Like most scientists, I greatly dislike paperwork.
But like most unpleasant tasks, there are usually silver linings, even if they are a little tarnished.
With respect to the renewal of our authorization to use radioactive materials in the laboratory, for which I am responsible, every little gesture I make towards completing the file is an accomplishment. I feel proud of myself for having made a step toward completing something that is so profoundly disagreeable and yet necessary to enable my colleagues to get their work done. And I will be passing the responsibility on to someone else at the end of next year, so every such exercise is a step closer to that goal.
With respect to obtaining the right to import and export human tissues (embedded, fixed and sectioned) between our French lab and a similar research group in England, the silver lining is it makes setting up a Materials Transfer Agreement (MTA) a piece of cake in comparison.
The back story is that I had requested some complimentary tissue sections to our own samples from my English colleagues, back when the Science Blogging 2008 conference took place in August. Since the London-based HDBR is now licensed by the Human Tissue Authority, they must ask for an MTA from us as they do from anyone else (finding this out wasted two months right there).
Because they asked for an MTA, our legal department, who unlike me as an individual is authorized to sign it on behalf of my parent organization (INSERM), has informed me that only the INSERM itself can be authorized by the Ministry of Research to import/export human tissues. Not labs, not researchers. Because of that requirement, I have to submit a file to the INSERM that the “Clinical Research and Therapy” Department will then complete with a couple more lines and submit to the Ministry of Research, which then has three months from the time of submission to when they must issue a decision. This is quite bad for our experiments overall, but I am now resigned.
After all, what is requested is commonsense assurance of a few seemingly obvious principles. Former consent of the donor is one and no payment to the donor is another. We also have to promise in writing to ship or receive shipments that are appropriately packed so as to not present any risk to the public in transit. But what is the law at its best but codified common sense? So I bend myself to the task at hand, even though from start to finish for these promises to be registered in the right place and for us to see the effect, we will have lost 6 months’ research time.
Although this is only very tenuously related to the above, in my trawling for links I came upon the debate at the English House of Lords about organ donation. Do you think that families have the right to override either the explicitly expressed wishes for, or the absence of expressed opposition to, organ donation from a deceased family member? If so, what if the family is divided? What if the daughter is for and the brother is against?
Is this an example of the bureaucracy the French civil service is so famous for?
Two prime examples.
Although when I do run into bureaucracy in the U.S. I am usually disillusioned.
US bureaucracy is mechanical, I thought the French was more of an artform.
It’s no accident the Marquis of Sade was French.
Well its something regarding practice and ethics.
No regional issues but the committment to attend reality for those who wish to initiate, search and RE-search for best outcomes. Seconds (time)makes the century (Era). We have to capture time—- We hit- we get, we miss- we loose. Regulations should value the work of researcher, not lines and fines.
When it comes to organ donations, I don’t believe the family should be able to override the decision of the deceased. It is understandable that they may not be able to bear the thought of it at such a difficult time, but the the fact that the life of another person is in the balance should be prioritized, in accordance to the original wishes of course.
What if the deceased was against donation, but had not put that in writing? I believe in France, that organs can be taken for donation as the default decision is to donate as opposed to not. I’d agree with the previous comment, but I could imagine the survivors’ outrage if they knew the original wishes were against and, even if there was a life in the balance, the cadaver was used anyhow. (I definitely can sympathize with frustration in the other direction, which is why I’ve made my wishes quite public to donate any useful organs in the US, UK or France, whereever I happen to be when I die.)