Analysis of historical biosafety violation data reveals insights about culture in laboratories, indicating potential for improvement.
Introduction: Effectively managing biological risk in a research setting requires a strong organizational commitment to promoting safe practices and adhering to established protocols, a concept known as a “culture of biosafety.” Although a sound culture of biosafety is critical for responsible conduct of research, its assessment remains challenging, relying on self-reporting and qualitative and subjective evaluations. Methods: To determine if a laboratory’s culture of biosafety could be evaluated objectively, we examined historical biosafety violation data at three U.S. universities, including biosafety cabinet recertification violations at one university and a range of violations at two other universities. These data were analyzed to determine the distribution of violations among investigators. Results: At all three institutions, we found that a majority of investigators operate laboratories with low rates of biosafety violations and few repeat violations; however, a minority of investigators operate laboratories that are repeatedly in violation of established biosafety guidelines and standards. Repeat violations were unequally distributed amongst laboratories, with only 20% of laboratories accounting for 70–90% of total repeat violations. Discussion: We found that a vast majority of investigators operate laboratories with commendable cultures of biosafety that manifest as low rates of violations and repeat violations. Conclusion: This research establishes metrics for evaluating a laboratory’s culture of biosafety with an objective evidence basis and transparent approach, laying the foundation for future research to understand the drivers of biosafety culture, create interventions to improve biosafety culture, and creating a near-term mechanism to promote biosafety culture at institutions via data-driven retention and recruitment strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: