Requesting a formal review by Dow's Corporate Committee on Ethics in December of 1990, Chuck Dillion, Dow Corning's Corporate Medical Director, expressed his concern to an episode, "which represents a violation of corporate, professional, and commonly accepted business ethics." One month later, a Dow clerk in a memo titled "Technical Communications" notes that she has spent days reviewing, filing, and trashing retained documents. She states, "Major progress has been made, but there is much to do." Were these two incidents in any way related, and were they a representation of corporate misconduct during the discovery process in the breast implant liability litigation? 

On December 14, 1990, Greg Thiess, a senior litigation attorney in the corporate legal department approached Mary Ann Woodbury, a research scientist on Dillion's staff, in her office. He asked that she "destroy all copies of a memo she circulated two days previously." The memo contained a data analysis of a rec ent National Center for Health Statistics Survey of Surgical Device complication rates, and the overheads for a presentation to the Reed Committee on mammary implant issues that summarize the overall scope and current status of Epidemiological projects for the Health Care Business mammary implant products. 

Mr. Thiess stated that he was acting on the specific request of Robert Rylee II, Vice President and General Manager of the Health Care Business, who was very angry about the memo. He also stated, from a personal viewpoint, "the information contained in the memo would compromise projects that he was working on in the Dow Corning product liability litigation, and would be adverse to the company if publicly revealed." Mr. Dillion instructed Ms. Woodbury not to comply with this request, as Mr. Dillion explains, to do so would be "unethical conduct." 

Mr. Dillion felt that this serious example of misconduct required a formal review. His concern was that these documents would be sought out, and would be destroyed. He was also concerned that the incident, if not amended, would lead to others that would threaten the integrity of his department, its employees, and their ability to provide valid scientific information to management, as well as their careers in the company. 

As we can clearly see, not all of Dow's employees lacked character, and many lived with a clean and clear conscience. What a shame they were not the ones leading and directing this company with its decisions. Unfortunately for thousands of people, the poison for profit strategy has prevailed, and to a large degree, of what's wrong with an "Unethical America", and our "Unethical World."  

Opinion stated by: Robert Olexa 

Reference: Smoke and Fire Documents 512 & 515