To Nigel’s argument that there’s no room for cultural differences in chemical safety, I think that’s wrong given how much of safety is social. However, he’s absolutely correct that an N90’s (in)ability to protect against vapors is not a matter of culture.

To Mary Beth’s point that publishing this incident is a first step for the author towards gain, I agree. However, it’s not unfair to the author(s) to point out internal contradictions within the paper. Identifying that incident investigations have a tendency to stop after a single cause, often the victim’s (in)actions, has been identified, and then proceeding to center their recommendations on compliance with PPE policy (to be enforced by CCTV monitoring!) is just such a contradiction. As Imke points out, this is something that one would hope would be caught during the peer review process.

As Jessica says, I think Jack has first claim to reaching out to the author to work on a follow-up piece. If that effort does bear fruit, I hope it goes beyond a re-evaluation of PPE and digs into the chemistry that was occurring, the engineering controls used, whether the Safety Data Sheet that was presented in the paper is the one they relied on during their, and, if so, why all of the regulatory information pertains to the US, etc.

Chris

All, 
 
As EIC of ACS CHAS, I am interested in the conversation going on and it makes me think back to how the TTU incident was initially presented in CEN. Take a look a look at the depictions of the graduate student is this 2010 article Texas Tech Lessons (acs.org) (https://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i34/Texas-Tech-Lessons.html). Granted, this is a media article and not a peer reviewed article in a journal, but it does give a snapshot of where we were 12 years ago. You can go back on the listserv and see the various conversations about the 2010 on the incident (I found searching for “Texas Tech” the most useful search term), but none of the DCHAS posts that I found addressed how the graduate student was portrayed.
 
The aim of the journal’s forthcoming Virtual Special Issue (VSI) is “Shifting Culture from Blame to Gain” and the view right now being expressed in the thread is that this is a “blame” paper. I can’t help but wonder if publishing that this incident even occurred might be one of the first steps in the author’s shift toward “gain.” As these posts demonstrate, the fact that the PI is a co-author on this paper and publicly admitting to this incident in his lab, has opened him up for criticism. I hope whatever rebuttal-type papers people put forth will help move the needle towards gain and not influence other potential authors to think that it would be better to say nothing than something because they may not “get it right.” That is not to say I feel people cannot disagree with a paper, but I recognize that scientists around the world (and that means here in the US too) are at different points in their safety journeys and have different levels of financial and regulatory support that influence their actions. How do we, as a safety community, honor progress at any point?
 
A couple of thoughts on moving the needle towards “gain.” Would anyone consider reaching out to the author and seeing if he is interested in teaming up to analyze why the student wasn’t wearing PPE and provide details about the PPE? This type of human factors analysis is not obvious to everyone and many of you on this listserv have great experience with it. The VSI is still accepting new manuscript submissions and a paper that demonstrates that level of community thought and support would be something I suspect has not been published in an academic journal thus far. Safety is, and always will be, a conversation, so how do we extend that conversation? How cool would it be for the CHAS audience to realize that when someone sticks their neck out there, and a point that does not get addressed in the peer review process is published, which subsequently raises concerns, that we as an international safety community address it collaboratively?
 
One last point: I saw someone mention that they hope “dispose of outside the lab” means being picked up by a company for proper disposal. I have worked in many countries where waste disposal companies do not exist, nor do any regulations exist that direct how the waste should be safely addressed. Waste disposal is a major topic that I would like the journal to address in the near future too. 

Sincerely,

Mary Beth Mulcahy

-- 

Dr. Mary Beth Mulcahy
Editor-in-Chief 
ACS Chemical Health & Safety

https://pubs.acs.org/journal/achsc5

Dear all,

while I agree with you, please be mindful of cultural differences.  The author is from India and clearly well-meaning. The issue, in this case, is with the review process of the paper that should have guided the author in the right direction.

My best,

Imke

--

--- 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 @acsdchas

--- 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 @acsdchas

--- 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 @acsdchas