About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Cuts at Bristol-Myers Squibb | Main | Public Domain Databases in Medicinal Chemistry »

August 1, 2012

The Sangji/UCLA/Harran Case: Now Officially a Mess

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There have been a number of odd developments in the Sheri Sangji case, the lab fatality at UCLA that led to criminal charges being filed against both Prof. Patrick Harran and the university. The Doing Good Science blog at Scientific American has a thorough round-up of the latest.

Last Friday, charges were dropped against UCLA, and the case against Harran was separated. As part of the deal, UCLA agreed to establish a memorial scholarship and to improve its safety measures. We're still finding out about those, but Chemjobber has more details here and here.

I note that this seems to be a process-heavy, paperwork-heavy system that's going into place. And while that might help, I'm going to remain skeptical, since I've worked under similar conditions, and it did not stop some people from have lab accidents that they shouldn't have had. Now, there's no way of knowing how many accidents these policies prevented, but the ones that got through were just the sorts of things that this safety regime was designed to prevent. So one does have to wonder. It's a natural impulse to think that process improvements are the answer to such situations, though. It's especially going to come out that way when you have lawyers watching who will want to see measurable, quantifiable steps being taken. It's not possible to measure how many people avoided lab hazards as a result of your safety measures - but it is possible to count how many meetings people have to attend, how many standard operating procedures they have to generate and sign off on, and so on.

Now as far as Prof. Harran's case, here's where things get weird. His legal team appears to be attacking the California OSHA report on the lab incident by pointing out that its author was involved in a murder plot as a teenager and lied about it to investigators (falsus in uno. . .). After some confusion about whether this was even the same person, word is now that the investigator has suddenly resigned from his position as a public safety commissioner. So perhaps Harran's lawyers are on to something.

But on to what, exactly? I can understand this as a legal tactic. It's not a very honorable one, but it's been said that lawyers will do anything for you that can be done while wearing a nice suit (that's their ethical boundary). Their job is to exonerate their client, and they will do pretty much anything that leads to that result. Will this? Doubt can be cast on the personal history of the Cal OSHA investigator, for sure, but can it be cast on the report that he wrote? Chemjobber's guess is that this indicates that plea bargaining isn't going well, and that seems quite believable to me.

So that's the state of things now. There will be more, perhaps a lot more, the way this case is going so far. Whether it all will lead to a just outcome depends on what you think justice is, and how it might be served here. And whether any of it will keep someone in the future from being killed by a dangerous reagent that they did not appear ready to use, I have no idea. The longer all this goes on, and the more convoluted it gets, the more I wonder about that.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Safety Warnings


1. MolecularGeek on August 1, 2012 11:17 AM writes...

Worrying about the defense team using a dishonorable tactic is unfair, IMHO. The State of California, as represented by the local district attorney went for a felony eligible conviction in this case for reasons that have little to do with public safety and a lot to do with publicity and political gain. When the prosecution tries to sandbag a defendant that way, and then UC throws Harran under the bus to avoid being caught up in the trial, the defense team is obligated to not give up anything without a fight. And, in all honesty, would you want to be indicted on the statement of someone who admitted to committing murder and then lied about it on their job application? An adversarial system seems unfair and wasteful until you're the one being sent through it.


Permalink to Comment

2. Anonymous on August 1, 2012 12:18 PM writes...

Justice on a technicality is still justice.

Permalink to Comment

3. Chemjobber on August 1, 2012 12:46 PM writes...

Thanks for linking, Derek.

With regards to "UCLA throwing Harran under the bus", it should be noted that all of their public statements, from the chancellor down, have been strongly in support of Professor Harran. They have also paid (and continue to pay) for his defense team, which seems to be doing a darn good job of making the prosecution look bad.

Permalink to Comment

4. TeddyZ on August 1, 2012 1:08 PM writes...

It has been my experience in industry that personnel in the lab care about safety only care about safety when the boss is around and LOOKING for safety. When our mgrs started coming around, safety was taken more seriously. A paperwork heavy process is simply for UCLA to say we had procedures in place, they didn't follow them, not our fault. Only when the Provost makes unannounced safety checks on labs will labs start to really be safe.

think about this: How many accompanying pictures in C&ENews or similar mag shows people without gloves, or even eyewear? But they always have shiny white labcoat with name of company clearly legible.

Permalink to Comment

5. NoDrugsNoJobs on August 1, 2012 1:29 PM writes...

#1 Molecular Geek, 100% Spot-On, the prosecution is out for Prof Harran's hide and nothing short of a 100% effort on Harran's behalf should be expected.

Permalink to Comment

6. Sili on August 1, 2012 5:20 PM writes...

falsus in uno
I didn't know that one, but it's a nice counterpoint to the genetic fallacy. Permalink to Comment

7. Gordon on August 1, 2012 9:07 PM writes...

Whatever the outcome of the trial, Prof Harran's name will be just as radioactive as Prof Sames'. Grad students will think twice about joining his lab, and who will invite that man as a seminar speaker?

Permalink to Comment

8. Gordon on August 1, 2012 9:51 PM writes...

More thoughts: the employer is duty-bound to defend its employee against criminal charges, but UCLA are going well overboard, seeing what the defense team is doing.

Paperwork is useless against poor laboratory technique and poor attitude towards safety. Signing paperwork that one must wear proper clothing in the lab never made anyone leave the fluffy polyester sweater at home.

Permalink to Comment

9. Morten G on August 2, 2012 5:29 AM writes...

Pretty sure that more paperwork that gets in the way of doing actual science will simply drown out the health and safety that doesn't get in the way of doing science.
UCLA already had procedures in place to avoid people dying. Why would adding more of those procedures be of benefit?

Permalink to Comment

10. RB Woodweird on August 2, 2012 7:37 AM writes...

My favorite part of the story was the way that Ms. Sangji rose from the grave upon hearing that the OSHA investigator had done something wrong 27 years ago.

Permalink to Comment

11. Anonymous on August 2, 2012 11:50 AM writes...

Morten is absolutely right - my grad school had an excellent safety program on paper, but in reality, nothing was enforced and each professor's lab was his own independent fiefdom.

Permalink to Comment

12. dearieme on August 2, 2012 5:14 PM writes...

I used to get collywobbles about lab safety for research students. I'd send them to the right courses, indoctrinate them in my own safety principles (Rule I: do not do lab work when you are tired), insist on lab coats and glasses being worn,and so forth. And then I'd drop into a lab and find an intelligent youngster doing something bloody stupid - something so stupid that it wouldn't have crossed my mind to warn against it.

Permalink to Comment

13. Johnny on August 2, 2012 5:25 PM writes...

Dupont has what I think is the most effective safety program I know of, which is to assign responsibility for safety at line management. In other words, if a bench scientist had a safety incident or poor lab practices, it is his/her boss's fault, and there will be penalties (basically kiss your bonus goodbye). The reason safety gets no respect in academia is that there are no consequences for poor behavior.

Permalink to Comment

14. Anonymous on August 3, 2012 7:47 AM writes...

DuPont has a punitive, "gotcha" safety culture from what I've heard, with people snitching each other out for minor offenses as retaliation for some unrelated beef. If you get hurt there, your best bet is to put your hand in your pocket for the rest of the day, then go to the doctor that night and pretend you hurt yourself at home - otherwise you'll get fired.

I agree that academia's reward/punishment system is the reason for the lack of attention to safety - it's all about productivity, so if safety precautions slow you down, it's reasonable to conclude you should skip them and get more results to show the prof.

Permalink to Comment

15. Anonymous on August 3, 2012 5:23 PM writes...

I find this whole episode very disturbing, and I remain surprised there aren't a larger number of serious lab accidents. Although we're each responsible for our own actions, the educational and training institutions need become an environment wherein we learn which actions are good and which are bad. Isn't that what a university should be doing anyway? Passing laws and more rules isn't going to help enough: professors need to take a proactive role in fostering better lab techniques. We chemists need to promote a safer/better/more productive environment. We need to want to do it, professors and supervisors need to want to have it done, and they have to want to be a part of it. More laws and rules aren't going to do this on their own (although they may help in prosecutions?).
My graduate experience was not at all sufficient in providing me with the necessary skills, and from what I gather from many of my colleagues, not at all atypical. I went to an Ivy league institution, where I thought I would receive excellent technical training. My "adviser" initially assigned a 5th-year grad student to help me. When I approached this individual, he just laughed. (Actually, that was probably best: it turned out that he was absolute rubbish. Later we used to read passages of his thesis out loud for comedic effect.) My "adviser" never - not once - checked to see if I had any clue what I was doing, or what I should be concentrating on, or where I needed more expertise.
I eventually learned, but long afterward, and mostly by trial and error. I'm lucky that my errors didn't lead to injuries of myself or those around me. My heart goes out to the family and friends of Sangji. It can be (and has been) argued that "she should have known better", and honestly, she should have. BUT - she should have been taught better, her abilities should have in some way been assessed, and somebody - her professor or a supervisory colleague - should have been present enough to have been able to keep an eye on a new graduate student. I hope the incoming generation of professors do a better job than the last

Permalink to Comment

16. R on August 3, 2012 6:45 PM writes...

“Dupont has what I think is the most effective safety program I know of, which is to assign responsibility for safety at line management. In other words, if a bench scientist had a safety incident or poor lab practices, it is his/her boss's fault, and there will be penalties (basically kiss your bonus goodbye).”

Johnny, I don’t know if you worked at DuPont, but I did for 15 years. In my former business unit, the safety culture was lousy, at best. The absolute worse part of it was the ‘responsibility for safety at line management’ set-up. This, in practice, turned into making certain that no one fucked up the bosses’ bonuses, which easily made up 25-40% of the bosses’ yearly take-home pay.

So people hid their injuries, even serious ones. Like the technician who did his best to hide a broken foot. Or the person with a smashed finger who wasn’t allowed to go to the hospital. Or the secretary who got up from her desk, caught her ankle, fell over and broke her hip. They let her go to the hospital – and while she was there, changed her status to ‘retired’ so it wouldn’t count as an on-the-job injury. That should give you a flavor of what it was like to work there.

The only real safety training was the program that the lab technicians put together themselves, and that luckily the lab management didn’t try to squash. It was actually quite effective.

I don’t know what it will take to get professors to change their ways. If the NIHand NSF make grant money contingent on lab safety, that might help, or it might create the DuPont syndrome, where everyone conspires to hide injuries and near-misses.

In the end, sadly, I think the only thing that will work is the threat of going to jail.

Permalink to Comment

17. keitje on August 5, 2012 7:16 AM writes...

"Lawyers will do just about anything to get results". Sounds like management and scientist in pharma to me.

Permalink to Comment

18. bitter pill on August 5, 2012 6:32 PM writes...

@14-according to a friend who worked at Dupont, you could not put your hand in your pocket. He told me they were not allowed to walk around with hands in pockets because if they tripped, they would not have their hands out to catch themselves.

Permalink to Comment

19. Old Timer on August 7, 2012 9:18 AM writes...

I'd invite Harran to give a talk. He does great science!

Permalink to Comment

20. William Osler on September 2, 2012 1:39 PM writes...

Question for discussion. Most of us have worked in a lab that did not follow safety procedures. Some had policies they ignored, some just had no policy.
When someone dies due to that behavior, who and how should someone be held accountable?
Should administration be held accountable? What level: CEO, COO, Dean, dept head?
How do we advise our staff, students to act when they end up in such a lab?

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry