March 10, 2016
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
Re:
Saeed Behshid v. Bondex International, Inc., No. S166385
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, No. B 194789,
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 343104
Dear Chief Justice George and Associate Justices:
John H. Duffus, Ronald E. Gots, Leonard D. Hamilton, Steven Lamm, Dennis K.
McBride, A. Alan Moghissi, Rodney Nichols, Robert P. Nolan, Francesco Pompei, Malcolm
Ross, Emanuel Rubin and Richard Wilson 1 , submit this amicus curiae letter pursuant to
California Rule of Court 8.500(g) in support of the petition for review filed by the real party in
interest, Bondex International, Inc. (“Bondex”) seeking review of a decision of the Court of
Appeal, Second District, Division 3, in the captioned action.
Amici are scientists who have studied the role that scientific issues play in public affairs
and in particular the way in which they can illuminate disputes between different persons or
elements of society in the courts of law. Amici include physicians, chemists, geologists,
physicists, epidemiologists and toxicologists. Several of the amici submitted briefs in courts in
California, e.g., San Diego Electric & Gas Co. v. Orange County Superior Court (Covalt),
(1996) 13 Cal. 4th 893, In re Lockheed Litig. Cases, 115 Cal. App. 4th 558 (2004), Aguilar v.
ExxonMobil Corp., Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, Case No.:
B166347, and Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Company, (2000 9th Cir.) 268 F.3d 763.
Amici previously submitted an amicus letter in support of the Petition for Review in
Norris v. Crane Co., No. S162878 (May 2, 2008). A copy of that amicus letter is annexed as
Exhibit 1); amici will not repeat the arguments they made in that filing, but respectfully refer the
Court to it because the scientific points made therein are relevant to this case as well.
In the amicus letter submitted in Norris v. Crane Co. the scientists amici wrote that the
United States Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that
For mesothelioma the best estimate of the coefficient (potency) for chrysotile is
only 0.0013 times that for amphibole and the possibility that pure chrysotile is
non-potent for causing mesothelioma cannot be ruled out by the epidemiology
data.
1
The credentials of amici are set forth in the biographical addendum to this amicus letter.
1
U.S. E.P.A., Final Draft: Technical Support Document for a Protocol to Assess Asbestos-Related
Risk, EPA # 9345.4-06, Executive Summary at 1.4 (6) (October 2003) (emphasis supplied); see
also Hodgson, J.T. and Darnton, A., (2000) “The Quantitative Risk of Mesothelioma and Lung
Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure,” 44 Annals of Occup. Hyg. 564-601 (reporting that this
is also the view of the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive).
There are now adequate data to support scientifically the argument that the mesothelioma
incidence in humans exposed to chrysotile asbestos 2 is very different from the response to
amphibole asbestos (U.S. E.P.A., Final Draft: Technical Support Document for a Protocol to
Assess Asbestos-Related Risk, supra; Hodgson and Darnton, supra; these and other papers are
reviewed by C. M. Yarborough, (2006) “Chrysotile as a Cause of Mesothelioma: An Assessment
Based on Epidemiology,” 36 Critical Reviews in Toxicology 165-187) and that the mesothelioma
potency of chrysotile asbestos is at least 20-fold less than that of amphibole asbestos, not taking
into account exposure differences. See Hodgson, and Darnton, supra. The evidence that
chrysotile can cause mesothelioma is therefore neither unequivocal nor even quite certain. The
evidence presented by the plaintiff was, we believe, insufficient for assignment of blame or
damages. The scientists who submitted the amicus letter in Norris v. Crane Co. supplied data
from which these conclusions are derived, and we respectfully refer to those data.
Two of the amici, Professors Nolan and Wilson, have recently written a paper, “The
Causes of Mesothelioma,” which has been submitted for publication in the scientific journal
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, and is currently being peer reviewed. A copy of the
article is annexed as Exhibit 2. In that paper, Professors Nolan and Wilson conclude:
1.
That General Causation is not met for chrysotile asbestos causing mesothelioma.
2.
Chrysotile asbestos is at least 47 times less likely to cause mesothelioma than
amphibole asbestos.
3.
Chrysotile-exposed cohorts [of workers with very high exposure to asbestos
fibers] have either a small numbers of mesotheliomas or none.
4.
Chrysotile user industries in the United States have slightly lower proportional
mesothelioma mortality when compared to the general population of the United
States.
5.
That while it is well known that chrysotile asbestos can produce asbestosis and
increased risk of lung cancer, but with a potency between 1/5 that of the
amphibole or equal to amphiboles.
We submit that in light of the current science, Plaintiff did not and could not prove that
Dr. Behshid’s exposure to asbestos from Bondex’s joint compound from renovating a dozen
homes over a period of 10 to 15 years was a “substantial factor” in causing Dr. Behshid’s
2
Bondex's joint compound contained chrysotile asbestos. (9 RT 3017.)
2
mesothelioma as required by Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.,(1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982.3
Given Dr. Behshid’s
minimal exposure to chrysotile asbestos from Bondex joint compound, any conclusion that
asbestos from those valves was a “substantial factor” in increasing Dr. Behshid’s risk is based on
assumptions which are at best speculative, remote or conjectural. See In re Lockheed Litig.
Cases, (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 558, 563 (“Where an expert bases his conclusion upon
assumptions which are not supported by the record, upon matters which are not reasonably relied
upon by other experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or conjectural, then his
conclusion has no evidentiary value."); see also People v. Caldwell, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 210, 220,
203 Cal.Rptr. 433, 681 P.2d 274 (a force which plays only an “infinitesimal” or “theoretical”
part in bringing about injury, damage, or loss is not a substantial factor). 4 . [we need
authority for this].
This court addressed the question of causation in the asbestos context in Rutherford v.
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1977) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford). The plaintiffs in Rutherford alleged
that their decedent developed cancer due to his exposure to the defendant’s asbestos insulation,
one of many different asbestos products he used. The trial court in Rutherford instructed the jury
that if plaintiffs showed the decedent was exposed to the defendant’s product, then the burden of
proof on causation would shift to the defendants to prove their products did not harm the
decedent. (See id. at 957.) On the defendant’s appeal from an adverse verdict, the plaintiff
attempted to defend the burden-shifting instruction by arguing that ordinary causation rules
should not apply to asbestos cases. (See id. at 978-981.) This court rejected the plaintiffs’
argument in Rutherford, holding that plaintiffs in asbestos cases must meet the same burden for
proving “cause in fact” as plaintiffs in other types of personal injury cases, and
3
It is not certain from the record that Dr. Behshid worked with Bondex joint compound. One of his
brothers recalled that plaintiff used Bondex's non-shrink grout, but did not recall him using
Bondex's joint compound (7 RT 2433-2434). Plaintiff’s half brother gave conflicting testimony
on the question whether plaintiff used Bondex's joint compound (see 7 RT 2592 and 3 AA 578),
and he made no attempt to quantify plaintiff's use of Bondex joint compound (3 AA 578). Only
Dr. Behshid’s son, who was a teenager at the time Dr. Behshid was remodeling houses, was certain
Bondex joint compound was one of five joint compounds used by plaintiff. (8 RT 2777, 2830) and he also
did not quantify plaintiff's use of Bondex's joint compound alone (he testified as to the frequency of Dr.
Behshid’s use of all brands of joint compound (8 RT 2777-2778, 2781).Bondex's joint compound (3 AA
578)
4
Plaintiff’s experts testified that every exposure to asbestos is a contributing cause of mesothelioma
(see 4 RT 1560-1561 (Dr. Cameron, the treating physician); 5 RT 1883, 1895, 1941-1942 (Dr. Brody, a
pathologist); 6 RT 2224 (Dr. Holstein, an occupational and preventive medicine specialist). None of
them quantified Dr. Behshid’s exposure to asbestos from Bondex's joint compound. These experts, we
believe, have failed to take into account new research and turn their backs on the application of
epidemiology to causation analysis. Epidemiology and toxicology require establishing and exposure and
hence a dose in any investigation of causation
Although a dose may occasionally be assumed if the
adverse effect does not occur in the absence of the chemical or material under discussion, this does not
apply in this case, because it is well established that mesothelioma can, and does, occur when no chysotile
is present.
3
In the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff
must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective
asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical
probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a “legal cause” of
his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. In an
asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the
defendant's product were the ones, or among the ones, that actually began the
process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may meet the burden of
proving that exposure to defendant's product was a substantial factor causing the
illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it contributed to the
plaintiff or decedent's risk of developing cancer.
Rutherford, 16 Cal.4th at 982 (Footnote omitted, emphasis in original).
In Rutherford the court held that a proper causation analysis should be based on:
the length, frequency, proximity and intensity of exposure, the peculiar properties
of the individual product, any other potential causes to which the disease could be
attributed (e.g., other asbestos products, cigarette smoking), and perhaps other
factors affecting the assessment of comparative risk, [to determine whether]
inhalation of fibers from the particular product be deemed a “substantial factor” in
causing the cancer.
Rutherford, 16 Cal.4th at 975. (Citations omitted). Indeed, Rutherford is replete with
scientifically correct references to a plaintiff’s need to show intensity and duration of exposure,
threshold levels of exposure, significant risk, and consideration of other possible causes. See
Rutherford, 6 Cal.4th at 974, 977, 979. The consideration of the length, frequency, proximity
and intensity of exposure, and the peculiar properties of the individual product, and possible
other potentially cancer-causing exposures is consistent with a careful scientific analysis of
causation.
We submit that Rutherford does not mean that any exposure to asbestos, or to any other
substance, is sufficient to establish causation and the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in
this case is inconsistent with Rutherford.
However, after Rutherford, the case law in asbestos cases in California has developed in
a way that leads to results that are contrary to common sense and scientific principles, and
contrary to the principles of liability and causation that obtain in other types of tort cases. This
court should grant review to decide whether, as a matter of law, the “every exposure to asbestos”
theory is sufficient to establish causation under California law even when the exposure is to
substances now known to behave differently.
In the instant case the Court of Appeal held that:
California does not require a specific link to a specific product demonstrating that
a plaintiff used that product for a specific period of time. While the evidence with
regard to the frequency of exposure, regularity of exposure, and proximity of
4
asbestos coming directly from the use of Bondex was relevant, it was not
mandated.
(Typed opn. 11-12)
The Court of Appeal in Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990 (Jones)
interpreted Rutherford to permit a plaintiff to prove causation merely by showing some exposure
to the defendant’s asbestos on the theory that every exposure is a substantial factor contributing
to the plaintiff’s disease:
Rutherford does not require that each exposure be sufficient to independently
cause lung cancer. To the contrary, the exposure need only be “a substantial factor
in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff ... inhaled.”
(Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 976, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203.)
132 Cal.App.4th 990, 1000.
In Hoeffer v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Jan. 26, 2006, A107353, 107964), 2006 WL
185479 [nonpub. opn.], the Court of Appeal held:
Rutherford does not require a plaintiff to prove that every exposure to a
defendant's asbestos-containing product creates a cancer risk, but that "exposure
to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was
a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff
or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing
asbestos- related cancer.
2006 WL 185479 at * 4.
In Norris v. Crane Co., Norris v. Crane Co. (Mar. 11, 2008, B196031) 2008 WL 638361,
[nonpub. opn.], the Court of Appeal followed Jones in holding that evidence of any exposure to
asbestos from the defendant's product is sufficient to prove causation:
The Norrises' expert testimony established every exposure to asbestos fibers, such as the
exposure Joseph [Norris] received cleaning dust from his bunk, increased the total dose in
his lung that led to the development of his disease. Each dose added more fibers that stay
in the lung. There was substantial evidence Joseph's exposure to asbestos from materials
in Crane valves increased his risk of developing mesothelioma and, therefore, was a
substantial factor in causing his injury.
2008 WL 638361 at * 14.
In this case, in Norris and in Jones, the Courts of Appeal have reduced an asbestos
plaintiff’s burden merely to showing some exposure to the defendant's asbestos-containing
product, no matter how limited the exposure and no matter they type of asbestos in the product.
They have relied on language in Rutherford that cautions not to place undue emphasis on the
term "substantial factor" and stating that the exposure need only contribute to the "aggregate
5
dose" necessary to increase risk of developing the asbestos- related disease. Rutherford, 16
Ca1.4th at pp. 969, 976-977; see, e.g., typed opn. 10-11.
We respectfully submit that adoption of the “every exposure” test is inconsistent with the
science and with Rutherford. 5 Rutherford contains considerable language suggesting that a
plaintiff must quantify his exposure to asbestos and that the exposure must exceed a threshold
level, recent opinions have applied other language from Rutherford to effectively conclude that
proof of exposure to some unquantified or negligible amount of asbestos is sufficient to prove
causation. This court should grant review to eliminate that confusion, and hold an asbestos
plaintiff has the burden to quantify, at least approximately, his exposure to asbestos from the
defendant's product and to show that the exposure exceeds threshold levels known to increase the
risk of developing the particular asbestos-related disease.
We urge that the petition for review be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Martin S. Kaufman
Senior Vice President
and General Counsel
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Attorneys for amici curiae
cc: All Counsel and Courts on the Attached Service List
5
The Supreme Court of Texas, in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, (Tex. 2007) 232 S.W.3d 765, 2007 WL
1650574 interpreted Rutherford to reject the notion that exposure to some respirable fibers is sufficient to
show that a product containing asbestos was a substantial factor in causing asbestosis. Although the
evidence showed the plaintiff had been exposed to "some asbestos" on a fairly regular basis for
an extended period of time, the plaintiff failed to prove the exposure "sufficiently contributed to
the aggregate dose of asbestos [the plaintiff] inhaled, such that it could be considered a substantial
factor in causing his asbestosis" without evidence of the dose plaintiff received or of the percentage of
asbestos that may have come from defendant's products. Borg-Warner, supra, 232 S.W.3d at pp.
771-772. The Texas Court of Appeals in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Stephens, (Tex. Ct. App. August 13,
2007) __ S.W.3d ___, 2007 WL 2343882) applied the same rule to mesothelioma: “To prove
substantial-factor causation, a plaintiff must show both frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to the
product and reasonable quantitative evidence that such exposure increased the risk of developing the
asbestos-related injury. It is not adequate to simply establish that ‘some’ exposure occurred.” Id. at *8
(emphasis supplied). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed this issue recently in a case in which
the plaintiff alleged that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brakes and gaskets while
repairing his own car. The court rejected the notion that plaint iffs could establish causation simply
by demonstrating some exposure to the defendant product and then presenting expert testimony that
every exposure is a substantial factor: “[W]e do not believe that it is a viable solution to indulge in a
fiction that each and every exposure to asbestos, no matter how minimal in relation to other exposures,
implicates a fact issue concerning substantial-factor causation . . . .” Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc. (Pa.
2007) 943 A.2d 216, 226-227 [citations omitted]
6
BIOGRAPHICAL ADDENDUM
JOHN DUFFUS, Ph.D., D.Sc., FRSC, is the Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Toxicology,
an independent consultancy. He is also the Chair of the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Division VII, Chemistry and Human Health, Subcommittee on
Toxicology and Risk Assessment and adjunct Professor of Toxicology at the Asian Institute of
Technology. He has a specialist interest in the role of inorganic substances in toxicology,
especially in relation to fundamental processes related to carcinogenicity, and has significant
publications in this area. He has acted as a consultant to the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP), The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the World
Health Organization (WHO), and the European Commission (EC) on toxicology and
carcinogenesis. He has recently contributed to Environmental Health Criteria Document 234,
“Elemental Speciation in Human Health Risk Assessment.”
RONALD E. GOTS, M.D., Ph.D., specializes in toxicology and environmental medicine. He
is Principal of the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine and Medical Director and
President of the National Medical Advisory Service. He is also Lecturer in and Adjunct
Professor of Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, Georgetown University School of
Medicine. He has been Coordinator, Pharmaceutical Class Labeling Project, of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, Medical Director and Examining Physician of the Occupational Health
Units, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau and Immigration and Naturalization
Service, Senior Investigator/Chief, Department of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed Army Institute
of Research.
LEONARD D. HAMILTON, M.D., Ph.D., is Professor of Medicine at the State University of
New York at Stony Brook (since 1968) and Adjunct Professor of Biometry and Epidemiology at
the Medical University of South Carolina at Charleston. He was formerly Head of the
Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Group at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. He
received his doctorate in medicine from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in Experimental
Pathology from Cambridge University. He has been a Diplomate of the American Board of
Pathology in Hematology since 1966.
STEVEN LAMM, M.D., D.T.P.H. is a medical doctor; he also holds a diploma in tropical
public health. He is board certified in pediatrics, in occupational medicine and preventive
medicine. He is a charter fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and a winner of the
Annual Prize of the Society for Epidemiologic Research. Dr. Lamm also holds a Master of
Science degree in biophysics. He is President of Consultants in Epidemiology & Occupational
Health, Inc., Associate in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns
Hopkins University-Bloomberg School of Public Health and Hygiene and Adjunct Professor,
Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the Georgetown University Medical School,
Washington, DC. He was Senior Epidemiologist in the Epidemiology Branch of the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health; Epidemic
Intelligence Service Officer at the Centers for Disease Control.
DENNIS K. McBRIDE is President of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, , a non-partisan,
academic think tank providing science and technology policy expertise to the administration and
the Congress. He is also a Research Professor at the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at
1
George Mason University, and an affiliated professor at the Georgetown University Public
Policy Institute and at the Georgetown University Medical Center. Dr. McBride was previously
the Executive Director, Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida
and professor of in the College of Engineering and Computer Science and in the College of Arts
and Sciences. Dr. McBride completed a 20-year Naval career as a Naval officer/scientist with
the grade of Captain, Medical Service Corps and flight test engineer. Trained as a flight test
engineer at the University of Tennessee Space Institute, Dr. McBride was selected by the Navy
as a mission specialist astronaut. Dr. McBride has led or participated in numerous National
Research Council, National Academies studies, and he has published and/or presented more than
120 papers, including his most recent book, in several fields of science, engineering, and
medicine. He served as Editor-in-Chief for Review of Policy Research, and he currently is
Co-Editor-in-Chief for Technology in addition to serving on several editorial boards for
academic journals. Dr. McBride earned a B.S. in Psychology (concentration in biological
psychology) from the University of Georgia, an M.S. in Experimental and Differential
Psychology (concentration in statistical methodology) from the University of Georgia, a Ph.D. in
Experimental Psychology (concentration in mathematical learning theory) from the University of
Georgia, an M.S./M.P.A. in Public Policy from Troy State University (concentrating on
government sponsorship of R&D), and an M.S. in Systems from the University of Southern
California (focusing on probabilistic and deterministic modeling).
A. ALAN MOGHISSI is President of the Institute for Regulatory Science (RSI), a non-profit
organization whose major activity is conducting scientific peer reviews for government agencies,
and dedicated to the idea that societal decisions must be based on the best available scientific
information. The activities of RSI include research, scientific assessment, and science education
at all levels – particularly the education of minorities. Dr. Moghissi held positions at the U.S.
Public Health Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was later
Associate Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety at Temple University in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has been a visiting professor at Georgia Tech and at the
University of Virginia. Dr. Moghissi's research has dealt with diverse subjects ranging from
measurement of pollutants to the biological effects of environmental agents. He has published
over 300 papers and several books. He was the editor-in-chief of Environment International
and Waste Management and editor-in-chief of Technology, traces its roots to the Journal of The
Franklin Institute, one of America's oldest continuously published journals of science and
technology; Dr. Moghissi is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Environmental
Engineering Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and also serves on the
U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, a Federal Advisory Committee to the Department of
State that provides expert advice to the State Department on issues of Education, Science,
Communications and Culture. Dr. Moghissi received his education at the University of Zurich,
Switzerland, and Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany, from which he received a
doctorate in physical chemistry.
2
RODNEY NICHOLS was President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of
Sciences and was Executive Vice President of The Rockefeller University, a leading academic
science research institution. He has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Carnegie
Commission on Science, Technology and Government and was the principal author of the
Commission's report "Science and Technology in U.S. International Affairs" (1992). He is a
consultant on science and technology policy.
ROBERT P. NOLAN received a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from The City University of New
York in 1986. He was been awarded fellowships from the Stony-Wold Herbert Foundation,
National Research Council, Fulbright and the International Union for Pure and Applied
Chemistry. He is the Deputy Director of the Center for Applied Studies of the Environment and
a member of the doctoral faculty in Chemistry and Earth and Environmental Sciences at The
Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York. He is the author
of more than fifty scientific papers and is internationally recognized as an expert in the
characterization and health hazard evaluation of asbestos and other minerals.
FRANCESCO POMPEI is President of Exergen Corporation, an engineering firm that designs,
develops and manufactures infrared scanners, instrumentation and control devices for industrial
and medical use. He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical engineering from
M.I.T. He is the holder of over 30 United States patents for radiation detection, temperature
measurement, fuel injection systems and heating technology. He is the author or co-author of
over 20 articles published in peer reviewed journals, including the New England Journal of
Medicine, Medical Electronics, and Transactions of ASHRAE
MALCOLM ROSS received a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University in 1962. He is a
Fellow of both the Geological Society of America and Mineralogical Society of America (MSA).
Dr. Ross served as President of the MSA in 1991. He conducted scientific research at the United
States Geological Survey for more than 35- years, retiring in 1995. He is a Senior Scientist in the
Center for Applied Studies of the Environment of The City University of New York. He has
authored more than 100 scientific papers, many pertaining to amphibole minerals and asbestos.
Dr. Ross has lectured nationally and internationally on the identification and heath hazard
evaluation of asbestos.
EMANUEL RUBIN, M.D., received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1954.
He is Gonzalo E. Aponte Distinguished Professor of Pathology and Chairman Emeritus of the
Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology at Jefferson Medical College in
Philadelphia. He has honorary degrees from the University of Barcelona and the University of
Naples. He received the Gold Medal Award from the International Academy of Pathology, the
Gold Cane Award from the American Society of Investigative Pathology and the American
Medical Writer’s Association award for the best medical textbook of the year in 1989. He was
the editor in chief of the journal Laboratory Investigation for over a dozen years. He is the
author of more than 300 scientific books and articles.
3
RICHARD WILSON is Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics at Harvard University and
immediate past Director of the Regional Center for Global Environmental Change at Harvard
University. He is an Affiliate of the Center for Science and International Affairs and of the
Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. Professor Wilson was Chairman of
the Department of Physics at Harvard University and past chairman and currently a member of
the Cyclotron Operating Committee. He is a founder of the Society for Risk Analysis. He is
and has been a consultant to the United States government and the governments of numerous
foreign countries on matters of toxicology, epidemiology, public health and safety, nuclear
safety, and risk assessment. Professor Wilson’s areas of expertise include elementary particle
physics, radiation physics, chemical carcinogens, air pollution, ground water pollution by
arsenic, and human rights. He is the author of many articles on high energy physics,
environmental pollution and risk analysis, including PARTICLES IN OUR AIR, EXPOSURES AND
HEALTH EFFECTS (with John Daniel Spengler) (Harvard University Center for Risk Analysis,
1986) and RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (2nd ed., 2001) (with Edmund A. C. Crouch) (Harvard
University Center for Risk Analysis,). Professor Wilson is the author or co-author of more than
880 published papers on subjects including atomic particles, radioactive particle decay, acute
toxicity and carcinogenic risk, carcinogenicity bioassays, statistical distributions of health risks,
public health, cancer risk management, shielding of particle accelerators and nuclear reactors,
nuclear energy production, health risks of nuclear power plant accidents, health effects of
electromagnetic fields, risks and health impacts of radiation, risks of nuclear proliferation, risk
benefit analysis, and global energy use and global warming. He has been given numerous
awards and medals in recognition of his work, including the Medal as "Chernobyl Liquidator"
USSR (1987), the Forum Award, American Physical Society for Forum on Science and Society
(1990), Society for Risk Analysis, Distinguished Achievement Award (1993), Honorary Doctor;
International Sakharov Environmental University (ISEU) (2001), the 2005 Erice (Ettore
Majorana) Prize for Science and Peace (2006) and the Dixie Lee Ray Award of the American
Society for Mechanical Engineers for Risk Analysis (2007).
4