Amphibious researchers: working with laboratory automation in synthetic biology
dc.contributor.advisor
Schyfter, Pablo
en
dc.contributor.advisor
Calvert, Jane
en
dc.contributor.author
Mellingwood, Christopher Rydell
en
dc.contributor.sponsor
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
en
dc.date.accessioned
2019-08-13T13:43:03Z
dc.date.available
2019-08-13T13:43:03Z
dc.date.issued
2019-07-08
dc.description.abstract
This thesis analyses the use of robots and automation in academic biosciences
laboratories in the UK. Both system vendors and policymakers argue that robots,
specifically liquid-handlers and robotic arms, offer more efficient, precise and reliable
methods for experimental work. These arguments for the potential of automation
systems for the biosciences form a cadre of promissory narratives about the future
value of such technologies. One reason vendors promote the use of robots is to remove
error-prone humans, with their need for sustenance and sleep, offering instead the
mechanical reliability of a robot system unencumbered by such bodily limitations.
Somewhat paradoxically, I argue that to negotiate the hybrid disciplinary space of
laboratory automation and the biosciences, researchers need significant embodied
skills. Furthermore, they must forge relationships among multiple knowledge
communities, and engage in boundary-work to manage ambivalences and deal with
competing demands. Laboratory-based automation system users learn how to be
skilled in embodied ‘fingertip-feeling,’ and how to be adept at relationship
management and boundary-work. To do this, they need to understand both ‘wet’ cell
behaviour and ‘dry’ robot behaviour; they must become amphibious researchers.
My study identifies five promissory narratives found in policy documents and system
vendor descriptions of laboratory automation and the biosciences, particularly in
automation-driven synthetic biology. These promissory narratives describe potential
future benefits of increasing automation in biosciences laboratories. The five
narratives are that automation will: result in more time for researchers because robots
are more efficient and more precise; increase parameters and the ability to tackle
problems with very large numbers of variables; enhance the reproducibility of
experimental results; provide increased technological capacity for laboratories,
making them more competitive in international funding arenas; and result in further
opportunities for commercialisation of products and services.
Through an analysis of documents, interviews and laboratory practices, I show that
these promissory narratives for automation and the biosciences are reconfigured by the
lived experiences of laboratory users. I establish that researchers’ lived experiences
can both challenge and support promissory narratives in this area, and argue that
developing understanding of users’ practices is essential to an assessment of the future
value of automation-driven synthetic biology. My thesis further demonstrates that the
ways that researchers make automation systems work in the biosciences involve an
attentive engagement between users’ bodies, their competences, and their belonging
and identity as part of particular groups. Researchers using laboratory automation
technologies engage their bodies and manage their relationships to generate trust and
confidence in robot functioning. These researchers have to mobilise the ‘wet’ and the
‘dry’ simultaneously to maintain a proper functioning system. In short, they must be
amphibious researchers.
en
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/1842/36040
dc.language.iso
en
dc.publisher
The University of Edinburgh
en
dc.subject
automation in laboratories
en
dc.subject
policymaker arguments
en
dc.subject
bioscience laboratories
en
dc.subject
system builders
en
dc.subject
computer science laboratory techniques
en
dc.subject
biological sciences laboratory techniques
en
dc.title
Amphibious researchers: working with laboratory automation in synthetic biology
en
dc.type
Thesis or Dissertation
en
dc.type.qualificationlevel
Doctoral
en
dc.type.qualificationname
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
en
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
- Name:
- Mellingwood2019.pdf
- Size:
- 2.58 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
This item appears in the following Collection(s)

