Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.

IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Applied Biosafety Pub Date : 2025-03-07 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1089/apb.2024.0024

Katie Hall, Betsy Matos, Anne Dombroski-Brokman, Steven Ziegenfuss

{"title":"Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.","authors":"Katie Hall, Betsy Matos, Anne Dombroski-Brokman, Steven Ziegenfuss","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training.Methods: Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis.Results: The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training.Conclusions: Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.","PeriodicalId":7962,"journal":{"name":"Applied Biosafety","volume":"30 1","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Biosafety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training.

Methods: Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis.

Results: The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training.

Conclusions: Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.

查看原文本刊更多论文

美国高等院校的生物安全 2 级培训计划。

通过对生物安全官员（bso）的调查，美国高等院校对生物安全二级（BSL-2）培训项目进行了基准测试。这项调查的目的不仅是比较机构生物安全委员会（IBC）对生物安全二级培训的要求，而且还比较交付形式、培训长度、包括动手或互动部分以及复习培训的要求。方法：调查对象从美国国立卫生研究院（NIH） bso登记处抽取，仅限于美国高等院校的bso。本研究共设计了12个调查问题。该调查被发送给324个bso，其中108个回复了足够的数据，可以纳入分析。结果：调查发现，88%的机构和/或IBC政策要求进行英语二级培训，5.6%为可选培训，6.5%为不提供培训。超过一半（60.4%）的受访者以按需方式提供英语二级培训。一些机构（34.5%）包括面对面培训的组成部分。然而，这种培训并不总是包括动手练习或互动活动。调查显示，大多数（96.6%）院校提供的英语二级培训少于3小时，许多（58%）院校要求进修培训。结论：美国大多数在NIH注册的高等院校都要求从事研究和教学的实验室人员进行BSL-2培训。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Applied Biosafety Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

13.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Applied Biosafety (APB), sponsored by ABSA International, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal committed to promoting global biosafety awareness and best practices to prevent occupational exposures and adverse environmental impacts related to biohazardous releases. APB provides a forum for exchanging sound biosafety and biosecurity initiatives by publishing original articles, review articles, letters to the editors, commentaries, and brief reviews. APB informs scientists, safety professionals, policymakers, engineers, architects, and governmental organizations. The journal is committed to publishing on topics significant in well-resourced countries as well as information relevant to underserved regions, engaging and cultivating the development of biosafety professionals globally.