It is the employer's prerogative to set the conditions of employment and work practices, and their legal responsibility to hold each employee to meet those conditions. That is why there are "HR" departments, so that uniform policies are set and non-faculty supervisors are routinely trained/browbeaten/whatever to maintain those policies and ensure their subordinates are adhering to them. Supervisors are expected by the organization to monitor the output/performance of their employees--whether that's widgets made per hour or research results--and it is not unreasonable to expect they monitor how they do the work as well. For workplaces with hazardous working conditions, HR generally works with the safety manager or EHS to set policies regarding safe practices, whether that is including them in performance reviews or conditions of employment. That does mean supervisors are responsible for 'management by walking around' or by directly asking a worker 'so walk me through how you (insert task) do this'. It takes time.
Understanding that something is pyrophoric and dangerous is much different than understanding the 'workplace conditions' necessary to work with something safely. For example, most people would recognize that drug-resistant TB is dangerous and that if you are working with it in a lab you should 'be careful'. "Being careful" means using special equipment and processes, none of which the fairly-green researcher can or should figure out on their own. However, CDC (who writes the BMBL, essentially the biosafety 'bible') requires that the supervisor provide appropriate training and confirmation of a researcher's skills.
So Miss Sangji may have been cognizant of the hazard; but unaware of the risk of the acrylic sweater, the unnecessary bottle of solvent, and most of all, it is not at all clear who or when she was trained on the correct technique for withdrawal of the butyl lithium. Additionally, if another group member with more clout had at some point disparaged the Sigma technique even in passing--too much trouble, just invert the bottle--I can understand a younger researcher would feel like they had the go-ahead to use the unsafe technique. --Which I myself used back in the 1980s as that was how the older grad students handled these materials, and they trained me. I remember the first time being surprised at how much pressure one hand had to handle with the barrel while the other held a largish glass bottle upside-down. (I had strong hands from piano and tennis, and we used glass syringes, so I didn't end up on fire.)
So yes, the worker/researcher has to understand that there are hazards as part of their work--they aren't working in some sort of 'adult-proof' setting. But understanding risk, and the nuances of how a set of circumstances can line up to cause a 'worst possible scenario'--no, I don't expect someone in their early 20's to 'get' all that, not without it being laid out for them and being made to understand that is why certain work practices are in place. And then being held accountable to those standards, including the 'sticks' of suspension and loss of employment.
But I would expect AAAS to 'get' that Prof Harran, whatever his scientific accomplishments, was so deficient in supervisory and management accomplishments that one of his researchers died from her ignorance due to his lack of oversight. I am sorry for him; I am sure he would give anything to turn the clock back and do things differently. But I am way more sorry for Miss Sangji and her family.. And frankly, disgusted by AAAS' behavior and obfuscation.
The above is my personal opinion only and may not reflect that of my employer or any group to which I belong.
Margaret
