I asked Jacobs why DuPont, with its wealth of excellent research chemists, hadn’t developed a safer gasoline additive to replace TEL [tetraethyllead]. Jacobs, who had matched my intake, told me that their economists had modeled the future sales of leaded gasoline and projected that the consumption of gasoline would soon level off and perhaps decline. Given such a projection, the company would not invest $100 million in research and development funds.

I learned a valuable lesson that night: the entire debate about scientific studies, about the health risks for children, was merely a shadow play. The real decision had been made by DuPont’s economists. Their plan was clear: don’t budge on TEL and seek medical and environmental arguments to support the choice.