We’re at a point in time when a lot of laboratories can now consider themselves to be ‘electronic’, or ‘paperless’. Paper no longer has the role of being the medium for preserving laboratory records. It’s been a journey that started 40 or more years ago when computers first started to be used in laboratories, and it is a journey that has followed two different streams; scientific computing, i.e. the integration of computing technologies into the scientific process, and laboratory computing, the use of computing technologies to manage laboratory data, information and processes. Inevitably, these two streams having been coming closer together over time. With the replacement of paper laboratory notebooks by their electronic equivalents, the opportunity is there for the two streams to be completely merged.
So is being ‘electronic’ or ‘paperless’ the end of the journey? Almost certainly not; it is the start of the next phase which will distinguish the ‘electronic’ or ‘paperless’ lab from the ‘integrated’ lab. What’s the difference? Most ‘electronic’ or ‘paperless’ labs represent a reactive response to the introduction of computerised systems; i.e. the component parts have been accrued over time, from different vendors, based on different technologies, platforms and data formats, none of which were necessarily designed to work together. Integration is therefore technically challenging, costly and a source of custom solutions. The concept of an integrated lab is a lab that is designed to be integrated; i.e. based on standards technologies, platforms and data formats that were designed to work together. Does such a lab exist? Well, I expect there may be a few that meet these criteria that are heavily focused on a specific function, but most labs fall some way short. But creating an integrated lab is never going to be a simple task. As technologies continue to evolve, science becomes more complex, business pressures become more urgent, regulatory and legal pressures become more stringent, the challenge is significant.
www.theintegratedlab.com is a community website open to anybody with an interest in any aspect of laboratory integration. The site is non-commercial and therefore does not support the promotion of laboratory products and/or systems. It does however offer the opportunity for open discussion, the sharing of information, and a meeting point to serve the best interests of the community.
I am interested in the topic both professionally and personally – however a number of such interest sites have turned out to be thinly veiled fronts for commercial organisations with vested interests.
Can you declare your interests up front?
In the spirit of open disclosure I am an Informatics product manager from Thermo Fisher Scientific (www.thermo.com/grams) and a biochemist.
Great idea by the way.
Cheers
DJ
In response to the question by David Joyce, and also in the spirit of open disclosure, I am an independent consultant specialising in laboratory integration (see http://www.phasefour-informatics.com). The website is entirely my idea, and the objectives are exactly as stated in the opening post. The purpose is to provide an information resource, and a forum for anyone with an interest in laboratory integration. Nobody is excluded from this community, but the content will be monitored to prevent any ‘thinly veiled fronts for commercial organisations with vested interests’ from appearing on the site. At the time of this posting, the website is in its very early days, and is expected to grow and change with the progressive inclusion of relevant content. Thanks for taking an interest and raising the question.
John.
I’m a consultant who specializes in LIMS and Laboratory Informatics. I write and speak on these topics. I do this partly, of course, to drive business for myself, but also to help educate people on the issues that we all face.
I believe that by sharing information, it helps those people that are new to our industry have better projects, whether they are end-users or consultants, and that we can all learn from each other. So, I might give some information but I end up getting information, too, and by having information flowing in all directions, it’s the way a site like this becomes valuable to us all.
Like David, I wouldn’t want to get involved with a site that turns out to be one, big marketing machine for some specific company. However, seeing the people involved with this site as I become involved, myself, I feel a sense of security that this site will not turn into that.