Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers

Abstract

A survey on laboratory safety, conducted in 2012, provided the basis for comparing safety culture attributes of respondents from academic (n = 991), government (n = 133) and industry (n = 120) laboratories. There were institutional differences in risk assessment methods conducted before carrying out an experiment, for which fewer researchers from academia (18%) used forms issued by their organization as compared to government and industry researchers (51% and 43%, respectively). Safety training in all three institutions was reported to be similar; however, about 25% of all researchers were not trained on the specific hazard with which they worked. Risk perceptions were similar between respondents from all three institutions with respondents generally believing their personal risk to be significantly lower than what they assumed was predicated by their institution. The most striking difference between institutions was observed with self-reported PPE compliance behavior; respondents from industry labs were significantly more compliant with wearing a lab coat (87%) and eye protection (83%) than respondents from academic (66% and 61%, respectively) and government labs (73% and 76%, respectively). PPE compliance was highly associated with researchers’ perception of the level of risk in their lab; PPE compliance generally declined with lower perceived risk. In contrast to industry and government labs, PPE compliance of researchers in academia was significantly positively influenced when their safety behavior was monitored. Active safety involvement of the principal investigator (PI) or laboratory supervisor also correlated significantly with lower numbers of accidents reported by students and postdoctoral fellows in academic labs. The data support the view that laboratory safety is positively impacted by active involvement of the PI or a dedicated laboratory supervisor in academic institutions.