Latest Reports

The phrase “lab of the future” typically refers to a flexible, open floorplan designed to promote collaboration and cross-pollination between researchers. But these buzzwords have been used for decades, with open labs dating back to the mid-’60s and flexible casework to the mid-’80s. So how successful have these features been, and what defines the lab of the future in 2015 and beyond?

Money is becoming available for new construction and major renovations of college and university science buildings, but experts and observers in the industry see a major planning flaw in many of these projects: They are moving forward with no assessment as to whether or not owners have the skilled staff to operate and maintain what is being planned, or the financial resources to hire the staff that will be needed. That is a recipe for institutional embarrassment.

Universities, independent research institutes, and medical centers looking to improve the quality of their research, recruit and retain staff, and compete for funding increasingly focus their attention on establishing core facilities, despite some concerns in the scientific community about where these core facilities are located and possible conflicts between the research groups vying to use them. Almost regardless of discipline, researchers chafe under budgetary constraints—no small problem in the “publish or perish” environment of biomedicine. The tools necessary for even the most basic of protocols are expensive, with cutting-edge equipment running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is hardly surprising that new or remodeled facilities benefit from centralizing certain shared resources, such as imaging instruments, microscopy, cold storage, and animal facilities. But those resistant to the concept cite reservations about establishing accountability, prioritizing purchases, and ensuring equitable access. Do the benefits of core facilities outweigh these potential pitfalls?  

Diverse projects in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland demonstrate that integrating flexible infrastructure, collaborative work styles, daylight, and sustainability all contribute to a “health-positive” scientific research environment, a concept derived from neurological and behavioral research indicating that access to natural light and human interaction improve well-being and productivity.

In the ever-evolving quest for sustainability, engineers and their clients may find the 2013 updates to ASHRAE 90.1, the energy code that predominantly guides the design of buildings, useful in benchmarking energy efficiency for new or remodeled laboratories and vivaria. Regular review of the code ensures compliance for new projects and offers an opportunity to refine best practices for building envelopes, mechanical systems, lighting, and noise mitigation, say Adam Golubski and Philip Walter of The Clark Enersen Partners.