Next month, the institution where I am employed will be implementing a mandatory drug-testing policy for all employees. There are concerns among the staff here about the accuracy of the technology to be used. Do any of the subscribers to this list already have similar programs in place at their institutions, and can they comment on how they are working? The policy consists of an initial test for the presence of illegal drugs in urine through an immunoassay method which meets the requirements of the federal Health and Human Services Administration (presumably the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique also known as EMIT d.a.u., now considered state-of- the-art by many laboratories). The test is simple-minded in nature: positive or negative. Positive specimens are to be subjected to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis to confirm the results. These results will then be reviewed by a Medical Review Officer (MRO) who will determine whether there is a legitimate medical or other explanation for the positive result. The decision of the MRO will be final. Employees who refuse to submit to the drug testing, adulterate specimens or otherwise interfere with the testing process, or refuse to enter and complete an approved rehabilitation program will be terminated as a voluntary quit. It has been pointed out by staff members here that false positive results are possible. The ingestion of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, fenoprofen, and naproxyn), tricyclic antidepressants, pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, valproic acid, the synthetic sweetener cyclamate, some foreign-manufactured vitamin formulations, poppy seeds, and the application of TAC topical anesthesia (a combination of tetracaine, adrenalin, and cocaine, commonly used as an anesthetic during the sewing of small lacerations) can all cause a false positive response in the EMIT test. If the laboratory where these tests are performed adheres to what is known in the industry as Good Laboratory Practise (analytical machinery is kept properly calibrated and the procedures carried out by qualified technicians), the secondary GC/MS will frequently differentiate between illegal and over-the- counter drugs. However, in some cases, such as pseudoephedrine and ephedrine (ingredients commonly found in cold medications) GC/MS analysis will render a chemical signature virtually identical to methamphetamine unless special reagents are utilized. These are some of the concerns that staff members at the institution where I work have about the new program. It has not yet gone into effect, of course, and staff fears may prove to have been unnecessary. Meanwhile, we'd welcome comments on the application of similar policies in museum settings, particularly those receiving federal grant monies. I would also like to hear about experiences of false positive results reported through such tests and how institutions, laboratories, and medical review officers dealt with these aberrant data. Brett Charbeneau, Journeyman Printer P.O. Box 1776-MHW Williamsburg Imprints Program Williamsburg, VA 23187 Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Tel: (804) 229-1000 INTERNET: [log in to unmask] FAX: (804) 221-8948