Lab Culture-Draft Report

Laboratory Safety Culture
Survey 2012 – Draft Report

A collaboration by the UC Center for
Laboratory Safety, BioRAFT and Nature
Publishing Group
Overview of initial findings

September 2012
Laura Harper and Fiona Watt, Nature
Publishing Group
Laboratory Safety Culture Survey 2012 September 2012
Background and Methodology

The methodology and the data collection instrument for this study were designed in collaboration by the UC Center for Laboratory Safety, BioRAFT
and Nature Publishing Group, and the research was conducted by Nature Publishing Group.
The overall aim of the study was to explore researchers’ general perceptions of lab safety measures and practices. In addition to this general aim,
five key research questions were decided upon for the study to help to answer:
1. Do scientists feel effectively equipped with the knowledge and tools required to enable them to be safe in their laboratories?
2. Do laboratories which consider their research to be higher risk have a better safety culture?
3. Do researchers perceive a significant gap between their own and their superiors’ view on lab safety?
4. Is compliance with safety procedures perceived to be directly correlated with the severity and frequency of injuries/incidents in the
laboratory?
5. Are safety inspections perceived to improve safety culture?
The survey was sent out to the audiences of the three project collaborators (NPG, UC and Bioraft). The main focus for data collection was
laboratory researchers in the United States and United Kingdom, although the sample was not restricted to this group. Respondents were primarily
target by direct email, along with a press release for the project issued by NPG and advertising of the survey via social media channels (Twitter and
Facebook).
The survey went live on 13th June 2012 and was closed on 30th July 2012. Overall 2360 completed responses were received.
All data were anonymised and the Center for Laboratory Safety at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who commissioned the study,
shared overview results with Nature.
Nature Publishing Group, who co-launched the survey together with the firm BioRAFT which provides software for safety compliance, then
conducted its own analysis to pick out significant trends. UCLA has permitted publication of overview data but is retaining the raw dataset for
closer analysis in 2013
2
Research Questions – Key Findings

As was mentioned in slide 2, prior to commencement of this study, six specific research questions were set. This slide uses data from the study to provide answers to these
questions:
Do scientists feel effectively equipped with the knowledge and tools required to enable be safe in their laboratories?
The message from the data is generally a positive one with the vast majority of laboratory researchers (86%) agreeing that their labs were a safe place to work and that
appropriate safety measures have been taken to protect employees from injury (85%).
More than 80% felt that they had received sufficient training in order to be both compliant with the rules and regulations related to their lab duties and to effectively minimise the
risk of injury to themselves and others in the lab. Further, regarding the availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), majorities also agreed that their labs always have
sufficient supplies of PPE (93%), and that the equipment is certified and is in good working order (87%).
Although the overall picture is positive, it is clear that there is room for improvement. All questions regarding the improvement of safety, both overall and for the prevention of
injuries, split the respondent group, with the proportion of positive responses significantly lower than for other questions. A second concern that the data highlighted was that
although majorities felt that they had received sufficient training, one quarter reported that they hadn’t received any training for the specific hazard(s) that they work with.
Do laboratories which consider their research to be higher risk have a better safety culture?
No significant differences in safety culture were identified between those labs that are considered (by their organizations) to be higher risk and those which aren’t. The observed
differences that were reported were that frequent users of pyrophoric materials and pathogenic organisms were slightly more likely to agree that safety in their lab could be
improved and those who work in high risk labs were more likely to undergo more frequent inspections by the institution’s safety department.
Do researchers perceive a significant gap between their own and their superiors’ view on lab safety?
When asked to rate the importance that is placed on lab safety by themselves and others in the lab, 95% said that they themselves considered safety important, with 53% selecting
‘very important’. When rating their supervisors, these 81% said safety was considered to be important or very important by this group (40% ‘very important’). Overall, 29%
selected a higher level of importance for themselves than they did for their supervisors, 60% rated both groups at the same level and 11% selected a higher importance rating for
their supervisors than they did for themselves.
Is compliance with safety procedures perceived to be directly correlated with the severity and frequency of injuries/incidents in the laboratory?
Opinion was split on the impact that compliance with safety procedures has on injuries in the lab - roughly half (51%) of those who were aware of at least one major injury agreed
that the number of major injuries could have been reduced if lab safety procedures were always followed - compared with just over a third of those aware of at least one minor
injury who agreed that the number of minor injuries could be reduced. However, 37% disagreed that minor injuries could be reduced and 26% disagreed that major injuries could
be reduced if lab safety procedures were always followed, indicating widely differing opinions.
Are safety inspections perceived to improve safety culture?

68% of respondents felt that safety is improved as a result of safety inspections (19% felt the improvement was significant), with 29% of respondents of the opinion that
inspections either don’t improve safety or have a negative impact.
3
Highlights
Along with the key findings that address the research questions, analysis of the survey results resulted in several other interesting discoveries,
including:
• The majority of respondents (85%) felt that appropriate safety measures have been taken in their lab to protect employees from injury, although a
sizable number - 45% - agreed that overall safety could be improved. This opinion was even more commonly held in larger labs, with 55% of those
working in labs of size 20-100 employees agreeing that it was possible to make improvements to safety. (slides 41 and 42)
• The survey found high levels of lone working in laboratories, with only 7% of all respondents saying that in their labs people never conduct
experiments while working alone. For the other 93%, more than one third (35%) reported that people conduct experiments while alone every day
and 80% said lone working occurs on at least a weekly basis. (slide 13)
• 40% of junior and supervised respondents reported that their supervisor did not regularly check their performance in terms of safety. (slide 23)
• Of smaller labs (staffed by fewer than 11 people), nearly one in ten has no individual specifically responsible for lab safety. (slide 28)
• More than a quarter of respondents (28%) felt that safety inspections/audits have no significant impact on safety, although only a negligible
proportion (1%) said that safety is compromised by the frequency of inspections. (slide 49)
4
This Report
This report provides an overview of the findings from this study. It is not intended to be provide an in-depth analysis of the data but rather to
provide the starting point for additional analyses.
The survey data has been reported in 11 main sections:

- Respondent profiles: Providing an overview of the respondent group including levels of seniority, geography, lone working and lab sizes;
- Measuring and Assessing risk in the Lab: providing information on perceived risk levels in the lab, the extent of use of potential hazards and
mechanisms used for assessing risk;
- Safety Training: Exploring the tools used for lab safety training and researcher perceptions of the appropriateness of the training that is
provided;
- Awareness and responsibility: An overview of researchers’ views on whether they themselves and others in the lab are aware of their safety
requirements and an assessment of their understanding of who has overall responsibility and legal liability for lab safety;
- PPE and Equipment in the lab: Exploring the extent of usage of PPE and researcher views of the availability and safety of the equipment in
their lab;
- Injuries and incidents: Reporting respondents’ experiences of incidents and injuries in the lab, their attitudes towards reporting incidents and
injuries to supervisors and perceptions regarding whether greater compliance with lab safety rules could reduce the number of injuries;
- Overall safety: Exploring researchers’ perceptions on whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure safety and whether safety in
their labs could be improved;
- Safety inspections: Providing an overview of the frequency of lab inspections and perceptions as to the impact of inspections of lab safety;
- Importance of safety: Reporting perceptions of how respondents rate the importance that is placed on lab safety by themselves and others in
the lab and how lab safety is prioritised alongside other issues in the lab. This section also explores barriers to lab safety;
- General attitudes: Provides an overview of respondents’ general views about working in their labs, their relationship with their colleagues and
views around discussing lab safety issues;
- Demographics: This section provides additional respondent background – age, institution type, discipline and primary language.
As well as reporting the overall responses to questions, where relevant, question data was cross-tabulated with the information provided in the
Respondent Profile section of the report. Where these analyses were notable, they have been included in the body of the report. Cross-tabulations
that were not notable have not been included but details can be provided on request.
5
Respondent Profiles
6
Geography
The primary aim of this survey was to explore perceptions of lab safety
measures and practices among lab researcher in the United States, which is
Japan, 2% why those from the US make up the bulk of the respondent group.
Other, 10%
China, 4% A secondary aim was to compare perceptions among lab researchers in the
US with those in the United Kingdom, which is why the UK is the second
most represented country.
We were also interested in the perceptions of researchers working in Japan

Other EU, 6% and China but as this was not one of the key aims of the study, significant
effort was not put into recruiting respondents from these countries.
United United For China the total number of respondents was 97 and for Japan was just 59.
Kingdom, States, 62% The findings for these groups have been included in this report, where
15% relevant, but given the small sample sizes caution must be taken when
interpreting the results.
Region Base Size

United States 1460
United Kingdom 356
Other EU 151
China 97
Japan 59
Please indicate the country in which you are currently performing research. Base: Total Other 237
sample (n= 2360)
7
Job titles and Senior/Junior groupings

Graduate student (PhD) 24%
Post-doc 17%
Principal investigator 17%
Research scientist 14%
Professor 12%
Lab manager 8%
Lab technician 6%
Throughout this report, we compare responses to some questions for those in senior versus
Staff scientist 5%
junior job titles. The nature of scientific job titles and structures of labs is such that it is not
Senior scientist 4% always possible to accurately assess whether a job title represents a junior or senior member of
Graduate student (Masters) 3% staff. For the purposes of this report, ‘juniors’ are those who have one of the following job titles:
- Undergraduate student
Teacher 3%
- Graduate student (PhD)
Undergraduate student 2% - Graduate student (Masters)
Health and safety professional 2% - Post-doc
‘Seniors’ are those who have one of the following job titles:
Research director 2%
- Principle investigator
Head/Chair/Director of department 2% - Professor
Governmental agency staff scientist 2% - Senior industry researcher
- Research director
Industry research scientist 1%
- Head/Chair/Director of department
Senior industry researcher 1% - Vice chancellor/Vice President of research/operations
Process engineer 0% - CEO/Chancellor/President
These two groupings account for 1734 (73%) of the overall response group (2375).
CEO/Chancellor/President 0%
Vice chancellor/Vice president… 0% Seniority level Base size
Other 2% Junior 1091
Senior 643
Q: Please select the title(s) that best describes your current role/position. (you may select more than one) Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
8
Lab size and respondent experience

The graph to the right represents the lab sizes for the respondent group - respondents were asked for the 35%
number of people who work in their lab (including themselves). These responses were then grouped in 32%
four size categories (1-5 staff, 6-10 staff, 11-20 staff, 20-100 staff) The mean lab size for the response
group was 11 staff members. Throughout this report, where responses are compared for different lab
sizes, these groupings are used.
23%
15 respondents said that they worked in labs that had greater than 100 staff – a decision was taken not
to include these respondents in the analysis, as the responses given suggested inaccuracies in reporting
rather than actually being members of larger labs.
9%
The graph below illustrates the respondent group’s experience of lab work. The average respondent has
been doing lab work for 13 years and has been working in their current lab for 6 years.
Experience of working in a lab

1-5 staff 6-10 staff 11-20 staff 21-100 staff
29%
Overall
In current…
21% 22% 21%
Number of staff Respondents
16% 16%
1-5 staff 760
11% 12%
10%
8% 9% 6-10 staff 836
6% 6%
4% 4% 3% 11-20 staff 553
1% 1%
21-100 staff 209
Less than 5 5-11 months 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26 years or
months more
Q: How long have you conducted work in a laboratory setting (including current and any prior experience)? Base: total sample (n= 2375)
Q: How long have you been working in your current lab? Base: total sample (n= 2375)
Q: Including yourself, how many people work in your lab? (n=2360 – total sample minus 15 people who provided unreasonable numbers)
9
Laboratory hazards
Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently a range of hazards were used in their labs. The most frequently encountered hazards were:
• Highly/acutely toxic or mutagenic substances - used at least ‘frequently’ by half of respondents
• Recombinant DNA – used at least ‘frequently’ by 47%
• Animals – used at least ‘frequently’ by 38%
Of the hazards considered to be higher risk, 14% of labs frequently used pyrophoric materials and 20% were frequent users of pathogenic organisms.
Throughout this report, we compare responses to some questions for those who ‘frequently’ use particular hazards – frequent users are those who
selected that they either ‘very frequently’ or ‘frequently’ use the specific hazard.
2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 6% 2% 2%
13% 15%
37% 14% 42%

52% 54% 50%
59% 57% 57%
59% 63%
22% 50%
6%
8%
4% 20%
9% 9%
16% 6%
9% 11% 9% 13%
12% 10% 35% 10% 9% 11%
16%
11% 12%
11% 16% 9% 10% 13% 11%
31% 26% 10% 13% 12% 8% 9% 10%
16% 15% 12% 10%
10% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4%
Recombinant Animals Human source Highly/acutely Pathogenic Lasers Physical Viral vectors Nanomaterials Ionizing Radioactive Pyrophoric
DNA materials toxic or organisms hazards radiation materials materials
mutagenic
substances
Very frequently Frequently Rarely Very rarely Never I don't know

Q: Please use the scale below to indicate how frequently, if at all, the following have been used in your lab over the past 12 months. Base: total sample (n= 2375)
10
Organization defined risk levels
Very high risk, 2%
I don't know, 15% High risk, 12%

Respondents were asked to report the level of risk of their lab, as defined by
their organization’s safety departments and/or committees.
Very low
risk, 8% ‘Moderate risk’ was the option selected most frequently, with 14% selecting
a higher risk level and 32% selecting one of the lower risk options.
Interestingly, 15% of respondents didn’t know the view of their organization’s
Moderate risk, 39% safety department/committee(s) of the level of risk in their lab.
Low risk, 24%
Throughout the report, we compare responses to some questions for those
in high, moderate and low risk labs. For these comparisons, we use the
organization’s definition as reported on this slide.
Risk Level Base Size

High risk 338 For the purposes of comparison, throughout the report ‘very high risk’ and
‘high risk’ responses are combined to form the ‘high risk’ category and ‘low
Moderate risk 922 risk’ and ‘very low risk’ responses are combined into the ‘low risk’ category.
Low risk 765
I don’t know 349
Q: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Base: total sample (n= 2375)
11
Hours per week spent in the lab
Respondents were asked to indicate the average amount of time (in hours) that they spend in the lab each week – It is clear that a significant
amount of time is spent in the lab, with more than one third of respondents (39%) reporting that they spend more than 40 hours per week.
Overall, the average length of time spent in the lab was 32 hours, with junior respondents (see slide 8 for definition) reporting an average of 40
hours, almost twice the number of hours as the average for their senior counterparts (22 hours).
21%
Overall average:
18% 32 hours per week
15% 16%
Junior average: Senior average:
12% 12%
40 hours per week 22 hours per week
4%
2%
1-10 hours 11-20 hours 21-30 hours 31-40 hours 41-50 hours 51-60 hours 61-70 hours 71 or more hours
Q: On average, how many hours per week do you spend in the lab? Base: total sample (n= 2375)
12
Frequency of lone working

This survey recorded high levels of lone working in laboratories, with only 7% of all respondents saying that in their labs people never conduct
experiments while working alone.
For the other 93%, more than one third (35%) reported that people conduct experiments while alone every day and 80% said lone working occurs
on at least a weekly basis.
It is important to note here that the question asked “In your lab, how frequently are there people conducting experiments while working alone?” –
respondents were therefore reporting on the behaviour within their labs rather than their own frequency of working alone in the lab.
35%
29%
16%
8% 7%
6%
Every day Several times a week At least once a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never
Q: In your lab, how frequently are there people conducting experiments while working alone? Base: total sample (n= 2375)
13
Measuring and Assessing risk in the

Lab
14
Personal and organizational risk perceptions

When exploring perceptions regarding the safety risk level in respondents’ labs, respondents were asked to indicate their perception of the level of
risk in their lab, and how their organization’s safety department rates the level of risk of their lab.
It is interesting to note that 15% of respondents didn’t know what their organization’s safety department/committee’s views were regarding the
level of risk within their lab.
There appears to be a disconnect between the individual’s perception of risk and that of their organization, with 24% of respondents rating their lab
as lower risk than the risk perception of their organization safety committee. Only 1 in 10 (8%) felt that their lab should be considered higher risk
that it was currently rated by their organization.
In terms of overall risk, few (only 10%) of respondents rated their own lab anything higher than moderate risk with 9% selecting high risk and only
1% very high risk.
Level of risk Of those who provided an answer to both questions (i.e.
I believe that the level of risk of the work conducted in they did not select “I don’t know” (n= 2025)):
my lab is:
43% 68% believe their lab is the same level of risk as their
My organization's safety department/committee(s) 39% organization believes it to be
views the level of risk in my lab as:
34% 24% feel that their lab is of lower risk than their
organization believes it to be
24% 8% feel that their lab is of higher risk than their

organization believes it to be
14% 15%
12%
9% 8%
1% 2%
0%
Very high risk High risk Moderate risk Low risk Very low risk I don't know
20% of those with a junior job title
Q: I believe that the level of risk of the work conducted in my lab is: Base: total sample (n= 2375)
answered “I don’t know” compared
Q: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Base: total sample (n= 2375) with 10% of those with senior job titles.
15
Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Disciplines

• It appears that those working in Biology/Biochemistry are the most likely to feel that their institution over-estimates the risk in their labs, with
28% of this group rating their lab as lower risk than their organization.
• Those working in materials science and medicine tend to be the group who were most likely to agree with their organization’s safety rating, with
75% and 74% respectively, rating their lab at the same level.
• Interestingly, chemists had a relatively high proportion of respondents (11%) who felt that their labs were higher risk than they are considered by
organization safety committees. For Physics/astronomy, this score was higher (14%), but the low base size should be taken into account.
6% 3% 6%
8% 8% 8% 8% 11% 10%
14%
66% 65% 75%

68% 68% 74% 72%
62% 68% 69%
24% 28% 27% 24% 24% 22% 20% 20% 20% 21%
Overall Biochemistry/ Neuroscience (n= Biotech/ pharma Physics/ Materials science Medicine (n= 127) Earth/ Chemistry (n= 330) Other (n= 134)
biology (n= 886) 181) industry (n= 106) astronomy (n= 84) (n=88) environmental
sciences (n=89)
Think lower than insitute does Think the same as institute Think higher than institute does
16
Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Seniority

Those who hold more senior positions (see slide 8 for definition) are more likely to be in agreement with the organization safety committees on a
lab’s risk profile, with 74% of seniors agreeing, compared to 60% of those in junior roles.
The job title in which people are most likely to be in agreement with the organizational rating is Lab managers. This is perhaps unsurprising as those
in more senior positions are likely to have been involved in the assessment and rating process that is conducted by the organization safety
department or committees.
5% 3% 5% 6% 6% 4%
11% 11% 9% 8% 8%
Think higher than institute

does 58% 63% 74% 72%
60% 74% 67% 71% 74% 79%
73%
Think the same as institute
Think lower than insitute

does
29% 31% 28%

21%
25% 23% 23% 23% 19% 19% 17%
Junior Senior Graduate Post-doc Lab Principal Research Professor Staff Senior Lab
student technician investigator scientist scientist scientist manager
(PhD)
17
Assessing Risk
When considering the overall response group for this survey, we see that almost one third (30%) of respondents said that they conduct risk
assessments using their organization’s approved form and only one in ten respondents say that they informally assess risk.
However, when these results are considered on a geographical basis, we see considerable differences. In the UK, almost two thirds (64%) said that
they conduct risk assessments using their organization’s approved form, compared to just 24% of American respondents. These stark differences
reflect the differences in the legal requirements between the UK and US.
It is notable that the EU response maps closely with the US, although as EU countries define their own safety standards, it cannot be inferred that
there is necessarily a connection.
3%
11% 11%
17% 20%
21% 29%
9% 18%
45% 3%
54% 21%
49% 9%
11%
11% 21%
3% 10% 64%
12%
2% 9%
2% 43%
30%
24% 21% 21%
Overall United States United Kingdom Other EU (n=151) Japan (n=56) China (n=97)
(n= 1460) (n= 356)
No risk assessment is performed I informally assess risk
I conduct a risk assessment using my own format I conduct a risk assessment using a formalized, third-party hazard/risk assessment tool
I conduct a risk assessment using my organization's approved form
Q: Which, if any, type of risk assessment do you currently carry out before conducting an experiment? Base: total sample (n= 2375)
18
Safety Training Provision
19
Provision of Safety Training

• The most frequently cited lab safety communication tools were direct training in the lab through a PI or supervisor and online resources, both
selected by 63% of respondents. More than half of the response group also selected classroom-based training (57%) and reading standard
operating procedures (55%).
• On average, each respondent selected three of the communication tools as being used in their laboratory.
• Of those who only selected only one option, direct training in the lab through a PI or supervisor was by far the most popular, with classroom
based training and online resources the next most frequent methods.
Direct training in the lab through the prinipal investigator/supervisor 63%

Online resources (websites, online training, quizzes etc.) 63%
Classroom based training 57%
Reading standard operating procedures 55%
Flyers, posters or other visual aids 39%
Safety videos (DVDs not delivered online) 21%
Lab safety is not communicated in my lab 2%
I don't know 3%
Other 5%
Those who selected only one option (n= 361):

No. of options selected (of those who did Direct training in the lab through the principal 34%
not say "Lab safety is not communicated in investigator/supervisor
my lab" or "I don't know“ (n= 2263)): Classroom based training 20%
1 16%
Online resources (websites, online training, quizzes etc.) 19%
2 19%
3 25% Reading standard operating procedures 17%
4 19%
5 15% Flyers, posters or other visual aids 6%
6 6%
Safety videos (DVDs not delivered online) 2%
7 0%
Average 3.16 Other (Specify) 3%
Q: Which, if any, of the following are used to communicate lab safety within your lab or at your institution? Please select all that apply. Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
20
Stage at which training is provided

• More than two thirds (68%) of the overall response group said that safety training was provided prior to being allowed to carry out experiments.
In high risk labs, this figure is slightly higher at 72% and in low risk labs a little lower at 67%.
• Around one fifth of respondents said that training is provided within 30 days of beginning to work on experiments
• A small but significant proportion in all lab types rely on safety staff for training with 14-18% saying that safety training is not provided to lab
personnel until notification from safety staff has been received.
72% 71%
68% 67%
21% 22%
18% 18% 19%
16% 15%
14%
10% 12% 12%
8%
Overall High risk Moderate risk Low risk
Before being allowed to carry out experiments Within 30 days of beginning to work on experiments
More than 30 days after they begin working on experiments Only if they request it or if the safety staff notifies them of the training requirement
Upon notification from the safety staff Safety training is not required
I don't know
Q: When do lab personnel receive new safety training? Please select all that apply. Base: Those working in a lab where the organization’s safety department/committee(s) views the level of
risk as high risk (n= 338), moderate risk (n= 922), low risk (n= 765), and those who don’t know (n= 349)
21
Appropriateness of training provided

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements below about the safety training they received.
• Levels of agreement were almost identical with regards to receiving sufficient safety training, both to be compliant with the rules and regulations
related to lab duties, and to minimize the risk of injury to the respondent themselves and others in the lab. 83% and 82% respectively agreed with
these statements, compared with 8% disagreement for both statements.
• However, receiving safety training on specific agents/hazards used in the lab had a much lower level of agreement (60%) and a higher level of
disagreement (25%).
"I received sufficient safety training in order to be compliant with

38% 45% 9% 6%
the rules and regulations related to my lab duties"
"I received sufficient safety training in order to effectively

38% 44% 9% 6%
minimise the risk of injury to myself and others in the lab"
"I received safety training on the specific agent/hazards I work

22% 38% 15% 19% 6%
with"
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: total sample (n=2375) bottom statement: junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286)
Note: percentages of less than 2% are not labelled
22
Perceived focus and importance of training provided
• Agreement/disagreement levels with the statements below were fairly evenly split, with 41% agreeing that safety training is focused on
compliance rather than improving safety in their lab, compared with 31% disagreeing.
• In the same way, when asked to indicate their agreement/disagreement that their supervisor regularly checks their performance in terms of
safety, 36% agreed while 40% disagreed, showing there is much variance.
"Safety training in my organisation is focused on training compliance

16% 25% 24% 25% 6%
requirements rather than on improving laboratory safety"
"My supervisor/lab manager/PI regularly checks to make sure I am

performing my laboratory duties in a safe fashion using proper safety 10% 26% 22% 24% 16%
equipment"
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: top statement - total sample (n=2375) bottom statement - junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8)
(n= 1286) Note: percentages of less than 2% are not labelled
23
Safety Training providers
• Three quarters of respondents reported that they have been provided with safety training by lab safety staff from their institution’s health and
safety department(s), while 43% had received training from a co-worker and a little over a third (35%) had received training from a supervisor or
principal investigator.
• 5% reported that they did not receive any training.

Safety training
75%
43%
35%
5% 6%
Lab safety staff from your A co-worker Supervisor or principal I didn't receive any training Other
institution's health and investigator
safety department(s)
Q: Who has provided you with lab safety training in your current lab? Please select all that apply. Base: junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286)
24
Awareness and responsibility
25
Awareness of training requirements
Of those who provided an answer to both of the top two • The vast majority (91%) of respondents agreed that they are aware of and
statements (i.e. they did not select “I don’t know” (n= 2325)): understand the minimum training requirements for their lab duties, while fewer
72% indicated the same level of agreement/disagreement for each (77%) agree that this is true for the members of their lab. In fact, a quarter (26%) of
of these statements respondents felt that they were aware of and better understood minimum
26% indicated a higher level of agreement with the statement requirements than other members of their lab.
about their own awareness and understanding than that of their
colleagues • 14% of respondents did not know whether they had access to the data and records
2% indicated a lower level of agreement with the statement about which are tracked regarding their lab’s safety and compliance, with only 58%
their own awareness than that of their colleagues. agreeing that they do.
"I am aware of and understand the minimum training

41% 50% 5% 3%
requirements for my specific lab duties"
"Members of my lab are aware of and understand the minimum

28% 49% 11% 8% 2%2%
training requirements for their specific lab duties"
"Members of my lab have access to documentation submitted to

the institution's safety department(s) and safety committees (e.g. 37% 40% 8% 5% 3% 8%
Institutional Biosafety Committee, Radiation Safety Committee)"
"I have access to the data and records which are tracked
26% 32% 12% 12% 5% 14%
regarding my lab's safety and compliance"
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: total sample (n=2374)
26
Responsibility for Lab Safety

• A third of respondents reported that the lab manager or a senior technician was primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with lab safety
requirements, with 27% indicating that it is the PI or head supervisor. 7% of respondents said that no-one has been assigned or specifically
assumes this responsibility.
• 35% of respondents said that they do not know who is legally liable for accidents in their lab. However, the institution and the PI were the most
commonly selected responses, with 47% and 38% responses respectively. Only 17% answered that individual lab members have personal
liability.
Primarily responsible for compliance Legally liable for accidents
The lab manager or a senior
33% The institution 47%
technician
The principal investigator or head
27%
supervisor
The principal investigator 38%
Department safety officer 9%
Individual lab members have
17%
A senior researcher 7% personal liability
The lab safety staff from your

6% The lab manager/supervisor 16%
institution's health and safety…
A graduate student 6% The institution's lab safety staff (i.e.

EHS and other lab safety/compliance 14%
departments
A junior technician 2%
No one 1%
No one has been assigned or
7%
specifically assumed this…
I don't know 3% I don't know 35%
Q: Who in your lab is primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with lab safety requirements? Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
Q: Who is legally liable for accidents in your lab? Please select all that apply. Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
27
Responsibility for Lab Safety – Lab size

When looking at the responses to the question regarding responsibility for compliance with lab safety requirements, differences can be spotted depending
on the size of the lab (in terms of number of people working in the lab).
• The larger the lab, the higher the proportion of respondents who indicated that the lab manager or a senior technician was primarily responsible, with
45% of those working in a lab with 20-100 people choosing this option, compared with only 28% of those working in a lab with 1 to 5 people.
• The smaller the lab, the higher the proportion of respondents who indicated that the PI or head supervisor was primarily responsible, with a third of those
working in a lab with 1 to 5 people choosing this option, compared with only 15% of those working in a lab with 20-100 people.
• Those working in a lab with 10 or less people were twice as likely to say that no-one has been assigned this responsibility compared with those in a lab
with more than 10 people.
Primarily responsible for compliance
45%
The lab manager or a senior technician 38%
32%
28%
15%
The principal investigator or head supervisor 19%
31%
33%
12%
Department safety officer 10%
7%
8%
10% # of people working in lab:
The lab safety staff from your institution's health and safety department(s) 5%
6%
6%
7% 21-100 staff
A graduate student 8%
7%
4%
5% 11-20 staff
A senior researcher 9%
5%
7%
1%
A junior technician 3% 6-10 staff
2%
1%
4%
No one has been assigned or specifically assumed this responsibility 4%
8% 1-5 staff
9%
2%
I don't know 4%
3%
3%
Q: Who in your lab is primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with lab safety requirements?
Base: Those working in a lab with 21-100 staff (n= 209), 11-20 staff (n= 553), 6-10 staff (n= 836) and 1-5 staff (n= 760)
28
Responsibility for Lab Safety – Geography
When looking at the results to the question about legal liability for accidents, there is variance between results from different geographical regions.
• Roughly half (50% and 49% respectively) of all respondents from the US and UK said that the institution was legally liable for accidents in the
lab, compared with 63% of respondents from Japan, 27% in China and 36% of respondents from other (non-UK) EU countries.
• Those from the US were most likely to say that the PI had legal liability, with 43% selecting this option.
• Of those working within Europe but not in the UK, 44% said that they did not know who was legally liable, compared with 37% of those from the
US and the UK, and only 14% of those working within Asia.
50%
49%
The institution 36%
63%
27%
43%
30%
The principal investigator 18%
34%
33%
14%
14%
Individual lab members have personal liability 18%
30%
48%
The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab safety/compliance 15%
13%
9%
departments 14%
16%
16%
21%
The lab manager/supervisor 9%
16%
21%
0%
0%
No one 1%
0%
1%
37%
37%
I don't know 44%
14%
14%
United States (n=1460) United Kingdom (n=356) Other EU (n=151) Japan (n=56) China (n=97)
Q: Who is legally liable for accidents in your lab? Please select all that apply. Base: Those working in the US, UK, China, Japan and Other. Base sizes on graph.
29
Responsibility for Lab Safety – Seniority
The graph below shows the results from the previous slide re-based to exclude those who answered “I don’t know”: almost half of those with a
junior job title (as defined in slide 8) and a fifth of those in the senior group.
• Those with a senior job title were marginally more likely to indicate that their institution is legally liable (76% compared with 70%)
• Those with a junior job title were more likely to indicate that individual lab members have liability (30% compared with 20% for those in senior
roles) and that their institution’s lab safety staff have liability (26% compared with 18%)
Legal liability
76%
The institution
"I don't know" 70%
Senior 21%
62%
Junior 47% The principal investigator
60%
23%
The lab manager/supervisor
25%
20%
Individual lab members have personal liability
30% Senior
Junior
The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab 18%
safety/compliance departments 26%
0%
No one
0%
Q: Who is legally liable for accidents in your lab? Please select all that apply. Base: Those with junior job titles (n= 1091) and senior job titles (n= 642)
30
PPE and equipment in the Lab
31
PPE - Research Requirements
• The most commonly used type of personal protective equipment was gloves, with 94% indicating that they should be used for their current lab
work. The next most commonly used were Lab coats (86%) and Goggles/eye protection (72%), with the other options listed used by far fewer
respondents.
• Only 3% of respondents said that no PPE was required for their current lab work.
Gloves 94%
Lab coat 86%
Goggles/eye protection 72%
Gown 11%
Respirator (N95, full or half face) 10%
Full body suit 4%
Other 3%
No PPE is required for my current lab

3%
work
Q: Which, if any of the following Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should be used for your current lab work? Please select all that apply. Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
32
PPE – Frequency of use

For each type of PPE that the respondent indicated should be used for their lab work, they were asked how frequently they use it. However, the
wording of this question should be borne in mind when interpreting the data, as it is possible that some respondents understood the question to
be asking for the frequency of tasks needing specific types of PPE, rather than the frequency with which they used the PPE when they should.
• 69% of those who said they should wear gloves for their lab work said they always do so, making gloves the most frequently used PPE –
followed by the lab coat which is always used by 46% of those who indicated they should wear it for their lab work.
• The respirator was the least commonly used, with only 16% of those who indicated it should be used for their work always doing so, and 9%
saying that they never use it.
Gloves
69% 24% 7% 1%
(n= 2225)
Lab coat
46% 28% 22% 4%
(n= 2034)
Gown
44% 21% 29% 6%
(n= 257)
Goggles/eye protection
42% 21% 32% 6%
(n= 1710)
Full body suit

39% 18% 35% 5%
(n= 94)
Respirator (n95, full or half face)

16% 20% 55% 9%
(n=240)
Always Usually Occasionally Never I don't know
Q: How frequently do you use the Personal Protective Equipment that you previously indicated should be used for your current lab work? Base: Those who indicated that each piece of PPE
should be used for their work (base sizes shown on graph)
33
Availability and condition of lab equipment
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements below about lab equipment.
• 93% of those who use PPE agreed that their lab always has sufficient supplies of the PPE that they need for their work.
• 87% agreed that the safety equipment their lab uses is always certified and in good working order.
• 90% agreed that the research equipment they use is safe.
• 89% agreed that the research equipment they use is designed and maintained in safe working order.
"My lab always has sufficient supplies

of the PPE that I need for my lab 64% 29% 3% 3%
work"
"The safety equipment my lab uses

(chemical fume hoods, biosafety
53% 34% 6% 4%
cabinets, etc) are always certified and
in good working order"
"The research equipment I use for my

49% 41% 6% 2%
lab work is safe"
"The research equipment I use for my

lab work is designed and maintained 49% 40% 7% 2%
in safe working order"
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: Top statement: those who use at least one type of PPE (n=2305); Otherwise: total sample (n= 2373)
34
Injuries and incidents
35
Injuries and Incidents in the lab

30% of respondents were aware of at least one major injury occurring in the time they have been working in a lab, while 72% have been aware of at
least one minor injury occurring. Of those who were aware of at least one major injury, roughly half (51%) agreed that the number of major injuries
could have been reduced if lab safety procedures were always followed, compared with just over a third of those aware of at least one minor injury
who agreed that the number of minor injuries could be reduced. However, 37% disagreed that minor injuries could be reduced, and 26% disagreed
that major injuries could be reduced, if lab safety procedures were always followed - indicating widely differing opinions.
70%
Major injuries Minor injuries Incidents

36% 34%
30%
28%
22%
17% 19%
11% 13%
8%
3% 4% 4%
1% 1%
None 1 2 3 4 5+ None 1-2 3-5 6-10 10+ None 1-2 3-5 6-10 10+
"The number of minor injuries could have been reduced if

11% 24% 23% 27% 10% 2%
2%
lab safety procedures were always followed"
"The number of major injuries could have been reduced

22% 29% 19% 17% 9% 2%
2%
if lab safety procedures were always followed"
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know Not applicable
Q: In the time that you've been conducting research in a laboratory setting, how many major injuries/minor injuries/incidents are you aware of that have occurred in your lab? By a "major
injury" we mean one that would require attention from a medical professional e.g. nurse, doctor, paramedic./ By a "minor injury" we mean one that could be dealt with by a first aider, colleague
or yourself./ By an "incident" we mean an event that reasonably could have led to an injury, but did not Base: Total sample (n=2374)
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Base: Those aware of at least one major/minor (as appropriate) injury in their lab. (Major: n= 723; minor: 1713)
36
Personal injuries
Ever sustained a personal injury?
• 46% of respondents have sustained an Type of personal injury
injury at least once during the time
they have been conducting research in
Yes, on
more than a lab setting, nearly two thirds (63%) of Minor laceration/cut/bite
63%
one which have included minor requiring no stitches
occasion, laceration/cut/bites requiring no Needle stick 26%
21% stitches.
• There doesn’t appear to be any Thermal burn 24%
No, 54% significant difference in the proportion
Yes, once,
25% of people who have sustained personal Chemical burn 22%
injuries working in labs of different risk
levels (as assessed by the institution). Chemical inhalation 15%
Laceration/cut/bite requiring
11%
stitches
Repetitive Motion Injury 10%
Slip/trip/fall 7%
No
51% Injury due to lifting 4%
55% 58% 53%
Bruise/bone fracture 4%
Yes, once
Radiation exposure above
27% 1%
25% 24% permissable exposure limits
24%
Yes, on more Other 8%
20% 22% 18% 23% than one
occasion
High Risk Moderate risk Low Risk I don't know
Q: In the time that you've been conducting research in a laboratory setting, have you ever sustained an injury of any kind? Base: Total sample (n=2374)
Q: What was the nature of your injury or injuries? Please select all that apply. Base: Those who said they had sustained one or more injuries (n= 1088)
37
Personal Injuries - Hazards
The survey data did not show that frequent users of any single hazard users were significantly more likely to have sustained a personal injury.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that several respondents may have used multiple of the hazards listed, and hence the results for the low risk
hazards in the list may include responses from those who also use hazards of a higher risk.
48% 50% 50% 51% 52% 53% 53% 54% 55% 54% 55% 56%
26% 26% 26% 26% 25% 26% 26% 27% 25% 25% 27% 26%
26% 24% 24% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 20% 20% 19% 19%
Physical hazards Pyrophoric Radioactive Highly/acutely Animals (n= Lasers (n= 670) Recombinant Ionizing Viral vectors (n= Nanomaterials Pathogenic Human source
(n= 491) materials (n= materials (n= toxic or 879) DNA (n= 1112) radiation (n= 470) (n= 375) organisms (n= materials (n=
316) 360) mutagenic 369) 464) 634)
substances (n=
1179)
Yes, on more than one occasion Yes, once No
Q: In the time that you've been conducting research in a laboratory setting, have you ever sustained an injury of any kind? Base: Those who frequently or very frequently use
each given hazard.
38
Reporting injuries and incidents
• Respondents seemed to be unlikely to report colleagues breaking lab safety rules/protocols - almost half (48%) of the junior/supervised
sample of this survey (see slide 8) said that they have seen a colleague break a lab safety rule/protocol but did not report it to their supervisor
or PI, while only half that proportion (23%) said that they have reported to their supervisor/PI after seeing a colleague break a lab safety rule.
• Data shows that injuries are more likely to be reported than not reported – with 24% have seen a colleague sustain an injury which was not
reported to the supervisor/PI compared with 40% who said that they have seen a colleague sustain an injury which was reported to the
supervisor/PI.
I have seen a colleague break a lab safety

rule/protocol but did not report it to my 37% 11% 45% 8%
supervisor or principal investigator
I have seen a colleague break a lab safety

rule/protocol and reported it to my supervisor 13% 10% 71% 6%
or principal investigator
I have sustained an injury myself that I have

not reported to my supervisor or principal 11% 15% 72% 2%
investigator
I have seen a colleague sustain an injury but it

was not reported to my supervisor or principal 12% 12% 67% 10%
investigator
I have seen a colleague sustain an injury and it

was reported to my supervisor or principal 12% 28% 53% 6%
investigator
This has happened on more than one occasion This has happened once This has never happened I don't know
Q: Please select the most appropriate response for each of the following scenarios. Base: junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286)
39
Overall safety
40
Attitudes towards safety measures to prevent injury
• While the majority of respondents (85%) felt that appropriate safety measures have been taken in their lab to protect employees from injury,
45% nonetheless agreed that overall safety could be improved.
• Despite this, there seemed to be a good level of confidence with current safety measures among a relatively high proportion (23%) who
disagreed that safety could be improved.
"Appropriate safety measures in my

36% 49% 10% 4%
lab have been taken to protect employees from injury"
"I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved" 12% 33% 31% 18% 5%
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Total sample (n= 2374)
41
Improving lab safety – lab size
The opinion that safety could be improved was greater in larger labs, with those of size 20-100 employees having the highest level of agreement
(55%), compared with 41% of those with 5 or less employees.
“I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved”
Overall 12% 33% 31% 18% 5%
1 to 5 10% 31% 33% 21% 5%
6 to 10 12% 32% 31% 18% 6%
11 to 20 13% 35% 30% 17% 5%
Over 20, excluding those

15% 40% 27% 11% 4%
who said over 100
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Base: Those working in a lab with 20-100 employees (n= 209), 11-20 employees (n= 553), 6-10 employees (n= 836) and 1-5
employees (n= 760)
42
Improving lab safety – Geography
The United States and United Kingdom had the lowest level of agreement with this statement (39% and 43% respectively). Japanese respondents were
the most likely to agree (73%) however, it is important to note the small sample size for this group. Respondents from the EU (excluding the UK) were
the most likely to ‘strongly agree’ with the statement, with 23% selecting this option.
Overall 12% 33% 31% 18% 5%
China (n=97) 18% 49% 18% 10% 2% 4%
Japan (n=59) 9% 64% 18% 4% 2% 4%
Other EU (n=151) 23% 35% 28% 11% 3%
United Kindom (n=356) 11% 32% 30% 20% 7%
United States (n=1460) 9% 30% 34% 20% 5%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagee Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Base: Those based in China (n=97), Japan (n=59), EU excluding UK (n=151), UK (n=356) and US (1460)
43
Improving lab safety – Hazards
The graph below compares levels of agreement with “I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved” for the overall respondent group with
the sub-populations of those who use either pyrophoric materials or pathogenic organisms hazards at least ‘frequently’.
Respondents from labs in which these hazards are used at least ‘frequently’ were more likely to agree with the statement than those who didn’t use
the hazards and the overall response group.
Overall 12% 33% 31% 18% 5%
Frequent Pyrophoric (n=316) 20% 38% 25% 12% 4%
Infrequent/non Pyrophoric 11% 32% 32% 19% 5%
Frequent Pathogenic (n=464) 15% 33% 31% 16% 4%
Infrequent/non Pathogenic 11% 33% 31% 18% 5%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don’t know
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Base: All respondents (n=2374)
44
Appropriateness of safety measures - Seniority
• Respondents with a senior job title (see slide 8) were more likely to feel that appropriate safety measures have been taken in their lab to
protect employees from injury than those with a junior job title – with 94% of seniors agreeing compared with 69% of juniors.
• Not only is overall agreement higher among seniors, but they appear to feel more strongly too – with half (49%) of seniors selecting “strongly
agree” – almost double the proportion of juniors who said the same (26%).
"Appropriate safety measures in my lab have been taken to protect employees from injury"
Senior 49% 45% 4% 1%
Junior 26% 53% 13% 6%
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Those with a junior job title (n= 1091) and those with a senior job title (n= 642).
45
Safety inspections
46
Frequency of Safety Inspections

• A fifth (20%) of respondents indicated that lab safety inspections were not carried out by lab personnel at all, while a further fifth (21%)
indicated either that they didn’t know how often this happened, or they didn’t know if it happened at all. 57% said that this occurs at least
once a year or more often.
• 43% of respondents said that lab safety inspections were carried out by safety department staff at least once per year, with only a quarter
(26%) saying it happens every quarter or more frequently, and 5% indicating that this doesn’t happen at all.
43%
21% 21% 20%

18%
15%
11% 10% 11%
10%
8%
5%
3% 2%
1% 1%
At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once every Less than once every They are carried out To the best of my I don't know
two years two years but I don't know how knowledge, laboratory
often safety inspections are
not carried out by my
By institution's safety department(s) staff By lab personnel institution's safety
staff/by lab personnel
Q: How frequently are laboratory safety inspections/audits carried out by your institution's safety department(s) staff? Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
Q: How frequently are laboratory safety inspections/audits carried out by your lab personnel? Base: Total sample (n= 2374)
47
Institution lab inspections – Risk level

• Results seem to suggest a higher frequency of inspections by safety department staff as the risk level (as defined by the institution) increases – with
35% of those in a high risk lab reporting that safety staff carry out lab inspections at least once a quarter or more frequently, compared with 24% of
those working in a low risk lab.
• Those who don’t know the risk level that their organization considers their lab to be are also more likely to be unaware of how often, if at all, safety
inspections are carried out by safety department staff- with 35% of this group saying they don’t know how often they are carried out or they don’t
know if they are carried out at all.
• Interestingly, however, this relationship was not observed when inspections by lab personnel were considered.
46%46%
38%
36%
23%
20%
17% 18% 17%
12% 11%
9% 9% 10%10% 9% 9% 8% 10%
7%
5% 5%
3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
4%
2%
At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once every Less than once every They are carried out To the best of my I don't know
two years two years but I don't know how knowledge, laboratory
often safety inspections are
not carried out by my
High risk Moderate risk Low risk I don't know
institution's safety
staff
Q: How frequently are laboratory safety inspections/audits carried out by your institution's safety department(s) staff? Base: Those working in a lab where the organization’s safety
department/committee(s) views the level of risk as high risk (n= 338), moderate risk (n= 922), low risk (n= 765), and those who don’t know (n= 349)
48
Impact of inspections on lab safety

• Generally safety inspections are considered to improve safety – with 68% indicating that they feel safety is either slightly or greatly improved
as a result.
• A substantial proportion (28%) feel that the inspections/audits have no significant impact on safety, although only a negligible proportion (1%)
said that safety is compromised by the frequency of them.
Impact of safety inspections
Safety is greatly improved by the inspections 19%
Safety is slightly improved by the inspections 49%
The inspections have no significant impact of safety 28%
Safety is slightly compromised by the frequency of the inspections 1%
Safety is greatly compromised by the frequency of the inspections 0%
I don't know 2%
Q: To what extent, if any, do you think that lab inspections/audits affect the safety of your lab? Base: Total sample excluding those who indicated that to the best of their
knowledge, safety inspections are not carried out by either institution’s lab safety staff or lab personnel (n= 1550)
49
Impact of inspections on lab safety - Seniority

• Those with a senior job title (see slide 8) are far more likely to feel that safety is improved by inspections/audits, with 76% of this group
indicating so, compared with 63% of those with junior job titles.
• In the same way, a higher proportion of juniors felt that the inspections had no significant impact on safety – at 34%, compared with 21% of
seniors.
25%
Safety is greatly improved by the inspections
14%
51%
Safety is slightly improved by the inspections
47%
21%
The inspections have no significant impact of safety
34%
1%
Safety is slightly compromised by the frequency of the inspections
1%
1%
Safety is greatly compromised by the frequency of the inspections
0%
1%
I don't know
4%
Senior Junior
Q: To what extent, if any, do you think that lab inspections/audits affect the safety of your lab? Base: Total sample excluding those who indicated that to the best of their knowledge, safety
inspections are not carried out by either institution’s lab safety staff or lab personnel, with a junior job title (n= 617) and with a senior job title (n= 494)
50
Importance of safety
51
Importance placed on Lab Safety
• Lab safety/compliance staff, unsurprisingly, were the group that most respondents felt considered lab safety to be very important (66%).
Following this group, the respondents themselves were the group with the next highest proportion of ‘very important’ selections (53%)
• Interestingly, the group felt least likely to consider lab safety to be ‘very important’ was the respondents’ colleagues, with just 28% selecting ‘very
important’ for this sub-population.
Importance placed on lab safety by…

6% 4% 3% 3%
12%
6%
13% 17%
9%
21%
42%
28%
41%
51%
66%
53%
48%
40%
28%
…lab safety/compliance staff …you personally …your institution's leadership …your supervisor or principle …your colleagues
investigator
Very important Quite important Not very important Not important at all I don't know
Q: Please use the scale below to rate the importance that is placed on lab safety by the following: Base: junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286)
52
Comparative importance placed on Lab Safety
The table on this slide shows how the importance placed on safety by the
respondents themselves compares with their answers about the importance
More important to you than your colleagues 34% placed on lab safety by their colleagues, their supervisor, lab
safety/compliance staff and their institutions leadership.
As important to you as to your colleagues 64%
More important to your colleagues than to you 2% For each comparison, more than half of respondents had indicated the same
level of importance for themselves and the other party. However, comparing
the proportion of respondents who thought safety was more important to
More important to you than your supervisor 29% them personally with the proportion who thought safety was less important
to themselves than it was to another group shows some interesting findings.
As important to you as to your supervisor 60%
More important to your supervisor than to you 11% • Regarding their colleagues, one third (34%) of respondents rated the
importance that they place on safety as higher then their colleagues, and
only 2% felt that they didn’t consider safety to be as important as their
More important to you than to your lab safety/compliance staff 17%
colleagues did.
As important to you as to your lab safety/compliance staff 53% • The proportion of respondents feeling that they take safety more
seriously than their supervisors was only slightly lower than the
More important to your lab safety/compliance staff than yourself 31% proportion who feel they take safety more seriously than their colleagues
(29%). However one in ten (11%) of this group felt that their supervisors
felt safety was more important than they did.
More important to you than your institution's leadership 25%
• Safety/compliance staff were considered to feel safety was at least as
As important to you as to your institution's leadership 52% important as respondents felt it was, with almost one third (31%) of
respondents saying that safety staff considered safety to have a higher
More important to your institution's leadership than to you 22%
level of importance than they did.
Q: Please use the scale below to rate the importance that is placed on lab safety by the following: Base: junior/supervised sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286) – Note that those who
selected ‘I don’t know’ for either statement are not included here.
53
Appropriateness of safety procedures and barriers to lab safety

Half of respondents felt that the safety procedures required by their institution were about right, with the other 50% relatively evenly split between
thinking they are too stringent and that they should be more stringent.
Regarding the barriers to lab safety, the most frequently cited barrier was ‘time and hassle factors’ (45%), although ‘apathy’, ‘lack of understanding
of safety requirements’, ‘lack of leadership’ and ‘focus on compliance requirements over safety’ were all selected by more than a quarter of the
audience.
View of safety procedures Barriers to lab safety
Time and hassle factors 45%

49%
Apathy 37%
Lack of understanding of safety requirements 27%
Lack of leadership 26%
Focus on compliance requirements over safety 26%
Competing priorities 21%
Lack/inadequate safety training 20%
Lack of funds for safety equipment 15%
19%
16% Untrained staff 11%
Inadequate facilities 9%
7% There are no significant barriers 8%

6%
3% Inadequate equipment 7%
Unfunded regulatory mandates 5%
Far too A little too About right Should be Should be I don't
Other 3%
stringent stringent a little far more know
more stringent
stringent
Q: Which of the following best describes your view of the safety procedures currently required by your institution? Base: Total sample (n=2375)
Q: What are the three most significant barriers to improving safety in your laboratory? Base: Those who said they agree or strongly agree that safety in their lab could be improved (n=1073)
54
Appropriateness of safety procedures and lab risk level

• The graph below compares views on the safety procedures that are currently required for respondents in working in high, moderate and low risk
labs (as defined by the organization’s safety department/committee).
• Those who worked in high risk labs were more likely than other respondents to feel that requirements were too stringent, with 37% selecting
these options, compared to 26% in the overall sample and 22% of those in low risk labs.
16% 18%
16% 14%
18%
41%
49% 50%
54%
43%
24%
19% 22%
16%
17%
13%
7% 6% 6% 3%
Overall High risk Moderate risk Low risk I don't know
Far too stringent A little too stringent About right

Should be a little more stringent Should be far more stringent I don't know
Q: Which of the following best describes your view of the safety procedures currently required by your institution? Base: Those working in a lab where the organization’s safety
55
Relative importance of lab safety and the impact on scientific discovery

Overall, safety is considered to be very important – for one in five respondents it is paramount and takes precedence over all other lab priorities,
and for 67% it is at least ‘very important’. However, for one in ten respondents, safety is either less important than other lab priorities or a low
priority – although this group represent a minority, 11% of respondents is not a insignificant proportion.
28% of respondents agreed that lab safety rules and regulations have the potential to negatively impact scientific discovery, and 17% agreed that lab
safety rules and regulations have negatively impacted their lab productivity. It seems reasonable to expect that anyone who considers that lab safety
has negatively impacted their lab productivity would also agree that lab safety has the potential to negatively impact scientific discovery. Therefore
61% of those who think there is the potential of negative impact have had their work negatively impacted.
43%
Safety is less Safety is a

important low priority 36%
than other in my lab, 3%
lab priorities,
8%
Safety is
paramount
and takes
precedent 21%
20% 19%19%
over all other 18%
Safety is of lab priorities,
equal 21%
12%
importance
to other lab
8%
priorities,
22% 5%
1% 1%
Safety is very Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly I don't know
important, agree nor disagree disagree
46%
"Lab safety rules and regulations have the potential to negatively impact scientific
discovery"
"Lab safety rules and regulations negatively impact my lab productivity"
Q: Which of the following statements best describes your laboratory in regards to safety? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
56
Relative importance of lab safety - Hazards

The graph below compares views on the relative importance placed on safety alongside other lab priorities in labs that frequently use a range of
potential hazards.
It doesn’t seem that any group regularly using a particular hazard in their labs differ significantly from the overall response group. Those who
frequently use nanomaterials were slightly more likely to say that safety is paramount and those who use animals were slightly less likely to select
this option – however, these differences are small.
3% 4% 6% 6% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%
8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9%
7% 7% 11%
22% 20% 19% 22% 22% 20% 22% 24%

24% 26% 25% 24% 24%
44% 44%
46% 41% 46% 46% 46% 48%
42% 44% 44% 43% 47%
21% 25% 25% 22% 21% 21% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 18% 17%
Overall Physical Nanomaterials Pyrophoric Pathogenic Human source Ionizing Viral vectors Recombinant Lasers (n= 670) toxic or Radioactive Animals (n=
hazards (n= (n= 375) materials (n= organisms (n= materials (n= radiation (n= (n= 470) DNA (n= 1112) mutagenic materials (n= 879)
491) 316) 464) 634) 369) substances (n= 360)
1179)
Safety is paramount and takes precedent over all other lab priorities Safety is very important
Safety is of equal importance to other lab priorities Safety is less important than other lab priorities
Safety is a low priority in my lab
Q: Which of the following statements best describes your laboratory in regards to safety? Base: Those who frequently or very frequently use each given hazard.
57
Relative importance of lab safety – Career stage

The graph below compares views on the relative importance placed on safety alongside other lab priorities. Senior respondents (see slide 8 for
definition) seem to consider safety as a higher priority overall.
48% Junior Senior

44%
36%
29%
12% 13%
11%
5%
1% 1%
Safety is paramount and Safety is very important Safety is of equal Safety is less important Safety is a low priority in
takes precedent over all importance to other lab than other lab priorities my lab
other lab priorities priorities
Q: Which of the following statements best describes your laboratory in regards to safety? Base: Junior (n= 1091); Senior (n= 643)
58
General Attitudes
59
Overall perceptions of lab work

Overall, respondents were generally positive about their work with more than 85% agreeing that they felt their lab was a safe place to work, that
they have a good working relationship with their lab members and that they enjoy their work.
“I enjoy my work” was the statement that got the most agreement (93%) and “I feel that my lab is a safe place to work” got the lowest level of
agreement at 86%.
"I feel that my lab is a safe place to work" 38% 48% 9% 4%
"I have a good working relationship with

48% 44% 6% 1%
my lab members"
"I enjoy my work" 50% 43% 6% 1%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know N/A
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
60
Discussing safety in the lab
These questions aimed to understand researchers’ level of comfort around discussing lab safety issues and concerns with different people within the
lab.
• For the overall audience, the group that most people felt comfortable discussing safety issues with were students and lab staff, with 88% agreeing
that they felt comfortable.
• The majority of respondents with a supervisor (83%) said they felt comfortable discussing their own lab practices and any potential concerns.
• When asked about colleagues, respondents said that they were willing to address safety issues with colleagues directly (82% comfortable) but
perhaps unsurprisingly, felt far less comfortable discussing concerns about colleagues with supervisors and/or principle investigators (62%
comfortable).
"If I have concerns, I feel comfortable speaking

to students or lab staff about their lab safety 47% 41% 7% 4%
practices"
"I feel comfortable speaking to my supervisor

or principal investigator about safety concerns 46% 37% 8% 6%
regarding my own lab work" *
"I feel comfortable speaking to the institution's

safety department(s) about safety concerns 32% 36% 14% 12%
regarding the work in my lab"
"If I have concerns, I feel comfortable speaking

to my colleagues about their lab safety 39% 43% 9% 7%
practices"
"I feel comfortable speaking to my supervisor or

principal investigator about safety concerns 27% 35% 17% 15%
regarding the work of my colleagues" *
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: Total sample (n= 2374) except statements with * which have a base of the junior/supervised
sub-population (see slide 8) (n= 1286)
61
“I feel my lab is a safe place to work” - Hazards
The graph below compares levels of agreement with “I feel my lab is a safe place to work” for the overall respondent group with the sub-population
of those who use each hazard type either “frequently” or “very frequently”.
The only respondents showed lower than average agreement with the statement were those working with nanomaterials, physical hazards and
toxic/mutagenic substances – although, even for these hazards the differences were slight.
4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 5%
5% 5%
9% 9% 8% 10% 8% 8% 8% 9%
10% 11%
12% 11%
48% 46% 48% 46% 49% 47% 50% 49%

47%
45% 45% 48%
38% 41% 39% 39% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 36% 36% 33%
Overall Human source Viral vectors Radioactive Animals (n= Ionizing Pathogenic Recombinant Lasers (n= 670) Nanomaterials Physical toxic/
materials (n= (n= 470) materials (n= 879) radiation (n= organisms (n= DNA (n= 1112) (n= 375) hazards (n= mutagenic
634) 360) 369) 464) 491) substances
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree (n=1179)
Q: Please use the scale below to indicate how frequently, if at all, the following have been used in your lab over the past 12 months. Base: Those who frequently or very frequently use each
given hazard.
62
“I feel my lab is a safe place to work” – Lab risk level
The graph below compares levels of agreement with “I feel my lab is a safe place to work” for the overall respondent group with the sub-population
of those work is high, moderate and low risk labs – as defined by organizational safety committees/departments.
Levels of overall agreement with the statement were consistent across all groups, however, those who work in low risk labs were more likely to
strongly agree than those in higher risk labs.
4% 4% 3% 3% 5%
9% 8% 9% 7%
12%
44%
48% 48% 50%
53%
44%
38% 37% 37%
28%
Overall High risk Moderate risk Low risk I don't know
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - "I feel that my lab is a safe place to work” Base: Those working in a lab where the organization’s safety
63
Demographics of respondents
64
Age and Institution type
Institution type
Age
University/college 68%
23%
Government agency or institute 11%
17% Industry/corporation 8%
16%
Hospital (university research or

13% 14% 6%
teaching)
10% Privately funded research institute 4%
6% Medical school 3%
NGO 1%
1%
0%
Hospital (community; no research) 0%
Under 18 18-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 More
years years years years years years years than 60 Other 1%
years
Q: What is your age? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)

Q: Which category best describes your place of work? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
65
Discipline and primary language
Discipline Primary language
Biochemistry/biology 44% English 77%
Chemistry (experimental) 17% Chinese 6%
Neuroscience 9% German 3%
Spanish 2%
Medicine 6%
Japanese 2%
Earth/environmental sciences 5%
French 2%
Materials science 4%
Portuguese 1%
Physics (experimental) 4%
Italian 1%
Biotech industry 3%
Dutch 1%
Pharmaceuticals industry 2%
Russian 0%
Business/investment 0% Swedish 0%
Astronomy, planetary science, astrophysics 0% Finnish 0%
Physics (theoretical) 0% Danish 0%
Other 6% Other 4%
Q: Which of the following best describes the type of work you perform? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
Q: What is your primary language? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
Q: Please indicate the country in which you are currently performing research. Base: Total sample (n= 2375)
66

Lab Culture-Draft Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lab Culture-Draft Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Laboratory Safety Culture

Survey 2012 – Draft Report

Overview of initial findings

Background and Methodology

Research Questions – Key Findings

Are safety inspections perceived to improve safety culture?

The survey data has been reported in 11 main sections:

We were also interested in the perceptions of researchers working in Japan

Region Base Size

Job titles and Senior/Junior groupings

Lab size and respondent experience

Experience of working in a lab

37% 14% 42%

Very frequently Frequently Rarely Very rarely Never I don't know

Organization defined risk levels

Very high risk, 2%

I don't know, 15% High risk, 12%

Risk Level Base Size

Hours per week spent in the lab

Frequency of lone working

Measuring and Assessing risk in the

Personal and organizational risk perceptions

24% 8% feel that their lab is of higher risk than their

Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Disciplines

66% 65% 75%

Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Seniority

Think higher than institute

Think lower than insitute

29% 31% 28%

Safety Training Provision

Provision of Safety Training

Direct training in the lab through the prinipal investigator/supervisor 63%

Those who selected only one option (n= 361):

Stage at which training is provided

Overall High risk Moderate risk Low risk

Appropriateness of training provided

"I received sufficient safety training in order to be compliant with

"I received sufficient safety training in order to effectively

"I received safety training on the specific agent/hazards I work

Perceived focus and importance of training provided

"Safety training in my organisation is focused on training compliance

"My supervisor/lab manager/PI regularly checks to make sure I am

• 5% reported that they did not receive any training.

Awareness and responsibility

Awareness of training requirements

"I am aware of and understand the minimum training

"Members of my lab are aware of and understand the minimum

"Members of my lab have access to documentation submitted to

Responsibility for Lab Safety

The lab safety staff from your

A graduate student 6% The institution's lab safety staff (i.e.

I don't know 3% I don't know 35%

Responsibility for Lab Safety – Lab size

Responsibility for Lab Safety – Seniority

PPE and equipment in the Lab

PPE - Research Requirements

Lab coat 86%

Goggles/eye protection 72%

Respirator (N95, full or half face) 10%

Full body suit 4%

No PPE is required for my current lab

PPE – Frequency of use

Full body suit