This week’s quote comes from Jacob Bronowski.

“The essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.”

"Messy lab" by duncanmacinnis

You cannot replace a laboratory notebook. you simply can’t. why? because. just because.

I read a newspaper post recently  on how iphones and ipads have changed today’s classroom–kids interacting with their teachers and among themselves. This led me to thinking – when kids stop using notebooks, pens, paper, when kids  stop writing – eventually researchers will do so too. A computer is not a replacement for a notebook. It brings many benefits and is used extensively throughout the working day. but it is still far from killing paper.

The Wrong Terminology
Don’t call something a “notebook” when it is technically a fancy word processor with extended functionality.  That’s just bad terminology. I was so excited going to the first grade, getting my new notebooks. And then year after year for 12 years a new school year with new notebooks. It is so deeply imprinted that office depot still draws me to the notebook aisle, and not because I really need one, I’m “just browsing”.

Recently I presented to a partner at a venture capital firm (not fun), and he raised the question why we weren’t positioning our service as an ELN (electronic laboratory notebook). he was taking notes in his fancy Moleskin notebook, I asked him, why aren’t you taking notes on a computer – ” I think its impolite”, he replied.  Maybe. Still it is a cultural issue.
Even if you called ELNs something else for example an ELPA (which might stand for Electronic Laboratory Personal Assistant) it would not work. The reason lies in the way our laboratories are organized. I know many of you are using a computer, and I wouldn’t start BioData and wouldn’t write BioKM™ if that wasn’t the case, but are you using a computer on the bench? my guess is no. That’s why today’s ELNs are doomed to failure. The fact that you need to move back and forth from your bench to the office to update your progress  is killing the concept of a proper notebook.

You do not procrastinate with a paper.
One of the major disadvantages in working with a computer is the notion of “multitasking” you are not multitasking when you are working with paper. you are usually more focused. the fact that you hold a pen is focusing your attention towards the paper. I am sitting hours in front of the computer writing code,emails, blogs, tweets, facebook. you get the routine. But when I need to focus, I close the laptop screen.  paper is simple, it was intended for you to write. jot things down. sketch. not things you can easily do with a computer.

My own experience.
When I was doing bench research I tried many systems to organize my research. I printed out a lot of papers, and had most of my stuff also on paper. true, not all in notebooks but in something I could write on, so I could check and verify what I did.

BioKM™ is not an ELN
BioKM™ is not an ELN. nor it was intended to be one. when we will see researchers bringing their laptops, or ipads to the bench that’s when we’ll join the party. until then we are writing software for “offline” interaction. software that helps you reflect on your work but is not replacing your notebook.

What’s next ?
We rely on computers.  We also require simple tools to help document our work, interact with our colleagues, keep our research organized. we just need to figure out a way that will co-exist with our routine, allowing us to concentrate on our research while ensuring the knowledge and information we learn is kept and can be easily retrieved.

This week’s quote comes from Cornelius Bernardus Van Neil.

“In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in.”

When I started BioData I had a clear idea where I was going. I’d seen science from the inside and knew what change I wanted to promote.

This blog post is my reply to a Science Careers paper that was posted a few years back. In short, the article suggests that young researchers do not believe in applying (PM) Project Management to research while  veteran researchers do.

I disagree. Project Management in research has nothing to do with age. We (shameless self promotion here) have about 650 active projects on our BioKM platform. They are being used mostly by students – not by their managers. Why?

Our research project module was born after I saw there was just too much stuff in some of the accounts. There was no way to understand the research story – you had a plasmid but you couldn’t understand why it was there, if it was ever used, what were the results, which protocol, etc.

Since I don’t like to write software that no one uses, I decided to talk with a few researchers that were collaborating with us at the time. All said – “No project management in academia,” “it will never work,” “you can’t manage research,”  “you can’t really plan ahead.”

We heard that, and yet all that discouragement helped us understand the real challenge. Project management in research is a totally new concept and should be addressed in a different manner and with a different set of tools. Ganntt Charts won’t work, constraints and other limiting factors are obviously there, meeting deadlines is there, but they are just not the point.

The point is to understand the path and the questions you are asking. The point is not to repeat yourself (well at least not too much), and to let your ideas and imagination thrive so you can see the progress of your research. A good tool (even a notebook) would be a place for you or any future researcher working on your project to understand what you did, share your ideas and pick it up to take it elsewhere.

A research project is different from an industrial projects since it is mostly a sequence of question and answers, not milestones and products.

Research can be managed it just requires attention and thought.