Safety doesn’t impede productivity!

Prioritising research safety doesn’t impede science or the research.

Oh, but my research is completely new, original, and unprecedented, delving into the unknown! Therefore, it’s impossible to complete a risk assessment! It can be challenging to identify hazards associated with novel research and then design an experiment. Just because a novel element is associated with the research doesn’t mean that the entire experiment is novel. You can check for known and identifiable obstacles before starting, such as the known equipment and some techniques and substances you use. It’s essential to ensure the safety goals are not overshadowed by the experiment's goals.

As Louis Pasteur said, “Chance favours the prepared mind”!

Think! What could derail your research?

If, before starting your research, you aim to identify anything that could go wrong, that might stop you from completing your research, that might be costly or a process might fail unless controls are in place, then you are more likely to complete your research sooner, with fewer roadblocks and more reliable results. Identifying the risks and their controls, and documenting how to handle them, becomes the basis of the training needed to carry out the research successfully.  This training must include what to do if something doesn’t go to plan. Think in advance about the specific hazards inherent in particular tasks and find ways to both lessen the chance that something will go wrong and also to protect yourself when it does.

When properly trained to handle the worst outcomes, people are equipped to maximize the chances of a good outcome. Take, for example, the emergency landing of a passenger plane on the Hudson River in 2009 following engine failure induced by a bird strike. The risk had previously been identified, and the crew was well-trained to respond appropriately.  All passengers and crew were rescued.

As another example, in 2008 a junior research assistant died after an incident while working with a highly flammable substance. In this example, the research assistant performed a dangerous task incorrectly. Not only had she not been trained in how to do the task correctly, but she had also not been trained in what to do if something did go wrong. It’s how people react to something going wrong that can mitigate or propagate an adverse outcome. 

However, people tend to avoid change until the change-avoidance effort becomes greater than the effort needed to change. Laboratory researchers are injured, sometimes fatally, each year while working in their labs. Each year equipment is damaged, sometimes beyond repair, often because someone has failed to do a basic check. These are all costly, both in time, money, and other resources and yet Researchers generally remain blasé about lab safety, with some seeing it as directly at odds with getting work done in the lab. But things can and do go wrong! People are fallible, and even the best, most diligent researchers can make a mistake. A lab manager cannot count on human performance to always keep a lab safe. Lab protocols need to be written so that, if followed properly, people are far less likely to make a mistake, and if a mistake does occur, it is less severe.

Incidents. Near misses. Mistakes. Assumptions. These are the things that can impede productivity!

So, what should happen?

Identify upfront things that can go wrong, that can negatively affect the research outcomes, and that might force the research to stop or not meet the time points. 

Identify fixes, and controls for the things that can derail the research,

Document your findings. Write the safe work procedure incorporating these fixes, and controls and train people to carry out these procedures.  This will help ensure that the research can be repeatedly carried out without interruption and to the same consistent standard.

Reference: Laboratory Safety and Research Productivity May 30, 2023

Further Information: safety@unsw.edu.au