Gensler Releases U.S.Laboratory Research Scientist Survey

Copyright Connie Zhou for Gensler, Genmab U.S. Headquarters, Princeton, NJ

Trends, needs, and innovations for scientists are a changing tapestry; from virtual reality to artificial intelligence (AI), and the emergence of hybrid work, the vision for the lab of the future is evolving.

Gensler collected data from a computer-assisted telephone interview of 492 U.S. laboratory-based research scientists in the life sciences sector to gain a better understanding of futuristic lab innovations.

The anonymous survey was conducted between October 12 and November 18, 2022.

Lab Design spoke to Nicholas Watkins, Ph.D., Gensler’s health sector research lead at the Gensler Research Institute, Erik Lustgarten, global sciences practice area leader and architect based in Gensler’s Boston office, and Justin Cratty a global sciences leader based in Gensler’s London office about the survey.

The full report is available for download.

Q: Could you please summarize what a product rollout to market is? 

A: In the life sciences, the “valley of death” is a widening gap between understanding the underlying causes of disease (basic research) and developing novel and effective treatments for clinical application (applied research).  Within the multiple phases of development and testing (the gap) many drugs, therapies, and organizations can fail.

“Product rollout to market” is a self-assessment piloted with Life Sciences organizations and asked of the scientists.  The scientists are asked to rate how efficient the speed to market of the current drugs, diagnostics, or therapies they are developing.  

Q: What factors were identified in your analysis that contribute to a product’s rollout to market? 

A: There are a total of 17 factors that we identify as predictors of upward of nearly 38% of change to rollout of product to market.  High performance on these factors boosts the rollout of products to market as reported by the scientists.  The 17 factors are divided into people, place, and process categories.  Five of these 17 factors can be used as sub-scores.  

Q: What considerations can companies make to design their laboratory facilities to keep up with innovative technologies? How could companies do this when retrofitting an existing facility? 

A: Architects and engineers tend to try to chase the perfectly tailored solution to a problem. That works for designing a city hall or a museum, iconic buildings of permanence, but laboratories are something entirely different. They need to be designed with intentional imperfection – tailored with a loose fit and the capability to adapt to frequent and sometimes drastic changes. Some practical approaches to mitigating this include clustering more permanent elements together to maximize open space, designing on a consistent module, keeping lab furniture consistent and interchangeable, and designing systems with spare capacity. Most important, however, is having a mindset that is always considering how we can plan for adaptation - tailoring the lab facility with a loose fit so that there is room for future uses that couldn’t be anticipated. 

This certainly gets a little more challenging in existing facilities, especially in a retrofit. The structure is always the first point of consideration – does it have the load capacity, column spacing, and floor-to-floor height for a lab? A second consideration is logistics – does the building have enough loading docks and service elevators to support the many deliveries and waste removals that happen in a lab building? With the things that are generally very difficult to upgrade addressed, it’s just a matter of cost. If a building isn’t already a lab building, the systems are almost always going to need to be replaced or substantially upgraded anyway. Where an existing building dictates compromises, such as floor-to-floor height, it’s even more important to plan and coordinate not only “day-one” systems, but also open pathways to allow future changes.  

Q: How would an effective design model of laboratory settings improve a biomedical product’s rollout to market by up to 38%? How would this impact lab-end users? 

A: If all 17 predictors are rated positively by the lab end-users, then there is a profound boost in the rollout of products to market for their organization. We can diagnose underperforming factors (i.e., while putting aside the high-performing factors) for any given organization to help our project teams prioritize project goals and services with clients so they can get that boost with a renovation or new facility.  

Q: What are multifunctional benches, and how can teams best implement them in their work environments? 

A: There are depictions of alchemists from the 19th century using workbenches that look remarkably similar to what is found in many lab facilities today. The multi-functional bench is an evolution of this that can be adjusted for ergonomics and modified easily to accommodate systems, screens, and storage to support the work of the scientist or instrument at the bench. Similar to the approach to buildings, a multi-functional bench starts with a sturdy structure to support the work surface and adjustable shelving. With that work platform established, a multi-functional bench provides electrical power along with the pathways to bring data connectivity and gasses in a flexible, but safe, way. Another thing that we have found is that allowing for some level of hackability and accessorizing around computers and tools like pipettes can enhance the workflow of the scientist.

Q: Is there anything you would like to add or mention? 

A: We found that layout and design interventions cannot be seen merely as elements of a programmatic checklist.  Scientists can have documentation areas near their labs, assigned bench space, generous break areas and lounges, good visibility of other teams, and optimal bench ergonomics. Unexpectedly, however, we found that unless the scientists are engaging in learning and engagement opportunities within those spaces that reinforce their organizational pride, those spaces will either not be leveraged to their full potential or just go to waste.  Second, scientists are assumed to be more career-oriented so to find that opportunities for organizational pride programmed into facility spaces can help improve retention was a big deal. An implication for clients and our designers is to create spaces for interactive and outcome-driven feedback so scientists know that their work has relevance and meaning to others.