Assessing the Burden of Risk in Laboratories
FEATURE
biosecurity training programs,” said Iwen.“ Public health is somewhat behind the curve in the development of these training programs, as are clinical, commercial and manufacturing laboratories. Although we are more attuned to biosafety practices in the laboratory, there are still opportunities available to improve the work environment.” g
Assessing the Burden of Risk in Laboratories
Major strides to improve laboratory biosafety have occurred in recent years, but ongoing reports of exposures to biological agents indicate that there are still laboratories in the US with inadequate biosafety practices in place. Funding from CDC has allowed collaborations with state and local public health agencies to strengthen healthcare infection control practices and enhance laboratory biosafety and biosecurity practices; however, gaps in funding have impacted ongoing efforts to maintain safe working environments.
A critical step to enhance biosafety practices is an accurate measurement of laboratory exposures and laboratoryacquired infections( LAIs). The lack of reporting requirements and mechanisms likely has resulted in an underestimation of incidents, so the actual number of exposures and LAIs is unknown.
While the Federal Select Agent Program requires reporting of exposure events involving select agents, there is no way to ensure compliance for non-select agents. Thus, there is no mechanism available to capture exposures or LAIs in laboratories that do not work with or encounter select agents. Alternatively, a national publicly accessible, non-punitive mechanism to report exposure events and LAIs would allow a more accurate number of incidents to be documented and analyzed.
Current biosafety standards of practice followed by laboratory professionals are subject to interpretation, as they do not define mechanical, physical and operational standards. Additionally, there is a lack of mechanisms available to objectively and consistently apply the standards. Many of the guidelines and recommendations are not data driven sciencebased conclusions.
Consequently, while laboratories in the US adhere to biosafety guidelines, there is extreme variability in the physical and mechanical plans and the operational procedures that support them. Laboratory staff and laboratory leadership compliance with plans and procedures is also inconsistent, with turnover in the laboratory requiring additional diligence to maintain these competencies.
APHL strongly supports the expansion of efforts to improve and enhance biosafety and biosecurity practices in all US laboratories to include those that support private clinical practices, public health laboratories to include agricultural and food testing laboratories, and research and academic laboratories through education, training, guidelines and incorporation of quality management practices. Read more in the position statement, Improving Biosafety in Our Nation’ s Laboratories and visit the APHL website for more information.
18 LAB MATTERS Fall 2025 PublicHealthLabs @ APHL. org
APHL. org
18