March 22, 2024 • 15 mins
Why do some scientists skirt the edge of safety in the pursuit of discovery? Join us, lab safety experts Dan Scungio and Sean Kaufman, as we unravel the complex psychology of risk-taking in the laboratory, examining how personal thresholds for danger can lead to a dicey dance with the potentially hazardous. Our discussion illuminates the mysterious force that pushes individuals to breach protocol, even when the risks are glaringly apparent. We probe into the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time that has starkly redefined our collective understanding of risk, and how this has shifted behaviors and protocols within the scientific community.
Venturing further into the realm of controversy, we passionately deliberate the ethics of virus research, particularly the genetic alteration of viruses to simulate pandemics. We shed light on the global repercussions of such scientific gambles, advocating for innovative alternatives like artificial intelligence which promise to lower these existential stakes. As we close the conversation, we encourage our peers in the field of laboratory safety to engage in a profound self-inquiry about their own risk thresholds, underscoring the imperative to harmonize personal and organizational safety values to champion the most rigorous safety standards in our laboratories.
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 Guru's 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.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Together.
Sean Kaufman, I have a questionfor you.
Uh-oh, what you got, dan.
Okay, you're riding an elevatorin a tall, tall building and
you get up to about the I don'tknow 44th floor and the elevator
stops.
You're alone in the elevator,but the door opens and you
(00:36):
suddenly learn that the top 10floors of the building they
haven't really finishedconstruction on it, but the
elevator went all the way up Uh,the door's open.
Are you gonna go to the doorand look down and see how high
up you are, or are you justgonna stay in the back of?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
the elevator.
Hey Dan, I'm afraid of heights.
I'm not going anywhere.
I'm staying in the elevator.
Yeah, I'm not going anywhere.
My palms were already sweating,you know, when you were
describing this situation.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I have no idea if you're afraid of heights, but I
thought it would be a goodscenario.
So here's a different question,Uh, very different, but we'll
see.
We'll see where you go with it.
So, uh, the pandemic, theCOVID-19 pandemic, it just hits
again.
The world goes crazy.
We kind of overdo it.
Uh and uh, there it is in yourtown.
(01:28):
The bugs are out, People arewearing masks, People are not
really going out.
Uh, and your wife says hey,Sean, I'd like to go out to
dinner.
I know of a restaurant that'sstill open.
Uh, uh, would you go?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, you know, dan, this is a loaded question, man.
We should do.
We should do a podcast just onwhat you just talked about.
Um, so, dan, it it you know itdepends.
Um, it depends on a lot ofthings.
Uh, what's my current health?
Um, you know it may be one ofmy children are about ready to.
(02:05):
Maybe I'm going to be agrandfather for the first time
and I may be around a newgrandson or a new granddaughter.
Um, it depends it.
Really.
I would have to look at a lotof factors.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Yes, that, and that's exactly what I'm looking for.
So what I wanted to talk abouttoday was just what I term
acceptable risk.
It's different depending on thesituation.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
And.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
I, and so I've been astounded, sean, when I, when I
go into laboratories and I seepeople doing things you know not
using the engineering controlcorrectly, the biological safety
cabinet or the you know thechemical fume hood or whatever
it is, or not wearing gloves, oryou know, and they're, and
(02:48):
they're handling biologicalspecimens.
We're supposed to use standardprecautions in a clinical
laboratory where we treateverything as if it were
infectious.
We work in some infectiousdisease laboratories, public
health laboratories, where weknow we've got infectious items
all over the place, but we stilldon't follow the rules and
regulations.
Why is it acceptable for somepeople?
(03:10):
Why is it an acceptable risk?
Is it a lack of education?
Is it a lack of safety culture?
Is it a lack of coaching?
Is it a lack of leadership?
Why is that acceptable risk?
And here you know I mentionedCOVID for a reason.
You know.
We had, uh, we had people inlots of different laboratories.
(03:31):
It was a tough time to be a labsafety officer, I'll tell you,
and I know it was tougheverywhere during that pandemic,
but I literally had employeescalling me as the lab lab safety
officer.
Some of them are crying becausethey were so scared, and these
are some of the same people whoI'd seen a few months before
(03:51):
with their cell phone on thecounter in the biological
laboratory, with them handlingtheir earbud with their gloved
hand.
So they weren't worried aboutthat risk, which you could catch
hepatitis much more easily thatway than you know.
Then all of a sudden somethingnew, novel and unknown was there
and they were far more worriedabout that when their risk of
(04:13):
doing that was less if theywould have just followed all the
general safety rules.
So again.
I know, that's a little loadedbecause I'm throwing COVID in
there, but but it it changedpeople's perception of
acceptable risk.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree, I, you know it's.
It's funny, dan.
The construct of thisacceptable risk is like pleasant
disappointment.
It's like it has this, it hasthis connotation to it.
Look, I.
So I look at it, you know,again, from a behavioral
standpoint, I see there arethree things that that that that
determine acceptable risk forindividuals.
(04:48):
The first is the amount of risksomebody's willing to tolerate,
the risk tolerance levels thatthat it that varies from person
to person.
Another considerationindividually is you know, maybe,
how they perceive risk.
Some individuals perceive, youknow, a risk that you know new
(05:08):
things, for example theirexperiences.
You know they don't have muchexperience with something, so
it's a greater perception ofrisk than somebody who's worked
around something for a long time.
So we know tolerance of riskand perception of risk is an
individual aspect that's goingto determine whether a risk is
acceptable or not.
But there's something also verystrange, dan.
This is real.
(05:28):
Get ready, for this is bizarre.
And you open it up with this butrisk appetite is an individual
thing as well.
Believe it or not, the amountof risk that that a person is is
is.
You know, that's different thantolerance.
Tolerance is what someone'scomfortable with or willing to
accept, but risk appetite iswhere they where.
(05:50):
If you've got a goal in mind,it's what you're willing to to
actually take to accomplish thatgoal, and and and that is.
These are all individualaspects and this is why an
organization Dan, in my opinion,has to, you know, not only be
aware of the regulatoryrequirements that are bound by
(06:12):
state or federal or even localordinances, but an organization
has to implement risk managementstrategies to to control for
these individual aspects, butalso and this is critical
they've got to do a cost-benefitanalysis, a risk-benefit
analysis.
They've got to take a look atwhat is the risk of not
(06:32):
controlling these threeindividual perspectives versus
writing a standardized process,putting in risk management
strategies.
Because when we talk aboutacceptable risk, who determines
what is and what is notacceptable?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Well, the regulatory bodies that determine that for
you, if you have a questionabout that well, yeah, but do we
, do we listen to speed limits?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well no, you can't just throw everything out
regularly.
Come on, how many standardsdoes OSHA have?
And really truly, doeseverybody know all those OSHA
standards and is everybody infull compliance?
Or do we wait until an accidenthappens and then we're, like
you, violated OSHA?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
No, but I guess I think psychologically, maybe,
when we're teaching or orientingsomebody to the laboratory and
talking about safety and alsoongoing safety education, a lot
of it has to do withconsequences.
This is what could happen ifyou don't do this, and so we're
working more on thepsychological aspect of personal
(07:47):
risk acceptance rather thanregulatory.
Yeah, you're right, because Icould know all the rules forward
and backward.
It doesn't mean I'm going tofollow them if I don't think I
need to.
And I've had medical directorsand doctors and PhDs tell me, oh
, even though it's regulation,oh, if I put my hand down on
this counter and then rub my eye, really what are the chances of
(08:10):
virus is going to get in my eye?
And actually doctors say thatto me.
So their risk acceptance forthe real world was different
than what the regulations say.
For sure, so yeah regulationsisn't as big a player.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, I mean, you know again, I think that you
know I always like to go back tothe family structure because I
believe in it.
A parent will set the tone forthree things for children the
risk tolerance, the riskappetite and the risk perception
, at least inside the house.
And you know now, when thechild leaves the house the child
(08:49):
may have a difference ofindividual perspective, but when
rules are established for thecommon good of everyone in the
home, it really doesn't matterif your risk appetite is high
and somebody else's riskappetite is low.
If you've got a set of riskmanagement strategies that
you're going to hold peopleaccountable for or accountable
to, then at least when they'rewithin the laboratory or within
(09:13):
the organization, their behaviorshould be quite similar to one
another.
I mean, you know, even thoughthey may have different risk
perceptions and risk tolerancesand risk appetites, the reality
is that they should becontrolled by risk management
strategies that are thought outand carefully planned.
That way, acceptable riskbecomes a organizational
(09:34):
commitment rather than anindividual one.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah, and I think that's what we need to see
happen more in laboratories andfor those who run the safety
program, because I still see inlabs that I work in, in labs
that I audit or consult with, Istill see variation in behavior.
It's great variation and ittells me that the individual's
(10:06):
risk acceptability levels aredifferent.
For whatever the reason, is itbecause there isn't a good
safety structure in thelaboratory?
Is it because there's nooversight?
Is it because there's noknowledge about possible
consequences?
Or there are just nobody, thereare no SOPs?
I mean there are a variety ofreasons.
You know one thing.
You know when people dosomething that I don't expect or
(10:29):
that's not right, I know thatthere are several sources of
influence on that behavior and Idon't know what any of those
may be Until I get to know theperson, talk to them about it.
But a lab manager, a lab leader, isn't necessarily going to
have time to do all of thatevery time they see something
going wrong with safety in theirlaboratory.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Well, hey, Dan, I've got questions for you.
Let me ask a couple ofquestions.
This may go, this may go.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Let's talk about acceptable risk.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
First let's start with.
Let's go through the realm ofour listeners.
You've got people out therethat do diagnostic capabilities.
That are heroes.
We're going to talk about ourlaboratory.
Is it acceptable risk to humanhealth to have a healthy
individual collect or work witha sample from somebody who could
(11:18):
be sick with a very lethaldisease?
Is that acceptable risk Todetermine what that person is
sick with?
That you should take a healthyhuman being and let them play
with a sample from a sickpatient.
Is that acceptable risk and why?
Speaker 1 (11:37):
That's a loaded question, it is, so is that
person who's doing the testingis PPE and let's assume for all
of this, let's assume that anorganization has determined
(11:58):
great risk management strategies.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I'm going to ask in three realms because I think
this is something we have toanswer.
Laboratoryans are heroes.
They are the unseen heroes.
You have people in hospitalsthat get samples that are
collected from doctors andnurses, and doctors and nurses
wait to hear from thelaboratoryans on what they're
going to do for treatment.
Absolutely, and they're heroes.
(12:24):
They don't ever get any creditfor this Exactly.
But let me ask straight upYou've got all the safety
aspects implemented.
Is it acceptable risk, becauseyou can't eliminate all risk?
But is it acceptable risk totell a healthy human being to
play with a sick human beingsample so that we can determine
what they have, so we can treatthem?
Is that acceptable risk?
(12:45):
Do you think that's somethingwe can do?
Yes, okay.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Let me ask you.
I have to say yes.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Okay, let me ask you this.
Let's say you're a publichealth laboratory and you have
diseases coming in from theoutside it could be outbreaks or
they could be within animalpopulations and you're taking a
healthy human being and you'reasking them to play with
potentially lethal diseases in apublic health field to
(13:10):
determine what's happening in acommunity.
Is that acceptable risk?
Yes, okay, let me ask you this.
Then Get ready.
This is the big one.
This is the controversial one.
Is it acceptable risk to take avirus, genetically modify it
and put it into animals to seehow a pandemic could play out?
(13:33):
Is that an acceptable risk?
Speaker 1 (13:38):
I don't think so.
Yeah, we only have a minute anda half left.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
But this is the debate that's happening right
now.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, for research.
My personal opinion on that isno.
I think that we could, when youcould potentially put the world
in danger, which we've seenhappen.
No, because there must be, inthis day and age, other ways to
(14:09):
do that Play it out using AI orsomething but there must be
better ways, safer ways to dothat.
I have to say no for me.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Well, dan, I love that, because when we talk about
defining acceptable risk, itreally is the level of risk at
which an organization or anindividual, or maybe even, dan,
maybe the world.
Maybe this is a question thatwe ask the world, because when
we talk about diagnostic andpublic health acceptable risk
(14:43):
you're right, it's verydifferent than if we're trying
to create something that mayallow us to stay ahead but could
potentially put us at risk.
I don't know.
I think it's a question thateach and every one of us should
ask, and maybe that the worldhas a chance to answer for
themselves.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, I agree, and that's something that could
affect the whole world.
So if you're dealing with labsafety, if you're listening to
this and you feel like you're onthe 44th floor looking down and
there's nothing past theelevator, stay in the back,
close the door, hit the downbutton and get somewhere where
(15:23):
the risk is acceptable for youand for the people in your
laboratory.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
We are the Lab Safety Guru's Dan Scungill and Sean
Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Thank you for letting us do lab safety together.
Welcome to the Lab Safety Guru's 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.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Together.
Sean Kaufman, I have a questionfor you.
Uh-oh, what you got, dan.
Okay, you're riding an elevatorin a tall, tall building and
you get up to about the I don'tknow 44th floor and the elevator
stops.
You're alone in the elevator,but the door opens and you
(00:36):
suddenly learn that the top 10floors of the building they
haven't really finishedconstruction on it, but the
elevator went all the way up Uh,the door's open.
Are you gonna go to the doorand look down and see how high
up you are, or are you justgonna stay in the back of?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
the elevator.
Hey Dan, I'm afraid of heights.
I'm not going anywhere.
I'm staying in the elevator.
Yeah, I'm not going anywhere.
My palms were already sweating,you know, when you were
describing this situation.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I have no idea if you're afraid of heights, but I
thought it would be a goodscenario.
So here's a different question,Uh, very different, but we'll
see.
We'll see where you go with it.
So, uh, the pandemic, theCOVID-19 pandemic, it just hits
again.
The world goes crazy.
We kind of overdo it.
Uh and uh, there it is in yourtown.
(01:28):
The bugs are out, People arewearing masks, People are not
really going out.
Uh, and your wife says hey,Sean, I'd like to go out to
dinner.
I know of a restaurant that'sstill open.
Uh, uh, would you go?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, you know, dan, this is a loaded question, man.
We should do.
We should do a podcast just onwhat you just talked about.
Um, so, dan, it it you know itdepends.
Um, it depends on a lot ofthings.
Uh, what's my current health?
Um, you know it may be one ofmy children are about ready to.
(02:05):
Maybe I'm going to be agrandfather for the first time
and I may be around a newgrandson or a new granddaughter.
Um, it depends it.
Really.
I would have to look at a lotof factors.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Yes, that, and that's exactly what I'm looking for.
So what I wanted to talk abouttoday was just what I term
acceptable risk.
It's different depending on thesituation.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
And.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
I, and so I've been astounded, sean, when I, when I
go into laboratories and I seepeople doing things you know not
using the engineering controlcorrectly, the biological safety
cabinet or the you know thechemical fume hood or whatever
it is, or not wearing gloves, oryou know, and they're, and
(02:48):
they're handling biologicalspecimens.
We're supposed to use standardprecautions in a clinical
laboratory where we treateverything as if it were
infectious.
We work in some infectiousdisease laboratories, public
health laboratories, where weknow we've got infectious items
all over the place, but we stilldon't follow the rules and
regulations.
Why is it acceptable for somepeople?
(03:10):
Why is it an acceptable risk?
Is it a lack of education?
Is it a lack of safety culture?
Is it a lack of coaching?
Is it a lack of leadership?
Why is that acceptable risk?
And here you know I mentionedCOVID for a reason.
You know.
We had, uh, we had people inlots of different laboratories.
(03:31):
It was a tough time to be a labsafety officer, I'll tell you,
and I know it was tougheverywhere during that pandemic,
but I literally had employeescalling me as the lab lab safety
officer.
Some of them are crying becausethey were so scared, and these
are some of the same people whoI'd seen a few months before
(03:51):
with their cell phone on thecounter in the biological
laboratory, with them handlingtheir earbud with their gloved
hand.
So they weren't worried aboutthat risk, which you could catch
hepatitis much more easily thatway than you know.
Then all of a sudden somethingnew, novel and unknown was there
and they were far more worriedabout that when their risk of
(04:13):
doing that was less if theywould have just followed all the
general safety rules.
So again.
I know, that's a little loadedbecause I'm throwing COVID in
there, but but it it changedpeople's perception of
acceptable risk.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree, I, you know it's.
It's funny, dan.
The construct of thisacceptable risk is like pleasant
disappointment.
It's like it has this, it hasthis connotation to it.
Look, I.
So I look at it, you know,again, from a behavioral
standpoint, I see there arethree things that that that that
determine acceptable risk forindividuals.
(04:48):
The first is the amount of risksomebody's willing to tolerate,
the risk tolerance levels thatthat it that varies from person
to person.
Another considerationindividually is you know, maybe,
how they perceive risk.
Some individuals perceive, youknow, a risk that you know new
(05:08):
things, for example theirexperiences.
You know they don't have muchexperience with something, so
it's a greater perception ofrisk than somebody who's worked
around something for a long time.
So we know tolerance of riskand perception of risk is an
individual aspect that's goingto determine whether a risk is
acceptable or not.
But there's something also verystrange, dan.
This is real.
(05:28):
Get ready, for this is bizarre.
And you open it up with this butrisk appetite is an individual
thing as well.
Believe it or not, the amountof risk that that a person is is
is.
You know, that's different thantolerance.
Tolerance is what someone'scomfortable with or willing to
accept, but risk appetite iswhere they where.
(05:50):
If you've got a goal in mind,it's what you're willing to to
actually take to accomplish thatgoal, and and and that is.
These are all individualaspects and this is why an
organization Dan, in my opinion,has to, you know, not only be
aware of the regulatoryrequirements that are bound by
(06:12):
state or federal or even localordinances, but an organization
has to implement risk managementstrategies to to control for
these individual aspects, butalso and this is critical
they've got to do a cost-benefitanalysis, a risk-benefit
analysis.
They've got to take a look atwhat is the risk of not
(06:32):
controlling these threeindividual perspectives versus
writing a standardized process,putting in risk management
strategies.
Because when we talk aboutacceptable risk, who determines
what is and what is notacceptable?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Well, the regulatory bodies that determine that for
you, if you have a questionabout that well, yeah, but do we
, do we listen to speed limits?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well no, you can't just throw everything out
regularly.
Come on, how many standardsdoes OSHA have?
And really truly, doeseverybody know all those OSHA
standards and is everybody infull compliance?
Or do we wait until an accidenthappens and then we're, like
you, violated OSHA?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
No, but I guess I think psychologically, maybe,
when we're teaching or orientingsomebody to the laboratory and
talking about safety and alsoongoing safety education, a lot
of it has to do withconsequences.
This is what could happen ifyou don't do this, and so we're
working more on thepsychological aspect of personal
(07:47):
risk acceptance rather thanregulatory.
Yeah, you're right, because Icould know all the rules forward
and backward.
It doesn't mean I'm going tofollow them if I don't think I
need to.
And I've had medical directorsand doctors and PhDs tell me, oh
, even though it's regulation,oh, if I put my hand down on
this counter and then rub my eye, really what are the chances of
(08:10):
virus is going to get in my eye?
And actually doctors say thatto me.
So their risk acceptance forthe real world was different
than what the regulations say.
For sure, so yeah regulationsisn't as big a player.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, I mean, you know again, I think that you
know I always like to go back tothe family structure because I
believe in it.
A parent will set the tone forthree things for children the
risk tolerance, the riskappetite and the risk perception
, at least inside the house.
And you know now, when thechild leaves the house the child
(08:49):
may have a difference ofindividual perspective, but when
rules are established for thecommon good of everyone in the
home, it really doesn't matterif your risk appetite is high
and somebody else's riskappetite is low.
If you've got a set of riskmanagement strategies that
you're going to hold peopleaccountable for or accountable
to, then at least when they'rewithin the laboratory or within
(09:13):
the organization, their behaviorshould be quite similar to one
another.
I mean, you know, even thoughthey may have different risk
perceptions and risk tolerancesand risk appetites, the reality
is that they should becontrolled by risk management
strategies that are thought outand carefully planned.
That way, acceptable riskbecomes a organizational
(09:34):
commitment rather than anindividual one.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah, and I think that's what we need to see
happen more in laboratories andfor those who run the safety
program, because I still see inlabs that I work in, in labs
that I audit or consult with, Istill see variation in behavior.
It's great variation and ittells me that the individual's
(10:06):
risk acceptability levels aredifferent.
For whatever the reason, is itbecause there isn't a good
safety structure in thelaboratory?
Is it because there's nooversight?
Is it because there's noknowledge about possible
consequences?
Or there are just nobody, thereare no SOPs?
I mean there are a variety ofreasons.
You know one thing.
You know when people dosomething that I don't expect or
(10:29):
that's not right, I know thatthere are several sources of
influence on that behavior and Idon't know what any of those
may be Until I get to know theperson, talk to them about it.
But a lab manager, a lab leader, isn't necessarily going to
have time to do all of thatevery time they see something
going wrong with safety in theirlaboratory.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Well, hey, Dan, I've got questions for you.
Let me ask a couple ofquestions.
This may go, this may go.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Let's talk about acceptable risk.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
First let's start with.
Let's go through the realm ofour listeners.
You've got people out therethat do diagnostic capabilities.
That are heroes.
We're going to talk about ourlaboratory.
Is it acceptable risk to humanhealth to have a healthy
individual collect or work witha sample from somebody who could
(11:18):
be sick with a very lethaldisease?
Is that acceptable risk Todetermine what that person is
sick with?
That you should take a healthyhuman being and let them play
with a sample from a sickpatient.
Is that acceptable risk and why?
Speaker 1 (11:37):
That's a loaded question, it is, so is that
person who's doing the testingis PPE and let's assume for all
of this, let's assume that anorganization has determined
(11:58):
great risk management strategies.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I'm going to ask in three realms because I think
this is something we have toanswer.
Laboratoryans are heroes.
They are the unseen heroes.
You have people in hospitalsthat get samples that are
collected from doctors andnurses, and doctors and nurses
wait to hear from thelaboratoryans on what they're
going to do for treatment.
Absolutely, and they're heroes.
(12:24):
They don't ever get any creditfor this Exactly.
But let me ask straight upYou've got all the safety
aspects implemented.
Is it acceptable risk, becauseyou can't eliminate all risk?
But is it acceptable risk totell a healthy human being to
play with a sick human beingsample so that we can determine
what they have, so we can treatthem?
Is that acceptable risk?
(12:45):
Do you think that's somethingwe can do?
Yes, okay.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Let me ask you.
I have to say yes.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Okay, let me ask you this.
Let's say you're a publichealth laboratory and you have
diseases coming in from theoutside it could be outbreaks or
they could be within animalpopulations and you're taking a
healthy human being and you'reasking them to play with
potentially lethal diseases in apublic health field to
(13:10):
determine what's happening in acommunity.
Is that acceptable risk?
Yes, okay, let me ask you this.
Then Get ready.
This is the big one.
This is the controversial one.
Is it acceptable risk to take avirus, genetically modify it
and put it into animals to seehow a pandemic could play out?
(13:33):
Is that an acceptable risk?
Speaker 1 (13:38):
I don't think so.
Yeah, we only have a minute anda half left.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
But this is the debate that's happening right
now.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yeah, for research.
My personal opinion on that isno.
I think that we could, when youcould potentially put the world
in danger, which we've seenhappen.
No, because there must be, inthis day and age, other ways to
(14:09):
do that Play it out using AI orsomething but there must be
better ways, safer ways to dothat.
I have to say no for me.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Well, dan, I love that, because when we talk about
defining acceptable risk, itreally is the level of risk at
which an organization or anindividual, or maybe even, dan,
maybe the world.
Maybe this is a question thatwe ask the world, because when
we talk about diagnostic andpublic health acceptable risk
(14:43):
you're right, it's verydifferent than if we're trying
to create something that mayallow us to stay ahead but could
potentially put us at risk.
I don't know.
I think it's a question thateach and every one of us should
ask, and maybe that the worldhas a chance to answer for
themselves.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, I agree, and that's something that could
affect the whole world.
So if you're dealing with labsafety, if you're listening to
this and you feel like you're onthe 44th floor looking down and
there's nothing past theelevator, stay in the back,
close the door, hit the downbutton and get somewhere where
(15:23):
the risk is acceptable for youand for the people in your
laboratory.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
We are the Lab Safety Guru's Dan Scungill and Sean
Kaufman.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
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.