1. The system is very old and doesn’t work well.

2. You don’t actually know what all your system is doing.

3. Your system is s data graveyard, a place where the data goes in to die and never to be able to be used for data sharing and knowledge management.

4. The system is a critical one and its technology is out-of-date.

5. Your needs have drastically changed since you purchased it.

Actually, I just copied these points from an older article of mine, but the article is a lot worder than just reading these points in this short form:

http://geometrick.com/n-l-how-to-know-when-upgrade.html

Elisabeth Goodman, of RiverRhee Consulting, has already posted an excellent report on the Exchange, which you can read on her blog, Operational Excellence and Knowledge Management in an R&D Laboratory Environment. Aware of the fact that Elisabeth had to leave before the final two papers, all I can add to her comments is that the AnIML project (Analytical Information Markup Language) was the subject of a presentation by Burkhard Schaefer, aided and abetted by a case study of AnIML in action by Mike Ludlow of LGC Pharmaceutical Services.  See AnIML – An interview with Burkhard Schaefer for information about AnIML.  AnIML is an XML-based standard that is developed under the umbrella of ASTM with participation from a number of different stakeholders in the pharmaceutical and environmental industries, government agencies, instrument vendors and academia.

The final presentation, by Gareth Maxwell of Northern Ireland Water, addressed the use of LIMS in a highly regulated, but non-pharma environment. Gareth’s presentation was focused on the well-publicised problems experienced with the water supply in Northern Ireland last December, caused by some dramatic and rapid changes in weather conditions.  The scope and scale of the testing operations needed to support the delivery and maintenance of water supplies is extensive and subject to regulatory scrutiny from four different agencies.  The adoption of a number of technology-based improvements, all interacting with the LIMS, have helped bring about time savings and error reductions in a number of operations.

Just a word about my think tank session on ‘Overcoming the most common challenges facing laboratory integration’. This session was run as a discussion, which I kicked off by asking the question ‘If we were to start anew to build an integrated data/information solution for our laboratories, would it look anything like the solutions we have in place today”. The question drew some different responses, but a common thread that seemed to emerge was that the lack of standards was a key issue. In a short session, we were never going to cover much ground in the discussion, nor, indeed, get to hear all opinions, but the overall consensus seemed to point towards the need to separate content from the tools (applications) in order to facilitate the use and re-use of the content in a multiplicity of best-of-breed tools. Standard data interchange formats would therefore be the catalyst, requiring each tool to have the capability to work with those formats. The concern that standards stifle innovation in technology development is a risk that was expressed, and acknowledged, but in the main, the content is not the subject of technology innovation. So, my opening question failed to get a clear answer, but (a) I never expected it to, and (b) I’m not sure there is an answer, yet…..

Overall, I found this another successful event in the series; well attended, high quality content, and high quality interactions. In addition, the location, within walking distance of a number of iconic sites of modern history, not only gave delegates the opportunity to get some (very!) fresh air, but also presented an opening gambit to start conversations. The programme itself spanned a number of topical subjects, but if anything, it is laboratory integration that seems to be rising to the top of the agenda and the area of most concern.

Matthew makes the point that other industry sectors have seen the establishment of representative associations to establish and promote the adoption of standards.  It would be unfair to say that this hasn’t happened in the laboratory world, but sadly, few of the worthy attempts to address standardization have gained sufficient inertia to have had much impact.  Interestingly, most people involved in laboratory informatics and information management bemoan the fact that we do not have appropriate standards.  The only counter argument I’ve come across seems to suggest that standardization can inhibit innovation.  Well, that may be the case in certain sectors, but the innovation that we are looking for in the laboratory is in the science, and the capability of the tools that we need to gather, process and interpret data, not in the format of the data.  Like a lot of people in Life Sciences, Matthew is looking towards the Pistoia Alliance to provide the initiative to resolve this problem.

You can listen to the podcast here.

First of all, there’s a web-site that has to do with the topic of sharing scientific data that I ran across. I’ve only read a few postings but it seems interesting, although seems more focused on sharing things in an academic setting or between external companies. Still, here it is in case it might be useful to some of you:  http://scientificdatasharing.com/

Also, consider how you shared data when you had paper notebooks. Would you walk up and read someone’s notebook and then just use that data? Or, would you talk to the person, ask for their conclusions, and give them credit if you write a paper? (as opposed to reading their notebook, seeing the numbers they put in it, and putting them in your own paper that you’re publishing).

Some of this has to do with how much data is shared and when and since that is different for each company, the issues differ somewhat, as well.

If you have any interest in this topic, the person that asked the question is compiling information and might speak at one of the upcoming IQPC meetings, so watch for that topic. The topic would be an especially good discussion topic for one of the meetings.

The full article,by John Trigg,  is available on the Pharma IQ website

At the same conference, the conference chair, Seth Pinsky, challenged the ELN vendors to develop an integration platform. The challenge is absolutely right, and you could argue that that is exactly what the vendor (above) thought they were doing. But can a software developer develop a universal and open integration platform? A successful integration platform for the laboratory is only likely to come about through a grass roots effort that is aligned to laboratory needs and is free of commercial and proprietary influence. It needs a non-competitive community-driven approach that sets out to solve the basic integration problems, but which is not based on established business models and market driven business practices.

Mass collaboration, or collaborative innovation, is providing a revolutionary, technology-based and disruptive approach to tackling a wide range of business, social and environmental problems. A joined-up world opens up the potential for an unprecedented level of grass roots collaboration to address an increasing number of problems, many of which have been created by industrial age practices. I wish I could quote figures for how much money has been spent collectively to create and maintain custom solutions and middleware to solve integration problems, how much time has been wasted in not having direct and immediate access to data locked in inaccessible systems, and how many risks have been taken in using all kinds of crude and insecure methods of transferring data.

We have an unprecedented opportunity in the laboratory community to apply some 21st century thinking and 21st century action to tackle some of these issues. An open, integration platform, data interchange standards and systems’ integration standards will provide the basis of a solution. We have more than enough technology available to achieve this; what we don’t seem to have have is the communal will power and muscle to make it happen. After all, information is a big part of the problem, but a small part of the solution.

What’s the Difference?
Some people confuse the external tools, such as LinkedIn and FaceBook, and the internal tools their companies provide. There’s a big difference! The external tools are places to look for jobs or people to fill jobs, places to speak with the outside world to get and give advice, and places to meet people with ideas in areas that interest you or that you need to learn more about.

Both can be meant to help people get to network and know each other. However, the internal versions are often meant to help share data internally, manage internal projects, and other internal endeavors. The information shared with and posted into those tools are often inappropriate for public distribution.

For one example, an internal tool might show a list of company projects and lists of milestones within them, as well as contacts for each of the projects. That wouldn’t be appropriate to post to the outside world. Sharing data from experiments so that other similar internal groups is another block of information, not just inappropriate to post to the outside world, but there can be legal ramifications, as well (such as patent issues, for example).

Types of Social Networking
When considering where you would post something or your motive for networking with various people, consider this: what is the purpose behind it? If you’re looking to network and share information with other groups in your company so that you make sure you’re not duplicating work, that’s easily kept in the internal social networking software. If you’re looking to get a variety of ideas on what companies in your industry are using for their informatics software, an external social networking tool is the best place to meet these people.

But then, someone always asks me combining personal and professional data in something like FaceBook. While I have nothing against the more personally-oriented tools such as FaceBook, combining information isn’t necessarily a good idea. My advice is to keep the professional information in a tool such as LinkedIn and the personal information in tools such as FaceBook, rather than mixing them. Just the other day, I heard someone say, “Social networking just can’t work – I can’t imagine putting my scientific data into FaceBook.” That’s not the intention.

Think of this in yet another way: most of us have a personal computer and a work computer. The work computer has all the applications and data we need to be professionals and do our jobs, properly. The personal computer has whatever helps us run our households, enjoy ourselves, or otherwise do the non-work things we want to do. We seldom mix them. Think of social networking in the same way – there are different needs that we have and different features offered by the various tools, depending on where they will be used.

The Pistoia Alliance (http://www.pistoiaalliance.org/) is working to create data standards to allow easier data interchange and to bring down the cost of data interchange for everyone sharing Pharma and Biopharm data in the Disocovery to Preclinical portion of the data stream.

The speaker was their Treasurer, Ramesh Durvasula. First of all, he’s a good speaker. He seems excited about the subject and was able to present it in a knowledgeable and clear manner.

The presentation, itself, was also information. I went into the presentation wondering what makes this effort different than all the other standards efforts, over the years and I think I came out of it with that question answered. For one, the Pistoia Alliance is looking to bring together all players in this, including not just the customer companies, but also the solutions providers. Also, rather than coming from a single company or group, this is an effort that includes most of Big Pharma in its membership, as well as other companies, as well.

Just for example, think of all the CROs (Contract Research Organizations) with whom companies try to exchange data. And those CROs subcontract, as well, exchange data with even more companies. Thus, lots of companies are sending data to lots of other companies, in many different formats. If this could be standardized, it could bring the cost down for everyone. While no-one is required to follow this, one can imagine the benefit that a CRO would have with their customers if they could comply with this over another equal CRO that couldn’t.

Consider, too, that companies have been concerned that data exchange would require outside vendors to be able to come inside the system to enter that data. Technology has changed much in order to provide various solutions to that specific problem. 

So, technology has changed, a new approach is being taken, and the environment is ripe for finding ways to bring costs down by improving this type of process.

As such, the presentation covered issues, opportunities, gave some examples, and talked about specific areas and plans they have in which to move forward. Their goal is to be the bridge that facilitates this to happen. They work on getting the right people together at the right time, for one.

Also, in case you’re wondering, the name of the group is named after Pistoia, Italy, where the idea for this group was conceived.

“DevCon” is nerdy developer-speak for “Developer’s Conference” so it’s definitely not a conference to attend if you’re merely interested in using the iPad in your lab.

I wanted to point-out that one of the speakers is from a place called “Big Nerd Ranch” and, as someone that does program, I particularly thought that sounded intriguing. 

Well, last week I managed to lay hands on an iPad for the first time, albeit only for a few minutes, but it was enough to create some initial thoughts about the potential (or otherwise) of the device in the laboratory. My initial reaction was one of familiarity; as an iPhone user the interface and interactions were very familiar, although seeing Apple software such as iWorks installed was a reminder that this is a different device. By and large the experience was very similar to using an iPhone, but on a grander scale. The success of the iPhone, and the iPod, have been dependent on a couple of key factors; firstly they just look cool (but acknowledging that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!), and secondly they offer a ‘solution’ rather than just a device. The nature of the dedicated ‘Apps’ approach, and the associated service through iTunes just makes life easy when it comes to finding and installing applications. In order to make the iPad a success in the laboratory, just porting an application or running it in a browser will probably not be enough; it will need a tailored application that takes full advantage of the specific features of the device.

The other thing that struck me was the form factor. Falling between a laptop and a mobile phone in size, it is quite portable, but with Apple’s characteristic smooth finish, it feels a bit slippery and needs to be handled carefully. Furthermore, it falls somewhere between a laptop and a mobile phone in ease of use. A laptop needs to be placed on a reasonably firm surface (a lap?) to making typing manageable. An iPhone can be held comfortably in one hand, while you swipe and prod with the other. In principle, it is the same with an iPad, but the size of the device makes it a bit of a handful, and I would imagine that any serious typing would require the iPad to be laid on a surface. However, in the world of pens and paper we learned to handle clipboards, so I suppose we’ll figure a way to cope with an iPad for some rudimentary input. What did strike me was the convenience of the device for reading, and here it was rather like carrying/holding a thin book, somewhat less intrusive than a laptop, but with a decent size screen, a far more convenient size for reading than a phone. I suspect the accessories market will be looking to exploit opportunities around handling and protecting the iPad to get around some of the minor inconveniences.

So overall, does that make the iPad a potential replacement for a paper lab notebook? Time will tell; if suitable applications are tailored for the device; if the form factor is not a restriction; if the ‘closed’ or controlling nature of Apple’s approach to applications is not a hinderance, and if corporate IT policies will accommodate this type of device, well then, maybe…….

But getting back to the point, locating computers in the laboratory is not new; we’ve been doing it for 40 years or so, and its getting easier. Flat screens, mounted on telescopic arms, membrane keyboards, on slide-away trays, and use of KVM devices to switch the desk-bound processor between use at the desk or in the lab, have all helped. Of course this doesn’t overcome the basic mobility of a paper notebook, and it remains to be seen whether mobile electronic devices will have any impact on laboratory work. Already there are ELNs that are iPad-ready; there’s a major LIMS vendor that has been advertising for some while, a LIMS running on an iPhone. It is possible that these mobile devices may offer the possibility of capturing data, notes and ideas that can be synced back to a laboratory system so that the chore of sitting down and fully documenting an experiment can be conducted in an office environment.

But what if…..we were to use multimedia, rather than just text and images, to record experiments, or if the laboratory became a ‘Minority Report’ example of ubiquitous computing???? It may be some way away, but I suspect its not the ELN that is doomed.

The other news item appeared on the BBC website: ‘MI5 staff who lack computer skills made redundant’. (MI5 is the UK counter-intelligence service). In a round of compulsory and voluntary redundancies, MI5 staff lacking IT skills are being told that they are not wanted. Counter-terrorism is increasingly dependent on technology and officers have to adapt to keep up and to be completely comfortable using computers and the latest technology. This would never happen in a laboratory, would it?