Taser tied to 'independent' study that backs stun gun

May 21, 2005
Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic

Taser International was deeply involved in a Department of Defense study that company officials touted to police departments and investors as "independent" proof of the stun gun's safety, according to government documents and e-mails obtained by The Arizona Republic and interviews with military officials.

This information is surfacing at a time when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona attorney general are pursuing inquiries into safety claims that the Scottsdale firm has made.

The stun guns are being used by more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, but a series of deaths and injuries associated with the devices have raised safety concerns.

E-mails that military officials exchanged also reveal for the first time that they asked Taser to tone down public statements about the study. In addition, they urged the company to commission an independent study rather than rely on the Defense study.

The Air Force conducted the study for the Defense Department to assess the risks and effectiveness of Tasers so the military could decide whether to buy them.

Since October, Taser officials have contended that the company had no involvement in the Defense study, which helped fuel a sharp rise in the company's stock price last year.

Bulk of research

But information obtained by The Republic shows that Taser officials not only participated in three panels to determine the scope of the study, analyze data and review findings, it also provided the bulk of research material used in the study.

"Were they (Taser) totally disconnected (from the study)? The answer is no. They were not disconnected," said Larry Farlow, a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Texas that oversaw the study.

Taser critics - civil rights lawyers, human rights activists and government officials - contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the company's assertions that the stun gun is safe. They have called for independent research.

Taser has repeatedly characterized research that its own employees or consultants helped conduct or write as independent. The company has also paid training fees and given valuable stock options to police officers involved in decisions to purchase the stun guns.

In an interview earlier this month, Steve Tuttle, Taser's vice president of communications, maintained the company's position that the Defense Department study was independent. He acknowledged that Taser employees had some involvement in the study but insisted that that did not influence the findings.

Taser officials have described the Defense research as "a major independent safety study." But Air Force researchers said the study was not meant to be a comprehensive review of stun-gun science or safety, and they made no findings on the device's safety.

Touting findings early on

Taser trumpeted results of the study long before the actual report came out on April 1. In an October news release, Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith said, "This comprehensive independent study further supports the safety of Taser" and "reaffirms the lifesaving value of Taser technology."

That announcement had an immediate impact on Taser stock: It shot up 60 percent during the next month. Taser executives and board members sold 1.28 million shares for $68 million in November.

Since then, the stock has dropped dramatically as a series of deaths caused cities nationwide to reconsider purchases of Tasers and to delay deployments.

An ongoing investigation by The Republic has found that medical examiners have cited Tasers in 15 deaths across the country. They called it a cause of death in three cases, a contributing factor in nine cases and said the stun gun couldn't be ruled out as a cause of death in three cases.

Taser maintains that its stun guns have never caused a death.

Taser involvement

When the Defense Department first released its study, it made no mention of who was involved in the study.

Another version obtained by The Republic shows that Taser's CEO, director of technical services, general counsel, medical director, chief instructor, electrical engineer and vice president of communications were involved in various panels over five months.

The report also shows that companies doing business with Taser, including General Dynamics, were heavily involved in the study and, along with Taser executives, sat on a final "Independent External Review Panel" to examine all the findings.

Farlow, the spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory, said his office, not Taser, made the decision to strike the names from the final report in order to protect the privacy of researchers and scientists.

A separate panel of medical and scientific experts that did not include Taser employees wrote the final report.

Tuttle, the Taser spokesman, said the company's involvement does not minimize the report's significance or its independence.

"This was all pre-planning stuff," he said. "We didn't do the study itself." He added that government rules require manufacturers to be involved in such reviews of their products. "If you are going to do a study of Milk Duds . . . you are going to have to talk to the (makers) of Milk Duds."

But, according to the Air Force, Taser provided most of the data used in the study, which was supposed to look at the "effectiveness" of Tasers in order to provide guidance for officials in charge of purchasing non-lethal weapons.

Information gaps

Although researchers determined the stun guns were "generally effective for their intended use," researchers found significant "data gaps" in the information Taser provided, Farlow said.

Chief among those gaps: enough information to determine whether Tasers can cause seizures or induce ventricular fibrillation, the sudden irregular heartbeat characterized by a heart attack.

In addition, Taser apparently did not provide some information about injuries involving the stun gun. For example, researchers said in the study that "no reports were identified that describe bone fractures resulting from the rapid induction of strong muscle contraction" caused by the stun gun.

At the time that Taser officials were sitting on the panel, they had already been served legal notice that a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy was going to sue the company over a fractured back that he reportedly suffered when shocked with a Taser during a training exercise.

Former Deputy Samuel Powers was the first to file a product liability lawsuit against Taser; his case is scheduled to go to trial in June. A doctor hired by Taser last year concluded that a one-second burst from a Taser was responsible for Powers' injury.

Since then, several police officers from departments across the country have come forward with allegations of bone fractures that they blame on Taser shocks.

The study concluded that Tasers may cause several unintended side effects, "albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence." It also said the need to "rely on a database of case reports compiled by manufacturers also generates uncertainty in the results."

Farlow pointed out that the Defense study made no conclusions about the stun gun's safety.

When asked about Taser's characterization of the research as a "major, independent safety study," Farlow said: "The simple answer is consider the source. . . . The press and public relations folks are doing their jobs."

E-mail correspondence

Despite the fact that the Air Force lab's study made no findings on safety, the government officials who commissioned the study allowed Taser to issue a news release saying that the Defense Department considered "Tasers generally safe and effective."

E-mails show that although these officials were concerned about Taser's characterization of the study, their desire to support Taser prevailed.

"I've expressed my personal view to (Taser) that the company might want to take a different approach to their (public affairs) efforts" and "i.e., tone it down," wrote Capt. Daniel McSweeney, spokesman for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, a Pentagon office that recommended purchasing Tasers for the armed services.

"My opinion is that they probably want to commission an independent (human effects) study, in which a variety of stakeholders participate," McSweeney said in a January e-mail from his office in Quantico, Va. "To settle this issue once and for all."

Dave DuBay, a Taser vice president, confirmed that McSweeney asked the company to temper its statements. He said McSweeney felt Taser is sometimes "too passionate in defense" of its stun guns. DuBay also confirmed that McSweeney asked Taser to commission its own independent study.

But DuBay said the government's study was independent and questioned whether the public would perceive a Taser-sponsored study to be independent.

Despite McSweeney's concerns, he still recommended backing Taser.

McSweeney's rationale

"My rationale is that Taser is, in effect, some kind of partner to us, since we purchase and field their systems," he wrote in the same e-mail. "Not supporting them can hurt us in the public's eye."

At issue in the e-mails were requests from Taser asking the government to put out a news release declaring the stun guns safe.

The e-mails were written after reports in the New York Times and other media raised questions over Taser's claims about the Defense study and if researchers actually found the stun guns safe.

In an interview this week, McSweeney confirmed that he told Taser officials they should "tone it down" and conduct their own independent study.

"I was referencing not just to the (study) but other things I have been privy to," he said, adding that Taser has been at the center of several controversial issues. "Given the ongoing questions regarding the health effects of Taser, it would behoove Taser to do an independent study."

McSweeney acknowledged that the Defense study was not comprehensive but called it an "excellent first step" and said that more studies are under way. He said that non-lethal weapons are needed in military zones and that the study served "an urgent need" by providing a foundation for the Defense Department.