What lndustry ShouId Do For Campus Safety
The fine record of the chemical industry in guarding the safety and health of employees recently was cited by William McCarville of Monsanto in an editorial on workplace hazards.' He pointed out that the routine handling of toxic and explosive substances has been accomplished with one of the best safety records of any industry. And, although there has been nationwide concern over the carcinogenic potential of some chemicals used industrially in very large quantities, records show that the incidence of cancer has been maintained at low levels among those working with these materials. On the other hand, it is widely believed that high schools and colleges on the basis of person-hours worked in the chemistry lahoratory have a higher incidence of injuries than is experienced in industrial laboratories. Some teachers do question these conclusions on the grounds that they seldom see or hear of serious damage to students. The questioners point out that students work only with small quantities of materials and are in the laboratory for a small fraction of the exposure time normal for industrial workers. Recently efforts have been initiated to collect from schools the data on injuries which will he essential for a full evaluation, hut quantitative comparisons cannot he made at present. However, it is agreed by all academics who visit leading industrial laboratories that the latter are far advanced in safety practices, including the enforced use of protective equipment by personnel. In many colleges, where even the battle for the wearing of appropriate eye protection in all laboratories is not yet won, comparison of safety practices with those maintained by industry are almost pitiful. Moreover, we know that it is quite common for industrial scientists in the light of new safety training to shudder when recalling their own casual approach to hazardous situations when they were in graduate school. Under the circumstances it seems reasonable to believe that when working with the same substances industrial chemists will suffer fewer injuries in the same laboratory periods than will their academic counterparts. In years past there seems to have been a feeling that safety was something industry could teach to new chemists arriving from college. To our best knowledge industrial employers have never ranked their newly hired chemistry graduates on the basis of their prior safety training. The writers know of only one case in the past 40 years in which aresearchchemist fresh from college was fired for a serious safety infraction (involving the hatch distillation of a large quantity of flammable solvent from an unprotected glass flask). This fact has tended to put a low priority on safety training in colleges. Our over-coursed chemistry programs in colleges have been short on time for %on-essentials." Recently, however, the upgrading of safety practices has become a matter of growing concern to academic institutions. Administrators and teachers increasingly are conscious of the threat of OSHA citations and also legal suits following any injury to students. Whereas teachers earlier tended to assume that whatever they were doing must be safe, since visible injuries seemed scarce in their laboratories, many teachers now are making consious efforts to eliminate hazards from experiments and to dwell on proper practices when instructing students. They now recognize not just the normal urge to protect their students from injury hut also a need for being able to prove after-the-fact that good safety had heen taught if an injury does occur. Unhappily, chemistry faculty memhers are not uniformly
aware of what constitutes good safetv practices. and thev. varv widely in their degree of commitmeit to imp;oving departmental safety. I t has been said that the greatest hazard in an industrial lahoratory is a fresh chemistry PhD graduate. Similarly we say that the greatest hazard in a university or school laboratory is a tenured faculty member who has never been involved in a serious accident. The lack of a shared enthusiasm among faculty members for the adoption and enforcement of good practices now seriously limits the effectiveness of safety programs at most colleges and universities. Leadina industrial firms commonlv have been helpful to collegc rh&nistry departments whtm ca.lled upon for assistance with saiety pn>hlems.1111I'ont and Monsnnto, for example. provided speakers offering both inspiration and substance-fo; a short course offered by our department for teachers this past summer. Also we are appreciative of the "38 Steps for a Gfer labor at or^"^ which was widely distributed by Dow. This company also was the source of the useful paper on "Toxic Materials in the Academic Laboratory from an Industrial Vie~point."~ But more help is needed if academics are to respond effectively to assistance given by industry. The growing awareness on campus of the need for improving our facilities for the handling of carcinogens has not been matched by an expansion of the funds provided to universities. The urgent need for improving ventilation, chemical storace. and containment of wastes cuireutly requires the diversion of money from other essential operations. Burdened by the combination of inflation and the "Proposition 13 mentality" many universities will make slow progress in changing their facilities to meet standards now being developedin industry. Some colleges could even he forced to drop chemistry laboratory training if essential modifications of facilities cost more than the institutional budget will permit. I t is our conviction that industrial grants specifically aimed a t improving the physical facilities of colleges will he essential if campuses are to provide a safe laboratory environment for students. Industrv also needs to encourage the expansion oi tax funding for state institutions if this ~ o aisl to IIP achieved. Moreover, we also believe that industry can do murh for us by critically examining the safety rompetence of chemiih and chemical engineers hired from~univ&sities.Only if faculty members back on campus learn that in the hiring market their students will suffer for had safety habits is the safety message likely to have impact on all instructors. In this matter we are not talkine-"iust about the lone-term hazards met in handline ~~~~~~~-~ mutagens, teratogens, and carcinogens. We are concerned with the immediate iniuries which are oreventable hv eood laboratnry rechniqurs. Dealing with acute hazards must not rontinue 11)he just the problem o i a departmentnl safety com-
-
~
~
--
This paper derives in part from a presentation entitled "Safety Cents" on June 7,1979, at The Greenbriar, White Sulphur Springs, WV, to the Chemical Manufacturers Association and published in their booklet announcing the 1979 CMA Catalyst Awards to teachers of chemistry and chemical engineering. Chem. and Eng. News, Oct. 8,1979,p. 5. Kaufmsn, J. A. J. CHEM. EDUC. 55. A337 (1978). Fischback, B. C. J. CHEM. EDUC. 56, A1 (1979). Renfrew, M. M. J. CHEM. EDUC. 55,145 (1978). Volume 57, Number 6, June 1980 / 435
mittee or a department head. There is need for all faculty members to recognize their responsibility for teaching by example the elementary lessons-such things as wearing appropriate eye protection, the avoidance of smoking or eating in the laboratories, e t ~Industry . ~ can exert an ever larger impact on campus safety practices by publicly holding faculties responsible for the safety habits of their students.
436 / Journal of Chemical Education
Will the chemical industry now respond to this challenge? And, if it does, will our colleges be ready? Jean'ne M. Shreeve Malcolm M. Renfrew University of Idaho Moscow. ID 83843
