Scranton’s argument about the chemical industry closely parallels the arguments that Proctor has outlined in relation to the tobacco cases [11]:
The chemical industry had valid reason to doubt the accuracy of findings that indicated the danger of vinyl chloride monomer.
There was ample reason to be cautious with reporting signs of danger.
There was a reason to gather more information before telling government, workers or the public of the possibility of danger.
There was a controversy about the meaning of information being gathered.
Science is a slow, cumulative process that demands care and secrecy until definitive proof is available.
Conflicting pieces of information should be reported, irrespective of their importance to the historical questions being asked.
One should highlight evidence of ambiguity or innocence.
“Good” science demands secrecy and occasionally, the contradictory position that “good” science demands teamwork and transparency.
Critical adjectives, nouns or adverbs used to describe or summarize corporate behavior are inappropriate and indicative of bias.
We begin by simply pointing out that from virtually the first through the last page of his discussion Scranton is guilty of every “violation” and sin of historical scholarship he accuses us of. Moreover, he sees no conflict in taking on the role of judge of our professional conduct and our standards while acting at the behest of chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow, Union Carbide, Goodrich, Goodyear, Uniroyal and others, even invoking codes of ethics of the American Historical Association and the National Council on Public History as the basis of his judgment. As should be clear to any reader, a primary goal of much of our work, in Deceit and Denial, Deadly Dust, and Dying for Work, has been to analyze what happens when industries are confronted with evidence of the potential toxicity of their products or work processes. Often Professor Scranton attacks us for not addressing questions that he deems are important, specifically in what ways did industry act responsibly. His argument that we should ask different questions is fallacious. Every book reviewer is taught that you review the book that was written, not the book that you would have written or wanted to write. Certainly, Dr. Scranton or any historian has the right to write that book and to submit it for scholarly evaluation. It should be noted that we spent more than three years sorting through literally thousandsa upon thousands of documents.
Previous Page | Page 8 | Next Page