Serious Games for Biological Risk: Classifying Agents by Playing

An enemy you cannot see with the naked eye

Bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites: biological agents are everywhere in workplaces, from healthcare to agriculture, from laboratories to waste management. But unlike a moving machine or a flame, we do not see them. This invisibility makes training on biological risk particularly hard: how do you teach people to fear and manage what they cannot perceive with their senses?

An effective answer is the serious game: a game designed not to entertain, but to teach. By placing the person in realistic scenarios and making them decide under constraint, the serious game turns abstract notions into memorised behaviours. It is the same logic that works for chemical risk, applied to an equally elusive hazard.

What the regulation says

In Italy biological risk is governed by Title X of Legislative Decree 81/08 (Arts. 266-286), which applies to all activities where there is a risk of exposure to biological agents. A biological agent is defined as any micro-organism, even genetically modified, cell culture or human endoparasite capable of causing infections, allergies or intoxications.

Article 268 classifies biological agents into four groups, based on the risk of infection, the severity of the disease, the possibility of spreading in the community and the availability of prophylaxis or treatment:

• Group 1: unlikely to cause disease in humans.
• Group 2: can cause disease and be a risk to workers; unlikely to spread in the community; effective prophylaxis or treatment usually available.
• Group 3: can cause serious disease and a serious risk to workers; may spread in the community, but effective measures usually exist.
• Group 4: can cause serious disease and a serious risk; high risk of spreading and, as a rule, no effective measures available.

Annex XLVI of the decree lists the biological agents classified in groups 2, 3 and 4.

How the game makes the invisible concrete

A serious game on biological risk can ask players to carry out a mission – run a ward, a blood draw, a disposal – in which every choice has consequences. The most effective mechanics train three skills:

• Classifying: assigning to the correct group an agent described by symptoms and characteristics, understanding why classification determines the measures to adopt.
• Breaking transmission: recognising contagion routes (contact, droplet, aerosol, accidental puncture) and choosing the right barrier at the right time.
• Using PPE in sequence: donning and above all removing the devices in the correct order, the point where mistakes are most frequent and most dangerous. It is the same principle as PPE gamification.

Getting it wrong in the game shows the effect immediately: a contamination, a simulated infection, an alarm. This instant feedback is what the lecture lacks, where the mistake stays theoretical.

Why it works: engagement and repetition

Research on serious games for health and safety, also referenced by EU-OSHA, notes that these tools are at least as effective as traditional methods – and often more effective – at improving learners' knowledge, skills and satisfaction, while noting that more rigorous research is still needed. Their strength lies in engagement: the player is a protagonist, not a spectator, and can repeat the scenario until the correct procedure becomes automatic.

This is especially valuable in settings such as healthcare, where biological risk is a daily reality and error has immediate consequences.

The game does not replace the assessment

A serious game is a training tool, not a substitute for risk assessment or health surveillance. But it does make people readier, more aware and quicker to recognise a dangerous situation. And as with ATEX risk, the real achievement is having made visible, for an hour, what in reality stays invisible until the moment of contagion.

Sources: Legislative Decree 81/08 Title X (Arts. 266-286), Art. 268 and Annex XLVI; EU-OSHA and literature on serious games for health and safety.