I see what you are trying to say, certainly, and I also have raged (many times) against the way we approach safety and how our approach often does little but stand in the way of work being done-but I disagree quite substantially with many of things you've said. In particular, I disagree quite intensely with your assessment that "it is most important for the chemistry to work..." and that "if the chemistry doesn't work, there is no point in 'safety' as the work oughtn't even be performed." Firstly, knowledge and progress aren't measured in success. Though we refuse to publish null results and we certainly won't award degrees for unsuccessful experiments-we should. In fact, only publishing positive results is a huge problem that itself is impeding our progress. Secondly, in most (but of course not all) domains of chemistry education and research, progress should not be more important-nor should it be equally as important-as safety and environmental responsibility. This mindset has led us down some pretty bad paths already. We've flooded our environment with endocrine disrupting compounds that are causing huge popuation-wide health changes in the name of "progress" and "efficiency," releasing commercial products with very little knowledge about their health effects. We're also completely ignorant of chronic, long-term, systemic dangers, seeing mostly only acute, intense, and obvious ones. In many cases, we wildly underestimate the dangers-and inhabiting the mindset you advocate certainly won't help change that. A sparse SDS doesn't necessarily mean it's safe-it means it's unknown.

Rather, to me, the problem is an over-reliance on regulation and simple rule-following and an under-reliance on responsibility and common sense. There have been multiple times in my life where both my progress and my actual safety have been impeded by "safety regulations." We need to teach, practice, and embody responsibility in the chemical sciences. Rather than imparting simple and poorly-motivated rules to undergrads that forbid shaking sep funnels, we should educate them on the dangers of the equipment, the dangers of certain reactions, their responsibility to engage in safe behaviors, and how to equip themselves with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions. For example, at the very least, people should be thinking critically about what's happening in the sep funnel. WHY does pressure build in a sep funnel? What solvents will build pressure faster? What are the best strategies for avoiding over-pressure? When should you move to a different extraction approach or a different reaction?

Yes, we should do better in our approach to safety. No, we should not prioritize progress as much as safety (especially since, well, we already do).

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:32 AM steve <sstepenuck**At_Symbol_Here**ne.rr.com> wrote: