based on the test results obtained, the compound had
pharmacologically useful anti-inflammatory activity (see Exh.
2029 at ¶11, Exh. 2044 at ¶11, and Exh. 2048 at ¶6)); however,
none of them, in the testimony before us, adequately explained
how the test results obtained support the conclusion drawn.
None of the Monsanto employees analyzed the results so that we
could understand why (or why not) the conclusion drawn was a
valid one. It is not enough to simply point to the results
obtained from said testing without further explanation (see
e.g., Exh. 2048 at ¶6). We agree with Prasit that "[i]t is
not the burden of the Board to try to read the exhibits and to
correlate allegations made in the testimony with specific
entries, i.e., the Board should not be expected to make highly
technical conclusions without the benefit of clearly explained
Exhibits" (Paper 49 at 22). For example:
(1) Veenhuizen points to pages of her notebook (Exh.
2047) where she testified she recorded the results of her
testing. A review of the notebook pages reveals table after
table of figures that apparently show either test conditions
or test results. However, Veenhuizen does not adequately
explain the significance of any particular figure or why a
particular result led her to conclude that a particular
36
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007