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.