May 12, 2005
Response to an Open Letter in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
Joseph LaDou, M.D.
Editor
University of California, San Francisco
Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Dear Dr. LaDou,
We are writing in response to the open letter signed by 61 scientists that was published in the April-June 2005 issue of The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. We welcome the opportunity for an open and honest discussion of the allegations that have been made against Chevron Corporation, the role of science in determining the legitimacy of those allegations and the appropriate channels of communication when discussing scientific data and opinions.
When research is first published and there are concerns about its quality, the research literature is an appropriate place to air scientific concerns, assuming the original work was published in an open journal. However, when the research is used to support an advocacy position or promote public policy, the pages of the scientific literature are no longer an adequate forum because the intended audience goes well beyond the scientific community.
Therefore, for the matter at hand -- the litigation facing Chevron in Ecuador -- relying only on scientific journals as the arena for discussion of the studies in question would be quite anomalous. Also, as we point out below, the fact that a number of the health studies referenced by the plaintiffs have not been published in the open literature provides another reason discussion of the studies must occur outside the realm of peer-reviewed journals.
For the sake of putting this matter in the proper context, it is important to understand the background of this issue.
The litigation which is central to the issue here relates to environmental and health allegations made by a group of lawyers and activists on behalf of residents of the Oriente region of Ecuador, and concern the actions of a subsidiary of Texaco Inc. which was a minority partner and operator in an oil consortium with Petroecuador, the state oil company. (Chevron merged with Texaco in 2001.) The case began in May, 2003 before the Superior Court in Nueva Loja, a small town in the Ecuadorian rainforest, and in August, 2004 the Court commenced process to inspect 122 oil field sites to determine whether a remediation program carried out by Texaco Petroleum was effective, and whether there is any evidence of harmful levels of petroleum related contaminants in the areas remediated by Texaco Petroleum.
During the entire course of this litigation, the plaintiffs, led by their lawyers and supported by a number of activist groups, have waged an aggressive publicity campaign to win support for their efforts. This campaign has been characterized by misinformation, distortion and fabrication. Included in this publicity campaign has been the promotion of a handful of medical reports and studies that suggest, or attempt to establish, a link between these oilfield operations and health concerns in the region.
Chevron's communications efforts in regard to this litigation have primarily been in response to the publicity campaign carried out by the plaintiffs and their allies. This has included efforts by the company to address the allegations of health impacts, and respond to the characterizations made by the plaintiffs of the medical reports they have promoted.
The authors of the open letter characterize this as "an issue relevant to scientific integrity." We agree there is an issue of scientific integrity, since in our view, the manner in which the plaintiffs and their supporters have characterized the science in this matter threatens the integrity of the scientific process. fronically, the very fact that the open letter is being promoted and circulated by the plaintiffs' supporters should be a clear indication of their own efforts to sway public opinion.
The manner in which we have communicated to the public on the issues associated with this litigation - including the matter of the health allegations - is not only appropriate, but necessary in order to restore balance and accuracy to the public's understanding of this issue. They deserve the opportunity to reach informed opinions on this matter, which is not possible through the one-sided and distorted portrayal of the facts by plaintiffs' supporters.
We find it interesting that the letter does not dispute the broad consensus, reached independently by established experts in the field of epidemiology and tropical medicine, that the health studies promoted by plaintiffs are flawed, biased and inconclusive. Indeed, in many instances the authors of these studies acknowledge limitations of their research, a detail the plaintiffs and their supporters conveniently overlook. Equally important, the open letter does not address the more plausible causes of health problems in the Oriente region of Ecuador.
To date, the scientific data and findings that Chevron's technical experts have presented to the Court are consistent with the view that the health concerns of the region are not associated with the oil field operations, but rather, are more likely to be associated with other, non-oil related concerns that have been well established. These data also demonstrate that the remediation program carried out by Texaco Petroleum was effective and in accordance with Ecuadorian and world standards for the time.
For the benefit of the public, including the scientific community, Chevron maintains a comprehensive website on this matter, http://www.texaco.comlsitelets/ecuador/en/ which includes summaries of the technical reports that have been submitted to the court, and the analyses conducted by the independent epidemiologists and physicians who reviewed the medical studies promoted by the plaintiffs.
We believe it is important to promote, and participate in, legitimate scientific and public dialogue on these important matters and to do so in an open manner.
Sincerely,
Dave A. Samson
General Manager
Public Affairs
Back to top