4 /5
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to double your articles. Or go unlimited with ACS membership.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Option 1
Create account
to read more from
FREE
- Read 10 articles each month
- Sign up for weekly newsletter
- C&ENjobs -- a job board just for chemists
Option 2
BEST VALUE
Become an ACS member
to get unlimited access to
As low as $28 /first year
- Unlimited access to C&EN, including a subscription to our award-winning weekly print magazine
- Discounts on ACS meetings, events and courses
- Expand your research with complimentary SciFinder searches
- Discounts on ACS journals
- Receive exclusive career insights and data from industry experts
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 10 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Sheri was a graduate student, but more importantly she was also a paid employee of the University. As such she must be protected by the Cal/OSHA regulations.
My comments are not intended to be specific to the Sangji case. Rather, my point that there is no one party who is solely responsible for a student's safety in the lab. Everyone - the PI, the student, the institution, the other members of the lab - has a role.
Under any circumstances, the professor is not responsible. The graduate should know the safety of the chemicals.
My prayer and thoughts are with the family.
In this case I find it hard to believe UCLA didn't have lab safety training...perhaps just not for this particular issue. I also find it hard to believe the group members didn't provide instruction on handling tBuLi. How the student ended up with a large sryinge of tBuLi, no lab coat, alone, etc is a mystery to me. A sad outcome for sure, but still and accident.
http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2012/01/sherisangji-case-what-we-can-learn-from-the-postdoc/
Having stated the above, the Professor had demonstrated the correct and proper technique to this chemist for its safe handling and transfer. Being a chemist, she would have known and/or been obliged to check for or be made aware of any additional safety requirements. And as she was taught while she was training to be a chemist: 1). Always wear safety glasses 2). Always wear the proper attire for lab work (e.g., lab coat 3). Never work alone in the lab.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the family.
http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2012/01/sherisangji-case-what-we-can-learn-from-the-postdoc/
I've seen other advisors who may do "encourage" safe working conditions, but at the same time work their students to exhaustion and students make mistakes after non-stop 14+ hour days, 7 days a week. I think that's another issue that needs to be addressed for graduate students as a whole, as it's more common than you might think(I've seen plenty of top quality PhDs from students who work more manageable 10 hour a day, 6 day weeks-bad things start happening to you when you regularly put in more than 60 or 65 hours a week).
On the other hand, if the PI provides appropriate safety equipment, makes sure that the students know the hazards for dangerous reagents and have been properly trained in how to handle them, and generally promotes a safe lab culture student responsibility then you can certainly start passing the blame if a student doesn't follow things. Unfortunately, all too often I see it at my own university where safety takes a back seat to productivity.
BTW, I now work as my department's safety officer, and I've discussed these issues with both PIs and students, sometimes until I'm blue in the face-although there's only so much I can say and do. Fortunately, most PIs want their students to be safe, and do everything they can(short of babysitting the lab). MOST of our labs that work with pyrophorics or other stuff like that are incredibly careful in their handling protocols.
Ultimately, though, when you are in charge of a lab, "the buck stops here."
As an example of the latter, I keep on file an annual "chemical hygiene plan" for every research and teaching lab. The Department of Environmental Health and Safety keeps it also, and really they're the ones who push for it to be updated. A lot of it is boilerplate, but among other things it is supposed to contain lab-specific SOPs(handling t-Butyl Lithium would be one of those) that detail-among other things-PPE that should be worn and other safety precautions that should be in place. The name and training date for every person in the lab should be listed. We have some PIs, however, who would say that it's "none of our business" if they use tBuLi(or whatever other pyrophorics) and refuse to file SOPs even if they know do use it. Fortunately, I have the chair's backing to push for this kind of stuff, but ultimately I only have so much in my power...
As you see in this judgement, UC regents have taken responsibility for the accident. What did they do after words? Perhaps had obligatory visits (pre-arranged) to research labs, pumped up all the documentation (SOPs and what not). Would that alone prevent future accidents, or was it more to cover up their bases to deny liability when the next accident happens? As you have mentioned, pre-arranged visits to the research labs are going to have lab occupants at their highest-alert best-behavior. This may not reflect how they work in the lab in general. Solution: unscheduled (not known by anyone else other than the safety officer) random inspections. Obviously, the PI's will retaliate against this and reason their way out. I think every PI who want's to (or ever did) retaliate to such enforcement, is indirectly responsible for the death of this researcher (and others).
Another issue as you mention is that the PI's have a level of power over the safety officer(s) (especially the departmental ones) that discourages strict confrontation. But I doubt the judgement from the case in this article included any measures to strengthen the safety officers power in that regard. I believe that the safety officers should have higher power than the PI's in this matter, and also have their job security (and the chance for prosecution) dependent upon preventing these kind of accidents. Right now, if an accident like this happens again, this whole scenario will play out again without anyone other than the PI personally held liable.
Teaching labs are a whole different ball game. There are so many eyes on those, that it makes it much more unlikely for an accident of this nature to happen there. Additionally, the experiments are probably well designed to minimize all risks. The undergraduate/graduate students in that environment are not representative of how they will behave in a research lab that has minimal supervision.
My question is - how did we manage to stay safe without all the current safety procedures?
I don't have a good answer. The best I can come up with is that we "assumed everything was dangerous", and acted accordingly. We were responsible for ourselves. We certainly knew no one else was.
We also looked out for each other, and generally knew what the folks around us were doing in the lab, and would ask questions if we thought something was odd or dangerous. And we would ask others in the lab how to do something if we hadn't done it before - like fill a reaction flask with liquid ammonia, charge a hydrogenator, initiate a Grignard, make diazomethane, get rid of excess Rainey nickel, silylate glassware, run a high vacuum distillation, etc. No safety classes, no committees, no training on hazard communication, no lectures on risk assessment, no paperwork, no "safety resource identification", no pre-requisite courses, etc etc. Just what we used to call common sense.
But how did we get that common sense?
I have a partial answer. We all (yes - all of us) had made gunpowder and nitrocellulose and rocket propellants in our basements. We stuck spatula tips of inorganic salts into Bunsen burner flames to see the colours, dropped sodium into water, took white phosphorus out of the water it was stored in, dissolved coins in conc HNO3 to extract the silver, ran water electrolysis collecting the hydrogen and igniting it, dropping a wooden match in the jar that had the oxygen in it, etc etc .
And we learned that things could be dangerous. On our own. That education is missing today.
My son who studied chemistry at Northwestern and USC, was instructed in chemical safety, and when I visited their labs, I could see that safety was of paramount importance, all the “trainee” chemists were properly attired wearing safety glasses, gloves and most reactions were done under a fume hood. He is now working in an industrial setting where safety is a top priority, no-one is allowed to work “alone”. MSDS’s are required to be read and understood for all the chemicals in the lab.
There is need for more instruction/information other than what one can glean from a MSDS. Courses on chemical carcinogens - and their danger, will amplify the understanding of the risks to researchers.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/lab-safety/Charges-dropped-against-UCLA-chemistry/96/web/2018/09
I include the lab coat information in stories because it's something people always ask about. You're right that a polyester lab coat wouldn't have helped--it would've burned the same as the (also synthetic) sweater Sangji was wearing. A cotton lab coat might have given her time to remove it before her clothing caught fire, especially if it had snaps rather than buttons. Better would have been a flame-resistant lab coat. I'm not sure about an apron--that would've left her (again, synthetic) sleeves exposed.
Equally important is emergency response: Put out the fire immediately, either by going to a shower (in Sangji's case, there was one in the lab) or stop/drop/roll. Fire blankets can be tricky, because you need to use them in a way to smother the flames but not create a chimney effect. Labs should practice this to build memory for what to do when you would otherwise panic, similar to fire or other emergency drills (my kids' schools do fire, earthquake, spills, active shooter, and I think a couple more that I don't remember).
http://cenblog.org/2009/08/personal-protection-from-fire/
Then Students
Then SCIENCE.
3S.
Without that admission of his responsibility as part of that agreement Professor Harran would have faced prison time. The legal case decision reinforced that the professor was indeed responsible. It is sad to see that several posters here in the chemistry profession have not learned this legal lesson from this avoidable tragedy. I am saddened that they do not see the moral responsibility either.
My sincerest condolences to the family of Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji. No amount of hours of service or a named scholarship will take any of your pain and loss away.
Sincerely,
Katherine Flynn
1. Sheri was an employee, NOT A STUDENT. Thus, Cal/OSHA had jurisdiction.
2. Sheri was hired to assist the lab in purchasing and installing Agilent instrumentation, with which she had extensive experience as an undergrad.
3. While she had little experience with organic synthesis, she asked for and was given by Prof. Harran a synthetic project to work on in addition to her instrumentation work.
4. She received no documented training of any type on handling tBuLi. Professor Harran did watch her handle an air-sensitive catalyst successfully, before turning her loose on the tBuLi project.
5. Professor Harran was in the building the day of the fire and had instructed her to perform a 3-fold scale-up of the reaction she had done in October. He was in his office at the time of the fire.
K. P. Jamison (September 26, 2018 2:37 PM) asked if any "modelling" was done regarding outcomes if other PPE had been worn. Yes, though until today it has never been discussed. During the investigation, with the actual medical records in hand, we considered how events might have played out if she had been wearing an FR lab coat as well as all cotton clothing and various other options. While skin burns likely would have been reduced, the pulmonary injuries likely would have been the same. We never definitively decided if an FR lab coat would have changed the ultimate outcome.
Bottom line: The PI is the "Captain of the Ship" and is ultimately responsible for all events on the ship. As a long-retired PI, I say to anyone in that position, you are responsible for your people. Protect them as if they were your children and family.
Leave A Comment