Patlovich Scott J, Emery Robert J, Whitehead Lawrence W, Brown Eric L, Flores Rene
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Appl Biosaf. 2015 Mar;20(1):27-40. doi: 10.1177/153567601502000104. Epub 2015 Apr 1.
Because the origins of the biological safety profession are rooted in the control and prevention of laboratory-associated infections, the vocation focuses primarily on the safe handling of specimens within the laboratory. But in many cases, the specimens and samples handled in the lab are originally collected in the field where a broader set of possible exposure considerations may be present, each with varying degrees of controllability. The failure to adequately control the risks associated with collecting biological specimens in the field may result in illness or injury, and could have a direct impact on laboratory safety, if infectious specimens were packaged or transported inappropriately, for example. This study developed a web-based survey distributed to practicing biological safety professionals to determine the prevalence of and extent to which biological safety programs consider and evaluate field collection activities. In cases where such issues were considered, the data collected characterize the types of controls and methods of oversight at the institutional level that are employed. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the survey respondents indicated that research involving the field collection of biological specimens is conducted at their institutions. A majority (79%) of these field collection activities occur at academic institutions. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents indicated that their safety committees do not consider issues related to biological specimens collected in the field, and only 25% with an oversight committee charged to review field collection protocols have generated a field research-specific risk assessment form to facilitate the assembly of pertinent information for a project risk assessment review. The results also indicated that most biosafety professionals (73% overall; 71% from institutions conducting field collection activities) have not been formally trained on the topic, but many (64% overall; 87% from institutions conducting field collection activities) indicated that training on field research safety issues would be helpful, and even more (71% overall; 93% from institutions conducting field collection activities) would consider participation in such a training course. Results obtained from this study can be used to develop a field research safety toolkit and associated training curricula specifically targeted to biological safety professionals.
由于生物安全专业的起源植根于实验室相关感染的控制与预防，该职业主要专注于实验室内部标本的安全处理。但在许多情况下，实验室处理的标本和样本最初是在野外采集的，野外可能存在更广泛的一系列潜在暴露因素，且每个因素的可控程度各不相同。例如，如果感染性标本包装或运输不当，未能充分控制野外采集生物标本相关的风险可能导致疾病或伤害，并可能直接影响实验室安全。本研究开展了一项基于网络的调查，分发给从事生物安全工作的专业人员，以确定生物安全计划考虑和评估野外采集活动的普遍性及程度。在考虑此类问题的情况下，所收集的数据描述了机构层面所采用的控制类型和监督方法。61%的调查受访者表示，他们所在的机构开展了涉及野外采集生物标本的研究。这些野外采集活动大多（79%）发生在学术机构。27%的受访者表示，他们的安全委员会不考虑与野外采集的生物标本相关的问题，而在负责审查野外采集方案的监督委员会中，只有25%制定了针对野外研究的风险评估表，以便利为项目风险评估审查收集相关信息。结果还表明，大多数生物安全专业人员（总体为73%；开展野外采集活动的机构中的人员为71%）未接受过关于该主题的正规培训，但许多人（总体为64%；开展野外采集活动的机构中的人员为87%）表示，关于野外研究安全问题的培训将有所帮助，甚至更多人（总体为71%；开展野外采集活动机构中的人员为93%）会考虑参加这样的培训课程。本研究所得结果可用于开发专门针对生物安全专业人员的野外研究安全工具包及相关培训课程。
