don't have any information on that? 23 A That's right. 24 Q And is that why you say you don't know what 25 you would do with it if you found out there were HARTOLDMON0024505 1711 1 furans in the PCBs? 2 A I don't know what would -- should be done if 3 we knew it. It's a -- 4 Q Would you give some thought to a program you 5 might now undertake if you discovered that to be 6 the fact, even though you no longer manufacture 7 PCBs? 8 A That would take a great deal of thought. 9 Q But you have never taken the time to give it 10 that thought, correct? 11 A I haven't done that. 12 Q And the reason you haven't is because you 13 have no information to suggest that Monsanto' s 14 PCBs had furans in them, correct? 15 A I don't know that. 16 Q You just don't know one way or the other? 17 A That's right. 18 Q Did you ever inquire about that of anybody? 19 A NOc . 20 Q Do you know ifanybody in your department 21 ever inquired of anyoneconcerningwhether 22 Monsanto' s PCBs had f urans, in them? 23 A No, sir. 24 (End of reading) 25 HARTOLDMON0024506