It is important to understand the activities related to our work and testimony in court in the context of the recent debate about historians in the courtroom, a discussion that has engaged historians of medicine. [8] In recent years, a growing number of historians have participated in court proceedings, testifying either on behalf of industries like tobacco or lead or on behalf of plaintiffs including injured workers and consumers, various cities and states, and the federal government in suits brought against tobacco, lead, silica, and now the chemical industry. In many cases, different industries have hired the same law firms to defend themselves. The reasons that historians are being called upon to serve as experts are numerous but are related to the fact that decades-old exposures to tobacco, asbestos, chemicals and other toxins are causing serious illnesses and disabilities. Workers exposed to asbestos or silica in the 1970s, for example, are now feeling their effects. Children are coming down with lead poisoning now, suffering because they have ingested lead from paint put on the nation’s walls decades before. Hence, questions of what was known by industries and consumers alike about the dangers of a variety of industrial products in past decades have become important in adjudicating responsibility and, therefore, damages in courts today. Historians are therefore increasingly important in legal proceedings.
Another major reason that historians are being brought into lawsuits has to do with the fact that the governmental regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others that once were the forums where environmental and occupational issues were debated and addressed have been silent on many important issues in recent years, making the courts one of the last venues where workers and communities might find some form of justice. A review of our book that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association will help the reader understand the stakes involved in what we believe is an attempt by the chemical industry to undermine our testimony about the history of the chemical manufacturers’ knowledge of danger, as documented in our book Deceit and Denial:
“After reading Deceit and Denial it would be appropriate to think about the use of the US court system to protect workers and others from environmental exposures. Given the role of industry, the collusion of government officials, and the disenfranchisement of groups, it is clear why the courts have often ended up as the last battle ground to protect health. While some might think this role inappropriate, a reading of this book clarifies why this happens.” [9]
Previous Page | Page 6 | Next Page