Introduction (Day 2)ROBERT L. BRENT*Division of Developmental Biology, duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware 19899; Thomas JeffersonUniversity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Having completed the scientific presentations deal-ing with the preconception and intrauterine reproduc-tive effects of ionizing radiation, microwave radiation,low-frequency electromagnetic fields, and ultrasound,we shall discuss the impact of reproductive risks andeffects on the news media, the public, physicians, andthe non-radiation scientific community. While we havean excellent understanding of the reproductive risks ofsome types of radiation, there are still significantuncertainties that have yet to be resolved. The combina-tion of uncertainty and radiation is the formula foractuating anxiety and fear in some members of thenews media and the public. While education is usuallythe answer to fear of the unknown, it is not an easy taskwhen dealing with the subject of radiation.

We are indebted to CBS News for the followingpresentation. We shall be presenting a videotape fromthe program ‘‘60 Minutes,’’ entitled ‘‘Who PoisonedMaryann?’’

CBS NEWS: ‘‘60 MINUTES,’’ JULY 21, 1996:WHO POISONED MARYANN?

Steve Kroft: It is not the kind of thing that’s sup-posed to happen and certainly not at America’s fore-most scientific research complex, but last summer inthe cool, pristine corridors of the National Institutes ofHealth, someone committed a very hot crime. As wefirst reported last December, whoever it was deliber-ately and maliciously poisoned a pregnant, young scien-tist with a dangerous radioactive isotope. While thedose was far from lethal, it was more than enough toraise serious questions about the effects on her long-term health and the health of her unborn baby. And thedeliberate poisoning also raised two more questions:Who did it? And why?

(Footage of National Institutes of Health groundsand buildings; Maryann Ma and Bill Zheng walking;Ma and Zheng being interviewed)

Kroft: The National Institutes of Health sprawlsover 300 suburban acres in Bethesda, Maryland—60buildings, 2,000 laboratories—that make it the eco-nomic and intellectual center of biomedical research,not just in the United States but around the world. Andit was that reputation that brought two of China’s topyoung scientists, Dr. Maryann Ma and her husband, Dr.Bill Zheng, here to work on the cutting edge of researchinto cancer and AIDS. They certainly never expectedthat anyone would try and harm them.

Dr. Bill Zheng (Ma’s Husband): We were stunned.We’re stunned.

Dr. Maryann Ma (Scientist, National Institutesof Health): We come to here—want to contribute toscience, and that we want to do some work to—to thehuman being, to find some good way to treat the—thecancer patient. But we never expect ourself become tothe victim.

Kroft: This is the laboratory where Dr. Maryann Mafirst discovered that she had been contaminated withradioactive material. She was sitting here at her desk,four months’ pregnant, getting ready to go home. Herhusband, Bill, was conducting a radiation check with aGeiger counter, which is part of his cleanup routine.Somewhere around here, as he moved toward the desk,the Geiger counter began to click.

(Home video footage of Zheng running a check of Mausing a Geiger counter)

Kroft: Aside from the fact that this was almostcertainly a deliberate act, everything else is open todispute and subject to all sorts of suspicions, everythingfrom who done it to how much radiation Dr. Mareceived, to the effect it might have on her unborn child.Trying to sort it all out, you’ve got the National Insti-tutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Health andHuman Services, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,the Energy Department, not to mention the FBI, whichhas launched a criminal probe into the incident.

Brent: The remainder of the program dealt withinterviews with Dr. Zheng and Dr. Ma, Ms. Bernabel(their attorney), Mr. Paul Goldberg (Editor, the CancerLetter) and staff members at the National Institute ofHealth. Mr. Goldberg and others felt that the contami-nation of Dr. Ma was intentional and that it wasprobably perpetrated by someone working at the NIH.Ms. Bernabel, the attorney for Dr. Ma suggested thepossibility that the perpetrator was Dr. Jack Weinstein,who was Dr. Ma’s supervisor. Mr. Goldberg had neithera motive or an indication who was responsible. Mr. Kroftsuggested the possibility that Dr. Ma and Dr. Zhengcontaminated themselves. They denied this allegation.

In spite of the fact that Dr. Robert Brent (a consultantto the NIH) and Dr. Michael Gottesman (from the NIH)were taped by ‘‘Sixty Minutes’’ and explained the mini-mal risks of radiation in quantitative terms because theexposure was protracted and very low, Mr. Kroft ended

*Correspondence to: Robert L. Brent, Division of DevelopmentalBiology, Room 308 R/A, Box 269, duPont Hospital for Children andThomas Jefferson University, Wilmington, DE 19899.

Excerpt from 60 Minutes, reprinted with permission from CBS News.

TERATOLOGY 59:299–300 (1999)

r 1999 WILEY-LISS, INC.

the program with uncertainties that were not justifiedand reported that Mrs. Ma delivered a healthy, appar-ently normal baby. Dr. Brent had told the Zhengs thatshe had no increased risk for having a baby withcongenital malformations.

Kroft: Maryann Ma has since given birth to a healthybaby boy. But some scientists believe the baby may facean increased risk of developing cancer during the firstyears of his life. Drs. Ma, Zheng, and Weinstein are allback working at the NIH, though not in the samelaboratory. The investigations into the poisoning arecontinuing.

Brent: I became aware of this problem when Ireceived a telephone call from a reporter at a localnewspaper in Bethesda, Maryland. She wanted to knowwhether I had heard about Dr. Maryann Ma, thepregnant scientist at the NIH, who had been contami-nated with radioactive phosphorus. I had not heardabout this occurrence. She called me because she hadbeen informed by ‘‘sources’’ that radiation effects on thefetus was my area of expertise. In her next articledealing with the subject she raised the rhetoricalquestion of why had I not been called by the NIH. Thereporter also had the husband, Dr. Bill Zheng, call meto discuss his concerns about the radiation exposure inhis wife. I explained to Dr. Zheng that the exposureoccurred too late in pregnancy to represent a risk ofcongenital malformations and the exposure was alsoafter the most sensitive period for the induction ofmental retardation. At that time I did not have theactual dose, but I was aware that the exposure was dueto radioactive phosphorus, which, of course, means thatthe exposure will be protracted, decreasing the biologi-cal effectiveness of the exposure.

Shortly after this interaction with the parents, I wascalled by the NIH and spent one day reviewing the riskswith the NIH staff, once the actual dose estimates weremade available. ‘‘60 Minutes’’ arranged to videotape theparticipants and the NIH suggested that I be filmed aspart of the program, which took place at the JeffersonMedical College. The videotape of my presentationincluded the following information. The exposure re-ceived by Dr. Ma was in the range of exposures that onereceives from a number of diagnostic radiological stud-ies (5 cSv). Furthermore, the exposure would be pro-tracted, thus decreasing its biological effectiveness.Second, Dr. Ma’s baby had no increased risk for congeni-tal malformations, mental retardation or growth retar-dation and any risk of cancer was extremely small, inthe region of 6% of the spontaneous cancer risk, as amaximum. ‘‘60 Minutes’’ decided not to ‘‘air’’ the video-tape of my presentation. A health physicist hired by anattorney representing Dr. Ma and Dr. Zheng claimedthat there was an 80% increased risk of cancer. Hisvideotape was also not ‘‘aired.’’ The counseling that wasprovided is consistent with handbook 54 of the NCRPwhich says that exposure at this level represent no riskfor deterministic effects.

The ‘‘60 Minutes’’ program attempted to give everyprotagonist an opportunity to explain their views anddefend their position. From the standpoint of educa-tion, the program missed an important opportunity,since they did not mention that this was a very lowexposure. The reporters kept referring to it as a ‘‘poison-ing.’’ This of course means that every time you havediagnostic radiological studies you are poisoned. Thereporters also mentioned that the baby was born fullydeveloped without malformations, as expected, and aswas predicted.

300 R.L. BRENT