Design Concepts to Improve Collaboration and Research within Science Buildings

Building structures that contain laboratory space are becoming an important component of many entities pursuing TBED strategies. Research spaces such as cleanrooms and wetlabs pop up throughout universities, but they also are being constructed within research parks and business incubators.

 

As the limits of our scientific knowledge continually expand, does the design of buildings housing these laboratories need to evolve as well? New technologies require understanding and input across multiple disciplines. Reductionism as the preferred approach for scientific discovery is giving way toward the convergence of knowledge across fields, or "consilience" as E.O. Wilson and others have called it. Perhaps the way to orient the physical environment around researchers can be configured such that U.S. innovators become more innovative.

 

An article in Metropolis magazine from February 2007 delves into the subject of architecture effecting the production of discoveries. In “The DNA of Science Labs,” Steven Zacks reviews principally the Janelia Farms Research Campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and considers the future of science facilities. Situated on the banks of the Potomac River north of Washington, D.C., Janelia Farms was designed to encourage cross-collaboration through connectedness and space flexibility.

 

What did they design to accomplish this goal? Based on the observation that scientific breakthroughs occur not only in laboratory space and formal meetings, but also through casual interactions, the architects planned a space that would force researchers from different disciplines to constantly see each other – from minimizing the number of corridors to having one central dining area to building glass walls between meeting rooms, laboratories and offices.

 

The ability for laboratory space to adapt to different research projects, individual preferences, and novel scientific equipment was also a critical design factor. Extraordinarily large rooms to accommodate yet-to-be-invented large pieces of equipment were incorporated. So was a modular system of lab benches and posts in the floor that provided access to pressurized air, gases, electricity and data connections. That way, as the layout of the laboratory space evolved, the equipment could be interchanged without the need for retrofitting the infrastructure. Computer scientists and stem cell researchers could use the labs interchangeably or together.

 

Another article by architect Roger Goldstein in the journal Cell further illuminates some design considerations that are improving the interactions within and between research groups. In “Architectural Design and the Collaborative Research Environment,” Goldstein reviews the history of laboratory building design, describing the deficiencies of some buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s and the attempts of modern research facilities to balance functional needs, safety, ergonomics, indoor air quality, and thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort.

 

Some of the design concepts Goldstein discusses in the article include:

• Every building, large or small, having a place with ample daylight through which most of the occupants pass through at least once a day;
• Allowing exterior light to penetrate the space throughout the lab building, which produces a sense of connectedness to the outdoors and other interior rooms;
• Fostering interaction and community through public spaces;
• Directing foot traffic to attractive interior stairs instead of elevators; and,
• Considering sustainable or “green” design to save energy, especially in life science buildings that are traditionally large consumers of electricity.

Goldstein also stresses the importance of post-occupancy evaluation, which in his opinion is a highly underutilized tool to systematically gauge the design and performance of buildings that are currently in operation. Additionally, he postulates architects would benefit from taking a more empirical approach to analyzing design decisions in order to optimize laboratory functionality. By incorporating neuroscience research on the effect of perception on performance and experimenting with alternative designs, perhaps new forms of architectural concepts can greatly impact the performance of researchers within future research buildings.

 

Metropolis magazine's “The DNA of Science Labs” can be read at:

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2520

 

“Architectural Design and the Collaborative Research Environment” is available in the Oct. 20, 2006, issue of the journal, Cell, at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867406012979