Exposure science for PFAS contamination. vapor intrusion. ethylene oxide claims. groundwater plumes. legacy asbestos. source attribution. medical monitoring. Daubert challenges.

It makes the first hour of understanding free. Describe a contamination or toxic tort matter and the research concierge will explain what a causation showing requires, which scientific disciplines do that work, and what evidence should be secured before a site changes. Where a matter needs a retained expert, the Institute finds the right one.

No. Nothing here is an opinion on general or specific causation, and naming what a showing requires is not the same as concluding it has been met. That line is written into the concierge’s operating rules and holds on every conversation. If you are worried about your own health rather than a matter, speak with your own physician — that conversation comes first and nothing here substitutes for it.

The research assistance is free and stays free. When a matter requires a retained expert — an exposure reconstruction, a causation analysis, a data review, an advisory engagement or testimony — the Institute arranges the engagement through its expert network and is compensated for that work. That is the entire business model, and we publish it because visitors who cross-examine people for a living should not have to guess.

Both, matter by matter. The Institute serves plaintiff and defense counsel, insurers and insureds, corporations and government, and takes matters one at a time. The science does not change according to who asked, and an institution that only ever reached conclusions convenient to one side would not be worth consulting from either.

Almost certainly, and it is the most time-sensitive thing on this page. Contamination evidence is perishable in a way documents are not: remediation removes the material an attribution analysis would characterise, buildings are demolished, monitoring wells are decommissioned and conditions shift. If sampling, excavation or closure is scheduled, raise it immediately — sometimes the entire technical case depends on what is collected beforehand, and that window does not reopen.

No to both. The Institute describes statutory frameworks in general terms for lawyers who already know them, and describes exposure science for people who need to understand what an expert would have to establish. It does not advise on a matter, predict how a court will rule, opine on whether a claim is viable, or address any individual’s health, diagnosis or treatment.