Two weeks ago, as part of enzyme analysis work here, we ordered a kilogram of high purity sucrose manufactured by International Biotechnologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Eastman Kodak Company. Sucrose is used to reduce diffusion and mixing during one of our procedures. In due course, a wonderful bottle and data sheet arrived -complete with six-digit lot number, purity specifications, chemical data, and a list of 15 alternative names for sucrose including: beet sugar; cane sugar; confectioner's sugar; fructofuranoside, alpha-D-glucopyranosyl, beta-D; beta-D-fructofuranoside, alpha-D-glucopyr-anosyl; glucopyranoside, beta-D-fructofuranosyl, alpha-D; alpha-D-glucopyranosyl beta-D-fructofuranoside; (alpha-D-gluco-sido)-beta-D-fructofuranoside; granulated sugar; NCI-C56597; rock candy; saccharose; saccharum; sucrose (OSHA); and sugar. The data sheet even provides the LD50s (amount required to kill 50% of the animals) for rats and mice to three significant figures -29700 mg/kg and 14000 mg/kg, respectively. Apparently, five pounds of sugar has a 50-50 chance of killing a 170 pound rat - or man if he behaves (biologically) like a rat. (We are apparently safe, since there are only 2 pounds in our bottle.) This is all very scientific. The data sheet provides, however, additional advice. Included are: "First Aid - In case of contact, immediately wash skin with soap and copious amounts of water. If swallowed, wash out mouth with water provided person is conscious. Call a physician. Wash contaminated clothing before reuse.'' "Steps to be taken if material is released or spilled - Chemical safety goggles. Use protective clothing, gloves, and mask. Sweep up, place in a bag and hold for waste disposal. Avoid raising dust. Ventilate area and wash spill site after material pickup is complete.'' "Waste disposal method - Dissolve in water and dilute to a 5% solution. Check the pH and adjust it to 7 if necessary. Pour the solution down the drain with running water and continue to flush the drain system for 10 minutes, provided that rules at your place of employment or local, state, and federal guidelines allow you to do so. If you are unable to flush the solution down the drain or in doubt about the suitability of the method, use a licensed waste disposal company. Observe all federal, state, and local laws.'' Is this why Hillary Rodham Clinton avoids making cookies? I am not a sucrose advocate. I avoid feeding it to children and think that it is not an especially healthful food for adults either - although, in one experiment we conducted, sucrose
It is included because these manufacturers in New Haven, Con-necticut, are evidently frightened that they will be attacked in courtrooms or by government bureaucrats if they provide inadequate warnings. Their lawyers have probably advised them to include draconian warnings on every chemical that they produce - not for the safety of the users, but for their own legal and regulatory safety.
So, why do we not laugh this off in "Stark Raving Mad'' and forget it? After all, who reads safety data sheets anyway? As chemists, we can surely rely on our own knowledge about laboratory dangers. Right? Wrong! There are many special circumstances in which familiar, usually harmless substances can become very dangerous. This sort of practical information is not taught to young scientists today as was ordinarily done two generations ago. "Crying wolf'' in the material data sheets diminishes the chance that safety information will be heeded when it is really necessary.
More importantly, the insinuation of false information into the environment of science undermines the fundamental integrity upon which the intellectual substance of science and technology depends for its survival. Dishonesty is entirely incompatible with scientific inquiry. There will, of course, always be occasional dishonest scientists, but false statements must not be allowed to become an ordinary and tolerated part of scientific discourse. Incorrect statements, whether or not they are inadvertent errors or deliberate lies, must be habitually hunted down and eliminated by scientists.
If intolerance of error is not a routine part of science, progress slows or stops because the errors compound until neither experimental observations nor theoretical constructs are reliable. Moreover, to the extent that science is politically important, tolerance of error turns the facts of science into just another source of controversial opinion -rather than anchors of truth which can be relied upon.
Why shouldn't the peer review grant process encourage exaggeration and falsehoods of omission without which the scientist will lose his support? After all, these proposals just wind up in file cabinets. Everyone understands the game. Why shouldn't safety sheets contain bizarre and false warnings? We all know the reasons. No one pays attention. Why shouldn't scientists cook their results and make exaggerated claims to get their political point of view on the evening news? The opposition does the same thing. This is the real world.
Why should scientists speak up when they see obviously false or exaggerated claims by other scientists about global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, chemical apocalypse, or species extinction being used to set public policy? After all, false and erroneous statements have become a way of life. We cannot be expected to fight them all.
Every laboratory that receives this sucrose from Eastman Kodak should send it back - with a letter of explanation: "If your safety data is this far wrong, how can we trust your purity data? If your laboratory personnel are no smarter than this, we cannot trust your chemicals as a part of our experiments.'' They would, no doubt, reply that the devil made them do it - one with government horns and a regulatory pitchfork. Fine, make them fight that devil. Science cannot tolerate lies, regardless of their origin.
It is fashionable today to consider uncompromising honesty, strict rules of integrity, inflexible codes of honor, and intolerance of error as obsolete artifacts. Those who exhibit these properties are thought of as troublemakers - politically incorrect throwbacks from the past. Scientific knowledge and the scientific method rest, however, upon the shoulders of people who have these characteristics.
We agree with the data sheet. Lot # 7B0250 of sucrose from East-man Kodak
is dangerous - it does not belong in any laboratory.
|
|
Vol. 23, No. 8
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 23, No. 8 Date: April 01, 1996 02:52 PM Title: Sweet and Dangerous
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|