Distribution of Biosafety Violations in Laboratories: Implications for Measuring Biosafety Culture

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Biosafety
Published
2026-01-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/15356760251412440
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Distribution of Biosafety Violations in Laboratories: Implications for Measuring Biosafety Culture

Diann Stedman, Karl Nubbe, Jay A. Schroeder, Adam E. J. Fleming et al.
Applied Biosafety
Animal testing and alternatives
article

Distribution of Biosafety Violations in Laboratories: Implications for Measuring Biosafety Culture

Diann Stedman, Karl Nubbe, Jay A. Schroeder, Adam E. J. Fleming, Kelly N. Kim, Scott J. Patlovich, Rocco Casagrande, Sa-Lin Bernstein, Noah Gunther, Henry Wyneken, John Crocker, Christian H. Garnier
article en

Abstract

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.

Applied Biosafety
Pennsylvania State University (US), Deloitte (United States) (US), George Mason University (US), University of Chicago (US), Gryphon Scientific (United States) (US), The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Animal testing and alternatives
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.