Procedural sequelae Ames from that first review. Here is the full version of all that I did to response to what
I knew to be a very inaccurate and unaccetable review.
list things that were done, who you met with, etc. ...therefore there was much reaction from my part.
In meeting, the lack or written response was raised, and I was left with the strong impression that given
all of the above, no written responsewas needed. I am there fore very surprised to see this mentioned here.
In this memo, my lack of response to the “original written appraisal and interview” despite my “promise”
is reproached. He had asked me, at the beginning of the meeting, why I had not responded and I told him
I did not want to “stir up the sediment.” He left you with strong impression that it was perfectly
fine not to respond, given all of the above. For the record, this was the response I had prepared:
Owing to the fact that the Department was relatively new, have been working mostly on validations
studies and a few client studies. On 1 June, I have taken additional responsibilities
and was promoted. I was very pleased by the resulting sudden increase in the amount and pace of work.
There have been increased demands on my time and I’ve had to supervise several studies at once,
requiring a greater amount of organization. During that time, I’ve had to direct most of the studies
performed in the department. I have greatly enjoyed the challenge. Very soon after the promotion,
I underwent an “interim performance assessment” which was followed by a memorandum dated 25 July.
I hereby acknowledge the contents of the letter, take full responsibilities for my actions, and will
be happy to take appropriate corrective measures where applicable, with the exception of the important
points outlined below: Procedural sequelae Ames
“Procedural standard worksheets are amended without justification and errors are introduced.”
The standard worksheets are part of an SOP, and I have not changed a single comma.
When asked what this point was about, Ray Proudlock related the following incident: during an Ames test,
I had requested from the technical staff that they pour the top agar in the deepest 2/3 of the laminar
flow hood, because the shallowest 1/3 has a pronounced slope and results in uneven bacterial lawns.
I do not believe that this constitutes an amendment in a procedural standard worksheet, but felt it
was scientifically justified in the light of a recent study with a borderline positive outcome.
It was extremely difficult to ascertain whether a plate should be compiled in the results or not,
because plates were sometimes toxic on one half, but not on the other.
