Sarah,

Thank you for your thoughtful, responsible and thoroughly heartfelt response to my earlier post. (I pat my heart with clenched fist in respect for your comments.) I also see what you are saying although I sincerely think we're addressing two somewhat different (and important) topics in our respective comments.

In my shared anecdote I did actually address all the points (questions actually) you mention at the end of your second paragraph with the student in the spirit of educating him on what goes on inside the separatory funnel. I sought to redress a failure of his earlier organic chemistry course with deep understanding of the task. I consider this to be one of my professional and current employment responsibilities and it's one in which I invest a considerable amount of my personal time, intellect and energy on it. Collectively and ultimately, we were successful in raising the awareness of this failure to the responsible faculty member who has set off to effect more permanent improvement.

Clearly however, we do see the this task differently based on our respective comments. The protocol used by the student was so "safe" that it did not accomplish the intended task. That, IMHO, is a waste of time, energy, materials, etc. - why would the extraction be carried out in a fashion that is did not extract? It did turn into a teachable moment on the safe and effective use of the equipment which, again IMHO, is this moment's salvation.

Joseph

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:14 PM, Sarah Zinn wrote:
> *** Caution: EXTERNAL Sender ***
>
> Joseph,
>
> 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 quiteå intensely with your assessmentå that "it is most important for the chemistry to work..." and that "if the chemistryå doesn't work, there is no point in 'safety' as the work oughtn'tå 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/å (but of course not all)å domains of chemistry education and research, progress should not be more important‰??nor should it be /equally as important‰??/as safety and environmental responsi!
bility. This mindset has led us down some pretty bad paths already. We've flooded our environment with endocrine disrupting compounds that are causing huge population-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. Inå many cases, we /wildly/ underestimate the dangers‰??and inhabiting theå mindset youå advocate certainly won't help change that. A sparse SDS doesn't necessarilyå 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/å 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 safeå 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 extractio!
n 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).
>
> Best,
> Sarah
>
> •ÈÀOn 7/25/22, 7:54 AM, "ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety on behalf of Ralph Stuart" > wrote:
>
> å å > If the chemistry doesn't work then there is no point in "safety" - the work oughtn't even be performed.
>
> å å The extraction story describes an important ‰??safety‰?? challenge - transferring techniques between the educational lab and the research setting requires a careful thought and risk assessment, which is likely to be beyond the scope of an undergraduate‰??s skill set. That is one reason that undergraduates can benefit from systematic safety education as part of their science experience, but learning that they will need continuing lab safety education and discussion is an important take away from the undergraduate years.
>

>
> å å - Ralph
> å å Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO

--
Joseph A. DiVerdi, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Associate Professor of Chemistry
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
+1.970.980.5868 - /diverdi.colostate.edu/
/us02web.zoom.us/j/9460709393

---
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