In the relentless pursuit of increased efficiency and better productivity in our laboratories we turn to computers and automation to drive out inefficient human and paper-based processes. So it was with some surprise that amongst my daily news feeds that keep me informed of the latest and greatest breakthroughs in laboratory matters, I came across a blog post by Benjamin Wilcox entitled ‘Introducing Exhibit One, The Defendant’s Journal’. The post offered detailed advice on keeping a (paper) notebook. There were cross references two other posts, one by Tim Ferriss (‘How to Take Notes Like an Alpha-Geek‘) and another by Jill Hubbard Bowman (‘Properly Documenting the Creation of Your Startup’s IP‘).
All three posts serve as a timely reminder that there are basic skills in some of the processes that we try to automate or computerise, and no amount of slick software can replace that. But there were a few other points in the blog posts that could raise eyebrows. I’m totally impressed by Tim Ferriss’ organisational skills and habits with paper notebooks, but there’s a lot of us who aren’t in his league. And when it comes to any requirement for sharing….I have to conclude that Tim’s notebooks are for his eyes only.
The other point that caught my attention was in Jill Hubbard Bowman’s post, which contains some great advice on recording and maintaining intellectual property; Jill made the point that ‘Courts don’t trust electronic documents’. Well, this seems to run contradictory to a lot of the advice Lawyers and Patent Attorneys are passing on in organisations where paper lab notebooks are being replaced with electronic lab notebooks. Since courts make decisions based on evidence, it is the relevance, integrity and authenticity of the evidence, not the medium, that determine trustworthiness. Of course, the approach with digital records is different to that with paper records, but courts in the US and Western Europe are quite comfortable with electronic records, to the extent that most major pharmaceutical companies have switched to fully electronic records for their scientific IP. But it does mean that a robust and reliable process for managing electronic records, able to stand up to the court’s scrutiny, is essential. This throws a lot of emphasis on the underlying process; so the advice given in Jill’s post is very valid.
Here’s a couple of links to relevant posts on this site:
Good Laboratory Notebook Practice
Legal Issues of ELNs
