Student Involvement in Improving the Culture of Safety in AcademicLaboratoriesKathryn A. McGarry, Katie R. Hurley, Kelly A. Volp, Ian M. Hill, Brian A. Merritt, Katie L. Peterson,

P. Alex Rudd, Nicholas C. Erickson, Lori A. Seiler, Pankaj Gupta, Frank S. Bates,

and William B. Tolman*,

Department of Chemistry and Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55455, United StatesDow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674, United States

*S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: An effective way of addressing the need for an improved culture of safety in research-intensive sciencedepartments is described, which involves enabling leadership by graduate student and postdoctoral associate laboratory safetyofficers (LSOs). In partnership with The Dow Chemical Company, LSOs from the Departments of Chemistry and ChemicalEngineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota formed a Joint Safety Team. With helpful input from Dow, theteam has played a key role in improving the culture and practice of safety in both departments, providing support for use of thismodel for inculcating safety as a core value and an integral part of academic life.

KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Safety/Hazards, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Laboratory Management,TA Training/Orientation

Safety deficiencies in academic research laboratories havereceived significant attention for decades, particularlyfollowing laboratory accidents or the introduction of newsafety standards.1 Despite much discussion, however, theculture of safety in academia remains poorly developed relativeto that in industrial and government laboratory settings, wherethere is pervasive emphasis on and widespread awareness ofsafe laboratory practices. Recent accidents underscore thegeneral observation that adherence to best safety practices isinsufficient in academic laboratories and that the requisiteattitudes, awareness, and ethics about safety issuestheculture of safetyare not sufficiently instilled among thefaculty and students.2 As noted in a recent ACS report,3 safetyis a positive valueit prevents injuries, saves lives, andimproves productivity and outcomes. For these reasons,improving the culture of safety in academic laboratories is animportant goal.A survey of the literature shows that attempts to address

concerns about safety practices in academic laboratories havefocused primarily on disseminating protocols and proceduresand improving regulatory compliance.4 Particular emphasis isplaced on leadership by faculty, laboratory directors, andadministrators and on proper operations of departmental safetycommittees.3 These and other specific recommendations forhow to implement safety practices have been described in greatdetail and are certainly laudable. Less discussed is how topositively influence the culture of safety, which is arguably thekey to widespread adherence to safety guidelines and rules.How can we ensure that safety is a critical core value among alldepartment citizens? How can we make safety an integral partof academic life rather than a perceived chore driven by fear ofliability?

In a unique partnership with The Dow Chemical Company,the Departments of Chemistry (CHEM) and ChemicalEngineering and Materials Science (CEMS) at the Universityof Minnesota (UM), Twin Cities, have addressed thesequestions through an initiative driven by graduate studentand postdoctoral associate laboratory safety officers (LSOs).The leadership exhibited by these students and postdoctoralassociates has resulted in enthusiastic adoption of improvedsafety practices and noticeable improvements in the culture ofsafety in CHEM and CEMS. We suggest that this model, incontrast to typically espoused ones that focus on top-downapproaches led by faculty and administrators, is particularlyeffective and worthy of emulation.

THE DOW AND JOINT SAFETY TEAM (JST)INITIATIVE

In response to an overture from the Chief Technical Officer atDow, William Banholzer, in March 2012, the heads of CHEM(W.B.T.) and CEMS (F.S.B.) agreed to a partnership aimed atimproving the safety cultures in the two departments. Althoughthe safety standards in these departments have been regulatedfor years by laboratory safety plans compiled by departmentalleaders and members of the Department of EnvironmentalHealth and Safety (DEHS), no prior programs existed topositively influence the day-to-day attitudes and values of thecommunity toward safety. Subsequent discussions led to aproposal that the laboratory safety officers from the researchgroups in CHEM and CEMS organize a Joint Safety Team(JST) to lead efforts to assess safety issues, learn best practicesfrom Dow, and propose solutions to be implemented at UM. A

Published: October 1, 2013

Commentary

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

2013 American Chemical Society andDivision of Chemical Education, Inc. 1414 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 14141417

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

designated LSO is mandatory for each laboratory in CHEMand CEMS at UM, and, at the time of this initiative, 51laboratories in CHEM and CEMS had one or more student orpostdoctoral LSOs. This subsection of the community appearedsuitable to initiate a grassroots change. A small group ofvolunteers (seven students) from among the 52 laboratorysafety officers accepted the task of organizing initial JSTactivities and setting priorities for future efforts. Initial emphasiswas placed on (a) assessing current practices and attitudestoward safety in CHEM and CEMS and (b) visiting with Dowrepresentatives at UM and at Dow.To evaluate the current safety practices and attitudes in

CHEM and CEMS, the seven JST student leaders and Dowcollaborators toured a subset of laboratories and distributed asurvey5 to students, postdoctoral associates, staff, and faculty.The tours, which were independent of inspections performedby institutional safety committees, revealed diverse levels ofresearcher compliance and attitudes toward safety. Someresearch groups maintained up-to-date records, kept laborato-ries organized, and displayed safe behaviors, but other researchgroups were less compliant, as illustrated by clutteredlaboratories and spotty use of proper protective equipment.The survey revealed gaps in communication about safetybetween researchers and their organization and a perceptionthat training was mostly focused on what is required asopposed to what is practical and useful. Surprisingly, only10% of respondents believed that safety training adequatelyprepared researchers to coach others and to intervene whenothers were thought to exhibit unsafe behaviors.A subsequent two-day visit by 12 JST members to the Dow

facilities in Midland, MI, combined presentations regarding thesafety structure within the company with lab tours to see howsafety practices are implemented on a day-to-day basis. Thewell-organized safety infrastructure, well-regulated laboratories,and heightened awareness of safety during the average workdayinspired the JST visitors, giving them a clear picture of a maturesafety culture. The visit to Dow also highlighted differencesbetween a large company and an academic institution that arerelevant to efforts to improve safety attitudes and behaviors.Examples include a high turnover rate of lab members(students vs employees) and decentralized research (diverseand independent groups vs hierarchically managed programs).These and other differences suggested to JST members thatcreative solutions would be required to motivate the academiccommunity at UM to attain a safety culture like that at Dow.Working independently, but with full support from the

department heads, the JST then formulated a comprehensiveset of 13 recommendations, each of which included a proposedaction, justification for that action, time scale for implementa-tion, required resources, criteria for evaluation of success, andpotential barriers. These recommendations were grouped intofour fundamental areas that provided direction for the overallJST initiative: Compliance, Awareness, Resources, andEducation (CARE) (Figure 1). In consultation with theCHEM and CEMS department heads, who agreed to provideseed funding6 to support the JST efforts, a subset ofrecommendations were chosen for initial implementation;these are described in the next section. Again workingindependently, the JST formed committees composed ofroughly 35 volunteers, which covered education andresources, personal protective equipment (PPE) and audits,technology, and public relations. Each committee selected achair, and the chairs of those committees formed an

administration committee, which reliably acted to organizeJST efforts and communicate between departments, withDEHS, and with collaborators at Dow. It is important to stressthat the well-defined committee organization developed by theJST members was critical for ensuring effective delegation ofresponsibilities, good communication among all stakeholders,and continuation of momentum over time as the JST initiativeshave been introduced and implemented.

JST ACTIVITIESTable 1 provides a list of JST activities performed during itsfirst year, with indications of the CARE category they address.Several activities had notable impact. Starting in November2012, JST members were expected to participate in house-keeping tours of each active experimental laboratory in CHEMand CEMS. These tours addressed two goals: (1) examinehousekeeping issues not under the purview of regulatoryagencies and (2) expose LSOs to safety concerns and practicesin different research groups. Overall, 98% of 52 LSOsparticipated in these tours, evaluating a total of 51 grouplaboratory spaces in three-person teams. After each tour, thethree-person audit team sent a short report to the principalinvestigator and LSO of the examined laboratory. JST membershave commented that the experience promoted accountability,generated discussion within research groups, and helped LSOsto be more aware of safety issues in their laboratory spaces. Inresponse to comments generated from a follow-up survey of thetour procedures, the JST held a tour-training seminar toestablish standard guidelines for future semiannual tours.Another notably impactful activity involved improving the

level of communication and discussion of safety in the CHEMand CEMS community. The JST developed unique posterswith information about proper PPE and guidelines for a saferlab and placed them throughout the department buildings(Figure 2). In addition, researchers now receive safety updatesin a variety of forms, including safety notes in weeklydepartmental e-mail newsletters and safety momentspresented at the beginning of group meetings and seminars(Figure 3). Past safety moments and other relevant safetyinformation have been compiled on the JST Web site.7 Thesafety moments are particularly effective in promoting frequentand open communication about safety issues, a conclusionsupported by general observations and survey findings; 62% of

Figure 1. The four areas identified as fundamental to improving thesafety culture at UM.

Journal of Chemical Education Commentary

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 141414171415

researchers agreed that they are helping to improve the cultureof safety.In another innovative activity, the JST introduced a cleanup

event that involved a week-long effort to properly identify anddispose of unknown waste that had accumulated in laboratoryspaces. Ordinarily, unknown waste must be tested andmanifested by DEHS staff, costing $30 per sample8 andvaluable time. For this week only, DEHS staff held a generalwaste-handling seminar and a hands-on workshop to teachLSOs how to test and manifest unknown hazardous waste. Byhandling and testing the waste themselves, LSOs identified,tested, and disposed of 321 unknowns of varying volume at nocharge to the research groups, totaling a combined savings of$4500 and weeks of DEHS staff work. The JST plans a secondcleanup week to dispose of old or unused lab equipment andelectronics. The significant decrease in laboratory clutterresulting from these efforts represents yet another improve-ment in the safety environment in CHEM and CEMS.Finally, the JST addressed the need to better define the roles

and responsibilities of an LSO by organizing a trainingworkshop, which was attended by 98% of 52 active LSOs.The participants were provided with comprehensive informa-tion on LSO duties, training documentation and records, safeoperating procedures development, safety signage templates,and other safety resources developed by the JST Education andResources Committee.9 Overall, this workshop clarified theduties of an LSO, provided the necessary resources for an LSOto accomplish their duties, and established a protocol for LSOsto maintain organized records.Each task proposed by the JST is approached using a four-

step process: (1) define the goal; (2) assess the attitude of thecommunity; (3) provide resources to facilitate change; and (4)implement the change in phases. Upon identifying a target forimprovement, a plan was developed that incorporated thesuggestions and concerns of the research community. Once aplan was established and criteria for success were determined,an appropriate timeline was chosen and resources wereallocated as appropriate to accomplish the desired outcome.Some example resources include a standardized lab-signagetemplate that was distributed to all LSOs, the LSO guidebookthat defined the role of an LSO, and an online collection ofsafety moments that foster communication about safety issues.It is important to note that most of the developed resources areelectronic or are paper products (posters, LSO binder, etc.)that are relatively inexpensive. Lastly, we recognize that

Table 1. Summary of First-Year Activities of the JST

Action Description CARE CategoryTime Frame forImplementation

Identify 10 guidelines for asafer lab

Document summarizing most important aspects of lab safety Awareness First six months ofinitiative

Kick-off event Highly attended event introduced the JST and goals to constituents Awareness First six months ofinitiative

Standard lab signage Templates designed and distributed to display hazards and contact informationfor each lab space

Awareness,compliance

First six months ofinitiative

JST Web site (www.jst.umn.edu)

Web site designed with links, information, and JST content Resources,education

First nine months ofinitiative

Lab tours Tours led to examine lab housekeeping and raise safety concerns to laboratorysafety officers

Compliance First nine months ofinitiative

Safety moments, posters,notes

Communication about safety issues implemented at seminars, in posters, and innewsletters

Awareness First six months ofinitiative

Cleanup week Event organized to deal with hazardous waste and to clean laboratories Resources First nine months ofinitiative

LSO training Workshop run to teach LSOs about responsibilities and provide resources Education First nine months ofinitiative

Figure 2. Illustrative poster developed by the JST for use in CHEMand CEMS buildings.

Figure 3. Illustrative safety moment slide used in presentations at thebeginning of departmental seminars and group meetings.

Journal of Chemical Education Commentary

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 141414171416

www.jst.umn.eduwww.jst.umn.edu

changing a culture is an iterative process: gradual changeimplemented in phases has been valuable in maintaining thesupport of the research community at large. The above four-step process was used for each of the previously describedactivities.We emphasize that the JST activities augmented the already

in-place protocols of the departmental safety committees andwere specifically designed to address the need for an improvedsafety culture, rather than particular regulatory compliancerequirements. Thus, for example, the JST tours providedadditional recommendations for research groups that com-plemented the specific, legally binding inspection reportsgenerated after inspections performed by the departmentalsafety committees, which comprise faculty, department staff,and DEHS staff members. The additional level of participationby graduate student and postdoctoral members of the JST inproviding safety resources, training, and communication haspositively affected safety attitudes across CHEM and CEMS.This conclusion was drawn from the results of surveys,observed compliance with safety protocols, enthusiasticpresentation of safety moments by faculty seminar hosts atdepartmental seminars, and high attendance at JST events.Opening the JST membership to the full body of graduate andpostdoctoral researchers has been met with an impressive levelof support; the current JST member list includes more than 80people. Equally noteworthy, the faculty research advisors havebeen overwhelmingly accepting of the safety initiative; whengraduate students, postdoctoral associates, and faculty weresurveyed in November 2012, 31% agreed and 51% stronglyagreed that their advisor promotes or is supportive ofincorporating safety into research activities. This distributionremained steady in the May 2013 survey (28% agreed and 54%strongly agreed). This level of support (82%) is perceived as apositive response, but may not reflect the sentiments ofnonrespondents and still shows room for improvement as theJST initiative continues into its second year.

CONCLUSIONSAlthough institutional changes often originate in directives fromleaders at industrial or academic institutions, we have found ourstudent-empowered approach to be a viable additional methodfor improving the culture of safety. Our approach began withthe leaders of the departments of CHEM and CEMS at UMcommissioning the community of LSOs, the individuals whoare working daily in the laboratories, with the task of improvingthe safety culture. The collaboration between Dow and UMallowed JST members to learn from a company with a greatsafety record and to adopt and modify aspects of the Dowsafety culture to fit the university setting. Recognizing thatmeasuring changes in the culture of safety is difficult and thatsuch changes are likely to be gradual, we nonetheless areconvinced based on our preliminary results that the JST modelis contributing to significant improvements in safety attitudes,practices, and training of the researchers and faculty in the twodepartments. Indeed, both JST members and outsidesupporters have requested that the program grow in breadthand depth, a key challenge being to build upon the initialmomentum of the program as it matures. In addition, UMadministrators have encouraged the group to branch out andstart similar movements in other departments in the College ofScience and Engineering. Perhaps the most important lessonlearned is that the energy and enthusiasm of the JST membershas been a significant driver of change. It is evident that this

bottom-up approach can be an effective complement toefforts driven by faculty and administrators aimed at improvingthe culture and practice of safety in academic laboratories.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT*S Supporting InformationCommunity surveys, LSO surveys, 13 recommendations. Thismaterial is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

AUTHOR INFORMATIONCorresponding Author

*E-mail: wtolman@umn.edu.Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank all the laboratory safety officers and members whocomprise the Joint Safety Team and Manish Sharma and ErichMolitor from Dow Chemical Company for their helpfulcontributions.

REFERENCES(1) (a) Loperfido, J. C. Development of a Safety Program forAcademic Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, A583A591.(b) Kaufman, J. A. Safety in the Academic Laboratory. J. Chem.Educ. 1978, 55, A337A340. (c) Pesta, S.; Kaufman, J. A. LaboratorySafety in Academic Institutions. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, A242A247.(d) Bretherick, L. Chemical Laboratory Safety: The AcademicAnomaly. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, A12. (e) Foster, B. L. Laboratorysafety program assessment in academia. Chem. Health Saf. 2004, 11,613.(2) (a) Johnson, J.; Kemsley, J. Academic Lab Safety Under Exam.Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89 (43), 2527. October 24 issue (b) VanNoorden, R. A death in the lab. Nature 2011, 472, 270271.(3) Creating Safety Cultures in Academic LaboratoriesA Report of theSafety Culture Task Force of the ACS Committee on Chemical Safety;American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2012.(4) For some recent examples, see: (a) Marendaz, J.-L.; Friedrich, K.;Meyer, T. Safety Management and Risk Assessment in ChemicalLaboratories. CHIMIA 2011, 65, 734737. (b) Matson, M. L.;Fitzgerald, J. P.; Lin, S. Creating Customized, Relevant, and EngagingLaboratory Safety Videos. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 17271728.(c) Leggett, D. J. Identifying Hazards in the Chemical ResearchLaboratory. Proc. Saf. Prog. 2012, 31 (4), 393397.(5) The survey contained 15 questions in which respondents wereasked to express their own perceptions on safety practices and to ratetheir organizations communication and implementation of safety-related issues. Demographic information was also requested. A total of207 responses (31%) were received out of a possible 658, with three-quarters of the respondents being graduate students and the majorityof the rest being faculty.(6) Each department committed $2,500 to the Joint Safety Team.(7) The JST Web site can be found at www.jst.umn.edu (accessedSep 2013).(8) The cost of waste manifestation is based on the internalmanagement of waste by DEHS at the University of Minnesota.(9) Complete contents of the LSO guidebook are available at www.jst.umn.edu (accessed Sep 2013).

Journal of Chemical Education Commentary

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 141414171417

http://pubs.acs.orgmailto:wtolman@umn.eduwww.jst.umn.eduwww.jst.umn.eduwww.jst.umn.edu