CONTACT: Ralph Stuart,
         rstuart@esf.uvm.edu 
 
LAST UPDATE: 9/24/92
 
Developing a Safety Culture in Academia
 
I.Introduction
 
Over the past ten years, scientific interest has developed in the
way society handles risk. This interest has been spurred by
controversies over public policy for various technologies,
including nuclear power, recombinant DNA and the use of chemicals
in general. These controversies have a high degree of technical
content, but the scientific specialists in the field at hand have
not been regarded as the authority on the issue of whether or not
a technology is safe.
 
Out of the theoretical work around this issue has come the
concept of a risk culture, which I would like to apply here to
the academic setting. In our day-to-day work, we are constantly
involved in risk analysis and risk management situations, and
unless we consider these efforts within the risk culture of our
institution, our effectiveness will be limited.
 
II.	What is a Safety Culture?
 
While the sociology literature around risk controversies speaks
about risk cultures, I would like to focus on another term,
safety culture. With a few definitions and examples, I will
explain why.
 
1. Risk Culture
 
A risk culture is the group of social mechanisms by which a group
of people evaluates and reacts to physical and health hazards in
its environment. That is, this is how a culture answers the
question RHow safe is safe enough?S. Risk communication, if it is
a two-way process, is how a risk culture develops.
 
2. Danger Culture
 
A danger culture is the part of a risk culture which consists of
the shared taboos and rituals of a group. These rituals create
and reinforce personal habits that protect individuals and the
group from culturally-significant risks. A danger culture focuses
on Not-To-Do''s and warns of the consequences (often unspecified)
if a taboo is broken.
 
3. Safety Culture
 
A safety culture is another part of the risk culture - the part
of the culture which includes the reasons for safeguards as part
of the development of group attitudes. Thus a safety culture is
more pro-active and prevention-focused than a danger culture.
 
The academic culture is a highly critical culture, in which the
reasons for actions and patterns are constantly being examined
and re-evaluated. In such a culture, taboos and rituals are
seldom acknowledged and change often. So, in academia, promotion
of a safety culture is likely to be more effective than a danger
culture in changing peopleUs behavior. That is, in our roles as
campus safety workers, we need to focus on the To-DoUs and the
rewards of following proper procedure, rather than trying to
proscribe certain activities as "too dangerous".
 
Examples of Risk Cultures
 
My thinking on this issue was spurred by a conference on managing
the risks of biotechnology. It was pointed out there that
government regulations are an attempt to impose an instant danger
culture on society. Regulations focus on proven dangers, rather
than benefits derived from safe practices. These sorts of
regulations are not very effective in either settling risk
controversies or changing behavior, because they attempt to
impose a risk culture on a group rather than letting the group
develop their own. A group will seldom accept a risk culture
imposed from outside, because a risk culture must be based on the
groupUs physical experience over a period of time to become
respected. In my opinion, OSHA regulations are a fine example of
an imposed danger culture.
 
Lab Safety Culture Taboos and Rituals
 
In applying these concepts to academia, I thought about lab
culture. Lab cultures tend to be relatively homogenous between
campuses, because there is a lot of interaction and communication
among laboratories. Their members receive similar education and
often move from one lab to another between campuses during the
course of their careers as graduate students, lab techs and/or
faculty researchers. Their results and methods are easily
available in the scientific literature.
 
I can identify three pieces of lab risk culture which have
developed significantly over the last five years. Lab people
(although not without exception) are beginning to accept that
mouth-pipetting is not a good idea. They are also beginning to
understand that eating and drinking in laboratories is probably a
poor practice and should be avoided. I have also noticed
increased interest from lab workers in the proper disposal of
chemical wastes.
 
I can also think of hazards which the lab risk culture ignores.
For example, climate-controlled rooms, which are usually sealed
with no ventilation provided, are commonly occupied by lab
workers for hours at a time. At the same time, volatile
chemicals, such as liquid nitrogen, dry ice or solvents are
commonly stored and allowed to vent in these rooms. This is a
high hazard situation, but most lab people have little awareness
of this. Another area in which lab safety culture has not
developed is fume hoods. In general, lab people have little
knowledge about the proper use of fume hoods.
 
III.	Is a Safety Culture Possible in Academia?
 
Academia is well known for being a distinct sub-culture. In fact,
academia itself is made up of many different sub-cultures, often
aligned among various academic fields. Is it possible to develop
a safety culture in academia? In order to answer this question,
it is necessary to consider the cultures that we are operating
in.
 
U.S. Culture and Risk-Taking
 
In considering the American risk culture, it is clear that
Americans accept and enjoy risks in their personal lives.
Drinking, smoking and bungee-jumping all owe part of their
strength in our culture because they carry elements of risk.
However, Americans tend not to enjoy risks at work, particularly
if they are unexpected. There is a much lower acceptance of any
risks that the employer is seen as imposing on the worker on the
job.
 
This dichotomy is particularly important in academic setting.
Many people in the academic community see their activities there
as a personal vocation as much as a job. On the other hand, there
are many people who work on university campuses who simply see
their activity there as Rjust a jobS. So within an academic
community, there will be many different attitudes toward the same
risk.
 
The Academic Culture and Safety
 
The basic mission of an academic institution also presents
obstacles to the development of a safety culture. Mistakes are
considered to be part of the learning process, and therefore room
for mistakes must be allowed. The focus of the research process
is on the unknown, and serendipity (accidents, good or bad) is
often a part of the process. It is often the job of the safety
office to try to anticipate and limit the consequences of these
mistakes and accidents.
 
Another obstacle to developing a safety culture in academia is
social inertia. While academia has its share of bureaucratic
inertia, there is also the special problem in laboratories of The
Sacred Protocol. Changing lab practices for any reason violates
the most important research taboo of avoiding change in any known
variables. This is the primary reason for the continued use of
chromic acid cleaning solution despite the environmental safety
and health hazard it presents.
 
The academic culture does present some advantages when building a
safety culture. In a social environment focused on learning,
change can occur quickly in the population. In a decentralized
environment, you can have a strong safety culture in one part of
the institution independently of other parts.
 
Examples of Safety Culture in Academia
 
There are many different risk cultures already established in
academia. Art departments, chemistry departments, agricultural
schools, medical schools all differ in their approach to a
similar level of risk. We need to consider these various
approaches as we deal with the people in these areas and the
risks they face.
 
To return to the title question of this section, Is a Safety
Culture Possible in Academia?, the answer is that we donUt have
any choice but to work at developing a safety culture. Without a
safety culture in place, a central safety office will be limited
in its effect on the actual working conditions on campus. There
are several reasons for this, including: 1) the prevailing risk
cultures allocate few resources for centralized safety services,
(consider the resources OSHA has available, compared to the size
of the job it has to do); 2) the decentralized administrative
structure of academia makes enforcement of institutional policies
difficult and expensive; and 3) high turnover in academia makes
central training and reinforcement of safety procedures
ineffective.
 
IV.	Conclusion
 
Developing a safety culture within an academic institution is a
major undertaking. It requires an understanding of a wide range
of administrative and technical tools. However, it is the only
way to create a safe and healthy campus in the long run, and is
really the most valuable function of a centralized safety office.
 
-Ralph Stuart