Originally published on April 27, 2020
///
A little over a month ago, Universities across the world
rapidly ramped down their research as Stay Home orders became a reality. Some
did so within less than 24 hours. Labs were shut. Staff were sent home. Labs
that had Continuity of Operation plans in place were better prepared to shut
down. Most universities allowed only essential staff in labs to perform
procedures necessary to maintain critical research infrastructure (e.g. feeding
lab animals, maintaining cell cultures, ensuring that critical equipment would
remain safe) as well as allowing research that if paused could harm research
subjects .
Most universities quickly developed processes for
researchers to request exemptions to Stay Home orders to allow for critical
research, such as finding a vaccine or cure, to continue. But very few
researchers fall under such exemptions. For the vast majority of researchers,
shutting down their lab for weeks has been devastating. And it is not just
labs. Research in the arts and humanities relies heavily on archives,
artefacts, libraries, and studio access. It is thus no wonder that after weeks
of staying at home, university leadership feel the pressure to open the campus
for research again. For most universities, research will be the first to come
back on campus.
Any approach to opening the research enterprise should be
focused on protecting faculty, students and staff engaged in research
activities. Here are some suggestions on what to think about as universities
reopen their research laboratories.
Researchers will return on campus while COVID-19 infections
are still going on in their communities and the opening up of university
research activities needs to follow any current local Stay Home orders.
Research that can be done remotely should continue to do so.
Similarly, all lab meetings should continue to be held remotely (online). No
one should come on campus who has any of the symptoms that are associated with
COVID-19 or knows that they have been in contact with someone during the past
two weeks who is lab-confirmed to have an active case of COVID-19. Taking one’s
temperature prior to coming to work is a must and staying at home if the
temperature exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit should be an obvious rule.
To reduce the risk of becoming a hotspot for an outbreak,
university leaders need to slow the return of researchers and implement rules
to minimize the number of contacts each individual has on campus. A staged
approach is best and maintaining social distancing is an absolute must.
When coming to campus is necessary, lab members need to
develop a work schedule that minimizes the number of different contacts each of
the members has with others, for instance, through a staggered work schedule
where lab members do not rotate among shifts. Everyone should keep a list of
who they are in contact with to facilitate contact tracing if a lab member
becomes infected with the coronavirus.
Reducing the density of lab members can become a safety
issue when lab members who previously worked in teams are asked to work by
themselves. To reduce the risk, anyone working alone in a lab environment
should inform another lab member at the beginning and end of the shift, and if
the call at the end of the shift doesn’t come, a plan should be in place of who
to call next (after checking whether the person simply forgot to call or lost
time and is still working in the lab).
Labs are often not very large and sharing the same enclosed
space for hours increases the risk. Requiring the wearing of masks, frequent
hand washing with soap, practicing social distancing, and reducing the density
of lab members by not having all lab members be present at the same time should
be a must for everyone. The same goes for disinfecting equipment and devices,
lab benches, doorknobs, other frequently touched surfaces. Microwaves, water
coolers, and other equipment that is shared during breaks need to be
disinfected as well in between usage.
University leadership needs to be clear who is responsible
to procure masks, gloves, and other protective equipment, in addition to hand
sanitizers and other disinfectant cleaning materials. Considering the immense
logistic issue of procuring these for an entire campus for months to come, this
responsibility might be best left to each individual PI. If the PI cannot
procure protective equipment or disinfectants at a quantity that is sufficient
to conduct research, they should not be allowed back on campus.
Core facilities may be particularly vulnerable to become a
source of infections as staff in core facilities may find themselves
interacting with a large number of other individuals who may change daily. If
interactions are not necessary, they should be avoided. Consultations can often
be done online and if interpersonal interactions are required, all current
protective strategies should continue to be employed.
Human subject research requires special attention. Whether
or not a University allows human subject research where subjects come on campus
or are met by investigators off campus and what kind of interactions are
allowed needs to be clearly articulated. It might be OK to bring someone on
campus as long as the person is not a minor or belongs to a vulnerable
population but holding focus groups may be too early.
Finally, a communication plan must be in place so that
everyone who needs to know knows who is on campus. Departments and colleges
need to know to control the overall density in their research spaces. Each
university has a department responsible for Health & Safety. They need to
know who is coming on campus to provide the necessary level of support,
especially if they only maintained a skeleton crew on campus while the campus
was closed.
Random checks by institutional officials might be in order
to make sure that labs follow the rules.
We recommend that every PI is required to complete a simple
form where they list everyone from their group who is planning to be on campus
and which rooms they plan to use. The form should include a certification step
to indicate that the PI and other lab members who plan to be on campus read the
guidelines and rules and will abide by them. Depending on the type of research,
they may need to contact the Department for Environmental Health and Safety as
well. The form needs to be routed to the Department Chair, Dean, VP for
Research and Provost for approval to make sure the plans comply with
institutional requirements for conducting research under these conditions.
Lastly, not everyone will feel comfortable to return and to
share lab space with others. Lack of childcare or living with others who are
vulnerable adds to the discomfort of returning or may make it just not
feasible. University leaders need to clearly articulate that it is the
University’s priority to not only keep people safe but also making it clear to
everyone that nobody should be compelled to return to campus while restrictions
are still in place, regardless of the reasons. It is easy for PIs who are too
eager to return to put undue pressure, knowingly or not, on lab members, in
particular graduate students, who may fear that refusal to come on campus will
have negative consequences for their future. Being clear that coercion is not
tolerated and that individuals can file confidential reports using the standard
processes if they still feel uncomfortable after talking with their supervisor
can go a long way to make everyone feel comfortable voicing their unease about
coming to campus, for whatever reasons.
A statement to this effect could be added to the form that the PI has to
fill out to gain approval to reopen the laboratory and thus certify that they
made their lab members aware of the hotline to file a confidential report.