Unexpected Risks, Planned Solutions: Safety in Lab Design
When an explosion ripped through a fourth-floor hallway in Harvard Medical School’s Goldenson Building earlier this month, the immediate shock was followed by a wave of relief: no injuries, no structural damage, and all research labs remained intact. Authorities say two men intentionally set off a large commercial firework inside a laboratory locker in the early morning hours. Rapid response from first responders and good fortune prevented far more serious consequences.
While the incident was criminal in nature, it highlights a reality that every lab planner, architect, and facility manager must face: unexpected events—whether accidental or intentional—can and will happen. The question is not whether labs can be made risk-free, but whether they can be designed and managed to limit the impact when people behave unpredictably.
To explore how organizations can better prepare their research facilities, Lab Design News spoke with laboratory safety expert Dan Scungio, MT (ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ), about the physical, behavioral, and operational design strategies that create safer laboratory environments. His guidance underscores that thoughtful planning is one of the most powerful tools for preventing minor incidents from becoming catastrophic ones.
Designing access control as a first line of defense
One of the most evident lessons from an event like the Harvard explosion is the importance of limiting who can enter and what they can reach. “One of the simplest truths in laboratory safety is that you can’t misuse what you can’t access,” says Scungio. “Good lab design starts with a systematic control of who can get in, what can be reached, and how materials are secured once inside.”
That means thoughtful layering of protections: secured building entry, badge-controlled research suites, and clear sightlines that allow staff to confirm who belongs in a space. Storage must also be intentional. As he notes, “Sensitive materials—flammables, compressed gases, reactive chemicals—should be stored in code-compliant, lockable units that are anchored, ventilated when required, and never tucked into remote alcoves where suspicious activity can go unnoticed. The key is designing environments where unauthorized access is difficult, delayed, or obvious to observers. The Harvard incident taught us that prevention is just as much a physical design issue as a policy issue.”
Scungio’s perspective reinforces a shift occurring across academic and research institutions: physical access control is no longer viewed as a purely security-driven decision. It is now recognized as a foundational component of safety.
Building passive safety into materials and infrastructure
Even with controlled access, labs must be resilient to accidents and misuse. The materials chosen for casework, flooring, benchtops, and storage can either hinder or accelerate damage during an unexpected event.
“In labs, the furniture is a part of the safety system,” Scungio explains. Fire-resistant surfaces, NFPA-compliant flammable storage, seismic-rated shelving, and spark-resistant materials all contribute to reducing fire load and ignition risk. Even small architectural details matter: “Even the flooring matters: seamless, chemical-resistant flooring reduces the spread of spills and makes cleanup safer and faster.”
“When architects select materials that minimize ignition sources and limit the potential fire load, they’re essentially creating a passive safety strategy—one that continues working 24/7 whether people remember a rule or not,” Scungio adds.
In a scenario like Harvard’s incident, where a firework exploded inside a wooden locker, the fact that the surrounding environment remained intact illustrates how material selection can limit the spread of damage.
Rapid detection is often the difference between an incident and a disaster. Scungio reminds planners that “good design should ensure no hazard can smolder or escalate without someone—or something—knowing about it quickly.” That includes fire detection, air-monitoring systems, and thoughtful placement of emergency equipment.
“Clear, unobstructed paths to fire extinguishers, eyewashes, and showers are also part of ‘detect and respond’ because people under stress need obvious routes and immediate access,” he notes. “Even placing emergency shut-offs in highly visible—and reachable—locations can shave precious seconds off a response. Smart labs are built so that the space itself helps raise the alarm and guide people to safety.”
Low-cost improvements can have a high impact
Not every safety upgrade requires major construction. Many labs operate in decades-old facilities, and research interruptions are costly. Scungio emphasizes that “some of the most meaningful upgrades in labs can be modest: adding convex mirrors or glass sidelights at corridor intersections to reduce collisions; improving lighting so hazards are more visible; installing better signage and floor marking to designate chemical zones; adding magnetic door catches to prevent propping; or reorganizing storage so incompatible chemicals aren’t wedged together on a high shelf. Even something as simple as increasing the number of pass-through cabinets or upgrading to lockable under-bench storage can prevent the misuse of materials.”
These smaller interventions influence culture as much as safety. “Staff notice when the environment is thoughtfully maintained, and their behaviors tend to follow,” Scungio notes.
Legacy buildings remain a fixture across universities and industry campuses, and they can pose special challenges during renovations. As Scungio says, “Older labs often have strong bones but outdated safety DNA.”
Rather than shutting a building down, phased renovations and modular casework allow operations to continue while improvements are made. “When working in an active research environment, the challenge is making meaningful improvements without sending everyone home for six months. Phased renovation plans work best to make sure the lab work is not interrupted,” Scungio says. He notes that modular casework can work well for a renovation project, as project teams can “reconfigure storage, create separation for hazardous processes, or carve out equipment zones without moving walls.”
Retrofitting fire-rated doors, upgrading wall linings, or adding seismic bracing can all be scheduled in off-hours or small sections. “Ultimately, safety renovations succeed when planners treat the existing lab like a living organism: strengthen it gradually, keep it operational, and ensure every intervention reduces risk without overwhelming the laboratory mission.”
Designing for safer human behavior
Infrastructure alone cannot prevent every incident. Lab users’ habits and behaviors play a powerful role in risk reduction, and the physical environment can shape those behaviors.
“People generally take the path of least resistance, and I always stress that if we want people to do the right (and safe) thing, we need to make it easy for them to do so,” says Scungio. “Smart lab design makes the safe path the easy path.”
Placing PPE in unavoidable entry locations, improving visibility of eyewash stations, and designing “transparent labs” with open sightlines are all examples of passive behavioral nudges. “Thoughtful design creates a set of gentle nudges that guide users toward safer choices without saying a single word.”
Finally, Scungio underscores that well-designed labs acknowledge that accidents—or intentional acts—are possible. Ventilation, egress paths, and zoning for high-risk activities must be structured to minimize the impact of an event. “Good zoning keeps trouble in its lane,” he says, particularly for cryogenics, energetic chemicals, radiation, and high-pressure systems.
“When planners view the lab as a collection of micro-environments rather than one big open box, they can tailor ventilation, controls, and layout to minimize the impact of any incident, intentional or otherwise.”
