The intro:

One of the consequences of the increasing convergence of science and technology is the nature of the relationship between R&D and IT. As scientists [...]]]> The latest article in my column on the Pharma IQ site has just been published.  You can read the full article here: Peace in our Time? R&D and the IT Department

The intro:

One of the consequences of the increasing convergence of science and technology is the nature of the relationship between R&D and IT. As scientists increasingly depend on information technology as an integral component of laboratory work, they become increasingly dependent on the IT infrastructure and IT resources. It hasn’t always been like this; in the days when most laboratory computers were basically standalone devices, dedicated to specific data acquisition and/or data processing tasks, life was a lot simpler; scientists could tinker with their systems whilst IT managed the mainframes. But inevitably, as the demand grew to connect things together and transfer data from one system to another, it became necessary to start a relationship with the IT Department. And so began a courtship that, to all outward appearances, was not made in heaven…………..

Just as the article was published, I came across a contribution on the ComputerWorld website entitled: IT managers are aloof, insular, says psychologist.  The article was making a very different point,with which I don’t agree; I’ve worked with a number of IT Managers who are far from being aloof and insular.  (The article generated a fair amount of comment, probably from outraged IT Managers!).  So, in defence of IT Managers, and to reinforce my point in my article, the IT Department has specific responsibilities that demand a good deal of care and caution in order to maintain a robust and reliable infrastructure.  The IT ‘culture’ is therefore quite different to an R&D environment where innovation and creativity are key qualities, and it is this difference in cultures, not aloofness and insularity that can cause some of the tension between R&D and IT.

The opening presentation by Martin Vaderlaan and Eugene [...]]]> The 9th Forum on Laboratory Informatics was held in San Diego, November 14-16th 2011. The programme embraced a set of three workshops and a two-day session of presentations.  Here is a brief review of some of the presentations, with an emphasis on matters relating to laboratory integration.

The opening presentation by Martin Vaderlaan and Eugene Kim (Roche-Genenthech) described approaches taken to integrate LIMS, ELN and Robotics in their laboratories.  The presentation served to highlight the benefits of laboratory integration, but emphasised the cost in terms of effort; ten custom interfaces built, requiring three different coding languages.  Joe Liscouski (Institute for Laboratory Information) discussed the work of the Institute for Laboratory Automation in developing methodologies and training programmes to address some of the deficiencies in formal education curricula.  The ILA now has a membership scheme that offers members the opportunity to collaborate and help define the ILA’s programmes.

Steven Shea (Allergan) described the extension of a commercial Scientific Data Management System to incorporate generic Electronic Lab Notebook functions.   The inclusion, management and storage in the SDMS database of MS Office documents (Word/Excel) addressed authoring and worksheet requirements for the laboratory workflow.  This presentation identified yet another hybrid approach to address laboratory information management requirements.

IT innovation in the R&D arena was the subject of a presentation by Sanjoy Ray (Merck and Co. Inc.), who described a methodology for driving improvement in IT tools available to R&D workers in Merck.  The methodology was derived from the ‘scientific method’, initiated by hypothesis and proceeding via a phased approach towards delivery of a ‘solution’.  The presentation addressed a number of cultural and behavioural issues experienced in establishing and deploying the process.

The adoption of standards in the Clinical/Health sector was addressed in two presentations by Sandra Vance (HIMSS) and Daniel Vreeman (Regenstrief Institute).  Sandra Vance described the work of HIMSS in advocating and facilitating the adoption of standards, with particular emphasis on clinical  laboratories.  Of particular interest was the process by which HIMSS engages and encourages  vendors to participate and adopt standards through major ‘connectathon’ events in which developers from different vendors sit side-by-side to write and test code to ensure compliance and connectivity.

Daniel Vreeman discussed LOINC® (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes), a standard for the exchange and pooling of results for clinical care, outcomes management, and research.  Although most laboratories and clinical services use HL7 to transmit results electronically from their reporting systems to their care systems, the information in these messages are often rendered non-standard due internal inconsistencies of  code values.  LOINC codes are universal identifiers for laboratory and other clinical observations that provide a common terminology that solves this problem.

My presentation on the Challenges Facing Laboratory Integration is available here:

Lab automation technologies can transform lab work. Before we can reap those benefits we have to transform the way people approach lab automation. That is what this organization is about: helping people learn how to plan, implement, evaluate and use the products & technologies available [...]]]> The Institute for Laboratory Automation has announced a membership scheme.

Lab automation technologies can transform lab work. Before we can reap those benefits we have to transform the way people approach lab automation. That is what this organization is about: helping people learn how to plan, implement, evaluate and use the products & technologies available to them.

Laboratory automation has become a cooperative process between scientists and those specializing in the implementation of automation systems. This includes scientists, information technology specialists, vendors, developers, robotics’ specialist, etc. As an organization, the membership work of the ILA is to bring these people together so that they can:

• understand each others perspectives,
• devise methodologies to get work done,
• discuss products and their application, and
• develop the tools (education, methodologies, etc.) needed to turn lab automation into a successful pursuit.

To that end, we believe:

• that those working in the field need to form a community to develop and improve the practice of applying automation and information/computing technologies to lab and scientific work.
• In addition we see the establishment of Laboratory Automation Engineering as a field of work, study, and research, as a necessary goal.

For more information visit: http://www.institutelabauto.org/membership/membershp.html

To join: http://instituteforlaboratoryautomation.camp8.org/

Dial-a-Molecule is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the main UK government agency for funding research and training in engineering and the physical [...]]]> This was a 2 day meeting, as part of the Lab of the Future theme of the EPSRC Dial-a-Molecule Grand Challenge, held in Southampton, UK on 28-29 July.

Dial-a-Molecule is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the main UK government agency for funding research and training in engineering and the physical sciences, investing more than £850 million a year in a broad range of subjects – from mathematics to materials science, and from information technology to structural engineering.

Central to Dial-a-Molecule is to be able to predict reaction outcomes, and the availability of high quality data on all reactions carried out is a key enabling resource. A Smart Laboratory must have the collection and use of data at its heart, and a ‘National’ Electronic Laboratory Notebook is a potential means of achieving this objective.

The meeting was attended by a total of 37 representatives of academia, industry and ELN vendors. The programme was a mixture of presentations and workshop sessions. The presentations concentrated on examples of successful deployment of ELNs in industry, the work being undertaken by the Pistoia Alliance to develop standard approaches to data sharing, and ELN initiatives already underway in some academic institutions. In addition, vendors were given the opportunity to present strategies and key features of their products.

The workshop sessions addressed a number of topics
• Why has uptake of ELNs in academia been poor?
• What features would make adoption compelling?
• What other features would we like?
• Any problems that would limit adoption?
• Planning the deployment of an ELN system. Cost estimates.
• Establishing and using a national compound registration system.
• National ELN – beyond synthetic chemistry.
• Defining a common format for data exchange

The outcome of the meeting will be formally reported through appropriate channels in due course, but here are a few personal observations.

• The underlying problems that an ELN can address in industry and academia are very similar, but the context is somewhat different. Primarily it is an issue about intellectual property and the ability to productively manage, use and share IP over its life cycle. The context varies in two ways; firstly, funding and maintaining an ELN in academia presents a different type of challenge. Laboratory productivity will be seen as more of a critical activity in industry (discovery, development, measurement) and will therefore be more readily identified as an area for process improvement. Secondly, laboratories in academia are historically more tolerant of individuality in the choice and use of tools for documenting experiments. The consequence of these two points is that the need for an ELN in academia will require a bottom-up approach with lots of inertia, rather than the top-down that is more common in industry.

• A presentation by Richard Bolton (GlaxoSmithKline) on the progress being made by the Pistoia Alliance ELN Query Service Project in developing a standard approach to sharing ELN data showed considerable consistency with the objectives of the data sharing requirements of the National ELN initiative. If the assumption is that ELN vendors will, in due course, sign up to the Pistoia query standard as it evolves, then a National ELN can take full advantage.

• There are a number of existing deployments of commercial ELNs in academia, as well as non-commercial initiatives (e.g. LabTrove, the Univ. of Southampton project). Adoption is mixed, and a number of speakers from academia highlighted the issue about take-up, e.g. adoption is 90% a ‘user’ issue.

The output from the workshop sessions will be used to refine ideas about, and requirements for a National ELN. Not surprisingly, this output was reasonably consistent with typical requirements from industry-based project dealing with small molecule chemistry. I’ll watch the next steps of this initiative with great interest.