|
A research project today has been littered with numerous digital
documents in the forms of images and discussion emails to name a
few. It is not uncommon to encounter hundreds of digital documents
pertaining to research work within a month of active biological research
and management of these data generate a new set of problems for
biologists:
-
Data generated can be too voluminous to print (as in the case of
microarray results)
-
Multiple, similar images which may be difficult to keep track
(often cross-referencing to actual experimental conditions written
in the physical notebooks)
-
Multimedia data such as videos, time-lapsed microscopy, are
impossible to print.
-
Authenticity of digital data for intellectual property filings.
-
Issues of data management from ad hoc uses of external databases
such as PubMed.
Currently, there is no standard means and practices for electronic
research record-keeping; thus, many institutional policies still require
crucial digital documents (images, emails etc) to be printed, affixed in
physical notebooks, dated and counter-signed (witnessing of entries by
an independent person). The main reason is that
"Computer files do not provide sufficient evidence of invention. The reason for
having invention records such as a notebook is to be able to prove the earliest
date of invention. Since computer records can be updated and changed at will,
and their dates are subject to tampering, they cannot serve as evidence that
their content was created at a particular time. With a bound notebook, it is
clear that the work occurred in a particular sequence and was witnessed by
others. Also, scientific experiments can be conducted on the ink and paper in a
notebook to prove their age." (Adapted from
School of Engineering & Science, Stevens Institute of
Technology)
However, this is not
foolproof as loss of physical notebooks through theft and misplacement
is not unheard of.
It should also be noted that some factors can reduce the value or
credibility of your laboratory notebook:
-
illegible entries are totally worthless;
-
unsigned or undated pages are almost totally worthless;
-
notebook pages which have not been witnessed are almost as bad
as unsigned and undated pages;
-
a long delay between the signing of the page by the inventor and
the witness raises questions;
-
consecutive notebook pages which are not dated in chronological
order raise questions;
-
missing notebook pages raise questions;
-
erasures and deletions raise questions -- instead, any later
discovered mistakes should be corrected and explained on the next
available blank page, referencing the page with the mistake.
CyNote aims to be a
electronic research record management system that conforms to
record-keeping standards of physical notebooks based on 3 principles:
-
Notebooks can be setup for encryption and routine backup on
secured data centres (such as Amazon S3)
-
Date-time stamping of notebooks are performed by remote systems
(immediate date-time stamp upon upload)
-
Page edits are generally disallowed (in
conformance to US FDA 21 CFR Part 11's Rules on Electronic Records). However, if page edits are
forcefully done, it will be tracked and date-time stamped using source code
management systems (such as Subversion)
At the same time, research tools can be developed as plugins into
CyNote and records can be tracked immediately; thus, saving the
effort in transposing data across systems. In my
case, I am developing CyNote as a teaching tool for my bioinformatics
classes where I can incorporate some common bioinformatics and data
analysis functions into it, as well as a laboratory data management tool
for myself and my students.
Annotated Publications from this project
Ng, YY and Ling, MHT.
2010. Electronic Laboratory Notebook on Web2Py Framework. [In review] |