Most common reason I hear in practice is "I can't take a computer into the lab" or "there aren't enough computers in the lab". Essentially a combination of an appeal to the need for immediate record keeping and a concern about the fate of computational equipment in a chemistry laboratory. Interestingly this doesn't stop people taking their mobile phones into labs, even when they are notionally banned but I think there may be a generational aspect to this as well as the technological/financial side of computers and DCM not mixing.

Thanks for posting this – its an interesting and timely topic. Alarmingly, the information that BookFactory is spreading at electroniclabnotebook.com is nothing more than FUD, so we wanted to weigh in with some points to consider.

Importantly, many bio-pharma and life sciences organizations (and other R&D heavy industries where intellectual property represents the organization’s lifeblood), moving to electronic records management and intellectual property protection doesn’t necessarily mean deploying an Electronic Lab Notebook solution from an industry vendor. Every organization is different. For large bio-pharma organizations, a powerful ELN offers many benefits, and may be needed. For small to mid-sized organizations, an ELN may be overkill. In every instance, what organizations need is an easy, non-intrusive way for scientists to capture, store, manage and protect their scientific intellectual property. We on this very topic last summer: powerofproof.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/before-your-organization-invests-in-an-electronic-lab-notebook-eln…

In its argument, BookFactory tries to create fear of electronic intellectual property protection, which is simply unfounded. By using an informatics system (which include a wide variety of solutions, including but not limited to specific ELN software), and integrating digital, trusted time-stamping into the process, R&D heavy organizations can build in the legal defensibility and long-term protection they require for their data, as well as reduce the manual “signing” and “witnessing” processes that paper-based systems require.

Our company, Surety (surety.com), provides third party trusted time-stamping solutions like this, and one of the reasons bio-pharma organizations are integrating digital timestamps into their workflows is the longevity of the timestamps themselves. We have more about how the process works on our site, but this specific information helps underscore why BookFactory’s longevity FUD is simply unfounded:

Surety Integrity Seals provide long-term integrity protection and have the evidentiary quality to stand up under the most intense scrutiny. We use our own patented technique called "hash-chain linking" where the binding of a time value to an electronic record is accomplished by combining and hashing the file and time value and then linking the results into Surety's continuous hash chain. The integrity of the chain itself is protected and auditable through our widely-witnessed process, where once a week we publish the hash-chain’s integrity value in the Public Notices section of the New York Times. This enables a third party to validate a Seal without placing any trust on another party's people, processes, or systems, including Surety.

Of course, nothing speaks more strongly than case studies in this regard. In one case (see page 8), a large global semiconductor company had more than seven years worth of paper lab notebooks. Shortly after one of its scientists joined a competitor, a new product launched at the competitor company – a product that had been in development at the semiconductor company for years. The original semiconductor company took the battle to court, and as a result, bore the legal burden of proof of IP ownership of the asset in question. After two years, $1 million in legal fees and significant lost revenue, the global semiconductor company lost its case – all because the company could not authenticate one credible paper-based record to support its claim. Since this instance, the semiconductor company migrated from paper to electronic lab notebooks, and has improved its IP protection. Case study here: www.surety.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BQ1ivzCoVy0%3d&tabid=150

On the flip side, there are several instances where bio-pharma organizations are using informatics solutions and achieving significant benefits:

• In this article from Health Management Technology, Dr. Nicole Vaughn-Spickers from Ferring Pharmaceuticals does an excellent job outlining how Ferring’s migration to ELNs not only created efficiencies, but also helped improve their intellectual property protection: www.surety.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ukLOgHc28Ts%3d&tabid=150
• The Joint Bio-Energy Institute (JBEI) integrated our time-stamping service into its knowledge management system to protect scientific intellectual property: www.surety.com/News/Press-Releases/Joint-BioEnergy-Institute-Selects-Surety.aspx
• Ansaris integrated Surety’s AbsoluteProof into its Lab Informatics Systems to both protect IP and improve the “signing and witnessing” process: www.surety.com/News/Press-Releases/Biotech-Company-Ansaris-Selects-Surety-.aspx (Q&A with Ansaris on this process here: www.surety.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=b2hFcyxV7L0%3d&tabid=150)

We’d be interested in hearing from you. What concerns do you have about scientific intellectual property protection in ELNs (or other informatics solutions)?

Cost and time? The organization has to be of a decent enough size to devote manpower to properly implementing and maintaining the ELN system. I don't mean just solving the technical issues, but actually making it work for the users and make their lives easier.

Lab notebooks look cheaper and simpler in the short term, until you get burned by missing raw data, or start losing the ability to collate historical information due to growth.

I've only interacted with one ELN - I found it annoying and kludgey. It didn't make me want to write in my notebook -- it wanted to make me throw the computer out the window. A paper notebook, for all its faults (and there are a lot!), does not generate "computer rage".

Driving scientists away from their notebooks isn't a good idea; perhaps it's important to get support from a supermajority of the users before a change is implemented?

As many people here will know, Cambridge has gone with an ELN for organic and inorganic chemistry: http://clarionproject.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/clarion-project-an-overview/. That is not to say that current ELNs are any good, but there are clearly chemical discussions that have taken place that have concluded there are significant long-term advantages. Expect others to follow suit.