I empathize with Russ's concern. I whole heartedly agree that anyone pursuing chemistry or other lab intensive disciplines must be taught to m ake good risk decisions. The manner of teaching is critical and at what leve l they encounter hazards requires more than a belief in principles. Anyone working currently working with undergraduates realizes that standa rds need to be high, but expectations must be realistic. Parents protect fro m kids natural consequences and use artificial consequences to instill awareness, concern and caution. Letting many undergrads work with skin absorb-able toxins, carcinogens and reactives can be like teaching your k ids about cars by letting them play in the street. Commonsense safety to chemists is highly variable and dependent upon thei r training and culture. The chemists trained in yesteryear had a much broa der based education than what is afforded today. The level of specialization and sheer volume of information requires a different pedagogical approach . ACS has just published a number of articles on academic safety culture an d guidelines for undergraduate education. My son graduated in June and started work as a lab tech a few weeks ago. He received more safety training in the first week of work than in four years of classes and two years as a lab tech in a research lab. This was not because he wasn't allowed to work with hazardous chemicals in University. His actual expos ure potential at work appears to be less than in academic labs. Until students can demonstrate an understanding of the chemical hazards, the methods and means of detecting their presence, the symptoms and signs of overexposure and the principles and practices of safe handling, I don't think they should play in the traffic... especially as a tuition-paying p arent. $.02 from a safety guy, James W. Schoonover Environmental Health and Safety Advisor to The Division of Physical and Biological Sciences University of California Santa Cruz
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post