Linking RRI to EHS in the U.S. Context
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) emerged in the European Union around 2010 as a framework to align science and technology with societal values, ethical standards, and sustainability goals [1]. While the United States does not formally use the term “RRI,” its principles are embedded in many federal regulations and oversight mechanisms.
Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) offices are at the center of this work. By ensuring compliance with standards from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and other agencies involved with the work environment, EHS teams translate RRI’s high-level principles into day-to-day practices [2] [3] [6] [7]. Their work protects research personnel, the public, animals, and the environment while fostering trust in scientific progress.
The Purpose of Responsible Research
At its core, responsible research emphasizes ethics, sustainability, and accountability. RRI was formalized in European policy through Horizon 2020 and focuses on aligning research outcomes with societal needs through engagement, governance, and foresight [1]. Recent scholarship highlights a “decoupling dilemma,” where the concept of inclusion risks being used as a broad impact measure rather than staying anchored in equity and justice for marginalized groups [2].
In the U.S., responsibility is embedded not through a single RRI framework, but through a patchwork of regulatory standards, compliance obligations, and ethical codes. EHS offices play a central role in uniting these requirements. Their work includes:
- Identifying hazards and assessing risk levels [4].
- Implementing controls to minimize risks to people and the environment.
- Supporting oversight committees like Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).
- Ensuring alignment with best-practice laboratory standards such as Prudent Practices in the Laboratory [5].
In this way, EHS teams embody the purpose of responsible research while ensuring that discovery and innovation occur without compromising health, safety, or public trust.
EHS Across the Research Lifecycle
Research Design: Building Safety into Proposals
EHS involvement begins before the first experiment. During research planning, EHS staff conduct hazard assessments, evaluate containment needs, waste stream, and review risk management strategies. Their findings support oversight committees such as IBCs, which review recombinant and synthetic nucleic acid research [8], and IACUCs, which evaluate the humane use of animals [9].
By embedding safety and ethics into protocols early, EHS helps ensure that projects not only meet regulatory requirements but also reflect RRI principles of anticipation and governance. This proactive approach saves time, resources, and reputational risk later in the research process.
Research Execution: Training, Monitoring, and Compliance
Once a study begins, EHS responsibilities expand to include:
- Training research staff on hazard awareness and protective practices [4].
- Monitoring laboratories for compliance with OSHA standards, such as those addressing chemical hazards, biological risks, and ionizing radiation [4] [7].
- Managing hazardous materials and waste to reduce risks of environmental contamination [5].
- Coordinating with EPA programs, such as Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), which tie safe laboratory operations directly to the credibility and reliability of submitted data [6].
Through these measures, EHS ensures that compliance is not just a bureaucratic requirement but a foundation for valid, trustworthy, and ethically defensible research.
Ongoing Monitoring: Continuous Improvement and Accountability
EHS engagement does not stop once research is underway. Offices conduct audits, inspections, and corrective action tracking to identify gaps and ensure that hazards are managed over time [2].
In radiation-related research, for example, OSHA’s ionizing radiation standards set dose limits for workers, require personal monitoring (such as dosimeters), and mandate hazard postings [7]. Similarly, NRC requirements for radioactive materials and OSHA rules for non-NRC sources establish a multilayered system of protections.
This continuous monitoring embodies the RRI principle of reflexivity by assessing whether current practices align with both regulatory expectations and societal values.
Oversight Committees: IBC, IACUC, and Beyond
Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs)
NIH guidelines require IBCs at institutions conducting recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid research. These committees ensure containment, monitor compliance, and evaluate risks to researchers and the community [8]. EHS offices provide critical expertise, aligning laboratory practices with biosafety protocols and serving as liaisons between researchers and regulators.
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs)
IACUCs oversee programs of animal care and use, including protocol review, semiannual evaluations, and facility inspections [9]. EHS staff collaborate with IACUCs to implement occupational health and safety programs, ensure staff are appropriately trained, and support disaster preparedness plans that safeguard both animals and personnel.
AAALAC International Accreditation
Beyond federally mandated committees, voluntary accreditation through AAALAC International provides institutions with a benchmark of excellence. AAALAC uses three primary standards—the NRC’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Ag Guide, and the European Convention on Vertebrate Animals—as well as position statements and guidance documents to evaluate programs [10]. Institutions that pursue AAALAC accreditation demonstrate their commitment to global best practices and the values of RRI.
Societal Relevance: Beyond Compliance to Stewardship
Responsible research is not only about protecting laboratory staff, it is about upholding public trust and protecting ecosystems. EHS offices help institutions demonstrate their commitment to transparency, accountability, and sustainability.
Examples include:
- Real-time monitoring systems for air and water quality in laboratories and surrounding communities [5].
- Occupational health programs that protect not only employees but also the families and communities connected to them [9].
- Integration of sustainability practices, such as energy-efficient laboratories and responsible waste management, that minimize research’s environmental footprint.
In doing so, EHS bridges the gap between compliance and stewardship. This aligns with RRI’s call to anticipate long-term societal impacts and to ensure that science is conducted with both responsibility and foresight [1,2].
EHS as a Foundation of Responsible Research
Environmental Health and Safety offices are more than compliance checkpoints, they are enablers of responsible innovation. By embedding safety and ethics into project design, execution, and monitoring, EHS teams ensure that research progresses without compromising human health, animal welfare, or environmental integrity.
Through collaboration with oversight committees, alignment with OSHA, EPA, and NRC standards, and integration of best practices like Prudent Practices and AAALAC accreditation, EHS translates RRI principles into daily operations. Their work protects not only laboratories but also the communities and ecosystems touched by science.
Ultimately, EHS fosters the trust, transparency, and accountability that make research both innovative and responsible.
References
1. von Schomberg, René. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen and John Bessant, 51–74. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2. Kalliomäki, Helka, Johanna Kalliokoski, Thomas Woodson, Leena Kunttu, and Jari Kuusisto. 2024. “Inclusion as a Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Objective in High-Income Countries: The Decoupling Dilemma.” Science and Public Policy 51 (5): 795–807.
3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2025. “Employer Responsibilities.” OSHA. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.osha.gov/workers/employer-responsibilities.
4. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Safety Management – Hazard Identification and Assessment.” OSHA. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/hazard-identification.
5 .National Research Council. 2011. Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55873/.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “Good Laboratory Practices Standards Compliance Monitoring Program.” EPA. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/compliance/good-laboratory-practices-standards-compliance-monitoring-program.
7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Ionizing Radiation – Standards.” OSHA. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.osha.gov/ionizing-radiation/standards.
8. National Institutes of Health, Office of Science Policy (NIH OSP). 2024. “FAQs on Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) Administration – April 2024. https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/biosafety-and-biosecurity-policy/faqs-on-institutional-biosafety-committee-ibc-administration-april-2024/.
9. National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). n.d. “Program of Animal Care & Use.” NIH OLAW. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/animal.htm.
10. AAALAC International. n.d. “Accreditation Standards Overview.” AAALAC International. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.aaalac.org/accreditation-standards/accreditation-standards-overview/.
