Laboratory Safety Culture Survey 2012 Draft Report

Transcription

1 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 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 , 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 13 th June 2012 and was closed on 30 th July 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

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. 3

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 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

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. 5

6 Respondent Profiles 6

7 Geography Japan, 2% Other, 10% China, 4% Other EU, 6% United Kingdom, 15% United States, 62% 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. Please indicate the country in which you are currently performing research. Base: Total sample (n= 2360) Region Base Size United States 1460 United Kingdom 356 Other EU 151 China 97 Japan 59 Other 237 7

8 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 Staff scientist Senior scientist Graduate student (Masters) Teacher Undergraduate student Health and safety professional Research director Head/Chair/Director of department Governmental agency staff scientist Industry research scientist Senior industry researcher Process engineer CEO/Chancellor/President Vice chancellor/vice president 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 4% 5% 6% 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). 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

9 Lab size and respondent experience 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, staff, 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. 32% 35% 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. 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. 9% 6% 1% 1% Less than 5 months 11% 6% Experience of working in a lab 12% 29% 21% 22% 21% 16% 8% Overall In current 10% 9% 16% 4% 4% 3% 5-11 months 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-10 years years years years 26 years or more 1-5 staff 6-10 staff staff staff Number of staff Respondents 1-5 staff staff staff staff 209 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

10 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% 6% 8% 16% 31% 52% 54% 4% 6% 12% 26% 9% 10% 11% 14% 22% 35% 16% 15% 59% 9% 11% 10% 50% 9% 11% 16% 10% 12% 42% 20% 16% 57% 9% 12% 59% 63% 10% 9% 57% 13% 9% 10% 13% 50% 11% 11% 13% 12% 8% 9% 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4% Recombinant DNA Animals Human source materials Highly/acutely toxic or mutagenic substances Pathogenic organisms Lasers Physical hazards Viral vectors Nanomaterials Ionizing radiation Radioactive materials Pyrophoric materials 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

11 Organization defined risk levels Very high risk, 2% Very low risk, 8% I don't know, 15% Low risk, 24% High risk, 12% Moderate risk, 39% 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. Risk Level Base Size High risk 338 Moderate risk 922 Low risk 765 I don t know 349 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. Q: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Base: total sample (n= 2375) 11

12 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). 18% 21% Overall average: 32 hours per week 15% 12% 16% 12% Junior average: Senior average: 40 hours per week 22 hours per week 4% 2% 1-10 hours hours hours hours hours hours 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

13 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% 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) 13

14 Measuring and Assessing risk in the Lab 14

15 I believe that the level of risk of the work conducted in my lab is: My organization's safety department/committee(s) views the level of risk in my lab as: Personal and organizational risk perceptions 43% 34% 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 39% 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 organization believes it to be 24% 8% feel that their lab is of higher risk than their organization believes it to be 9% 12% 14% 8% 15% 1% 2% 0% Very high risk High risk Moderate risk Low risk Very low risk I don't know 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. 15

16 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. 8% 6% 8% 8% 14% 3% 6% 8% 11% 10% 68% 66% 65% 68% 62% 75% 74% 72% 68% 69% 24% 28% 27% 24% 24% 22% 20% 20% 20% 21% Overall Biochemistry/ biology (n= 886) Neuroscience (n= 181) Biotech/ pharma industry (n= 106) Physics/ astronomy (n= 84) Materials science (n=88) Medicine (n= 127) Earth/ environmental sciences (n=89) Think lower than insitute does Think the same as institute Think higher than institute does Chemistry (n= 330) Other (n= 134) 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) 16

17 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. 11% 5% 11% 9% 8% 3% 5% 6% 6% 8% 4% 60% 74% Think higher than institute does 58% 63% 67% 74% 72% 71% 74% 73% 79% Think the same as institute Think lower than insitute does 29% 21% 31% 28% 25% 23% 23% 23% 19% 19% 17% Junior Senior Graduate student (PhD) Post-doc Lab technician Principal investigator Research scientist Professor Staff scientist Senior scientist Lab manager 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) 17

18 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. 11% 11% 3% 21% 17% 20% 29% 45% 54% 9% 3% 49% 18% 9% 21% 11% 11% 3% 30% 10% 2% 24% 64% 12% 2% 21% 43% 21% 9% 21% Overall United States (n= 1460) No risk assessment is performed I conduct a risk assessment using my own format I conduct a risk assessment using my organization's approved form United Kingdom (n= 356) Q: Which, if any, type of risk assessment do you currently carry out before conducting an experiment? Base: total sample (n= 2375) Other EU (n=151) Japan (n=56) China (n=97) I informally assess risk I conduct a risk assessment using a formalized, third-party hazard/risk assessment tool 18

19 Safety Training Provision 19

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

21 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. 68% 72% 71% 67% 21% 10% 16% 18% 14% 12% 22% 8% 18% 19% 15% 12% Overall High risk Moderate risk Low risk Before being allowed to carry out experiments More than 30 days after they begin working on experiments Upon notification from the safety staff I don't know Within 30 days of beginning to work on experiments Only if they request it or if the safety staff notifies them of the training requirement Safety training is not required 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

22 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 the rules and regulations related to my lab duties" 38% 45% 9% 6% "I received sufficient safety training in order to effectively minimise the risk of injury to myself and others in the lab" 38% 44% 9% 6% "I received safety training on the specific agent/hazards I work with" 22% 38% 15% 19% 6% 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

23 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 requirements rather than on improving laboratory safety" 16% 25% 24% 25% 6% "My supervisor/lab manager/pi regularly checks to make sure I am performing my laboratory duties in a safe fashion using proper safety equipment" 10% 26% 22% 24% 16% 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: 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

24 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. 75% Safety training 43% 35% 5% 6% Lab safety staff from your institution's health and safety department(s) A co-worker Supervisor or principal investigator I didn't receive any training Other 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

25 Awareness and responsibility 25

26 Awareness of training requirements 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. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know "I am aware of and understand the minimum training requirements for my specific lab duties" 41% 50% 5% 3% "Members of my lab are aware of and understand the minimum training requirements for their specific lab duties" 28% 49% 11% 8% 2% 2% "Members of my lab have access to documentation submitted to the institution's safety department(s) and safety committees (e.g. Institutional Biosafety Committee, Radiation Safety Committee)" 37% 40% 8% 5% 3% 8% "I have access to the data and records which are tracked regarding my lab's safety and compliance" 26% 32% 12% 12% 5% 14% Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: total sample (n=2374) 26

27 Primarily responsible for compliance 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. Legally liable for accidents The lab manager or a senior technician 33% The institution 47% The principal investigator or head supervisor 27% The principal investigator 38% Department safety officer A senior researcher 7% 9% Individual lab members have personal liability 17% The lab safety staff from your institution's health and safety 6% The lab manager/supervisor 16% A graduate student A junior technician 2% 6% The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab safety/compliance departments 14% No one has been assigned or specifically assumed this 7% No one 1% 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

28 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 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 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 The lab manager or a senior technician The principal investigator or head supervisor Department safety officer The lab safety staff from your institution's health and safety department(s) A graduate student A senior researcher A junior technician No one has been assigned or specifically assumed this responsibility I don't know 15% 12% 10% 7% 8% 10% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% 4% 5% 9% 5% 7% 1% 3% 2% 1% 4% 4% 8% 9% 2% 4% 3% 3% 19% 45% 38% 32% 28% 31% 33% # of people working in lab: staff 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 staff (n= 209), staff (n= 553), 6-10 staff (n= 836) and 1-5 staff (n= 760) 28

29 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. The institution The principal investigator Individual lab members have personal liability The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab safety/compliance departments The lab manager/supervisor No one I don't know 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 9% 9% 18% 14% 14% 18% 15% 13% 14% 16% 16% 21% 16% 21% 14% 14% 36% 27% 30% 34% 33% 30% 37% 37% 43% 44% 50% 49% 48% 63% 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

30 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 "I don't know" The institution 70% 76% Senior 21% Junior 47% The principal investigator 62% 60% The lab manager/supervisor 23% 25% Individual lab members have personal liability 20% 30% Senior The institution's lab safety staff (i.e. EHS and other lab safety/compliance departments 18% 26% Junior No one 0% 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

31 PPE and equipment in the Lab 31

32 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 work 3% 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

33 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 (n= 2225) 69% 24% 7% 1% Lab coat (n= 2034) 46% 28% 22% 4% Gown (n= 257) 44% 21% 29% 6% Goggles/eye protection (n= 1710) 42% 21% 32% 6% Full body suit (n= 94) 39% 18% 35% 5% Respirator (n95, full or half face) (n=240) 16% 20% 55% 9% 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

34 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 work" 64% 29% 3% 3% "The safety equipment my lab uses (chemical fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, etc) are always certified and in good working order" 53% 34% 6% 4% "The research equipment I use for my lab work is safe" 49% 41% 6% 2% "The research equipment I use for my lab work is designed and maintained in safe working order" 49% 40% 7% 2% 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: Top statement: those who use at least one type of PPE (n=2305); Otherwise: total sample (n= 2373) 34

35 Injuries and incidents 35

36 70% 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. Major injuries Minor injuries Incidents 17% 8% 3% 1% 1% 28% 36% 22% 11% 4% 30% 34% 19% 13% 4% None None None "The number of minor injuries could have been reduced if lab safety procedures were always followed" 11% 24% 23% 27% 10% 2% 2% "The number of major injuries could have been reduced if lab safety procedures were always followed" 22% 29% 19% 17% 9% 2% 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

37 Personal injuries Ever sustained a personal injury? No, 54% Yes, on more than one occasion, 21% Yes, once, 25% 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). Minor laceration/cut/bite requiring no stitches Needle stick Thermal burn Chemical burn Chemical inhalation Laceration/cut/bite requiring stitches Type of personal injury 11% 15% 24% 22% 26% 63% Repetitive Motion Injury 10% 55% 51% 25% 27% 58% 53% 24% 24% 20% 22% 18% 23% High Risk Moderate risk Low Risk I don't know Slip/trip/fall Injury due to lifting Bruise/bone fracture Radiation exposure above permissable exposure limits 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) No Yes, once Yes, on more than one occasion Other 4% 1% 4% 7% 8% 37

38 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 (n= 491) Pyrophoric materials (n= 316) Radioactive materials (n= 360) Highly/acutely toxic or mutagenic substances (n= 1179) Animals (n= 879) Lasers (n= 670) Recombinant DNA (n= 1112) Ionizing radiation (n= 369) Viral vectors (n= 470) Nanomaterials (n= 375) Pathogenic organisms (n= 464) Human source materials (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. 38

39 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 supervisor or principal investigator 37% 11% 45% 8% I have seen a colleague break a lab safety rule/protocol and reported it to my supervisor or principal investigator 13% 10% 71% 6% I have sustained an injury myself that I have not reported to my supervisor or principal investigator 11% 15% 72% 2% I have seen a colleague sustain an injury but it was not reported to my supervisor or principal investigator 12% 12% 67% 10% I have seen a colleague sustain an injury and it was reported to my supervisor or principal investigator 12% 28% 53% 6% 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

40 Overall safety 40

41 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 lab have been taken to protect employees from injury" 36% 49% 10% 4% "I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved" 12% 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? Total sample (n= 2374) 41

42 Improving lab safety lab size The opinion that safety could be improved was greater in larger labs, with those of size 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 who said over % 40% 27% 11% 4% 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: Those working in a lab with employees (n= 209), employees (n= 553), 6-10 employees (n= 836) and 1-5 employees (n= 760) 42

43 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. I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved 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

44 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. I think that overall safety in my lab could be improved 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

45 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% 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? Those with a junior job title (n= 1091) and those with a senior job title (n= 642). 45

46 Safety inspections 46

47 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% 8% 21% 18% 15% 21% 3% 1% 2% 1% 11% 10% 5% 20% 10% 11% At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once every two years By institution's safety department(s) staff Less than once every two years By lab personnel They are carried out but I don't know how often To the best of my knowledge, laboratory safety inspections are not carried out by my institution's safety staff/by lab personnel I don't know 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

48 Institution lab inspections Risk level 46% 46% 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. 38% 36% 23% 20% 17% 18% 17% 12% 9% 7% 5% 9% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 10% 10% 9% 4% 2% 5% 11% 9% 10% 8% At least once a month At least once a quarter At least once per year At least once every two years Less than once every two years High risk Moderate risk Low risk I don't know They are carried out but I don't know how often To the best of my knowledge, laboratory safety inspections are not carried out by my institution's safety staff 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) 48

49 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

50 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. Safety is greatly improved by the inspections 14% 25% Safety is slightly improved by the inspections 47% 51% The inspections have no significant impact of safety 21% 34% Safety is slightly compromised by the frequency of the inspections 1% 1% Safety is greatly compromised by the frequency of the inspections 1% 0% I don't know 1% 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

51 Importance of safety 51

52 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% 6% 4% 12% 3% 3% 13% 17% 21% 42% 9% 28% 41% 51% 66% 53% 48% 40% 28% lab safety/compliance staff you personally your institution's leadership your supervisor or principle investigator Very important Quite important Not very important Not important at all I don't know your colleagues 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

53 Comparative importance placed on Lab Safety 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. 53

54 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 49% Time and hassle factors Apathy 37% 45% 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% 19% 16% Lack of funds for safety equipment Untrained staff 15% 11% Inadequate facilities 9% 7% 6% 3% There are no significant barriers Inadequate equipment 8% 7% Far too stringent A little too stringent About right Should be a little more stringent Should be far more stringent I don't know Unfunded regulatory mandates 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) Other 5% 3% 54

55 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% 16% 18% 14% 18% 49% 41% 50% 54% 43% 19% 7% 24% 13% 22% 16% 17% 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 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) 55

56 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 important than other lab priorities, 8% Safety is of equal importance to other lab priorities, 22% Safety is a low priority in my lab, 3% Safety is paramount and takes precedent over all other lab priorities, 21% 8% 5% 20% 19% 19% 12% 36% 18% 21% 1% 1% Safety is very important, 46% Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I don't know "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