Janet Stemwedel is not unfamiliar to readers of the blog; her comments on the Sheri Sangji case are well-known here. Early in August (right after the Baudendistel gambit was revealed), I recorded a conversation with her. The results are below, for your listening pleasure. Click if you'd like to hear a lengthy (but interesting!) conversation on academic chemical safety and the Sangji case. A brief guide is below.
Note: the podcast has been edited for clarity, with some "ums" removed. Please forgive the sound quality and general lack of prettiness. Perhaps soon, I'll get theme music, etc.
0:00 - 20:00: Introduction, general conversation about the Sangji case and academic chemical safety.
12:30: The Langerman/Benderly proposal to tie chemical safety to grants and tenure.
19:29: How industrial chemists have reacted to the Sangji case, as opposed to academic chemists.
30:00: "What is a just punishment for Prof. Harran?" Janet convincingly suggests that a just punishment is not particularly important (in the grand scheme of things), as opposed to the overall response of the academic chemistry community.
37:50: CJ asks, "Is part of the problem that academic chemical safety is not considered the PI's territory?"
52:30: Janet calls on the academic chemical community to change its chemical safety culture, long before legal action from the Harran case concludes. Janet suggests that younger chemists might consider safety culture in choosing graduate schools.
56:25: Discussion of the Baudendistel gambit.
1:04:10: Janet and CJ HULKSMASH on the "Sheri Sangji was an experienced chemist" myth.
1:09:00: We loop back to the response of the academic chemistry community to the Sheri Sangji case.
Please give us feedback on the podcast! I'd (we'd!) love to do more, and those of you who know what you want and like, please let us know what worked and what didn't!