Memory Lane: Laboratory science before safety data sheets

Chemical safety has changed markedly since I was an undergraduate chemistry major. As a senior in the 1980s, I took an advanced organic chemistry course in which each student worked with a different substrate in reactions involving 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (yes, that reagent!). For those of you unfamiliar, this reagent is flammable, shock-sensitive, and toxic. At that time, there were no safety data sheets to consult or US laws that give workers the right to know about hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

The risks of working with this reagent became very real when I was working alone (yes, alone!). Though I was fortunately working in a fume hood, my reaction mixture exploded. Some of the mixture landed on the lab carpet (yes, carpet!) and ignited. Because I had no formal training in emergency response, it took me several minutes to figure out how to properly operate a fire extinguisher before I finally put out the blaze.

The incident was never discussed afterward. (We now know that debriefings can be a powerful experience.) The assistant professor teaching the course wrote up the project and published it with all our names on it, without asking for our permission to be included as coauthors (a separate but notable lapse in professional ethics). My graduate experience, at a leading research institution, was not much better in terms of chemical safety culture. During my doctoral studies, multiple serious fires and explosions occurred in and around my research group, including one incident where a postdoc and I followed Environmental, Health, and Safety guidance to combine and dispose of unlabeled chemicals. When I mixed two such bottles in a fume hood, the waste container exploded, and I was rushed from the safety shower to the infirmary.

Today we have in many ways moved to the opposite extreme. I increasingly see teaching laboratories emphasizing water-based procedures, providing preprepared reagents in simply labeled containers, and, in some cases, eliminating common tools such as Bunsen burners, scalpels, and syringe needles. While these changes are well intended, I am concerned that they may inadvertently limit students’ opportunities to develop the practical judgment and technical competence required to work safely in real-world chemical environments. There is something to be said for providing a safe space to gain experience and make mistakes. It’s important for students to familiarize themselves with reagent properties and labeling, and to handle these reagents themselves. Such opportunities build self-confidence, good judgment, and the technical competence required for real-world chemical practice. Reports drawing on input from chemical industry employers consistently highlight the need for graduates to be able to recognize hazards, evaluate risks, and make sound safety decisions in real time. These are skills that cannot be developed in an overengineered teaching laboratory environment.

Sometimes when we attempt to improve systems, we overcompensate. We need to pause and ask: What skills do our students actually need to be both safe and productive in industrial and research settings? And are we adequately preparing them to meet those expectations? My own early experiences underscore the importance of not avoiding risk altogether but teaching students how to recognize it, manage it, and act decisively when it matters most.

Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of C&EN or the American Chemical Society.