Laboratory notebooks of scientists such as Michael Faraday and Thomas Edison not only provide details of experimental methods and the day-to-day progression of their historic research, but also offer insights into how they thought and accounts of the moments of breakthrough discoveries.
For centuries, scientific recording keeping involving handwritten entries in paper notebooks has sufficed. Over the last two decades I have witnessed dramatic changes in laboratory record keeping that have stemmed from the advent of digital data.
In academic research, it is customary for a scientist’s original laboratory notebooks to be kept by the principle investigator. So, on shelves outside my office are rows of the laboratory notebooks that have been generated by postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians who have worked with me over the last 20 years.
Looking through these notebooks one can see the variety of ways in which researchers have documented their experimentation. In addition to handwritten entries there are an assortment of films, gels, photographs, graphs, spreadsheets and printouts from all kinds of instruments that have been taped, stapled or simply placed between pages. In more recent notebooks there are attached storage disks containing electronic files. It is evident these scientists have had different degrees of success dealing with problems of annotation and cross-referencing of disparate types of data, particularly digital data.
Generally, once a year I discuss with members of my lab group how to maintain a laboratory notebook and store their digital data. I stress how vital stringent record keeping is to the scientific process and that valid records preserve rights to our discoveries. Despite this, upon periodic inspection of notebooks of my personnel I am often surprised to find what actually is being recorded. Rather than adhering to the conventional format some have adopted a ‘relaxed’ style for their notebook entries. Particularly disturbing are notebooks that lack discussion of results and conclusions. I have also found it difficult and sometimes impossible to locate digital data related to particular experiments described in my people's notebooks.
These experiences not only underscore breakdowns in record keeping training and compliance, but also highlight inadequacies of current record keeping approaches generally employed by basic researchers. I am therefore a proponent of implementation of electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) that automate collection and recording of data. Such systems are not widely employed in academic research, but the NIH and research institutions need to take steps to see that these systems are implemented.
Looking through these notebooks one can see the variety of ways in which researchers have documented their experimentation. In addition to handwritten entries there are an assortment of films, gels, photographs, graphs, spreadsheets and printouts from all kinds of instruments that have been taped, stapled or simply placed between pages. In more recent notebooks there are attached storage disks containing electronic files. It is evident these scientists have had different degrees of success dealing with problems of annotation and cross-referencing of disparate types of data, particularly digital data.
Generally, once a year I discuss with members of my lab group how to maintain a laboratory notebook and store their digital data. I stress how vital stringent record keeping is to the scientific process and that valid records preserve rights to our discoveries. Despite this, upon periodic inspection of notebooks of my personnel I am often surprised to find what actually is being recorded. Rather than adhering to the conventional format some have adopted a ‘relaxed’ style for their notebook entries. Particularly disturbing are notebooks that lack discussion of results and conclusions. I have also found it difficult and sometimes impossible to locate digital data related to particular experiments described in my people's notebooks.
These experiences not only underscore breakdowns in record keeping training and compliance, but also highlight inadequacies of current record keeping approaches generally employed by basic researchers. I am therefore a proponent of implementation of electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) that automate collection and recording of data. Such systems are not widely employed in academic research, but the NIH and research institutions need to take steps to see that these systems are implemented.
