Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
This is i n response t a your request for answers t o several questions you raised at the completion of the Thursday, February 9 , 1978, hearing session oh low-leve; ionizing radiation. In order to fully answer your questions, I thought that it would be beneficial to briefly review the background o f the decision to transfer the "Health and Mortality Study," which was begun i n 1964, from the University o f Pittsburgh t o Oak'Ridge - The principal investigator o f the study for was Dr. T. F. Mancuso. As a result of the recomendations (See Appendix i t pias decided in late 1974 that the -lutstudy should be transferred t o OWU. This was t o be done ata logical point; i.e.,after completion o f certain key phases o f the study and at a point that would cause the least ifiterference with its progress. -ndependencc \rrhich we cmsidered necessary f o r completing
Page 2
Director o f our Biomedical and Environmental Research Division (BER), .kkd Athat the Government planned. t o terminate the contract and transfer the ! study t o OWU effective July.31, 1977. This was reaffirmed i n subsequent with the University of Pittsburgh allowed the Government t o terminate the contract with the University at,any time for tJe cojvenience,of the govettnment, ,the IterOnimtxkn wm ptanned dah enough ,in advance 40 ab t o In. addition, I have recently received a t‘ranscript. ‘of .pertinent parts those parts that deal ki%h the scientific arid technical examination and cross-examination of Dr. Alice Stewart and t4r. George Kncale on
Page 3
were raised a t those heaAings about the scientific validity of their decision is, I believe, reconfirmed. .The subcommittee appeared t o place a great deal o f emphasis on the assertion that four of the 1972 peer reviews recornended a continua- '. action we took. s h o & have been continued o r notl /%a her? it k whether the study should. have been transfered ? o z k e contractor." We have ' never deviated from support of the study's continuation. is clear on that. as a whole, can be called positive with respect t o the conduct o f the 7 In,addition, there i s no way that the reviews, taken
Page 5
states otherwise, I will take appropriate disciplinary action consistent. .- -I with Departrzent of However, the one i s the area of better documentation of the@isionmakinaprocess with -IC respect to all future decisions of alike nature. 'lack o f documentation led t o some misconceptions by the subcommittee I believe that this .with regard t o the Mancuso matter. Thus, I am taking immediate steps t o have formal procedures drawn up that would require better documenta- ,tion in the future. I also intend to'request administrative and scientific experts outside the Government t o review the procedures and make appropriate recommendations prior to their implementation. ---_c' -_ I n aductaion, oh, Pup fta~zdeu, Phesdent 06 theN don a - ! Academy potentially far reaching implications with regard t o the protection of. the public and the workers inthe nuclear industry, can only be done by scientific investigators confidmce of their I peers. I believe the steps I go a long way i n assuring this kind of confidence wizickwi!! Sn t
Page 6
F&a..Uy, 1 ha6;ten Xo add fiat we LLtcee be mom than Ungto any aspects of the study he feels that are worth pursuing and i n which he. believes he has the competence t o pursue. f -r-F'1 i Such a proposal would be handled ,in the same rSGEiP,manner as any other proposal of alike I do want to,point out, however, that Dr. Mancuso has refused to turn over t o DOE records and documents which belong t o the Government pursuant t o the terms of hisSBrefieftt contract, Contract No. AT(l1-1)-3128. We believe this is an important matter which should be rectified as soon tingent upon a satisfactory resolction of this i a tter. Any future relationship w i t h Dr. Mancuso would be conI appreciate this opportunity to respond t o the questions you raised'
Page 8
ii'.The reviews conducted by the Divis-ion of Biological and Environmental Research staff and Dr. Mancuso's peers i n 1972, and even before, cons is tent ly identified serious concerns with regard t o such important issues as the choice of control populations, the methodologies for the analysis of the data, the selection of longevity as a parameter t o measure the radiation effects and finally, the low productivity o f the . .A major issue was made during the hearings of the fact that one o f the peers reviewers had stated: " I t was the consensus of the group that this was a highly desirable research activity and deserved continued support. We also agreed "However, there are some aspects o f the study as conducted t o date which are disturbing and which may well be cause for considering an alternate conLractor. My impression was that the study had no overall direction. T h i s view may have resulted from the apparent minimal involveKent i n this project by the Principal INvestigator. This impression was based on his inability to answer any of the technical questions posed but only t o ccmment very generally 3 n the philosophy of the study. Also, I was especially struck by the paucity of the results of this long-term ( 9 year) study and, worse, their inability to obtain a master file of employees even Session following the meeting, as the longest pilot study I have In my opinion, i t ranks, as I stated a s the Executive ' o f context with the rest of the review, is subject to a very misleading interpretation which does not accurately reflect the review. Thus,
Page 9
proper decision i n terminating the cGntract a n d transferring the study. I also think that it is important t o note that there is nothing un-ique about terminating a study sponsored by BER (formerly the Division of Biology and Medi'cine) when a lack of scientific merit has been demonwas terminated, this study was continued.. I n ' fact, it was continued under what we considered t o be more professional auspices. Usually . What is unique here is the fact that even though the contract such studies are terminated along with their contracts. Attached t o this appendix are sample copies o f other recent terminations o f study contracts for lack of scientific merit. None o f the studies were transferred when the contracts were terminated. Indeed, a1 1 the contracts were terminated for reasons less impressive than those we had for terminating the University of,Pittsburgh contract and transferring