The minutes from the December meeting were approved with minor typographical corrections.

Richard Ford, the new committee chair for the winter term, requested committee members to take a look at the agenda enclosures before the next RPC meeting. Ford also requested from OVPR staff a chart showing research expenditures by school and college, and showing external and internal funding.

Judy Nowack said all UM faculty will be receiving a letter signed either by both Gilbert Omenn and Fawwaz Ulaby or by Fawwaz Ulaby alone regarding the importance of human subject protections. She said a more visible education system on human subject protections which is ongoing and mandatory, reaching all investigators, is expected by the federal government.

Tim Killeen gave a few brief updates. His own term as Associate Vice President for Research (natural sciences) ends this April. Julie Ellison’s term as Associate Vice President for Research (humanities) has already ended. Two search committees have been appointed to find successors, and the anticipation is to have the new appointees begin in May.

Tim Killeen said the selections have been made in the Geosciences initiative and three new interdisciplinary teams will receive seed funding. Also, the UM has responded aggressively to the NSF interdisciplinary proposal call. Killeen said the biocomplexity initiative at NSF is another announcement of opportunity with an environmental perspective.

Michael Hanna said that OSEH disseminates information about laboratory safety and best practices and strives to accomplish continuous improvement. He said safe research operations are those which are under good control, and with the knowledge of the principal investigator (PI). Incidents can happen when the PI does not know what is occurring or when someone decides to try something creative without proper training and preparation. OSEH expects that if the PI is not frequently in the lab overseeing operations, then the PI will put someone in a position of responsible authority on their behalf. Hanna directed the group to a handout which lists the essentials for approval and safety in various types of research.

Richard Ford asked who is required to take laboratory safety training. Michael Hanna said the University’s Standard Practice Guide does not clearly say everyone has to, but Hanna works under the assumption that everyone must. He said with UROP, for example, OSEH is trying to get on the UROP list of standard requirements for undergraduates. He said currently students are trained in the lab initially on one protocol, but then when the research changes they may not be prepared. OSEH training is broader and would prepare students for more risks.

Bruno Giordani asked how this all is communicated to PIs, and noted the large number of undergraduates that a single PI might have come through the lab during an academic year. Hanna cited and discussed OSEH’s new document “Planning Safe Research” which is now on the web, and ready for wider distribution. He said they were asked to spell out in this document very clearly what the resources are within OSEH and at the UM.

Leslie McClure said many PIs don’t go into the lab regularly, and it’s the graduate students who do most of the work. Hanna said in these cases the PI needs to appoint someone to be in charge. He noted also that when labs are shared by PIs sometimes both parties think the other one is taking responsibility. He said when problems occur labs can be shut down, reactively.

Richard Ford mentioned an example with regard to antiquated equipment. For instance, what if a student has a concern about the safety of a piece of equipment or a certain procedure requested of them and the PI does not share the concern. Where can the student go? Michael Hanna said students and others can come to OSEH anonymously for a risk assessment. OSEH is in the labs once or twice a year anyway, so they can then do an evaluation and give advice to the student and PI. He said OSEH would be the primary recourse for a student in such a case.

Tim Killeen asked if a risk assessment of the campus as a whole were done today what would be the largest areas of risk. Hanna said risk management would likely note first, the undergraduates, and second, visitors to research labs. There was a discussion of the problem of children being brought into research labs, and it was noted that some of the undergraduates are very young as well. Additionally, there are high school students who sometimes get to visit and work in labs.

Bruno Giordani said one way to approach getting the word out would be to go to faculty directly or to each department or to DRDA. He suggested approaching UROP students as a whole group. He said telling them stories of what can go wrong will help it to sink in. Giordani also said the departments should have lists of who the students are in their area who are doing research.

Giordani asked about the size of the training groups. Hanna said it is usually about 40 people per session, and all are welcome including undergraduates. Richard Ford said some students are doing independent research, and some are work-studies who are asked to do procedures in lab. He noted these groups may be larger than the UROP group. Jill Macoska said the OSEH training schedule may not be good for undergraduates, and Hanna said he and his colleagues can come directly to the student. Hanna said there is a Safety Coordinators Conference coming up in March, arranged by OSEH. Safety coordinators are individuals in departments who are aware of new employees and can get them to come to training.

Richard Ford said we keep emphasizing students, and they are the greatest risks. We are trying to get more and more students involved in research, but without the proper training they can be placed in unsafe situations. He noted that the evolution of research on this campus is so fast, and there may be places where research is occurring which is not in a traditional lab space as in certain sections of anthropology. He said faculty may be trying out a certain procedure with, for instance, knowledge of chemistry from 30 years ago. Hanna said he has recently issued a report on anthropology risks and OSEH is now committed to making changes there with engineers going out to see what needs to be done. Ford said it is very difficult to catch all these situations without a reporting responsibility for the PIs, that is, for them to report changes that are occurring in their research techniques.

Jill Macoska pointed out that undergraduates are very transient. She said if you want to get an accurate count of students working in labs, you have to do it once a term at least. She said a lot of PIs may not even be aware that undergraduates need this training or where they can obtain it.

Xiao-Ying Yu said it seems that training is focused on people who are totally new to a lab or to laboratory research in general. She asked what types of continuing training are available to create awareness of what to do in difficult situations that arise even for experienced people. Michael Hanna said that is a very important area and sessions are given in the College of Engineering and the Medical School dealing with specific risks. There are also some sessions like this in LSA. Otherwise, OSEH instructs PIs that it is their responsibility to do the ongoing, upgraded training.

Roberto Kampfner asked if is there a mechanism through the grant proposal process to indicate that special safety measures are needed on a project. Hanna said required safety programs as a condition of grants is a growing area, and DOD is an example of a sponsor that requires a safety program plan. OSEH is compelled to go out to labs in instances like this. Judy Nowack said there is a check-off on every Proposal Approval Form that asks about particular types of research that may require oversight.

Regarding the Flint and Dearborn campuses, Hanna said they have their own safety people who report to the Chancellors of those campuses. They meet once a month with OSEH staff here in Ann Arbor.

Joseph Rahme suggested incorporating information and training about laboratory safety at freshman orientation, to catch all students early-on. Mike Hanna said currently with all science majors taking chemistry, they are instructed there and OSEH attends those sessions. Rahme said that doesn’t seem sufficient since many students from other majors are likely to end up in labs at some point, as a work-study or otherwise. Hanna agreed and said in these instances currently the burden is on the investigator, who must have certain expectations for how their lab is run.

Richard Ford suggested a web page that would lead people into training, no matter what their discipline. That web page could be announced to people and could be used through UROP. Xiao-Ying Yu agreed and said she has taught the 100-level chemistry class and the students are either very afraid or over-courageous in the training. She said counting on that as the basic and lasting training is not enough, since some students maintain poor habits after this first training encounter.

Leslie McClure agreed with Yu, and said first year students cannot be expected to absorb everything necessary from their first training session, or even to know then what questions to ask. She suggested lab safety training be incorporated into all lab classes even at higher levels. She noted that perhaps this should be each academic department’s responsibility since there are too many classes for OSEH to handle. Jill Macoska agreed that lab safety information needs to be provided at different tiers, for different levels of experience. Macoska said it seems the emphasis in departments has been on employees and this needs to expand to focus on students.

Joseph Rahme asked if OSEH keeps any statistics on laboratory accidents. Michael Hanna said injury and loss statistics are kept by Risk Management, and our rates are lower than the national average. He said Gilbert Omenn is striving for zero tolerance at the Medical School. Some of the existing risk has to do with old buildings and equipment. Hanna said he can provide a statistics report to OVPR to share with RPC. He said he had gained many good ideas from the meeting today with regard to focusing on students.

Richard Ford reminded RPC members that they are invited to the Research Associate Deans Group meeting today at 2:00 to discuss the National Science and Technology Council Report “Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21^st Century.”