Saier said the biological sciences division closed his computer and research lab without warning, cancelled approved BISP 199 applications for Winter Quarter 2011 and expelled all lab volunteers, though the department later placed a limit on the number of students allowed.
Environmental Health and Safety specialist Sarah Gordon conducted a routine lab audit on Dec. 1 and reported that there were five minor violations. These violations included contaminated liquid media, chemical supplies or equipment that was not stored in an earthquake-proof manner and lab materials blocking an exit.
“None of them sound like egregious offenses,” Saier said. “This was a normal report.”
On Dec. 15, Saier found out his lab had been closed, effective immediately, from a posted sign. Later on, he found a letter on his desk from biological sciences dean Steve Kay notifying him of the lab’s closure and received notice via e-mail from the biological sciences associate dean Richard Firtel.
“I received no prior notification,” Saier said. “I received no opportunity to explain the situation. They did not tell us anything until after closure. As far as I know of, this is unprecedented. Nobody that I know of has ever been shut down in a similar way. Locks were changed.”
According to Saier, EH&S said the lab was closed due to two concerns.
“One was that they were concerned that there might be safety violations [and] students would be in an unsafe environment,” Saier said. “The other was because I always have taken a large number of undergraduate students …
They were concerned that I was taking more students than we could mentor.”
Kay could not be reached directly. UCSD Science Communications Director Kim McDonald released the following statement.
“The safety of students within our campus laboratories is of paramount concern for the Division of Biological Sciences. We take seriously our responsibility for ensuring a safe working environment in all of our laboratories. We also want to make sure our students are working in a laboratory environment.”
McDonald was unable to comment on Saier’s case.
“Though we cannot discuss the specific details of this case, some safety concerns were identified by the Division and therefore, as a precaution, the laboratory was temporarily closed…”
On Dec. 16, EH&S conducted a second inspection without notifying Saier. According to Saier, compared to a typical 30-minute inspection, the second one took two hours and no members were present to clarify lab conditions.
“A second, much more intensive audit was conducted, where every drawer was opened and examined and every shelf was scrutinized,” Saier said. “No member of our lab was allowed in.”
The next day, Saier received reports for both the Dec. 1 and Dec. 16 inspections.
“The contrast was dramatic, even though there had been only a two-week lapse and there had been no essential changes,” Saier said. “The first one was conducted in the usual way [while] the second one was conducted with a fine-toothed comb.”
In the first report, there were only five minor violations. The second report had 27.
“Some of them were just redundancies,” Saier said. “[Others] reflected the fact that we had no one to show them where things were. For example, they claimed that some of the people in the lab had not taken the necessary health and safety classes. We could show we’re in the book but they hadn’t found it.”
The redundancies listed missing safety training documents and improperly labeled chemical storage and wastes. The second report also found a compound in an old container that looked yellowish brown.
“I specifically asked them to explain every single violation and to point out the problems that existed,” Saier said. “We looked at this bottle. [But] when I opened the cap, it was clear that it was yellowish-brown because the compound itself was yellowish-brown. We weren’t there, so we weren’t allowed to explain everything.”
On Dec. 18, Saier said he met with EH&S research safety manager Kenneth Smith and found that although the notification stated EH&S closed the lab, it was due to communication with Firtel who said the “biology [division] does not have confidence in Saier.”
According to Saier, Kay assumed responsibility.
“[EH&S] did not initiate the closure of the lab,” Saier said, “but [EH&S] did approve it assuming that [the] biology [division] had reasons for ‘not having confidence in Saier.’”
Saier said his multiple attempts to reach the administration were met with silence.
“They wouldn’t grant me an appointment,” Saier said. “I couldn’t talk to them. I could communicate by e-mail, but frequently they wouldn’t answer.”
As many as 30 BISP 199 students were affected by the closure of the lab. Approved applications for Winter Quarter were cancelled.
“When [the students] came in for winter quarter, they couldn’t start their projects, which are important for getting their masters or applying to graduate school for doing research,” Roosevelt College senior and lab volunteer Rostislav Castillo said. “If [BISP 199 students] are not receiving credit for this quarter, this might set back some students an entire year.”
Also, other lab members, such as a research associate and several graduate students, could not continue their research.
“Some of the ones who had experiments couldn’t get in, and once they couldn’t get in, they had to shut down their experiments,” Castillo said.
Saier said valuable data was lost in the process.
“We had to completely stop our research activities,” Saier said. “In addition, it meant that I could not mentor these students.”
As a result, Saier said research activity was low.
“No one knew if they were or weren’t allowed in, so most just stayed away,” Saier said. “Some of these students counted on doing research and were not allowed, so their educations were disrupted. Neither the students nor their professors were taken into account. The newly introduced regulation was more important than either the student or the professor.”
Shortly after meeting with Smith, the lab was opened to address the violations, but not for research.
“We worked very hard to do virtually everything to make the lab look as top-notch as possible,” Saier said. “We addressed every single concern of EH&S, took care of all problems. Ken even said we should dust the shelves and dust the benches, which I did. We bent over backwards just to do everything.”
The lab was reopened for research on Jan. 3, but Kay said mentors could only assist a certain number of students. This included a research associate, six graduate students and two honors undergraduate students. On Jan. 20, 10 undergraduates were allowed Previously, around 30 students worked in Saier’s lab.
Castillo said he will not volunteer for the lab until he is officially registered.
“I’m going to be taking BISP 199 next quarter,” Rostislav said. “Until then, I’m not comfortable going into the lab in case something happens with the policy.”
Following the meeting on Jan. 18, the biology chairs determined that Saier could have a maximum of 18 students. Saier said this was a limited number, since there are different types of students that work in his lab, such as work-study students and volunteers.
“I let them know that I didn’t approve of their decision,” Saier said. “But, at the same time, I always tried to follow them. I wasn’t intentionally violating anything.” Since then, Saier has been working to restore his lab to its full pre-closure capacity.
“I’ve been working with [Kay and molecular b
iology department chair Stephen Hedrick],” Saier said. “It was the first time and it took over a month from the time of closure. I explained how our lab works, how we mentor students, and they came to accept that masters graduate students could mentor new incoming undergraduates. On this basis, they expanded the number of undergraduates I could take.”
Although the department increased the number of members allowed, Hedrick said if there were more restrictions and threatened permanent closure if there unauthorized students, according to Saier.
“That is language that should never be used in an academic setting like this,” Saier said.
Saier said he has not experienced this issue before.
“I’ve been here 38 years, and have never seen anything like this before,” Saier said. “We have never had dictatorial rule like this in the past. Never has there been a work-related health problem or injury in my lab. I see no justification for the lab closure that Rick ordered. At best, it was based on incomplete information without documentation, certainly not the policy of someone objective and competent.”
Now, Saier is trying to resume research activity.
“It may be a year or more before we are again functioning at full capacity and before students are able to get the educations they want,” Saier said.
Saier said he is more concerned about the impact on students than his own research.
“Research activity has been almost zero in my lab since this happened,” Saier said. “There are lots of unhappy students and researchers. And I’m very unhappy too. But the costs are far greater than just the research. It’s the students’ education — many students came to UCSD so they can be involved in research and they’re being prevented.”
Saier said there are several reasons he did not receive proper notification.
“Rick Firtel and I have never gotten along,” Saier said. “There’s been this quiet animosity. Second, I’m 69. I’ve been told by other faculty that as soon as you turn 65, they tend to act in ways that will [make you] want to retire. I have no intention of retiring.”
Saier also cited his temporary lack of grants, as he did not receive research funds from the National Institutes of Health. However, after submitting a rebuttal for the grant within a six-month span, he received a grant that will last for four years.
“About six to seven months ago my grant wasn’t funded,” Saier said. “It’s against university policy to try to force a person out because they don’t have grants. But I think that’s what happened.”
Saier said his next step is to speak with a university mediator this week.
“[They] will advise me as to who should deal with the issues of academic freedom and harassment,” Saier said. “[Professors are] guaranteed by the academic freedom rights that we can conduct research and do our teaching as we see fit. If there is to be a review, it is to be conducted by the body of the faculty, not by a specific administrator.”
Readers can contact Regina Ip at [email protected].
