I have another yes/no-to-annual-training question: Does your institution
require annual training of all users of any chemicals, regardless of
previous training or expertise, regardless of employment-entry training,
and regardless of situational training (e.g., as new chemicals arrive)?
For those of you who wonder, I am asking a series of "annual training"
questions -- you may remember the one about research animal use -- because
our institution is on the verge of "throwing in the towel" and keeping it
simple, just in case: Require, every year, all users of animals,
chemicals, radioactive substances, and biohazardous agents (over and above
bloodborne-pathogens-act stuff) to document having received training,
without regard to prior training or expertise. One of our delemmas each
year is "Who trains the trainers?" Another: How does an institution
provide appropriate, professional training -- year after year -- for the
chemists, or the nuclear physicists, or the infectious disease
specialists? The situations can be ludicrous. I do not want anyone to
misunderstand. We are committed to -- and we practice -- MEANINGFUL
training in all categories. We are committed to -- and we practice -- all
federally-mandated training, including the annual training required by the
Bloodborne Pathogens Act. But the training should be ad hoc to the
immediate needs of the people in need -- not an otherwise arbitrary annual
compliance requirement. I'm merely seeking (in a quick and informal way)
others' opinions on these issues.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
{ Jon Martin, Ph.D., Research Coordinator for the Dean's Office and }
{ Associate Professor for Microbiology }
{ Mercer University School of Medicine }
{ 1550 College Street, Macon, GA 31207 }
{ }
{ E-mail: xxxxxx@gain.mercer.edu }
{ Phone/Voice-mail: 912-752-4060 }
{ FAX: 912-752-5487 }
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}