The Evolving Landscape of Institutional Biosafety Committees and Biosafety Programs: Results from a National Survey on Organizational Structure, Resources, and Practices.
IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"The Evolving Landscape of Institutional Biosafety Committees and Biosafety Programs: Results from a National Survey on Organizational Structure, Resources, and Practices.","authors":"Christine M Johnson, Karen M Dobos","doi":"10.1177/1535676019886175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There are vast differences in the size, scope, and needs of institutions that conduct research involving biohazardous materials, thus resulting in vast differences among Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) and biosafety programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A benchmarking survey of IBC and biosafety programs was conducted in an effort to identify common practices in the field and compare this information with that of the other institutional bioethics committees, namely, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objectives of the survey were to assess the organizational structure of IBC and biosafety programs, determine the scope of IBC review, and compare the size of IBC and biosafety programs with that of IACUCs and IRBs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey results showed that IBCs most commonly reside under the same administrative unit as the IACUC and IRB, while the majority of institutions' biosafety officers report to a different unit. The majority of respondents indicated their IBC reviews research utilizing biological hazards beyond what is required by the National Institutes of Health Guidelines. The survey data suggest that IBCs have fewer support staff than the other bioethics committees; 57% of institutions report one or more full-time employee (FTE) dedicated to support the IBC, compared to 86%, 85%, and 83% of institutions that reported one or more FTE to support the IACUC, the IRB, and the biosafety program, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Data from the survey identified common practices among IBCs and provides institutions a tool to compare their program with others.</p>","PeriodicalId":7962,"journal":{"name":"Applied Biosafety","volume":"24 4","pages":"213-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1535676019886175","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Biosafety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1535676019886175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: There are vast differences in the size, scope, and needs of institutions that conduct research involving biohazardous materials, thus resulting in vast differences among Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) and biosafety programs.
Methods: A benchmarking survey of IBC and biosafety programs was conducted in an effort to identify common practices in the field and compare this information with that of the other institutional bioethics committees, namely, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
Objectives: The primary objectives of the survey were to assess the organizational structure of IBC and biosafety programs, determine the scope of IBC review, and compare the size of IBC and biosafety programs with that of IACUCs and IRBs.
Results: The survey results showed that IBCs most commonly reside under the same administrative unit as the IACUC and IRB, while the majority of institutions' biosafety officers report to a different unit. The majority of respondents indicated their IBC reviews research utilizing biological hazards beyond what is required by the National Institutes of Health Guidelines. The survey data suggest that IBCs have fewer support staff than the other bioethics committees; 57% of institutions report one or more full-time employee (FTE) dedicated to support the IBC, compared to 86%, 85%, and 83% of institutions that reported one or more FTE to support the IACUC, the IRB, and the biosafety program, respectively.
Conclusion: Data from the survey identified common practices among IBCs and provides institutions a tool to compare their program with others.
Applied BiosafetyEnvironmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
27
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
