[Publication on Safety Journal]
- Interview with CEO, Ulf Nehrbass

Q) What was the first impression on the safety culture and system in Korea at early years in Institut Pasteur Korea?
A) The first impression was clearly that safety here was a work in progress. Working in BSL3 high security environments was clearly a new chapter in research here in KOrea. This does not mean that from the Korean scientific community and the official side it was a topic that was not taken seriously. To the contrary, there has been a very open dialogue with all parties to implement the best possible safety regulations around BSL3. Eventually, IP-K together with IVI were the first BSL3 laboratories to open in Korea, and in the meantime I would think there is a routine in handling safety issues in the same level as in eg France, both practically and theoretically.

Q) What would be fundamental difference between safety systems in Korea and other developed countries? Please distinguish the safety system of Korea from the ones of in Europe based on your previous careers.
A) I think at this point there is no difference. In the initial phase there was some confusion with benchmarking the right system, some elements were taken from NIH others from Europe, like Pasteur, and rules and regulations sometimes changed suddenly. I think this is normal during the phase of setting up a system from scratch. But as I said, now there is routine in handling these issues, and there is no basic difference in the way safety issues are being handled.

Q) What would you suggest as opportunities of other institutions or organizations to improve the current R&D and safety system?
A) Safety has to become an official top priority, not only a compliance issue. For us, the name of Pasteur worldwide hinges on our responsible management of safety issues, the avoidance of incidents and accidents. Prioritizing safety is a question of mind set, and unfortunately often enough it only changes after incidents have occurred. In order to shift mentalities it is important to make sure that the role of safety officers in the work environment is being sufficiently appreciated. That is to give them extraordinary leeway in stopping projects or interfering with decision processes at the highest management level if safety issues are concerned. But I would also like to mention qualification and remuneration of safety officers. Altogether, it will shift the trend towards a safety culture in the work environment, the way I know it from Institut Pasteur.

Q) The fact that introducing a state-of-art system to maintain high safety level requires the organizations for big investment has been an obstacle. Please share your thoughts on this.
A) I think it is not the investment but rather a mindset that has to be adjusted. Of course the establishment of BSL3 laboratories in Korea involve large investments. But safety needs to be managed aside from this very obvious safety concerns. Safety is an issue with many of the smaller details in everyday laboratory life, in handling chemicals, pathogens etc. I suppose that BSL3 labs and the investment around these have helped to create this type of awareness also in a more mundane working environment.