The Integrated Lab » This Site

Where do the ideas come from?

John Trigg — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:57:23 +0000

At the invitation of IQPC, I now have a column called Managing the Laboratory Ecosystem on the Pharma IQ website. ’Where do the ideas come from?‘ is the first article posted there, raising questions about whether increasing use and dependence on technology might be causing us to think in a digital or systematic mode, to the detriment of creativity. There’s an opportunity to add your own comments to the article, or to come back here to do so.

Bad Science

John Trigg — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:54:29 +0000

I’m sure that those of us involved in the world of LIMS, ELNs, SDMs, laboratory integration, etc. get so wrapped up fathoming laboratory processes, and deploying, managing and maintaining technology that its easy to forget that the bottom line of our existence is to support good science. A good many of us, myself included, probably started out as scientists before crossing the chasm into technology, so it’s no bad thing to keep an eye on the world of science, its issues, breakthroughs and potential. The one area that I find particularly interesting is the public perception of science, and the extent to which the media and advertisers convey ‘science’ to the masses. Ben Goldacre has campaigned fervently to debunk some of the nonsense written and broadcast in the name of science. His book ‘Bad Science’ is prominent on my bookshelf, and his weekly column in the Guardian is essential reading, the most recent of which provides a summary of this year’s nonsense; some fine, seasonal reading.

Will we ever solve the integration problem?

John Trigg — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:43:57 +0000

At a recent conference I heard a presentation from a laboratory software vendor who described a generic set of requirements to achieve good efficiencies in laboratory data and information management. These included data transfer between systems, an integrated laboratory environment and the capability to efficiently access and share data and information across internal and external boundaries. However, it was claimed, the way in which laboratories would want to achieve this was by turning to a single vendor solution. There was, unfortunately, no evidence presented to back up this claim, i.e. a survey or consumer report, etc. Call me a sceptic, but this doesn’t align too well with my experience of laboratories and scientists. In general, anybody who specialises in a specific scientific discipline or technique will be quite discerning about the choice of tools they use; in other words, they will typically opt for a best of breed approach. So which approach is right, a single vendor, one-size-fits-all solution, or an integration environment that can accommodate best of breed solutions? There will, of course, be proponents on both sides of the argument, but the thought that struck me is that these two opposing views represent a new battle ground between traditional, industrial age thinking and modern, information age thinking. The vendor presentation recognised the underlying integration problem, but the proposed solution was a traditional command and control approach and is therefore somewhat doomed. It will meet the same implementation issues that face every ‘integrated laboratory solution’; it won’t satisfy all customers’ requirements, and will pay homage to IP protection, regulatory compliance and other bureaucratic necessities, at the expense of integration, innovation and collaboration functionality, the things that users really want.

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.

Communicating science

John Trigg — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:44:04 +0000

Some while ago I posted an item on Telling Stories which was triggered by a post on Richard Gayle’s Blog Spreading Science. Following on in much the same theme, Richard has a new item on his site Why science communication often fails which explores the paradox between dealing with facts or listening to a good story. It raises the concern about whether science drives policy, or policy drives science. The point that I had raised was that the story should be based on, and traceable to the facts, something that was, for example, badly missing in the recent controversy over climate change. I would imagine that most scientists feel a good deal of frustration that scientific matters are poorly communicated and consequently, poorly understood by non-scientists. Richard’s blog is well worth reading, and I would also recommend Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science. Furthermore, Nick Davies’ book Flat Earth News gives a general insight into modern journalistic processes and standards that add to the challenge of communicating science to the general public.

Also, take a look at Global Warming: Man or Myth?

ELNs, Conferences and Blogs

John Trigg — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:17:26 +0000

More thoughts from Brussels…..

Last week’s ELN conference in Brussels seems to have generated more post-conference comment than any other I have attended. With posts appearing on this site, on Simon Coles’ ELN Blog and on the ELN Group in LinkedIn, the conference has acted as a catalyst for sharing opinion and maintaining a dialogue long after everyone had gone home. The content of the blogs centres on the thoughts and opinions of attendees, and emanates from everyone having had some time to put these thoughts and opinions in perspective. It’s not as if there is any great controversy or major difference in opinion amongst the bloggers; it just reflects that there are uncertainties in the ELN market, and where its boundaries lay with other laboratory software solutions.

The more philosophical point to come out of the blogs is that conferences tend to act, in part, as showcases for ‘successful’ projects. So if you come from the school of thought that says you learn more from your mistakes (or in this context, from other people’s mistakes), then what you hear at a conference may not provide you with all of the ammunition you need when you kick off your own project. On the other hand, would any conference organiser plan an agenda full of stories of failure, blame and recrimination? No, I can’t believe they would, but I bet we would love to attend if they did.

In my opinion, the blogs have added value to attending a conference. So is this where the value of the blogs comes in? Last week’s conference demonstrated that presentations occupy a fixed place and time, but opinion and comment can continue to be shared and debated in a constructive manner for days, weeks and months afterwards. We all have access to the tools to be able to participate in these debates; somehow we need to develop the culture that makes it important to contribute.

If you are a consumer in the laboratory software market, you are at the mercy of the vendors, consultants, journalists, conference organisers, and anybody else who seeks to make money out of this market. Other markets have demonstrated how consumers can come together around a common cause to exert influence on the suppliers; check ‘Here Comes Everybody’ and ‘Tribes’ for examples.

As a user community that is traditionally application-centric, we know we have some immediate concerns about matching solutions to problems. Furthermore, as integration becomes the next big challenge, there will be more issues to face. In fairness, I’ve spoken to laboratory software vendors who are frustrated that the market, as a whole, does not express its requirements, other than at a relatively low, and company-specific level. Web 2.0 and social tools offer us an unprecedented opportunity to put that right in a way that can serve the interests of the community as a whole.

Telling stories

John Trigg — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:34:51 +0000

Over on Richard Gayle’s Blog Spreading Science, I read a post entitled Scientists need to tell better stories. It touches on a point that has bothered me for a while now, and that is that the basic structure and discipline of the scientific method demands a particular style of documentation, and that style often carries over into presentations. Add to that the wonder of PowerPoint, and I’m sure we can all recount times when sitting in an auditorium, listening to a presentation, more attention was being paid to trying to stay awake, or wondering from which direction the next bullet point would appear. At the back of my concern is the difficulty that science has in communicating with non-scientists, and in particular conveying a convincing, reliable and articulate view of the scientific issue. When it comes to matters of significant interest, then of course, the media get in the way to add their own peculiar spin and the inevitable opening of a can of worms. (Which reminds me of Zymurgy’s First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics, ‘Once you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.’) Getting back to the point, and reinforcing Richard Gayle’s view, nobody needs be blinded by science if the material is presented as a story. And this applies whether the material is being presented to scientists or non-scientists. Now, this doesn’t mean dumbing down, or introducing dramatic Hollywood style sub-plots; constructing the article or presentation on creative writing techniques should do the job. But of course, as scientists, we were never taught how to do that!

The other thing I liked about Richard’s post was the last three paragraphs, which echo some thoughts that have appeared on this site:

Learning how to tell better stories, not just write good narratives, is something all researchers should learn how to do. But, whereas there is a real premium put on writing good papers, there is little pressure to speak well before a group.

That is why the best places to be at scientific conferences is usually not at the presentations but at the bars and pubs frequented by the conference goers. We get the real story there because every human being knows how to trade stories with others, even when the group is just a bunch of researchers.

Now if we could just get more researchers to adopt this approach to their public speaking trips, we might affect some real change.

Conferences, again….

John Trigg — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:38:37 +0000

This coming weekend sees the start of my personal travel itinerary to a number of conferences and workshops in which I am participating over the next few months. First up is the 8th Annual ELNs and Advanced Laboratory Solutions conference in Brussels. Next month, its across to the west coast US for the 5th Laboratory Informatics Forum in San Francisco, then I’m heading south to Johannesburg, South Africa, to run a 2 day ELN Workshop with Simon Coles and Jo Worthington on 8th/9th November. Later in November there’s a one day workshop on Analytical Lab Efficiency & Productivity, organised by AAMG-RSC in London. Next January, it’s back across to the west coast for Lab Automation 2010 in Palm Springs, where Simon Coles and I will be running a one day short course on ELNs. Then back to London for SMi’s ELN Conference at the end of January before another trip to Brussels in March for one of my favourite events, SmartLabs Exchange.

As has been said in other posts on The Integrated Lab, the added value that conferences offer is the informal, face-to-face networking opportunities of meeting other attendees, and sharing ideas and experiences. I’m looking forward to catching up with any current followers of The Integrated Lab at these conferences, and hopefully convincing others to come and join us.

The Integrated Lab Blogroll

John Trigg — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:57:07 +0000

I just wanted to draw attention to the ‘Blogroll’ that appears in the left-hand side bar of this page. These are links to other blog sites that I’ve found informative, interesting and relevant to laboratory integration. Gloria Metrick, who is a regular and enthusiastic contributor here, has her own blog ‘Out on a LIMS’ which deals with the things that matter to those who daily risk life and LIMS! Also on the subject of LIMS, we have the LIMS Blog from LIMSfinder, the interactive LIMS magazine, and John H. Jones’ LiMS Journal. Representing the ELN world, there are links to Simon Coles’ ELN Blog and Wolfgang Rump’s ELN Blog. I’ve enjoyed reading some of Richard Gayle’s blog ‘spreadingscience Science 2.0 and beyond’; although not dealing directly with laboratory integration, it touches on a number of related topics, and contains some invaluable insights into technology adoption.

In addition to the Blogroll, there is a link on the Information Resources page (in the LIMS section) to the Aggregated LIMS Blogs, Articles, News & Events page provided by LIMSfinder.com.

The Industry News page on TheIntegratedLab.com contains Google News feeds on laboratory integration topics.

Take a look at these blogs; I know the authors will welcome your visits and feedback, and please let me know if any other relevant blogs that should appear here.

Latest industry news

John Trigg — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:59:37 +0000

The Integrated Lab has a new feature, Industry News. This is a feed of the lastest stories emanating from the world of laboratory informatics, courtesy of Google. You can access the page either from the left sidepanel, or from the menu across the top of the page.

The Curious Lab Worker

John Trigg — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:51:33 +0000

John Holland posted an interesting item about the selling process on www.eyeforsales.com that makes the point that few vendors have changed their approach to the sales process in order to facilitate the buying process. His observation, Introducing the Curious Buyer, is based on the growing use of technology by buyers to support their buying decisions, at the expense of the vendor’s influence and involvement. In the consumer world, we are all getting quite experienced at this. If I want to buy a commodity item or a new toy, the pattern is getting predictable; I log on to Amazon or other appropriate website, find the item and then start reading the reviews by previous purchasers. Opinion and real user experience are easy to find. A rudimentary knowledge of statistics and human behaviour supports this process. Bad experiences are more likely to be reported than good ones, and there’s always the worry that good reviews could be planted, but nevertheless, a bit of research can go a long way towards making a good purchasing decision. Finally I’ll do some price comparisons, and then decide from whom I’ll make the purchase. And that is a typical example of the buyer being empowered by technology; early in the buying cycle, there is no need for any interaction with a salesperson.

John Holland’s conclusion is that the traditional categorisation of buyers –‘looking’, or ‘not looking’, is complemented by a third category, the curious buyer. I’m not sure the term is quite correct because, by his definition, the curious buyer is not a buyer at all (well, not yet, anyway). The term represents that phase when we’re just interested to know about the products, the vendors and the industry. And this is the thing that caught my attention, because in the world of laboratory systems and software, it comes close to describing the purpose of this website.

The Integrated Lab was set up to provide a non-commercial forum for open discussion and the sharing of information about aspects of laboratory integration, but without promoting commercial laboratory products and/or systems – a community site for the curious scientist/laboratory worker? But what about the vendors, consultants, journalists, conference organisers, etc., who also form part of that community? Should the site be doing more to support the ‘curious’ in the pre-buying phase, and if so, how? And should it be offering opportunities to talk more about products and systems from a non-commercial perspective? Why not leave a comment to satisfy my curiosity?

Laboratory Integration Blogs

John Trigg — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:13:32 +0000

I just started to wonder about how many blogs there are about laboratory integration. In the world of ELNs, I’m aware of these four:

Does anybody know of any blogs devoted to LIMS, Lab Automation, Laboratory Informatics, or indeed anything else to do with laboratory integration?

Hello world!

John Trigg — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:27:19 +0000

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.