To all:
Let me expand on the issue of safety and cost-benefit analyses. I already noted the bold red slogan , "Safety Pays" , on my fathers 1945 paycheck from DuPont as the prime contractor for the Hanford Engineering Works , the Manhattan Project Plutonium -239 production site. DuPont had to have its arm twisted to take on the contract for the HEW. It finally agreed with the understanding that it would be cost plus and a fee of $1.00. As an aside, when at DuPont's request the contract was terminated after WWII, DuPont returned $0.33 to the US government .
The safety experience of DuPont in dealing with highly hazardous materials and situations , including the production of explosives, was a key factor in DuPont being asked to take on the Hanford project. The potential hazards were certainly unknown, the standard would be work as safely as possible. The primary reason DuPont was selected as the contractor is the corporation had experience three critical inter-related activities;(1) designing processes and facilities, (2) constructing facilities and implementing processes and (3) operating complex facilities and processes. Few companies had that broad scope of experience. When General Electric took over from DuPont as the prime contractor for operating Hanford they continued the strong emphasis on safety. I recall very well technicians, like my father, complaining about the time and effort it took to " re-educate" the new engineers and scientists in safe operations. The newbies were full of "book-learning" and short on practical experience. The best were those who had a farm background.
I liked the phrase --"Safety" "is the right thing to do". I am troubled by those who argue the standard is just safe enough. I have to ask those individuals if their philosophy on their research quality and productivity is " just enough to get by"?
With regard to the role of management I do not ever recall a CEO asking how little safety can we get by with? My challenges has been working with some bench level people who were never properly educated, trained and never gained experience concerning safety in the work place.
I would like to see some strong support for major changes in the ACS, and major educational institutions philosophy concerning safety. That starts with acknowledging the need for improvement. I liked the suggestion of emulating the "leaders". I also think it is time for the ACS to offer ALL health and safety course free of charge. I was disappointed to learn a few weeks ago that ACS health and safety courses were being threatened with cancelation because of lack of enrollment. That is deplorable and indication of the need for careful review of how the ACS spends its members monies.
Regards to all. I do appreciate the comments I have received both on the blog and privately with regard to my original e-mail. .
Roger O. McClellan
roger.o.mcclellan**At_Symbol_Here**att.net
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 3:04 PM, Zack Mansdorf <mansdorfz**At_Symbol_Here**BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
Well said Peter. If the cost benefit factor were the only important factor, it might be a better payback to take the risk and injury people. Safety rarely beats the ROI of new production. It is the right thing to do and can be beneficial. Our job is to convince management of their social and moral obligations as well as the legal and financial ones. My experience is that most understand that obligation.
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Zavon
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 4:37 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Comments sought on The ACS Strategic Plan for 2018 and Beyond
To Jim Kaufman's observations below I would add the following in connection with Roger McClellan's statement "I also located a pay stub for my father from that time period. Boldly written across it in red ink was the statement -- "Safety Pays!". I doubt that DuPont did a cost-benefit analysis to justify that statement."
DuPont did indeed perform the equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis to justify that statement. But they did it so long ago, when black powder was their major product, that the assessment has faded into legend and lost memory.
Others in more recent times have done the same in a more formal process, but it is always difficult to quantify the value of incidents and injuries avoided.
Human nature is such that someone on the hunt for the wild Nobel can easily assert that "it won't happen to me" or "it hasn't happened yet so it won't happen, so trying to prevent it is a waste of time and effort.
I wish the world were the way you see it. My job would be a lot easier.
Unfortunately, after teaching over 100,000 scientists and science educators in 150 different types of labs in 30 countries, I can say with some degree of confidence that many still are not convinced that safety pays the rich dividends you describe.
I wish that were not the reality.
One faculty member at UCLA was quoted as saying. .. I don't know why they are making such a big deal about this, it was just one life!
At the lab safety conference at NIH in 2016, there was a panel of industry representatives from Dupont, Dow, and a third company. They were asked if the students they hire today are prepared to work up to their standard of safety.
The three answers were No, No, and No.
Forty-three years after I came to the same conclusion in my first month at Dow, it has not changed.
Yes, we have gotten better. But this is earth with humans and not fantasy island. ... Jim
I find the tone of this "conversation" very disturbing. I can not believe that some of you are suggesting that there is a need to do a 'cost-benefit" analysis on the value of advocating for safety in laboratory activities versus "success" in your activities. You must be kidding!! I am embarrassed for you, your teachers and mentors and the institution employing you. Let me provide some back ground.
As a 7 year old kid I moved to Richland , WA to join my parents who were building the Hanford Engineering Works to produce Plutonium. I recently had occasion to review my fathers records and found a Certificate of Commendation August 6, 1945 from Secretary of War Stinson commending my father for his role in the production of the atomic bomb. I also found a memo dated August 24, 1945 from W S Carpenter , President of Du Pont, the company that designed and built the Hanford reactors and separation plant. I quote from that communication --"Reference has been made to the hazards which we thought might be involved. Largely because of the great care taken by all who worked on various projects to see that all possible safety measures were provided and rigidly observed, construction and ordinary operating accidents were held to a minimum. There have been no accidents due to hazards inherent in the process.." I also located a pay stub for my father from that time period. Boldly written across it in red ink was the statement -- "Safety Pays!". I doubt that DuPont did a cost-benefit analysis to justify that statement.
My early contacts in the 1950s with Hanford scientists influenced me to obtain a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree and to pursue a career investigating the toxicity of radionuclides, based on their radiological characteristics, and then later chemical toxicity, all as a basis for developing standards and work place practices protective of worker safety and environmental hazards. I had the good fortune to work under outstanding scientists at Hanford and the US Atomic Energy Commission. I recall several conversations with the late Glenn Seaborg. As you may recall he was awarded the Nobel prize for discovery of Pu-239. He proudly related sending the first 10 mg aliquot of Pu-239 to his colleague, Joe Hamilton at Berkeley, to evaluate its toxicity. He remembered the sad story of the Radium dial painters. One of my mentors at Hanford, Herbert M Parker, regularly recalled that radiation standards were grounded in human misfortune and we did not want it repeated. Later in my career, I was responsible (1966 - 1999) the Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute in Albuquerque, NM. We worked under strict radiation and chemical standards and general work place standards. It was accepted, as a condition of employment, safety, health and environmental compliance comes first. As the President of the Institute I delegated to my senior EHS person the authority to "lock down" any operation or laboratory that was fully compliant with Health and Safety Standards. I wish a few more Department Chairs and Presidents of Universities would follow that same lead.
Compliance with rigid Health , Safety and Environment rules is a cornerstone of successful research operations and fully compatible with success. Many of my colleagues have been recognized as leaders in their fields. I have personally received many honors for my scientific achievements including election to the National Academy of Medicine.
I think the time for debate about safety in any research operations has long passed. The time for the ACS and ALL of its members to strongly endorse safety in its broadest context is overdue. I find the clause relating to safety possibly getting in the way of success embarrassing and a legacy of the dark ages.
If any of the readers of this message or their students are ever harmed as a result of a failure to follow exemplary safety standards and practices I hope I can assist the plaintiff's lawyers suing you and your institution. You will not have a leg to stand on irrespective of the position of the ACS. I do hope the ACS leadership will recognize the time for debate over safety is past. It is time to endorse exemplary safety standards in ALL activities irrespective of whether they are conducted in the public or private sector and upgrade related teaching standards for safety in its broadest connotation.
Roger O. McClellan, DVM, MMS, DSc(Honorary)
Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Diplomate- American Board of Veterinary Toxicology and American Board of Toxicology
Fellow- Academy of Toxicological Science, Society for Risk Analysis, American Thoracic Society, American Association for Aerosol Research, International Aerosol Research Assembly, Health Physics Society and American Association for Advancement of Science
Member- National Academy of Medicine
> The most useful path forward would be to seek data and studies that answer the question: does "promoting safety", either through a regulatory or voluntary path, actually cost or save money? (A more sharply-focused version of his question would be: "Does promoting safety save lives?")
There is data on this and they generally support the idea that more prudent practices are safer over the long run for a large population. Scaling this conclusion down to a single lab focused on novel processes is difficult to do in a convincing way.. But I believe that this is one reason industry is so interested in supporting safety education of the scientists they hire - businesses needs technologies that can scale up without creating new risks and this criteria is not part of today's academic education. We can see the impact of this lack of education playing out very rapidly in the IT world right now.
The big challenge I see in addressing the sentiment that "some people look at safety as an obstacle to success" in context of the ACS strategic plan is in the definitions of both "safety" and "success" are not included. In this context, they are used as buzzwords rather than defined concepts which can be addressed with data.
Thanks for the history on this, Dave.
