3 ms·

Regardless, he knew > At the time, Johnson said, he didn’t think PFOS caused significant health problems. Still, he told me, “it was obviously bad,” because ma

Regardless, he knew > At the time, Johnson said, he didn’t think PFOS caused significant health problems. Still, he told me, “it was obviously bad,” because man-made compounds from household products didn’t belong in the human body. He said that he argued against using fluorochemicals in toothpaste and diapers. Contractors working for 3M had shaved rabbits, he said, and smeared them with the company’s fluorochemicals to see if PFOS showed up in their bodies. “They’d send me the livers and, yup, there it was,” he told me. “I killed a lot of rabbits.” But he considered his efforts largely futile. “These idiots were already putting it in food packaging,” he said. > Johnson told me, with seeming pride, that one reason he didn’t do more was that he was a “loyal soldier,” committed to protecting 3M from liability. Some of his assignments had come directly from company lawyers, he added, and he couldn’t discuss them with me. “I didn’t even report it to my boss, or anybody,” he said. “There are some things you take to your grave.” At one point, he also told me that, if he were asked to testify in a PFOS-related lawsuit, he would probably be of little help. “I’m an old man, and so I think they would find that I got extremely forgetful all of a sudden,” he said, and chuckled. > Out the windows of IHOP, I watched a light dusting of snow fall on the parking lot. In Johnson’s telling, a tacit rule prevailed at 3M: Not all questions needed to be asked, or answered. His realization that PFOS was in the general public’s blood “wasn’t something anyone cared to hear,” he said. He wasn’t, for instance, putting his research on posters and expecting a warm reception. Over the years, he tried to convince several executives to stop making PFOS altogether, he told me, but they had good reason not to. “These people were selling fluorochemicals,” he said. He retired as the second-highest-ranked scientist in his division, but he claimed that important business decisions were out of his control. “It wasn’t for me to jump up and start saying, ‘This is bullshit!’” he said, and he was “not really too interested in getting my butt fired.” And so his portion of 3M’s secret stayed in a compartment, both known and not known.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
neilv 2y ago
I'm wondering whether: * Johnson thought Hansen knew everything she needed to know; * Johnson had been incentived/threatened not to say anything; * Johnson told Hansen something more (possibly NDA-violating), but either Hansen didn't tell the journalist, or the journalist didn't write it; or * Johnson was too troubled (emotionally, or physical health problems triggered by the stress) to think of where this left Hansen.
- zaat 2y ago
  > I pointed out that Hansen had suffered professionally and personally, and that she now feels those experiences tainted her career. “I didn’t say I was a nice guy,” Johnson replied, and laughed I might be off, but my sense from the journalist report of the meeting is that Johnson was/is a jerk.
  - neilv 2y ago
    (Thanks, I missed that part of the article, maybe due to an incomplete page load. I'd done a keyword search for "Johnson", to check whether my skim missed something, and that part didn't come up.) Possibly is/was a jerk, but also strangely candid about it. Like he takes/took some pride in loyalty and his importance, and is asking to be grilled by a prosecutor, and perhaps held accountable (contempt of court, co-conspirator). That's not taking it to your grave. > Some of his assignments had come directly from company lawyers, he added, and he couldn’t discuss them with me. “I didn’t even report it to my boss, or anybody,” he said. “There are some things you take to your grave.” At one point, he also told me that, if he were asked to testify in a PFOS-related lawsuit, he would probably be of little help. “I’m an old man, and so I think they would find that I got extremely forgetful all of a sudden,” he said, and chuckled.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Given >1 mutually incompatible moral directives, people filter them through their personal moral code and generate the most compliant behavior they can. Sometimes that behavior seems illogical or inconsistent, but if the problem is unsolvable... can we judge whatever comes out? "My job is to accurately analyze chemicals" + "My job is to protect the company" + "My job is to protect the public" is a hard set to satisfy.
  - Mr_Minderbinder 2y ago
    >I might be off, but my sense from the journalist report of the meeting is that Johnson was/is a jerk. How generous. Psychopath was what came to my mind. No idea why he thinks that is funny. He is complicit in a scheme that is, according to the researcher estimate cited in the article, costing up to ~$60 billion a year; undoubtedly an enormous amount of harm and suffering has been caused (with more yet to come) and that is all he has to say for himself?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

neilv 2y ago

I'm wondering whether: * Johnson thought Hansen knew everything she needed to know; * Johnson had been incentived/threatened not to say anything; * Johnson told Hansen something more (possibly NDA-violating), but either Hansen didn't tell the journalist, or the journalist didn't write it; or * Johnson was too troubled (emotionally, or physical health problems triggered by the stress) to think of where this left Hansen.

zaat 2y ago
> I pointed out that Hansen had suffered professionally and personally, and that she now feels those experiences tainted her career. “I didn’t say I was a nice guy,” Johnson replied, and laughed I might be off, but my sense from the journalist report of the meeting is that Johnson was/is a jerk.
- neilv 2y ago
  (Thanks, I missed that part of the article, maybe due to an incomplete page load. I'd done a keyword search for "Johnson", to check whether my skim missed something, and that part didn't come up.) Possibly is/was a jerk, but also strangely candid about it. Like he takes/took some pride in loyalty and his importance, and is asking to be grilled by a prosecutor, and perhaps held accountable (contempt of court, co-conspirator). That's not taking it to your grave. > Some of his assignments had come directly from company lawyers, he added, and he couldn’t discuss them with me. “I didn’t even report it to my boss, or anybody,” he said. “There are some things you take to your grave.” At one point, he also told me that, if he were asked to testify in a PFOS-related lawsuit, he would probably be of little help. “I’m an old man, and so I think they would find that I got extremely forgetful all of a sudden,” he said, and chuckled.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Given >1 mutually incompatible moral directives, people filter them through their personal moral code and generate the most compliant behavior they can. Sometimes that behavior seems illogical or inconsistent, but if the problem is unsolvable... can we judge whatever comes out? "My job is to accurately analyze chemicals" + "My job is to protect the company" + "My job is to protect the public" is a hard set to satisfy.
- Mr_Minderbinder 2y ago
  >I might be off, but my sense from the journalist report of the meeting is that Johnson was/is a jerk. How generous. Psychopath was what came to my mind. No idea why he thinks that is funny. He is complicit in a scheme that is, according to the researcher estimate cited in the article, costing up to ~$60 billion a year; undoubtedly an enormous amount of harm and suffering has been caused (with more yet to come) and that is all he has to say for himself?