By Elise Ackerman
Mercury News
January 9, 2004
An IBM attorney challenged the objectivity of a well-known scientist testifying Thursday in the Santa Clara toxics trial, citing the witness' ties to an environmental advocacy group.
Richard Clapp, a professor and epidemiologist at Boston University, acknowledged that he had donated money to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition in the past and said he supports the group's efforts on behalf of worker safety. Amanda Hawes, one of the lawyers representing two former IBM workers who are suing the computer giant, is married to Ted Smith, the executive director and founder of the toxics coalition.
``You aren't here objectively,'' said Robert Weber, the lead attorney for IBM, ``You are here as an advocate.''
``I'm trying to explain the facts to the jury,'' countered Clapp. ``They can make up their minds what they think of it.''
During his two-day testimony, Clapp said he believed chemicals used at IBM's San Jose plant could have caused cancer. He cited a dozen studies as providing ``a reasonable degree of scientific certainty'' for his conclusion.
The two plaintiffs, Alida Hernandez and James Moore, contend that IBM knew chemicals like trichloroethylene, acetone, benzene and other mixed organic solvents were making workers ill. They say the company hid that information from them. Hernandez has been treated for breast cancer, and Moore suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
IBM maintains its manufacturing areas were safe.
During his cross-examination, Weber tried to establish that Clapp's opinion does not represent mainstream scientific thinking regarding the relationship between organic solvents and cancer.
Clapp acknowledged that neither the International Agency for Research on Cancer nor the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. National Institutes of Health classifies organic solvents as group that is carcinogenic.
Weber also asked Clapp about two breast cancer studies Clapp had published in 1996 and 1997 that did not list organic solvents as a risk factor. Clapp said he was not able to obtain information about exposures to organic solvents. He said he also had relied on criteria from International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the United Nation's World Health Organization.
In an interview, Weber said Clapp's testimony confirms that none of the chemicals that are the subject of the trial was believed to be carcinogenic at the time the plaintiffs were working for IBM. ``It exposes another fundamental lie about this case,'' he said.
Weber also asked Clapp to review a study published three months ago in the Annals of Epidemiology, which found no evidence that exposure to organic solvents had led to an increased cancer risk among more than 86,000 Taiwanese electronics workers. Clapp said he was not familiar with the study and needed time to look at it.
When Weber's cross examination was over, Richard Alexander, an attorney for the plaintiffs, questioned Clapp about other organizations that classify chemicals as carcinogens. Clapp said the state of California found chemicals like benzene and trichloroethylene caused cancer in 1987 and 1988.
In an interview, Clapp said the International Agency for Research on Cancer typically summarizes existing literature and is ``always behind.''
copyright-San Jose Mercury News 2004
