This study aimed to explore pathways for addressing key challenges in the field of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), including barriers to interdisciplinary integration, technical problems in analyzing the effects of TCM, imperfect mechanisms for industry–academia–research collaboration, and low levels of international academic exchange and cooperation. Addressing these challenges can help advance the inheritance and innovation of TCM, accelerate the construction of a healthy China, elucidate the mechanisms of action of TCM using modern science and technology, transform TCM from “folk remedies” into global health solutions, and construct a global community of health for all.

The development status of nine national key laboratories in the field of TCM was evaluated through literature review and inductive analysis. Feasible pathways for promoting scientific and technological innovation in TCM were explored. As national-level scientific research and innovation platforms, national key laboratories possess advanced research facilities, innovative technologies, and interdisciplinary integration capabilities, enabling them to provide crucial support for solving this problem.

In March 2023, Jiangsu Kangyuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine restructured the National Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Pharmaceutical Process Control and Intelligent Manufacturing Technology. Following its reorganization, the laboratory improved its research, development, and manufacturing capabilities through four measures. First, focusing on “discovery of efficacy substances and research on quality attributes of TCM” and “uniformity and intelligent control technology of TCM pharmaceutical manufacturing processes,” it constructed a multidisciplinary research paradigm to enhance original innovation capabilities. Second, focusing on the theory of efficacious substances in TCM, it promoted the shift from extensive to precise control in pharmaceutical manufacturing, facilitated the integration of TCM and Western medicine, and advanced the modernization of TCM principles. Third, focusing on constructing a comprehensive TCM pharmaceutical process control and intelligent manufacturing technology transformation system as a scientific means, it accelerated the implementation and application of innovative TCM drugs. Fourth, recognizing the enhancement of international scientific and technological discourse power as an important mission for the development of TCM, it promoted global dissemination of TCM by establishing pharmaceutical technology standards in mainstream international pharmaceutical markets. These measures provided systematic support for the original innovation of TCM and addressed the challenge of “unclear mechanisms of action,” thereby enhancing the scientific and technological innovation capabilities of laboratories.

Promoting global dissemination of TCM and enhancing its international scientific and technological discourse power are important priorities for the development of TCM. National key laboratories play a crucial role in advancing scientific and technological innovation in TCM. Four measures should be considered: constructing a multidisciplinary research paradigm to enhance original innovation capabilities, organizing key technology breakthroughs to elucidate the mechanisms of action of new TCM drugs and promote the modernization of TCM principles, streamlining the “research–production–application” transformation chain to accelerate the implementation of innovative achievements, and strengthening international scientific and technological discourse power to promote global dissemination of TCM. Through these measures, national key laboratories in the field of TCM can be built into scientific and technological innovation highlands that focus on core scientific issues of TCM and conduct original and pioneering research; platforms for the systematic excavation, collation, and preservation of valuable resources, such as classic TCM literature and the experiences of renowned veteran TCM doctors; hubs for building collaboration between industry, academia, research, and application, thereby accelerating the transformation of scientific research results into clinical applications and industrial value; and international academic bridge connecting global scientific research collaboration networks, thereby promoting cross-border academic dialogue and joint problem-solving.

Preventing and controlling safety risks, as well as strengthening emergency response capabilities, are fundamental to laboratory safety construction in universities. This article analyzes national regulations and accident investigation reports related to emergency management in university laboratories and identifies four key issues in laboratory risk prevention and emergency capacity building. Based on practical experience, this study proposes measures to strengthen safety risk prevention and emergency response capabilities across five dimensions: evaluation, guarantee, capability, contingency planning, and education. This approach provides a reference for other universities seeking to improve laboratory safety construction.

Through literature review, investigation, and research, this study identifies four persistent problems in university laboratory safety: weak risk identification capabilities, a lack of operational standards for risk assessment, insufficient accident risk analysis capabilities, and inadequate implementation of emergency plans. These challenges hinder the ability to meet safety demands amid the rapid development of university laboratories. To further clarify potential solutions, this study employed expert consultation, convening domestic experts in a dedicated meeting to define the research pathway for laboratory risk prevention and emergency capacity building.

Based on relevant regulations and institutional practices, this study identifies three common characteristics of safety risk prevention and emergency capacity building. First, both operate within the lifecycle of laboratory risks and serve as critical measures for effectively preventing and controlling accidents. Second, achieving a “forward shift” in emergency capacity building requires managers to expand their focus from reactive responses to proactive “risk prevention and control.” Third, safety risk prevention and control constitute the primary requirements for ensuring safe laboratory construction, while emergency capacity building serves as a necessary means of reducing accident-related losses. To address the identified issues, this study proposes five measures: (1) establish risk assessment standards and implement risk classification and control measures; (2) develop an accident case database to enhance hazard identification capabilities; (3) introduce a funding guarantee mechanism to improve the level of protective infrastructure; (4) refine emergency response plans and standardize operational procedures for drills; and (5) strengthen emergency science communication and improve related incentive mechanisms.

Driven by policy developments, universities have gradually clarified their responsibilities for laboratory safety management, shifting from accident-driven approaches to prevention-oriented models. Risk analysis and hazard identification have mitigated some hidden dangers, and diversified emergency drills have been implemented. Further strengthening safety construction across the five dimensions of evaluation, guarantee, capability, contingency planning, and education will support the effective implementation of risk classification and control measures. These efforts will enhance hazard identification, improve protective infrastructure, standardize drill procedures, and strengthen incentive mechanisms for emergency science communication, thereby significantly improving the safety of university laboratories. Recent measures related to laboratory safety construction have also attracted increasing attention from educational authorities.

Laboratory Safety Regulations for Colleges and Universities require laboratories to conduct emergency drills tailored to the specific characteristics of their disciplines and majors and to effectively record them. However, emergency drills in college and university laboratories are characterized by unclear activity tasks and incomplete records. This article examines the implementation of emergency drills in 100 laboratories, analyzes common problems in these drills, outlines the business processes and key points of laboratory emergency drills, and proposes specific measures to improve the drills in four key areas: design, evaluation, feedback, and application. A task list and its recording points are designed to address common problems in emergency drills, and references are provided for colleges and universities to improve the effective documentation of laboratory emergency drill activities.

In this study, research papers and news reports on emergency drills in 100 college and university laboratories are collected through CNKI and online search engines. To facilitate the processing of information on laboratory emergency drill activities from these sources, the data are inputted into Excel for formatting and processing, using fields such as “serial number, school name, time, organizational structure, design process, implementation introduction, and effectiveness.” The selection criteria for the data on these laboratory exercises include having complete key information, with the exercise period ranging from January 2020 to December 2023. The exclusion criteria are that laboratory emergency drill records organized by entities such as secondary vocational colleges and chemical enterprises are not included in this analysis.

The data show that out of 100 exercises, there are 1 desktop exercise and 99 practical exercises, indicating an imbalance in the formats of the exercises. From a temporal perspective, 24 exercises are conducted in the first half of the year, mainly concentrated in June, which accounts for 14 exercises (14%). In the second half of the year, 76 exercises are conducted, mainly concentrated in October to December, which accounts for 65 exercises (65%). Regarding task description, only 11 colleges and universities mention inspecting contingency plans. The above represents partial data. The research identifies four common problems in emergency drill implementation: inadequate planning of emergency plans, lack of standardized guidance on emergency procedures, insufficient interactive drills among emergency teams, and a focus on performance over practical science education. Implementing drill activities according to five processes could effectively address the challenges of recording laboratory drill activities across different scenarios and disciplines.

The article categorizes emergency drills into five processes: planning, preparation, implementation, evaluation, and improvement, each related to specific tasks, and the task list framework is formed. During the planning phase, emphasis is placed on clarifying laboratory emergency plan procedures. In the preparation stage, the focus shifts to enhancing emergency readiness. During implementation, the primary goal is to enhance the comprehensive emergency response capabilities of response teams. The aim of the evaluation phase is to verify the effectiveness of emergency mechanism adjustments. Finally, in the improvement stage, the focus is on developing an “emergency+science education” platform for public outreach and education. The five major tasks are broken down into 47 key points across 15 task units, culminating in the task list. This list precisely delineates drill tasks from planning through implementation, evaluation, and improvement. The list addresses the challenge of effectively executing and documenting laboratory drill activities across various disciplines and scenarios.