From Need to Reality: Ingenio’ Smart Approach to Laboratory Design — Highlights from SLCan 2025
At the 2025 SLCan Conference, I delivered a thought-provoking presentation titled “From Need to Reality: The Planning Mistakes that Undermine Instrumental Efficiency” on behalf of Ingenio and Phytronix.
This talk shed light on the often-overlooked gap between scientific needs and architectural design realities. With years of international experience designing and optimizing laboratories, I shared methods emphasizing how true collaboration between scientists, engineers, and architects can prevent costly errors and inefficiencies in research infrastructure.
This blog summarizes the key insights, case studies, and lessons learned from the presentation.
Understanding the Expression of Scientific Needs
Why Language Matters in Laboratory Planning
Case Study 1: The Ventilation Trap
Case Study 2: The Magnetic Field Dilemma
Case Study 3: Instrument Density — Hub, the Saviour and the Tormentor
Lessons Learned from Real Laboratories
Understanding the Expression of Scientific Needs
The presentation opened with a crucial question:
“How should a laboratory design team be composed?”
I proposed that an optimal team must include:
- Instrument specialists and scientists, who bring hands-on knowledge of laboratory workflows.
- Architects, to shape physical spaces;
- Engineers from multiple specialties;
This triad ensures that scientific vocabulary, workflow, and technical constraints are accurately translated into architectural and mechanical designs. When laboratory users and designers “talk the same language,” they can anticipate potential design conflicts early.
Why Language Matters in Laboratory Planning
A quote in the presentation highlighted the importance of communication: “Language is an art, like brewing or baking…. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to be learnt.” (Charles Darwin).
Scientific needs are rarely simple. For example, a researcher explaining a urine sample preparation process may unknowingly describe a complex combination of ventilation, space, and safety requirements. Without shared understanding, designers risk misinterpreting essential needs.
Ingenio and Phytronix’ specialists “Talk the talk and walk the walk”. This captures the essence of this collaboration: designers who understand science can design better labs.
Case Study 1: The Ventilation Trap
The first real-world example explored ventilation design, where simple oversights can lead to major operational challenges.
Different instruments, from Gas Chromatography (GC) to Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) systems, generate heat and chemical vapors requiring specific airflow configurations.
I illustrated how improper planning can result in:
- Overheated rooms;
- Chemical exposure risks; and
- Costly retrofits after construction.
A striking example was the -80°C freezer, humorously dubbed “the ultimate parasitic instrument.” Each freezer emits between 5,000 and 7,500 BTU/hour, and when multiplied by dozens, it can overwhelm even well-designed ventilation systems. Proper planning at the start prevents these all-too-common issues.
Case Study 2: The Magnetic Field Dilemma
Instruments like Transmission Electron Microscopes (TEMs) are highly sensitive to fringe magnetic fields — tolerances as low as 20–100 nanotesla, nearly 3,000 times weaker than Earth’s magnetic field.
If ignored, magnetic interference can lead to:
- Measurement errors,
- Inoperable instruments, or
- Multi-million-dollar redesigns.
I recommended several solutions, including:
- Repositioning interfering equipment;
- Shielding using mu-metal alloys;
- Active field cancellation systems; and
- Proactive planning during design to avoid costly fixes later.
This case reinforced the message: instrumentation expertise must be included at the earliest design stage.
Case Study 3: Instrument Density — Hub, the Saviour and the Tormentor
Instrument hubs — shared lab spaces housing multiple complex systems — are increasingly popular for their space and resource efficiency.
Hubs were described in two ways:
- The Saviour: Enables collaboration and maximizes utility through careful planning of power, gases, ventilation, and safety;
- The Tormentor: Becomes rigid and hard to adapt when overpopulated or poorly designed.
To remain functional, hubs should be designed with 20–40% capacity for future instruments, accessible service routes, and clear separation to minimize interference.
This section underscored that instrument hubs require both foresight and flexibility, balancing efficiency with adaptability.
Lessons Learned from Real Laboratories
From hundreds of lab visits worldwide, Ingenio and Phytronix distilled several best practices:
- Encourage collaboration between disciplines, ensuring that technical nuances are understood before construction begins.
- Conduct a comprehensive instrument inventory early, including future acquisitions (1–3 years ahead).
- Assign an external specialist to document equipment. Scientists often underestimate their own setup.
- Treat the instrument list as a living document that evolves with the lab.
Ultimately, laboratory satisfaction and functionality depend on how well expressed needs are translated into tangible design solutions.
Conclusion
The SLCan 2025 presentation was closed with a clear message:
“By better understanding scientists and their specific needs, it is possible to improve lab design and its efficiency.” A well-designed lab is not just about aesthetics or equipment, it’s about bridging communication gaps, fostering understanding, and aligning design with scientific purpose.
Ready to transform your lab from need to reality?
Contact Ingenio/Phytronix today to discuss your laboratory design or renovation project and ensure every scientific detail is translated into real-world efficiency.