The Tale of Two Lab Management Strategies

Seagull at the boat stop

Seagull  – the king of the pile (Photo credit: waltern)

According to the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, experimental science relies more on  scientists’ emulation of each other as opposed to theoretical knowledge; e.g. it’s more like craft, tranferred from person to person through teaching and observing, rather than anything else. Chosen by a group leader, a lab-management strategy is self-sustaining, so I hope after reading this article and starting your own lab you’ll chose the best one. When it comes to solution preparation and lab organisation, there are two main strategies on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Seagull strategy of lab management

Seagulls live in colonies but they don’t cooperate in finding food; on the contrary they often steal it from each other. Applying the seagull strategy (SGS) to the lab, each person develops their own SGS so that, at least in theory, everyone’s work speed depends on their personal organisation skills – if you don’t think in advance, the experiments go very slowly. On the other hand,  SGS policy  leads to a lot of money and time waste. For example, people buy the same enzymes and reagents repeatedly, use one microliter of reagent while the rest degrades in the freezer for a year or more and it is less active when next needed. If you make too little reagent it runs out quickly, too much – and the buffer made a year ago can precipitate, etc. Therefore the SGS of lab management creates an environment where everybody spends time making the same reagents. And the strategy does not prevent the lab bastard from sneakily using your stuff, unless you change the label (or use other know how).

Commons strategy of lab management

This is the opposite of the seagull – there are communal stocks and reagents. Stock solutions can be prepared in large volumes, saving time for individuals; the reagents are used quickly (if not, there is no point in making a lot of stock!). Plus everybody uses the same stuff, increasing reproducibility of the experiments. I don’t know whether to count incorrect stock made from time to time as an advantage or a disadvantage of this strategy: in the Commons strategy of lab management a lot of experiments can go wrong at the same time, but the cause found very quickly, while you may use your incorrect solution for some time under the seagull strategy wondering what change in the stars is causing this misfortune.

The disadvantages of the Commons strategy stem from no less than imperfect human nature. The Commons strategy sometimes results in the tragedy of the commons, when lab colleagues drain the resource and do nothing to replace it, relying on somebody else to do it. However, this is prevented by establishing a rota and applying peer pressure on colleagues who don’t pull their weight.

Even if you are unlucky to find yourself among the seagulls, you can try to set up a sharing and caring Commons strategy – sometimes just making a communal stock and telling your lab mates what it is will prompt them to join you and support it, especially when newer members join the lab having not being immersed in tradition. If your attempt to live like a human, not a bird, fails, you can always return to the SGS.

Which strategy do you prefer and why?

This is 1.0, 1.1 was published @BiteSizeBio



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.