The study (Satterfield, et al.) I found in Nature Nano was published in the
Articles section while the Spanish safety (Balas, et al.) article is in the
Commentary Section … neither is as formal as I would expect…I gather
Nature likes a ‘sexier’ format…the Lee study was formatted as I would
expect…

1. The abstract for the Satterfield study is substantive and fits the
standard as opposed to the abstract in the Balas study. (which as you, Andrew, noted
reads like a subhead designed to grab attention)…the Lee study (the one
published in a standard social science journal) also has a substantive,
standard abstract…

2. The Balas study has a brief introduction then plunges into the data
(first para: “We find that only 10% of …), then supplies some context
although it is not substantive, then gives data and so on…both the
Satterfield study and the Lee study supply substantive context for the data
they are about to discuss…

Back to Balas, I would expect to see some discussion of general safety
practices in labs, i.e., studies that have been conducted of safety
practices and knowledge of safety guidelines/regulations in labs. On the
first page, they note that about 90% of the respondents either were not
aware or did not think there were regulations. (as you noted that question
has a problematic conflation which I probably would have missed) but the
question arises, so how aware are most lab researchers of regulations?
Theoretically that 90% they cite could be true of any lab, not just a
nanotechnology lab.

This was probably one of the things that bothered me most about the Balas
study, there’s no way to contextualize it within a body of work. Granted,
nanotechnology is new but laboratory safety practices and regulations are
not.

3. I would expect (and prefer) to see the methodology after the discussion
about the other work in the field (what I’ve called contextualizing) as it
makes it easier to analyze the data and conclusions. Neither the Satterfield
nor the Balas studies followed that format; they both placed their
methodologies at the end of their respective studies.

4. Contrary to my supposition, they did pretest the questionnaire for the
Balas study at three different institutions. I’m glad to see that, although
I do wonder if the three institutions were all in one country or region or
the same type of institution. It’s best to get respondents who are not too
similar to each other or the individuals developing the questionnaire.

5. Finally, I’d expect the researchers to thoroughly discuss the limitations
(and strengths) of their study and propose improvements, refinements and/or
new directions for future studies. The Balas study does not.

One of their weaknesses was the reliance on self-reported data. If the researchers don’t have the financial means to address that limitation by conducting interviews
(usually by telephone) and using the same questions although they might want to add some more open-ended questions for additional qualitative data) then they could make the suggestion for a future study. There are other alternatives but what’s striking with the Balas study data is that it is used as confirmation for what appears to be a foregone conclusion. e.g. “The results of the survey indicate that the environmental health and safety practice in many research laboratories worldwide is lacking in several important aspects, and several reasons may contribute to this.” This sweeping statement may be true in principle but is not supported by the data
gathered in this study.

Sorry I’ve gone on so long but, for the record, there are some serious problems
with the Balas study. It is not well conceived work and should be criticized
for that.

PS: I’m not sure if it’s due to pressure or if it’s a trend but I am seeing
more scientists and social scientist come in with grand conclusions and
broad, sweeping statements in what seems to be an effort draw attention to
the work. If I remember rightly, you’ve commented on this in the past
Andrew.

On the question of laboratory protection, there was built in bias to the question as to what is appropriate. Local extraction will not always be necessary or appropriate when handling small quantities of nanomaterials – especially fine powders that are easily disturbed by local air flows.

Overall, I had three overriding concerns associated with this paper:

The language in the survey was vague and unclear – the kiss of death on a quantitative survey

Insufficient information was collected on the context within which researchers were handling nanomaterials (especially the amounts of materials being handled), making it very difficult to interpret the data.

There seems to be a tendency to accept the paper because it supports a predetermined position, rather than because the research is sound. This is politics I’m afraid, not science.

I have to wonder – if a study with a similarly imprecise survey concluded that lab practices were good, would people be so supportive of it?

I tend to agree with many of your postings, but in this case, after reading the paper in Nature Nanotechnology, I think most of your critics are not justified. For instance, your comment on the use of the phrase “mouth mask without filters” instead of “N95 respirator” – N95 is a USA term, not a universal term, the equivalent respirator in Europe for instance is called FFP2, and in Australia P2 and Japan DS1. If I was doing a worldwide survey, I would choose a term that everyone would understand therefore in this case “mouth mask without filters” sounds pretty good to me.
Another example: you object to the authors identification of “no special protection” in a situation where no general laboratory protection was used. Looking at the available options, I think the authors are right again: if a laboratory does not use “local extraction on lab bench, or standard fume hood or fume hood with nanosized filters or special nanosafe fume hood” to me, it means that no general protection was used. Additionally, in looking at the survey, I saw that each person was given a space “other (please specify)” if they felt that a proper response was unavailable.

In summary, we should be careful of over-criticism of a useful piece of work and of the journals that publish such papers.

Perhaps as you say this survey, despite, or perhaps because of its shortcomings, will inspire greater attention to this area. This is a study which should have been funded by governments or international organisations much earlier, so though the organisation seems not to have represented this issue was well as would be hoped, good on them for taking it on and drawing attention to the need for more information and guidance in this important area.