Lab design enters 21st century

Andy Parker of AMEC, a design consultancy that specialises in laboratory space for the pharmachem sector, told In-PharmaTechnologist.com​ at the TOTAL 2004 exhibition this week that pharmaceutical companies have difficulties building research areas because there can be a disconnect between those doing the research and those organising the construction.

The realisation that big pharma companies did not really know what their researchers were doing in their labs prompted AMEC, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, to conduct a broad-ranging study on the issue, which has become even more urgent as automation starts to enter the laboratory and scientists' working environments change.

The result? A flexible laboratory design - dubbed the Flexilab - that puts the findings of the study into practice and is already finding its way into pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies seeking either to refurbish old labs or build new ones.

A desire for standards such as a set space per scientist, the absence of any real data on how laboratories are used and the failures of the briefing process between designer and scientist are all factors contributing to the fact that labs have not altered much in the last 30 years, said Parker.

At present, a designer will sit down with a scientist and rapidly find that their only common ground for understanding and discussion will surround the minutiae of the project - the number of gas taps and other services, for instance. And the result is that the scientist often does not get what he envisaged.

Along with its partners, AMEC conducted a wide-ranging literature search to establish the current thinking on the relationship between spaces and productivity, and found a wealth of data. For example, in the healthcare setting there is clear evidence from studies that the speed of recovery in hospital can be significantly affected by access to daylight, the proximity of nurses, opportunities for sleep etc.

Interaction yields innovation​

Furthermore, research in the US - involving two defence research teams that were working on a similar project - provides evidence that the probability of delivering innovation increases with greater human interaction. In this early study (dating from 1977), it was found that the team deemed to be the most innovative had around 10 times the interactions of the rival group.

However, current laboratory layouts tend to be driven by operational and logistic efficiencies, such as grouping all scientists in a particular discipline together, which has its benefits but is unlikely to support "the interactive environment required to deliver innovation,"​ commented Parker.

Among the findings of the research was that there is a critical limit for a social unit size of around 200 people, and that workers only usually form intense social relationships with around 10-12 people. Similarly, there are critical limits on conversation group size, with four being the most common grouping. But it also found that interactions outside of a group are the most effective in adding a spark of creativity to a project.

AMEC followed this literature survey with a series of interviews looking at how scientists in big pharma perceive themselves and their work. One strong finding was that scientists consider themselves artisans - in other words they like to get their hands dirty in the lab. But big pharma is striving towards a mass production culture, particularly in drug discovery but also other disciplines such as medicinal chemistry, and this move towards automation can lead to fears among researchers that they are becoming 'non-thinkers' and serving as operatives for machinery.

In fact, said Parker, the UK industry has created something of a problem for itself by adopting a policy of hiring very qualified staff - often to PhD level - and doing away with technicians in the lab. This has contributed to the 'non-thinker' concern, he told In-PharmaTechnologist.com​, whilst pointing out that in other countries such as France this is not a problem as the technician grade is still employed.

Other revelations were that scientists want their own space - hardly surprising - but also that senior staff have more space, but need less as they spend less time in the lab. But the most common theme in the interviews was a desire for more flexibility: "benches on wheels, plug and play equipment, umbilicals (for services) in the ceilings"​ was how one scientist put it.

Finally, AMEC did some real-time data collection to see how much time was actually spent in the lab as opposed to the office area, and also the nature of interactions between scientists. E-mail was the top communication medium between scientists in terms of the number of interactions, but encouragingly accounted for only a fraction of the time devoted to unscheduled, face-to-face meetings.

This led to some interesting interpretations. For example, it is generally the case, said Parker, that the write-up/office space is simply inadequate for its purpose - which is a combination of office, reading room and meeting room. "We need to spend more time focusing on non-lab spaces,"​ he noted, as this is the area where interactions occur and ideas follow.

Circulation was another factor, as the studies showed that people are more available for interaction when they are on the move, so proximity to corridors helps encourage this. The key is to move away from the motorway concept - getting people from A to B as quickly as possible - to a street concept that encourages interaction.

AMEC has encapsulated all these findings in its FlexiLab project, which has been applied in a number of facilities including GSK's research facilities in Stevenage. The elements of the design are simple - mobile tables not benches, service pods that hang from the ceiling and can be positioned to supply gas, power etc from any ceiling tile, relocatable fume cupboards, etc - but the effects are dramatic.

"Scientists take control of their space with the FlexiLab,"​ said Parker, as it enables experimentation with layout. Additionally, the project can easily be changed at short notice and at low cost, avoids over-provision of services, and is no more expensive than a standard refurb or build. The complexity of the ceiling components and pods adds some cost, but this is offset by less fixed pipework, he noted.

AMEC now intends to carry out a month-long comparison of a FlexiLab and a conventional lab space to se if these theoretical benefits on interaction and productivity are achieved in a real world setting. The project will get going in the next month