laboratory safety culture survey 2012 draft · pdf file3 laboratory safety culture survey 2012...

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

2

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

3


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.

4


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)

5


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.

6


Respondent Profiles

7


United States, 62%

United Kingdom,

15%

Other EU, 6%

China, 4%

Japan, 2% Other, 10%

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 why those from the US make up the bulk of the respondent group. 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 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. For China the total number of respondents was 97 and for Japan was just 59. The findings for these groups have been included in this report, where 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

Other 237 Please indicate the country in which you are currently performing research. Base: Total sample (n= 2360)

8


2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

6%

8%

12%

14%

17%

17%

24%

Other

Vice chancellor/Vice president…

CEO/Chancellor/President

Process engineer

Senior industry researcher

Industry research scientist

Governmental agency staff scientist

Head/Chair/Director of department

Research director

Health and safety professional

Undergraduate student

Teacher

Graduate student (Masters)

Senior scientist

Staff scientist

Lab technician

Lab manager

Professor

Research scientist

Principal investigator

Post-doc

Graduate student (PhD)

Throughout this report, we compare responses to some questions for those in senior versus junior job titles. The nature of scientific job titles and structures of labs is such that it is not always possible to accurately assess whether a job title represents a junior or senior member of staff. For the purposes of this report, ‘juniors’ are those who have one of the following job titles:

- Undergraduate student - Graduate student (PhD) - Graduate student (Masters) - Post-doc

‘Seniors’ are those who have one of the following job titles: - Principle investigator - Professor - Senior industry researcher - Research director - Head/Chair/Director of department - Vice chancellor/Vice President of research/operations - CEO/Chancellor/President

These two groupings account for 1734 (73%) of the overall response group (2375).

Q: Please select the title(s) that best describes your current role/position. (you may select more than one) Base: Total sample (n= 2375)

Job titles and Senior/Junior groupings

Seniority level Base size

Junior 1091

Senior 643

9


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)

1% 1%

6%

12%

29%

16%

10% 9%

16%

6%

11%

21% 22% 21%

8%

4% 4% 3%

Less than 5months

5-11 months 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26 years ormore

Experience of working in a lab

OverallIn current…

Lab size and respondent experience

32%

35%

23%

9%

1-5 staff 6-10 staff 11-20 staff 21-100 staff

The graph to the right represents the lab sizes for the respondent group - respondents were asked for the number of people who work in their lab (including themselves). These responses were then grouped in 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. 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. 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.

Number of staff Respondents

1-5 staff 760

6-10 staff 836

11-20 staff 553

21-100 staff 209

10


31% 26% 16% 15% 10% 12% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4%

16%

12%

11%

35%

10% 16%

13% 12% 8% 9% 10% 10%

8%

6%

10%

22%

11%

11% 16%

12% 9% 10% 13% 11%

6%

4% 9%

14%

9%

9% 20%

9% 10% 9%

13% 11%

37% 52% 54%

13%

59% 50%

42%

57% 59% 63%

57%

50%

2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 6% 2% 2% 15%

RecombinantDNA

Animals Human sourcematerials

Highly/acutelytoxic or

mutagenicsubstances

Pathogenicorganisms

Lasers Physicalhazards

Viral vectors Nanomaterials Ionizingradiation

Radioactivematerials

Pyrophoricmaterials

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)

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.

11


Organization defined risk levels

Very high risk, 2%

High risk, 12%

Moderate risk, 39%

Low risk, 24%

Very low risk, 8%

I don't know, 15%

Risk Level Base Size

High risk 338

Moderate risk 922

Low risk 765

I don’t know 349

Respondents were asked to report the level of risk of their lab, as defined by their organization’s safety departments and/or committees. ‘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 safety department/committee(s) of the level of risk in their lab. 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.

Q: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Base: total sample (n= 2375)

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 risk’ and ‘very low risk’ responses are combined into the ‘low risk’ category.

12


Q: On average, how many hours per week do you spend in the lab? Base: total sample (n= 2375)

18%

15%

12%

16%

21%

12%

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

Hours per week spent in the lab

Overall average:

32 hours per week

Junior average: Senior average:

40 hours per week 22 hours per week

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).

13


35%

29%

16%

6% 8% 7%

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)

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.

14


Measuring and Assessing risk in the

Lab

15


1%

9%

43%

34%

14%

0% 2%

12%

39%

24%

8%

15%

Very high risk High risk Moderate risk Low risk Very low risk I don't know

Level of risk I believe that the level of risk of the work conducted inmy lab is:

My organization's safety department/committee(s)views the level of risk in my lab as:

Of those who provided an answer to both questions (i.e.

they did not select “I don’t know” (n= 2025)):

68% believe their lab is the same level of risk as their

organization believes it to be

24% feel that their lab is of lower risk than their


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


Q: I believe that the level of risk of the work conducted in my lab is: Base: total sample (n= 2375) Q: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Base: total sample (n= 2375)

20% of those with a junior job title

answered “I don’t know” compared

with 10% of those with senior job titles.

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.

Personal and organizational risk perceptions

16


24% 28% 27% 24% 24% 22% 20% 20% 20% 21%

68% 66% 65% 68%

62% 75%

74% 72% 68% 69%

8% 6% 8% 8% 14%

3% 6% 8% 11% 10%

Overall Biochemistry/biology (n= 886)

Neuroscience (n=181)

Biotech/ pharmaindustry (n= 106)

Physics/astronomy (n= 84)

Materials science(n=88)

Medicine (n= 127) Earth/environmentalsciences (n=89)

Chemistry (n= 330) Other (n= 134)

Think lower than insitute does Think the same as institute Think higher than institute does


• 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.

Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Disciplines

17


31% 28% 25% 23% 23% 23% 19% 19% 17%

58% 63% 67% 74% 72% 71% 74% 73% 79%

11% 9% 8% 3% 5% 6% 6% 8% 4%

Graduatestudent(PhD)

Post-doc Labtechnician

Principalinvestigator

Researchscientist

Professor Staffscientist

Seniorscientist

Labmanager


29% 21%

60% 74%

11% 5%

Junior Senior

Think higher than institutedoes

Think the same as institute

Think lower than insitutedoes

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.

Personal and organizational risk perceptions - Seniority

18


30% 24%

64%

21%

43%

21%

3%

2%

3%

2%

11%

9%

11%

10%

9%

12%

9%

21%

45% 54%

21%

49%

18%

21%

11% 11% 3%

17% 20% 29%

Overall United States(n= 1460)

United Kingdom(n= 356)

Other EU (n=151) Japan (n=56) China (n=97)

No risk assessment is performed I informally assess riskI conduct a risk assessment using my own format I conduct a risk assessment using a formalized, third-party hazard/risk assessment toolI 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)

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.

19


Safety Training Provision

20


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)

5%

3%

2%

21%

39%

55%

57%

63%

63%

Other

I don't know

Lab safety is not communicated in my lab

Safety videos (DVDs not delivered online)

Flyers, posters or other visual aids

Reading standard operating procedures

Classroom based training

Online resources (websites, online training, quizzes etc.)

Direct training in the lab through the prinipal investigator/supervisor

Provision of Safety Training

No. of options selected (of those who did

not say "Lab safety is not communicated in

my lab" or "I don't know“ (n= 2263)):

1 16%

2 19%

3 25%

4 19%

5 15%

6 6%

7 0%

Average 3.16

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

Direct training in the lab through the principal

investigator/supervisor

34%

Classroom based training 20%

Online resources (websites, online training, quizzes etc.) 19%

Reading standard operating procedures 17%

Flyers, posters or other visual aids 6%

Safety videos (DVDs not delivered online) 2%

Other (Specify) 3%

• 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.

21


68% 72% 71%

67%

21% 18%

22% 19%

10% 12% 8%

12%

16% 14%

18% 15%

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)

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.

22


22%

38%

38%

38%

44%

45%

15%

9%

9%

19%

6%

6%

6% "I received safety training on the specific agent/hazards I work

with"

"I received sufficient safety training in order to effectivelyminimise the risk of injury to myself and others in the lab"

"I received sufficient safety training in order to be compliant withthe rules and regulations related to my lab duties"

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

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%).

Appropriateness of training provided

23


10%

16%

26%

25%

22%

24%

24%

25%

16%

6%

"My supervisor/lab manager/PI regularly checks to make sure I amperforming my laboratory duties in a safe fashion using proper safety

equipment"

"Safety training in my organisation is focused on training compliancerequirements rather than on improving laboratory safety"


• 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.

Perceived focus and importance of training provided

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

24


75%

43%

35%

5% 6%

Lab safety staff from yourinstitution's health andsafety department(s)

A co-worker Supervisor or principalinvestigator

I didn't receive any training Other

Safety training

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)

• 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 providers

25


Awareness and responsibility

26


26%

37%

28%

41%

32%

40%

49%

50%

12%

8%

11%

5%

12%

5%

8%

3%

5%

3%

2%

14%

8%

2%

"I have access to the data and records which are trackedregarding my lab's safety and compliance"

"Members of my lab have access to documentation submitted tothe institution's safety department(s) and safety committees (e.g.Institutional Biosafety Committee, Radiation Safety Committee)"

"Members of my lab are aware of and understand the minimumtraining requirements for their specific lab duties"

"I am aware of and understand the minimum trainingrequirements for my specific lab duties"


Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: total sample (n=2374)

Of those who provided an answer to both of the top two statements (i.e. they did not select “I don’t know” (n= 2325)):

72% indicated the same level of agreement/disagreement for each of these statements

26% indicated a higher level of agreement with the statement about their own awareness and understanding than that of their colleagues

2% indicated a lower level of agreement with the statement about their own awareness than that of their colleagues.

• The vast majority (91%) of respondents agreed that they are aware of and understand the minimum training requirements for their lab duties, while fewer (77%) agree that this is true for the members of their lab. In fact, a quarter (26%) of respondents felt that they were aware of and better understood minimum requirements than other members of their lab.

• 14% of respondents did not know whether they had access to the data and records which are tracked regarding their lab’s safety and compliance, with only 58% agreeing that they do.

Awareness of training requirements

27


3%

7%

2%

6%

6%

7%

9%

27%

33%

I don't know

No one has been assigned orspecifically assumed this…

A junior technician

A graduate student

The lab safety staff from yourinstitution's health and safety…

A senior researcher

Department safety officer

The principal investigator or headsupervisor

The lab manager or a seniortechnician

Primarily responsible for compliance

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)

35%

1%

14%

16%

17%

38%

47%

I don't know

No one

The institution's lab safety staff (i.e.EHS and other lab safety/compliance

departments

The lab manager/supervisor

Individual lab members havepersonal liability

The principal investigator

The institution

Legally liable for accidents

• 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.

Responsibility for Lab Safety

28


3%

9%

1%

7%

4%

6%

8%

33%

28%

3%

8%

2%

5%

7%

6%

7%

31%

32%

4%

4%

3%

9%

8%

5%

10%

19%

38%

2%

4%

1%

5%

7%

10%

12%

15%

45%

I don't know

No one has been assigned or specifically assumed this responsibility

A junior technician

A senior researcher

A graduate student

The lab safety staff from your institution's health and safety department(s)

Department safety officer

The principal investigator or head supervisor

The lab manager or a senior technician

Primarily responsible for compliance

21-100 staff

11-20 staff

6-10 staff

1-5 staff

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)

# of people working in lab:

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.

Responsibility for Lab Safety – Lab size

29


14%

1%

21%

16%

48%

33%

27%

14%

0%

16%

14%

30%

34%

63%

44%

1%

9%

9%

18%

18%

36%

37%

0%

21%

13%

14%

30%

49%

37%

0%

16%

15%

14%

43%

50%

I don't know

No one


The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab safety/compliancedepartments

Individual lab members have personal liability


The institution

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.

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.

Responsibility for Lab Safety – Geography

30


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)

0%

26%

30%

25%

60%

70%

0%

18%

20%

23%

62%

76%

No one

The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other labsafety/compliance departments

Individual lab members have personal liability



The institution

Legal liability

Senior

Junior

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%)

"I don't know"

Senior 21%

Junior 47%

Responsibility for Lab Safety – Seniority

31


PPE and equipment in the Lab

32


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)

3%

3%

4%

10%

11%

72%

86%

94%

No PPE is required for my current labwork

Other

Full body suit

Respirator (N95, full or half face)

Gown

Goggles/eye protection

Lab coat

Gloves

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.

33


16%

39%

42%

44%

46%

69%

20%

18%

21%

21%

28%

24%

55%

35%

32%

29%

22%

7%

9%

5%

6%

6%

4%

1%

Respirator (n95, full or half face)(n=240)

Full body suit(n= 94)

Goggles/eye protection(n= 1710)

Gown(n= 257)

Lab coat(n= 2034)

Gloves(n= 2225)

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)

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.

34


49%

49%

53%

64%

40%

41%

34%

29%

7%

6%

6%

3%

2%

2%

4%

3%

"The research equipment I use for mylab work is designed and maintained

in safe working order"

"The research equipment I use for mylab work is safe"

"The safety equipment my lab uses(chemical fume hoods, biosafety

cabinets, etc) are always certified andin good working order"

"My lab always has sufficient suppliesof the PPE that I need for my lab

work"


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)

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.

35


Injuries and incidents

36


70%

17%

8% 3% 1% 1%

None 1 2 3 4 5+

Major injuries

28%

36%

22%

11%

4%

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 10+

Minor injuries

30% 34%

19%

13%

4%

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 10+

Incidents

22%

11%

29%

24%

19%

23%

17%

27%

9%

10%

2%

2%

2%

2%

"The number of major injuries could have been reducedif lab safety procedures were always followed"

"The number of minor injuries could have been reduced iflab 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)

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.

37


Yes, on more than

one occasion,

21%

Yes, once, 25%

No, 54%

Ever sustained a personal injury?

8%

1%

4%

4%

7%

10%

11%

15%

22%

24%

26%

63%

Other

Radiation exposure abovepermissable exposure limits

Bruise/bone fracture

Injury due to lifting

Slip/trip/fall

Repetitive Motion Injury

Laceration/cut/bite requiringstitches

Chemical inhalation

Chemical burn

Thermal burn

Needle stick

Minor laceration/cut/biterequiring no stitches

Type of personal injury

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)

Personal injuries

20% 22% 18% 23%

25% 27% 24%

24%

55% 51% 58% 53%

High Risk Moderate risk Low Risk I don't know

No

Yes, once

Yes, on morethan oneoccasion

• 46% of respondents have sustained an injury at least once during the time they have been conducting research in a lab setting, nearly two thirds (63%) of which have included minor laceration/cut/bites requiring no stitches.

• There doesn’t appear to be any significant difference in the proportion of people who have sustained personal injuries working in labs of different risk levels (as assessed by the institution).

38


26% 24% 24% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 20% 20% 19% 19%

26% 26% 26% 26% 25% 26% 26% 27% 25% 25% 27% 26%

48% 50% 50% 51% 52% 53% 53% 54% 55% 54% 55% 56%

Physical hazards(n= 491)

Pyrophoricmaterials (n=

316)

Radioactivematerials (n=

360)

Highly/acutelytoxic or

mutagenicsubstances (n=

1179)

Animals (n=879)

Lasers (n= 670) RecombinantDNA (n= 1112)

Ionizingradiation (n=

369)

Viral vectors (n=470)

Nanomaterials(n= 375)

Pathogenicorganisms (n=

464)

Human sourcematerials (n=

634)

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.

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.

39


12%

12%

11%

13%

37%

28%

12%

15%

10%

11%

53%

67%

72%

71%

45%

6%

10%

2%

6%

8%

I have seen a colleague sustain an injury and itwas reported to my supervisor or principal

investigator

I have seen a colleague sustain an injury but itwas not reported to my supervisor or principal

investigator

I have sustained an injury myself that I havenot reported to my supervisor or principal

investigator

I have seen a colleague break a lab safetyrule/protocol and reported it to my supervisor

or principal investigator

I have seen a colleague break a lab safetyrule/protocol but did not report it to my

supervisor or principal 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)

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.

40


Overall safety

41


12%

36%

33%

49%

31%

10%

18%

4%

5% "I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved"

"Appropriate safety measures in mylab have been taken to protect employees from injury"


Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Total sample (n= 2374)

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.

42


15%

13%

12%

10%

12%

40%

35%

32%

31%

33%

27%

30%

31%

33%

31%

11%

17%

18%

21%

18%

4%

5%

6%

5%

5%

Over 20, excluding thosewho said over 100

11 to 20

6 to 10

1 to 5

Overall


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)

“I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved”

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.

43


9%

11%

23%

9%

18%

12%

30%

32%

35%

64%

49%

33%

34%

30%

28%

18%

18%

31%

20%

20%

11%

4%

10%

18%

5%

7%

3%

2%

2%

5%

4%

4%

United States (n=1460)

United Kindom (n=356)

Other EU (n=151)

Japan (n=59)

China (n=97)

Overall

Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagee Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know


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.

Improving lab safety – Geography

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)

44


11%

15%

11%

20%

12%

33%

33%

32%

38%

33%

31%

31%

32%

25%

31%

18%

16%

19%

12%

18%

5%

4%

5%

4%

5%

Infrequent/non Pathogenic

Frequent Pathogenic (n=464)

Infrequent/non Pyrophoric

Frequent Pyrophoric (n=316)

Overall

Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don’t know


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.

Improving lab safety – Hazards

Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Base: All respondents (n=2374)

45


• 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%).

26%

49%

53%

45%

13%

4%

6%

1%

Junior

Senior


"Appropriate safety measures in my lab have been taken to protect employees from injury"

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).

Appropriateness of safety measures - Seniority

46


Safety inspections

47


8%

18%

43%

3% 2%

11%

5%

10%

21%

15%

21%

1% 1%

10%

20%

11%

At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once everytwo years

Less than once everytwo years

They are carried outbut I don't know how

often

To the best of myknowledge, laboratorysafety inspections arenot carried out by my

institution's safetystaff/by lab personnel

I don't know

By institution's safety department(s) 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)

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.

48


12%

23%

38%

3% 2%

10%

4%

9% 9%

20%

46%

3% 1%

10%

2%

8% 7%

17%

46%

4% 2%

9%

5%

10%

5%

9%

36%

2% 2%

18%

11%

17%

At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once everytwo years

Less than once everytwo years

They are carried outbut I don't know how

often

To the best of myknowledge, laboratorysafety inspections arenot carried out by my

institution's safetystaff

I don't know

High risk Moderate risk Low risk I don't know

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)

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.

49


2%

0%

1%

28%

49%

19%

I don't know

Safety is greatly compromised by the frequency of the inspections

Safety is slightly compromised by the frequency of the inspections

The inspections have no significant impact of safety

Safety is slightly improved by the inspections

Safety is greatly improved by the inspections

Impact of safety inspections

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)

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.

50


4%

0%

1%

34%

47%

14%

1%

1%

1%

21%

51%

25%

I don't know

Safety is greatly compromised by the frequency of the inspections

Safety is slightly compromised by the frequency of the inspections

The inspections have no significant impact of safety

Safety is slightly improved by the inspections

Safety is greatly improved by the inspections

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)

• 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.

Impact of inspections on lab safety - Seniority

51


Importance of safety

52


66%

53% 48%

40%

28%

21% 42%

28% 41%

51%

6%

4%

9%

13% 17%

6% 12%

3% 3%

…lab safety/compliance staff …you personally …your institution's leadership …your supervisor or principle investigator

…your colleagues

Importance placed on lab safety by…

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)

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.

53


More important to you than your colleagues 34%

As important to you as to your colleagues 64%

More important to your colleagues than to you 2%

More important to you than your supervisor 29%

As important to you as to your supervisor 60%

More important to your supervisor than to you 11%

More important to you than to your lab safety/compliance staff 17%

As important to you as to your lab safety/compliance staff 53%

More important to your lab safety/compliance staff than yourself 31%

More important to you than your institution's leadership 25%

As important to you as to your institution's leadership 52%

More important to your institution's leadership than to you 22%

The table on this slide shows how the importance placed on safety by the respondents themselves compares with their answers about the importance placed on lab safety by their colleagues, their supervisor, lab safety/compliance staff and their institutions leadership. 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 them personally with the proportion who thought safety was less important to themselves than it was to another group shows some interesting findings. • 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 colleagues did.

• The proportion of respondents feeling that they take safety more seriously than their supervisors was only slightly lower than the 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.

• Safety/compliance staff were considered to feel safety was at least as important as respondents felt it was, with almost one third (31%) of respondents saying that safety staff considered safety to have a higher 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.

Comparative importance placed on Lab Safety

54


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)

7%

19%

49%

16%

6%

3%

Far toostringent

A little toostringent

About right Should bea littlemore

stringent

Should befar morestringent

I don'tknow

View of safety procedures

3%

5%

7%

8%

9%

11%

15%

20%

21%

26%

26%

27%

37%

45%

Other

Unfunded regulatory mandates

Inadequate equipment

There are no significant barriers

Inadequate facilities

Untrained staff

Lack of funds for safety equipment

Lack/inadequate safety training

Competing priorities

Focus on compliance requirements over safety

Lack of leadership

Lack of understanding of safety requirements

Apathy

Time and hassle factors

Barriers to lab safety

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.

55


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 department/committee(s) views the level of risk as high risk (n= 338), moderate risk (n= 923), low risk (n= 765), and those who don’t know (n= 349)

7% 13%

6% 6% 3%

19%

24%

22% 16%

17%

49%

41% 50%

54%

43%

16% 16% 18%

14%

18%

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

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.

56


Safety is paramount and takes precedent

over all other lab priorities,

21%

Safety is very important,

46%

Safety is of equal

importance to other lab priorities,

22%

Safety is less important than other

lab priorities, 8%

Safety is a low priority

in my lab, 3%

8%

20% 19%

36%

18%

1%

5%

12%

19%

43%

21%

1%

Stronglyagree

Agree Neither agreenor disagree

Disagree Stronglydisagree

I don't know

"Lab safety rules and regulations have the potential to negatively impact scientificdiscovery" "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)

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.

57


21% 25% 25% 22% 21% 21% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 18% 17%

46% 44% 44%

41% 46% 46% 46% 42% 44% 48% 44% 43% 47%

22% 20% 19% 24%

22% 22% 20% 26% 25% 22%

24% 24% 24%

8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 11% 9%

3% 4% 6% 6% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%

Overall Physicalhazards (n=

491)

Nanomaterials(n= 375)

Pyrophoricmaterials (n=

316)


464)

Human sourcematerials (n=

634)


369)

Viral vectors(n= 470)

RecombinantDNA (n= 1112)

Lasers (n= 670) toxic ormutagenic

substances (n=1179)


360)

Animals (n=879)

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.

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.

58


12%

44%

29%

11%

5%

36%

48%

13%

1% 1%

Safety is paramount andtakes precedent over all

other lab priorities

Safety is very important Safety is of equalimportance to other lab

priorities

Safety is less importantthan other lab priorities

Safety is a low priority inmy lab

Junior Senior

Q: Which of the following statements best describes your laboratory in regards to safety? Base: Junior (n= 1091); Senior (n= 643)

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.

59


General Attitudes

60


50%

48%

38%

43%

44%

48%

6%

6%

9%

1%

1%

4%

"I enjoy my work"

"I have a good working relationship withmy lab members"

"I feel that my lab is a safe place to work"

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?

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%.

61


27%

39%

32%

46%

47%

35%

43%

36%

37%

41%

17%

9%

14%

8%

7%

15%

7%

12%

6%

4%

"I feel comfortable speaking to my supervisor orprincipal investigator about safety concerns

regarding the work of my colleagues" *

"If I have concerns, I feel comfortable speakingto my colleagues about their lab safety

practices"

"I feel comfortable speaking to the institution'ssafety department(s) about safety concerns

regarding the work in my lab"

"I feel comfortable speaking to my supervisoror principal investigator about safety concerns

regarding my own lab work" *

"If I have concerns, I feel comfortable speakingto students or lab staff about their lab safety

practices"


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)

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).

62


38% 41% 39% 39% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 36% 36% 33%

48% 46% 48% 46% 49% 47% 47% 50% 49% 45% 45% 48%

9% 9% 8% 10% 8% 10% 8% 8% 9% 12% 11% 11%

4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5%

Overall Human sourcematerials (n=

634)

Viral vectors(n= 470)


360)

Animals (n=879)


369)


464)

RecombinantDNA (n= 1112)

Lasers (n= 670)Nanomaterials(n= 375)

Physicalhazards (n=

491)

toxic/mutagenicsubstances(n=1179)Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

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.

“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.

63


38% 37% 37% 44%

28%

48% 48% 50% 44%

53%

9% 8% 9% 7% 12%

4% 4% 3% 3% 5%

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 department/committee(s) views the level of risk as high risk (n= 338), moderate risk (n= 923), low risk (n= 765), and those who don’t know (n= 349)

“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.

64


Demographics of respondents

65


0% 1%

13%

23%

17%

10%

16%

14%

6%

Under 18 18-20years

21-25years

26-30years

31-35years

36-40years

41-50years

51-60years

Morethan 60

years

Age

1%

0%

1%

3%

4%

6%

8%

11%

68%

Other

Hospital (community; no research)

NGO

Medical school

Privately funded research institute

Hospital (university research orteaching)

Industry/corporation

Government agency or institute

University/college

Institution type

Q: What is your age? Base: Total sample (n= 2375) Q: Which category best describes your place of work? Base: Total sample (n= 2375)

Age and Institution type

66


6%

0%

0%

0%

2%

3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

9%

17%

44%

Other

Physics (theoretical)

Astronomy, planetary science, astrophysics

Business/investment

Pharmaceuticals industry

Biotech industry

Physics (experimental)

Materials science

Earth/environmental sciences

Medicine

Neuroscience

Chemistry (experimental)

Biochemistry/biology

Discipline

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)

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

6%

77%

Other

Danish

Finnish

Swedish

Russian

Dutch

Italian

Portuguese

French

Japanese

Spanish

German

Chinese

English

Primary language

Discipline and primary language

laboratory safety culture survey 2012 draft · pdf file3 laboratory safety culture survey 2012...

Documents