deal, documents already made public in the Minnesota case point to one critical
tool the Minnesota-based company used to defend itself â a scientist named John
Giesy, who helped 3M spin the science on PFCs chemicals in the companyâs favor
even as he presented himself as an independent scientist.â
âAs an expert on perfluorinated chemicals, Giesy was in a position to review
âabout half of the papers published in the areaâ of PFC ecotoxicology,
according to the Minnesota complaint. He also served as an editor for several
journals, including a special issue of Environmental Toxicology and Risk
Assessment, and an issue of the journal âChemosphere,â on the risks of
persistent organic pollutants.
Giesy received more than $2 million in grants from 3M, according to his
262-page curriculum vitae, and has a net worth of about $20 million, according
to the court filing. Although Giesy billed 3M for the time he spent reviewing
articles (his rate for at least some of the work he did for the company appears
to have been $275 per hour), he did not invoice the company for curating
studies to limit its exposure. Instead, as he explained in a 2008 email
toWilliam Reagen, a lab manager at 3M, âIn time sheets, I always listed these
reviews as literature searches so that there was no paper trail to 3M.â
âWhile science is supposed to present findings in an unbiased way, Giesy
âbragged about rejecting at least one article that included negative
information on the harmful effects of PFCs on humans,â according to the
Minnesota court filing. In his email, the professor also offered to pass the
articles for review directly onto 3M staff so they could review them
themselves. This would have been in keeping with the strategy Giesy outlined
in another email to Reagen to âkeep âbadâ papers out of the literature,
otherwise in litigation situations they can be a large obstacle to refute.
After the $850 million settlement, less than a fifth of the $5 billion the
state was originally seeking in damages, the company will no longer face those
large obstacles or litigation situations in Minnesota. At least 10 other cases
are pending against the company in other states.
Giesy, too, will likely avoid much of the scrutiny he would have experienced
had lawyers chronicled his efforts to exonerate 3Mâs toxic chemicals in a
courtroom filled with reporters.â
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/23/3m-lawsuit-pfcs-pollution
While Prof. John Giesy accumulated $20 million doing dirty work for 3M, Fardin
Oliaei, the scientist whose research led to the discovery of the 3M water
pollution in Minnesota, lost her job. Oliaei was fired by MPCA Commissioner
Sheryl Corrigan, a manager of âenvironmental affairsâ at 3M before getting
appointed to the top job at the pollution control agency.
http://fluoridealert.org/news/minnesota-pca-whistleblower-has-paid-a-steep-price
Science marches on.
HOOYAH! The Brainpower State