Chemists sometimes have to work with extremely hazardous substances. And that means safety is paramount. A recent fatal incident involving hydrofluoric acid at Hokkaido University in Japan is a reminder to all laboratory scientists that we must never forget this maxim.
The more hazardous the experiment, the more planning is needed to understand and mitigate the risks, as well as preparing safety measures in case something goes wrong. Nevertheless, incidents such as this tragic loss of a student’s life do, unfortunately, still occur. When they do, they must be properly investigated, so that lessons can be learned – and shared – to help prevent similar incidents recurring.
University laboratories should be places of creativity, where innovative solutions to problems can be explored. That will inevitably involve elements of risk. Learning to assess and manage that risk is a crucial part of any chemist’s development. Researchers need a combination of guidance and freedom to hone their skills and independence, taking greater responsibility for decision-making as they progress through their projects, to work out which risks are worth taking.
But there are limits to how far such independence should extend. The day before the incident in Hokkaido, an entire chemistry building at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US was closed for several days after a student reported they had synthesised and been exposed to the potent neurotoxin dimethylmercury.
MIT’s investigation suggests that the student may not have actually made dimethymercury as they claimed, and initial blood tests showed no sign of mercury exposure. The lab and student’s accommodation were decontaminated, and the building was re-opened a few days later.
But that still leaves important questions for the investigation. Dimethylmercury poses an enormous risk: it is extremely toxic, it can be absorbed through the skin and it passes through standard lab gloves very quickly – a tragic lesson learned in the case of Karen Wetterhahn, who was killed by a tiny spill onto her glove. For almost any conceivable use of this chemical, there are well-established and significantly safer alternatives. The most obvious question, therefore, is how this student got into the position where exposure to dimethylmercury was even possible.
The university has confirmed that the compound was not authorised as part of the project. It’s unclear whether the student was deliberately attempting to make dimethylmercury, or whether they had reason to suspect it had been produced inadvertently. The former would indicate a serious failure of safety processes and guidance; the latter – while still serious – could conceivably turn out to be an example of a student who was acutely aware of the potential hazards and acted appropriately when that hazard may have been realised.
I can only hope that the results of both MIT and Hokkaido University’s investigations are eventually shared with the community, so that we can all learn to be safer.
