Laboratory Managements Role in Scientific Technology Management
Joe Liscouski, VP, Delphinus, Inc., MA, USA email jliscouski at delphinus-lae.com
Joe Liscouski has worked in laboratory automation and computing since 1970 with experience in designing and implementing lab automation systems, consulting, product development, teaching (U.S., Europe, and Japan), and publications on topics ranging from fundamentals of data acquisition, robotics, LIMS, programming, and graphics for scientific applications. He was executive director of Laboratory Automation Standards Foundation, which worked to support data interchange standards and managed symposia on the validation of laboratory systems.
All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The nature of laboratory automation in life sciences has changed dramatically. Experimental bioassay setups that spanned feet of bench space and required considerable development effort to implement and support are now compact self-contained systems. Hyphenated instruments that combine separation and identification techniques generate large amounts of analytical data. Genome sequencing has been automated and lab-on-a-chip technologies replace larger experimental components. Lab work still requires scientists and technicians to develop and implement experimental protocols, but they can do that using modules with samples carried in standardized microplates. The process of conducting lab work has been streamlined through the use of microplates and the capability of instruments and automation producing large volumes of data.
That reality moves automation work into a new phase: Laboratory Automation Engineering covering technology management, workflow integration, and data life cycle management. Laboratory management has to take on the role of setting policies and practices to guide the implementation and use of intelligent instruments / automated systems and the data they produce. Organizations that take this approach should see reduced operating costs, more efficient operations, and improved cooperation with IT groups. More importantly, they should have better control over the knowledge, information, and data (K/I/D) produced in their laboratories.
continued page 2...
An extensive high thruput robotic screening system, part 2
Oliver de Peyer PhD, National Institute for Medical Research, London. email opeyer at nimr.mrc.ac.uk
Oliver has been working on a lab automation project for several years now. The experience gained has taken him far and wide across the frontiers of lab automation and by now he has a pretty good working knowledge of the field. He will review some basic concepts such as high throughput screening and laboratory automation – and their limitations – and then move on to more futuristic developments such as microfluidics.
All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Laboratory robotics, high-throughput research and microfluidics – what does it all mean and where are we going??
PART II - Microfluidics
At some point, a particularly cunning microplate designer must have thought: Why stop at 96 wells? If we make the wells twice as small and twice as close together, then you can have four times as many, or 384 wells on a microplate. Do the same again, and you have 1536 wells. In fact, people have even tried one further doubling to make a 6144 well plate, but by then the wells are so incredibly tiny that it is very difficult to pipette into and out of them, even with a robot.So, why not do away with the robot altogether? The laboratory robots described are doing nothing except pipetting liquid from one well to another. All the interesting stuff is actually going on in the wells themselves. If so many different molecular biology experiments have already been designed for microplate wells, why not link the wells together so that, for instance, one chemical reaction occurs in one well, and then this well’s content is passed to another well where another reaction occurs, and so forth? This way, you no longer need a pipetting robot to move samples between wells, so the entire experiment can become much, much smaller – with potentially hundreds of thousands of microscopic wells fitted into a square centimetre. A further ramification of this is because the wells can be so small, the amounts of material required – cells, genes, proteins, whatever – is very much smaller, and cheaper, as well.
This is exactly equivalent to looking at the difference between a soldered electronic circuit board and the same circuit made as a tiny silicon chip instead. Just as the silicon chip ushered in the era of microelectronics, so is lab automation now turning to the new field of microfluidics. In many cases, even the fabrication processes are the same; for instance, silicon chips can be made with tiny channels etched into them, along which fluids – and even living cells - can flow. Other materials used in microfluidic devices include elastomers, rubber-like materials which again can be manufactured with microscopic wells and channels within them. Just as we have got used to talking about the silicon chip, so now researchers are beginning to refer to microfluidic chips, or even the Holy Grail, the “lab-on-a-chip”.
continued page 2...
Anyone Can Do It (2)
Neil Benn MSc. email neil.benn at ziath.com
Neil is currently the 'Head of Automation' for a European biotech company and the CEO of Ziath; he has 12 years of experience within the pharmaceutical/biotech industry in a range of companies; GlaxoSmithKline, Cambridge Antibody Technology, Cenix Bioscience GmbH and Ziath Ltd. Within these companies Neil has been responsible for the development, maintenance and implementation of Laboratory Automation and associated software with a focus on process control and information management.
Neil has served on the board of the European Laboratory Robotics Interest Group in both Germany and the UK. Neil was the associate track chair for Informatics at the Lab Automation 2008 conference. Neil holds a bachelors degree in biotechnology and a masters degree in computer science.
All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Controlling a Multidrop – Part 2
RecapLast time we reviewed my first forays into automation programing and then looked into the initial steps towards controlling a Multidrop™ remotely. This issue we will continue with Multidrop programming, I would recommend reviewing the first issue before continuing with the Multidrop™ – (see last issue)
Once Upon a Time
If you remember from last time, I ignored my boss' orders and went ahead and reprogrammed a machine at work in my spare time. The program worked fine and we trebled our output – however we could not tell the management what I had done or we (well me!) would be in trouble. So we kept quiet and acted confused when we were asked why we were producing so much more!! After a while things came to a head and I owned up. At first my managers were understandably annoyed, however they saw the obvious benefits and took me off the temporary contract I was on and hired me on a permanent contract; this is how I got my first start.
This is not a call for people to start 'mucking around' inside the machine; today, as a manager – I know how problematic that can be. However I would urge both employees and employers to be willing to have and allow the time and energy to experiment with the equipment and processes in the scientific workplace – even today the advantages typically outweigh the risks, as long as you operate in a controlled fashion.
continued page 2...