• The commercial products are more mature, although the marketplace is still very dynamic with merger and acquisition activity, and new players coming on to the scene.
• Electronic records can be used as evidence in court.
• ELNs really can be used for biology.
• The ‘Cloud’ is a remote server farm.
• Our vocabulary is being extended to include words such as Semantics and Ontologies.
• We need to share data and information across the firewall.
• Thin clients become increasingly important.
• ELNs can be as portable as paper notebooks.
• The need for standards is increasingly recognised.

But there a few things that remain unresolved:

• What is the difference between an ELN and a LIMS?
• What is a Laboratory Execution System?
• How secure is the Cloud?
• Will we ever solve the integration problem?

And of course, there are the permanent concerns about best deployment strategies, return on investment, and getting user buy-in.

Click the link for the programme for ELNs & Advanced Laboratory Solutions. The Download Centre contains a number of articles, presentations, podcasts and videos aligned to the ELN event.

Both pre-Pittcon and post-Pittcon, industry magazines have guides to the conference, as well as commentaries on what the highlights were. However, they’re always a tiny portion of what’s available at the event. If you’re looking for a new laboratory informatics solution and want to see live demos and speak to real people, I don’t think you’ll find another conference that has as large an exhibition floor for laboratory informatics as Pittcon does. Even though you can’t get the early-bird rate, now, it’s still one of the cheapest conferences to attend. However, in my opinion, it is LIMS-heavy, but there are other types of products represented, as well, such as ELNs.

Keep in-mind that Pittcon is one of the largest volunteer events around and you’ll be amazed at what they do. When I last attended, I got the opportunity to go behind the scenes and see the number of volunteers it takes to just be in attendance at the event, and that might not be everyone that puts time into it throughout the year, but the sheer volume of people it takes is just incredible.

So, it’s not to late to head down to Atlanta, Georgia, USA and attend one of the few huge conferences left in our world.

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.

http://theintegratedlab.com/2011/01/%e2%80%9cpanel-predicts-future-of-smart-labs%e2%80%9d/

Shame on me. That’s what happens when you make hurried postings.

In this podcast, we discuss issues such as the future of the products we work with and the issues we continue to see on projects, to name just a couple:
   http://www.pharma-iq.com/podcenter.cfm?externalID=940

This podcast is meant as a precursor to the SmartLab Exchange being held this Winter. These are the types of discussions people have at the event and the presentations given will cover similar issues. If you are interested in finding out if you are eligible to attend, here is the event information:
   http://www.smartlabexchange.com/Event.aspx?id=369178

Related to that is our involvement on the 2011 Advisory Board for the SmartLab Exchange. The Advisory Board consists of various points of view in our industry, with these roles represented on the Board: consultant, software vendor, customer company. By allowing each faction to participate in the Advisory Board, it’s not just that we help ensure the conference will be of interest to our own section of the industry, but each of us has the opportunity to suggest things that might be of interest to the OTHER factions, as well. It’s by the very fact that we’re brought together and given this opportunity that we can try to influence the event to keep targeting the ideal balance for providing toward the needs of the laboratory informatics industry.

Additionally, I’m in total agreement with John that participation in a conference is much better than passively listening to some “expert.” You learn more and retain more and, by sharing your own ideas, you find out where the holes might or might not have been in your own ideas. Sometimes, you help another person by sharing your great idea. Other times, they help you by adding to your idea to make it stupendous. Most often, it’s a combination of the two.

I told this story after the 2010 SmartLab Exchange, but I’m going to repeat it: the audience does start a bit quiet, but over the two days, if you watch people, you’ll start to see more-and-more people come out of their shell to share ideas and to truly participate in the event. Specifically, I know a person that told me they could never participate – they’re too shy. In just TWO days, they were running around asking questions and giving their opinion, too. And, seriously, I know the person and they really are pretty shy, so the conference does give a “safe” place to make it comfortable to collaborate in this manner.

If you think John and I write too much about the SmartLab Exchange, it’s because it’s THAT outstanding – it resonates with you long after you leave. I’m already looking forward to attending and I’m not even listed as a speaker or chair for 2011, and that’s a rare event that I’d be that excited about without having some specific conference role.

As John did, I’ll give you the link so you can read more about it:  http://www.smartlabexchange.com/Event.aspx?id=369178

The attraction of the exchange format for me has a lot to do with the emphasis placed on interaction, rather than passive, participation. At a time when collaboration and sharing become increasingly important as business processes, the opportunity to gather together with a cross section of the laboratory informatics/management industry to raise issues, share knowledge and experiences, and hear accounts of successes (and failures?) is very welcome. The agenda includes conference sessions, one-on-one business meetings, interactive Think Tank discussions, and other networking opportunities.

The programme for the event is complete, and along with other relevant information, can be viewed at www.smartlabexchange.com.

John has just posted questions and issues from his workshop and some other material, but I would also like to welcome all of you who have recently attended conferences to share your thoughts on them by posting your comments to this blog. Some example questions for you:

What did you learn?
Did anything you learned surprise you?
What was your biggest take-away from the conference(s) you attended?

If there were three words that summed up the conference for me, they would be biology, templates and clouds. It is increasingly clear that the ELN market for chemistry is becoming relatively mature, and most of the questions are now coming from the biology sector. That’s no real surprise; for some years now there has been a growing interest in how the ELN market will tackle biology. Whereas chemistry deals with relatively small molecules and adopts reasonably consistent processes for handing synthesis, registration, testing, etc., biology brings along a much greater number of variables in terms of content and process. In principle, at least, there’s a chance that a one-size-fits-all ELN will work in the chemistry world, but no self-respecting biologist is going to see his/her world in the same way.

In terms of the conference programme, this issue was constantly raised in the context of the use of templates. Most commercial ELN products provide the means to configure their systems through the design and use of templates. The writing of code to provide a custom solution is largely committed to history; the current approach is to provide configurable templates to address specific user requirements, a particularly important approach to addressing biology requirements. And thereby hangs the dilemma; how many templates are needed; who is going to do the work, and who is going to maintain them? This was a question that popped up many times, and like so many good questions, there’s no single answer. Its really a case of getting the balance right; too few, and users don’t feel they are getting what they need; too many, and choice and maintenance become issues.

The third topic was the cloud – not the metrological type that hung over Amsterdam for most of the conference, but the prospect of delivering an ELN through a hosted service over a wide area network (internet). There is no doubt that the interest in this form of delivery is very high as it promises lower implementation costs (but don’t forget templates) and access from any (approved) location. But the concerns hinge mainly around ownership and integrity. Again, there’s no easy answer to this; convincing lawyers that the transition from paper to electronic records is a viable step to take, has and still is, a challenge in some organisations. Convincing them that hosting the system in the cloud adds another dimension.

In his opening remarks, conference chairman Seth Pinsky challenged ELN vendors to deliver an ELN as an integration platform. It’s an interesting thought, although I would query whether we would really want the ELN to be the platform. There is clearly a need for an integration platform in the laboratory, but the ELN, or components of it, represent some of the functional tools that need to be integrated, along with LIMS functions, instrument data capture, etc. etc. Since this is a matter at the heart of work being undertaken by the Pistoia Alliance, it was a shame that this topic did not crop up on the agenda, or indeed, that there was no update on progress of the initiative. A topic for the 10th birthday perhaps?