Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations

The median volunteer is estimated to have an error rate of about 4 or 8 errors per 1,000 manipulations (for volunteers with significant laboratory experience vs. those with little laboratory experience, respectively). Estimated error rates from both experiments are comparable, suggesting that studies using volunteers who know they are working with nonhazardous materials can be used to replicate real laboratory conditions to provide critical data in biosafety. The volunteers were also asked to declare when they thought they made an error. By comparing true errors to those declared, we found that volunteers identified a maximum of 52% of their total mistakes, indicating that many mistakes go unnoticed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Biosafety
Published
2024-08-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0009
Primary Topic
Biomedical and Engineering Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations

Henry L. Wyneken, Sherry S. Bohn, Karl Nubbe, Erin Lauer et al.
Applied Biosafety
Biomedical and Engineering Education
article

Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations

Henry L. Wyneken, Sherry S. Bohn, Karl Nubbe, Erin Lauer, Adam E. J. Fleming, Anissa Chouikha, Rebecca L. Moritz, Nicholas G. Evans, Ana Beatriz Gorini da Veiga, Kelly N. Kim, Nisreen Al-Hmoud, Joan M. Ryan, Rocco Casagrande, Ryan Ritterson, Noah Gunther, Aline Gehlen Dall Bello, Sana Masmoudi, Jessie Harrell, Lily Yandow, Sylvia Costa, Navin De Silva
article en

Abstract

The median volunteer is estimated to have an error rate of about 4 or 8 errors per 1,000 manipulations (for volunteers with significant laboratory experience vs. those with little laboratory experience, respectively). Estimated error rates from both experiments are comparable, suggesting that studies using volunteers who know they are working with nonhazardous materials can be used to replicate real laboratory conditions to provide critical data in biosafety. The volunteers were also asked to declare when they thought they made an error. By comparing true errors to those declared, we found that volunteers identified a maximum of 52% of their total mistakes, indicating that many mistakes go unnoticed.

Applied BiosafetyVol. 30(1)
University of Massachusetts Lowell (US), Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (BR), Princess Sumaya University for Technology (JO), Royal Scientific Society (JO), Gryphon Scientific (United States) (US), Institut Pasteur de Tunis (TN), Universidade Luterana do Brasil (BR), University of Maryland, College Park (US), Colorado State University (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Biomedical and Engineering Education
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations — Henry L. Wyneken, Sherry S. Bohn, et al. · Applied Biosafety (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS