Reporting Adverse Events in Performing Arts and Human-Subject Research: A Comparative Ethics Guide

When a stage emergency reads like a clinical safety report: why transparent adverse-event reporting matters in both performing arts and human-subject research

Hook: Authors, directors, researchers and ethics committees all share the same pain point: an adverse event can undo months of trust, wreck methodological credibility, and expose institutions to legal and reputational risk if it is handled opaquely. The recent cancellation of two performances of Broadway’s Bug after actress Carrie Coon experienced an allergic reaction to stage blood (January 2026) is an urgent reminder: incidents that happen in public performance or during research must be reported with the same ethical rigor as clinical adverse events.

The Carrie Coon incident: a practical entry point

In early January 2026 Carrie Coon disclosed an onstage allergic reaction to a theatrical prosthetic commonly referred to as "stage blood," leading to immediate cancellations and medical evaluation. The episode is not simply celebrity gossip: it crystallizes several cross-cutting issues for practitioners who design, test, publish, and communicate procedures that involve human participants (whether actors, study volunteers, or audience members).

From an ethics and publication perspective the episode prompts questions that apply equally to scientific research: Was the risk foreseen and documented? Were participants (performers and crew) fully informed and consented? Were safety protocols adequate? If a method (for example, a technique for simulating injury) is described in a methods paper or a technical appendix, how should subsequent incidents be captured and disclosed by authors or publishers?

Why this comparison matters in 2026

By 2026 stakeholders expect higher levels of methodological transparency and robust incident disclosure. Several trends are sharpening expectations:

• Publishers and journals emphasize proactive reporting of adverse events tied to published methods.
• Ethics frameworks (and institutional review boards) increasingly treat nonclinical exposures—such as occupational hazards in theatre, film, or art labs—like research risks when those exposures are systematically used or studied.
• New tools — AI-assisted monitoring, incident registries, and electronic safety logs — are making it easier (and now expected) to keep auditable records of near-misses and adverse events.

Core ethical principles that apply to both fields

There are five overlapping principles to carry between performing arts and human-subject research:

1. Informed consent and disclosure. People must understand risks and available mitigations before participation.
2. Proportional safety protocols. Risk controls (PPE, rehearsed emergency responses) should match the foreseeable hazards.
3. Timely documentation. Incidents must be recorded with timestamps, witnesses, and key contextual data.
4. Transparent reporting. Public-facing materials, methods descriptions, and publications must disclose relevant incidents that affect reproducibility or participant welfare.
5. Remediation and learning. Systems must convert incidents into corrective action and updated guidance.

How the workflows differ — and where they converge

Performing arts (onstage incidents)

Typical organizational structure: production management, stage manager, health and safety officer, union representatives (e.g., Actors’ Equity), and medical responders. Onstage incidents often trigger immediate performance cancellation, rapid medical evaluation, public statements, and internal safety reviews.

Strengths: fast operational response, established union safety processes, and public accountability through press coverage.

Gaps: less systematic archival reporting (incident logs are often internal), variable consent documentation for stunt or prosthetic risks, and inconsistent linkage between production methods described in trade publications and subsequent incident data.

Human-subject research (clinical and behavioral)

Typical organizational structure: principal investigator, ethics committee / IRB, data safety monitoring board (for clinical trials), sponsor/funder, and clinical staff. Adverse events are regulated: they require prompt reporting timelines to IRBs, sponsors, and sometimes regulators (for clinical trials).

Strengths: formal adverse-event definitions (serious vs. non-serious), mandatory reporting windows, linkage to registries (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov), and stronger expectations for published safety data.

Gaps: siloed reporting (events may not propagate into methods sections of subsequent methodological papers), inconsistent open sharing of redacted incident narratives, and delays in correcting the published methodology when incidents reveal previously unidentified hazards.

Practical, actionable guidance: a step-by-step incident reporting workflow

Below is an operational workflow suitable for both producing companies and research teams. Use it as a checklist to prevent, document, and publish honest incident reports.

Immediate actions (first 0–24 hours)

• Prioritize safety: stabilize the affected person, call emergency services if needed, and remove the hazard.
• Document the event: time, place, sequence of actions, materials used (batch numbers, suppliers), personnel present, and photographic/video evidence when appropriate and consented.
• Notify internal leads: stage manager / production manager or PI / study coordinator.
• Preserve materials for testing (e.g., remaining prop blood, topical adhesives) with chain-of-custody notes.

Short-term reporting (24–72 hours)

• File an internal incident report that includes medical notes and witness statements.
• If research-related, notify the IRB/ethics committee and funder per their timelines.
• If the incident must be publicly disclosed (e.g., cancelled performances), issue a factual, non-speculative statement explaining next steps and when further details will be available.

Investigation and remediation (72 hours to 30 days)

• Conduct a root-cause analysis: was there an allergen, a manufacturing contamination, or a procedural error? Use multidisciplinary review (safety officer, toxicologist, medical expert, methodologist).
• Update SOPs and consent language to mitigate recurrence. Example: add specific allergen warnings and emergency protocols to rehearsal consent forms.
• Consider laboratory or material testing (MS, GC-MS, allergen panels) and keep results linked to the incident file.

Publication and methodological transparency (30–90 days)

If the incident is tied to a published method, or if you plan to publish the method, follow these steps:

1. Prepare an incident addendum to the methods section describing the event, the affected materials, and corrective actions taken. Include anonymized, de-identified medical outcomes as needed.
2. Submit the addendum to the journal where the method or related study was published. If the work is under review, include a cover note and the incident file.
3. If the incident undermines the safety or reproducibility of the published method, request an erratum, a methods update, or an expression of concern as appropriate. Journals may issue a correction, or in severe cases, retract the method paper.
4. For clinical trials and regulated interventions, update trial registries and safety reports per regulatory requirements.

How publishers and journals handle incident-linked disclosures in 2026

Publishers are tightening policies in response to recent high-profile incidents (including theatrical and laboratory events) and to evolving expectations from research funders and professional societies. Practical points for authors:

• Many journals now require authors to disclose any adverse events that occurred while applying the methods described, even if those events were not part of a formal research study.
• Editors increasingly ask for supplementary incident files: timelines, test results, and redacted medical documentation where relevant.
• Policies modeled on COPE recommendations encourage transparent errata and addenda rather than defensive silence. Expect journals to favor amendments that improve participant safety and reproducibility.
• Open methods and data platforms now accept incident logs as a component of reproducible protocols. Depositing an incident file in a recognized repository increases credibility and meets funder transparency expectations.

Informed consent: what to add when techniques carry physical risks

Whether your participants are actors, volunteers in a behavioral study, or human tissue donors, consent forms should explicitly disclose foreseeable risks and set expectations for reporting and follow-up. Key clauses to include:

• Detailed description of potential physical exposures (chemical agents, prosthetics, simulated fluids) and their known allergic or toxic risks.
• Procedures for immediate care and who will be responsible for emergency transport or medical bills.
• Permission to collect and use de-identified incident data for quality improvement and publication.
• Information on how incident reports are archived and who has access (IRB, safety officers, journal editors).
• Opt-out or alternate-role provisions for participants who later withdraw consent due to risk discovery.

Case examples and short vignettes: translating policy into practice

Vignette 1: Theatrical prosthetic dermatitis

A regional theatre experiences four dermatitis cases after a new adhesive. The production files internal reports, tests the adhesive batch, updates cast consent forms to list the adhesive ingredient, and the technical director publishes a methods note describing the reaction and the switch to a hypoallergenic product. The journal that published the director’s staged-effects technique required the addendum and marked the method as "updated." Audience trust and occupational safety improved as a result.

Vignette 2: Wearable sensor study with skin reactions

A wearable-technology study reports two skin reactions linked to a gel electrode. Per their protocol the PI files SAE reports with the IRB, halts recruitment briefly, performs material analysis, and submits a correction to a preprint describing the wearable calibration. The authors deposit the incident log in an institutional repository and include a revised consent form for future participants.

Advanced strategies for long-term compliance and research integrity

Beyond incident response, organizations should build systems that prevent incidents and embed reporting into routine practice. Recommended measures for 2026:

• Implement centralized digital incident registries that tie incident metadata to methods, lot numbers, and SOP versions.
• Adopt a single incident taxonomy across departments (e.g., using controlled vocabularies) so that theatre, lab, and clinical safety data are interoperable.
• Train authors to include "safety appendices" in protocols and methods manuscripts; publishers should standardize where those appendices appear (e.g., Supplementary Methods > Incident Log).
• Use AI-assisted anomaly detection on incident logs to surface clusters of near-misses before they become major events. Ensure human oversight to avoid algorithmic blind spots.
• Negotiate pre-registered safety plans with funders and ethics committees for novel methods that include mandatory incident reporting windows and repository deposition.

Dealing with reputational and legal fallout

Transparent reporting reduces reputational risk. If an incident becomes public, follow these steps:

1. Issue a factual, time-bound statement; avoid speculation.
2. Share steps being taken (medical follow-up, investigation) and when the public can expect more information.
3. Engage an independent reviewer if the incident affects public safety or raises questions of negligence.
4. Coordinate communication across legal, medical, and editorial teams before releasing substantive findings or amended methods.

"Opacity is a risk multiplier." — a practical maxim for ethics committees and production offices alike.

Practical templates: what to send to a journal when an incident occurs

Use this minimal checklist when notifying a publisher about an incident linked to a submitted or published method:

• Concise incident summary (who, what, when, where).
• Clinical outcomes (de-identified) and immediate safety actions taken.
• Laboratory testing results for implicated materials, if available.
• Updated SOP and consent language or a timeline for when these will be implemented.
• Request for correction/erratum, and proposed text for that correction.
• Repository link to redacted incident files, if applicable.

Checklist for authors and production teams (one-page)

• Pre-event: Document risks, obtain explicit consent, and log material batches.
• During event: Stabilize, document, preserve materials, and notify leads.
• Post-event: Report to IRB/unions, test materials, update protocols, and notify publishers if methods are implicated.
• Publishing: Submit incident addendum, deposit incident log, and update consent language for future participants.

Final reflections: why honest incident reporting advances both safety and scholarship

Incidents like Carrie Coon’s allergic reaction are painful reminders that the tactical choices we make when simulating reality — whether in a play or in an experimental protocol — have ethical and scientific consequences. In 2026 the line between performance practice and human-subject methodology is increasingly porous: producers publish techniques; labs publish art–science protocols; and readers expect the same level of transparency wherever humans are put at risk.

Adopting robust incident reporting workflows, aligning consent with foreseeable harms, and collaborating proactively with publishers to correct and annotate methods are not optional niceties. They are core practices that protect participants, preserve trust, and improve reproducibility. When organizations treat adverse events as data — and share those data responsibly — they strengthen both safety systems and the quality of the scholarship that relies on them.

Call to action

If you manage productions or lead human-subject research, start today: audit your consent forms and SOPs against the checklist in this article, implement an incident log (even a basic spreadsheet will do), and prepare a template incident addendum to speed transparent communication with editors. Need help drafting consent language or a publisher-ready incident addendum? Contact our editorial team at journals.biz for bespoke templates and peer-reviewed examples tailored to performing arts and human-subject methods in 2026.

Related Reading

• Using Convenience Stores Like Asda Express When You’re On the Move in the UK
• Luxury License Shifts: How Brand Licensing Decisions Affect Your Makeup Drawer
• How to Gift a Custom Print and Save: VistaPrint Voucher Hacks for Budget Buyers
• Save on Phone Plans, Spend on Adventures: Reallocating Mobile Savings for Weekend Getaways
• Localizing BBC-Style Documentary Formats for Tamil YouTube Channels