laboratory safety essay

lab safety essay

Safety During Lab

Safety during an experiment is extremely important. It prevents accidents, injuries and more. There is a lot of equipment that can keep you safe in a lab. Accidents can happen, so it’s best to be prepared. These are some of the rules you should follow. Goggles are useful in physical and chemical experiments. They will protect your eyes from projectile objects and explosions. Also googles have side protectors for chemical experiments. Chemicals in your eye will hurt. Most labs should have a shower

Lab Safety And Safety In A Science Lab

Lab safety is very important if you are going to work in a science lab. The two things to always remember when working in a lab is safety and that lab is a privilege. The Lab is a privilege each student is lucky to have, without it the students would not be able to conduct experiments in the laboratory. One of the most important reasons why students should always be safe is because many things in the lab can be harmful to one or others in the lab. Toxic substances may be spilled, shards of glass

Safety Goggles Lab

leading a high school or undergraduate chemistry lab, the statement that is frequently said and heard is the reminder to put on safety goggles. Often times students will forget about wearing their goggles or they will place their goggles on their foreheads, instead of covering their eyes. The have been personal experiences where students will argue with the instructor about not wearing their goggles during an experiment. The distaste of the safety goggles typically comes from the comfortability of

Safety Lab Experience

When i was 12years old i was going to sience we were doing are safety lab so we were going to all the stuff she show us the fire ectercure and it went off and hit the table then went in my eye i think i was sharked that it went off i jumped up and run back and forth i was freaking out then my teacher got me and ran me to the eye washer and i walk back and was trying to help clean the mess but my eye buren bad so i went to the clinic they wach my eye out and told me to take off my shirt and she gave

Lab Safety Code At Biosafety Labs

however, that was not the case. In the article, SARS Experts want Labs to Improve Safety Practices, the researcher claimed that he “didn’t have the background to understand how to handle dangerous agents.” Due to the chemistry lab, the researcher was injured. This then formulated an international problem in which the national legislation instructed a very detailed safety code at biosafety labs. Many amateur experimenters do not know lab safety by heart so they tend to perform dangerous actions that may

Lab Safety Procedures By Wearing Safety Goggles

To perform module 9 analysis, we followed Lab safety procedure by wearing safety goggles (Z87 brand), plastic apron, and a pair of latex gloves as a proper “PPE”. The team proceeded to gather module 9 analysis equipment which consisted of; an Oakton PCS tester 35 series, a HACH HQ40d portable multi-meter, a HACH digital titrator with Sodium thiosulfate titration cartridge 0.200 N, and delivery G tube. Furthermore, a stand ring with universal clamp, magnetic stirrer with magnetic stir bar, 1 Plastic

Safety Rules For Forensic Labs

Forensic Labs are very important labs in law enforcement. Forensic labs can help develop evidences, process evidences, provide leads, and most importantly, to help investigators and detectives using these leads and evidence to identify the criminals from the innocents. To be perfectly functional, each lab must obey its rules. Lab rules are very important; however, if a lab’s safety rules were broken, that would lead to contamination of evidences, false leads, and most importantly injuries, or deaths

My Reflection For An Early Intervention Experience

resumes and cover letters, Practical Assessment Exploration System Lab (PAES) – which is a stimulated work environment that exposes students to different work environment's and assesses their skills and interests, Academic Instruction and Remediation Lab – students receive instruction in the areas of reading, writing, and math, and more. I was very impressed with the center because of what the students were doing. One of the PAES lab was wood shop/construction and the students were rebuilding

Differences Between Goodreads And Impress

Wow, this is a tough question since many of the blogging sites are now considered social networking sites. Since I love to read, my 2 choices are Goodreads and Wordpress, I hope I am understanding the question correctly. Goodreads formatting process begins with determining which devices you will use to access their websites and widgets are assigned based on the book genres you choose. From this point you are able to access favorite authors or subjects of choice and read reviews by others (professional

Lab Coat, Safety Goggles And Latex Gloves

Before starting this practical ensure you have sufficient PPE including lab coat, safety goggles and latex gloves. First prepare your titrant 100ml 1.0M solution of NaOH by using the top-pan balance and spatula to accurately weigh out 4g of NaOH crystals into the weighing boat. Then place the 4g of NaOH into the 250ml conical flask, add 100ml of deionised water and stir thoroughly using the magnetic stirrer. Next prepare your analyte solution of acetic acid (unknown concentration). Use the 25ml

Popular Topics

• King Lear dramatic irony essay
• the meal experience essay
• memorable childhood event essay
• winter vs summer essay
• vodafone target market essay
• fences by august wilson essay
• star appliance company essay
• miss evers boys essay
• ikea introduction essay
• bystander intervention essay

Importance Of Laboratory Safety

Laboratory is one of the chief causes of accidents and, because it involves the human element, is one of the most difficult to cope with. The purpose of this is to help the lab students to understand proper laboratory safety, to increase their awareness of the possible risks or hazards involved with laboratory work and to realize the laboratory is generally a safe place to work if safety guidelines are properly followed. Therefore lab students must well know about the rules and introductions in laboratory, common hazard symbols and their meanings, laboratory emergencies and first aid, personal protective equipment , how to store the chemicals safely and how to act at putting off fire. Under to these all categories you can get good knowledge about how deal with the laboratory equipment and others by this. Part 1 Rules and Instructions in the Laboratory • You must keep common sense otherwise a good responsible manner in yourself.[1] • Never eat or drink while working in the laboratory.[1] • Wear a sensible clothes which gloves, laboratory coats, full covered shoes and safety shield or glasses and wear safety goggles to protect your eyes when heating substances, dissecting, etc. [1],[2] • If you have long hair or loose clothes, make sure it is tied back or confined.[1] • Do not taste or smell chemicals.[2] • Keep close attention to any cautions described in the laboratory exercises[2] • Before you start works, give the attention for what you have to do in

Double Replacement Lab Report

Keep the container in a cool, well-ventilated area. Materials Safety Lab Equipment Safety Goggles Chemical Waste

PCBU Week 5 Assignment

Under work health and safety laws workers and other people at our workplace must take reasonable care that they do not adversely affect

Hazard Identification Nvq

The objective of the hazard identification is to identify the presence of potential hazards that are posed during operation of the plant, then suggest corresponding control measures to reduce risk or mitigate impacts on work force. Main hazards that we take into consideration are chemical hazards, electrical hazards, vibration and noise related hazards. 6.2.1 Chemical hazards The chemical hazards are those posed by chemical components and products used in the process. The main hazards associated with the process are that of natural gas or carbon dioxide leakage, high temperature and pressure steam, and potassium carbonate.

Rf Value Lab Report

After finding the Rf values of the four known compounds, solvent 1 (99.5% ethyl acetate/0.5% acetic acid) was chosen, due to the wide range of results, for the remaining experiments. Ibuprofen, our known tablet, gave a similar Rf value to our previous results for Ibuprofen. For Anadin extra, there were three compounds identified as Caffeine, Paracetamol and Aspirin as the Rf values of the drug were close to the values of these three compounds in the first part of the practical. For both of these known drugs, the Rf values acquired were close to my predictions before the experiment. For the unknown powder, we obtained Rf values of 0.52 and 0.76 so we believe that the unknown powder contains Aspirin and Ibuprofen.

Essay On African American Hair Styles

Most women love the idea of long, lustrous locks. Maybe it 's fair to blame it on evolution or all those Disney princesses, but women (and men) are naturally drawn to hair that 's beautiful, shiny, healthy and really long. From a evolutionary standpoint, long hair often represents fertility, health, youth, femininity, sex appeal and beauty. With all of these factors considered, it 's no wonder why some women will do almost anything to achieve some lengthy tresses. For many African American women, it has certainly been a learning curve to understand how to grow their hair long.

Cut Men's Hair Case Study

The tools must be properly maintained and should be regularly checked by a qualified professional. The employer must ensure all staff are trained and know how to use all equipment and tools. Examples→ Clippers should only be used on hair. Scissors should be handled correctly. Hairdryer should only be used to dry hair.

Competency Statement To Establish And Maintain A Safe Environment

Safety My plan for maintaining a safe environment would be to make sure there are fire extinguishers that are in working condition. There also needs to be a carbon monoxide/smoke detector. Along with that the staff and children that work there should know the emergency procedures for every natural disaster or problems that may happen.

Safe Working Practice

Safe practices include: Registering visitors All visitors need to be registered when they come into a setting and given some identification that they are not a member of staff. Maintaining an accurate register is also essential if the building has to be evacuated. Accompanying visitors Visitors should be accompanied

Assignment 6a Task 4 Essay

ESA #6A Task 4 4(a) Review and evaluate building-based policies and procedures relevant to the protection of the welfare and safety of students, staff, and visitors within the selected school. Buckeye Career Center has a variety of policies and procedures dealing with safety of individuals on the property. The procedures, defined both in the public student handbook and the private safety plan, will be reviewed in that order. The first safety policy listed in the student handbook is the safety test. As BCC provides training in vocations that have inherent risks, all students must complete a safety unit at the beginning or school and pass a safety test for their lab with a 100%.

Outline The Key Points Of Legislation In Health And Social Care

Q 3 Describe the agreed ways of working for health and safety, including the key points of policies and procedures. Employer?s have a legal duty to provide a safe working place. They do this by: ? Having in place environment and organisational risk assessments in

Unit 282 Week 2 Health And Social Care

Through the learning from week 1 and week 2, I have learnt that the most frequent adverse event in health-care delivery is health care-associated infections. It is essential for us to follow the infection control practices that both patients and us are at a risk of being infected. Standard Precautions involve the use of safe work practices and protective barriers, for example, the use of personal protective equipment(PPE). At first, I think Standard Precautions are very easy. Everyone knows PPE can protect us from infections and hand hygiene is important throughout the process.

3.1 Explain What Is Meant By The Term Duty Of Care

We must make sure that all chemicals that we use for experiments, cleaning etc are locked away in a cupboard safely or kept high up on a shelf out of reach of the children so they don't mistake them fr flavoured drinks and swallow them. If we are working with babies it isimportant that safety gate are placed at the bottom of all stairs and at all doors so that they can't get up the stairs or jam thier fingers in the door

Nvq Level 3 Health And Safety Research Paper

HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE TASK 1.1: A few acts that would be applicable to an Engineering company that performs Sheet Metal Work and Fabrication and Welding could be: - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 - Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 This Act was made to secure the health, safety and welfare of people at work. It was also made to protect people other than people at work against the risk to health or safety from or in connection to what people do at work. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was also used to control the use of explosive or flammable or otherwise dangerous substances and prevent having or acquiring

Explain How Legislation Policies And Procedures Are Implemented In Early Years Regulations

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 These Act inform practices that all staff the responsibility to keep themselves and other around them safe through their actions at work and they must to report any health and safety problems. Also, all staff must to follow policies and procedure when hand handing equipment and they should to work in way that puts other around them in danger. Control of substances and Hazardous to Health Regulations 1992 These regulations inform practices that cleaning materials must to be kept in a locked cupboard. Also, these regulation state that disposable gloves and aprons must to be provided for cleaning and handing chemicals.

Internal And External Factors That Influence Safety Culture

Introduction  There are many factors which shape health and safety at work and safety culture is one of them. The purpose of this paper is to explore that factors surround safety culture in an organization.  Safety culture can be define as internal and external factors which may impact an organisation negatively or positively. Some of those impact can be influence by management commitment, communication, production service demand, competence and employee representative Hughes and Ferrett, (2009).These internal factors can be portrayed differently in business and organisation because of their agenda-setting. Reason for this is that every company has what it would like to accomplish on a daily basis and some of those internal factors can influence the

More about Importance Of Laboratory Safety

Related topics.

• Occupational safety and health

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs
• Theme Science
• Grades 9-12

Introduction

Accidents happen, but we try to avoid them when we can! Lab safety is a topic covered in science every single year, and students will explore whether or not it is important to follow safety procedures in the lab.

Learning Objective

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.1

• WALT write a persuasive argument on why it is important to follow lab safety procedures.

For the full writing prompt, download the PDF.

Download Full Writing Prompt: Lab Safety

Related Writing Prompts

Natural Disasters

Students research natural disasters and become one in this fun writing prompt

Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

Students research and argue whether animals should be used in scientific experiments.

The Future of the Planet

Students research conservation and create a compelling story about saving the Earth.

Genetics and DNA are major topics in high school sciences. This prompt poses a difficult question and makes students really think about whether or not they would want to know if they suffered from a genetic disease.

The 10 Most Important Lab Safety Rules

ThoughtCo / Nusha Ashjaee

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

The science lab is an inherently dangerous place, with fire hazards, dangerous chemicals, and risky procedures. No one wants to have an accident in the lab, so it's imperative to  follow lab safety rules . 

The Most Important Lab Safety Rule

Follow the instructions ! Whether it's listening to your instructor or lab supervisor or following a procedure in a book, it's critical to listen, pay attention, and be familiar with all the steps, from start to finish, before you begin. If you are unclear about any point or have questions, get them answered before starting, even if it's a question about a step later on in the protocol. Know how to use all of the lab equipment before you begin.

Why is this the most important rule? If you don't follow it:

• You endanger yourself and others in the lab.
• You could easily ruin your experiment.
• You put the lab at risk of an accident, which could damage equipment as well as harm people.
• You could get suspended (if you're a student) or fired (if you're a researcher).

Know the Location of Safety Equipment

In the event something goes wrong, it's important to know the location of the safety equipment and how to use it. It's a good idea to periodically check equipment to make sure it is in working order. For example, does water actually come out of the safety shower? Does the water in the eye wash look clean?

Not sure where safety equipment is located? Review lab safety signs and look for them before starting an experiment.

Dress for the Lab

Dress for the lab. This is a safety rule because your clothing is one of your best forms of protection against an accident. For any science lab, wear covered shoes, long pants, and keep your hair up so it can't fall into your experiment or a flame.

Make sure you wear protective gear , as needed. Basics include a lab coat and safety goggles. You may also need gloves, hearing protection, and other items, depending on the nature of the experiment.

Don't Eat or Drink in the Laboratory

Save your snacking for the office, not the lab. Don't eat or drink in the science laboratory. Don't store your food or beverages in the same refrigerator that contains experiments, chemicals, or cultures.

• There is too much risk of contaminating your food. You could touch it with a hand that is coated with chemicals or pathogens or set it down on a lab bench that has residue from past experiments.
• Having drinks in the lab risks your experiment, too. You could spill a drink on your research or lab notebook.
• Eating and drinking in the lab is a form of distraction. If you are eating, you aren't concentrating on your work.
• If you're used to drinking liquids in the lab, you might accidentally reach for and drink the wrong liquid. This is especially true if you did not label your glassware or used lab glassware as dishes.

Don't Taste or Sniff Chemicals

Not only should you not bring in food or drinks, but you shouldn't taste or smell chemicals or biological cultures already in the lab. Tasting or smelling some chemicals can be dangerous or even deadly. The best way to know what's in a container is to label it, so get in the habit of making a label for glassware before adding the chemical.

Don't Play Mad Scientist in the Laboratory

Another important safety rule is to act responsibly in the lab — don't play Mad Scientist, randomly mixing chemicals to see what happens. The result could be an explosion, fire, or release of toxic gases .

Similarly, the laboratory is not the place for horseplay. You could break glassware, annoy others, and potentially cause an accident.

Dispose of Lab Waste Properly

Matthias Tunger/Getty Images

One important laboratory safely rule is to know what to do with your experiment when it's over. Before you start an experiment, you should know what to do at the end. Don't leave your mess for the next person to clean up.

• Are the chemicals safe to dump down the drain? If not, what do you do with them?
• If you have biological cultures, is it safe to clean up with soap and water or do you need an autoclave to kill dangerous organisms?
• Do you have broken glass or needles? Know the protocol for disposing of "sharps".

Know What to Do With Lab Accidents

 Getty Images/Oliver Sun Kim

Accidents happen, but you can do your best to prevent them and have a plan to follow when they occur. Most laboratories have a plan to follow in the event of an accident.

One particularly important safety rule is to tell a supervisor if and when an accident occurs . Don't lie about it or try to cover it up. If you get cut, exposed to a chemical, bitten by a lab animal, or spill something there could be consequences, and the danger isn't necessarily only to you. If you don't get care, sometimes you could expose others to a toxin or pathogen. Also, if you don't admit to an accident, you could get your lab in a lot of trouble.

Leave Experiments at the Lab

Getty Images/G Robert Bishop

It's important, for your safety and the safety of others, to leave your experiment at the lab. Don't take it home with you. You could have a spill or lose a specimen or have an accident. This is how science fiction movies start. In real life, you can hurt someone, cause a fire, or lose your lab privileges.

While you should leave lab experiments at the lab, if you want to do science at home, there are many safe science experiments you can try.

Don't Experiment on Yourself

The premise of many a science fiction movie starts with a scientist conducting an experiment on him or herself. However, you won't gain superpowers or discover the secret to eternal youth. More than likely, whatever you accomplish will be at great personal risk.

Science means using the scientific method . You need data on multiple subjects to draw conclusions, but using yourself as a subject and self experimenting is dangerous, not to mention bad science.

• Chemistry Laboratory Safety Rules
• Biology Lab Safety Rules
• The Most Common Injuries in a Chemistry Lab
• Pre-Lab Prep for Chemistry Lab
• Setting Up a Home Chemistry Lab
• Printable Lab Safety Sign Quiz
• Thames & Kosmos Chem 3000 Chemistry Kit Review
• Science Projects for Every Subject
• 10 Things You Need To Know About Chemistry
• Have You Touched Liquid Mercury?
• How to Format a Biology Lab Report
• Top Tips for Observing Mitosis Lab
• How to Make Glow in the Dark Slime
• Top Concerns of Science Teachers
• Mad Scientist Halloween Costumes
• Smoke Bomb Safety Information

Rank Has Its Privileges: Explaining Why Laboratory Safety Is a Persistent Challenge

• Original Paper
• Published: 19 June 2022
• Volume 184 , pages 571–587, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Gokce Basbug   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9937-9011 1 ,
• Ayn Cavicchi 2 &
• Susan S. Silbey 2  

3788 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Environmental, health, and safety management systems have become common in research settings to improve laboratory safety through systematic observation and self-regulation. However, there is scant empirical evidence assessing whether these surveillance and inspection systems meet their intended objectives. Using data from safety inspections in research laboratories at a large university, we investigate whether conducting inspections, and recording and reporting findings back to the formally responsible actors (i.e., principal investigator scientists) lead to the improvement of regulatory compliance. Our analyses identify a population of well-funded, high-status, tenured researchers whose non-compliant practices persist. Our interviews with environmental, health, and safety personnel suggest that higher-status actors disengage from the regulatory system, the compliance officers, and the system’s feedback process by their variable recognition and acknowledgment of relevant regulations, attention to the inspection reports, and responses to the feedback concerning repair of the unsafe situation. This study extends previous literature on regulatory compliance by providing evidence for the role of power and status in explaining actor-level non-compliant behavior.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

Gordon W. Cheung, Helena D. Cooper-Thomas, … Linda C. Wang

Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development

Alina Köchling & Marius Claus Wehner

How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions

Philipp C. Sauer & Stefan Seuring

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In the late afternoon of December 29, 2008, Sheri Sangji, a 23-year-old technician working in Professor Patrick Harran’s laboratory at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), was transferring T-butyllithium from one sealed container to another. The chemical spilled from the syringe and burned the synthetic fibers of her sweater. Sheri was not wearing her lab coat at the moment. After 18 days of fighting for her life, Sheri died from burns to her hands, face, and torso.

Professor Harran and UCLA were criminally indicted on four felony counts for “willful violation of an occupational safety and health standard causing the death of an employee.” The professor and the university were indicted because safety regulations governing laboratory practices were ignored. During an inspection conducted two months before the accident, university health and safety personnel identified unsafe laboratory conditions and reported to Professor Harran that lab members were not wearing their statutorily required lab coats and that there was an unsafe profusion of chemical containers. Although Professor Harran was informed of his responsibility to correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions, the problems were not fixed. The university personnel responsible for environmental, health, and safety in the laboratories did not follow up on the inspection to ensure compliance. The investigation report of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA, 2009 ) stated that “Dr. Harran simply disregarded the open and obvious dangers presented in this case and permitted Victim Sangji to work in a manner that knowingly caused her to be exposed to a serious and foreseeable risk of serious injury or death.” This was criminal negligence.

In November 2015, seven years after the accident, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that Professor Harran was nominated to be a fellow, an honor bestowed upon AAAS members by their peers that recognizes efforts to advance science or its applications (AAAS, November 16, 2015). On December 9, Sheri’s family sent a letter to the AAAS asking the association to reconsider its decision: “No one should suffer the way Sheri did. No family should have to deal with our loss. And certainly, no principal investigator who runs their laboratory in a criminally negligent manner as Patrick Harran has should be bestowed with any awards. We respectfully request that you refuse to honor the unsafe science conducted by an unethical scientist” (Sangji & Sangji, 2015 ). After re-evaluation, the AAAS decided not to proceed with the nomination of Patrick Harran as a fellow (AAAS, December 22, 2015).

The Harran case begs the question: why do organizational members ignore regulatory warnings and rules? A fair amount of literature has been devoted to the question of why some organizations fail to comply with regulations. This literature has offered two main explanations for non-compliance: the failure of regulatory agencies (Edelman et al., 1999 ) and the decoupling efforts of organizations (i.e., complying symbolically but not substantively) (Kellogg, 2009 ). However, it is important to note that these studies adopted organizations as the unit of analysis, describing regulatory compliance as an organizational accomplishment. This narrow focus is limiting our understanding with regard to how within-organization factors influence regulatory compliance. If organizational action is the collective action of decentralized actors with varying roles and resources, it is crucial to study the variation among these actors’ compliant behavior in order to understand the micro roots of organizations’ responses to regulations.

In this paper, we combine analysis of actual inspection records and face-to-face, in-person, semi-structured interviews to study compliance with environmental, health, and safety (EHS) regulations in research laboratories at a major academic institution. Specifically, we focus on the role of power and status of organizational members (i.e., Principal Investigators) in explaining the variation among actors’ responses to inspection results. We argue that principal investigators (PI) who enjoy higher status in the institution act in an unresponsive manner to inspection feedback and consequently, non-compliant behavior persists.

This study offers important contributions to our understanding of regulatory compliance, with a special focus on laboratory science in academia. First, the violation of EHS standards in research laboratories is an understudied phenomenon in spite of the importance of regulations in these settings. By building on several studies on the role of regulation in labs (e.g., Fink et al., 2012 ; Huising & Silbey, 2011 ), we investigate how researchers in these settings respond and react to regulatory warnings. Second, we investigate the effects of power and status on compliance with EHS regulations. Previous studies have studied the role of individual and group characteristics in creating safe work environments (e.g., Parboteeah & Kapp, 2008 ; Zohar, 2002 ), however, a specific focus on power and status is lacking in this literature. In this study, by applying the situated focus theory of power to regulatory compliance (Guinote, 2007a ), we investigate how the social standing of actors in the organizational hierarchy affects their compliant behavior. This theoretical approach is especially important when the actors who are required to act in accordance with regulations are dispersed across the organization and hold varying degrees of power and status. Third, our study contributes to the larger organizational literature. Although the variation in regulatory compliance across organizations has been investigated extensively, only a few qualitative studies looked closely inside the regulated organization (e.g., Gray & Silbey, 2014 ; Huising & Silbey, 2021a ; Pérezts & Picard, 2015 ). We build on those studies to examine the variation across organizational actors’ compliant behavior. Finally, our study moves beyond existing studies by drawing on two sources of data. We exploit actual EHS violation records to test our hypotheses. In addition to the quantitative analysis of records, we interview EHS personnel who conduct inspections in laboratories and provide feedback to PIs. The interview data provide additional insights and possible explanations for the patterns observed in the inspection data.

Compliance with External Rules and Regulations in Academia

Academic audit cultures.

In recent decades, academic institutions have been transformed from free and unusually autonomous organizations to places of active surveillance and audit (Strathern, 2000 ). In response to proliferating regulatory regimes in scientific and educational institutions, researchers from different disciplines such as management, ethics, law, and science, technology, and society have been observing the emergent patterns of implementation and compliance. Based on our review of these literatures, we categorize the studies on compliance in academia into three streams. The first research stream has studied academics’ compliance with new managerialist practices such as the diffusion of performance appraisal measures and auditing systems in universities (e.g., Willmott, 1995 ). The second stream has examined compliance with formal ethics programs and policies such as ethics training and the adoption of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) (e.g., Babb et al., 2017 ; Heimer & Petty, 2010 ). Finally, in another line of research, researchers have studied compliance with diverse EHS regulations in academic and research settings (Evans & Silbey, 2021 ; Huising & Silbey, 2018 ; Silbey, 2022 ). Although the sources of surveillance and particular subjects of regulation vary, these external interventions to the historically hallowed halls of academia share common aspirations: to introduce measures of quality control, transparency, and accountability into academia. This increasingly regulated organization generates both compliance and resistance among academics and researchers.

The neoliberal policies of recent decades have transformed most social institutions including academia (Wilmott, 1995 ). These changes are primarily characterized in universities by the adoption of private sector corporate management practices. Conceptualized in varied terms such as new managerialism (Teelken, 2012 ), academic capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004 ), audit culture (Strathern, 2000 ), or the entrepreneurial university (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997 ), this new regime introduced performance management measures, monitoring and auditing systems, as well as private industry and business norms (Hoffman, 2017 ; Lam, 2010 ). It constitutes an accountability infrastructure—roles, rules, resources—dedicated to the mutual coordination of external and internal expectations with distributed performances (Huising & Silbey, 2021a ).

The commercialization of universities—produced in part by neoliberal reductions in public funding for higher education—increased researchers’ dependence on external funding and engagement in entrepreneurial activities (Cooper, 2009 ; Smith-Doerr & Vardi, 2015 ; Vallas & Kleinman, 2008 ). Investigating academic responses to these new public managerialist practices, Clarke and Knights ( 2015 ) found, for example, that a majority of academics developed an enhanced preoccupation with the pursuit of their individual careers. Instead of engaging in critical inquiry, the academics commit to apparent, sometimes superficial policy compliance while focusing on strategies to secure personal recognition and identity markers. Other studies have arrived at similar findings showing that academics’ self-discipline is associated with career goals rather than knowledge production (Shore, 2008 ). They normalize commercialization by reserving and exercising agency within the parameters of the neoliberal knowledge economy (Holloway, 2015 ) and play the academic game by concentrating on time and effort on increasing their human and social capital (Kalfa et al., 2018 ).

A second line of research on compliance in scientific and educational settings has studied the adoption of formal ethics policies and IRBs (Stark, 2012 ). The new ethics policies began by establishing the principles for informing human subjects about the risks and benefits of research in which they were asked to participate, seeking their consent and protecting their confidentiality (Babb, 2020 ; Heimer & Petty, 2010 ). Over time, these principles have been institutionalized through training programs, computerized tests for individual researchers, and certifications for both individuals and institutions. Drawing from ethnographic data and interviews in four different countries, Heimer ( 2013 ) studied compliance with official ethics regulations among researchers in HIV clinics. The formally instituted ethical obligations generated a burden of compliance for researchers by turning ethical issues into “wicked problems,” defined as intractable problems on the ground that cannot be solved by the guidance provided through the official regulations. Comparing industry to academic ethics compliance, Smith-Doerr and Vardi ( 2015 ) describe the tension these rules generated among academics and the ways in which academics used humor to distance themselves from compliance with ethics programs. The increasing regulation of ethical conduct, surveillance, and audit in these settings has been labeled as accountability infrastructure by Huising and Silbey ( 2021a , 2021b ) and ethics creep by Haggerty ( 2004 ).

Lastly, a series of studies have looked specifically at compliance with EHS regulations in universities, the topic of this paper. Previous studies showed that scientists comply with regulations by delegating requirements to subordinates and staff members (Gray & Silbey, 2014 ; Huising & Silbey, 2011 ). Recent studies show that compliance varies across types of risk and research. For example, the law recognizes risks for human bodies (e.g., radiation, injury) and the environment (e.g., hazardous waste, toxic emissions); the scientists recognize and try to contain risks to experiments (e.g., contamination) and relations among colleagues (e.g., trust and sociality needed for collaboration and working in close proximity). When all four risks are present, the legal rules are followed absolutely; when only some risks are present, the legal rules are complied with on a case-by-case basis; when the science or trust is threatened (and not bodies or environment), new local rules are created (Evans & Silbey, 2021 ). Furthermore, historical and entrepreneurial experiences of different disciplines seem to shape contemporary academic compliance practices (Silbey, 2022 ).

In these distinct bodies of scholarship, study after study has shown that most academics comply with external interventions most of the time (Clarke et al., 2012 ). What is striking in the extant literature on compliance with external regulations—managerialism, ethics, and EHS specifically—is the lack of studies investigating how these compliance practices among academic researchers vary by power and status. In this paper, we aim to address this gap.

Power and Status Effects on Compliance

Universities, like other organizations, are composed of networks of individuals with distinct and varied roles, resources, and power (Blau, 1964 ). Thus, the collective action is a result of the coordinated efforts of actors with differing degrees of autonomy and authority. Looking at universities as single entities, as an actor rather than a composite of multiple actors, misses within-organization dynamics and differential behaviors of members. Variance among actors with regard to roles, expertise, authority, and resources directly affect the organization’s ability to comply with ethical expectations, professional norms, as well as legal rules and regulations covering a wide array of subject matters (Gray & Silbey, 2014 ).

Compliance with regulations is not only a question of collective action but is also a problem of ethical behavior: why would an actor want to do what the regulation requires in the absence of credible regulatory enforcement, since regulatory compliance is costly and does not provide the actor an advantage in her field of expertise (Gunningham et al., 2004 )? Imagine a professor who is presented with an inspection report of her lab’s compliance (or lack of compliance) with EHS regulations. As a moral subject, she can do the right thing, claim her civic responsibility, engage in environmentally sustainable, thus ethical behavior (Flannery & May, 2000 ) and fix the reported problems, or she can ignore the report and persist with the current, non-compliant practices. An issue becomes a matter of ethics when a decision has consequences for others (Jones, 1991 ). Since it has direct effects on the well-being of other individuals, concern shown to health and safety in itself is an important ethical issue (Lorenzo et al., 2010 ; Palmer et al., 2014 ; Pierce & Snyder, 2008 ). Particularly, actors dealing with risky work have an ethical obligation to minimize risks and establish a safe environment for their own well-being, the safety of those in close proximity, and societal welfare more generally (Douglas & Swartz, 2017 ). The actor who performs day-to-day work, interpreting and responding to regulations that are designed to specify her work practices is no longer only the enactor of the organization’s logic, but is also an enactor and central agent of ethical reasoning (Pérezts & Picard, 2015 ). Thus, violating EHS requirements is simply an unethical behavior since it may lead to accidents with social and economic costs (Yuan et al., 2020 ), including deaths, as in the case of Sheri Sanji. Despite the theoretical relevance of social hierarchies in unethical behavior (Galperin et al., 2011 ), with few exceptions (Liu et al., 2019 ; Pitesa & Thau, 2013 ), an empirical investigation of the role of social stratification in shaping compliance and ethical behavior is lacking in the literature.

Hierarchies, pervasive throughout social and organizational life (Chen et al., 2012 ), explicitly or implicitly rank order individuals along a valued social dimension (Magee & Galinsky, 2008 ). The consequent stratification systemizes the variations in roles, responsibilities and resources (i.e., power and status) of members, of the society or the organization (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011 ). In social systems, formal organizations or civil society at large, resources are distributed across and among individuals, which ultimately affects interpersonal dependence and control (Emerson, 1962 ). An individual or group that possesses more desired resources is able to act more powerfully in relationships with others, especially those with fewer resources. The resources can vary from verbal acuity to physical strength; in contemporary organizations, legitimate position in the organization’s hierarchy, technical expertise, and control of material rewards are among the most common resources mobilized to enact power.

While power is the ability to achieve intended and foreseen effects in relations with others (Wrong, 1988 ), status is understood as relative social or occupational standing (George et al., 2016 ) and associated or correlated deference (Weber, 1946 ). The differential value given to distinct characteristics generates intergroup as well as intragroup status hierarchies (Berger et al., 1980 ). These status differences can lead to power inequalities leading to the neglect of contributions from those lower in the hierarchy while also creating openings for high-status members to ignore the entreaties of lower-status members (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011 ). Protected by more abundant resources—materially, symbolically, and in terms of phalanxes of supporting staff—more powerful actors can disregard their actions’ consequences on less powerful others. When individuals become powerful, they are more likely to approach others as a means to an end and to disregard the value of other qualities in others that are not perceived as instrumental for goal achievement (Gruenfeld et al., 2008 ).

Empirical research, as well as popular culture, report that powerful actors more often display egocentric focus and judgment, self-oriented decision making, objectification of others, and unethical behavior (Fiske, 2010 ; Galinsky et al., 2015 ; Pitesa & Thau, 2013 ). Moreover, power appears to affect motivations for social information processing such that more powerful actors tend more often to activate automatic-cognitive responses, ignore social causes, and rely on dispositional characteristics when interpreting others’ behaviors (Fiske & Taylor, 1991 ).

How might academics’ power and status affect their compliance with regulations? Since more powerful and high-status actors care less about the consequences of their own actions for socially distant others, they do not feel the need to regulate their behavior within externally imposed standards and consequently, they act more idiosyncratically than less powerful actors (Galinsky et al., 2006 ). Because powerful individuals are more likely to resist others’ influences and less likely to adopt the perspective of others in social interactions (Greer et al., 2017 ; Lammers et al., 2008 ; van Kleef et al., 2008 ), they might be less aware of and responsive to inspectors’ inputs (Keltner & Robinson, 1996 ). As a result, a heightened sense of status and personal or organizational power may lead to more non-compliant behaviors that are dysfunctional for the academic organization as a whole (Blader & Yu, 2017 ).

In addition, because more powerful actors usually have a greater responsibility than those with less power or status, they tend to give more importance to the central task for which they are responsible. According to the situated focus theory of power, powerful individuals thus direct their attention to their personal goals and preferences (Guinote, 2007a ). Experimental studies show that more powerful individuals possess the ability to update goal-relevant information and ignore goal-irrelevant information, whereas less powerful individuals are distracted by peripheral stimuli (Guinote, 2007b ). This focus on the central task increases cognitive load, consequently, powerful individuals often lack the cognitive resources to pay attention or devote energy to peripheral tasks that are not central to the completion of main tasks (Gruenfeld et al., 2003 ). This is specifically important in the context of workplace safety, when selective allocation of cognitive resources towards safety-related feedback from others (i.e., regulators, inspectors) is crucial for creating safe workplaces (Xu et al., 2014 ; Yuan et al., 2020 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ).

EHS Regulations at Universities: The Case of Research Laboratories

Research laboratories are risky places (Ménard & Trant, 2020 ). Lab personnel lose eyes, limbs, and sometimes life itself in laboratory accidents. Varieties of performance-based regulation through management systems have been recommended by national environmental agencies as a potential means of identifying hazards and improving compliant practices in research laboratories by creating systematic self-observation and response (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016a , 2016b , 2018 ; National Research Council, 2014 ). However, research laboratories have been observed to be intractable governance sites (Huising & Silbey, 2013 ). The professional status of principal investigators, the autonomy of faculty researchers, and the opacity of scientific research to outsiders make these sites difficult to regulate and the organizational members relatively immune to rules and compliance warnings. Faculty members in academic research universities are an example of and similar to high-status actors in most organizations (e.g., top executives, high-skill experts) who occupy relatively exclusive, organizationally privileged and protected status positions. Due to their status and the organization’s reliance on them, these actors may refuse to acknowledge their responsibility while also guarding their work practice from outside interventions (Huising & Silbey, 2013 ). Rank as tenured faculty provides degrees of privilege not shared by untenured faculty or non-faculty researchers. For example, high-status faculty are protected from direct regulatory engagements by supporting staff who manage their labs and help supervise bench workers. Although they may ultimately be required to comply with governing regulations, their relative autonomy, expertise, and less frequent interactions with enforcement actors encourage interpretations of regulators and regulations as obstacles to productive science (Gray & Silbey, 2014 ). Their rank and status create the privilege to ignore and deny less powerful actors.

Because explicit external sanctions are not necessarily or often present in self-regulating management systems, alternative informal means such as normative or mimetic forces should be available to make the system work (Gunningham, 1995 ). However, the availability and use of these inducements are problematic in the case of university research laboratories. Informal coercion from administrative managers or peer pressure through publicity is not likely or practically feasible when principal investigators occupy higher-status positions than safety inspectors. In research universities, scientists enjoy extraordinary authority based on their knowledge and expertise in their respective fields as well as on the research funds they bring that help support basic university functions. These power bases (i.e., expertise and funds) become the foundation of the university’s overall status and rank, thus creating yet greater status and power for faculty in their transactions with other organizational members, ultimately providing a shield against external pressures (Weber, 1947 ; Wrong, 1988 ). Although normative and mimetic forces were often thought to enhance compliance through the diffusion of best practices, scientists actively cultivate their unique identities (Clarke & Knights, 2015 ) while protecting the boundaries of their own labs as well as science more generally (Gieryn, 1983 ; Silbey, 2019 ). Labs are usually distinct from one another, with each lab having a unique local culture, usually derived from the personality and philosophy of the principal investigator. Even though the outcomes of science are universal, the practices that generate the outcomes are often particular and idiosyncratic (Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ).

As mentioned earlier, status refers to relative professional position or social standing. In our study, we operationalize status by using an indicator of formal social rank: whether the PI has tenure or not. Previous research showed that non-tenured academics commit their efforts not only to improving their job performance (i.e., research productivity) but also to cultivating strategies for managing relationships with stakeholders to signal their institutional loyalty (Pifer & Baker, 2013 ; van Emmerik & Sanders, 2004 ). We expect that tenured PIs will ignore regulatory warnings, whereas non-tenured PIs would take external pressures into account to improve their social legitimacy in the organization and be responsive to inspection feedback.

An alternative hypothesis is that because non-tenured PIs experience high pressure to produce and publish, they may ignore the time and resources that safety compliance demands, whereas tenured PIs may allocate more time to safety issues since the protection of tenure can reduce some of the pressure to publish. However, the context we study is a highly competitive research environment where tenured professors also experience high levels of pressure to publish. Therefore, we expect tenured PIs to pay relatively less attention to safety than their untenured counterparts by taking advantage of their status. In addition, one might expect that the number of violations may be endogenous to the amount of work undertaken. One way to operationalize the amount of work is to take work outcomes into account. One outcome produced in lab settings is the number of publications coming out of the lab. We use the number of publications as a proxy for productivity and control for it in our analyses. Thus, we posit the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Having tenure will be associated with more EHS violations, after controlling for productivity.

In our study, we operationalize power in terms of the amount of a scientist’s available research funding. In most organizations, the generation or control of material resources is a key factor in determining organizational power and performance (Campbell et al., 2012 ; Finkelstein, 1992 ). In the case of research institutions, highly funded scientists add disproportionate value to the organization (Hackman, 1985 ; Musselin, 2013 ). Thus, research funding is an important signal for predicting the impact of scientists, which in turn is a signal of the university’s status (Azoulay et al., 2010 ; Ma et al., 2015 ). With the increasing emphasis on external sources—both governmental and philanthropic—for funding research projects, investigators who manage larger research budgets become more powerful within the organization (Bol et al., 2018 ; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974 ). While they may not alone shape the organization’s agenda, the distribution of work, or the organization’s ostensible mission, they achieve greater autonomy from administrative and managerial control. The organizational pressure on academics to secure external funds, professional competition to rise above peers among scientists, and the stature of labs to sustain themselves as semi-autonomous units encourage an egoistic-individual climate with a flourishing self-interested focus (Smith, 2010 ; Victor & Cullen, 1988 ). Thus, we expect that PIs with increased power through greater research funds are more likely to pursue their own goals such as producing patents and publications and less likely to pay attention to goal-irrelevant inputs such as EHS inspection results and feedback. Considering these documented behaviors of powerful actors, we posit the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2

Managing larger research funds will be associated with more EHS violations, after controlling for productivity.

Social hierarchies can be dynamic and may change over time (Feng et al., 2014 ). Organizational actors might gain more power as they accumulate more expertise or as valuable resources under their control become larger (Schaerer et al., 2018 ). Thus, we expect that as the amount of research budget the principal investigators manage increases, they will secure greater status within the university, and consequently, their non-compliant behavior will intensify.

Hypothesis 3

As the amount of research funding managed by the PI increases, the number of EHS violations in his/her lab will increase.

To understand how status, budgets, and material resources encourage laboratory practices that violate EHS regulations, we accompanied the analysis of inspection data with in-depth, semi-structured conversational interviews with EHS personnel (Mishler, 2009 ). In the interviews with EHS inspectors, we specifically wanted to learn about their experiences while working with PIs with varying degrees of power and status. The accounts of EHS personnel identify the challenges they face and tactics they utilize in their interactions with PIs, as well as students and other lab personnel. These interviews help us identify the mechanisms driving variation in regulatory compliance.

The Setting

Our organizational and interview data come from a major research university (hereafter “The University”) located in the eastern United States. The University has a locally built EHS management system, designed to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. Each academic department in the University works with an EHS coordinator whose job is to oversee laboratory compliance within the department, ensuring that researchers integrate concern for safety and the environment into their research protocols and practices. Those coordinators work with a centrally located staff organized according to their distinctive fields of expertise in various hazards (e.g., biomatter, radiation, chemical waste, air quality, occupational health and safety). The department coordinators and the central staff experts work together to provide both expert advice and oversight of laboratory safety. The data for this study come from the records of laboratory inspections and interviews with these coordinators and EHS experts.

Quantitative Data and Measures

The quantitative data exploited in this study include inspection findings in research labs recorded by department coordinators from 2006 to 2010. The data consist of inspection records from 236 labs in nine departments at the University. Fifty-four of these labs belong to untenured PIs, whereas 182 of them belong to tenured PIs. The unbalanced panel data include 5057 violations that were recorded in these labs. Importantly, the observation of EHS practices at the University and the actual record of EHS violations provide a unique opportunity to isolate some of the factors that might otherwise interfere with a reliable and valid analysis of the inspection outcomes. In the time period observed, each laboratory had been inspected by the same inspection team and all coordinators used the same inspection protocol and recording template. These two important characteristics of the setting rule out the possibility that inspection outcomes were affected by changes in inspectors or inspection templates. After each inspection, feedback about findings (observed discrepancies between regulations and performance) was provided to the PI (faculty member) of each lab, with instructions for the PI to fix the observed EHS problems.

Dependent Variable

Ehs violations.

The main variable of interest in this study is the number of EHS violations in each lab, which was recorded by inspectors during semi-annual inspections. These violations include instances of any type of non-compliance with EHS regulations, from minor issues such as the untidiness of the lab to major issues such as the mismanagement of chemical waste, working with an inoperative or faulty fume hood, or failure to wear personal protective equipment (e.g., safety glasses, gloves, lab coats).

Independent Variables

We operationalized power as the amount of funding under the PI’s control and collected information on the amount of yearly research funds managed by each PI from 2006 to 2010 from the university archives. The funds come from various sources such as the federal government, industry, and the National Science Foundation.

We operationalized status in the organization as the tenure status of the PI and recorded whether the PI had tenure.

Control Variables

PI employment and academic variables We used the employment duration of the PI at the University (in years) as a control variable since time spent in the organization is a potential source of power (Allen, 1981 ). In addition, we controlled for the quality of PIs’ Ph.D. degree-granting institution using rankings from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings since it may signal status in the organization (Burris, 2004 ).

PI demographics We controlled a set of PI-level demographic variables including age, gender, race (White vs. non-White), and country of origin (U.S. vs. non-U.S.). Taking these characteristics into account is especially important because past research showed that in environments where collaboration between different actor groups is required (i.e., ensuring safety in an organization), the demographics of actors matter. More specifically, in a study of high-status actors (i.e., scientists) such as this, it is important to consider cross-cutting demographics because the interaction of different status characteristics such as high occupational status and lower demographic status (i.e., female scientist) might lead to varying levels of positive experiences with the low-status actor group (i.e., inspectors) (DiBenigno & Kellogg, 2014 ).

PI Research Output

To control the productivity of PIs, we determined the number of publications published by each PI from 2006 to 2011. Because publications are often outcomes of  the previous year(s)’s work, we treated it as a lagged variable by associating the number of violations in year y with the number of publications in year y  + 1 in our analyses.

Lab Size and Departmental Affiliation

We controlled for lab size operationalized as the number of people working in the lab. We also controlled for the department that the lab belongs to since disciplinary organizations are impactful in shaping local practices (Silbey, 2019 ; Whitley, 2000 ).

Qualitative Data

Over the years of inspections reported in this paper (2006–2010) and again between 2017 and 2019 after discovering the pattern in the inspection findings, we conducted 105 face-to-face, open-ended, conversational interviews with EHS department coordinators and central EHS office staff. Interviews ranged from a half-hour to two hours, conducted in-person by us on the campus of the University. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

In the interviews, we asked about many issues ranging from the design and implementation of the original management system to the organizational as well as legal requirements for record keeping, training, and pollution prevention policies. For this paper, we specifically focused on references in the interviews to inspection processes, lab conditions discussed in the inspections, and the responses of scientists to the inspection feedback.

For analysis, first, each of us read the interview transcripts independently and coded the relevant information. Then, we met periodically to discuss our preliminary coding to develop a consensus on the codes. Adopting a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we coded the interviews using Atlas.ti, first with inductively generated codes, later with theoretically and analytically generated codes, moving back and forth from data to theory to data to theory (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014 ). Our initial independent readings of transcripts helped us have multiple perspectives on the issues and our subsequent meetings and discussions allowed to establish convergence in our understanding of the data (Eisenhardt, 1989 ). These discussions led to the emergence of themes that we discuss in this paper.

We do not quantitatively analyze the comments in these interviews but use the insights of these inspectors to suggest explanations for the patterns we find in the EHS violations data. Because the interviews are semi-structured (that is, use a protocol of topics for discussion but do not follow a fixed script without variation), quantitative analysis would be unreliable since not all interviewees received the same exact prompt in the same order of discussion. Nonetheless, such conversational interviewing provides rich, detailed engagement on a topic, enacting the cultural tropes and circulating memes of the discussant’s local culture. This back-and-forth discussion has proven very successful at revealing the tacit knowledge of a wide array of organizations and social groups (Mishler, 2009 ).

This grounded theory approach allowed us to identify the themes and theory we discuss below. Coordinators described how PIs disengage from the actual lab activities denying the relevance of safety regulations, being preoccupied with budgets, sometimes growing the lab beyond their capacity to monitor, creating crowded labs to whom they delegate responsibility while attending to audiences and funders outside.

Quantitative Findings

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables are provided in Table 1 .

For inferential analyses of the data, we ran random and fixed-effects models. Panel data analysis with the random-effects model is provided in Table 2 . The random-effects model assumes that the variation across units is random and uncorrelated with the predictors included in the model. In the first random-effects model, we regressed the number of EHS violations on PI tenure status. In this baseline model, tenure status is significantly associated with the number of violations ( β  = 2.27, p  < 0.01). In the second model, we controlled for PI-level and lab-level variables as well as the number of publications. We also included year and department dummies in the second model. The results indicate that controlling for a host of variables, having tenure is associated with more violations, confirming Hypothesis 1 ( β  = 2.91, p  < 0.05). In Model 3, we added the PI’s volume of research funding into the regression equation, measured in US dollars (logged). The results show that controlling for demographic, employment, academic variables, and productivity, research funding is significantly and positively associated with the number of violations observed during inspections ( β  = 0.66, p  < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed.

Since scientific work does not produce results of the same quality, in Model 5, we added PIs’ publication quality as a control in our model. As a proxy for publication quality, we used h-index metrics of PIs. The h-index metric is often used to measure research quality (for a review, see Bornmann & Daniel, 2007 ) and calculated as the maximum value of “ h ”—such that “ h ” refers to the highest number of PI publications that have been cited at least h times. We were able to identify the h-index of 55 PIs in our dataset. For this subset of PIs, controlling for publication quality, the funding amount is still significantly and positively associated with the number of violations ( β  = 1.21, p  < 0.05).

Although we included a host of control variables in the random-effects model, we cannot totally rule out the existence of unobserved heterogeneity across individual labs. To deal with this, we ran fixed-effects analyses which allow us to rule out heterogeneity across labs. We used three time-variant variables in the fixed-effects analyses: the number of violations, the yearly research funding, and the number of publications published in a given year.

To see whether the amount of research funding affects compliance performance, in the first fixed-effects model, we regressed the number of violations on the funding amount (see Table 3 ). The results of this model show that the relationship between funding amount and violation performance is marginally significant ( β  = 0.80, p  < 0.10). In the second model, we added the number of publications. After controlling for the number of publications in the second fixed-effects model, the relationship between funding amount and violation performance still remains marginally significant ( β  = 0.82, p  < 0.10). These results suggest that as the amount of research funding increases, the number of violations intensifies, after controlling for productivity. Thus, our third hypothesis is confirmed.

As a robustness check, we ranked labs based on the percentile at the University they fall into with regard to the amount of funding in a given year and ran fixed-effects regressions by introducing dummies for each percentile. The analyses in Table 4 show that labs in the 75 th percentile and above violate at significantly higher rates compared to the labs below the median. As seen in the second step, this finding holds valid even after controlling for the number of publications.

The Burdens and Privileges of Rank and Status: Interview Data

From the interviews with EHS personnel, we have identified common practices that help explain why the labs of more well-funded, high-status scientists display more violations and why these actors do not respond to reports of violations within their labs. These proffered explanations constitute hypotheses for future work, products of our grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). As suggested earlier in generating our hypotheses for the analyses of the inspection data, the scientists whose labs are repeatedly cited for EHS violations give less attention to the laboratory conditions and are often absent from the university. Of course, there is always some level of disorder and variations from the ideal. The purpose of the EHS system is to identify any problems on a regular basis, weekly by the lab’s own ‘safety rep’ (usually a student or lab manager) and semi-annually by the inspectors. Our research question asked whether improved performances—reduced inspection findings (i.e., violations)—follow inspection reports, which would be the virtuous feedback cycle characterizing well-functioning systems (Silbey & Agrawal, 2011 ). Our findings from the interviews show that the issue of management system efficacy is not dependent on the reported inspection violations per se but the response of the principal investigator to that information. Here, a coordinator describes the most difficult and non-compliant lab within her set.

“For the most problematic lab, they had had the same inspection findings for several years. They were at the higher end of the number of inspection findings… I’d meet with the rep [student or technician with safety responsibility within the lab]. We’d go over things that needed to be fixed. I’d go back a few weeks later, nothing would be done. Eventually the [department] EHS committee stepped in, and at that point … the PI said, “Well, I kept getting these findings, but I didn’t think they were important.” Well, if the PI doesn’t think the findings are important, then he’s not going to be concerned when they keep reoccurring, ‘cause it’s just nothing he cares about.” (ML1.9)

The coordinator continues, describing initial success but eventually a return to a stable, only slightly improved equilibrium.

“He didn’t really see the issues were safety issues. But, once he had kind of the pressure from the EHS committee, he did start to get more involved… He’d ask questions and we’d give either the regulatory or [university] policy reasons for the things we were saying, and that pushed him more towards the state of caring. But, it’s still a lab where we do have to do some prodding to kind of keep them up.” (ML1.9)

“ Ultimately, it’s up to the PI ,” another coordinator said, “ where the power sits in academia is not with the grad student. ” (CS1.5). Nor does power lie with the staff. When there are non-responsive faculty, the EHS personnel can achieve results only with the support of other faculty. “ She’s sort of untouchable , ” another coordinator said, describing a professor who held a prestigious chair and ignored her lab, delegating all responsibility to a lab manager who put “ EHS training at the bottom of [ his ] list. “It’s not going to happen,” the lab manager said .” (RL1.9). A high-level administrator explained further why it is difficult for staff to be able to move faculty to comply, if they do not choose on their own to do so. Apparently, the staff interpret the tenure system as putting the faculty beyond criticism and accountability. This is confirmed by our data showing that tenured faculty are more likely than untenured to have labs with more violations.

The social isolation of some faculty members with self-focus on their own goals was also brought up by coordinators. The coordinators stressed that social isolation has a trickle-down effect on students in the lab.

“They kind of view themselves as on their own and separate from the university. So some of these –the requirements of the management system- they happily just brush off. And it’s at all levels, you know, within the lab. I think the students are –would be happy to, you know, get involved, but because the PIs aren’t really as supportive, it makes it difficult to kind of do their own thing.”(BB1.8)

Furthermore, the status differences between PIs and inspectors add an extra layer on top of the faculty’s social isolation and further aggravate coordination problems. The inspecting coordinators repeatedly mentioned how status hierarchies create problems.

“I did a pre-inspection, and I went through, and I visited the laboratory, and I wrote down whatever findings that I saw, and I sent an email to the PI under my name. And because I’m not a faculty member, and I’m –I mean, it was, “Who is this guy sending me an email saying that he found some issues in the laboratory?” And it really hit the fan.” (JS1.7)

As exemplified in the quote just above, it is not rare for inspectors to encounter PIs who perceive feedback as a status threat (Gray & Silbey, 2014 ). This, as described by a coordinator below, can lead to the undervaluation of EHS personnel’s work:

“There was one instance in the past where I did an inspection of a faculty member's lab and he basically told me that, well, he said, these are not issues in my lab. So either I had made them up or...something. So he sent me this pretty long e-mail that was a little bit vicious I would say.” (TB1.9)

To reiterate, the issue of management system efficacy depends on the PI’s response to the reports of violations, not the violations themselves, as all labs are going to have some problems at one time or another. Another coordinator emphasized the centrality of responsiveness with an energetic reply to our query about what constitutes a problematic lab, by saying “ What characterizes a problem lab? I learned the word recalcitrant! I hadn’t known it before. ” He described a member of the department whose lab failed two or three inspections in a row. A letter was sent requesting the professor to clean up his lab, explaining that the inspectors would be back in a few weeks to see the response.

“So the third letter basically says that in the event that there are still any problems with the third inspection, we will have no alternative but to order your laboratory closed to further research until these problems are corrected. And then there was a kind of postscript that federal law requires that, if you have any funding from federal agencies, we have to notify them that work is ordered halted here.” (SI1.6)

In this instance, and in all others in which such repeated violations were ignored, the third letter always gets a positive response. The threat of a lab closing is spoken about often, especially in training sessions, the notice to federal funding agencies is mentioned less frequently. But, from our search of the records, no lab has ever been closed in this university for EHS violations, only for financial misconduct or scientific fraud, where federal agencies were informed immediately.

A Taxonomy of PIs’ Responses to Inspections

Our analysis of interviews with EHS personnel helps us explain the counter-intuitive findings from the violations data with a taxonomy describing variations in PIs’ responses to inspections. The interviews also show that the status differences between faculty members and EHS inspectors add an additional barrier to the functioning of the management system, designed to provide organizational accountability (Huising & Silbey, 2021a ). A simple three-category taxonomy with three dimensions derived from our empirical case (Bailey, 1994 ; Rich, 1992 ) describes the reactions of high-status actors to regulatory feedback. The PIs’ varied social insulation, focus on their own production goals, and lack of attention to feedback contribute to system ineffectiveness. From these interviews, we see that higher-status actors disengage from the regulatory system, the compliance officers, and the system’s feedback process by their variable recognition and acknowledgment of relevant regulations , attention to the inspection reports , and responses to the feedback concerning repair of the unsafe situation. We encapsulate this taxonomy in three forms of disengagement we label: deny, dispute , and delegate (see Table 5 ).

A considerable number of high-status actors simply deny the relevance of safety regulations and requirements of compliance. As several inspecting coordinators said, the PI simply “ did not see” the relevance of regulations and rules concerning the condition of the lab as safety issues. In cases when denial is not possible, when the accumulating chemical waste or the lack of personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves and lab coats) is made evident to the PI, they engage in outright refusal by disputing the fact that the situation is a real safety problem: There is not that much waste in the containers, or lab coats are not necessary for this experiment. Finally, when it is practically impossible to withdraw from some sort of engagement, PIs cope with the situation by delegating responsibilities to subordinate lab personnel, including students and staff, without themselves actively getting involved in the repair process.

In response to these forms of disengagement, compliance officers develop a repertoire of interpersonal tactics mobilized to make high-status actors compliant: persistent prodding, providing additional rationale, threatening with external authorities, and fixing problems on the spot. Our observations show that these tactics by officers are often deployed in sequence. First, inspectors push for compliance with constant nudges and additional explanations. As a last resort, they threaten scientists to hold them accountable to external authorities such as department heads or the EPA. For labs showing persistent incompetence or unwillingness to fix problems, they engage in hands-on intervention by fixing the problems themselves. Such in situ fixes range from verbal instruction concerning improved practices to sample demonstrations to actual repair of deficient conditions.

Thus, our interview data support the analysis of the inspection data, showing that high-status privileged scientists often choose to ignore feedback concerning the hazardous situations in their labs until threatened with extraordinary consequences. Importantly, this is a small sub-population of the university’s faculty and a small fraction of those who receive reports of inspection violations. It does confirm, however, that social isolation and status differences prevent some of the most successful scientists from devoting attention to what they—by the evidence of their lack of attention—interpret as peripheral obligations.

Research laboratories can be very risky environments. With the installation of EHS management systems, both university administrators and responsible agents as well as government regulators expect that environmental and health hazards can be contained. Conducting regular inspections and taking remedial steps based on inspection findings can help prevent tragic outcomes. However, the findings of this study of inspections in a major university show that despite regular audits and feedback to scientists, the number of safety violations did not decrease for some labs. A closer examination of inspection findings and interviews revealed the differential reaction of PIs to audits showing that social hierarchies in academic settings lead to scientists’ varied responses to inspection feedback. The quantitative analyses of inspection reports and administrative records indicate that the magnitude of economic resources available to a PI, a resource enabling and thus an indicator of power in academia, is an important predictor of non-compliance. In addition, tenure, a formal marker of status in academia, is also significantly associated with the number of violations; tenured scientists violated EHS regulations more frequently than their non-tenured peers. Interviews with inspectors help us theorize the processes of regulatory compliance, in particular explaining this non-compliance by powerful actors, showing how they disengage from the regulatory system, the compliance officers, and the system’s feedback process. A simple three-category taxonomy of reactions of high-status actors ( deny, dispute, delegate ) to regulatory feedback synthesizes these actors’ responses, and how their varied social insulation, focus on their own production goals, and lack of attention to feedback contribute to system ineffectiveness. The PIs disengage by their variable recognition of regulations, attention to reports, and responses to feedback. These actors simply ignore the safety regulations or dispute the accuracy or relevance of the inspection findings, or if denial and dispute are ineffective, end up delegating responsibility to others for whom they do not provide close supervision. In sum, powerful PIs ignore feedback from inspectors whom they perceive as the low-status service personnel of the organization. In turn, inspectors develop a tactical repertoire of sequential responses, hoping to encourage compliance by these recalcitrant actors. These findings are in line with previous research which showed that status differences may create coordination and efficiency problems when individuals or teams from different professions work together (Dibenigno & Kellog, 2014 ; Huising & Silbey, 2011 ; Karunakaran, 2021 ; Ranganathan, 2013 ). These problems are especially intensified when the task is knowledge-related (Bailey et al., 2010 ; Bechky, 2003 ; Carlile, 2004 ; Huising & Silbey, 2013 ).

Business and legal scholars have been interested in compliance with legal regulations for decades. Among many others, one line of analysis has explored whether and why groups or organizations react differently to regulations. These scholars have studied uneven compliance with regulations at different levels of analysis. Earlier generations of research in this area investigated variation in terms of uneven compliance across organizations within one institutional context (e.g., Edelman & Suchman, 1997 ). Later generations studied variation across actor groups within the same organization (e.g., Gray & Silbey, 2014 ). However, the question of how different individuals within the same actor group in the same organization react to a constant regulatory environment has not received attention. In this study, we pulled the unit of analysis yet one level down and examined individual differences in reaction to EHS audits in an elite group, namely scientists in a large research university.

This study of differential responses to EHS regulations offers new explanations for the persistently observed variation in compliance with legal regulations. Conventionally explained by accounts of inconsistent and lax enforcement, misaligned incentives (Deutch & Lester, 2004 ; Hawkins & Thomas, 1984 ), or the greater power of some organizations to shape the regulations in their favor and capture the regulatory process (Stigler, 1971 ), much recent academic scholarship and policy prescriptions recommend innovative nudges to influence the behavior of the actual ground level actors to reduce anticipated risks (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008 ). Yet, organizational governance studies repeatedly describe the decoupling of habitual practices from organizational and legal mandates (Kellogg, 2009 ) and symbolic compliance (Edelman, 1992 ) that often responds to conflicting institutional logics (Pache & Santos, 2013 ; Raaijmakers et al., 2015 ). All of these studies take the organization as the unit of analysis. Consequently, this extensive body of empirical research gives insufficient attention to the ways in which actions within the organization by ground level actors lead to compliance or non-compliance with regulations (Baldwin et al., 2010 ).

With specific attention to regulatory compliance, our findings are in line with the previous research that showed that actors’ variable autonomy, expertise, and frequency of interaction influence interpretations of regulations and regulators and orientations towards compliance (Gray & Silbey, 2014 ). Our observations of differential compliance with EHS rules and regulations in one research university force us to rethink and amend regulatory models that emphasize the importance of tuning regulatory processes to the differing motivations of regulated actors (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992 ).

In contrast to historical models of regulatory compliance derived from command and control as well as energetic, rule-bound legalistic enforcement (Bardach & Kagan, 1982 ), recent policy prescriptions recommend various forms of pragmatic regulation (Huising & Silbey, 2021a ). In pragmatic regulation, regulators—both internal organizational actors as well as external agents—adapt the formal regulations on paper to the regulated space in a realistic, practical, sometimes innovative fashion appropriate for the local circumstances. This approach acknowledges the impossibility of perfect compliance between textual prescriptions and material, behavioral enactments, keeping the deviations from the textual accounts within an acceptable yet flexible range, an adjustable container rather than a railroad track. Regulatory agents work together with the organizational members to fashion processes and rules to fit the specifics of the different and varied regulated spaces (Huising & Silbey, 2021a ; Silbey et al., 2009 ). Consider the following example of a local, pragmatic solution to a persistent problem we learned about in our interviews. A senior faculty member consistently failed to take the yearly online training required for his laboratory, which included chemical, biological, and radioactive materials, each demanding special prescribed handling. Because all faculty are required to complete the training, the department EHS coordinator made an appointment to visit the faculty member’s office. During the face-to-face meeting, the coordinator sat next to the faculty member as he logged into the training site and guided the scientist through the instructions. Throughout the session, the scientist commented on the text, the procedures being described, and the ways in which the processes would or would not work in his lab. By the end of the two-hour-long meeting, the scientist had completed the training, learned some facts he did not know about chemical waste, and offered some suggestions for better ways of handling bio-waste. Of course, this kind of personal hand-holding is not possible were every or many scientists to refuse to do safety training. But, it is possible to provide assistance for the relatively few who are entirely resistant and whose status, in this case himself department head, impedes administrative oversight. The scientist did the training in a manner consistent with his sense of entitlement, the coordinator could feel confident that now the department head actually knew more about EHS policies and procedures, and brought back to his department some suggestions for changing the procedures for handling bio-waste. Since academic settings with their historical features of scientific autonomy, and academic freedom more generally, might create room for non-compliance for actors, enacting an adaptive model of pragmatic regulation, as exemplified by this anecdote, might be one of the effective strategies to promote compliance in research universities (Coslovsky, 2011 ; Huising & Silbey, 2018 ; Lakey & Orehek, 2011 ; Rodwell & Munro, 2013 ).

Regulatory governance is an important question of business ethics as well since it emphasizes the role of individual responsibility in ensuring that the workplace is organized in compliance with rules and regulations (Coglianese & Nash, 2001 ; Coglianese et al., 2003 ; Howard-Grenville et al., 2008 ; Norman, 2011 ). Although the role of social influence and individuals’ cognitions and emotions have been studied as predictors of ethical behavior, proper attention is not given to the role of status and power in shaping compliance with ethical expectations. By investigating an understudied phenomenon—the role of social hierarchies in enacting norms and regulations within organizations rather than intentional purposes—this study improves our understanding with regard to the role of power and status in enabling compliance in organizations composed of elite actors.

Although our paper contributes to the literature, it certainly has some limitations. First, our empirical case is limited to one organizational context. Therefore, future research is needed to see whether our findings are generalizable to other organizations. Second, since our data come from the early years of the establishment of a safety management system, the organization we study may appear to have a weak safety culture. Ideal future research would be comparing different organizations with varying kinds and embeddedness of safety cultures (strong vs. weak) to see if the strength of safety culture moderates powerful actors’ responses to inspections. Third, in our research, we studied an academic institution where the strategic design of the organization leaves room for loose alignment of practices across different groups, leading to varying degrees of safety compliance. In other sectors, specifically in industrial or private research firms, the processes and outcomes could be different. A future research agenda looking at the variation of actors’ responses across different sectors would be useful. Finally, the taxonomy we proposed deriving from our empirical case is a simple classification of high-status actors’ behavioral responses to the regulatory system. Because we do not directly observe PIs’ responses and rather depend on inspectors’ accounts of past interactions with PIs, we are not able to quantify the magnitude of each response. However, we believe that our taxonomy can serve as a useful empirical tool for future survey development and data collection efforts to study behavioral reactions to regulations.

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) resulting in a death toll of millions of persons, no less economic losses of billions of dollars, has reminded everyone once again of the importance of EHS interventions. The COVID-19 has radically transformed how public spaces and workplaces are organized. Facilities now need to be reconfigured to ensure appropriate health and safety measures such as social distancing and ventilation; personnel need to be trained to comply with good hygiene protocols and other practices such as mask wearing; surveillance and testing systems need to be developed to monitor people’s health status and symptoms (Rodrigues et al., 2021 ). Universities have already formed committees and developed guidelines for health and safety measures to prevent transmission on-campus. Research labs adopted control measures such as limiting the number of on-campus hours and implementing work shifts to prevent overcrowding. Thus, considering the fact that we are going through an era of increasing global transmission of infectious diseases, understanding the factors that prevent compliance with EHS regulations has become of even greater relevance and immediate importance.

More importantly, the escape of the virus from a research laboratory in Wuhan, China, circulates as a possibility for the origin of the pandemic (Bloom et al., 2021 ; Maxmen & Mallapaty, 2021 ). This lab-leak hypothesis is generating a related discussion in popular media about the importance of compliance with safety in research settings (Huising & Silbey, 2021b ). We believe that the increase in public attention on these issues is important, which would ultimately put pressure on officials to take the necessary steps to ensure safety rules and regulations are consistently followed and part of normal laboratory habits.

AAAS. (2015, November 16). 2015 AAAS Fellows Recognized for contributions to advancing science. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://www.aaas.org

AAAS. (2015, December 22). AAAS Chemistry section will not proceed with nomination of Patrick Harran as fellow. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://www.aaas.org

Allen, M. P. (1981). Managerial power and tenure in the large corporation. Social Forces, 60 (2), 482–494.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate . Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (2), 549–589.

Babb, S. (2020). Regulating human research: IRBs from peer review to compliance bureaucracies . Stanford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Babb, S., Birk, L., & Carfagna, L. (2017). Standard bearers: Qualitative sociologists’ experiences with IRB regulation. The American Sociologist, 48 (1), 86–102.

Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Chong, J. (2010). Minding the gaps: Understanding technology interdependence and coordination in knowledge work. Organization Science, 21 (3), 713–730.

Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques . Sage.

Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2010). The Oxford handbook of regulation . Oxford University Press.

Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness . Temple University Press.

Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14 (3), 312–330.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6 (1), 479–508.

Blader, S. L., & Yu, S. (2017). Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Academy of Management Annals, 11 (2), 800–824.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . Wiley.

Bloom, J. D., Chan, Y. A., Baric, R. S., Bjorkman, P. J., Cobey, S., Deverman, B. E., et al. (2021). Investigate the origins of COVID-19. Science, 372 (6543), 694–694.

Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (19), 4887–4890.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (9), 1381–1385.

Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1182–1194.

Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69 (2), 239–264.

CAL/OSHA. (2009). University of California Los Angeles Investigation Report. Case Number: S1110-003-09.

Campbell, B. A., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking sustained competitive advantage from human capital. Academy of Management Review, 37 (3), 376–395.

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15 (5), 555–568.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . Sage.

Chen, Y. R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Bringing status to the table: Attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23 (2), 299–307.

Clarke, C. A., & Knights, D. (2015). Careering through academia: Securing identities or engaging ethical subjectivities? Human Relations, 68 (12), 1865–1888.

Clarke, C., Knights, D., & Jarvis, C. (2012). A labour of love? Academics in business schools. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28 (1), 5–15.

Coglianese, C., & Nash, J. (2001). Regulating from the inside: Can environmental management systems achieve policy goals? RFF Press.

Coglianese, C., Nash, J., & Olmstead, T. (2003). Performance-based regulation: Prospects and limitations in health, safety, and environmental protection. Administrative Law Review, 55 , 705–724.

Cooper, M. H. (2009). Commercialization of the university and problem choice by academic biological scientists. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34 (5), 629–653.

Coslovsky, S. V. (2011). Relational regulation in the Brazilian Ministério Publico: The organizational basis of regulatory responsiveness. Regulation & Governance, 5 (1), 70–89.

Deutch, J. M., & Lester, R. K. (2004). Making technology work: Applications in energy and the environment . Cambridge University Press.

DiBenigno, J., & Kellogg, K. C. (2014). Beyond occupational differences: The importance of cross-cutting demographics and dyadic toolkits for collaboration in a US hospital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59 (3), 375–408.

Douglas, M. A., & Swartz, S. M. (2017). Knights of the road: Safety, ethics, and the professional truck driver. Journal of Business Ethics, 142 (3), 567–588.

Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (6), 1531–1576.

Edelman, L. B., & Suchman, M. C. (1997). The legal environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 23 (1), 479–515.

Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C., & Erlanger, H. S. (1999). The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (2), 406–454.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories form case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27 (1), 31–41.

Evans, J., & Silbey, S. S. (2021). Co-opting regulation: Professional control through discretionary mobilization of legal prescriptions and expert knowledge. Organization Science . https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1525

Feng, W., Lessard, D. R., Cameron, B. G., & Crawley, E. F. (2014). Indirect relationships, generalized exchanges, and stakeholder power. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014 , 10055.

Fink, M., Harms, R., & Hatak, I. (2012). Nanotechnology and ethics: The role of regulation versus self-commitment in shaping researchers’ behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109 (4), 569–581.

Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (3), 505–538.

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–982). Wiley.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition . Mcgraw-Hill.

Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the US metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 642–662.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17 (12), 1068–1074.

Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 421–460). American Psychological Association.

Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2011). Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (3), 407–424.

George, G., Dahlander, L., Graffin, S., & Sim, S. (2016). Reputation and status: Expanding the role of social evaluation in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59 (1), 1–13.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 , 781–795.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine Publishing.

Gray, G. C., & Silbey, S. S. (2014). Governing inside the organization: Interpreting regulation and compliance. American Journal of Sociology, 120 (1), 96–145.

Greer, L. L., Van Bunderen, L., & Yu, S. (2017). The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37 , 103–124.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 111–127.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Keltner, D. J., & Anderson, C. (2003). The effects of power on those who possess it: How social structure can affect social cognition. In G. Bodenhausen & A. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition: A festschrift in honor of Robert S. Wyer (pp. 237–261). Erlbaum.

Guinote, A. (2007a). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18 (1), 256–295.

Guinote, A. (2007b). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (8), 1076–1087.

Gunningham, N. (1995). Environment, self-regulation, and the chemical industry: Assessing responsible care. Law & Policy, 17 (1), 57–109.

Gunningham, N., Thornton, D., & Kagan, R. A. (2004). Motivating management: Corporate compliance with safety, health and environmental regulation . The Australian National University.

Hackman, J. D. (1985). Power and centrality in the allocation of resources in colleges and universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), 61–77.

Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27 (4), 391–414.

Hawkins, K. O., & Thomas, J. M. (1984). Enforcing regulation . Kluwer Academic Pub.

Heimer, C. A. (2013). ‘Wicked’ ethics: Compliance work and the practice of ethics in HIV research. Social Science & Medicine, 98 , 371–378.

Heimer, C. A., & Petty, J. (2010). Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6 (1), 601–626.

Hoffman, S. G. (2017). Managing ambiguities at the edge of knowledge: Research strategy and artificial intelligence labs in an era of academic capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42 (4), 703–740.

Holloway, K. J. (2015). Normalizing complaint: Scientists and the challenge of commercialization. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40 (5), 744–765.

Howard-Grenville, J., Nash, J., & Coglianese, C. (2008). Constructing the license to operate: Internal factors and their influence on corporate environmental decisions. Law & Policy, 30 (1), 73–107.

Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2011). Governing the gap: Forging safe science through relational regulation. Regulation & Governance, 5 (1), 14–42.

Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2013). Constructing consequences for noncompliance: The case of academic laboratories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 649 (1), 157–177.

Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2018). From nudge to culture and back again: Coalface governance in the regulated organization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14 (1), 91–114.

Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2021a). Accountability infrastructures: Pragmatic compliance inside organizations. Regulation & Governance, 15 (S1), S40–S62.

Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2021b). To protect from lab leaks, we need ‘banal’ safety rules, not anti-terrorism measures . Stat. Retrieved November 12, 2021b, from https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/13/banal-lab-safety-rules-keep-us-safe/

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 366–395.

Kalfa, S., Wilkinson, A., & Gollan, P. J. (2018). The academic game: Compliance and resistance in universities. Work, Employment and Society, 32 (2), 274–291.

Karunakaran, A. (2021). Status-authority asymmetry between professions: The case of 911 dispatchers and police officers. Administrative Science Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211059505

Kellogg, K. C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115 (3), 657–711.

Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1996). Extremism, power, and the imagined basis of social conflict. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5 (4), 101–105.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge . Harvard University Press.

Lakey, B., & Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review, 118 , 482–495.

Lam, A. (2010). From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40 (2), 307–340.

Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19 (6), 558–564.

Liu, Y., Chen, S., Bell, C., & Tan, J. (2019). How do power and status differ in predicting unethical decisions? A cross-national comparison of China and Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 167 (4), 1–16.

Lorenzo, O., Esqueda, P., & Larson, J. (2010). Safety and ethics in the global workplace: Asymmetries in culture and infrastructure. Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (1), 87–106.

Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J., & Latora, V. (2015). Anatomy of funded research in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (48), 14760–14765.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 351–398.

Maxmen, A., & Mallapaty, S. (2021). The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: What scientists do and don’t know. Nature, 594 (7863), 313–315.

Ménard, A. D., & Trant, J. F. (2020). A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nature Chemistry, 12 (1), 17–25.

Mishler, E. G. (2009). Research interviewing: Context and narrative . Harvard University Press.

Musselin, C. (2013). How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42 (5), 1165–1173.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016a). Strengthening the safety culture of the offshore oil and gas industry . The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23524

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016b). Beyond compliance: Strengthening the safety culture of the offshore oil and gas industry . The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23662

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Designing safety regulations for high-hazard industries . The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24907

National Research Council. (2014). Safe science: Promoting a culture of safety in academic chemical research . The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18706

Norman, W. (2011). Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (1), 43–57.

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (4), 972–1001.

Palmer, C., McShane, K., & Sandler, R. (2014). Environmental ethics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39 , 419–442.

Parboteeah, K. P., & Kapp, E. A. (2008). Ethical work climates and workplace safety behaviors: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80 (3), 515–529.

Pérezts, M., & Picard, S. (2015). Compliance or comfort zone? The work of embedded ethics in performing regulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 131 (4), 833–852.

Pierce, L., & Snyder, J. (2008). Ethical spillovers in firms: Evidence from vehicle emissions testing. Management Science, 54 (11), 1891–1903.

Pifer, M. J., & Baker, V. L. (2013). Managing the process: The intradepartmental networks of early-career academics. Innovative Higher Education, 38 (4), 323–337.

Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (3), 635–658.

Raaijmakers, A. G., Vermeulen, P. A., Meeus, M. T., & Zietsma, C. (2015). I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (1), 85–110.

Ranganathan, A. (2013). Professionalization and market closure: The case of plumbing in India. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66 (4), 902–932.

Rich, P. (1992). The organizational taxonomy: Definition and design. Academy of Management Review, 17 (4), 758–781.

Rodrigues, M. A., Silva, M. V., Errett, N. A., Davis, G., Lynch, Z., Dhesi, S., & Ross, K. E. (2021). How can environmental health practitioners contribute to ensure population safety and health during the COVID-19 pandemic? Safety Science, 136 , 105–136.

Rodwell, J., & Munro, L. (2013). Relational regulation theory and the role of social support and organisational fairness for nurses in a general acute context. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22 (21), 3160–3169.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19 (4), 453–473.

Sangji, N. F., & Sangji, M. H. (2015, December 9). Letter to AAAS. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644503-Sangji-Family-AAAS-Letter-12-2015.html

Schaerer, M., Lee, A. J., Galinsky, A. D. & Thau, S. (2018). Contextualizing social power research within organizational behavior. In D. L. Ferris, R. E. Johnson, & C. Sedikides (Eds.), The self at work: Fundamental theory and research. SIOP organizational frontiers series. Routledge.

Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8 (3), 278–298.

Silbey, S. S. (2019). The every day work of studying the law in everyday life. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15 (1), 1–18.

Silbey, S. S. (2022). Why do biologists and chemists do safety differently: The reproduction of cultural variation through pragmatic regulation. In N. Gross, I. Reed, & C. Winship (Eds.), The new pragmatist sociology: Inquiry, agency and democracy. Columbia University Press.

Silbey, S. S., & Agrawal, T. (2011). The illusion of accountability: Information management and organizational culture. Droit Et Societe, 77 , 69–86.

Silbey, S. S., Huising, R., & Coslovsky, S. V. (2009). The “sociological citizen”: Relational interdependence in law and organizations. L’annee Sociologique, 59 (1), 201–229.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university . John Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education . John Hopkins University Press.

Smith, K. (2010). Research, policy and funding–academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces. The British Journal of Sociology, 61 (1), 176–195.

Smith-Doerr, L., & Vardi, I. (2015). Mind the gap: Formal ethics policies and chemical scientists’ everyday practices in academia and industry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40 (2), 176–198.

Stark, L. (2012). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research . University of Chicago Press.

Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2 , 3–21.

Strathern, M. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy . Routledge.

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research . University of Chicago Press.

Teelken, C. (2012). Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37 (3), 271–290.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness . Penguin.

Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6 (2), 283–311.

Van Emmerik, H., & Sanders, K. (2004). Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14 (1), 40–54.

van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19 (12), 1315–1322.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (1), 101–125.

Weber, M. (1946). Class status and party. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mill (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 180–195). Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization . Oxford University Press.

Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences . Oxford University Press.

Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the academics: Commodification and control of university education in the UK. Human Relations, 48 (9), 993–1028.

Wrong, D. (1988). Power: Its forms, bases and uses . University of Chicago Press.

Xu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, G., Yuan, X., Ding, W., & Shen, Z. (2014). Attentional bias toward safety predicts safety behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 71 , 144–153.

Yuan, X., Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Resource depletion perspective on the link between abusive supervision and safety behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 162 , 213–228.

Zheng, T., Qu, W., Zhang, K., & Ge, Y. (2016). The relationship between attentional bias toward safety and driving behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 96 , 22–28.

Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 156–163.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Frances Bowen, Ruthanne Huising, Arijit Paul, Shuang Ren, and Christine Riordan for their insightful feedback. We also thank Frank Belschak for his editorial guidance and feedback and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Earlier versions of this paper received contributions from Aruna Ranganathan and useful feedback from participants at the MIT Institute for Work and Employment Research Seminar, 30th The Society for Advancement Socio-Economics Meeting, 2016 Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, 2018 International Labour and Employment Relations Association World Congress, and 2019 Junior Faculty Consortiums of Organization and Management Theory and Organizations and the Natural Environment Divisions of the Academy of Management. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants # 0216815 and 0518118. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sungkyunkwan University, 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongro-gu, Seoul, 03063, Korea

Gokce Basbug

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

Ayn Cavicchi & Susan S. Silbey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gokce Basbug .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors of this manuscript have complied with the ethical standards in conducting this research, and have no conflict of interest in conducting or reporting of this research. This manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Basbug, G., Cavicchi, A. & Silbey, S.S. Rank Has Its Privileges: Explaining Why Laboratory Safety Is a Persistent Challenge. J Bus Ethics 184 , 571–587 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05169-z

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2020

Accepted : 27 May 2022

Published : 19 June 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05169-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental, health, and safety management
• Regulatory compliance
• Power and status
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Why Is Lab Safety Important?

Introduction.

Lab safety is the most important aspect of any laboratory. Taking simple measures to produce a safe environment can protect everyone in the lab from injury, infection, or even death. The modules in the lab focused on three main points of safety: how to properly wash one’s hands, how to ensure personal safety, and how to dispose of various materials. Every laboratory and situation is different, but these crucial methods are applicable anywhere and at any time.

Methods and Materials

The first module of the lab focused on handwashing techniques. Materials include running water, soap, and paper towels. First, remove all jewelry and turn water on. Wet hands thoroughly. Apply soap and rub hands together for at least twenty seconds. Be sure to wash in between fingers and be sure to include wrists and scrub nails with nail brush if available. Rinse hands under running water. Point hands downward to ensure all soap and dirt or bacteria is washed off. Use paper towel to dry hands and turn faucet off last- being sure not to touch faucet handle with bare hands.

The second module of the lab focused on personal protection and the equipment involved. Eating and drinking are prohibited in the lab and anything of the sort should be thrown out prior to entering the laboratory. Appropriate dress in the lab is of the upmost importance. Lab coats, closed toe shoes, and long pants are to be worn at all times. All other personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn as needed including, but not limited to: gloves (when working with chemicals or infectious agents), goggles (when working with aerosols, chemicals, or bodily fluids), and hair ties (when working with chemicals or flames). All of these measures, and many more, ensure a safe and accident free laboratory, but if an accident were to occur, it is imperative to notify your professor immediately.

The third module of the lab covers proper waste disposal. Each waste item in the laboratory has its own different bin. Sharp items, including but not limited to, needles, syringes, broken glass beakers, sample tubes, droppers, pipettes, and used glass slides, should be discarded in the sharps bin.

Always disinfect the lab bench before and after use. This ensures a clean working space. Biohazardous waste, such as dissected animals or animal parts, gloves used during dissection, and culture plates should be disposed of into the biohazard bin. This bin is normally red in color and will be labeled as biohazard. Used paper towels, lab notes, and other noncontaminated, non-sharp items can be thrown away in a regular trash receptacle. Used tools that need to be sterilized need to be placed aside for the autoclave. All other tools that simply need cleaning are to be placed in the sink for washing.

Cite this page

Why Is Lab Safety Important?. (2021, May 15). Retrieved from https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/

"Why Is Lab Safety Important?." supremestudy.com , 15 May 2021, https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/

supremestudy.com. (2021). Why Is Lab Safety Important? . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/ [Accessed: 7 Apr. 2024]

"Why Is Lab Safety Important?." supremestudy.com, May 15, 2021. Accessed April 7, 2024. https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/

"Why Is Lab Safety Important?," supremestudy.com , 15-May-2021. [Online]. Available: https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/ . [Accessed: 7-Apr-2024]

supremestudy.com. (2021). Why Is Lab Safety Important? . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/ [Accessed: 7-Apr-2024]

Why Is Lab Safety Important?. (2021, May 15). Retrieved April 7, 2024 , from https://supremestudy.com/why-is-lab-safety-important-essay/

This paper was written and submitted by a fellow student

Our verified experts write your 100% original paper on any topic

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.

Please check your inbox

Sorry, copying content is not allowed on this website

Please indicate where to send you the sample.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition

Movie Review

• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Chemistry Laboratory Safety Questions, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 515

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

One of the unsafe actions taken in the picture is that Bob is touching broken glass. This is dangerous because it can break skin. He should instead use gloves to avoid contact, in addition to a broom and a dust pan to remove the glass. A second unsafe occurrence in the picture is that Joe is drinking an unknown liquid. Clear liquids are not always water, so there should be no eating or drinking of any kind in the laboratory to prevent health concerns. Sue’s hair is not in a ponytail, and it is likely that her hair will catch fire.

Three proper behaviors include Tina turning the test tube away from her while it’s over a flame, Carl is wearing goggles while he is working with a chemical, and John is cleaning the laboratory materials after use.

In order to properly clean the glass spill, Bob should first alert his teacher of the glass breakage. Then, he should put on gloves and sweep the glass into a dust pan. The surrounding area should be swept as well to ensure that all shards are removed from the floor.

It is important to ensure that all loose items are secured in the lab. If Sue doesn’t wish to have her hair cut short, she should ensure to wear a ponytail to lab. To ensure that she doesn’t forget, it would be useful for her to generally wear one on her wrist at all times.

Luke is following the rules because he is looking through the microscope with one eye open at his bench. Duke is not following the rules, and is at risk for becoming blind. When the light from the sun hits the microscope mirror, the light that is reflected will be damagingly bright.

Three things in the lab that should not be there include chips, a pair of scissors stuck in the socket, and a mirror. There should be no food in the lab, scissors conduct electricity and could cause someone to be electrocuted, and there should be no fooling around so Betty should leave her mirror at home.

Carl is doing it the correct way because he is clearly working on the given instructions and is wearing the proper protection equipment. On the other hand, Joe is not doing the experiment and is drinking the substance. In addition, Joe is not wearing safety goggles.

Ray and Tim will be asked to leave the classroom for engaging in horseplay. Not only are they hurting each other, they have the potential for hurting other classmates if the disruptive behavior continues.

Three items in the illustration that are there for the safety of the students in the lab include the eye wash station, the safety blanket, and the fire extinguisher.

Betty is not paying attention to the work that she should be doing and is being distracted by the mirror. This could lead to her getting hurt. This is made worse by the fact that she seems to be applying makeup; if chemicals had fallen on the makeup, she would then be applying them to her face, which could potentially cause a severe chemical burn.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Clinical Trial Effect on Patents, Research Paper Example

Winthrop as a Model of Consumer Behavior, Movie Review Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371