Case-Study Discussion Assignment - Week 2 - Mentoring and Lab Safety

pdf

School

University of California, Los Angeles *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

C234

Subject

Biology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by BailiffDanger13132

Case-Study Discussion Group Assignment from C234 – 2020 – Week 2 Mentor/Mentee Relationships and Laboratory Safety Case 1 1 : Unmet Productivity Expectations Perspective 1 – Rob Woods* *names changed Perspective 2 – Dr. Lila Ames* Perspective 3 – Rachel Curran* Rob Woods is a second-year pre-doctoral student in neurobiology. His mentor, Dr. Lila Ames, helped Rob select a research topic for his dissertation and was proactive in getting him started in the lab. Dr. Ames provided Rob with written guidelines and benchmark dates for completion of various phases of the project. Rob recognized that this project is particularly ambitious and appreciated the need for the rigid deadlines Dr. Ames imposed. After a few months, however, Rob is concerned that he may have difficulty meeting these deadlines: his wife is pregnant and he is overseeing the care of his father, who has early-onset Alzheimer's disease and resides in a local assisted-living facility. Rob has not disclosed either of these facts to his mentor. Rob began the project enthusiastically but after a year is overwhelmed by the combination of the demands on him coming from both his research and his personal life. Rachel Curran, a senior postdoc in the lab, assures him that Dr. Ames will understand, since he can’t be blamed for health issues like his father’s illness or his wife’s pregnancy. Rob finally tells Dr. Ames about his situation to explain his modest progress. Rob is shocked at Dr. Ames' negative reaction to his disclosure. Dr. Ames is very upset with Rob for not providing this information sooner and implies that Rob has compromised the progress of the lab's overall research program by not being honest with him when he began as a trainee. She immediately assigns Rob to a different research project that does not have as many time constraints and deadlines. Dr. Ames tells Rob that the work he has completed will be given to another student, who will be able to meet the time deadlines. Dr. Ames mentions that when the work is completed, she will look at Rob's contribution and decide at that point whether Rob should be an author on the paper reporting the findings of the project. Rob becomes pretty disheartened at this turn of events. He heads home early from the lab to regain his composure and also makes plans to meet with Rachel again, for advice. Rob Woods:  If you had disclosed your other responsibilities at the start of your training, do you think it would have negatively affected your career?  How does Dr. Ames’ reaction affect your view of her as a mentor? How would you consider adjusting your future mentor relationship with Dr. Ames? Dr. Lila Ames:  Have you acted appropriately?  Is it fair to remove Rob entirely from the project?  How could you have prevented or mitigated this circumstance? Rachel Curran:  What is your new advice to Rob? Are there compromises Rob could suggest to Dr. Ames that would allow him to continue working on his initial project?  How do you think this situation will affect lab dynamics? 1 Adapted from: Macrina, F.L. (2005). Chapter 3: Mentoring, Case Study 3.2. Scientific Integrity, Third Edition (pp. 55-60). Washington, DC: ASM Press.

Case 2 2 : Unreasonable Rules? Perspective 1 – John Brandt* *names changed Perspective 2 – Prof. Woodworth* Perspective 3 – Jessica Evans* Rotation student, John Brandt, and Professor Woodworth have met several times to discuss possible projects that John might take on for his doctoral dissertation research. During the last discussion, Woodworth recites a series of rules that he applies uniformly to his advisees. He indicates that he wants John to know the rules of his laboratory fully before making a decision to join the lab. Most of the issues covered are straightforward, reasonable, and come as no surprise to John. However, one rule surprises and concerns him. Woodworth says that he does not permit his laboratory members to enter into romantic relationships with one another. Should such a relationship develop, he insists that one of the parties in the relationship find a new advisor and a new laboratory. John argues that this is direct interference with personal matters and that such relationships are of no concern to the advisor. Woodworth counters with the fact that twice in the past 5 years his laboratory has been significantly disrupted by romantic relationships between his student advisees. These situations have resulted in ill will, diminished productivity, and a negative effect on the overall morale of his laboratory group. Professor Woodworth indicates that he has carefully considered the implications of such relationships and has decided that the only reasonable thing to do is to prevent the problems they create by asking those involved to decide which of the two of them will leave the laboratory. John discusses his concerns with Jessica Evans, one of Prof. Woodworth’s more senior trainees. She tells him about a situation that occurred a couple years earlier in which the dramatic break-up of a lab couple led to chaos. One of the pair found she was no longer able to work in the same environment as her ex and left the lab. This left everyone else waiting for the results of a central, critical research project for months until her expertise was replaced. Jessica finds the policy a little invasive, but everyone who was there during The Big Break-Up accepts the policy as necessary. John Brandt:  If you feel this policy interferes with personal matters, to whom would you address your concerns?  Do you see potential for conflicts of interest arising from couples in the lab, even happy couples? Prof. Woodworth:  Why do you think it is important to move one member of a relationship out of the lab before any problems arise?  Do you think this policy creates an atmosphere in which lab members are more secretive about their personal relationships, and does that hurt the lab? Jessica Evans:  Having been negatively affected by relationships in the lab, how would you suggest managing lab relationships?  Do you think this is an example of good mentorship or bad mentorship, why? 2 Adapted from: Macrina, F.L. (2005). Chapter 3: Mentoring, Case Study 3.3. Scientific Integrity, Third Edition (pp. 55-60). Washington, DC: ASM Press.

Case 3 3 : Criticism or Bias Perspective 1 – Isabela Gomez, Graduate student Perspective 2 – Samantha Miller, Postdoc Perspective 3 – Dr. Darrell Thompson, PI Dr. Darrell Thompson is the PI of a well-established bioengineering lab. Isabela Gomez is a first-year graduate student who has recently joined his lab. Dr. Thompson has been helping Isabela settle in by assigning Samantha, a postdoc with several years of experience, to mentor her and give her small starter assignments. Isabela and Samantha get along well, and she quickly picks up on the required tasks and knowledge. Isabela is able to complete her assigned lab work, though there are a few mistakes here and there and she sometimes struggles to balance lab and class demands. Samantha is able to easily correct Isabela’s mistakes and tells her not to worry, giving Dr. Thompson positive reports whenever he checks in. One night, Samantha and Isabela are at the lab working late on a project. As they finish up, Isabela’s girlfriend arrives to pick her up and the two hold hands in front of Samantha as they leave. After this, Samantha suddenly seems to be less tolerant of Isabela’s mistakes, admonishing her for the same level of work, and telling Dr. Thompson that her work has not been up to par. After several of these reports, Dr. Thompson meets with Isabela to determine what is going on. Isabela admits that she is having some difficulty balancing lab and class work, but that she didn’t think she was making more mistakes than previously. She notes that these comments started after her girlfriend visited the lab and suggests that perhaps Samantha has been treating her differently due to her queer identity. When asked, Samantha denies any such bias and responds that she simply expected Isabela to have adjusted to graduate school and to not make as many mistakes as when she first entered. Dr. Thompson is not exactly sure how to handle the situation. He and the university do not approve of bias based on sexual orientation or any other facet of an individual’s identity. He has never noticed Samantha exhibiting such bias in the past, but it may be because this type of situation hasn’t come up before. Samantha and Isabela are working on important joint projects, so they must be able to work well together. Isabela Gomez:  How do you hope Dr. Thompson will handle this situation?  How would you approach your continuing mentorship relationship with Samantha?  If the situation cannot be resolved within the lab, what other more formal steps might you take? Samantha Miller:  If a mentee’s performance is of concern, how could you approach these issues without the perception of discrimination?  How should lab members deal with cultural and social differences among coworkers? Dr. Darrell Thompson:  Views on identities such as sexual orientation are not easily changed with a simple discussion. What can you as the faculty mentor do to help resolve this situation?  What can be done to support diverse students working in your lab?  How can you develop a culture of acceptance within your laboratory/work group? 3 Adapted from case-writing assignment, Spring 2015, submitted by Andrea Gaeta, Bioengineering PhD Program

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Case 4 4 : Burnout Perspective 1 – Undergraduate, Jill Montgomery* *Real EH&S case report Perspective 2 – Research Assistant, Anabeth Michaels* with names changed Perspective 3 – Professor Adam Chang* The following report emerged from a laboratory safety accident at UCLA. Jill Montgomery reported that she was preparing 2 L of growth medium (LB broth) to which she planned to add rifampin dissolved in methanol (2 mL). While preparing to mix the solution, Jill flamed a bottle of methanol (in an attempt to sterilize the lip of the bottle) which caught fire. She quickly placed the bottle onto the countertop causing some of the methanol to splash out of the bottle. Her blouse caught fire, and she attempted to put out the fire with her hand. When this was unsuccessful, she dropped to the ground and rolled to try to smother the fire. Another undergrad, who had been working with Jill, entered the room and assisted her in removing her blouse and undershirt to the floor. Anabeth Michaels came into the room and extinguished the fire by inverting an autoclave tray over the flames to smother it. Jill was immediately escorted to the Arthur Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center for medical care. She was seen by a physician and treated for 1st and 2nd degree burns on her left thumb, little finger, palm, biceps, and upper torso near the armpit. These areas had scattered 1 to 2 inch burns with some blistering. She was released from the Ashe Center the same day. Jill reported that she was not wearing a lab coat or safety glasses at the time of the incident and that it was not standard procedure to wear a lab coat or safety glasses (PPE) when completing this procedure. When asked about specific training for this procedure, she indicated that she had watched this procedure for a few weeks in the previous quarter and completed the procedure under supervision prior to finals week. On the day of the incident, another undergraduate asked her to assist with the procedure and briefly left the room to put away some chemicals at the time of the incident. When asked if she was familiar with emergency procedures including location of safety showers and fire extinguishers, Jill indicated she was not. She reported that she had been seen for follow-up by Arthur Ashe Health and Wellness Center and “felt fine”. Anabeth relayed that she was not in the room when the incident occurred but was involved in the response after being informed of the incident. She entered the room after Jill had managed to remove her blouse and undershirt to the floor and was able to put out the burning clothing by using an inverted autoclave tray. Anabeth reported that she is the laboratory research assistant and is responsible for training staff members working in the laboratory. She reviewed training records approximately 2 weeks ago and realized that Jill and another student volunteer had not completed the Lab Safety Fundamentals Concepts Class training and registered them for the class on a future date. Dr. Chang reported that he was not in the room at the time of the incident but was in his office within the lab area. When he first learned of the accident, Dr. Chang contacted EH&S to report the injury after ensuring that Jill was getting care and being escorted to the Ashe Center. Dr. Chang also stated that Jill had been in his lab since the beginning of the previous quarter and noted that she had been working in the lab for several months. He also mentioned that she had not yet completed Lab Safety Fundamental Concepts Class training and acknowledged that she was not wearing PPE at the time of the incident. Jill Montgomery:  Were you adequately prepared to perform this experiment?  Whose responsibility was it to make sure that you had adequate safety training?  What should you do if you feel you are not ready to perform a procedure safely? Anabeth Michaels:  What is the usual responsibility of a lab manager or research tech for ensuring lab safety?  What changes to lab procedure will need to be made to ensure that this incident isn’t repeated? Adam Chang:  Is it appropriate to have people working in the lab who have not completed safety training?  What is the responsibility of the PI to ensure the safety of lab members? 4 Adapted from UCLA EH&S Laboratory Accident Incident Report

Case 5 5 : Breathing Barium Perspective 1 – Professor Allison James* *Real EH&S case report Perspective 2 – Graduate student, Derek Tran* with names changed Perspective 3 – Postdoctoral Scholar, Yolanda Philips* A potential chemical exposure occurred today in the lab of Professor Allison James. A container of barium oxide powder broke spilling the contents (estimated to be in excess of 100 grams) inside the chemical storage cabinet. Two of the lab’s personnel, Derek Tran and Yolanda Philips, attempted to clean up the spill before alerting Dr. James. The incident was then reported to EH&S at approximately 4:22 PM. EH&S personnel responded to the scene at approximately 4:45. When questioned, Yolanda Philips and Derek Tran both reported that they did not wear respiratory protection during the cleanup. Additionally, Yolanda Philips complained of dry mouth. Since barium oxide is a potential respiratory hazard and since symptoms can be delayed for several hours, she and the other potentially exposed person, Derek Tran, were instructed to go to the Ronald Reagan Medical Center for evaluation. They were also provided an SDS to give to the attending physician. This was done as a precaution as no other symptoms were reported from the potentially exposed personnel. The room was sealed using red caution tape. EH&S personnel equipped with Tyvek suits, half-face respirators with P100 cartridges, neoprene gloves, and goggles cleaned up the spill by removing all traces of the chemical powder. Additionally to remove any trace amounts the cabinet area was wiped down with ethanol. EH&S personnel disposed of the waste materials from the clean up as hazardous waste, the room was unsealed, and EH&S personnel left the scene around 5:30pm. Dr. Allison James:  How might your lab members have been better prepared to handle a hazardous material spill?  What are the responsibilities of a PI following a hazardous spill? Derek Tran:  What was wrong about how you and Yolanda handled the cleanup?  As a lab member, what is your responsibility in the situation of a hazardous material spill? Yolanda Philips:  Has the potential for injury in this situation changed your level of attention to lab safety?  In the wake of this incident, how do you hope your lab reacts?  What is an SDS (formerly called an MSDS)? 5 Adapted from UCLA EH&S Laboratory Accident Incident Report.

Case-Study Discussion Assignment - Week 2 - Mentoring and Lab Safety

Related Documents