I agree with Rob--look at how UCLA is still saying that Harran deserves the award. Does anyone really think that the Chair of the Chem Dept or EHS would not feel some degree of pressure? Do not underestimate "pack" behavior here...no one wants to be the bad guy saying Professor X is not worthy...this is not like the peer review process where the reviewers are anonymous !
My suggestion is that the nominee be asked some version of "Has any student or employee under your supervision received a permanent or serious physical injury while working in your lab?" Or they could be asked to certify that no one working in their lab received a serious or permanent physical injury- that's probably a bit more positive. If they lie, well then, just like with falsifying any other statement they can be removed...
My personal opinion only...
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Ralph Stuart >>> I guess I have greater trust and respect for the goodness of 99.9% of humanity (including EHS and faculty and administrators and small business owners too Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
> I think the concern Rob expressed is a realistic appraisal of the resources, both financial and bureaucratic, available to EHS departments relative to the size of the activities they‰??re asked to oversee. The immediate example is telling; the UCLA EHS staff had pointed out concerns with the Harran lab months before the accident with no impact on conditions there. If the accident hadn‰??t happened would anyone have known this to comment on the award nomination?
> If someone is in a position to attest to the safety performance of a Principle Investigator, it should be their supervisor, i.e. the Chair of the Department. Is there any potential conflict of interest there?
> - Ralph
> Ralph Stuart, CIH
>>> I guess I have greater trust and respect for the goodness of 99.9% of humanity (including EHS and faculty and administrators and small business owners too Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post