April 30, 2007

Ms. Vivian Turner
Designated Federal Officer
Science Advisory Board (1400F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Anthony F. Maciorowski
Associate Director for Science
Science Advisory Board (1400F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re:      Nominations of Bruce W. Case, Dennis Paustenbach, and Art Langer to EPA Task Panel

Dear Ms. Turner and Mr. Maciorowski,

I oppose the inclusion of Dr. Case, Dr. Paustenbach, and Dr. Langer on EPA’s scientific advisory board regarding asbestos toxicity.

The advisory board is charged with reaching conclusions about asbestos toxicity that are scientific and non-partisan. Members of the board are obligated to demonstrate through their professional backgrounds and conflict of interest disclosures that they can serve on the board with scientific objectivity and nonpartisanship.

Scientific Objectivity

Dr. Case served as a consultant to a 2003 EPA peer panel on asbestos risks. He was given all relevant studies and charged with providing an unbiased evaluation of all the data. In his analysis, Dr. Case made a mockery of his scientific duties when he chose to use only those studies that supported the asbestos industry, ignoring his own research which showed that fiber dimension did not affect toxicity.[1] A 2003 report to the Office of the Inspector General documents Dr. Case’s public statements that chrysotile asbestos does not cause cancer, and his claim that the scientific community agrees with him.[2] The International Agency for Research on Cancer,[3] the European Union,[4]  as well as experimental and epidemiologic studies have all affirmed the carcinogenicity of chrysotile. One member of the scientific community that supposedly “agrees” with Dr. Case publicly rebuked him in the New England Journal of Medicine[5] for his outlandish claims. Dr. Case clearly lacks the scientific objectivity to evaluate asbestos toxicity.

Dr. Paustenbach conceived, drafted, edited, and submitted to a peer-reviewed medical journal a redacted Chinese study on chromium-6 under the names JianDong Zhang and ShuKun Li that suppressed key cancer data despite a letter of objection from the scientist who led the original study.[6] The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine took the rare step of retracting the article when it learned that the real author was Paustenbach’s industrial consulting firm, ChemRisk, and that the cancer data had been intentionally ignored.[7] This scandal was written up in the Wall Street Journal.[8] Dr. Paustenbach also devised a “scientific” probabilistic risk assessment methodology for a DOW Chemical flood plain soil study that was explicitly rejected by the EPA as inadequate and not accepted by the scientific community.[9] Paustenbach’s methodological flaw was labeled a critical deficiency to the study.[10] Dr. Paustenbach lacks the capacity to serve on any panel requiring scientific objectivity or personal integrity.

Dr. Langer has a distinguished record as a scientific investigator, and published pioneering work on asbestos toxicity in the 1970’s. Although I believe his early career demonstrates unimpeachable scientific research, he should be barred from this panel for the reasons set out below.

Nonpartisanship

Dr. Case is listed on the EPA’s short list as a consultant to attorneys representing “plaintiffs and/or defendants in asbestos litigation.”[11] We challenge Dr. Case to prove a single consulting job for a plaintiff in asbestos litigation, ever. To the contrary, he is an established consultant for asbestos companies, having worked on behalf of AC&S, U.S. Gypsum, Garlock, Mobil, and Georgia-Pacific, to name only a few.[12] Dr. Case has denied that any his research was ever funded by the asbestos industry, when the Archives of Environmental Health explicitly acknowledges that his research funding was partially obtained from JM Asbestos Corporation.[13] Dr. Case has also admitted in legal testimony that a 1989 study in which he participated was sponsored by the Quebec Mining Companies.[14] In addition to open partisanship for asbestos manufacturers, Dr. Case has attacked the honesty and integrity of scientists who disagree with him, including researchers Dodson, Egilman, Suzuki, and Landrigan.[15] In 1998, in response to a short story about a young woman who contracted mesothelioma by playing with a chrysotile rock from a Canadian mine posted on my website, he warned me to take them down “for my own protection,” a threat he later confessed was “silly” under penalty of perjury.[16] Dr. Case is unqualified to pursue the scientific question of asbestos toxicity due to his extreme partisanship.

Dr. Paustenbach is not simply partisan—he is for hire.[17] His industrial research as corporate vice-president for Exponent, and his position as CEO of ChemRisk have put him consistently on the side of asbestos manufacturers and corporations. He cannot be expected to fairly pursue research objectives for asbestos toxicity unless the research conclusions are favorable to the asbestos industry for which his corporation works.

Dr. Langer’s work as a consultant for defendant asbestos companies has led him to repudiate his earlier, sound research that demonstrated the toxicity of joint compound and brake linings. Dr. Langer, like Drs. Case and Paustenbach, can hardly be expected to pursue or endorse toxicity findings at loggerheads with his consulting clients.

Conclusion

I believe that EPA’s short list has numerous other candidates whose scientific background and personal history ensure that they will follow the tenets of objective investigation and analysis, as well as behave with honesty and integrity.

Sincerely,

Roger G. Worthington, Esq.

RGW/cr

*** POSTED APRIL 30, 2007 ***