Well this is something new. Apparently we have a student who is insisting on bringing their service animal to lab with them next semester. Now I don't know the purpose of said service animal, other than to say the student is not blind. I'm guessing this is more along the lines of a comfort animal, but it could be an epilepsy dog.
The issue is that the student wants to bring the animal into the lab with them. I teach Microbiology lab, so we deal in a combination of chemical and bio hazardous agents. So I'm worried about this dog ingesting something, or otherwise becoming contaminated. We read students the riot act about not using their phones in lab because of just this concern. Students must wear appropriate PPE to be allowed into lab- not sure what that would be for the dog. Given past negotiations with Disability Services, I doubt we will be able to bar keep the dog in the hall.
So has anyone here dealt with this type of issue yet? I promise to take pics if we decide the dog needs his own lab coat, booties and, and googles.
A quick search seems to indicate that lots of Universities have policies that generally allow service animals into labs, although not ones with radioactive materials or level 2 biohazards?
I don't teach labs, but I wonder if it would work to meet with the student and possibly someone with disability services or a dean in the lab where you could go over your concern and you could work with the student to assess whether this can work.
Oof, that's going to be fun. Where I am, I would push back if it were a "companion". but woukd have to allw an actual service animal.
Here are some suggestions from U Washington (https://www.washington.edu/doit/how-can-service-animals-be-safely-included-lab-classes), and Indiana University (https://protect.iu.edu/environmental-health/laboratory-safety/service-animals-in-labs.html). And here's an article from The Scientist (https://www.the-scientist.com/features/when-should-service-dogs-be-admitted-into-the-lab--64930)
They all suggest a dog in a lab should wear PPE.
The one from Indiana says only actual service dogs, and indicates they generally aren't allowed in BSL2 lab or labs with radioactive materials.
I just wanted to point out that a comfort/emotional support animal is different than a service animal. Both are governed by different sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have different legalities involved.
I have no idea how to handle the lab angle, but if it were me, I would probably reach out to your Disabilities Resource office and say that you want to make sure you understand the accommodation so that you can support the student, and ask about safety then.
Quote from: pepsi_alum on December 04, 2019, 09:59:33 PM
I just wanted to point out that a comfort/emotional support animal is different than a service animal. Both are governed by different sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have different legalities involved.
My understanding is that comfort/emotional support animals are NOT covered by the ADA at all. There are some psychiatric SERVICE animals (ie dogs with actual training to sense and interfere with an impending anxiety attack) that are covered. Individual states or schools may have their own laws or regulations governing emmotional support/therapy animals, but they are not covered by the ADA. Popular conflation of "I can bring my therapy peacock on the plane" with trained service dogs is helping nobody.
See here (https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-support-animals) for a relevant article on the differences.
Quote from: onthefringe on December 05, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
My understanding is that comfort/emotional support animals are NOT covered by the ADA at all. T
Yes, but there could be state laws or University policies that do cover them, so in terms of figuring out how to approach this just knowing that the dog might not be covered by the ADA doesn't help that much.
Quote from: Caracal on December 05, 2019, 04:13:42 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on December 05, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
My understanding is that comfort/emotional support animals are NOT covered by the ADA at all. T
Yes, but there could be state laws or University policies that do cover them, so in terms of figuring out how to approach this just knowing that the dog might not be covered by the ADA doesn't help that much.
Which is why I followed that statement with
Quote from: onthefringe on December 05, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
Individual states or schools may have their own laws or regulations governing emotional support/therapy animals.
Sometimes knowing the legalities does help. Depending on your state laws and school's regs, it is frequently easier to push back on demands about comfirt animals than other animals. The office where I am is much more willing to be flexible about proposed accommodations if I can push back and note that (for example) "comfort animals are not covered by the ADA, in our state law only dogs and mini horses can be classified as service animals, therefore another student's allergies might trump this student's desire to bring an emotional support cat to class". So even though they do broadly permit use of therapy animals, it's easier to make a case for "unreasonable accommodation in this situation" for a support animal than it is for a service animal.
Have the dog sign a waiver.
I would also think things like animal dander and hair would potentially compromise the environment/air quality/sterility of a clean lab. Or the gathering of accurate data in an animal lab.
And a work setting down the road would be unlikely to accept them (I've worked in places where I KNOW the person in charge of the animal lab wouldn't have stood for it).
It's probably something that would need to be asked/disclosed in the hiring procedure. I can see at some levels the need for support and guide dogs/horses, etc., but the overall setting also has to be considered. If it would be an impediment to doing the work down the road, would it make sense even to train for such a position now?
There's a difference between discriminating for no cause, and having to make appropriate determinations because of the unsuitability of the situation overall.
M.
As I understand it, it's not a matter of hiring, but of a student in a class who wants to bring the dog in.
I would touch base with the appropriate unit at your school and proceed as they recommend. If they say to allow it, go for it and just let the student know the risks, which are minimal IMO. I don't imagine you are using any particularly infectious microbes in an undergraduate lab and students are more likely to be exposed to hazards than a dog would be. Most service animals are well trained, and it can likely just sit in the front or something.
Personally, I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it either way.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 05, 2019, 05:06:28 AM
As I understand it, it's not a matter of hiring, but of a student in a class who wants to bring the dog in.
No, not in this case....but down the road, I don't see the folks who work with sensitive biological materials in an actual pharma lab wanting to deal with the chance of cat/horse/dog hair or dander getting in the air vents or clogging up a safety hood.
So, down the road, if it's going to be an impediment to getting a job in that environment, doesn't it make sense to evaluate that part of the issue while the student is still deciding how to prepare themselves through their schooling for real-world eventualities?
I do not endorse the idea that higher ed is blanket voc-tech training, but the lab component of things does have that dimension to it.
So, given those givens, the student has decisions to be made up front, I think.
M.
The article from The Scientist (linked upthread) has a good discussion on problems related to training for a career where the service animal will not be allowed.
Quote from: mamselle on December 05, 2019, 05:03:37 AM
I would also think things like animal dander and hair would potentially compromise the environment/air quality/sterility of a clean lab. Or the gathering of accurate data in an animal lab.
And a work setting down the road would be unlikely to accept them (I've worked in places where I KNOW the person in charge of the animal lab wouldn't have stood for it).
It's probably something that would need to be asked/disclosed in the hiring procedure. I can see at some levels the need for support and guide dogs/horses, etc., but the overall setting also has to be considered. If it would be an impediment to doing the work down the road, would it make sense even to train for such a position now?
There's a difference between discriminating for no cause, and having to make appropriate determinations because of the unsuitability of the situation overall.
M.
Yes, but I think the best way to approach this is to focus as narrowly as possible on the actual issues presented. It isn't your job to worry about this student's future career plans or how other employers or labs might handle this. The goal is to figure out whether there is a safe and non disruptive way that this student and the dog could be accommodated.
If I'm reading the OP right, they have very reasonable concerns, but aren't totally sure that this is absolutely a no, so that seems like a place to start. It seems like you could have the student, the dog and perhaps someone else come to the lab in question and then you could ask questions and assess the dog's level of training and calmness, as well as the student's exact needs.
If the lab is checking a gen ed box, then allowing a waiver is a logical choice. If the lab is a step along a career path, then now is a good time to be realistic about what continuing along the path entails at this institution. Seriously, The Scientist article has a great explanation for the small and big picture issues. Case-by-case is not the way to go for issues that will keep coming up.
Quote from: Caracal on December 05, 2019, 06:26:37 AM
If I'm reading the OP right, they have very reasonable concerns, but aren't totally sure that this is absolutely a no, so that seems like a place to start. It seems like you could have the student, the dog and perhaps someone else come to the lab in question and then you could ask questions and assess the dog's level of training and calmness, as well as the student's exact needs.
I would talk to the student, so they understand the risks and you can discuss ways to make it safe for their dog. If it really is a service dog, then it knows how to sit quietly (although even quietly sitting dogs can lick the floor randomly - I would never let my dog in a lab because he licks everything). If it is a comfort animal, you will be able to suss that out from a meeting and highlight the physical risks to their dog of bringing it into the lab and they might decide to back off the demand if the disability services won't allow you to refuse.
Quote from: mamselle on December 05, 2019, 05:51:42 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 05, 2019, 05:06:28 AM
As I understand it, it's not a matter of hiring, but of a student in a class who wants to bring the dog in.
No, not in this case....but down the road, I don't see the folks who work with sensitive biological materials in an actual pharma lab wanting to deal with the chance of cat/horse/dog hair or dander getting in the air vents or clogging up a safety hood.
So, down the road, if it's going to be an impediment to getting a job in that environment, doesn't it make sense to evaluate that part of the issue while the student is still deciding how to prepare themselves through their schooling for real-world eventualities?
I do not endorse the idea that higher ed is blanket voc-tech training, but the lab component of things does have that dimension to it.
So, given those givens, the student has decisions to be made up front, I think.
M.
Then of course there's the question of whether one person's accommodation to allow service animals may create problems for another person with allergies or psychological issues related to animals of that type. While we haven't seen it where I work, some public libraries have been caught between accommodating some patrons who--rightly or wrongly--insist that they must have their dog with them at all times for comfort reasons, and others who--rightly or wrongly--insist that a single stray mammal hair in the environment will be the death of them. There have been reports of libraries having to take special cleaning measures after a service animal passed through before an allergic patron would consent to come back. Libraries are being encouraged to check any requests to bring service animals carefully, to make sure it isn't somebody trying to abuse the system. Genuine, necessary service animals are specially trained and certified, with documentation that can be checked.
Quote from: polly_mer on December 05, 2019, 06:44:16 AM
If the lab is checking a gen ed box, then allowing a waiver is a logical choice. If the lab is a step along a career path, then now is a good time to be realistic about what continuing along the path entails at this institution. Seriously, The Scientist article has a great explanation for the small and big picture issues. Case-by-case is not the way to go for issues that will keep coming up.
In a graduate setting, I think this would be legitimate. For undergrads, I think this is overstepping. We have no way of knowing whether the student is going to always require a dog in a lab, if this is a therapy dog for some sort of mental health issue, these things do change and evolve over time. If the student wanted to discuss this with you in a more comprehensive way, that would be fine, but I just don't think it is appropriate, kind or wise to be giving unsolicited advice about someone's mental or physical health and career choices.
Why complicate things? All the OP needs to figure out is whether or not having this dog in this lab is going to compromise the safety of the dog and/or other students. The answer might well be that this can't happen, but you can't get there by making a lot of assumptions about this student.
Dogs need PPE according to the rules of the lab. If it's a properly trained service dog, I don't see a problem with this being allowed.
https://www.rexspecs.com/blogs/news/sampson-the-lab-dog-tests-the-boundaries-of-science (https://www.rexspecs.com/blogs/news/sampson-the-lab-dog-tests-the-boundaries-of-science)
OMG that dog has its own little laboratory outfit!
Quote from: mythbuster on December 04, 2019, 01:37:10 PM
[. . . ]
I teach Microbiology lab, so we deal in a combination of chemical and bio hazardous agents.
[. . . ]
The simple answer is: no, the animal cannot come into the lab, because of safety concerns.
Quote from: spork on December 05, 2019, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 04, 2019, 01:37:10 PM
[. . . ]
I teach Microbiology lab, so we deal in a combination of chemical and bio hazardous agents.
[. . . ]
The simple answer is: no, the animal cannot come into the lab, because of safety concerns.
If the dog is trained as a service animal, it should be able to be trained to interact in a safe manner in this type of environment. To flat out say 'no' in this case, seems discriminatory. Perhaps the dog will need a designated location to sit where it is away from the activity but in view of it's owner, while still wearing the proper PPE, just like the other people in the lab. I would, however, expect additional paperwork for this student to ensure that they take responsibility if the animal behaves in a way that is outside the requirements for it to be in this environment, including any accidents caused by the animal, -- if the owner agrees to be responsible and abide by specified safety rules, why not?
I would gamble that some students would be a greater risk in the lab than a trained service dog.
Thank you all for your very informative posts! I have forwarded the Scientist article to both my chair an d colleagues to try and start the conversation. One of the big issues we run into in this regard is that we (faculty) are given no official advance notification that these students have enrolled. The student (and dog) would just show up the first day and possibly shove some paperwork at you. We really need to know in advance so we can make alternate plans if possible.
The Scientist article also shows (IMO) how rapidly these discussion can devolve into accusations of discrimination. In the cause of U of I, their hands really are tied by federal regulations and the research is clear that having other animal species in the room are detected by rodents via scents, pheromones etc.
In case of my lab, it's a BSL2 lab. While what we work with are not highly virulent pathogens, they are pathogens and good aseptic technique is required to work with them. There also have been documented cases of illness from lab class organisms that contaminated cell phones. Dogs like to sniff and lick. The floors in out lab are also not mopped as frequently as I would like. All it would take is one dropped glass culture tube for there to be a real and significant risk of harm to the animal. We really don't have room set up a "safe space for the animal. The final issue on our campus is the person in charge of safety. His incompetence is an ongoing headache for our department. While in this case I think he would be appalled at the idea of a dog in lab, it's a bit of a Pandora's box to contact him about these issues.
I would recommend that the Environmental Health Safety department of the university be asked to make the call. Make them responsible for the decision.
AJ_Katz is being logical, but:
Quote from: mythbuster on December 05, 2019, 10:59:41 AM
[. . .]
pathogens
good aseptic technique is required to work with them
documented cases of illness from lab class organisms
significant risk of harm to the animal
[. . . ]
The discussion so far seems to assume the animal is a dog. What if it's gerbil or a miniature horse?
Quote from: mamselle on December 05, 2019, 05:51:42 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 05, 2019, 05:06:28 AM
As I understand it, it's not a matter of hiring, but of a student in a class who wants to bring the dog in.
No, not in this case....but down the road, I don't see the folks who work with sensitive biological materials in an actual pharma lab wanting to deal with the chance of cat/horse/dog hair or dander getting in the air vents or clogging up a safety hood.
So, down the road, if it's going to be an impediment to getting a job in that environment, doesn't it make sense to evaluate that part of the issue while the student is still deciding how to prepare themselves through their schooling for real-world eventualities?
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to
learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
None of those things require microbiology lab training. I've never had microbiology lab education and yet I am qualified to hold those generic positions by virtue of other scientific training. Thus, the benefit to me seems pretty damn small if we're talking one microbiology lab on top of enough other scientific education to be truly qualified for those positions. Hell, I am even an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes way, way beyond my current career applications, which is one reason why I'm so skeptical that one microbiology lab is doing much of anything for anybody. We're not short on general biologists at the bachelor's level or even, to the best of my knowledge, short on people who have had one or two microbiology labs.
I also strongly disagree with our colleague Caracal, who had never mentioned either teaching a lab with safety concerns including having to deal with providing first aid and even transportation to the hospital, that the general education aspects trump all the safety aspects. If the desire is to learn a general science with lab, there are far safer labs in which to bring an animal than microbiology. Nobody's blocking anyone from attending lecture, but I will indeed be pushy about whether a comfort animal trumps my student's right to attend without the allergen aspect.
If the desire is to be on the career path to using the microbiology lab skills as were the examples in
The Scientist article, then now is indeed the time to discuss specifically how that could work as one continues in the major.
Quote from: polly_mer on December 06, 2019, 05:22:44 AM
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
None of those things require microbiology lab training. I've never had microbiology lab education and yet I am qualified to hold those generic positions by virtue of other scientific training. Thus, the benefit to me seems pretty damn small if we're talking one microbiology lab on top of enough other scientific education to be truly qualified for those positions. Hell, I am even an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes way, way beyond my current career applications, which is one reason why I'm so skeptical that one microbiology lab is doing much of anything for anybody. We're not short on general biologists at the bachelor's level or even, to the best of my knowledge, short on people who have had one or two microbiology labs.
The reason I included #9 in my list is because I strongly disagree with the premise that a student should "require" this type of training for jobs or whatever in order to take the class. Why are we even talking about it? Let employers worry about jobs. We worry about educating. If it's possible to make the classroom accessible to this student, if it's possible to educate this student in a topic they want to learn about, then that's what we should do.
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 05, 2019, 05:51:42 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 05, 2019, 05:06:28 AM
As I understand it, it's not a matter of hiring, but of a student in a class who wants to bring the dog in.
No, not in this case....but down the road, I don't see the folks who work with sensitive biological materials in an actual pharma lab wanting to deal with the chance of cat/horse/dog hair or dander getting in the air vents or clogging up a safety hood.
So, down the road, if it's going to be an impediment to getting a job in that environment, doesn't it make sense to evaluate that part of the issue while the student is still deciding how to prepare themselves through their schooling for real-world eventualities?
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
I definitely agree, the focus of university is not applied job training nor s it the professor's job to plan a career path for students. For microbiology in particular, at least where I am, there are applied diploma programs designed to train lab workers, and they tend to get hired over undergraduate microbiology students for those positions as they tend to be cheaper and are trained for that type of work. Our microbiology programs/classes at the undergraduate level are more focused on the theory and such, as it should be. So, many of our microbiology grads will not be employed as lab techs, rather, they could be leading research programs, working for large corporations to oversee food safety issues, working for government to develop relevant policy, etc. Many parts are not lab based, but do indeed require, or at least benefit, from such training.
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab.
Exactly. It does sound like it may not work to have a dog in this lab. I'm assuming IU has rules banning even trained ability dogs from Level 2 labs because they've determined that the risks to the dog and everyone else is just too great. I think the OP would be on pretty solid footing if they cited that as a precedent along with their own determination about the real and unavoidable risks involved. There may or may not be an ADA issue at play but I think the same basic rule should apply, which is that whether accommodations are reasonable needs to be about the actual situation at hand, not a lot of assumptions about the person's condition and abilities.
Quote from: polly_mer on December 06, 2019, 05:22:44 AM
I also strongly disagree with our colleague Caracal, who had never mentioned either teaching a lab with safety concerns including having to deal with providing first aid and even transportation to the hospital, that the general education aspects trump all the safety aspects. If the desire is to learn a general science with lab, there are far safer labs in which to bring an animal than microbiology. Nobody's blocking anyone from attending lecture, but I will indeed be pushy about whether a comfort animal trumps my student's right to attend without the allergen aspect.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't have any expertise in this, so I'll defer to the OP and those who do. It sort of sounds to me like it isn't safe to have a dog in this lab. Obviously, that trumps everything else. You start getting into issues of discrimination and unfair treatment when you go beyond that to make a bunch of blanket assumptions about what people are fit for based on their perceived ability. The best way to avoid this is to take the questions one at a time.
1. Can a dog be in this lab?
2. If not, is there some reasonable way that the student could replace the lab component of the course with something else, or some different kind of lab?
3. If the answer to two is no, is this a required course for the degree?
4. If Yes, is it possible that something else could be substituted without compromising the integrity of the degree?
A broader conversation about how or whether any of this is going to work only applies if none of these questions produces an acceptable solution.
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 05:43:52 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on December 06, 2019, 05:22:44 AM
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
None of those things require microbiology lab training. I've never had microbiology lab education and yet I am qualified to hold those generic positions by virtue of other scientific training. Thus, the benefit to me seems pretty damn small if we're talking one microbiology lab on top of enough other scientific education to be truly qualified for those positions. Hell, I am even an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes way, way beyond my current career applications, which is one reason why I'm so skeptical that one microbiology lab is doing much of anything for anybody. We're not short on general biologists at the bachelor's level or even, to the best of my knowledge, short on people who have had one or two microbiology labs.
The reason I included #9 in my list is because I strongly disagree with the premise that a student should "require" this type of training for jobs or whatever in order to take the class. Why are we even talking about it? Let employers worry about jobs. We worry about educating. If it's possible to make the classroom accessible to this student, if it's possible to educate this student in a topic they want to learn about, then that's what we should do.
To the extent that
some of our students will be employed where they will need this specifically, and their employers are
counting on a university education in microbiology as being adequate preparation for it, we should avoid compromising the experience for the sake of the interest of the occasional unusual student.
Someone on the old fora talked about a blind student potentially taking a course in
visual marketing. If accommodating that student would essentially require making the "visual" part insignificant, then it defeats the purpose.
As Polly said, if a person wants some sort of lab experience, there are lots of labs where the animal could be accommodated. (I'm not in biology or chemistry, so my labs would be fine with an animal. I'd be happy to work that out if it came up.) But having to change the
nature of the labs in order to make it work (like removing pathogens, etc. to make it "safe" for the dog) would undermine the value of the educational experience for everyone.
Quote from: polly_mer on December 06, 2019, 05:22:44 AM
Quote from: ergative on December 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
We're not in the job-training business; we're in the education business. We shouldn't be gatekeeping who gets to learn about microbiology based on whether we think our students have future careers in the field. And even if we were in the job-training business, there are loads of careers that students can have, which require (or benefit from) microbiology lab training, without requiring that they work in a lab. For example:
1. Science teacher in school.
2. Science journalist
3. Program officer in a science funding agency
4. Research support admin at a university
5. Tech start-up dudebro trying to do tech things with lab results
6. Manufacturing lab equipment
7. Publishing lab textbooks
8. Editing science journals
9. Being an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes beyond their immediate career applications.
None of those things require microbiology lab training. I've never had microbiology lab education and yet I am qualified to hold those generic positions by virtue of other scientific training. Thus, the benefit to me seems pretty damn small if we're talking one microbiology lab on top of enough other scientific education to be truly qualified for those positions. Hell, I am even an educated human being with knowledge and experience that goes way, way beyond my current career applications, which is one reason why I'm so skeptical that one microbiology lab is doing much of anything for anybody. We're not short on general biologists at the bachelor's level or even, to the best of my knowledge, short on people who have had one or two microbiology labs.
I also strongly disagree with our colleague Caracal, who had never mentioned either teaching a lab with safety concerns including having to deal with providing first aid and even transportation to the hospital, that the general education aspects trump all the safety aspects. If the desire is to learn a general science with lab, there are far safer labs in which to bring an animal than microbiology. Nobody's blocking anyone from attending lecture, but I will indeed be pushy about whether a comfort animal trumps my student's right to attend without the allergen aspect.
If the desire is to be on the career path to using the microbiology lab skills as were the examples in The Scientist article, then now is indeed the time to discuss specifically how that could work as one continues in the major.
And this comment is precisely why the ADA exists, so that university faculty and ex-faculty who have hiring authority aren't allowed to say: "Oh, nobody who needs THAT could ever do THIS job."
I teach lots of students who plan to enter a field that has many specific exemptions for the ADA. I cannot refuse any reasonable accommodation, just because I don't think a student will be able to meet the requirements of the licensure. The exemptions change, in part because some people push past the gatekeepers.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2019, 07:28:01 AM
To the extent that some of our students will be employed where they will need this specifically, and their employers are counting on a university education in microbiology as being adequate preparation for it, we should avoid compromising the experience for the sake of the interest of the occasional unusual student.
If you said this aloud at my place you'd be disciplined.
If you said it again, you'd probably be fired.
If you acted on this belief, you'd definitely be fired, and the institution would be facing a lawsuit. And rightly so.
Quote from: dr_codex on December 06, 2019, 07:41:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2019, 07:28:01 AM
To the extent that some of our students will be employed where they will need this specifically, and their employers are counting on a university education in microbiology as being adequate preparation for it, we should avoid compromising the experience for the sake of the interest of the occasional unusual student.
If you said this aloud at my place you'd be disciplined.
If you said it again, you'd probably be fired.
If you acted on this belief, you'd definitely be fired, and the institution would be facing a lawsuit. And rightly so.
Please elaborate. If Marshwiggle's term "compromise the experience" were rephrased into the regulatory terminology of "making an unreasonable accommodation", what is the problem?
Quote from: Hibush on December 06, 2019, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on December 06, 2019, 07:41:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2019, 07:28:01 AM
To the extent that some of our students will be employed where they will need this specifically, and their employers are counting on a university education in microbiology as being adequate preparation for it, we should avoid compromising the experience for the sake of the interest of the occasional unusual student.
If you said this aloud at my place you'd be disciplined.
If you said it again, you'd probably be fired.
If you acted on this belief, you'd definitely be fired, and the institution would be facing a lawsuit. And rightly so.
Please elaborate. If Marshwiggle's term "compromise the experience" were rephrased into the regulatory terminology of "making an unreasonable accommodation", what is the problem?
The whole sentence is the problem. On the one hand, we have this group of serious students whose employers demand that they master a skill; on the other, we have the hobbyist's enthusiasm of "the occasional unusual student". The bias runs all the way through.
I'm not in a lab field myself, but I can appreciate that animals in lab spaces pose significant challenges, especially when there are risks of biohazard. I can quickly list several courses on my campus in which a service dog, for instance, would be difficult to accommodate. But the accommodations would not be impossible; they would require imagination, ingenuity, and probably some financial cost. They would fail, however, if the default assumption were that it was impossible, impractical, and/or a casual whim.
I was trying to think of a comparable course. My friend teaches SCUBA classes. Some of his students aspire to be Navy SEALS, and some of his graduates have gone on to be rescue divers who jump out of helicopters. I assume that Marshwiggle would concede that the employer of these students demands that they are SCUBA certified. You know what? My friend's classes also include students with developmental disabilities that you might be able to imagine; these students find a world of motion in the water that they only dream of on land, and it's a transformational experience. They might not become SEALS, but many of them might well find a career working in and under the water. So, I got to wondering: what if a SCUBA student turned up with a therapy dog? It turns out that you can certify as a pet diver. (Cats, too, if you're curious, and have a life to spare.) I'd be scared s***less doing this, since I found open-water dive training scary enough, but so what? Somebody who needs a service animal to dive would find a way, and I'd hope that they'd find an instructor open-minded enough to try.
I'm also not naive that the legal obligations for colleges and universities are not the same as the professional requirements for some fields. If my colleague's student happens to have, or develop, certain kinds of color blindness, that student's future as a SEAL would be gone. But that doesn't allow my colleague to bar that student from his courses. Maybe that SCUBA skill will be used for civilian purposes, or to teach the next generation of divers, or to explore the Marianas Trench. Not my friend's call to make, as long as the student is not a danger to him/herself or others. (Back to this last point in a moment.)
My real point is my first one. If you bleat out the assumption that a "special student" is going to get in the way of "the greater good", you're going to find all kinds of reasons to deny accommodations, and pretty soon you're going to get sued. Who else will you keep out of your labs? The deaf student, who needs somebody to sign? The student in a wheelchair? The dyslexic? The student with prosthesis? The student with ADHD? Your student in recovery who has tremors? Your surgeon with Tourette's? Are they all "that occasional unusual student"?
I'm very sympathetic to the OP. This is a tough call, and because it's a new one, you and your institution probably don't have protocols and procedures in place. Some of the other posters have made what sound to me like reasonable ways to proceed. Health and safety of students, staff, and faculty paramount. Integrity of the course, including fair treatment of all students, secondary. Modifications to course delivery, made as needed. Yes, some accommodations are going to be practically impossible for your place, at this time. There has to be a reasonable limit, but you are legally obliged to ensure that you've made a good-faith effort to ensure that that limit was reached. If, at the end of the day, you really feel like you took your best shot for everybody, then rest easy.
Hibush, does that clarify my remarks? I don't think you verbal slight-of-hand does much, because I don't think Marshwiggle's post is in any way improved by it. In fact, it highlights how much initially is for the drug companies, and how little to any campus constituency.
Is it wrong that I'm thinking that any lab that is safe for a poorly trained undergraduate is probably safe for a well-trained dog?
Anyway, I agree with dr_codex on this one. And to the original posted question, the nature of the service provided by the animal is between the student and the disability office. The only thing we should be concerned with as faculty is whether or not an accommodation is feasible for the subject. In this case, the feasibility hinges on whether or not the animal will be safe in the lab. If the class cannot be made safe for the student and their animal, then they'll have to find an alternative. But I'd approach it as communicating the risks and requirements and letting the student determine whether or not that is possible.
If the issue is wear PPE and don't lick the floor, communicate that to the student. There's guidance in the literature (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871553215000614) and places that sell PPE specifically made for dogs (https://www.anythingpawsable.com/protective-gear-service-dogs-eyes-ears/).
I use the regulatory term in place of what Marshwiggle may have intended as a paraphrase.
What we are required to do is make reasonable accommodations. We are not required to make unreasonable accommodations. If a student, or the accommodations office, makes a request that the instructor feels is unreasonable, then it should be perfectly acceptable for them to explain that to the accommodations office. Doing so should not get them disciplined.
It's possible Marshwiggle meant that its inappropriate to make any accommodatione, and I misinterpreted that. Even if that was the intent, why would not the procedure for getting the instructor in compliance be the same as for that rule as for any other of the myriad regulations under which we operate?
I agree that the utility of the class seems immaterial to that question.
Quote from: dr_codex on December 06, 2019, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 06, 2019, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on December 06, 2019, 07:41:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2019, 07:28:01 AM
To the extent that some of our students will be employed where they will need this specifically, and their employers are counting on a university education in microbiology as being adequate preparation for it, we should avoid compromising the experience for the sake of the interest of the occasional unusual student.
If you said this aloud at my place you'd be disciplined.
If you said it again, you'd probably be fired.
If you acted on this belief, you'd definitely be fired, and the institution would be facing a lawsuit. And rightly so.
Please elaborate. If Marshwiggle's term "compromise the experience" were rephrased into the regulatory terminology of "making an unreasonable accommodation", what is the problem?
The whole sentence is the problem. On the one hand, we have this group of serious students whose employers demand that they master a skill; on the other, we have the hobbyist's enthusiasm of "the occasional unusual student". The bias runs all the way through.
The course I teach is an elective for most students who take it. It is required for a small number. If I make changes to suit the people taking it as an elective but which makes it fall short of its goals for those who require it, then that's a problem. I'm
glad that there are "enthusiastic hobbyists" and I
actively recruit them, but I have a primary
responsibility to the students who require it.
Quote
I'm not in a lab field myself, but I can appreciate that animals in lab spaces pose significant challenges, especially when there are risks of biohazard. I can quickly list several courses on my campus in which a service dog, for instance, would be difficult to accommodate. But the accommodations would not be impossible; they would require imagination, ingenuity, and probably some financial cost. They would fail, however, if the default assumption were that it was impossible, impractical, and/or a casual whim.
I was trying to think of a comparable course. My friend teaches SCUBA classes. Some of his students aspire to be Navy SEALS, and some of his graduates have gone on to be rescue divers who jump out of helicopters. I assume that Marshwiggle would concede that the employer of these students demands that they are SCUBA certified.
If completing the course is supposed to indicate being SCUBA-certified, then yes, that is what I would expect.
(Incidentally, the fact that some become SEALS is irrelevant; what matters is what the course
claims to signify by its completion.)
Quote
You know what? My friend's classes also include students with developmental disabilities that you might be able to imagine; these students find a world of motion in the water that they only dream of on land, and it's a transformational experience. They might not become SEALS, but many of them might well find a career working in and under the water. So, I got to wondering: what if a SCUBA student turned up with a therapy dog? It turns out that you can certify as a pet diver.
So if I understand this, the regulations actually address what to do in this case. In that case, there's no problem since it's a recognized option.
Quote
My real point is my first one. If you bleat out the assumption that a "special student" is going to get in the way of "the greater good", you're going to find all kinds of reasons to deny accommodations, and pretty soon you're going to get sued.
It's not about "the greater good", whatever that might be; it's about what the course claims students will be capable of when they have completed it. Any accommodations that don't compromise that are fine.
Quote
Who else will you keep out of your labs? The deaf student, who needs somebody to sign?
Possibly, if it's a music appreciation class.
Quote
The student in a wheelchair?
Possibly, if it's a track and field class.
Quote
The dyslexic? The student with prosthesis? The student with ADHD? Your student in recovery who has tremors? Your surgeon with Tourette's? Are they all "that occasional unusual student"?
Um, I'm guessing a hospital would have issues with their insurance company if they allowed a surgeon with known tremors or physical tics to actually operate on patients, but I'm not a lawyer.
Quote
Hibush, does that clarify my remarks? I don't think you verbal slight-of-hand does much, because I don't think Marshwiggle's post is in any way improved by it. In fact, it highlights how much initially is for the drug companies, and how little to any campus constituency.
What do drug companies have to do with it? Lab health and safety protocols, as far as I know, are established by
government agencies, not drug companies, and violating them has potential legal consequences, rather than just some sort of financial penalty from a pharmaceutical company.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2019, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on December 06, 2019, 07:40:01 PM
My real point is my first one. If you bleat out the assumption that a "special student" is going to get in the way of "the greater good", you're going to find all kinds of reasons to deny accommodations, and pretty soon you're going to get sued.
It's not about "the greater good", whatever that might be; it's about what the course claims students will be capable of when they have completed it. Any accommodations that don't compromise that are fine.
If the purpose of the course is to train students in advanced microbiology techniques, and the student (with the reasonable accommodation of a service animal present) is able to learn those advanced microbiology techniques, then there's no compromise in standards.
Safety/regulatory issues surrounding the presence of a dog in the lab may be valid concerns -- though, as others have pointed out, they may not be insurmountable, either.
Of course, if you're inclined to write off students with disabilities because you think that accommodating them is too much trouble or that accommodations inherently equal compromised standards, you're unlikely to figure out the workarounds.
Quote from: marshwiggleQuote from: dr_codex
The dyslexic? The student with prosthesis? The student with ADHD? Your student in recovery who has tremors? Your surgeon with Tourette's? Are they all "that occasional unusual student"?
Um, I'm guessing a hospital would have issues with their insurance company if they allowed a surgeon with known tremors or physical tics to actually operate on patients, but I'm not a lawyer.
"Dr. Morton Doran, surgeon with Tourette syndrome, appointed to the Order of Canada" (CBC Radio)
Quote from: namazu on December 07, 2019, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggleQuote from: dr_codex
The dyslexic? The student with prosthesis? The student with ADHD? Your student in recovery who has tremors? Your surgeon with Tourette's? Are they all "that occasional unusual student"?
Um, I'm guessing a hospital would have issues with their insurance company if they allowed a surgeon with known tremors or physical tics to actually operate on patients, but I'm not a lawyer.
"Dr. Morton Doran, surgeon with Tourette syndrome, appointed to the Order of Canada" (CBC Radio)
From a
Los Angeles Times article:
Quote
Morton Doran says he didn't discover he had the neurological disorder Tourette's syndrome until he was 37; by then, Doran, a general surgeon practicing in northwest Canada, was living a double life. At home, with his wife and children, he displayed the symptoms of full-blown Tourette's--motor tics, obsessive-compulsive rituals and uncontrolled, expletive-laden outbursts known as coprolalia.
But in the operating room, hovering over a patient, a different person emerged, one with a focused gaze and steady hands.
So, he was a surgeon before he was diagnosed, and in the OR he was basically asymptomatic. This isn't the same as a
student with physical tics.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2019, 03:31:58 PM
Um, I'm guessing a hospital would have issues with their insurance company if they allowed a surgeon with known tremors or physical tics to actually operate on patients, but I'm not a lawyer.
Quote from: namazu"Dr. Morton Doran, surgeon with Tourette syndrome, appointed to the Order of Canada" (CBC Radio) (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/thursday-virtuoso-s-flutes-destroyed-arctic-negatives-found-encore-presentation-david-rakoff-and-more-1.2941130/dr-morton-doran-surgeon-with-tourette-syndrome-appointed-to-the-order-of-canada-1.2941131)
Quote from: marshwiggleFrom a Los Angeles Times (http://los%20angeles%20times) article:
Quote
Morton Doran says he didn't discover he had the neurological disorder Tourette's syndrome until he was 37; by then, Doran, a general surgeon practicing in northwest Canada, was living a double life. At home, with his wife and children, he displayed the symptoms of full-blown Tourette's--motor tics, obsessive-compulsive rituals and uncontrolled, expletive-laden outbursts known as coprolalia.
But in the operating room, hovering over a patient, a different person emerged, one with a focused gaze and steady hands.
So, he was a surgeon before he was diagnosed, and in the OR he was basically asymptomatic. This isn't the same as a student with physical tics.
Dr. Doran
was a student with physical tics earlier in his life. Undiagnosed doesn't mean asymptomatic.
From a different
LA Times article (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-11-02-me-60333-story.html):
Quote from: LA TimesGrowing up, Mort Doran knew he wasn't like other kids.
The Canadian native had trouble concentrating, so he had to work harder than his classmates. And he had uncontrollable spasms of what most people would consider bizarre behavior: jerking his body, repeatedly counting things, twirling or prancing around, reading books by holding them with the spine precisely centered before his nose, making sure that if he touched something on its right side, he also touched the left side.
When his father suggested that Doran go to medical school, he obliged. After all, no one told him he couldn't, despite his quirks, which had never been medically diagnosed.
Had you observed his tics, or known that he had Tourette's, you presumably would have tried to dissuade him from becoming a doctor (or from taking your lab course, which might have prevented him from becoming a doctor) based on your (unwarranted) fears about how his tics might affect him.
Of course, if he could not function safely in a lab or medical setting with or without reasonable accommodations, it would be justifiable to exclude him. But antidiscrimination laws exist, in part, to ensure that people who hold unjustified prejudices about the capabilities of individuals with disabilities don't have carte blanche to deny them opportunities for spurious reasons.
As Namuzu sussed out, I wasn't just picking hypotheticals out of the air.
It's amazing what people can do when they aren't blocked. "I'm sorry, Ludwig, but you'll never make it in this business. Maybe you should consider a trade." (Anticipating the rejoinder that Beethoven wasn't deaf when he broke into the business, there are lots of professional musicians who were. I'm sure your lawyer can look them up.)
I repeat: "guesses" about the law are going to get you sued.
Quote from: Hibush on December 07, 2019, 01:37:39 PM
What we are required to do is make reasonable accommodations. We are not required to make unreasonable accommodations. If a student, or the accommodations office, makes a request that the instructor feels is unreasonable, then it should be perfectly acceptable for them to explain that to the accommodations office. Doing so should not get them disciplined.
+1. This is the heart of the issue. What is defined as
"reasonable accommodation" has been steadily shifting over the years to encompass more and more situations that previously would have been viewed as "unreasonable". Much of this shift has do with the increasing numbers and types of students being documented as wanting or needing special accomodations. Much of this shift is also connected to the increasing adjunctification of the Higher Education workforce. Fewer and fewer professors either don't have the academic freedom (or the perception of academic freedom) to decline an "unreasonable" accommodation request.
A perfect example (that I witness
every single semester) is laboratory practicums. Big Urban College's laboratory courses are >80% taught by adjuncts.
Most all of the
tenure track professors
don't allow students (regardless of accommodation request) to opt out of laboratory practicums or have their practicums converted into non-practicum design. In the latter case, that would compromise the entire point of the laboratory-based course experience. So we don't let that happen. If a student needs accommodation on a scale that fundamentally restricts core assessment, that student is not qualified to be in the course. If they somehow get in the course anyway, they receive advising on withdrawing, and/or their accommodations are made to fit with existing assessment practices. Extended laboratory time, for one example. Or a special laboratory session just for those students, as another example.
But most of the
adjunct faculty at Big Urban College will allow students with accommodation requests to opt out of laboratory practicums, or have their practicums converted into non-practicum formats. Why do so many adjunct faculty drop core standards this way? Because they are afraid of student complaints, afraid of negative reviews, afraid of not being rehired. Our adjuncts also do not have offices or have office hours. They rarely advise students and don't have good mechanisms to meet with students. And finally, our adjuncts just don't have the respect or self-confidence to assert themselves as professors. What this means is that "inquiries" or "requests" coming out of ancillary administrative arms (e.g. student services, registrar) are interpreted more as demands. The adjunct faculty are far less likely to engage in dialogue, compromise on requests, and especially refuse requests.
As professional educators, it is up to us to define "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" regarding course curriculum practices. But whether or not we choose to exercise that duty can be more difficult for some than others.
Quote from: Aster on December 09, 2019, 06:23:37 AM
But most of the adjunct faculty at Big Urban College will allow students with accommodation requests to opt out of laboratory practicums, or have their practicums converted into non-practicum formats. Why do so many adjunct faculty drop core standards this way? Because they are afraid of student complaints, afraid of negative reviews, afraid of not being rehired. Our adjuncts also do not have offices or have office hours. They rarely advise students and don't have good mechanisms to meet with students. And finally, our adjuncts just don't have the respect or self-confidence to assert themselves as professors. What this means is that "inquiries" or "requests" coming out of ancillary administrative arms (e.g. student services, registrar) are interpreted more as demands. The adjunct faculty are far less likely to engage in dialogue, compromise on requests, and especially refuse requests.
I'd also imagine that the adjunct faculty just aren't particularly inclined to take on the extra work of dealing with all of this given that they are paid per course and have no contracts. When they get one of these requests they are basically looking at a decision tree where allowing students to opt out of the lab leads to using some sort of alternative they've already created for students. If they say "no you can't opt out of labs," they go to the other side of the tree, which is filled with things that will take time and energy and nobody will pay them extra for. If there is a reasonable accommodation that probably means they have to stay longer in the lab, or arrange a separate lab. If there is no good alternative, that might mean meetings with the student and various administrators and the chair. At best, that's not a fun way to spend your time. At worst, it might not help their chances of being rehired. As an adjunct, I tend to assume that the less my chair thinks about me the better.
Yes, another problem with adjunctification is the inherent part-time status of most adjunct faculty.
If the professor is only on campus once or twice per week (or worse, only on campus for limited hours in a work day) it may be more difficult for those professors (and their students) to use campus services. Like alternate class meeting times. Alternate office hour times. Alternate assessment times. Alternate assessment buildings and classrooms. Test Center times.
Part time faculty deserve to have resources that allow them to operate as regular professors. They need office space, need to have (paid!) weekly office hours, and need to be easily accessible to the rest of the faculty in their department. This allows professional collegiality and collaborative problem-solving to deal with complex issues... like unreasonable student accommodation requests. Keeping a "temp" faculty system in place that isolates/ignores adjuncts is self-destructive to best education practices.
Quote from: Aster on December 11, 2019, 08:23:37 AM
Yes, another problem with adjunctification is the inherent part-time status of most adjunct faculty.
If the professor is only on campus once or twice per week (or worse, only on campus for limited hours in a work day) it may be more difficult for those professors (and their students) to use campus services. Like alternate class meeting times. Alternate office hour times. Alternate assessment times. Alternate assessment buildings and classrooms. Test Center times.
Part time faculty deserve to have resources that allow them to operate as regular professors. They need office space, need to have (paid!) weekly office hours, and need to be easily accessible to the rest of the faculty in their department. This allows professional collegiality and collaborative problem-solving to deal with complex issues... like unreasonable student accommodation requests. Keeping a "temp" faculty system in place that isolates/ignores adjuncts is self-destructive to best education practices.
Yeah. Having an office makes a huge difference for me as an adjunct. It means I can have regular office hours and meet with students by appointment without it being a huge extra burden since I'm just there between classes anyway.
Just as a heads up, the American Society for Microbiology just updated their safety guide for teaching labs. It includes an entire section on just this issue!
https://www.asmscience.org/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1975 (https://www.asmscience.org/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1975)
Thanks, mythbuster!
Quote from: mythbuster on January 09, 2020, 02:21:52 PM
Just as a heads up, the American Society for Microbiology just updated their safety guide for teaching labs. It includes an entire section on just this issue!
https://www.asmscience.org/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1975 (https://www.asmscience.org/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1975)
I would liket to be a fly on the wall when the following guidelines are discussed with the student
Quote from: ASB Biosafety guidelines
Paws covered - The service animal should have their paws covered when they are walking in the lab to protect them from potentially getting cut by glass or picking up pathogens that might be lurking on the floor. This requirement is no different from students having to wear shoes in the lab.
Impervious covering - If the animal must be at the bench then the animal should be covered with an impervious covering so as to protect the animal from potential spills. We must always keep in mind that the animal will be below the bench surface so any item that rolls off of or liquids that spill off of the bench could potentially harm the animal.
Eye Protection - The service animal should wear goggles/eye covering to protect the animal from spills (just as we protect the eyes of our students).
Timely...
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/29/800911230/service-animals-in-the-lab-who-decides