Approaches to Understanding Human Behavior When Investigating Incidents in Academic Chemical Laboratories

Abstract

Recent years have seen significantly increased awareness of the need to improve the management of health and safety in academic chemical laboratories and, in particular, to reduce the potential for incidents posing a significant risk of fatality or serious injury. Studies have reported up to 30% of scientists working in academic chemical laboratories as having witnessed an injury at work severe enough to warrant attention from a medical professional. This paper is concerned with approaches to understanding and learning about why the individuals involved in incidents in chemical laboratories may have acted as they did. Drawing on two significant incidents as example and for context, the paper discusses seven themes that are typically of concern to those professionally engaged in the study and investigation of the Human Factors contributions to incidents: the difference between intentional and unintentional human failures; the concept of local rationality; four “hard truths” of human performance; the difference between “work-as-done” and “work-as-imagined”; different forms of complacency; consideration of how people might have benefited by acting the way they did; and the awareness and perception of risk and the difference between direct and indirect risk awareness. The paper includes recommendations for how different stakeholders, including academic institutions investing in new or modified chemical laboratories; administrators; environment, safety, and health (ESH) professionals; manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals and lab equipment; principal investigators; and graduate students could benefit from reflection on the seven themes. The paper includes suggestions for applied research to support long-term improvements in safety in academic chemical laboratories.