- Email: [email protected]
We’ve come a long way …
EDITORIAL
We've come a long way . . .
I
n general, the OSHA Laboratory Standard has been a good thing for chemical safety. As a performance-based standard, it allows much more ¯exibility than any other prescriptive OSHA standard. Simply put the standard, when used properly, simultaneously raises safety awareness while allowing laboratory chemists to get their job done. It is my hope and desire that other regulatory agencies will begin to utilize performance-based regulation more fully. The Laboratory Standard has now celebrated its 10th anniversary. For many, especially in academia, the introduction of regulation into research has been a painful, but necessary paradigm shift. After 10 years, it should be inconceivable that there are laboratory chemists who have not heard of the Laboratory Standard or ``safe work practices.'' It is even more disappointing that there are college and university professors and laboratory instructors that just plain do not care or know about safe work practices. This is particularly distressful to those of us who will employee the new generation of laboratory chemists and scientists who not been educated in safety and who have been taught that safety is unimportant. This puts employers at increased burden of trying to educate new employees who have little desire to learn safety. In a recent entry on the Labsafety Listserv, it was reported that after many attempts by EH&S personnel to convince an instructor of the need to follow good, safe laboratory prac-
1074-9098/02/$22.00 PII S1074-9098(02)00304-0
tices, the instructor loudly proclaimed that EH&S personnel were trampling on (the instructor's) ``academic freedom.'' While I did not investigate the validity of the posting, I have enough experience to think that the scenario is plausible. If there is a single individual that believes this, there are probably others as well and I have a singular message for them. ``Freedom'' and ``responsibility'' are inextricably joined. It is my opinion that academic freedom ends when instructors are cranking out students who cannot safely work in the laboratory environment because they have not been taught even the basics of laboratory safety. These same instructors are responsible for ensuring that the products of their efforts are ready to face the world armed with the skills they needÐincluding a basic knowledge of and positive attitude for safety. Most of these students do not remain students forever, most become ``employees'' who then have to be reeducated on safety fundamentals before they are productive workers and not liabilities to the employer's business. Some academic institutions have made tremendous progress in teaching laboratory safety fundamentals. This is wonderful, and I applaud those institutions that have succeeded in their efforts. Additionally, the Division of Chemical Health and Safety annually recognizes institutions that have excelled in teaching science safely by presenting the College and University Award. However, there are some institutions that are setting the wrong example for whatever the reason. Most often cited are ``money'' and ``time'' as being the major challenges to introducing
safety into the curriculum. Time constraints are always going to be dif®cult to manage; however, money does not necessarily have to be. Here are a few low-cost suggestions for college and university of®cials to think about. Most, if not all, will be unpopular, but I think they are necessary. 1. Link continued employment and tenure to teaching safe work practices. (It works in industry, where many students are heading.) 2. Tie grant money to safe work practices and sound environmental practices. (Industries that provide grant money should insist that safety be taught to the students. Records from audits and evaluations from oversight agencies such as OSHA and EPA should be required information on every grant proposal.) 3. Publicly recognize those that make the extra effort to excel in safety. A little ``thanks'' goes a long way. 4. Setup or identify model safety education programs that teach safety as it should be taught. Support for these programs could come from federal or private grant programs. Yes, we've come a long way since the Laboratory Standard introduced health and safety to laboratory workers, but we still have a long way to go.
Harry J. Elston
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
3
We've come a long way . . .
I
n general, the OSHA Laboratory Standard has been a good thing for chemical safety. As a performance-based standard, it allows much more ¯exibility than any other prescriptive OSHA standard. Simply put the standard, when used properly, simultaneously raises safety awareness while allowing laboratory chemists to get their job done. It is my hope and desire that other regulatory agencies will begin to utilize performance-based regulation more fully. The Laboratory Standard has now celebrated its 10th anniversary. For many, especially in academia, the introduction of regulation into research has been a painful, but necessary paradigm shift. After 10 years, it should be inconceivable that there are laboratory chemists who have not heard of the Laboratory Standard or ``safe work practices.'' It is even more disappointing that there are college and university professors and laboratory instructors that just plain do not care or know about safe work practices. This is particularly distressful to those of us who will employee the new generation of laboratory chemists and scientists who not been educated in safety and who have been taught that safety is unimportant. This puts employers at increased burden of trying to educate new employees who have little desire to learn safety. In a recent entry on the Labsafety Listserv, it was reported that after many attempts by EH&S personnel to convince an instructor of the need to follow good, safe laboratory prac-
1074-9098/02/$22.00 PII S1074-9098(02)00304-0
tices, the instructor loudly proclaimed that EH&S personnel were trampling on (the instructor's) ``academic freedom.'' While I did not investigate the validity of the posting, I have enough experience to think that the scenario is plausible. If there is a single individual that believes this, there are probably others as well and I have a singular message for them. ``Freedom'' and ``responsibility'' are inextricably joined. It is my opinion that academic freedom ends when instructors are cranking out students who cannot safely work in the laboratory environment because they have not been taught even the basics of laboratory safety. These same instructors are responsible for ensuring that the products of their efforts are ready to face the world armed with the skills they needÐincluding a basic knowledge of and positive attitude for safety. Most of these students do not remain students forever, most become ``employees'' who then have to be reeducated on safety fundamentals before they are productive workers and not liabilities to the employer's business. Some academic institutions have made tremendous progress in teaching laboratory safety fundamentals. This is wonderful, and I applaud those institutions that have succeeded in their efforts. Additionally, the Division of Chemical Health and Safety annually recognizes institutions that have excelled in teaching science safely by presenting the College and University Award. However, there are some institutions that are setting the wrong example for whatever the reason. Most often cited are ``money'' and ``time'' as being the major challenges to introducing
safety into the curriculum. Time constraints are always going to be dif®cult to manage; however, money does not necessarily have to be. Here are a few low-cost suggestions for college and university of®cials to think about. Most, if not all, will be unpopular, but I think they are necessary. 1. Link continued employment and tenure to teaching safe work practices. (It works in industry, where many students are heading.) 2. Tie grant money to safe work practices and sound environmental practices. (Industries that provide grant money should insist that safety be taught to the students. Records from audits and evaluations from oversight agencies such as OSHA and EPA should be required information on every grant proposal.) 3. Publicly recognize those that make the extra effort to excel in safety. A little ``thanks'' goes a long way. 4. Setup or identify model safety education programs that teach safety as it should be taught. Support for these programs could come from federal or private grant programs. Yes, we've come a long way since the Laboratory Standard introduced health and safety to laboratory workers, but we still have a long way to go.
Harry J. Elston
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
3