# Biosafety Training Program Development: Step-by-Step Guide A biosafety training program development project converts the hazards documented in your laboratory's risk assessments into trained, verified, and auditable staff behavior. The finished program gives you four assets: a curriculum mapped to the agents and procedures your rooms actually contain, a delivery system that reaches every employee, student, and contractor who touches biological material, a competency verification step that separates demonstrated skill from a sign-in sheet, and a monthly metrics package that shows leadership what the program prevents. Use this guide when you are building a program from nothing, absorbing a new agent or a higher containment level, preparing for an accreditation audit or regulatory inspection, recovering from an exposure incident, or inheriting a program that is really just a yearly slide deck. The same sequence scales from a three-person [clinical microbiology](/knowledge/diagnostics/microbiology/clinical-microbiology-from-specimen-collection-to-pathogen-identification) bench to a multi-building academic health center. Time and effort. For a single-site clinical or research laboratory, plan on roughly 60 to 100 hours of hands-on development work spread over 3 to 6 months from signed charter to the first completed training cycle. Institutions with committee governance, multiple departments, or high-containment space should budget a year or more of elapsed time, because review cycles move slowly even when the writing goes fast. After launch, expect a few hours per month of maintenance plus one annual revision cycle. ## Principle: Why the Program Is Built This Way Biosafety is the discipline of protecting people and the environment from exposure to biological agents. Microbiology biosafety training is the administrative control that makes engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) function as designed. In the hierarchy of controls, training cannot compensate for a missing biological safety cabinet, but an excellently equipped facility fails without it. Training is one of the recurring core activities of a [biosafety program](/knowledge/diagnostics/emerging-tech/biosafety-program-implementation-a-roadmap-for-diagnostic-laboratories), listed alongside risk assessment, routine surveillance, and incident response in the simplified public health logic model that working biosafety programs use to describe themselves [1]. That model sorts everything a program does into inputs (staffing and budget), activities (risk assessments, training, incident response), and outcomes (reported exposures, injuries, compliance, satisfaction). A training program is the most labor-intensive activity in the middle column and the one most visible to auditors. Employers carry a legal and ethical responsibility to provide a safe working environment, and a structured safety training program is the documented expression of that responsibility. Documented benefits include employee satisfaction, risk mitigation, productivity and efficiency, cost efficiency, and maintained compliance [2]. The same framework identifies four factors that separate durable programs from shelfware: assessing training needs, developing a defined life cycle and process for training, selecting the right tools, and continually improving [2]. Two evidence points shape every design decision below. First, knowledge alone does not produce safe behavior. In a survey of healthcare students in a tuberculosis-endemic city, biosafety knowledge was fairly uniform across respondents, yet more than 40% did not complete recommended tuberculin skin test surveillance, including participants at elevated risk of infection [3]. Second, the gap persists in working clinical laboratories. Among 81 clinical laboratory professionals surveyed in Ethiopia, only 18.5% had received biosafety training, adherence to emergency preparedness expectations was 34.6%, and use of protective barriers reached 61.7%, even though basic work habits such as handwashing after handling biohazardous material exceeded 96% [4]. Programs that verify competency and connect training to occupational health systems outperform programs that only present information. ## Materials and Reagents for Program Development and Delivery Assemble these items before writing content, because hands-on demonstrations shape the modules rather than the other way around. | Item | Working specification | Purpose in the program | |--|--|--| | Class II biological safety cabinet (BSC) | Certified, airflow validated within the past 12 months | Bench-side demonstration of work practices and airflow | | Sodium hypochlorite disinfectant | 1:10 dilution of household bleach (5.25 to 6.15% sodium hypochlorite) in water, about 0.5% working strength, prepared fresh the day of use | Decontamination demonstration and spill drill | | Ethanol | 70% (v/v) in water | Surface disinfection demonstration | | Fluorescent simulation gel or powder | Cosmetic grade, nonpathogenic, nonhazardous | Contamination spread and hand hygiene demonstrations | | Smoke pencil or airflow visualizer wand | Commercial airflow visualization tool | BSC airflow pattern demonstration | | Mock spill kit | Absorbent pads, forceps, sharps container, biohazard bags, gloves and gown, fresh bleach dilution | Spill response drills | | Steam chemical indicator strips | Standard autoclave indicators | Waste treatment demonstration | | Certified shipping containers | UN 3373 (Biological substance, Category B) and UN 2814 (infectious substance, Category A) packing configurations | Packing and labeling drills | | Biosafety risk assessment form | Fields for agent, procedure, aerosol and sharps risk, volume, concentration, containment level, controls | Curriculum blueprint | | Competency matrix | Spreadsheet or LMS module mapping each role to required skills | Needs assessment and record keeping | | Learning management system (LMS) | Software that assigns, tracks, and stores training completion with version control and exportable reports | System of record | | Question banks and skills checklists | One set per module, mapped to learning objectives | Competency verification | | Biohazard signage | Standard biohazard symbol and containment level signs | Facility walkthrough exercises | Safety note. Prepare bleach dilutions fresh, label containers with the preparation date, and never combine bleach with acids or ammonia, because mixing releases toxic chlorine and chloramine gases. Keep 70% ethanol away from open flames. Use only noninfectious simulants in drills, never a viable pathogen or a clinical isolate of unknown identity. ## Biosafety Training Program Development, Step by Step ### Step 1. Charter the program and secure governance Write a one to two page charter and get it signed by the person who controls the budget. The charter states the scope (employees, students, contractors, visiting scientists), the authority (who can stop unsafe work and who approves content), the reporting line, the staffing, and the annual budget. Decide where biosafety sits in the institutional structure. A national benchmarking survey found that Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs), the committees that review and approve work with biohazardous materials, most often reside under the same administrative unit as the animal care and human research committees, while biosafety officers frequently report elsewhere, and only 57% of institutions reported at least one full-time employee supporting the IBC, compared with 83% to 86% for the comparable committees [5]. Whatever structure you choose, the charter must name the owner of the training program. Why this step is critical: staffing and budget are the inputs column of the logic model, and a program without a signed charter loses both in the next budget cycle [1]. ### Step 2. Run a biosafety risk assessment before you write a single slide A biosafety risk assessment is a systematic evaluation of what could cause exposure, how likely it is, and how severe the outcome would be. It weighs agent factors (virulence, infectious dose, routes of transmission, availability of vaccines or treatment), procedure factors (aerosol generation, sharps use, sample volume and concentration, throughput), and the adequacy of existing controls. Walk every bench, list every agent and procedure, assign each to a [biosafety level](/knowledge/diagnostics/emerging-tech/biosafety-levels-1-4-a-comparative-framework-for-diagnostic-laboratory-design) (BSL-1 for well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adults, through BSL-4 for dangerous and exotic agents posing high individual and community risk), and rank the residual risk after controls. The output is a hazard-by-procedure matrix, and that matrix is your training blueprint. Laboratories that embed this work inside enterprise risk management (ERM), a holistic approach to identifying and mitigating interdependent risks across an organization, show strong alignment between risk culture and day-to-day practice, with one survey of medical laboratory professionals reporting a 0.735 correlation between ERM culture and ERM best practices [6]. Why this step is critical: a curriculum written before the risk assessment teaches generic content and misses the exposures that actually exist in your rooms. Risk assessment is the foundation activity on which training, surveillance, and incident response all rest [1]. ### Step 3. Build a competency matrix and a training needs assessment A competency matrix is a table with roles as rows and required skills as columns. Typical rows include microbiology technologists, phlebotomists, students, custodial and facilities staff, and shipping clerks. Typical columns include risk assessment participation, PPE selection, BSC operation, decontamination, spill response, shipping, and waste handling. Fill the matrix from the risk assessment, then assess the current workforce against it with direct observation, interviews, and a gap survey. Codify the expectations rather than leaving them in experienced heads. One academic health institution used a focus group of safety specialists from multiple disciplines to produce a list of 50 basic health and safety items that any safety specialist should know, then used that list as the formal basis for cross-training, an approach staff received positively and that other organizations adopted for their own use [7]. Why this step is critical: needs assessment is the first of the four success factors for a safety training program [2], and it prevents the two classic failures, teaching experts what they already know and never teaching support staff what they do not. ### Step 4. Write measurable learning objectives Give every skill one objective written in condition, behavior, standard format. Example: "Given a 10 mL simulated culture spill outside the cabinet, the trainee will don PPE, cover and disinfect the spill with fresh 0.5% sodium hypochlorite working from the perimeter inward, and complete the incident report, performing the steps in the correct sequence without prompting." Write the test items at the same time as the objectives, one item per objective. Why this step is critical: without objectives you cannot write a fair assessment, and auditors ask to see the chain that links a documented hazard to an objective, a lesson, a test, and a record. ### Step 5. Choose delivery formats and tools Match the format to the skill type. Knowledge content (regulations, agent facts, documentation rules) works as LMS modules or short classroom sessions. Motor skills (cabinet airflow balance, PPE doffing sequence, packing a Category B shipment) require bench-side demonstration followed by a return demonstration, in which the trainee performs the skill back to a qualified observer. Judgment (deciding when a deviation makes a procedure unsafe) requires scenario drills and case discussion. Borrow proven delivery models. A project in Pakistan developed shipping modules aligned with International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations and the Global Biorisk Management Curriculum, then used a train-the-trainer structure across targeted professional cohorts to multiply capacity [8]. Train-the-trainer works when staff numbers are large, sites are dispersed, or delivery in local languages matters. Why this step is critical: a motor skill taught by slide deck is not taught, and a judgment skill taught only by e-learning is not learned. ### Step 6. Build the core module set A standard core for microbiology biosafety training contains eight modules: 1. Risk assessment fundamentals, taught by performing assessments on real bench scenarios. 2. Work practices and PPE, including donning and doffing sequences observed with a checklist. 3. Biological safety cabinet use, including airflow principles, work zoning, and certification basics. 4. Decontamination and waste, including disinfectant selection and contact practice, autoclave indicators, and segregation of sharps and biohazardous waste. 5. Spill and exposure response, drilled with the mock spill kit and a harmless fluorescent simulant. 6. Shipping and transport, covering IATA-based classification, UN 2814 and UN 3373 packing, and documentation. 7. Occupational health linkage, covering immunization expectations, exposure follow-up, and surveillance programs, so training connects to the services that detect and prevent infection, a linkage that matters because uniform knowledge does not by itself produce compliant participation in surveillance [3]. 8. Documentation and biosafety culture, covering records, near-miss reporting, and the shared responsibility that personnel reliability programs in high-containment facilities build on human performance principles [9]. Safety note. Run every drill with a noninfectious simulant such as fluorescent gel, colored buffer, or an attenuated nonpathogenic strain approved in writing by the biosafety officer. Never rehearse with a viable pathogen or an uncharacterized clinical isolate. Why this step is critical: each module maps to a line in the risk assessment, so nothing is taught without a hazard behind it and no identified hazard is left untaught. ### Step 7. Deliver, document, and close the gap Set three delivery triggers: onboarding before first bench access, scheduled refreshers (annual for most roles), and event-triggered retraining after an exposure, a new agent, new equipment, or a protocol change. Schedule cohorts so that 24/7 benches keep coverage, and record every session as name, role, module version, date, and score or observer signature. Why this step is critical: for an auditor, undocumented training does not exist, and the completion data you generate here becomes the activity evidence in your monthly report [1]. ### Step 8. Verify competency, not attendance ![Decision path that sends knowledge, motor skills and judgment to written assessment, observed demonstration or scenario drill.](/article-images/illustrations/biosafety-training-program-development-competency-triage.webp) Use three layers. A written assessment drawn from the objective-mapped question bank measures knowledge. An observed return demonstration against a skills checklist measures hands-on performance. A scenario drill measures judgment under time pressure. Have qualified observers sign the practical checklists, and periodically have two observers score the same performance to check agreement. Multi-site networks can go further and build shared assessment instruments with formal validation, following the model of a laboratory assessment tool developed through a two-round Delphi process (a structured consensus method that iterates anonymous expert rounds) with 24 experts and validated across four national laboratories, yielding 213 items across 11 domains including a 20-item biosafety and biosecurity domain [10]. Why this step is critical: recall tests do not predict gloved performance, so at least one layer of verification must be observed on the floor. ### Step 9. Measure, report, and defend the program Publish a one-page monthly dashboard with three sections. Inputs: staffing hours and budget consumed. Activities: sessions delivered, risk assessments completed, drills run, consults answered. Outcomes: completion rates, assessment pass rates, reported exposures, near misses, audit findings. The logic model approach exists because biosafety faces a communication problem, on a good day nothing bad happens, so the value of prevention must be shown with captured and readily presented data that leadership and safety committees can grasp at a glance [1]. Why this step is critical: programs that cannot show their value in data get cut in lean years, and the same data tells you which modules are failing before an incident does. ### Step 10. Plan the pivot before the crisis arrives Catalog your training tasks now, in calm conditions, using the three categories that emerged when one university biosafety program pivoted for COVID-19: tasks that were temporarily diminished, tasks that had to continue for safety or compliance despite shutdowns, and tasks that dramatically increased in volume and novelty [11]. For a typical program, onboarding and shipping certification fall in the must-continue column, annual generic refreshers can pause, and any training on new diagnostic protocols or surge staffing will spike. Write the resulting pivot plan into the charter. Why this step is critical: the next disruption is a matter of when, and a pre-cataloged task list turns a scramble into a checklist [11]. ### Step 11. Audit, benchmark, and improve Once a year, audit the program against itself and against the outside world. Internally, use standards-based checklists covering facilities, practices, records, and training, then summarize the findings in a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, the mixed methods approach used to assess 122 standards of inpatient tuberculosis service quality [12]. Externally, compare your practices and regulatory framework against recognized frameworks and other jurisdictions, the systematic gap-analysis method used to expose decentralized oversight and inconsistent adherence in one comparison of national high-containment laboratory regulations [13]. Feed every finding into next year's objectives. Why this step is critical: continual improvement is the fourth success factor of a durable safety training program [2], and content decays as agents, equipment, and staff turn over. ## Controls and Quality Checks A training program needs its own controls, the same way an assay does. - Pre-training baseline. New staff take the written assessment before instruction. This sets the floor, detects item problems, and documents the knowledge gap the program closes. - Expert benchmark. A senior biosafety professional performs each practical checklist once, on video or in person, to define correct performance. - Inter-rater agreement. Two observers independently score the same return demonstration at least quarterly. Divergence means the checklist wording is ambiguous and needs revision. - Item analysis. A question everyone answers correctly is trivial or poorly written. A question everyone fails points to a teaching gap, not a staff defect. - Mock audit. Ask someone outside the program to inspect records against the curriculum map once a year. - Version control. Every deck, checklist, and test carries a version number and effective date, so any record can be matched to the exact content delivered. ## Expected Results and How to Read Them ![Four-phase timeline from charter and risk assessment through first annual cycle to outcome movement at 12 to 24 months.](/article-images/illustrations/biosafety-training-program-development-program-timeline.webp) Months 0 to 3: charter signed, risk assessment matrix complete, competency matrix drafted. If the matrix lists more than about 40 distinct skills for a small laboratory, you are listing tasks rather than competencies, and the matrix needs consolidation. Months 3 to 6: core modules live, first onboarding cohort through, first drills run. Completion for the first cohort should approach 100% because attendance is scheduled, not voluntary. Months 6 to 12: first full annual cycle complete, dashboard running, first mock audit done. Expect written assessment pass rates to rise after one correction cycle, and expect the first round of practical checklists to expose sequence errors that written tests never showed. Months 12 to 24: outcome movement. Read the dashboard the way the logic model intends [1]. Leading indicators (completion rates, pass rates, drill performance, near-miss reports) move first. Lagging indicators (reported exposures, audit findings) follow. A healthy program shows high and stable completion, stable or falling near-miss counts with better report quality (people describe what happened rather than hiding it), and falling audit findings. Rising drill failures with stable test scores mean the content and the bench have drifted apart, and the risk assessment is due for review. ## Troubleshooting | Symptom | Likely cause | Fix | |--|--|--| | Chronic no-shows and low attendance | Training treated as optional, no consequence for absence | Tie bench access and annual review to completion, offer short repeat sessions on multiple shifts | | High written scores but poor bench practice | Assessment measures recall, not behavior | Add observed return demonstrations and unannounced spot checks | | Complaints that content is too basic or too advanced | Single-tier curriculum for all roles | Split content into risk tiers using the competency matrix | | Records missing when the auditor arrives | Documentation scattered across email, paper logs, and drives | Designate one LMS as the system of record, set a retention schedule, reconcile monthly | | Staff cannot complete a risk assessment unaided | Risk assessment taught as paperwork rather than practiced | Replace lecture with scenario exercises using real bench examples | | New agent or instrument arrives with no training | No change trigger linking procurement to curriculum | Require biosafety sign-off on new protocols and equipment before first use | | High turnover keeps eroding competence | Onboarding depends on one busy trainer | Run a standing monthly cohort, assign buddies, record core modules | | Leadership questions the program's value | No regular reporting of inputs, activities, and outcomes | Send a one-page monthly dashboard modeled on the logic model [1] | | Key staff misunderstand written modules | Materials exist only in dense English text | Translate key modules, add pictograms, use demonstration-based delivery for targeted cohorts [8] | ## Variations for Different Laboratory Settings ### Small clinical laboratories A two-to-ten person laboratory can run a minimum viable program on a spreadsheet. The essentials are a signed charter letter from the director, one risk assessment per bench, four modules (work practices and PPE, BSC use, spill and exposure response, waste and decontamination), paper or spreadsheet records with signatures, and a 15-minute drill each quarter. Skip the LMS until the record count outgrows the binder. ### High-containment programs (BSL-3 and above) Add a personnel reliability layer. The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center implemented a Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) built on human performance principles to enable a culture of responsibility, maintain regulatory compliance, and address insider threat risk, supplementing the FBI security risk assessment and the pre-access suitability assessment and ongoing evaluation required in federal regulations for Tier 1 biological select agents and toxins (BSAT) [9]. Practical translation: suitability screening before access, ongoing peer evaluation, and drills for entry, exit, and emergency egress. Technique-specific work needs its own modules, for example a validated BSL-3 cryo-electron tomography workflow for SARS-CoV-2 integrates facility design, containment measures, sample handling, cryo-transfer, and decontamination into one rehearsed sequence [14]. Safety note. In containment spaces, every training drill itself requires a risk assessment, because drills move people, equipment, and simulants through entry and exit procedures where errors carry consequences. ### Shipping-heavy programs If specimens leave the building, shipping training is a compliance requirement for classified dangerous goods under IATA rules, and the baseline can be grim. Before a targeted national project in Pakistan, only 1.29% of surveyed institutions offered any training in shipping infectious substances, which motivated a two-year series of workshops built on IATA regulations and the Global Biorisk Management Curriculum with a train-the-trainer structure [8]. Build an annual hands-on packing session with certified containers and keep the written test in the records. ### Research institutions with IBC oversight Link the curriculum to IBC protocol approvals so each approved protocol automatically generates its training requirements. Many IBCs review work beyond the minimum required by the NIH Guidelines, which makes the linkage worth building [5]. Digital tools reduce the documentation burden, for example the GMOCU software unifies laboratory documentation of genetic parts and genetically modified organisms, automates biological risk evaluation, and exports records in formats suitable for official biosafety documents [15]. ### Enterprise risk integration Fold training metrics into the laboratory's ERM register so biosafety competencies sit beside testing errors, equipment failures, and financial risks in a single governance view, the integration associated with strong alignment between risk culture and practice [6]. ### Multi-site networks and consortia Networks can pool development effort and build shared, formally validated assessment instruments modeled on published Delphi-derived laboratory assessment tools [10], then compare site-level results to find where content or delivery is failing. ## Records, Retention, and Content Stability Records are the part of the program that outlives every trainer. Keep the following stable. - Retention. Keep one record per person per module with name, role, module version, completion date, and score or observer signature. Retain records for the duration of employment plus whatever interval your accreditation body or regulator specifies. - Version control. Every deck, checklist, and test carries a version number and effective date. Retire old versions to an archive folder with their dates so historical records stay interpretable. - Review cycle. Review content annually, aligned with the risk assessment review. Retire modules whose hazard has disappeared, and archive them rather than deleting. - Retraining triggers. List them explicitly in the charter: exposure incident, spill with loss of containment, new agent, new equipment, protocol change, failed competency, extended absence. - Backups. Export LMS data on a schedule and store a copy outside the system, because a single point of failure can erase years of compliance history. ## Biosafety Training Program Development Tips - Anchor every module to a documented hazard from your own risk assessment. - Teach risk assessment by doing it on real bench scenarios, not by describing it. - Put hands-on demonstrations at the actual cabinet, not in a classroom. - Prefer short, repeated sessions over one long annual event. - Write the assessment before the slides, then build slides that answer the questions. - Recruit bench-level champions as trainers because they speak the audience's language. - Report to leadership every month, even in a null month, because prevention is invisible without data. - Rehearse the crisis pivot while things are calm. ## Common Mistakes and Limitations ### Common mistakes 1. Writing the curriculum before the risk assessment exists. Generic content misses your actual exposures, and auditors notice the missing linkage. 2. Equating attendance with competency. A sign-in sheet proves presence, not ability. 3. One deck for everyone from phlebotomy to BSL-3. Tier content by role and risk. 4. No written learning objectives. Without them there is no defensible test and no audit trail. 5. Documentation scattered across inboxes and binders. Pick one system of record. 6. Ignoring occupational health. Immunization and surveillance belong inside the program, and the gap between knowledge and compliance shows up here first. 7. Reporting only when asked. Programs without monthly visibility get cut quietly. 8. Treating the annual refresher as the whole program. Initial, refresher, and event-triggered training are three different jobs. 9. Never drilling. Spills and exposures happen under stress, and stress is rehearsed, never read. 10. Letting content outlive the hazard. Retire modules when the agent, instrument, or procedure disappears. ### Limitations This guide describes program architecture, not agent-specific protocols. Containment requirements, select agent rules, shipping classifications, and record retention intervals vary by jurisdiction, agent, and institution, and the correct determination for a specific laboratory belongs to its institutional biosafety officer working under applicable regulations. Individual exposure incidents and occupational health decisions require evaluation by qualified medical and safety professionals. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is a biosafety training program? A structured, documented system that teaches everyone who handles biological material to recognize the hazards in their specific work and perform the controls that reduce risk. It combines a curriculum built from biosafety risk assessments, scheduled delivery, competency verification, and records that satisfy auditors. ### How long does biosafety training program development take? A single-site laboratory typically needs several months from signed charter to the first completed training cycle, with the largest time investments in the risk assessment and module writing. Institutions with committee governance or high-containment space should plan on a year or more of elapsed time. ### How often should microbiology biosafety training be refreshed? Provide initial training before first bench access, a refresher at least annually, and event-triggered retraining after incidents, new agents, new equipment, or protocol changes. Shipping and high-containment roles often carry their own regulatory recertification intervals on top of the annual cycle. ### What does a biosafety risk assessment include? Agent factors such as virulence, infectious dose, and transmission route, procedure factors such as aerosol and sharps generation, and an evaluation of whether existing controls leave acceptable residual risk. The ranked results become the training blueprint. ### How do I prove training worked rather than just occurred? Verify with three layers, a written assessment for knowledge, an observed return demonstration for hands-on skills, and a scenario drill for judgment. Keep the score or observer signature together with the module version and date in one system of record. ### Which topics belong in the core curriculum? Risk assessment fundamentals, work practices and PPE, biological safety cabinet use, decontamination and waste, spill and exposure response, shipping of infectious substances, occupational health linkage, and documentation. Add or remove modules based on your own risk assessment rather than a generic template. ### How should training records be kept for audits? Store one record per person per module containing name, role, module version, completion date, and score or observer signature, in a single versioned system with scheduled backups. Reconcile the records monthly so gaps surface before an inspector finds them. ### How do I keep training running during a crisis or staffing shortage? Catalog training tasks in advance into three groups, those that can pause, those that must continue for safety or compliance, and those that will surge. Pre-script the pivot in the program charter so the decision becomes a checklist rather than a debate. ## Sources 1. [Articulating Biosafety Program Activities in the Context of a Simplified Public Health Logic Model.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42205887/) 2. [Establishing and Maintaining a Safety Training Program at Scientific Institutions.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42643102/) 3. [Non-compliance with health surveillance is a matter of Biosafety: a survey of latent tuberculosis infection in a highly endemic setting.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22021753/) 4. [Biosafety Management Practices Among Clinical Laboratory Professionals in Debre Berhan Town Governmental Hospitals, Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39872910/) 5. [The Evolving Landscape of Institutional Biosafety Committees and Biosafety Programs: Results from a National Survey on Organizational Structure, Resources, and Practices.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36032060/) 6. [Evaluating the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Medical Laboratory Professionals Towards Implementing Enterprise Risk Management in Harare, Zimbabwe: A Cross-Sectional Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40524718/) 7. [A Means of Codifying Safety Cross-Training Knowledge Expectations for Biosafety Professionals.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36895578/) 8. [Enhancing Compliance: Tailored Training on IATA Regulations for Shipping Infectious Substances and Biological Specimens for Targeted Cohorts in Pakistan.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42205886/) 9. [Implementation of a personnel reliability program as a facilitator of biosafety and biosecurity culture in BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23745523/) 10. [Development and Validation of a Tobacco Testing Laboratories Assessment Tool.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41202037/) 11. [Pivoting the Biosafety Program in Response to COVID-19: Recommendations of Key Services and Tasks to Consider for the Next Pandemic.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36779201/) 12. [Quality of Inpatient Tuberculosis Health Care in High-Burden Resource-Limited Settings: Protocol for a Comprehensive Mixed Methods Assessment Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31909722/) 13. [Comparison of Brazilian High- and Maximum-Containment Laboratories Biosafety and Biosecurity Regulations to Legal Frameworks in the United States and Other Countries: Gaps and Opportunities.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38434103/) 14. [Biosafety level-3 cryo-electron tomography of active severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virions.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42989482/) 15. [GMOCU: Digital Documentation, Management, and Biological Risk Assessment of Genetic Parts.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38263723/)