On Dec 11, 2015 07:40, "Reinhardt, Peter" <peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**yale.edu> wrote:

I wonder if a group of us should write a letter to the president of AAAS. Otherwise they are likely to be just as tone deaf as they are now. Maybe someone circulate a sample letter and we can all send in our own version.

The is no doubt in my mind that AAAS would never elected someone as a fellow if they had been prosecuted for scientific misconduct. They need to have the same standards for safety.

Pete Reinhardt, Yale EHS

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Margaret Rakas
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:46 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [New post] UCLA professor Patrick Harran elected as a AAAS fellow

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

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Alnajjar, Mikhail S <ms.alnajjar**At_Symbol_Here**pnnl.gov> wrote:

I have been struggling with this issue for sometimes; trying to analyze the situation as much as I can. But, with no results. So, thanks Ralph for this memo. These paragraphs below puts it in a different perspective for me.

"Legal requirements also enter into the question of safety in research, but will not be dealt with in detail in this presentation, since they involve professional judgments outside the competence of our committee. Certainly if humanitarian and ethical requirements are met, there are not likely to be any issues that will require legal action."

> >I find it hard to believe that Sangji was unaware of the physical properties of what she was working with, from either Dr. Harran, the classroom, her education level or a simple MSDS.

> >But, what I can hypothesize is that she was "willing to accept the hazards" thinking that, based upon her understanding/level of training of those hazards, she could work with them safely.

I think the highlighted statements play an important role in the selection decision; also realizing the selection is based on advancement of science.

And yes, it's the employer's responsibility to recognize, inform, and manage hazards

But, does not the staff have responsibility to accept the hazards if he/she decides to work in the lab??? This is the $1,000,000 question; legal or not.

Mikhail

-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Ralph Stuart
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:39 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [New post] UCLA professor Patrick Harran elected as a AAAS fellow

>was Dr. Harran following the teaching, enforcing and compliance standards being followed at the time?

The legal answer to this question, as agreed to in the settlement in this specific case, was "no". One of the challenges in addressing this issue in the broader context is illustrated in a presentation by the Chair of the ACS Committee on Chemical Safety in 1964. He said:

"Legal requirements also enter into the question of safety in research, but will not be dealt with in detail in this presentation, since they involve professional judgments outside the competence of our committee. Certainly if humanitarian and ethical requirements are met, there are not likely to be any issues that will require legal action."

The social context that enabled this statement changed in the 1970's with the advent of OSHA and EPA, but it's not clear to me that chemical education has recognized this shift.

> >I find it hard to believe that Sangji was unaware of the physical properties of what she was working with, from either Dr. Harran, the classroom, her education level or a simple MSDS.

> >But, what I can hypothesize is that she was "willing to accept the hazards" thinking that, based upon her understanding/level of training of those hazards, she could work with them safely.

>

Legally, employees are not allowed to accept such hazards; it's the employer's responsibility to recognize and manage them. However, based on my personal experience as a lab tech and having trained many other professional lab techs and students at all levels, I'm not clear where this hypothesis comes from. I have had many graduate students tell me that they are unaware that ethanol is flammable, either verbally or through their actions.

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH

rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**me.com

--

Margaret A. Rakas, Ph..D.
Manager, Inventory & Regulatory Affairs
Clark Science Center
413-585-3877 (p)