June 6, 2025 • 16 mins
Why do some safety messages stick while others are ignored? The answer lies in how we frame them.
In this enlightening conversation, Dan Scungio and Sean Kaufman explore the art and science of making laboratory safety relatable through powerful analogies that bridge everyday experiences with laboratory practices. They examine why seatbelts became widely adopted not merely through risk awareness but through campaigns like "Click It or Ticket," revealing that behavior is driven primarily by expectations and accountability rather than risk perception alone.
The hosts unpack our troubling tendency to underestimate risks after prolonged exposure—what Sean calls "the human risk factor element." Through vivid analogies involving cell phones, vitamins, and swimming pools, they demonstrate how complacency clouds judgment and creates dangerous blind spots in laboratory settings. Particularly effective is the cell phone comparison: most lab workers who would never place a laboratory phone on their kitchen table regularly place personal phones on contaminated lab surfaces before bringing them to break areas.
Most striking is the critical examination of trust in laboratory management. While laboratories require rigorous competency assessments for technical procedures, safety practices rarely receive the same verification. As Sean poignantly states, "Trust is very dangerous. Hope is an expensive commodity." This disconnect between testing standards and safety protocols represents a fundamental gap that puts laboratory workers at unnecessary risk.
Join us for this thought-provoking discussion that challenges conventional approaches to safety training and offers practical strategies for creating a culture where safety becomes second nature. Have you experienced the normalization of risk in your workplace? We'd love to hear your stories and solutions!
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 Coffman, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety together.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hey Sean Coffman, how are you doing today?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm doing great, dan.
I'm trying to wait until thedust kind of settles.
I think the political climateout there is still a little
crazy, so I'm just kind oftreading water right now until I
understand where we're goingand what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Yeah, I've actually had some people asking me
recently about you know how doesthis affect lab safety?
With all these changes, theremay be fewer people who have
oversight in these organizations.
Does that mean we don't have toworry about safety as much?
I sort of laugh like no, that'snot what we do.
That's not what we do.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Don't worry about safety.
Oh my goodness, gracious so.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
But you know.
So I've had some thoughts on mymind about teaching lab safety
and making it relatable to thepeople who are working in the
labs today, because, you know,whether we have regulatory
agencies downsizing or not, westill have accreditation
agencies, we still have safetythat we have to follow so that
we can go home at night to ourfamilies and friends and be safe
(01:21):
and healthy and happy, which iswhat our goal should always be.
So, you know, trying to, like Isaid, make it more relatable to
people, and I've found that I'mreally bad at coming up with
good analogies for people, andthat's one of the things that
you've always been good withSean and somebody else I work
with in safety, jason Nagy.
He's also very good at comingup with these analogies, that
(01:44):
sort of humanize lab safety, andso I'm hoping I can get some
insight as to how you come upwith these things.
So one of the things I know thatyou have said before in your
talks is you'll ask people hey,do you wear your seatbelt?
You'll just start aconversation like that and
everybody's like, yeah, ofcourse we do.
(02:04):
And then the next question iswhy do you wear your seat belt?
Well, just in case we're in anaccident and so that immediately
for a safety person.
You know I can relate thatright away to well, that's why
you wear PPE, just in case.
You know, take that phrasingjust in case, and make sure
you're thinking that way in thelaboratory.
(02:25):
Now there are some people whowear their seat belt, like my
father did, because it was thelaw.
He didn't grow up having towear the seat belt, yeah, and he
only.
At first.
He would only throw it over hisshoulder and not click it,
because he just wanted, didn'twant a ticket, but then
eventually he learned.
But I'm young enough that Ipretty much always have worn my
seatbelt once it became law.
(02:46):
I remember when it wasn't, butI don't do it because it's the
law I do it-.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, you know, Dan, that's not what science says.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
What does science say ?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That's not what behavioral science says.
See, when there was no law andthere was no requirement, you
know, when there was no law andthere was no requirement, you
would assume that, well then, itmust be risk driven.
But I can assure you that thecars that your dad drove and
that we were riding in when wewere children, they did not have
anti-lock brakes, they did nothave airbags, we did not have
(03:18):
well-designed roads, no, so riskwas not the driver for behavior
.
What is the driver for behaviorspecific to safety is
expectations and accountabilityto those expectations Because,
quite honestly, safety meansthat you're going to have to
take some extra precautions toprovide additional redundancies
(03:42):
to protect your health, and alot of us believe that.
Well, some people are yes, I'mgoing to do that because I love
to do it.
That's about 10% of the world,dan.
Yeah, that's it, 90% of theworld, dan.
They just want to get the jobdone and go home, and what they
don't understand is that, as ahuman being, initially, I mean,
I see these videos now on TikTokwhere these babies are grabbing
(04:05):
snakes, and the premise behindthe TikTok is that fear is
something that is taught.
It is something that is learned.
It is not something that is youknow, that is you know, and so
these kids are grabbing thesesnakes and most of these adults
are running away and theselittle babies are grabbing them
and they're moving around.
They have like zero fear, zerofear whatsoever.
(04:27):
And here's the problem.
The problem is is that when youare around a risk for a
prolonged period of time, thehuman risk factor element in
that is that you begin tounderestimate the bite of that
risk.
And when you begin tounderestimate the bite of the
risk, it's that risk that hurtsyou.
And so you know, in my opinion,in my opinion, people wear
(04:49):
seatbelts today, not becausethey perceive a massive risk,
because they do.
But what drove that and whatdrove the perception is the
expectation to wear seatbelts.
Or you're going to get a ticket, click it, or ticket Dan.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
If we can say that, if we can find a logo like that
in a laboratory where it's likemerit or you're fired or you're
merit trust me they'd be doingeverything we ask them to do.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Okay, so all right.
So I've got a couple othershere because I want something
that's going to make peoplethink about it in real terms.
And you know, I don't knowAgain, you may like these, you
may not like these.
So far I'm using them a littlebit in small group settings and
they're going okay.
The seatbelt where we end at it, you know we ask people hey,
(05:39):
have you been in an accident?
A lot of people say no.
Then why do you wear yourseatbelt?
And a lot of people will sayjust in case.
And so we tell them to rememberthat with PPE in the laboratory
, remember that just in case,because accidents happen and you
need to be ready at all times.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
That's why your seatbelt's on, whether it's the
law or whether you choose to doit for risk.
You know what I love about theanalogy of the seatbelt, what I
love telling people hey, youknow what the neat part is?
The neat part is you can wear aseat belt, you could follow the
law, you can follow the speedlimit, you can even make sure
your car is well maintained.
But the person next to you thatisn't wearing a seat belt, is
(06:19):
drinking and driving, didn't geta brakes check, has a flat tire
, can completely destroy yoursafety record, because safety is
not something that's isolated,it's not in a bubble.
It's something that we have todo as a family together, and we
teach that too, right.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Other people's safety behaviors in the department
affect your safety as well, andthat's why we need to be
coaching other people as wellwhile they do it All right.
So here's a different analogy.
What do you think of this one?
So we'll ask the question ofthe group hey, do you take
vitamins?
Do you take daily vitamins?
A lot of people will say yes,and so the next question is why?
(06:58):
Well, because it's healthy.
Science says it's the rightthing to do.
We should have a good balanceof vitamins and minerals, and so
the next question is have youever been, have you been sick in
the last two years?
Have you ever gotten a cold,something like that?
And a lot of people, of course,are going to say yes, we're
going to say so.
You're putting your faith intothese vitamins and minerals that
(07:18):
you're taking to keep youhealthy, but they don't keep you
healthy 100% of the time, andnot that there's a claim that
all vitamins are going toprevent everything, but you put
your faith in something thatmight be working for you.
So it's time to put your faithin something like engineering,
controls and PPE that definitelywork for you.
(07:39):
What do you think of thatanalogy?
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I mean, I think I mean I like it, I mean I like it
.
The challenge that I have, dan,in all of this and I love the
analogy is that we are assumingthat individuals are going to
choose what's right, meaningthey're going to choose to
(08:04):
believe in something that may ormay not be working.
So here's the deal People takevitamins not because they
necessarily work, but becausepeople believe they work.
Yeah, and if somebody wastaking a vitamin and they didn't
believe it was working, thenyou're gagging the vitamin down
(08:26):
and so you're literally going toput it in their mouth and
you're going to make them gag onit.
So the problem is is that Idon't want people in my
laboratory this is just mypersonal opinion I don't want
people in my laboratory to sayto me well, sean, sean, I'm
sorry, I don't believe PPEdoesn't work and therefore I'm
not going to wear it.
By the way, I've had that.
(08:47):
I mean, come on, we've had that.
I mean we have people stilltrying to mouth pipette and
smell plates.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yes, yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
So I the hard part I'm having is is that safety is
something that is expected forthe protection, the safety and
security of those in thecommunity that surround the lab,
those working in the laboratoryand the individuals.
And the problem we have, dan,is that if somebody says I
(09:17):
believe in vitamins and somebodysays I don't, and that person
who doesn't believe in vitaminssays I don't believe in PPE and
the other person says I dobelieve in ppe, then we've got a
laboratory that has peopledoing half and half, and so it
yeah the hard part I'm having insafety is the analogies are are
outstanding and justifying theneed for behavior, but there has
(09:40):
to be there's just there's anundercurrent there.
do you know what I'm going withthat?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
I do All right, so I want to give you another one.
All right, here is the telephone, the landline telephone that's
in the laboratory, that getsused in the specimen processing
area every day.
Would you take that telephoneand place it on your kitchen
table at home?
And everyone immediately saysno, that's disgusting.
(10:05):
And everyone immediately saysno, that's disgusting.
Then we turn around and ask thequestion has anyone in the lab
placed their cell phone on thelaboratory counter?
And then you've seen them placetheir cell phone on your break
room table.
Is that any different?
Just to get them thinkingwhat's the difference.
So what do you think of that asan analogy?
Speaker 2 (10:26):
I love it, and the reason why I love it is the
first two analogies werebasically trying to justify a
particular behavior.
This one doesn't.
This one basically says are yousmart or are you stupid?
This one's very clear.
I used to use a similar analogyat CDC when I did waterborne
(10:47):
disease, because one thing thatwould bother me, dan and I would
observe people is they wouldjump into a swimming pool and
they would bring water intotheir mouth and they'd spit it
out.
They spit it out.
And so I used to use theanalogy that if I got into a
bathtub and of course I wasnaked and I blew my nose in it,
(11:08):
and then I had five other peopleget in there and do the same
thing, and then I took a glassand I pulled it out and I said
would you swish this in yourmouth?
People would be like, oh no,that's disgusting.
And the reality is that I said,well, when you jump in a pool
and you bring water in yourmouth, it's exactly what you do.
Yeah, and and, and.
You could just see these faceslike, holy crap, I never thought
(11:31):
about that.
And so you're.
When you use an analogy likethat, dan, what you're fighting
is complacency.
Yeah, that analogy is not.
It's not.
It's.
It's not giving people a choice.
It's not setting them up to say, well, I don't believe in
vitamins or I don't believe inseatbelts.
What you're doing here is yousay, look, we all have cell
phones, let's talk about cellphone behavior, and, and.
(11:53):
At that point you're going tosay how many people do this?
And then who uses a cell phone?
After that, and and and?
At that point, light bulbsstart going off.
In my opinion, what you'redoing in that analogy, dan, is
it's a Socratic method.
What you're doing there isyou're actually getting people
to think about their ownpersonal behaviors and make
(12:14):
adjustments in how they perceivethe risk.
I think that's a great analogy,yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Okay, so I'm glad I saved the best one to last.
You know there have been somany.
I've been working on so manydifferent ways to get people
thinking about safety in the labdifferently in order to figure
out what the.
You know, I wish I had the key,like you said.
If we had the click it forticket phrase for lab, you know
(12:40):
we'd finally have it for lab,you know we'd finally have it.
You know, another piece thatcame into place recently had to
do with, you know, trust in thelaboratory, trust that people
are going to do the right thingand the safe thing.
And so I always try to look atit from a leadership's point of
view, because I was a managerfor 11 years in a couple
different labs, you know.
(13:01):
So I didn't trust that all mylab staff could properly perform
a type and cross match, and sohow did I make sure that they
could do it?
We did competency assessments,so we made sure that they were
able to do it.
There were tests.
There are six different methodswith a competency assessment,
six different ways of assessingcompetency.
(13:22):
There are six different methodswith a competency assessment,
six different ways of assessingcompetency.
But often managers A don't docompetency assessments for
safety and they often trust andmaybe that's the wrong word or
expect that their staff is doingsafety.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They're doing it.
They're okay with that.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I'm not going to trust them with the blood bank
work, but I don't do safetycompetency, so they must be
doing that, okay, or I'm justnot paying attention.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Let me use an analogy there, dan.
Okay, because trust is verydangerous.
Hope is an expensive commodityand what you just said to me
breaks my heart.
Using this analogy because wehave many, many children who
every year in the united states,literally around the world and
(14:08):
um, and if I throw a swimmingparty as a parent and I have a
bunch of kids over to my houseand I interview the kids about
their swimming skills, the waywe interview, say, scientists
about whether they can do a asyou, you said what is a
cross-functional, I don't knowsome procedure.
You acted like a responsiblesafety manager.
(14:28):
You made sure that your staffdidn't just say they were
competent, but could demonstratecompetency.
I liken it to the swimming poolparty.
If I have a child that says Ican swim, that's not good enough
for me.
I'm going to make sure thechild can by watching the child,
and I'm also going to postpeople out there that are
watching for children too, whoget in trouble.
(14:49):
Because the problem is is it istrust is such a loaded word
because you say, well, I don'ttrust somebody, I do, and then
people get offended because theyknow that no, no, no, it's a
look.
What I'm doing is is.
I'm making sure that I'mcontrolling for human risk, and
there are several types of humanrisk.
Number one, human riskunconscious incompetence.
I think I know how to swim, butI don't.
Yeah, even though with all myheart I believe I can, I can't.
(15:12):
But the second one, to Dan, isperceived mastery, and that's
when you believe your skill isbetter than what it really is,
and so you can swim in shallowwinds, but when you get to the
deep end you can't.
And those are human riskfactors that require us to
assess overall competency.
I know we're out of time.
What?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
a great topic, dan.
We could yeah, I could say alot more about this.
Maybe we need to continue thisnext time, because here's the
rub of what you just said the,the lab standards.
The regulatory agencies requirecompetency assessments for
testing, but they don't requireit for safety.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Yes, I why exactly that's a such a great point.
That's such a great point we'llget there.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
We'll get there, all right, shawn.
Well, if you think of any moregood analogies I can use uh,
please send them my way, becauseI I can't take credit for most
of those, although it was reallygreat talking about them,
because I want to make safetyrelatable at all levels, from
management to staff, toeverywhere, and that's what we
(16:19):
should do, because we're tryingto protect everybody.
So let's keep doing it.
Thanks very much, and we'lltalk to you next time.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
We are the Lab Safety Gurus Dan Scungio and Sean
Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
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 Coffman, and together we're providing
safety insights for thoseworking in laboratory settings,
doing safety together.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hey Sean Coffman, how are you doing today?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm doing great, dan.
I'm trying to wait until thedust kind of settles.
I think the political climateout there is still a little
crazy, so I'm just kind oftreading water right now until I
understand where we're goingand what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Yeah, I've actually had some people asking me
recently about you know how doesthis affect lab safety?
With all these changes, theremay be fewer people who have
oversight in these organizations.
Does that mean we don't have toworry about safety as much?
I sort of laugh like no, that'snot what we do.
That's not what we do.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Don't worry about safety.
Oh my goodness, gracious so.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
But you know.
So I've had some thoughts on mymind about teaching lab safety
and making it relatable to thepeople who are working in the
labs today, because, you know,whether we have regulatory
agencies downsizing or not, westill have accreditation
agencies, we still have safetythat we have to follow so that
we can go home at night to ourfamilies and friends and be safe
(01:21):
and healthy and happy, which iswhat our goal should always be.
So, you know, trying to, like Isaid, make it more relatable to
people, and I've found that I'mreally bad at coming up with
good analogies for people, andthat's one of the things that
you've always been good withSean and somebody else I work
with in safety, jason Nagy.
He's also very good at comingup with these analogies, that
(01:44):
sort of humanize lab safety, andso I'm hoping I can get some
insight as to how you come upwith these things.
So one of the things I know thatyou have said before in your
talks is you'll ask people hey,do you wear your seatbelt?
You'll just start aconversation like that and
everybody's like, yeah, ofcourse we do.
(02:04):
And then the next question iswhy do you wear your seat belt?
Well, just in case we're in anaccident and so that immediately
for a safety person.
You know I can relate thatright away to well, that's why
you wear PPE, just in case.
You know, take that phrasingjust in case, and make sure
you're thinking that way in thelaboratory.
(02:25):
Now there are some people whowear their seat belt, like my
father did, because it was thelaw.
He didn't grow up having towear the seat belt, yeah, and he
only.
At first.
He would only throw it over hisshoulder and not click it,
because he just wanted, didn'twant a ticket, but then
eventually he learned.
But I'm young enough that Ipretty much always have worn my
seatbelt once it became law.
(02:46):
I remember when it wasn't, butI don't do it because it's the
law I do it-.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, you know, Dan, that's not what science says.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
What does science say ?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That's not what behavioral science says.
See, when there was no law andthere was no requirement, you
know, when there was no law andthere was no requirement, you
would assume that, well then, itmust be risk driven.
But I can assure you that thecars that your dad drove and
that we were riding in when wewere children, they did not have
anti-lock brakes, they did nothave airbags, we did not have
(03:18):
well-designed roads, no, so riskwas not the driver for behavior
.
What is the driver for behaviorspecific to safety is
expectations and accountabilityto those expectations Because,
quite honestly, safety meansthat you're going to have to
take some extra precautions toprovide additional redundancies
(03:42):
to protect your health, and alot of us believe that.
Well, some people are yes, I'mgoing to do that because I love
to do it.
That's about 10% of the world,dan.
Yeah, that's it, 90% of theworld, dan.
They just want to get the jobdone and go home, and what they
don't understand is that, as ahuman being, initially, I mean,
I see these videos now on TikTokwhere these babies are grabbing
(04:05):
snakes, and the premise behindthe TikTok is that fear is
something that is taught.
It is something that is learned.
It is not something that is youknow, that is you know, and so
these kids are grabbing thesesnakes and most of these adults
are running away and theselittle babies are grabbing them
and they're moving around.
They have like zero fear, zerofear whatsoever.
(04:27):
And here's the problem.
The problem is is that when youare around a risk for a
prolonged period of time, thehuman risk factor element in
that is that you begin tounderestimate the bite of that
risk.
And when you begin tounderestimate the bite of the
risk, it's that risk that hurtsyou.
And so you know, in my opinion,in my opinion, people wear
(04:49):
seatbelts today, not becausethey perceive a massive risk,
because they do.
But what drove that and whatdrove the perception is the
expectation to wear seatbelts.
Or you're going to get a ticket, click it, or ticket Dan.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
If we can say that, if we can find a logo like that
in a laboratory where it's likemerit or you're fired or you're
merit trust me they'd be doingeverything we ask them to do.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Okay, so all right.
So I've got a couple othershere because I want something
that's going to make peoplethink about it in real terms.
And you know, I don't knowAgain, you may like these, you
may not like these.
So far I'm using them a littlebit in small group settings and
they're going okay.
The seatbelt where we end at it, you know we ask people hey,
(05:39):
have you been in an accident?
A lot of people say no.
Then why do you wear yourseatbelt?
And a lot of people will sayjust in case.
And so we tell them to rememberthat with PPE in the laboratory
, remember that just in case,because accidents happen and you
need to be ready at all times.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
That's why your seatbelt's on, whether it's the
law or whether you choose to doit for risk.
You know what I love about theanalogy of the seatbelt, what I
love telling people hey, youknow what the neat part is?
The neat part is you can wear aseat belt, you could follow the
law, you can follow the speedlimit, you can even make sure
your car is well maintained.
But the person next to you thatisn't wearing a seat belt, is
(06:19):
drinking and driving, didn't geta brakes check, has a flat tire
, can completely destroy yoursafety record, because safety is
not something that's isolated,it's not in a bubble.
It's something that we have todo as a family together, and we
teach that too, right.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Other people's safety behaviors in the department
affect your safety as well, andthat's why we need to be
coaching other people as wellwhile they do it All right.
So here's a different analogy.
What do you think of this one?
So we'll ask the question ofthe group hey, do you take
vitamins?
Do you take daily vitamins?
A lot of people will say yes,and so the next question is why?
(06:58):
Well, because it's healthy.
Science says it's the rightthing to do.
We should have a good balanceof vitamins and minerals, and so
the next question is have youever been, have you been sick in
the last two years?
Have you ever gotten a cold,something like that?
And a lot of people, of course,are going to say yes, we're
going to say so.
You're putting your faith intothese vitamins and minerals that
(07:18):
you're taking to keep youhealthy, but they don't keep you
healthy 100% of the time, andnot that there's a claim that
all vitamins are going toprevent everything, but you put
your faith in something thatmight be working for you.
So it's time to put your faithin something like engineering,
controls and PPE that definitelywork for you.
(07:39):
What do you think of thatanalogy?
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I mean, I think I mean I like it, I mean I like it
.
The challenge that I have, dan,in all of this and I love the
analogy is that we are assumingthat individuals are going to
choose what's right, meaningthey're going to choose to
(08:04):
believe in something that may ormay not be working.
So here's the deal People takevitamins not because they
necessarily work, but becausepeople believe they work.
Yeah, and if somebody wastaking a vitamin and they didn't
believe it was working, thenyou're gagging the vitamin down
(08:26):
and so you're literally going toput it in their mouth and
you're going to make them gag onit.
So the problem is is that Idon't want people in my
laboratory this is just mypersonal opinion I don't want
people in my laboratory to sayto me well, sean, sean, I'm
sorry, I don't believe PPEdoesn't work and therefore I'm
not going to wear it.
By the way, I've had that.
(08:47):
I mean, come on, we've had that.
I mean we have people stilltrying to mouth pipette and
smell plates.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yes, yes, yes.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
So I the hard part I'm having is is that safety is
something that is expected forthe protection, the safety and
security of those in thecommunity that surround the lab,
those working in the laboratoryand the individuals.
And the problem we have, dan,is that if somebody says I
(09:17):
believe in vitamins and somebodysays I don't, and that person
who doesn't believe in vitaminssays I don't believe in PPE and
the other person says I dobelieve in ppe, then we've got a
laboratory that has peopledoing half and half, and so it
yeah the hard part I'm having insafety is the analogies are are
outstanding and justifying theneed for behavior, but there has
(09:40):
to be there's just there's anundercurrent there.
do you know what I'm going withthat?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
I do All right, so I want to give you another one.
All right, here is the telephone, the landline telephone that's
in the laboratory, that getsused in the specimen processing
area every day.
Would you take that telephoneand place it on your kitchen
table at home?
And everyone immediately saysno, that's disgusting.
(10:05):
And everyone immediately saysno, that's disgusting.
Then we turn around and ask thequestion has anyone in the lab
placed their cell phone on thelaboratory counter?
And then you've seen them placetheir cell phone on your break
room table.
Is that any different?
Just to get them thinkingwhat's the difference.
So what do you think of that asan analogy?
Speaker 2 (10:26):
I love it, and the reason why I love it is the
first two analogies werebasically trying to justify a
particular behavior.
This one doesn't.
This one basically says are yousmart or are you stupid?
This one's very clear.
I used to use a similar analogyat CDC when I did waterborne
(10:47):
disease, because one thing thatwould bother me, dan and I would
observe people is they wouldjump into a swimming pool and
they would bring water intotheir mouth and they'd spit it
out.
They spit it out.
And so I used to use theanalogy that if I got into a
bathtub and of course I wasnaked and I blew my nose in it,
(11:08):
and then I had five other peopleget in there and do the same
thing, and then I took a glassand I pulled it out and I said
would you swish this in yourmouth?
People would be like, oh no,that's disgusting.
And the reality is that I said,well, when you jump in a pool
and you bring water in yourmouth, it's exactly what you do.
Yeah, and and, and.
You could just see these faceslike, holy crap, I never thought
(11:31):
about that.
And so you're.
When you use an analogy likethat, dan, what you're fighting
is complacency.
Yeah, that analogy is not.
It's not.
It's.
It's not giving people a choice.
It's not setting them up to say, well, I don't believe in
vitamins or I don't believe inseatbelts.
What you're doing here is yousay, look, we all have cell
phones, let's talk about cellphone behavior, and, and.
(11:53):
At that point you're going tosay how many people do this?
And then who uses a cell phone?
After that, and and and?
At that point, light bulbsstart going off.
In my opinion, what you'redoing in that analogy, dan, is
it's a Socratic method.
What you're doing there isyou're actually getting people
to think about their ownpersonal behaviors and make
(12:14):
adjustments in how they perceivethe risk.
I think that's a great analogy,yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Okay, so I'm glad I saved the best one to last.
You know there have been somany.
I've been working on so manydifferent ways to get people
thinking about safety in the labdifferently in order to figure
out what the.
You know, I wish I had the key,like you said.
If we had the click it forticket phrase for lab, you know
(12:40):
we'd finally have it for lab,you know we'd finally have it.
You know, another piece thatcame into place recently had to
do with, you know, trust in thelaboratory, trust that people
are going to do the right thingand the safe thing.
And so I always try to look atit from a leadership's point of
view, because I was a managerfor 11 years in a couple
different labs, you know.
(13:01):
So I didn't trust that all mylab staff could properly perform
a type and cross match, and sohow did I make sure that they
could do it?
We did competency assessments,so we made sure that they were
able to do it.
There were tests.
There are six different methodswith a competency assessment,
six different ways of assessingcompetency.
(13:22):
There are six different methodswith a competency assessment,
six different ways of assessingcompetency.
But often managers A don't docompetency assessments for
safety and they often trust andmaybe that's the wrong word or
expect that their staff is doingsafety.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They're doing it.
They're okay with that.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I'm not going to trust them with the blood bank
work, but I don't do safetycompetency, so they must be
doing that, okay, or I'm justnot paying attention.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Let me use an analogy there, dan.
Okay, because trust is verydangerous.
Hope is an expensive commodityand what you just said to me
breaks my heart.
Using this analogy because wehave many, many children who
every year in the united states,literally around the world and
(14:08):
um, and if I throw a swimmingparty as a parent and I have a
bunch of kids over to my houseand I interview the kids about
their swimming skills, the waywe interview, say, scientists
about whether they can do a asyou, you said what is a
cross-functional, I don't knowsome procedure.
You acted like a responsiblesafety manager.
(14:28):
You made sure that your staffdidn't just say they were
competent, but could demonstratecompetency.
I liken it to the swimming poolparty.
If I have a child that says Ican swim, that's not good enough
for me.
I'm going to make sure thechild can by watching the child,
and I'm also going to postpeople out there that are
watching for children too, whoget in trouble.
(14:49):
Because the problem is is it istrust is such a loaded word
because you say, well, I don'ttrust somebody, I do, and then
people get offended because theyknow that no, no, no, it's a
look.
What I'm doing is is.
I'm making sure that I'mcontrolling for human risk, and
there are several types of humanrisk.
Number one, human riskunconscious incompetence.
I think I know how to swim, butI don't.
Yeah, even though with all myheart I believe I can, I can't.
(15:12):
But the second one, to Dan, isperceived mastery, and that's
when you believe your skill isbetter than what it really is,
and so you can swim in shallowwinds, but when you get to the
deep end you can't.
And those are human riskfactors that require us to
assess overall competency.
I know we're out of time.
What?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
a great topic, dan.
We could yeah, I could say alot more about this.
Maybe we need to continue thisnext time, because here's the
rub of what you just said the,the lab standards.
The regulatory agencies requirecompetency assessments for
testing, but they don't requireit for safety.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Yes, I why exactly that's a such a great point.
That's such a great point we'llget there.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
We'll get there, all right, shawn.
Well, if you think of any moregood analogies I can use uh,
please send them my way, becauseI I can't take credit for most
of those, although it was reallygreat talking about them,
because I want to make safetyrelatable at all levels, from
management to staff, toeverywhere, and that's what we
(16:19):
should do, because we're tryingto protect everybody.
So let's keep doing it.
Thanks very much, and we'lltalk to you next time.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
We are the Lab Safety Gurus Dan Scungio and Sean
Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Thank you for letting us do lab safety together.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.