National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 12;19(4):2075. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042075.
In recent years, Safe-by-Design (SbD) has been launched as a concept that supports science and engineering such that a broad conception of safety is embraced and structurally embedded. The present study explores the extent to which academics in a distinctively relevant subset of science and engineering disciplines are receptive towards the work and teaching practices SbD would arguably imply. Through 29 interviews with researchers in nanotechnology, biotechnology and chemical engineering differences in perceptions of safety, life-cycle thinking and responsibility for safety were explored. Results indicate that although safety is perceived as a paramount topic in scientific practice, its meaning is rigorously demarcated, marking out safety within the work environment. In effect, this creates a limited perceived role responsibility vis-à-vis safety in the production of knowledge and in teaching, with negligible critical consideration of research's downstream impacts. This is at odds with the adoption of a broader conception of, and responsibility for, safety. The considerations supporting the perceived boundaries demarcating scientific practice are scrutinized. This study suggests that implementing SbD in academia requires systemic changes, the development of new methods, and attention for researchers' and innovators' elementary views on the meaning of and responsibility for safety throughout the innovation chain.
近年来，“安全设计（Safe-by-Design，SbD）”已作为一种理念推出，以支持科学和工程学，从而采用更广泛的安全概念，并将其结构嵌入其中。本研究探讨了在一个独特相关的科学和工程学科子集的学术界中，学者们对 SbD 工作和教学实践的接受程度。通过对纳米技术、生物技术和化学工程领域的 29 名研究人员进行访谈，探讨了他们对安全、生命周期思维和安全责任的看法。结果表明，尽管安全被认为是科学实践中的首要议题，但它的含义是严格界定的，将安全限定在工作环境内。实际上，这就在知识生产和教学中对安全的责任产生了有限的感知，几乎没有对研究的下游影响进行批判性的考虑。这与采用更广泛的安全概念和对安全的责任是不一致的。本研究仔细审查了支持界定科学实践的感知边界的考虑因素。本研究表明，在学术界实施 SbD 需要进行系统性的变革，开发新方法，并关注研究人员和创新者在整个创新链中对安全的含义和责任的基本看法。
