Commentary

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Student Involvement in Improving the Culture of Safety in Academic

Laboratories
Kathryn 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 States

Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674, United States

S Supporting Information
*

ABSTRACT: An eective way of addressing the need for an improved culture of safety in research-intensive science
departments is described, which involves enabling leadership by graduate student and postdoctoral associate laboratory safety
ocers (LSOs). In partnership with The Dow Chemical Company, LSOs from the Departments of Chemistry and Chemical
Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota formed a Joint Safety Team. With helpful input from Dow, the
team has played a key role in improving the culture and practice of safety in both departments, providing support for use of this
model 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

In a unique partnership with The Dow Chemical Company,

the Departments of Chemistry (CHEM) and Chemical
Engineering and Materials Science (CEMS) at the University
of Minnesota (UM), Twin Cities, have addressed these
questions through an initiative driven by graduate student
and postdoctoral associate laboratory safety ocers (LSOs).
The leadership exhibited by these students and postdoctoral
associates has resulted in enthusiastic adoption of improved
safety practices and noticeable improvements in the culture of
safety in CHEM and CEMS. We suggest that this model, in
contrast to typically espoused ones that focus on top-down
approaches led by faculty and administrators, is particularly
eective and worthy of emulation.

afety deciencies in academic research laboratories have

received signicant attention for decades, particularly
following laboratory accidents or the introduction of new
safety standards.1 Despite much discussion, however, the
culture of safety in academia remains poorly developed relative
to that in industrial and government laboratory settings, where
there is pervasive emphasis on and widespread awareness of
safe laboratory practices. Recent accidents underscore the
general observation that adherence to best safety practices is
insucient in academic laboratories and that the requisite
attitudes, awareness, and ethics about safety issuesthe
culture of safetyare not suciently instilled among the
faculty and students.2 As noted in a recent ACS report,3 safety
is a positive valueit prevents injuries, saves lives, and
improves productivity and outcomes. For these reasons,
improving the culture of safety in academic laboratories is an
important goal.
A survey of the literature shows that attempts to address
concerns about safety practices in academic laboratories have
focused primarily on disseminating protocols and procedures
and improving regulatory compliance.4 Particular emphasis is
placed on leadership by faculty, laboratory directors, and
administrators and on proper operations of departmental safety
committees.3 These and other specic recommendations for
how to implement safety practices have been described in great
detail and are certainly laudable. Less discussed is how to
positively inuence the culture of safety, which is arguably the
key to widespread adherence to safety guidelines and rules.
How can we ensure that safety is a critical core value among all
department citizens? How can we make safety an integral part
of academic life rather than a perceived chore driven by fear of
liability?
2013 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

THE DOW AND JOINT SAFETY TEAM (JST)

INITIATIVE
In response to an overture from the Chief Technical Ocer at
Dow, William Banholzer, in March 2012, the heads of CHEM
(W.B.T.) and CEMS (F.S.B.) agreed to a partnership aimed at
improving the safety cultures in the two departments. Although
the safety standards in these departments have been regulated
for years by laboratory safety plans compiled by departmental
leaders and members of the Department of Environmental
Health and Safety (DEHS), no prior programs existed to
positively inuence the day-to-day attitudes and values of the
community toward safety. Subsequent discussions led to a
proposal that the laboratory safety ocers from the research
groups in CHEM and CEMS organize a Joint Safety Team
(JST) to lead eorts to assess safety issues, learn best practices
from Dow, and propose solutions to be implemented at UM. A
Published: October 1, 2013
1414

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 14141417

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

designated LSO is mandatory for each laboratory in CHEM

and CEMS at UM, and, at the time of this initiative, 51
laboratories in CHEM and CEMS had one or more student or
postdoctoral LSOs. This subsection of the community appeared
suitable to initiate a grassroots change. A small group of
volunteers (seven students) from among the 52 laboratory
safety ocers accepted the task of organizing initial JST
activities and setting priorities for future eorts. Initial emphasis
was placed on (a) assessing current practices and attitudes
toward safety in CHEM and CEMS and (b) visiting with Dow
representatives at UM and at Dow.
To evaluate the current safety practices and attitudes in
CHEM and CEMS, the seven JST student leaders and Dow
collaborators toured a subset of laboratories and distributed a
survey5 to students, postdoctoral associates, sta, and faculty.
The tours, which were independent of inspections performed
by institutional safety committees, revealed diverse levels of
researcher compliance and attitudes toward safety. Some
research groups maintained up-to-date records, kept laboratories organized, and displayed safe behaviors, but other research
groups were less compliant, as illustrated by cluttered
laboratories and spotty use of proper protective equipment.
The survey revealed gaps in communication about safety
between researchers and their organization and a perception
that training was mostly focused on what is required as
opposed to what is practical and useful. Surprisingly, only
10% of respondents believed that safety training adequately
prepared researchers to coach others and to intervene when
others 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 the
safety structure within the company with lab tours to see how
safety practices are implemented on a day-to-day basis. The
well-organized safety infrastructure, well-regulated laboratories,
and heightened awareness of safety during the average workday
inspired the JST visitors, giving them a clear picture of a mature
safety culture. The visit to Dow also highlighted dierences
between a large company and an academic institution that are
relevant to eorts to improve safety attitudes and behaviors.
Examples include a high turnover rate of lab members
(students vs employees) and decentralized research (diverse
and independent groups vs hierarchically managed programs).
These and other dierences suggested to JST members that
creative solutions would be required to motivate the academic
community 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 comprehensive
set of 13 recommendations, each of which included a proposed
action, justication for that action, time scale for implementation, required resources, criteria for evaluation of success, and
potential barriers. These recommendations were grouped into
four fundamental areas that provided direction for the overall
JST initiative: Compliance, Awareness, Resources, and
Education (CARE) (Figure 1). In consultation with the
CHEM and CEMS department heads, who agreed to provide
seed funding6 to support the JST eorts, a subset of
recommendations were chosen for initial implementation;
these are described in the next section. Again working
independently, the JST formed committees composed of
roughly 35 volunteers, which covered education and
resources, personal protective equipment (PPE) and audits,
technology, and public relations. Each committee selected a
chair, and the chairs of those committees formed an

Figure 1. The four areas identied as fundamental to improving the

safety culture at UM.

administration committee, which reliably acted to organize

JST eorts and communicate between departments, with
DEHS, and with collaborators at Dow. It is important to stress
that the well-dened committee organization developed by the
JST members was critical for ensuring eective delegation of
responsibilities, good communication among all stakeholders,
and continuation of momentum over time as the JST initiatives
have been introduced and implemented.

JST ACTIVITIES
Table 1 provides a list of JST activities performed during its
rst year, with indications of the CARE category they address.
Several activities had notable impact. Starting in November
2012, JST members were expected to participate in housekeeping tours of each active experimental laboratory in CHEM
and CEMS. These tours addressed two goals: (1) examine
housekeeping issues not under the purview of regulatory
agencies and (2) expose LSOs to safety concerns and practices
in dierent research groups. Overall, 98% of 52 LSOs
participated in these tours, evaluating a total of 51 group
laboratory spaces in three-person teams. After each tour, the
three-person audit team sent a short report to the principal
investigator and LSO of the examined laboratory. JST members
have commented that the experience promoted accountability,
generated discussion within research groups, and helped LSOs
to be more aware of safety issues in their laboratory spaces. In
response to comments generated from a follow-up survey of the
tour procedures, the JST held a tour-training seminar to
establish standard guidelines for future semiannual tours.
Another notably impactful activity involved improving the
level of communication and discussion of safety in the CHEM
and CEMS community. The JST developed unique posters
with information about proper PPE and guidelines for a safer
lab and placed them throughout the department buildings
(Figure 2). In addition, researchers now receive safety updates
in a variety of forms, including safety notes in weekly
departmental e-mail newsletters and safety moments
presented at the beginning of group meetings and seminars
(Figure 3). Past safety moments and other relevant safety
information have been compiled on the JST Web site.7 The
safety moments are particularly eective in promoting frequent
and open communication about safety issues, a conclusion
supported by general observations and survey ndings; 62% of
1415

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 14141417

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

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

Action
Identify 10 guidelines for a
safer lab
Kick-o event
Standard lab signage
JST Web site (www.jst.umn.
edu)
Lab tours

Description

CARE Category

Document summarizing most important aspects of lab safety

Awareness

Highly attended event introduced the JST and goals to constituents

Awareness

Templates designed and distributed to display hazards and contact information

for each lab space
Web site designed with links, information, and JST content

Awareness,
compliance
Resources,
education
Compliance

Safety moments, posters,

notes
Cleanup week

Tours led to examine lab housekeeping and raise safety concerns to laboratory
safety ocers
Communication about safety issues implemented at seminars, in posters, and in Awareness
newsletters
Event organized to deal with hazardous waste and to clean laboratories
Resources

LSO training

Workshop run to teach LSOs about responsibilities and provide resources

Education

Time Frame for

Implementation
First six months of
initiative
First six months of
initiative
First six months of
initiative
First nine months of
initiative
First nine months of
initiative
First six months of
initiative
First nine months of
initiative
First nine months of
initiative

researchers agreed that they are helping to improve the culture

of safety.
In another innovative activity, the JST introduced a cleanup
event that involved a week-long eort to properly identify and
dispose of unknown waste that had accumulated in laboratory
spaces. Ordinarily, unknown waste must be tested and
manifested by DEHS sta, costing $30 per sample8 and
valuable time. For this week only, DEHS sta held a general
waste-handling seminar and a hands-on workshop to teach
LSOs how to test and manifest unknown hazardous waste. By
handling and testing the waste themselves, LSOs identied,
tested, and disposed of 321 unknowns of varying volume at no
charge to the research groups, totaling a combined savings of
$4500 and weeks of DEHS sta work. The JST plans a second
cleanup week to dispose of old or unused lab equipment and
electronics. The signicant decrease in laboratory clutter
resulting from these eorts represents yet another improvement in the safety environment in CHEM and CEMS.
Finally, the JST addressed the need to better dene the roles
and responsibilities of an LSO by organizing a training
workshop, which was attended by 98% of 52 active LSOs.
The participants were provided with comprehensive information on LSO duties, training documentation and records, safe
operating procedures development, safety signage templates,
and other safety resources developed by the JST Education and
Resources Committee.9 Overall, this workshop claried the
duties of an LSO, provided the necessary resources for an LSO
to accomplish their duties, and established a protocol for LSOs
to maintain organized records.
Each task proposed by the JST is approached using a fourstep process: (1) dene the goal; (2) assess the attitude of the
community; (3) provide resources to facilitate change; and (4)
implement the change in phases. Upon identifying a target for
improvement, a plan was developed that incorporated the
suggestions and concerns of the research community. Once a
plan was established and criteria for success were determined,
an appropriate timeline was chosen and resources were
allocated as appropriate to accomplish the desired outcome.
Some example resources include a standardized lab-signage
template that was distributed to all LSOs, the LSO guidebook
that dened the role of an LSO, and an online collection of
safety moments that foster communication about safety issues.
It is important to note that most of the developed resources are
electronic or are paper products (posters, LSO binder, etc.)
that are relatively inexpensive. Lastly, we recognize that

Figure 2. Illustrative poster developed by the JST for use in CHEM

and CEMS buildings.

Figure 3. Illustrative safety moment slide used in presentations at the

beginning of departmental seminars and group meetings.

1416

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 14141417

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

bottom-up approach can be an eective complement to

eorts driven by faculty and administrators aimed at improving
the culture and practice of safety in academic laboratories.

changing a culture is an iterative process: gradual change

implemented in phases has been valuable in maintaining the
support of the research community at large. The above fourstep process was used for each of the previously described
activities.
We emphasize that the JST activities augmented the already
in-place protocols of the departmental safety committees and
were specically designed to address the need for an improved
safety culture, rather than particular regulatory compliance
requirements. Thus, for example, the JST tours provided
additional recommendations for research groups that complemented the specic, legally binding inspection reports
generated after inspections performed by the departmental
safety committees, which comprise faculty, department sta,
and DEHS sta members. The additional level of participation
by graduate student and postdoctoral members of the JST in
providing safety resources, training, and communication has
positively aected safety attitudes across CHEM and CEMS.
This conclusion was drawn from the results of surveys,
observed compliance with safety protocols, enthusiastic
presentation of safety moments by faculty seminar hosts at
departmental seminars, and high attendance at JST events.
Opening the JST membership to the full body of graduate and
postdoctoral researchers has been met with an impressive level
of support; the current JST member list includes more than 80
people. Equally noteworthy, the faculty research advisors have
been overwhelmingly accepting of the safety initiative; when
graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and faculty were
surveyed in November 2012, 31% agreed and 51% strongly
agreed that their advisor promotes or is supportive of
incorporating safety into research activities. This distribution
remained steady in the May 2013 survey (28% agreed and 54%
strongly agreed). This level of support (82%) is perceived as a
positive response, but may not reect the sentiments of
nonrespondents and still shows room for improvement as the
JST initiative continues into its second year.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information
*

Community surveys, LSO surveys, 13 recommendations. This

material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

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

The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all the laboratory safety ocers and members who
comprise the Joint Safety Team and Manish Sharma and Erich
Molitor from Dow Chemical Company for their helpful
contributions.

REFERENCES

(1) (a) Loperfido, J. C. Development of a Safety Program for

Academic 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. Laboratory
Safety in Academic Institutions. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, A242A247.
(d) Bretherick, L. Chemical Laboratory Safety: The Academic
Anomaly. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, A12. (e) Foster, B. L. Laboratory
safety 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) Van
Noorden, R. A death in the lab. Nature 2011, 472, 270271.
(3) Creating Safety Cultures in Academic LaboratoriesA Report of the
Safety 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 Chemical
Laboratories. CHIMIA 2011, 65, 734737. (b) Matson, M. L.;
Fitzgerald, J. P.; Lin, S. Creating Customized, Relevant, and Engaging
Laboratory Safety Videos. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 17271728.
(c) Leggett, D. J. Identifying Hazards in the Chemical Research
Laboratory. Proc. Saf. Prog. 2012, 31 (4), 393397.
(5) The survey contained 15 questions in which respondents were
asked to express their own perceptions on safety practices and to rate
their organizations communication and implementation of safetyrelated issues. Demographic information was also requested. A total of
207 responses (31%) were received out of a possible 658, with threequarters of the respondents being graduate students and the majority
of 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 (accessed
Sep 2013).
(8) The cost of waste manifestation is based on the internal
management 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).

CONCLUSIONS
Although institutional changes often originate in directives from
leaders at industrial or academic institutions, we have found our
student-empowered approach to be a viable additional method
for improving the culture of safety. Our approach began with
the leaders of the departments of CHEM and CEMS at UM
commissioning the community of LSOs, the individuals who
are working daily in the laboratories, with the task of improving
the safety culture. The collaboration between Dow and UM
allowed JST members to learn from a company with a great
safety record and to adopt and modify aspects of the Dow
safety culture to t the university setting. Recognizing that
measuring changes in the culture of safety is dicult and that
such changes are likely to be gradual, we nonetheless are
convinced based on our preliminary results that the JST model
is contributing to signicant improvements in safety attitudes,
practices, and training of the researchers and faculty in the two
departments. Indeed, both JST members and outside
supporters have requested that the program grow in breadth
and depth, a key challenge being to build upon the initial
momentum of the program as it matures. In addition, UM
administrators have encouraged the group to branch out and
start similar movements in other departments in the College of
Science and Engineering. Perhaps the most important lesson
learned is that the energy and enthusiasm of the JST members
has been a signicant driver of change. It is evident that this
1417

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 14141417