Contrary to Scranton’s opinion, our research effort has been widely praised in the academic literature. In particular we have been praised for the range and thoroughness of our research as noted earlier. Without our research through thousands of industry documents this history would never have been uncovered. One need only consult our endnotes to appreciate the extraordinary effort that we undertook. But, further evidence of the massive work we performed is our 309 page timeline that abstracted and extracted short quotations from these thousands of documents. This timeline has proven useful for both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys alike in their efforts to identify materials never before studied by historians or lawyers for that matter. This timeline was critical in tracing industry activities and he is well-aware of its power, its accuracy and its substantive nature. Scranton’s second accusation of ethical misconduct is that the review process “subverted confidential, objective refereeing of scholarly manuscripts (single- or double- blind) for this review was largely done ‘among friends.’” (Scranton, p. 40). We would argue, in fact, that our manuscript was submitted for critical review to far more readers than is customary for the publication of academic books. Most manuscript are reviewed by two or three outside reviewers. Further, it is not at all uncommon for university presses to ask the authors themselves for suggested reviewers and in many cases reviewers are known to the authors. Our book was read and commented on by eight outside reviewers. As described earlier, these included well-respected historians, experts in industrial hygiene, the former head of the National Cancer Institute, the former chair of the Centers for Disease Control’s Lead Advisory Committee, and the former head of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. While we suggested the names of some acquainted with the vinyl chloride story and the history of industry and government, the Press and the Foundation, not us, picked the reviewers of the manuscript. Furthermore, the review process for Deceit and Denial was among the most intensive and rigorous events of our professional lives. All the reviewers were required to provide written reports on the manuscript as well as to attend a retreat with us, the editor from the press and the President of the foundation. For two days we discussed the manuscript and listened to critiques of our work in order to insure that our research and argument were as rigorous and accurate as possible. All the books in this series on health and policy published by the University of California Press and Milbank go through this review. We believe, in fact, that this process, far more rigorous than the usual review process for academic books, has resulted in a solidly researched and argued book, as reflected in the near-universal praise from academic reviewers in the scholarly journals.
Previous Page | Page 29 | Next Page