For those of you who mostly follow my writing here on “Adventures in Ethics and Science,” I thought I should give you a pointer to some things I’ve posted so far this month (which is almost half-over already?!) on my other blog, “Doing Good Science”. Feel free to jump in to the discussions in the comments over there. Or, if you’re daunted by the need to register to comment at SciAm, go ahead and discuss them here.
Suit against UCLA in fatal lab fire raises question of who is responsible for safety. You should also read the posts on this case by Prof-like Substance and Chemjobber.
The Research Works Act: asking the public to pay twice for scientific knowledge.
Lads’ mags, sexism, and research in psychology: an interview with Dr. Peter Hegarty (part 1).
Lads’ mags, sexism, and research in psychology: an interview with Dr. Peter Hegarty (part 2).
Dr. Hegarty is one of the authors of that paper we discussed here in December on the influence that magazines aimed at young men (“lads’ mags”) might have on how the young people who read them perceive their social reality.
I don’t know how to figure out the how to access people with multiple accounts problem! Although, at the same time, I do think that it is wonderful to have multiple venues for science communication.
“Two months before the fatal fire, UCLA safety inspectors found more than a dozen deficiencies in the same lab, according to internal investigative and inspection reports reviewed by The Times. Inspectors found that employees were not wearing requisite protective lab coats and that flammable liquids and volatile chemicals were stored improperly.
Corrective actions were not taken before the fire, the records showed.”
This aspect has been noted but hasn’t been discussed much. We don’t know the details of how soon after the inspection the PI was told of the results of the inspection, but I believe this is generally communicated immediately after inspections. So this does place a *huge* part of the blame on the PI who I am having a hard time feeling any sympathy. I can’t imagine working in a lab that ignores the results of safety inspections. Especially a chemistry lab! To some degree this absolves the university, unless it can be shown that there was never any follow through i.e. labs that had safety issues were routinely allowed to continue working with dangerous chemicals after failing multiple inspections at UCLA.
I am working with dangerous chemicals right now and cannot even imagine such a lax environment and attitude toward safety inspections. The PI may not be able to control every little thing that goes on in a lab, but does set the tone.