From: "Stuart, Ralph" <Ralph.Stuart**At_Symbol_Here**KEENE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Thoughts?
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:40:37 +0000
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Message-ID: C4D5524E-ACD4-4762-A8C6-075E425C38D1**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu
In-Reply-To


>> >A renowned researcher is bringing in large sums of funding and greatly adding to the prestige of a facility/institution. This individual, however, has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for safety. Others in the group are aware of this but are reluctant to comment. They wonder how/why this individual can continue operating in this manner.
>>
As the variety of answers that have been posted suggest, my experience is that these situations are vary widely and addressing them involves many factors beyond immediate safety concerns, such as the personalities involved in the oversight process; the availability of facilities needed to host the science being conducted; and the regulatory environment of the campus. So there is no single set of correct responses to this situation. One case study of such a situation can be found at
https://www.independentmail.com/story/news/2018/12/21/clemson-university-lab-shuts-down-over-safety-concerns/2268019002/

With these factors in mind, I'll add a few points I've learned over time that haven't been mentioned yet:

1. The fame and amount of money a researcher brings in does not necessarily represent their standing in organization. Many research administrators realize that most external grants require an institutional subsidy to go forward, either explicitly or implicitly. So receivers of external grants often represent significant costs to the institution. Research administrators are usually interested in understanding these costs better and EHS expertise is part of that understanding. So, I would put aside that aspect of a lab in thinking about how to address concerns politically.

2. The more specifically safety concerns are defined, the easier they are address and to explain to all of the stakeholders involved. Start with the tip of the iceberg of concerns and work down.

3. Peer review, both internal and external, counts for a lot in the academic setting. This is not a quick process, but identifying neighbors who could be impacted by a specific lab event can help raise community awareness of the issues that are raising concern.

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts on this interesting topic.

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
603 358-2859

ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.