Since 1992, Brandeis University has hosted the New Student Forum and invited acclaimed guest speakers at the beginning of every school year to greet the incoming freshmen. Although currently a sophomore, I had the pleasure to attend this year's forum and to hear Jonathan Harr greet our Class of 2002 and speak about his national bestseller, A Civil Action [(Vintage Books, New York, 1996). 502 pp. ISBN 0-394-56349-2]. Kevin Conway, one of the main characters in the book, was also present. Jonathan Harr welcomes Brandeis freshmen author of A Civil Action recounts leukemia cluster case
by Betty Chan
A Civil Action is a true story based on a series of events that added the quiet town of Woburn, situated 12.2 miles from Boston, to the public conscience along with Love Canal, Tom's River, and Times Beach. Between 1970 and 1980, twelve children were diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia, a rare disease with an occurrence of 1 out of 25,000 children a year. Of the twelve, eight lived within a half-mile radius of each other. Moreover, six of these eight children resided in the same neighborhood, and it was literally possible to stand on one of their porches and count the other five houses where the afflicted lived. About half the children making up this leukemia cluster died before reaching their teens. Water and air were the only two things they all shared.
Although residents of Woburn have complained in the 1960s and 1970s about the taste of bleach in their drinking water, the possibility of contamination was not acknowledged until the discovery of 184 barrels of industrial waste in a half-buried lagoon in 1979. The discovery prompted chemical testing from the state of Massachusetts and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the land and the two wells that were stationed half a mile from where the barrels were dumped. These were the exact wells that pumped drinking water to the neighborhood where its children were diagnosed with leukemia. The results of these tests launched a nine-year epic law struggle that included eight families, two defendants represented by fierce law firms in Boston, $2.6 million dollars of case expenses in addition to another $2.2 million in legal fees, and 159 bound volumes of transcripts totaling 23,300 pages, not including another 6000 pages of research notes provided by 43 expert witnesses (David R. Wingfield, one of the reviewers of A Civil Action, provided the statistics) -- all leading to a shallow victory and bankruptcy. What happened?
Although the contents of the barrels did not reach the wells, Wells G and H were found to be heavily contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent commonly used in industries to dissolve grease and oil. Tetrachloroethylene, another solvent, was also found but in lesser amounts. The EPA listed both solvents as 'probable' carcinogens. The EPA report also listed 3 potential sources of contamination: W.R. Grace, a chemical company; John J. Riley Tannery owned by Beatrice Foods Company, and UniFirst Corporation. The latter settled quickly for $1.05 million without going to court. Specialists in geology, engineering, medicine, and hydrogeology were just a few of the many experts brought in to examine the contaminated sites; their studies confirmed that the properties of the tannery and W.R. Grace were contaminated with TCE and that there was a link between exposure to TCE and a high rate of childhood leukemia. Witnesses were present. Workers of the industries even admitted to dumping TCE on the ground. However, when the case that seemed destined to ring alarms across American corporations and to bring billions of dollars as compensation to the families was brought to court, the ruling found Beatrice not guilty and led to a settlement of only 8 million dollars from Grace. So...what happened?
The trial plan was proposed by US District Judge Walter Jay Skinner. It was divided into three stages. Whether Beatrice Foods and/or W.R. Grace were responsible for the contaminants reaching the wells from their properties was to be determined in the first stage, or what the judge called the "waterworks." The medical phase was next. Did TCE cause the illnesses and the deaths in Woburn? The final part would deal with the cost of compensation to the families of the afflicted. The first stage lasted for 78 days. Jan Schlichtmann and his law partner Kevin Conway were forced to settle rather than proceed to the second phase. Again, what happened?
Variations of this question was addressed to both Kevin Conway and Jonathan Harr during the forum. According to our speakers, there were two reasons: a flaw in scientific reasoning and the other, a flaw in the American legal system. Both were discussed in great detail. I was particularly entertained throughout the discussion because the speakers had obviously regarded the Woburn case from different angles and thus had opposing opinions which created some tension in the audience.
Concerning scientific reasoning, both Harr and Conway agreed that it is very simple to generate conclusions based on a few observations. Conway went on to talk about 95% certainty. He claimed that the evidence asserting that the leukemia cluster was a result of TCE contamination in the wells was valid even to this day. He based this statement on medical studies available on this issue and on the observation that when the contaminated wells were shut down, the number of leukemia cases in Woburn fell drastically.
Harr spoke differently. According to the author, there is still no scientific or biological evidence today that TCE causes leukemia. It is 95% probable, and there may be some connection, but there is not 100% "hard" proof. He repeatedly labeled Conway an "agnostic scientist" for basing his theories on non-existing evidence. The whole scientific reasoning process in the Woburn case was geared towards building consensus, rather than proof. Jan Schlichtmann never dealt with ideas that did not support his theories. For example, it is true that the EPA lists TCE as a "probable" carcinogen. The EPA also lists chemicals found in more than 500 household products to be carcinogenic, according to HarrÕs book. Peanut butter, Teflon pans, plastic shower curtains, and even deodorant are just a few products that may contain carcinogens. Therefore, one cannot conclude that TCE is the only cause of the leukemia cluster. Schlichtmann's major problem was his difficulty of proving the connection between TCE and leukemia when were was no medical evidence even till today for him to use.
To a student interested in biomedical research, the discussion on scientific reasoning as well as the application of research in the book brought up some concerns of my own. I was disturbed by two particular passages in the book. Both deal with interpreting experimental data. The first passage describes how the "Texas sharpshooter" effect may be used to explain the existence of leukemia clusters. "A man shoots at the side of the barn and then proceeds to draw targets around the holes. He makes every shot into a bull's eye. If an epidemiologist were to draw a circle around, say, the greater Boston area, he would found an incidence of leukemia comparable with the rest of the United States. Draw a circle around Woburn and he'd find a worrisome elevation. Draw a circle around the Pine Street neighborhood and heÕd find an alarming cluster. Was it a real cluster? Or was he just drawing bull's-eyes where he found bullet holes?' (p. 43).
The second passage belongs to a statement Judge Skinner made. He says, "On the one hand, you [Schlichtmann] say that TCE is the cause of all these people's symptoms because TCE is in the water. Then in the next breath, you turn around and say that because all these people got these symptoms, we therefore conclude that TCE was in the water" (p. 370). I find the two passages especially worrisome because they suggest the idea of forcing conclusions by distorting the data to a different angle of interpretation. If the question "Does TCE causes leukemia?", a rather simple yes-no question, can be open to interpretation; perhaps science is not as objective as we like to think it is.
The fashion in which Judge Skinner conducted the trial was then discussed. Although judges are supposed to be impartial to both sides, there was no doubt that Judge Skinner's decisions were based on both his motivation to end the trial quickly and also on his personal dislike of Schlichtmann. By Skinner's design of the trial plan, Schlichtmann was prevented from presenting evidence on the effects of TCE on the families without first proving that the water was contaminated by the defendants. This way, Schlichtmann could not use any of his medical studies in his presentations. Throughout the first and only stage of the trial, Judge Skinner repeatedly discredited SchlichtmannÕs witnesses and commented on his inability to provide valid scientific evidence. In addition, the judge arranged four complicated questions for the jury, which they answered without much thought just for the sake of ending the trial quickly because one juror was going to leave for heart surgery. Lastly, during the post-trial, it was futile for Schlichtmann to charge BeatriceÕs lawyers for withholding evidence of chemical dumping because Judge Skinner had rendered his witnesses and evidence useless. According to the judge, there was no point in re-opening the Woburn case because Schlichtmann simply did not have the evidence that TCE on BeatriceÕs property had reached the two wells. Surely enough, in 1990, the court brought the Woburn case to a close. As a lawyer, Conway clearly felt that this flaw in the legal system had a major effect on the final rulings.
Harr agreed with Conway that there was a flaw on Judge Skinner's part.
Jonathan Harr should be commended for his unique writing techniques. He interweaves many characters in an already complex plot. The spectrum of emotions is there; the reader follows SchlichtmannÕs adrenaline rushes, anger, anxieties, fatigue, and finally the hollow feeling of hopelessness. Harr presents them vividly. During the forum, Harr said that his position in the case was the storyteller. He used the attorney-client privilege to be present in court and to engage with Schlichtmann and Conway throughout the process. From the realistic and compelling effect the book has on the reader, Harr has been very successful in telling this story. One style that I particularly like was the subtle references to the present -- when the same characters jump out of the story to tell the audience what they would say about the Woburn event today. Jan Schlichtmann himself said at one point in the book, ÒRich isnÕt so difficult. Famous isnÕt so difficult. Rich and famous together arenÕt difficult. Rich, famous, and doing good - now thatÕs very difficultÓ (p. 440). A Civil Action definitely brings up important issues for all to be aware of: 1) responsibilities of the mayor and town officials for the societyÕs well-being and their initiative to taking immediate action, 2) the idea of building consensus rather than proving in scientific reasoning and how much of this is applied to todayÕs science research results, and 3) the injustice of the United States legal system when allowing corporations to get away without paying the consequences of their offenses and the large responsibilities these offenses bear to the society.
(Editor's Note: Betty Chan is my former student who is now studying biochemistry at Brandeis University.)
Home Fall 98 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION