Comfort/Service animals in labs

[scamp]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[AJ_Katz]

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

[Aster]

OMG that dog has its own little laboratory outfit!

[spork]

[. . . ]

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.

[AJ_Katz]

[. . . ]

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.

[mythbuster]

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.

[AJ_Katz]

I would recommend that the Environmental Health Safety department of the university be asked to make the call.  Make them responsible for the decision.

[spork]

AJ_Katz is being logical, but:

[. . .]

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

[. . . ]

[secundem_artem]

The discussion so far seems to assume the animal is a dog.  What if it's gerbil or a miniature horse? 

[ergative]

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[ergative]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.