August 28, 2025 • 16 mins
The laboratory safety landscape has transformed dramatically over the decades, yet many challenges persist in creating truly safe working environments. This eye-opening conversation between Dan Scungio and Sean Kaufman delves into the startling history of laboratory practices that once seemed normal but would horrify modern safety professionals.
Dan shares shocking stories from his early career in the 1990s, when students were given "spit strings" to mouth-suction body fluids for testing, and laboratory technicians routinely worked without basic protective equipment. These historical snapshots reveal how far laboratory safety has progressed, while highlighting the persistent challenge: getting laboratory professionals to embrace current safety standards rather than being satisfied that practices are simply "better than before."
The conversation takes a thought-provoking turn when Sean challenges listeners to consider whether absolute rules always serve safety best. He introduces the concept of "practical safety" – acknowledging that laboratories in resource-limited settings may need flexible approaches that focus on risk mitigation rather than rigid adherence to standards designed for well-equipped facilities. This nuanced perspective doesn't excuse unsafe practices but recognizes that safety professionals must sometimes help laboratories do the best they can with available resources.
Both hosts emphasize the critical importance of human factors in laboratory safety, referencing the WHO's 2020 biosafety manual statement that "the best designed and most well-engineered laboratory is only as good as its least competent worker." This recognition shifts focus from engineering controls to behavior, training, and leadership accountability as the most crucial elements in preventing laboratory-associated infections and exposures. The discussion concludes with a heartfelt invitation for listeners facing safety leadership challenges to reach out for support in protecting their valuable laboratory professionals.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Lab Safety Gurus Podcast.
I'm Dan Scungio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And I'm Sean Kaufman, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety together.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Sean Kaufman, how are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm a little stuffy.
A little stuffy, but I'm doingokay.
I think I've got the summerblues or some type of summer.
I'm not going to say the bigword, that includes 19 in it,
but I'm not going to do that,I'm just going to say I've got
some type of junk over thesummer.
Do you remember the days, dan,when it would be summertime and
nobody ever got sick in thesummertime?
(00:40):
Yeah, it seemed like that,right, yeah, I miss those days.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, it seemed like that right.
Yeah, I miss those days.
Yeah, I do too.
Allergies, sicknesses, let themall go away.
Hey, I got something I kind ofwanted to talk to you about
today and it's you know, it'sreally kind of interesting.
I'm kind of interesting to hearyour take on this.
You know, I'm kind of old, sean.
I've been in laboratorymedicine since I graduated in
1990.
(01:08):
And I can remember in my senioryear of college they were
teaching us how to charge ahemocytometer in hematology.
So if you don't know what thatis, you got to do a cell count
with body fluids or differentsamples, and you have to pull up
some sample and put it inwhat's called a hemocytometer, a
chamber where you can count thecells.
(01:30):
It's like a grid chamber whereyou actually count the cells.
And so in my senior year ofcollege they said here's your
gift.
It is called a spit string, andwhat you're going to do is
you're going to put this in yourmouth and you're going to suck
up the body fluid.
And then you're going to do isyou're going to put this in your
mouth and you're going to suckup the body fluid and then
you're going to spit it backinto the chamber to charge your
hemocytometer and when you'redone you'll rinse the bottom
(01:54):
part of the tubing and thenyou'll put it in a plastic bag
and put it back in the drawer inthe laboratory for your next
use, for your next body fluid,and that was considered the norm
for the day.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
I just, I just kind of want tounderstand what you're saying.
You're sucking in somebodyelse's body fluid.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Yes, there's a filter at the end in case you know you
suck too hard and maybe thefluid gets, gets up toward your
mouth because you really don'twant to suck it up so far that
it becomes a danger to you.
But that was how.
You really don't want to suckit up so far that it becomes a
danger to you, but that was howDan hold on.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
One sec man hold on hold on now you know I'm not a
science guy so I'm more.
You know this is a behavioralsafety thing.
Wait, hold on.
What kind of fluids are yousucking up in that straw?
Speaker 1 (02:40):
so synovial fluid, uh like for people who don't know
what synovial means Joint fluidlike knee fluid, elbow fluid,
lung fluid, pericardial fluid,whatever kind of body fluid you
can get in the laboratory.
Spinal fluid Urine.
You typically wouldn't do, youtypically would not do a cell
(03:03):
count on a urine, but maybe aspinal fluid okay yeah for sure
I, I, I, okay, okay, and theygave you this as a college gift.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
That's just awesome.
Yes, yes, okay, all right.
I mean, I mean, I, I know weused to mouth pipette, there's
no doubt I, yes, I know that wasthere.
But sucking body fluids up to astraw, that that just blows me
away.
It's the same.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
I mean, it's the same .
At least with our spit stringwe had a filter.
When you're mouth pipettingwith just a pipette, there was
no filter at the end of thosepipettes.
You could accidentally suck inchemical or body fluid or
whatever it was, because youknow, we just didn't use bulbs
in the lab, for whatever reason,but that's where I'm going with
this.
So, in the lab, for whateverreason, but that's where I'm
(03:46):
going with this.
So that was 1990, what is it 35years ago?
Yes, and that was the norm.
So today, my coworker, jason,and I were going around all of
our different labs within ourorganization and we're doing
these safety refresher classes,and one of the things we're
talking about is a little bit ofis how safety has changed over
time, because we show thesepictures of people and I have
(04:09):
pictures of a lady posing whileshe's mouth pipetting in the
laboratory and she's smiling,and it was the norm.
She wasn't wearing a lab coat,she was wearing a uniform like a
short skirted uniform, becausethat's what lab techs wore back
in the day no gloves, no eye day, no gloves, no eye protection,
(04:31):
no face protection, and she'ssucking up some sort of chemical
from a container that isn'tlabeled.
So there you go.
There's picture one.
Picture two there's somebodydoing performing phlebotomy and
there's no gloves in use.
And then picture three, fromthe same era, is a lady working
in one of the original biosafetycabinets.
It's just a big metal cabinetwith a small window, two big
holes for your arms, and she'sworking.
(04:53):
It says in the caption withtuberculosis specimens no N95,
no gloves, no lab coat, justhands in these giant holes in
this cabinet that she's workingin.
And that was the way it was.
And so my question usually tothe audience after I show those
pictures is hey, did thesepeople have happy, healthy
careers and did they get toretire and have a good long,
(05:14):
healthy, happy retirement?
And the answer is I don't know.
And if the answer is yes, it'snot because they were doing
something that was safe, it'sbecause they were lucky.
And what happens when I get alot and I'm trying to get people
to go somewhere in their headswith this while talking about it
, but what happens a lot is Isort of get derailed in the
(05:34):
conversation by our audiencesometimes, because what they
often will say is well, you know, that was considered okay in
that day and that's true.
(06:10):
It was started to step inbloodborne pathogen standard.
Hey, you need to wear gloves,you need to not mouth pipette,
you need to not eat and drink inthe laboratory.
All of those things started tocome into the regulatory realm.
And today, you know, things aremuch different.
But it's very hard to get theaudience to think like, okay, so
(06:31):
yes, that was the norm, but itstill wasn't okay.
You know it's the norm onHighway 95 in Richmond, virginia
, to go 80 miles per hour butthe speed limit is actually 70.
So you've got.
You know we like to use theterm normalized deviance.
We call it, you know we callthose practices that all the
time, but it's still deviance.
(06:52):
You know it's still a problem.
So how do you get people in themindset that today things like
gum chewing, eating, that stillhappen in the lab?
Not wearing your lab coat orPPE, face protection, eye
protection is still a problem,when you've got some long timers
who think you know what?
(07:12):
It's still better than it was.
At least we're not mouthpipetting anymore, like that's
where their standard is.
So how do you get them toevolve in their head to the next
step of realizing that you'restill not safe, even though
you're not mouth pipettinganymore you still have to wear
gloves, and so that's one of thethings we're doing.
We're showing people thehierarchy of controls and how
(07:33):
PPE is the last resort and theleast effective blah, blah, blah
, all that stuff.
So it's been interesting, andwe've had some derailments in
our presentations because peoplecan't seem to grasp that.
Yeah, that was okay back then,but we're better, but we want
them to be even better, so howdo you get them there?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
well, I think it's a vision.
I you know, dan, I also, youknow I may throw a wrench in
this.
I mean, we're about halfwaythrough our time here and I may
throw a wrench, let me.
Let me ask you this can youmouth pipette safely?
Speaker 1 (08:08):
sure 100.
Okay, can you?
Speaker 2 (08:11):
could you?
Could you eat in a laboratorysafely?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
I could.
If I found a way to do it, Icould yes so here's the, here's
the challenge that we have.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
You and I are talking , I would hope majority of our
audience may be, uh, domestichere in the united states, but
it could also be international,sure, and like.
There's a lab that I rememberthat I served a long time ago,
right in the middle of a jungleand I mean it was super hot,
mosquitoes everywhere.
It was the only air conditionedvenue for I guess almost 30
(08:42):
miles.
Only thing that had arefrigerator was the lab
refrigerator.
Only air conditioned unit wasthe laboratory.
Where do you think thosescientists on a 100-degree,
massive, humid day, where do youthink they're going to have
their lunch at?
Where do you think they'regoing to store their food at?
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah, in that refrigerator.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Yeah, and now you could go in there as a safety
professional and be like listen,we're not supposed to do that
and that's not safe.
You're right, or you have adifferent approach.
The question is can you make itsafe?
So, for example?
Another thing is we knowinternationally there are still
people sniffing plates.
Yeah, yeah, they are.
Not only are they sniffingplates, but they're sniffing
(09:26):
plates to save money becausethey may have a lack of
resources and some may evenargue today it's quicker than
the technologies that we have.
The question I have as werevolutionize safety is what's
the better question?
Size fits all safety approachor do we in essence, teach
(09:50):
multiple, multiple approachessafe, you know, and teach people
how to do those things safely?
It's not by listen and just forthe record is I know there may
be people listening to thisgoing what is sean promoting
that we we did.
No, I'm not.
I'm not promoting unsafepractices.
What I'm promoting is practicalsafety.
What I'm promoting is is whatcan those we serve do with the
(10:14):
resources they have and dosafely?
That's what I'm promoting.
So please, yeah, don't, don't,please don't write me and say,
oh my gosh, sean's promotinghigh risk, crazy behaviors.
That's not.
That's not what I'm promoting.
So you know, dan.
Well, you know, you know me,I'm a behavioral science guy,
yeah, and?
And back in december of 2020,who released their biosafety
(10:37):
manual, and after 16 long yearsof serving biosafety, at that
time let me read something thatjust tickled my heart because it
actually changed andrevolutionized biosafety, at
least for me, I was finally felt, I guess, justified.
It says this it says a reviewof recently laboratory
associated infections showedthat most were caused by human
(11:00):
factors rather than malfunctionsof engineering controls.
Factors that have led topotential and confirmed
exposures to biological agentsinclude an absence or improper
use of personal protectiveequipment, inadequate or ignored
risk assessments, lack ofstandard operating procedures,
needle stick injuries and orinsufficiently trained personnel
(11:21):
.
It can be argued my favoritestatement of all time here we go
as we revolutionize safety.
It can be argued, therefore,that the best designed and most
well-engineered laboratory isonly as good as its least
competent worker yeah, I, Istand by that.
(11:42):
Yes, I agree with that 100 so myproposal for revolutionizing
revolutionizing safety, dan, aswe talk about, okay, where we go
from here to where we're goingnext, is we have to start
looking at the human riskfactors in a lab, the human
elements.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeah, and that's kind of where I have a little joke.
When we're talking about thehierarchy of controls, I'm like,
look at this, elimination worksgreat, substitution is
fantastic, engineering controlshardly fail unless we use them
wrong.
But now we get down toadministrative controls.
And why are they so low on thelist?
And we're like people, becausepeople stink.
People stink at following rulesand regulations and policies
(12:19):
and procedures and that's whereit all goes wrong.
And look what's even below thatPPE?
Again, because people, we don'tuse it right or we don't use it
.
So, yeah, and I guess that's oneof the things we're trying to
do in these safety refreshers,as we're calling them, because
we even talk about, you know,personal electronic devices, one
of my favorite air quotesubjects.
(12:40):
But you know, we have to list,you know, and.
But I'm trying to convincepeople and I think a lot, of, a
lot of you know, affecting humanor helping people understand
their risk, as a human isteaching them the potential
consequences, even though theydon't face the real consequences
of it.
So you have to talk about it.
Phones and smartwatches andearbuds, contamination risk,
(13:03):
fire and explosion risk,distraction and reduced focus
risk, electromagneticinterference risk, breach of
confidentiality and datasecurity risk.
Those are all real risks ofusing these devices in the
laboratory.
But we have to tell like youcan't just list those things you
have to like tell a story abouteach and every one of them,
because I have a story I cantell of each one of those
(13:23):
incidents, that's true.
So you really have to take thetime and spend time with the
human in the laboratory.
I think and talk about thosethings in order to help us
evolve to the next stage ofsafety in the lab.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Yeah, I think no doubt the challenges that we
have, at least in hearing thatyou know about what you're going
through is how safe is safeenough?
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, I mean, where is that threshold?
And I think there's a lot oflisteners out there that may be
asking the same questions Likewell, you know, and I find it
harder, dan, to motivateeverybody to be on the same page
.
That's why I look toorganizations and I look to
leadership to really set theexpectation.
Like, look, if you don't wantphones in your laboratory, you
don't appeal to the laboratorystaff.
(14:13):
You make a policy and you go toleadership and you say, okay,
when someone breaks that policy,what are we going to do to hold
that individual accountable?
And anytime, leaders come tothat table and hold people
accountable for not living up toorganizational expectations.
In my opinion, that's how youget consistent behavioral
(14:35):
practices among different peoplewith different perceptions of
risk and, really, quite honestly, different behaviors.
It has to be leadership.
Leadership and accountabilityhave to be present in the
laboratory environment.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, I agree.
I you know and some of thethings that you know laboratory
safety professionals battlesometimes are our leaders that
don't support safety.
It's so key you and I both knowthis we preach this all the
time how important it is for theleader to support safety in the
laboratory.
It makes all the difference inthe world.
But unfortunately, I also haveto teach people how you can
(15:13):
support safety without thesupport of your leadership.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
That's right.
I mean, do what you can withwhat you have, Do your best.
And, as I like to say, Dan andwe're both men of faith do your
best and let God do the rest.
And if you're not faithful outthere, just do your best and let
leadership do the rest.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Right, and I just say to everybody listening, sean
and I both are here to help, andif you struggle with, maybe, a
leader who isn't supporting youin the way you want, we have
ways to help you, and so pleasefeel free to reach out to us,
because we're here to do that.
We're here to make sure thatyour laboratory and
(15:53):
laboratorians preciouscommodities, all that do great
work for God and country arekept safe, and that's what we
want for you and for all of yourcoworkers.
So let us help you.
We're glad to do it.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Thank you, Dan, so much.
It's good talking with you,Good catching up too.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah, awesome.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Take care, we are the Lab Safety Gurus, dan Scungio
and Sean Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Thank you for letting us do lab safety together.
Welcome to the Lab Safety Gurus Podcast.
I'm Dan Scungio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And I'm Sean Kaufman, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety together.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Sean Kaufman, how are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm a little stuffy.
A little stuffy, but I'm doingokay.
I think I've got the summerblues or some type of summer.
I'm not going to say the bigword, that includes 19 in it,
but I'm not going to do that,I'm just going to say I've got
some type of junk over thesummer.
Do you remember the days, dan,when it would be summertime and
nobody ever got sick in thesummertime?
(00:40):
Yeah, it seemed like that,right, yeah, I miss those days.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, it seemed like that right.
Yeah, I miss those days.
Yeah, I do too.
Allergies, sicknesses, let themall go away.
Hey, I got something I kind ofwanted to talk to you about
today and it's you know, it'sreally kind of interesting.
I'm kind of interesting to hearyour take on this.
You know, I'm kind of old, sean.
I've been in laboratorymedicine since I graduated in
1990.
(01:08):
And I can remember in my senioryear of college they were
teaching us how to charge ahemocytometer in hematology.
So if you don't know what thatis, you got to do a cell count
with body fluids or differentsamples, and you have to pull up
some sample and put it inwhat's called a hemocytometer, a
chamber where you can count thecells.
(01:30):
It's like a grid chamber whereyou actually count the cells.
And so in my senior year ofcollege they said here's your
gift.
It is called a spit string, andwhat you're going to do is
you're going to put this in yourmouth and you're going to suck
up the body fluid.
And then you're going to do isyou're going to put this in your
mouth and you're going to suckup the body fluid and then
you're going to spit it backinto the chamber to charge your
hemocytometer and when you'redone you'll rinse the bottom
(01:54):
part of the tubing and thenyou'll put it in a plastic bag
and put it back in the drawer inthe laboratory for your next
use, for your next body fluid,and that was considered the norm
for the day.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
I just, I just kind of want tounderstand what you're saying.
You're sucking in somebodyelse's body fluid.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Yes, there's a filter at the end in case you know you
suck too hard and maybe thefluid gets, gets up toward your
mouth because you really don'twant to suck it up so far that
it becomes a danger to you.
But that was how.
You really don't want to suckit up so far that it becomes a
danger to you, but that was howDan hold on.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
One sec man hold on hold on now you know I'm not a
science guy so I'm more.
You know this is a behavioralsafety thing.
Wait, hold on.
What kind of fluids are yousucking up in that straw?
Speaker 1 (02:40):
so synovial fluid, uh like for people who don't know
what synovial means Joint fluidlike knee fluid, elbow fluid,
lung fluid, pericardial fluid,whatever kind of body fluid you
can get in the laboratory.
Spinal fluid Urine.
You typically wouldn't do, youtypically would not do a cell
(03:03):
count on a urine, but maybe aspinal fluid okay yeah for sure
I, I, I, okay, okay, and theygave you this as a college gift.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
That's just awesome.
Yes, yes, okay, all right.
I mean, I mean, I, I know weused to mouth pipette, there's
no doubt I, yes, I know that wasthere.
But sucking body fluids up to astraw, that that just blows me
away.
It's the same.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
I mean, it's the same .
At least with our spit stringwe had a filter.
When you're mouth pipettingwith just a pipette, there was
no filter at the end of thosepipettes.
You could accidentally suck inchemical or body fluid or
whatever it was, because youknow, we just didn't use bulbs
in the lab, for whatever reason,but that's where I'm going with
this.
So, in the lab, for whateverreason, but that's where I'm
(03:46):
going with this.
So that was 1990, what is it 35years ago?
Yes, and that was the norm.
So today, my coworker, jason,and I were going around all of
our different labs within ourorganization and we're doing
these safety refresher classes,and one of the things we're
talking about is a little bit ofis how safety has changed over
time, because we show thesepictures of people and I have
(04:09):
pictures of a lady posing whileshe's mouth pipetting in the
laboratory and she's smiling,and it was the norm.
She wasn't wearing a lab coat,she was wearing a uniform like a
short skirted uniform, becausethat's what lab techs wore back
in the day no gloves, no eye day, no gloves, no eye protection,
(04:31):
no face protection, and she'ssucking up some sort of chemical
from a container that isn'tlabeled.
So there you go.
There's picture one.
Picture two there's somebodydoing performing phlebotomy and
there's no gloves in use.
And then picture three, fromthe same era, is a lady working
in one of the original biosafetycabinets.
It's just a big metal cabinetwith a small window, two big
holes for your arms, and she'sworking.
(04:53):
It says in the caption withtuberculosis specimens no N95,
no gloves, no lab coat, justhands in these giant holes in
this cabinet that she's workingin.
And that was the way it was.
And so my question usually tothe audience after I show those
pictures is hey, did thesepeople have happy, healthy
careers and did they get toretire and have a good long,
(05:14):
healthy, happy retirement?
And the answer is I don't know.
And if the answer is yes, it'snot because they were doing
something that was safe, it'sbecause they were lucky.
And what happens when I get alot and I'm trying to get people
to go somewhere in their headswith this while talking about it
, but what happens a lot is Isort of get derailed in the
(05:34):
conversation by our audiencesometimes, because what they
often will say is well, you know, that was considered okay in
that day and that's true.
(06:10):
It was started to step inbloodborne pathogen standard.
Hey, you need to wear gloves,you need to not mouth pipette,
you need to not eat and drink inthe laboratory.
All of those things started tocome into the regulatory realm.
And today, you know, things aremuch different.
But it's very hard to get theaudience to think like, okay, so
(06:31):
yes, that was the norm, but itstill wasn't okay.
You know it's the norm onHighway 95 in Richmond, virginia
, to go 80 miles per hour butthe speed limit is actually 70.
So you've got.
You know we like to use theterm normalized deviance.
We call it, you know we callthose practices that all the
time, but it's still deviance.
(06:52):
You know it's still a problem.
So how do you get people in themindset that today things like
gum chewing, eating, that stillhappen in the lab?
Not wearing your lab coat orPPE, face protection, eye
protection is still a problem,when you've got some long timers
who think you know what?
(07:12):
It's still better than it was.
At least we're not mouthpipetting anymore, like that's
where their standard is.
So how do you get them toevolve in their head to the next
step of realizing that you'restill not safe, even though
you're not mouth pipettinganymore you still have to wear
gloves, and so that's one of thethings we're doing.
We're showing people thehierarchy of controls and how
(07:33):
PPE is the last resort and theleast effective blah, blah, blah
, all that stuff.
So it's been interesting, andwe've had some derailments in
our presentations because peoplecan't seem to grasp that.
Yeah, that was okay back then,but we're better, but we want
them to be even better, so howdo you get them there?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
well, I think it's a vision.
I you know, dan, I also, youknow I may throw a wrench in
this.
I mean, we're about halfwaythrough our time here and I may
throw a wrench, let me.
Let me ask you this can youmouth pipette safely?
Speaker 1 (08:08):
sure 100.
Okay, can you?
Speaker 2 (08:11):
could you?
Could you eat in a laboratorysafely?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
I could.
If I found a way to do it, Icould yes so here's the, here's
the challenge that we have.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
You and I are talking , I would hope majority of our
audience may be, uh, domestichere in the united states, but
it could also be international,sure, and like.
There's a lab that I rememberthat I served a long time ago,
right in the middle of a jungleand I mean it was super hot,
mosquitoes everywhere.
It was the only air conditionedvenue for I guess almost 30
(08:42):
miles.
Only thing that had arefrigerator was the lab
refrigerator.
Only air conditioned unit wasthe laboratory.
Where do you think thosescientists on a 100-degree,
massive, humid day, where do youthink they're going to have
their lunch at?
Where do you think they'regoing to store their food at?
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah, in that refrigerator.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Yeah, and now you could go in there as a safety
professional and be like listen,we're not supposed to do that
and that's not safe.
You're right, or you have adifferent approach.
The question is can you make itsafe?
So, for example?
Another thing is we knowinternationally there are still
people sniffing plates.
Yeah, yeah, they are.
Not only are they sniffingplates, but they're sniffing
(09:26):
plates to save money becausethey may have a lack of
resources and some may evenargue today it's quicker than
the technologies that we have.
The question I have as werevolutionize safety is what's
the better question?
Size fits all safety approachor do we in essence, teach
(09:50):
multiple, multiple approachessafe, you know, and teach people
how to do those things safely?
It's not by listen and just forthe record is I know there may
be people listening to thisgoing what is sean promoting
that we we did.
No, I'm not.
I'm not promoting unsafepractices.
What I'm promoting is practicalsafety.
What I'm promoting is is whatcan those we serve do with the
(10:14):
resources they have and dosafely?
That's what I'm promoting.
So please, yeah, don't, don't,please don't write me and say,
oh my gosh, sean's promotinghigh risk, crazy behaviors.
That's not.
That's not what I'm promoting.
So you know, dan.
Well, you know, you know me,I'm a behavioral science guy,
yeah, and?
And back in december of 2020,who released their biosafety
(10:37):
manual, and after 16 long yearsof serving biosafety, at that
time let me read something thatjust tickled my heart because it
actually changed andrevolutionized biosafety, at
least for me, I was finally felt, I guess, justified.
It says this it says a reviewof recently laboratory
associated infections showedthat most were caused by human
(11:00):
factors rather than malfunctionsof engineering controls.
Factors that have led topotential and confirmed
exposures to biological agentsinclude an absence or improper
use of personal protectiveequipment, inadequate or ignored
risk assessments, lack ofstandard operating procedures,
needle stick injuries and orinsufficiently trained personnel
(11:21):
.
It can be argued my favoritestatement of all time here we go
as we revolutionize safety.
It can be argued, therefore,that the best designed and most
well-engineered laboratory isonly as good as its least
competent worker yeah, I, Istand by that.
(11:42):
Yes, I agree with that 100 so myproposal for revolutionizing
revolutionizing safety, dan, aswe talk about, okay, where we go
from here to where we're goingnext, is we have to start
looking at the human riskfactors in a lab, the human
elements.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeah, and that's kind of where I have a little joke.
When we're talking about thehierarchy of controls, I'm like,
look at this, elimination worksgreat, substitution is
fantastic, engineering controlshardly fail unless we use them
wrong.
But now we get down toadministrative controls.
And why are they so low on thelist?
And we're like people, becausepeople stink.
People stink at following rulesand regulations and policies
(12:19):
and procedures and that's whereit all goes wrong.
And look what's even below thatPPE?
Again, because people, we don'tuse it right or we don't use it
.
So, yeah, and I guess that's oneof the things we're trying to
do in these safety refreshers,as we're calling them, because
we even talk about, you know,personal electronic devices, one
of my favorite air quotesubjects.
(12:40):
But you know, we have to list,you know, and.
But I'm trying to convincepeople and I think a lot, of, a
lot of you know, affecting humanor helping people understand
their risk, as a human isteaching them the potential
consequences, even though theydon't face the real consequences
of it.
So you have to talk about it.
Phones and smartwatches andearbuds, contamination risk,
(13:03):
fire and explosion risk,distraction and reduced focus
risk, electromagneticinterference risk, breach of
confidentiality and datasecurity risk.
Those are all real risks ofusing these devices in the
laboratory.
But we have to tell like youcan't just list those things you
have to like tell a story abouteach and every one of them,
because I have a story I cantell of each one of those
(13:23):
incidents, that's true.
So you really have to take thetime and spend time with the
human in the laboratory.
I think and talk about thosethings in order to help us
evolve to the next stage ofsafety in the lab.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Yeah, I think no doubt the challenges that we
have, at least in hearing thatyou know about what you're going
through is how safe is safeenough?
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, I mean, where is that threshold?
And I think there's a lot oflisteners out there that may be
asking the same questions Likewell, you know, and I find it
harder, dan, to motivateeverybody to be on the same page
.
That's why I look toorganizations and I look to
leadership to really set theexpectation.
Like, look, if you don't wantphones in your laboratory, you
don't appeal to the laboratorystaff.
(14:13):
You make a policy and you go toleadership and you say, okay,
when someone breaks that policy,what are we going to do to hold
that individual accountable?
And anytime, leaders come tothat table and hold people
accountable for not living up toorganizational expectations.
In my opinion, that's how youget consistent behavioral
(14:35):
practices among different peoplewith different perceptions of
risk and, really, quite honestly, different behaviors.
It has to be leadership.
Leadership and accountabilityhave to be present in the
laboratory environment.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, I agree.
I you know and some of thethings that you know laboratory
safety professionals battlesometimes are our leaders that
don't support safety.
It's so key you and I both knowthis we preach this all the
time how important it is for theleader to support safety in the
laboratory.
It makes all the difference inthe world.
But unfortunately, I also haveto teach people how you can
(15:13):
support safety without thesupport of your leadership.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
That's right.
I mean, do what you can withwhat you have, Do your best.
And, as I like to say, Dan andwe're both men of faith do your
best and let God do the rest.
And if you're not faithful outthere, just do your best and let
leadership do the rest.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Right, and I just say to everybody listening, sean
and I both are here to help, andif you struggle with, maybe, a
leader who isn't supporting youin the way you want, we have
ways to help you, and so pleasefeel free to reach out to us,
because we're here to do that.
We're here to make sure thatyour laboratory and
(15:53):
laboratorians preciouscommodities, all that do great
work for God and country arekept safe, and that's what we
want for you and for all of yourcoworkers.
So let us help you.
We're glad to do it.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Thank you, Dan, so much.
It's good talking with you,Good catching up too.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah, awesome.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Take care, we are the Lab Safety Gurus, dan Scungio
and Sean Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Thank you for letting us do lab safety together.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.