research laboratory meaning

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of laboratory

Examples of laboratory in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'laboratory.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Medieval Latin laboratorium , from Latin laborare to labor, from labor

1592, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Phrases Containing laboratory

• lab / laboratory rat
• laboratory test
• language laboratory

Dictionary Entries Near laboratory

laboratorial

laboratory school

Cite this Entry

“Laboratory.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laboratory. Accessed 13 Sep. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of laboratory, medical definition, medical definition of laboratory, more from merriam-webster on laboratory.

Nglish: Translation of laboratory for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of laboratory for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about laboratory

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), 9 superb owl words, games & quizzes.

Look up a word, learn it forever.

Research laboratory.

Other forms: research laboratories

• noun a workplace for the conduct of scientific research synonyms: lab , laboratory , research lab , science lab , science laboratory see more see less types: show 4 types... hide 4 types... bio lab , biology lab , biology laboratory a laboratory for biological research chem lab , chemistry lab , chemistry laboratory a laboratory for research in chemistry defense laboratory a laboratory devoted to research and development for national defense physics lab , physics laboratory a laboratory for research in physics type of: work , workplace a place where work is done

Sign up now (it’s free!)

Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to  [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

• Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
• When Clinical Research Is in the News
• What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
• ​ What is a Research Organism?
• What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
• Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
• Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
• Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim
• v.44(4); 2016 Aug

What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done?

Scientific researches are studies that should be systematically planned before performing them. In this review, classification and description of scientific studies, planning stage randomisation and bias are explained.

Research conducted for the purpose of contributing towards science by the systematic collection, interpretation and evaluation of data and that, too, in a planned manner is called scientific research: a researcher is the one who conducts this research. The results obtained from a small group through scientific studies are socialised, and new information is revealed with respect to diagnosis, treatment and reliability of applications. The purpose of this review is to provide information about the definition, classification and methodology of scientific research.

Before beginning the scientific research, the researcher should determine the subject, do planning and specify the methodology. In the Declaration of Helsinki, it is stated that ‘the primary purpose of medical researches on volunteers is to understand the reasons, development and effects of diseases and develop protective, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (method, operation and therapies). Even the best proven interventions should be evaluated continuously by investigations with regard to reliability, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality’ ( 1 ).

The questions, methods of response to questions and difficulties in scientific research may vary, but the design and structure are generally the same ( 2 ).

Classification of Scientific Research

Scientific research can be classified in several ways. Classification can be made according to the data collection techniques based on causality, relationship with time and the medium through which they are applied.

• Observational
• Experimental
• Descriptive
• Retrospective
• Prospective
• Cross-sectional
• Social descriptive research ( 3 )

Another method is to classify the research according to its descriptive or analytical features. This review is written according to this classification method.

I. Descriptive research

• Case series
• Surveillance studies

II. Analytical research

• Observational studies: cohort, case control and cross- sectional research
• Interventional research: quasi-experimental and clinical research
• Case Report: it is the most common type of descriptive study. It is the examination of a single case having a different quality in the society, e.g. conducting general anaesthesia in a pregnant patient with mucopolysaccharidosis.
• Case Series: it is the description of repetitive cases having common features. For instance; case series involving interscapular pain related to neuraxial labour analgesia. Interestingly, malignant hyperthermia cases are not accepted as case series since they are rarely seen during historical development.
• Surveillance Studies: these are the results obtained from the databases that follow and record a health problem for a certain time, e.g. the surveillance of cross-infections during anaesthesia in the intensive care unit.

Moreover, some studies may be experimental. After the researcher intervenes, the researcher waits for the result, observes and obtains data. Experimental studies are, more often, in the form of clinical trials or laboratory animal trials ( 2 ).

Analytical observational research can be classified as cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies.

Firstly, the participants are controlled with regard to the disease under investigation. Patients are excluded from the study. Healthy participants are evaluated with regard to the exposure to the effect. Then, the group (cohort) is followed-up for a sufficient period of time with respect to the occurrence of disease, and the progress of disease is studied. The risk of the healthy participants getting sick is considered an incident. In cohort studies, the risk of disease between the groups exposed and not exposed to the effect is calculated and rated. This rate is called relative risk. Relative risk indicates the strength of exposure to the effect on the disease.

Cohort research may be observational and experimental. The follow-up of patients prospectively is called a prospective cohort study . The results are obtained after the research starts. The researcher’s following-up of cohort subjects from a certain point towards the past is called a retrospective cohort study . Prospective cohort studies are more valuable than retrospective cohort studies: this is because in the former, the researcher observes and records the data. The researcher plans the study before the research and determines what data will be used. On the other hand, in retrospective studies, the research is made on recorded data: no new data can be added.

In fact, retrospective and prospective studies are not observational. They determine the relationship between the date on which the researcher has begun the study and the disease development period. The most critical disadvantage of this type of research is that if the follow-up period is long, participants may leave the study at their own behest or due to physical conditions. Cohort studies that begin after exposure and before disease development are called ambidirectional studies . Public healthcare studies generally fall within this group, e.g. lung cancer development in smokers.

• Case-Control Studies: these studies are retrospective cohort studies. They examine the cause and effect relationship from the effect to the cause. The detection or determination of data depends on the information recorded in the past. The researcher has no control over the data ( 2 ).

Cross-sectional studies are advantageous since they can be concluded relatively quickly. It may be difficult to obtain a reliable result from such studies for rare diseases ( 2 ).

Cross-sectional studies are characterised by timing. In such studies, the exposure and result are simultaneously evaluated. While cross-sectional studies are restrictedly used in studies involving anaesthesia (since the process of exposure is limited), they can be used in studies conducted in intensive care units.

• Quasi-Experimental Research: they are conducted in cases in which a quick result is requested and the participants or research areas cannot be randomised, e.g. giving hand-wash training and comparing the frequency of nosocomial infections before and after hand wash.
• Clinical Research: they are prospective studies carried out with a control group for the purpose of comparing the effect and value of an intervention in a clinical case. Clinical study and research have the same meaning. Drugs, invasive interventions, medical devices and operations, diets, physical therapy and diagnostic tools are relevant in this context ( 6 ).

Clinical studies are conducted by a responsible researcher, generally a physician. In the research team, there may be other healthcare staff besides physicians. Clinical studies may be financed by healthcare institutes, drug companies, academic medical centres, volunteer groups, physicians, healthcare service providers and other individuals. They may be conducted in several places including hospitals, universities, physicians’ offices and community clinics based on the researcher’s requirements. The participants are made aware of the duration of the study before their inclusion. Clinical studies should include the evaluation of recommendations (drug, device and surgical) for the treatment of a disease, syndrome or a comparison of one or more applications; finding different ways for recognition of a disease or case and prevention of their recurrence ( 7 ).

Clinical Research

In this review, clinical research is explained in more detail since it is the most valuable study in scientific research.

Clinical research starts with forming a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be defined as a claim put forward about the value of a population parameter based on sampling. There are two types of hypotheses in statistics.

• H 0 hypothesis is called a control or null hypothesis. It is the hypothesis put forward in research, which implies that there is no difference between the groups under consideration. If this hypothesis is rejected at the end of the study, it indicates that a difference exists between the two treatments under consideration.
• H 1 hypothesis is called an alternative hypothesis. It is hypothesised against a null hypothesis, which implies that a difference exists between the groups under consideration. For example, consider the following hypothesis: drug A has an analgesic effect. Control or null hypothesis (H 0 ): there is no difference between drug A and placebo with regard to the analgesic effect. The alternative hypothesis (H 1 ) is applicable if a difference exists between drug A and placebo with regard to the analgesic effect.

The planning phase comes after the determination of a hypothesis. A clinical research plan is called a protocol . In a protocol, the reasons for research, number and qualities of participants, tests to be applied, study duration and what information to be gathered from the participants should be found and conformity criteria should be developed.

The selection of participant groups to be included in the study is important. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study for the participants should be determined. Inclusion criteria should be defined in the form of demographic characteristics (age, gender, etc.) of the participant group and the exclusion criteria as the diseases that may influence the study, age ranges, cases involving pregnancy and lactation, continuously used drugs and participants’ cooperation.

The next stage is methodology. Methodology can be grouped under subheadings, namely, the calculation of number of subjects, blinding (masking), randomisation, selection of operation to be applied, use of placebo and criteria for stopping and changing the treatment.

I. Calculation of the Number of Subjects

The entire source from which the data are obtained is called a universe or population . A small group selected from a certain universe based on certain rules and which is accepted to highly represent the universe from which it is selected is called a sample and the characteristics of the population from which the data are collected are called variables. If data is collected from the entire population, such an instance is called a parameter . Conducting a study on the sample rather than the entire population is easier and less costly. Many factors influence the determination of the sample size. Firstly, the type of variable should be determined. Variables are classified as categorical (qualitative, non-numerical) or numerical (quantitative). Individuals in categorical variables are classified according to their characteristics. Categorical variables are indicated as nominal and ordinal (ordered). In nominal variables, the application of a category depends on the researcher’s preference. For instance, a female participant can be considered first and then the male participant, or vice versa. An ordinal (ordered) variable is ordered from small to large or vice versa (e.g. ordering obese patients based on their weights-from the lightest to the heaviest or vice versa). A categorical variable may have more than one characteristic: such variables are called binary or dichotomous (e.g. a participant may be both female and obese).

If the variable has numerical (quantitative) characteristics and these characteristics cannot be categorised, then it is called a numerical variable. Numerical variables are either discrete or continuous. For example, the number of operations with spinal anaesthesia represents a discrete variable. The haemoglobin value or height represents a continuous variable.

Statistical analyses that need to be employed depend on the type of variable. The determination of variables is necessary for selecting the statistical method as well as software in SPSS. While categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages, numerical variables are represented using measures such as mean and standard deviation. It may be necessary to use mean in categorising some cases such as the following: even though the variable is categorical (qualitative, non-numerical) when Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is used (since a numerical value is obtained), it is classified as a numerical variable: such variables are averaged.

Clinical research is carried out on the sample and generalised to the population. Accordingly, the number of samples should be correctly determined. Different sample size formulas are used on the basis of the statistical method to be used. When the sample size increases, error probability decreases. The sample size is calculated based on the primary hypothesis. The determination of a sample size before beginning the research specifies the power of the study. Power analysis enables the acquisition of realistic results in the research, and it is used for comparing two or more clinical research methods.

Because of the difference in the formulas used in calculating power analysis and number of samples for clinical research, it facilitates the use of computer programs for making calculations.

It is necessary to know certain parameters in order to calculate the number of samples by power analysis.

• Type-I (α) and type-II (β) error levels
• Difference between groups (d-difference) and effect size (ES)
• Distribution ratio of groups
• Direction of research hypothesis (H1)

a. Type-I (α) and Type-II (β) Error (β) Levels

Two types of errors can be made while accepting or rejecting H 0 hypothesis in a hypothesis test. Type-I error (α) level is the probability of finding a difference at the end of the research when there is no difference between the two applications. In other words, it is the rejection of the hypothesis when H 0 is actually correct and it is known as α error or p value. For instance, when the size is determined, type-I error level is accepted as 0.05 or 0.01.

Another error that can be made during a hypothesis test is a type-II error. It is the acceptance of a wrongly hypothesised H 0 hypothesis. In fact, it is the probability of failing to find a difference when there is a difference between the two applications. The power of a test is the ability of that test to find a difference that actually exists. Therefore, it is related to the type-II error level.

Since the type-II error risk is expressed as β, the power of the test is defined as 1–β. When a type-II error is 0.20, the power of the test is 0.80. Type-I (α) and type-II (β) errors can be intentional. The reason to intentionally make such an error is the necessity to look at the events from the opposite perspective.

b. Difference between Groups and ES

ES is defined as the state in which statistical difference also has clinically significance: ES≥0.5 is desirable. The difference between groups is the absolute difference between the groups compared in clinical research.

c. Allocation Ratio of Groups

The allocation ratio of groups is effective in determining the number of samples. If the number of samples is desired to be determined at the lowest level, the rate should be kept as 1/1.

d. Direction of Hypothesis (H1)

The direction of hypothesis in clinical research may be one-sided or two-sided. While one-sided hypotheses hypothesis test differences in the direction of size, two-sided hypotheses hypothesis test differences without direction. The power of the test in two-sided hypotheses is lower than one-sided hypotheses.

After these four variables are determined, they are entered in the appropriate computer program and the number of samples is calculated. Statistical packaged software programs such as Statistica, NCSS and G-Power may be used for power analysis and calculating the number of samples. When the samples size is calculated, if there is a decrease in α, difference between groups, ES and number of samples, then the standard deviation increases and power decreases. The power in two-sided hypothesis is lower. It is ethically appropriate to consider the determination of sample size, particularly in animal experiments, at the beginning of the study. The phase of the study is also important in the determination of number of subjects to be included in drug studies. Usually, phase-I studies are used to determine the safety profile of a drug or product, and they are generally conducted on a few healthy volunteers. If no unacceptable toxicity is detected during phase-I studies, phase-II studies may be carried out. Phase-II studies are proof-of-concept studies conducted on a larger number (100–500) of volunteer patients. When the effectiveness of the drug or product is evident in phase-II studies, phase-III studies can be initiated. These are randomised, double-blinded, placebo or standard treatment-controlled studies. Volunteer patients are periodically followed-up with respect to the effectiveness and side effects of the drug. It can generally last 1–4 years and is valuable during licensing and releasing the drug to the general market. Then, phase-IV studies begin in which long-term safety is investigated (indication, dose, mode of application, safety, effectiveness, etc.) on thousands of volunteer patients.

II. Blinding (Masking) and Randomisation Methods

When the methodology of clinical research is prepared, precautions should be taken to prevent taking sides. For this reason, techniques such as randomisation and blinding (masking) are used. Comparative studies are the most ideal ones in clinical research.

Blinding Method

A case in which the treatments applied to participants of clinical research should be kept unknown is called the blinding method . If the participant does not know what it receives, it is called a single-blind study; if even the researcher does not know, it is called a double-blind study. When there is a probability of knowing which drug is given in the order of application, when uninformed staff administers the drug, it is called in-house blinding. In case the study drug is known in its pharmaceutical form, a double-dummy blinding test is conducted. Intravenous drug is given to one group and a placebo tablet is given to the comparison group; then, the placebo tablet is given to the group that received the intravenous drug and intravenous drug in addition to placebo tablet is given to the comparison group. In this manner, each group receives both the intravenous and tablet forms of the drug. In case a third party interested in the study is involved and it also does not know about the drug (along with the statistician), it is called third-party blinding.

Randomisation Method

The selection of patients for the study groups should be random. Randomisation methods are used for such selection, which prevent conscious or unconscious manipulations in the selection of patients ( 8 ).

No factor pertaining to the patient should provide preference of one treatment to the other during randomisation. This characteristic is the most important difference separating randomised clinical studies from prospective and synchronous studies with experimental groups. Randomisation strengthens the study design and enables the determination of reliable scientific knowledge ( 2 ).

The easiest method is simple randomisation, e.g. determination of the type of anaesthesia to be administered to a patient by tossing a coin. In this method, when the number of samples is kept high, a balanced distribution is created. When the number of samples is low, there will be an imbalance between the groups. In this case, stratification and blocking have to be added to randomisation. Stratification is the classification of patients one or more times according to prognostic features determined by the researcher and blocking is the selection of a certain number of patients for each stratification process. The number of stratification processes should be determined at the beginning of the study.

As the number of stratification processes increases, performing the study and balancing the groups become difficult. For this reason, stratification characteristics and limitations should be effectively determined at the beginning of the study. It is not mandatory for the stratifications to have equal intervals. Despite all the precautions, an imbalance might occur between the groups before beginning the research. In such circumstances, post-stratification or restandardisation may be conducted according to the prognostic factors.

The main characteristic of applying blinding (masking) and randomisation is the prevention of bias. Therefore, it is worthwhile to comprehensively examine bias at this stage.

Bias and Chicanery

While conducting clinical research, errors can be introduced voluntarily or involuntarily at a number of stages, such as design, population selection, calculating the number of samples, non-compliance with study protocol, data entry and selection of statistical method. Bias is taking sides of individuals in line with their own decisions, views and ideological preferences ( 9 ). In order for an error to lead to bias, it has to be a systematic error. Systematic errors in controlled studies generally cause the results of one group to move in a different direction as compared to the other. It has to be understood that scientific research is generally prone to errors. However, random errors (or, in other words, ‘the luck factor’-in which bias is unintended-do not lead to bias ( 10 ).

Another issue, which is different from bias, is chicanery. It is defined as voluntarily changing the interventions, results and data of patients in an unethical manner or copying data from other studies. Comparatively, bias may not be done consciously.

In case unexpected results or outliers are found while the study is analysed, if possible, such data should be re-included into the study since the complete exclusion of data from a study endangers its reliability. In such a case, evaluation needs to be made with and without outliers. It is insignificant if no difference is found. However, if there is a difference, the results with outliers are re-evaluated. If there is no error, then the outlier is included in the study (as the outlier may be a result). It should be noted that re-evaluation of data in anaesthesiology is not possible.

Statistical evaluation methods should be determined at the design stage so as not to encounter unexpected results in clinical research. The data should be evaluated before the end of the study and without entering into details in research that are time-consuming and involve several samples. This is called an interim analysis . The date of interim analysis should be determined at the beginning of the study. The purpose of making interim analysis is to prevent unnecessary cost and effort since it may be necessary to conclude the research after the interim analysis, e.g. studies in which there is no possibility to validate the hypothesis at the end or the occurrence of different side effects of the drug to be used. The accuracy of the hypothesis and number of samples are compared. Statistical significance levels in interim analysis are very important. If the data level is significant, the hypothesis is validated even if the result turns out to be insignificant after the date of the analysis.

Another important point to be considered is the necessity to conclude the participants’ treatment within the period specified in the study protocol. When the result of the study is achieved earlier and unexpected situations develop, the treatment is concluded earlier. Moreover, the participant may quit the study at its own behest, may die or unpredictable situations (e.g. pregnancy) may develop. The participant can also quit the study whenever it wants, even if the study has not ended ( 7 ).

In case the results of a study are contrary to already known or expected results, the expected quality level of the study suggesting the contradiction may be higher than the studies supporting what is known in that subject. This type of bias is called confirmation bias. The presence of well-known mechanisms and logical inference from them may create problems in the evaluation of data. This is called plausibility bias.

Another type of bias is expectation bias. If a result different from the known results has been achieved and it is against the editor’s will, it can be challenged. Bias may be introduced during the publication of studies, such as publishing only positive results, selection of study results in a way to support a view or prevention of their publication. Some editors may only publish research that extols only the positive results or results that they desire.

Bias may be introduced for advertisement or economic reasons. Economic pressure may be applied on the editor, particularly in the cases of studies involving drugs and new medical devices. This is called commercial bias.

In recent years, before beginning a study, it has been recommended to record it on the Web site www.clinicaltrials.gov for the purpose of facilitating systematic interpretation and analysis in scientific research, informing other researchers, preventing bias, provision of writing in a standard format, enhancing contribution of research results to the general literature and enabling early intervention of an institution for support. This Web site is a service of the US National Institutes of Health.

The last stage in the methodology of clinical studies is the selection of intervention to be conducted. Placebo use assumes an important place in interventions. In Latin, placebo means ‘I will be fine’. In medical literature, it refers to substances that are not curative, do not have active ingredients and have various pharmaceutical forms. Although placebos do not have active drug characteristic, they have shown effective analgesic characteristics, particularly in algology applications; further, its use prevents bias in comparative studies. If a placebo has a positive impact on a participant, it is called the placebo effect ; on the contrary, if it has a negative impact, it is called the nocebo effect . Another type of therapy that can be used in clinical research is sham application. Although a researcher does not cure the patient, the researcher may compare those who receive therapy and undergo sham. It has been seen that sham therapies also exhibit a placebo effect. In particular, sham therapies are used in acupuncture applications ( 11 ). While placebo is a substance, sham is a type of clinical application.

Ethically, the patient has to receive appropriate therapy. For this reason, if its use prevents effective treatment, it causes great problem with regard to patient health and legalities.

Before medical research is conducted with human subjects, predictable risks, drawbacks and benefits must be evaluated for individuals or groups participating in the study. Precautions must be taken for reducing the risk to a minimum level. The risks during the study should be followed, evaluated and recorded by the researcher ( 1 ).

After the methodology for a clinical study is determined, dealing with the ‘Ethics Committee’ forms the next stage. The purpose of the ethics committee is to protect the rights, safety and well-being of volunteers taking part in the clinical research, considering the scientific method and concerns of society. The ethics committee examines the studies presented in time, comprehensively and independently, with regard to ethics and science; in line with the Declaration of Helsinki and following national and international standards concerning ‘Good Clinical Practice’. The method to be followed in the formation of the ethics committee should be developed without any kind of prejudice and to examine the applications with regard to ethics and science within the framework of the ethics committee, Regulation on Clinical Trials and Good Clinical Practice ( www.iku.com ). The necessary documents to be presented to the ethics committee are research protocol, volunteer consent form, budget contract, Declaration of Helsinki, curriculum vitae of researchers, similar or explanatory literature samples, supporting institution approval certificate and patient follow-up form.

Only one sister/brother, mother, father, son/daughter and wife/husband can take charge in the same ethics committee. A rector, vice rector, dean, deputy dean, provincial healthcare director and chief physician cannot be members of the ethics committee.

Members of the ethics committee can work as researchers or coordinators in clinical research. However, during research meetings in which members of the ethics committee are researchers or coordinators, they must leave the session and they cannot sign-off on decisions. If the number of members in the ethics committee for a particular research is so high that it is impossible to take a decision, the clinical research is presented to another ethics committee in the same province. If there is no ethics committee in the same province, an ethics committee in the closest settlement is found.

Thereafter, researchers need to inform the participants using an informed consent form. This form should explain the content of clinical study, potential benefits of the study, alternatives and risks (if any). It should be easy, comprehensible, conforming to spelling rules and written in plain language understandable by the participant.

This form assists the participants in taking a decision regarding participation in the study. It should aim to protect the participants. The participant should be included in the study only after it signs the informed consent form; the participant can quit the study whenever required, even when the study has not ended ( 7 ).

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions: Concept - C.Ö.Ç., A.D.; Design - C.Ö.Ç.; Supervision - A.D.; Resource - C.Ö.Ç., A.D.; Materials - C.Ö.Ç., A.D.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - C.Ö.Ç., A.D.; Literature Search - C.Ö.Ç.; Writing Manuscript - C.Ö.Ç.; Critical Review - A.D.; Other - C.Ö.Ç., A.D.

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (2006)

Chapter: 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories, 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories.

Science laboratories have been part of high school education for two centuries, yet a clear articulation of their role in student learning of science remains elusive. This report evaluates the evidence about the role of laboratories in helping students attain science learning goals and discusses factors that currently limit science learning in high school laboratories. In this chap-

ter, the committee presents its charge, reviews the history of science laboratories in U.S. high schools, defines laboratories, and outlines the organization of the report.

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

In the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368, authorizing funding for fiscal years 2003-2007), Congress called on NSF to launch a secondary school systemic initiative. The initiative was to “promote scientific and technological literacy” and to “meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving State student academic achievement standards.” Congress directed NSF to provide grants for such activities as “laboratory improvement and provision of instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction” (P.L. 107-368, Section 8-E). In response, NSF turned to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. NSF requested that the NRC

nominate a committee to review the status of and future directions for the role of high school science laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students. This committee will guide the conduct of a study and author a consensus report that will provide guidance on the question of the role and purpose of high school science laboratories with an emphasis on future directions…. Among the questions that may guide these activities are:

What is the current state of science laboratories and what do we know about how they are used in high schools?

What examples or alternatives are there to traditional approaches to labs and what is the evidence base as to their effectiveness?

If labs in high school never existed (i.e., if they were to be planned and designed de novo), what would that experience look like now, given modern advances in the natural and learning sciences?

In what ways can the integration of technologies into the curriculum augment and extend a new vision of high school science labs? What is known about high school science labs based on principles of design?

How do the structures and policies of high schools (course scheduling, curricular design, textbook adoption, and resource deployment) influence the organization of science labs? What kinds of changes might be needed in the infrastructure of high schools to enhance the effectiveness of science labs?

What are the costs (e.g., financial, personnel, space, scheduling) associated with different models of high school science labs? How might a new vision of laboratory experiences for high school students influence those costs?

In what way does the growing interdisciplinary nature of the work of scientists help to shape discussions of laboratories as contexts in high school for science learning?

How do high school lab experiences align with both middle school and postsecondary education? How is the role of teaching labs changing in the nation’s colleges and universities? Would a redesign of high school science labs enhance or limit articulation between high school and college-level science education?

The NRC convened the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision to address this charge.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The committee carried out its charge through an iterative process of gathering information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps and questions, gathering further information to fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In the search for relevant information, the committee held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpublished research, searched the Internet, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At a fourth, private meeting, the committee intensely analyzed and discussed its findings and conclusions over the course of three days. Although the committee considered information from a variety of sources, its final report gives most weight to research published in peer-reviewed journals and books.

At an early stage in its deliberations, the committee chose to focus primarily on “the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.” The committee soon became frustrated by the limited research evidence on the role of laboratories in learning. To address one of many problems in the research evidence—a lack of agreement about what constitutes a laboratory and about the purposes of laboratory education—the committee commissioned a paper to analyze the alternative definitions and goals of laboratories.

The committee developed a concept map outlining the main themes of the study (see Figure 1-1 ) and organized the three fact-finding meetings to gather information on each of these themes. For example, reflecting the committee’s focus on student learning (“how students learn science” on the concept map), all three fact-finding meetings included researchers who had developed innovative approaches to high school science laboratories. We also commissioned two experts to present papers reviewing available research on the role of laboratories in students’ learning of science.

At the fact-finding meetings, some researchers presented evidence of student learning following exposure to sequences of instruction that included laboratory experiences; others provided data on how various technologies

FIGURE 1-1 High school science laboratory experiences: Role and vision. Concept map with references to guiding questions in committee charge.

contribute to student learning in the laboratory. Responding to the congressional mandate to meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving state student academic achievement standards, the third fact-finding meeting included researchers who have studied laboratory teaching and learning among diverse students. Taken together, all of these activities enabled the committee to address questions 2, 3, and 4 of the charge.

The committee took several steps to ensure that the study reflected the current realities of science laboratories in U.S high schools, addressing the themes of “how science teachers learn and work” and “constraints and enablers of laboratory experiences” on the concept map. At the first fact-finding meeting, representatives of associations of scientists and science teachers described their efforts to help science teachers learn to lead effective labora-

tory activities. They noted constraints on laboratory learning, including poorly designed, overcrowded laboratory classrooms and inadequate preparation of science teachers. This first meeting also included a presentation about laboratory scheduling, supplies, and equipment drawn from a national survey of science teachers conducted in 2000. At the second fact-finding meeting, an architect spoke about the design of laboratory facilities, and a sociologist described how the organization of work and authority in schools may enable or constrain innovative approaches to laboratory teaching. Two meetings included panel discussions about laboratory teaching among groups of science teachers and school administrators. Through these presentations, review of additional literature, and internal discussions, the committee was able to respond to questions 1, 5, and 6 of the charge. The agendas for each fact-finding meeting, including the guiding questions that were sent to each presenter, appear in Appendix A .

The committee recognized that the question in its charge about the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of science (question 7) is important to the future of science and to high school science laboratories. In presentations and commissioned papers, several experts offered suggestions for how laboratory activities could be designed to more accurately reflect the work of scientists and to improve students’ understanding of the way scientists work today. Based on our analysis of this information, the committee partially addresses this question from the perspective of how scientists conduct their work (in this chapter). The committee also identifies design principles for laboratory activities that may increase students’ understanding of the nature of science (in Chapter 3 ). However, in order to maintain our focus on the key question of student learning in laboratories, the committee did not fully address question 7.

Another important question in the committee’s charge (question 8) addresses the alignment of laboratory learning in middle school, high school, and undergraduate science education. Within the short time frame of this study, the committee focused on identifying, assembling, and analyzing the limited research available on high school science laboratories and did not attempt to do the same analysis for middle school and undergraduate science laboratories. However, this report does discuss several studies of student laboratory learning in middle school (see Chapter 3 ) and describes undergraduate science laboratories briefly in its analysis of the preparation of high school science teachers (see in Chapter 5 ). The committee thinks questions about the alignment of laboratory learning merit more sustained attention than was possible in this study.

During the course of our deliberations, other important questions emerged. For example, it is apparent that the scientific community is engaged in an array of efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in high school science laboratories, but little information is available on the extent

of these efforts and on their effectiveness at enhancing student learning. As a result, we address the role of the scientific community in high school laboratories only briefly in Chapters 1 and 5 . Another issue that arose over the course of this study is laboratory safety. We became convinced that laboratory safety is critical, but we did not fully analyze safety issues, which lay outside our charge. Finally, although engaging students in design or engineering laboratory activities appears to hold promising connections with science laboratory activities, the committee did not explore this possibility. Although all of these issues and questions are important, taking time and energy to address them would have deterred us from a central focus on the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.

One important step in defining the scope of the study was to review the history of laboratories. Examining the history of laboratory education helped to illuminate persistent tensions, provided insight into approaches to be avoided in the future, and allowed the committee to more clearly frame key questions for the future.

HISTORY OF LABORATORY EDUCATION

The history of laboratories in U.S. high schools has been affected by changing views of the nature of science and by society’s changing goals for science education. Between 1850 and the present, educators, scientists, and the public have, at different times, placed more or less emphasis on three sometimes-competing goals for school science education: (1) a theoretical emphasis, stressing the structure of scientific disciplines, the benefits of basic scientific research, and the importance of preparing young people for higher education in science; (2) an applied or practical emphasis, stressing high school students’ ability to understand and apply the science and workings of everyday things; and (3) a liberal or contextual emphasis, stressing the historical development and cultural implications of science (Matthews, 1994). These changing goals have affected the nature and extent of laboratory education.

By the mid-19th century, British writers and philosophers had articulated a view of science as an inductive process (Mill, 1843; Whewell, 1840, 1858). They believed that scientists engaged in painstaking observation of nature to identify and accumulate facts, and only very cautiously did they draw conclusions from these facts to propose new theories. British and American scientists portrayed the newest scientific discoveries—such as the laws of thermodynamics and Darwin’s theory of evolution—to an increas-

ingly interested public as certain knowledge derived through well-established inductive methods. However, scientists and teachers made few efforts to teach students about these methods. High school and undergraduate science courses, like those in history and other subjects, were taught through lectures and textbooks, followed by rote memorization and recitation (Rudolph, 2005). Lecturers emphasized student knowledge of the facts, and science laboratories were not yet accepted as part of higher education. For example, when Benjamin Silliman set up the first chemistry laboratory at Yale in 1847, he paid rent to the college for use of the building and equipped it at his own expense (Whitman, 1898, p. 201). Few students were allowed into these laboratories, which were reserved for scientists’ research, although some apparatus from the laboratory was occasionally brought into the lecture room for demonstrations.

During the 1880s, the situation changed rapidly. Influenced by the example of chemist Justus von Liebig in Germany, leading American universities embraced the German model. In this model, laboratories played a central role as the setting for faculty research and for advanced scientific study by students. Johns Hopkins University established itself as a research institution with student laboratories. Other leading colleges and universities followed suit, and high schools—which were just being established as educational institutions—soon began to create student science laboratories as well.

The primary goal of these early high school laboratories was to prepare students for higher science education in college and university laboratories. The National Education Association produced an influential report noting the “absolute necessity of laboratory work” in the high school science curriculum (National Education Association, 1894) in order to prepare students for undergraduate science studies. As demand for secondary school teachers trained in laboratory methods grew, colleges and universities began offering summer laboratory courses for teachers. In 1895, a zoology professor at Brown University described “large and increasing attendance at our summer schools,” which focused on the dissection of cats and other animals (Bump, 1895, p. 260).

In these early years, American educators emphasized the theoretical, disciplinary goals of science education in order to prepare graduates for further science education. Because of this emphasis, high schools quickly embraced a detailed list of 40 physics experiments published by Harvard instructor Edwin Hall (Harvard University, 1889). The list outlined the experiments, procedures, and equipment necessary to successfully complete all 40 experiments as a condition of admission to study physics at Harvard. Scientific supply companies began selling complete sets of the required equipment to schools and successful completion of the exercises was soon required for admission to study physics at other colleges and universities (Rudolph, 2005).

At that time, most educators and scientists believed that participating in laboratory experiments would help students learn methods of accurate observation and inductive reasoning. However, the focus on prescribing specific experiments and procedures, illustrated by the embrace of the Harvard list, limited the effectiveness of early laboratory education. In the rush to specify laboratory experiments, procedures, and equipment, little attention had been paid to how students might learn from these experiences. Students were expected to simply absorb the methods of inductive reasoning by carrying out experiments according to prescribed procedures (Rudolph, 2005).

Between 1890 and 1910, as U.S. high schools expanded rapidly to absorb a huge influx of new students, a backlash began to develop against the prevailing approach to laboratory education. In a 1901 lecture at the New England Association of College and Secondary Schools, G. Stanley Hall, one of the first American psychologists, criticized high school physics education based on the Harvard list, saying that “boys of this age … want more dynamic physics” (Hall, 1901). Building on Hall’s critique, University of Chicago physicist Charles Mann and other members of the Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teaching launched a complete overhaul of high school physics teaching. Mann and others attacked the “dry bones” of the Harvard experiments, calling for a high school physics curriculum with more personal and social relevance to students. One described lab work as “at best a very artificial means of supplying experiences upon which to build physical concepts” (Woodhull, 1909). Other educators argued that science teaching could be improved by providing more historical perspective, and high schools began reducing the number of laboratory exercises.

By 1910, a clear tension had emerged between those emphasizing laboratory experiments and reformers favoring an emphasis on interesting, practical science content in high school science. However, the focus on content also led to problems, as students became overwhelmed with “interesting” facts. New York’s experience illustrates this tension. In 1890, the New York State Regents exam included questions asking students to design experiments (Champagne and Shiland, 2004). In 1905, the state introduced a new syllabus of physics topics. The content to be covered was so extensive that, over the course of a year, an average of half an hour could be devoted to each topic, virtually eliminating the possibility of including laboratory activities (Matthews, 1994). An outcry to return to more experimentation in science courses resulted, and in 1910 New York State instituted a requirement for 30 science laboratory sessions taking double periods in the syllabus for Regents science courses (courses preparing students for the New York State Regents examinations) (Champagne and Shiland, 2004).

In an influential speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1909, philosopher and educator John Dewey proposed a solution to the tension between advocates for more laboratory

experimentation and advocates for science education emphasizing practical content. While criticizing science teaching focused strictly on covering large amounts of known content, Dewey also pointed to the flaws in rigid laboratory exercises: “A student may acquire laboratory methods as so much isolated and final stuff, just as he may so acquire material from a textbook…. Many a student had acquired dexterity and skill in laboratory methods without it ever occurring to him that they have anything to do with constructing beliefs that are alone worthy of the title of knowledge” (Dewey, 1910b). Dewey believed that people should leave school with some understanding of the kinds of evidence required to substantiate scientific beliefs. However, he never explicitly described his view of the process by which scientists develop and substantiate such evidence.

In 1910, Dewey wrote a short textbook aimed at helping teachers deal with students as individuals despite rapidly growing enrollments. He analyzed what he called “a complete act of thought,” including five steps: (1) a felt difficulty, (2) its location and definition, (3) suggestion of possible solution, (4) development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion, and (5) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection (Dewey, 1910a, pp. 68-78). Educators quickly misinterpreted these five steps as a description of the scientific method that could be applied to practical problems. In 1918, William Kilpatrick of Teachers College published a seminal article on the “project method,” which used Dewey’s five steps to address problems of everyday life. The article was eventually reprinted 60,000 times as reformers embraced the idea of engaging students with practical problems, while at the same time teaching them about what were seen as the methods of science (Rudolph, 2005).

During the 1920s, reform-minded teachers struggled to use the project method. Faced with ever-larger classes and state requirements for coverage of science content, they began to look for lists of specific projects that students could undertake, the procedures they could use, and the expected results. Soon, standardized lists of projects were published, and students who had previously been freed from rigid laboratory procedures were now engaged in rigid, specified projects, leading one writer to observe, “the project is little more than a new cloak for the inductive method” (Downing, 1919, p. 571).

Despite these unresolved tensions, laboratory education had become firmly established, and growing numbers of future high school teachers were instructed in teaching laboratory activities. For example, a 1925 textbook for preservice science teachers included a chapter titled “Place of Laboratory Work in the Teaching of Science” followed by three additional chapters on how to teach laboratory science (Brownell and Wade, 1925). Over the following decades, high school science education (including laboratory education) increasingly emphasized practical goals and the benefits of science in everyday life. During World War II, as scientists focused on federally funded

research programs aimed at defense and public health needs, high school science education also emphasized applications of scientific knowledge (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Goals of Science Education

Following World War II, the flood of “baby boomers” strained the physical and financial resources of public schools. Requests for increased taxes and bond issues led to increasing questions about public schooling. Some academics and policy makers began to criticize the “life adjustment” high school curriculum, which had been designed to meet adolescents’ social, personal, and vocational needs. Instead, they called for a renewed emphasis on the academic disciplines. At the same time, the nation was shaken by the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb and the communist takeover of China. By the early 1950s, some federal policy makers began to view a more rigorous, academic high school science curriculum as critical to respond to the Soviet threat.

In 1956, physicist Jerrold Zacharias received a small grant from NSF to establish the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) in order to develop a curriculum focusing on physics as a scientific discipline. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics launched the space satellite Sputnik the following year, those who had argued that U.S. science education was not rigorous enough appeared vindicated, and a new era of science education began.

Although most historians believe that the overriding goal of the post-Sputnik science education reforms was to create a new generation of U.S. scientists and engineers capable of defending the nation from the Soviet Union, the actual goals were more complex and varied (Rudolph, 2002). Clearly, Congress, the president, and NSF were focused on the goal of preparing more scientists and engineers, as reflected in NSF director Alan Waterman’s 1957 statement (National Science Foundation, 1957, pp. xv-xvi):

Our schools and colleges are badly in need of modern science laboratories and laboratory, demonstration, and research equipment. Most important of all, we need more trained scientists and engineers in many special fields, and especially very many more competent, fully trained teachers of science, notably in our secondary schools. Undoubtedly, by a determined campaign, we can accomplish these ends in our traditional way, but how soon? The process is usually a lengthy one, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, the pressing question is how quickly can our people act to accomplish these things?

The scientists, however, had another agenda. Over the course of World War II, their research had become increasingly dependent on federal fund-

ing and influenced by federal needs. In physics, for example, federally funded efforts to develop nuclear weapons led research to focus increasingly at the atomic level. In order to maintain public funding while reducing unwanted public pressure on research directions, the scientists sought to use curriculum redesign as a way to build the public’s faith in the expertise of professional scientists (Rudolph, 2002). They wanted to emphasize the humanistic aspects of science, portraying science as an essential element in a broad liberal education. Some scientists sought to reach not only the select group who might become future scientists but also a slightly larger group of elite, mostly white male students who would be future leaders in government and business. They hoped to help these students appreciate the empirical grounding of scientific knowledge and to value and appreciate the role of science in society (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Views of the Nature of Science

While this shift in the goals of science education was taking place, historians and philosophers were proposing new views of science. In 1958, British chemist Michael Polanyi questioned the ideal of scientific detachment and objectivity, arguing that scientific discovery relies on the personal participation and the creative, original thoughts of scientists (Polanyi, 1958). In the United States, geneticist and science educator Joseph Schwab suggested that scientific methods were specific to each discipline and that all scientific “inquiry” (his term for scientific research) was guided by the current theories and concepts within the discipline (Schwab, 1964). Publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962) a few years later fueled the debate about whether science was truly rational, and whether theory or observation was more important to the scientific enterprise. Over time, this debate subsided, as historians and philosophers of science came to focus on the process of scientific discovery. Increasingly, they recognized that this process involves deductive reasoning (developing inferences from known scientific principles and theories) as well as inductive reasoning (proceeding from particular observations to reach more general theories or conclusions).

Development of New Science Curricula

Although these changing views of the nature of science later led to changes in science education, they had little influence in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik. With NSF support, scientists led a flurry of curriculum development over the next three decades (Matthews, 1994). In addition to the physics text developed by the PSSC, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) created biology curricula, the Chemical Education Materials group created chemistry materials, and groups of physicists created Intro-

ductory Physical Science and Project Physics. By 1975, NSF supported 28 science curriculum reform projects.

By 1977 over 60 percent of school districts had adopted at least one of the new curricula (Rudolph, 2002). The PSSC program employed high school teachers to train their peers in how to use the curriculum, reaching over half of all high school physics teachers by the late 1960s. However, due to implementation problems that we discuss further below, most schools soon shifted to other texts, and the federal goal of attracting a larger proportion of students to undergraduate science was not achieved (Linn, 1997).

Dissemination of the NSF-funded curriculum development efforts was limited by several weaknesses. Some curriculum developers tried to “teacher proof” their curricula, providing detailed texts, teacher guides, and filmstrips designed to ensure that students faithfully carried out the experiments as intended (Matthews, 1994). Physics teacher and curriculum developer Arnold Arons attributed the limited implementation of most of the NSF-funded curricula to lack of logistical support for science teachers and inadequate teacher training, since “curricular materials, however skilful and imaginative, cannot ‘teach themselves’” (Arons, 1983, p. 117). Case studies showed that schools were slow to change in response to the new curricula and highlighted the central role of the teacher in carrying them out (Stake and Easley, 1978). In his analysis of Project Physics, Welch concluded that the new curriculum accounted for only 5 percent of the variance in student achievement, while other factors, such as teacher effectiveness, student ability, and time on task, played a larger role (Welch, 1979).

Despite their limited diffusion, the new curricula pioneered important new approaches to science education, including elevating the role of laboratory activities in order to help students understand the nature of modern scientific research (Rudolph, 2002). For example, in the PSSC curriculum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Jerrold Zacharias coordinated laboratory activities with the textbook in order to deepen students’ understanding of the links between theory and experiments. As part of that curriculum, students experimented with a ripple tank, generating wave patterns in water in order to gain understanding of wave models of light. A new definition of the scientific laboratory informed these efforts. The PSSC text explained that a “laboratory” was a way of thinking about scientific investigations—an intellectual process rather than a building with specialized equipment (Rudolph, 2002, p. 131).

The new approach to using laboratory experiences was also apparent in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. The study group drew on the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to integrate laboratory experiences with other forms of instruction in a “learning cycle” (Atkin and Karplus, 1962). The learning cycle included (1) exploration of a concept, often through a laboratory experiment; (2) conceptual invention, in which the student or

TABLE 1-1 New Approaches Included in Post-Sputnik Science Curricula

teacher (or both) derived the concept from the experimental data, usually during a classroom discussion; and (3) concept application in which the student applied the concept (Karplus and Their, 1967). Evaluations of the instructional materials, which were targeted to elementary school students, revealed that they were more successful than traditional forms of science instruction at enhancing students’ understanding of science concepts, their understanding of the processes of science, and their positive attitudes toward science (Abraham, 1998). Subsequently, the learning cycle approach was applied to development of science curricula for high school and undergraduate students. Research into these more recent curricula confirms that “merely providing students with hands-on laboratory experiences is not by itself enough” (Abraham, 1998, p. 520) to motivate and help them understand science concepts and the nature of science.

In sum, the new approach of integrating laboratory experiences represented a marked change from earlier science education. In contrast to earlier curricula, which included laboratory experiences as secondary applications of concepts previously addressed by the teacher, the new curricula integrated laboratory activities into class routines in order to emphasize the nature and processes of science (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport, 1983; see Table 1-1 ). Large meta-analyses of evaluations of the post-Sputnik curricula (Shymansky et al., 1983; Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth, 1990) found they were more effective than the traditional curriculum in boosting students’ science achievement and interest in science. As we discuss in Chapter 3 , current designs of science curricula that integrate laboratory experiences

into ongoing classroom instruction have proven effective in enhancing students’ science achievement and interest in science.

Discovery Learning and Inquiry

One offshoot of the curriculum development efforts in the 1960s and 1970s was the development of an approach to science learning termed “discovery learning.” In 1959, Harvard cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner began to develop his ideas about discovery learning as director of an NRC committee convened to evaluate the new NSF-funded curricula. In a book drawing in part on that experience, Bruner suggested that young students are active problem solvers, ready and motivated to learn science by their natural interest in the material world (Bruner, 1960). He argued that children should not be taught isolated science facts, but rather should be helped to discover the structures, or underlying concepts and theories, of science. Bruner’s emphasis on helping students to understand the theoretical structures of the scientific disciplines became confounded with the idea of engaging students with the physical structures of natural phenomena in the laboratory (Matthews, 1994). Developers of NSF-funded curricula embraced this interpretation of Bruner’s ideas, as it leant support to their emphasis on laboratory activities.

On the basis of his observation that scientific knowledge was changing rapidly through large-scale research and development during this postwar period, Joseph Schwab advocated the closely related idea of an “inquiry approach” to science education (Rudolph, 2003). In a seminal article, Schwab argued against teaching science facts, which he termed a “rhetoric of conclusions” (Schwab, 1962, p. 25). Instead, he proposed that teachers engage students with materials that would motivate them to learn about natural phenomena through inquiry while also learning about some of the strengths and weaknesses of the processes of scientific inquiry. He developed a framework to describe the inquiry approach in a biology laboratory. At the highest level of inquiry, the student simply confronts the “raw phenomenon” (Schwab, 1962, p. 55) with no guidance. At the other end of the spectrum, biology students would experience low levels of inquiry, or none at all, if the laboratory manual provides the problem to be investigated, the methods to address the problem, and the solutions. When Herron applied Schwab’s framework to analyze the laboratory manuals included in the PSSC and the BSCS curricula, he found that most of the manuals provided extensive guidance to students and thus did not follow the inquiry approach (Herron, 1971).

The NRC defines inquiry somewhat differently in the National Science Education Standards . Rather than using “inquiry” as an indicator of the amount of guidance provided to students, the NRC described inquiry as

encompassing both “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23) and also students’ activities that support the learning of science concepts and the processes of science. In the NRC definition, student inquiry may include reading about known scientific theories and ideas, posing questions, planning investigations, making observations, using tools to gather and analyze data, proposing explanations, reviewing known theories and concepts in light of empirical data, and communicating the results. The Standards caution that emphasizing inquiry does not mean relying on a single approach to science teaching, suggesting that teachers use a variety of strategies, including reading, laboratory activities, and other approaches to help students learn science (National Research Council, 1996).

Diversity in Schools

During the 1950s, as some scientists developed new science curricula for teaching a small group of mostly white male students, other Americans were much more concerned about the weak quality of racially segregated schools for black children. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education was in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it provided black students with “separate but equal” education. Schools in both the North and the South changed dramatically as formerly all-white schools were integrated. Following the example of the civil rights movement, in the 1970s and the 1980s the women’s liberation movement sought improved education and employment opportunities for girls and women, including opportunities in science. In response, some educators began to seek ways to improve science education for all students, regardless of their race or gender.

1975 to Present

By 1975, the United States had put a man on the moon, concerns about the “space race” had subsided, and substantial NSF funding for science education reform ended. These changes, together with increased concern for equity in science education, heralded a shift in society’s goals for science education. Science educators became less focused on the goal of disciplinary knowledge for science specialists and began to place greater emphasis on a liberal, humanistic view of science education.

Many of the tensions evident in the first 100 years of U.S. high school laboratories have continued over the past 30 years. Scientists, educators, and policy makers continue to disagree about the nature of science, the goals of science education, and the role of the curriculum and the teacher in student

learning. Within this larger dialogue, debate about the value of laboratory activities continues.

Changing Goals for Science Education

National reports issued during the 1980s and 1990s illustrate new views of the nature of science and increased emphasis on liberal goals for science education. In Science for All Americans , the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students, in order to increase their awareness and understanding of science and the natural world and to develop their ability to think scientifically (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method. In the ongoing debate about the coverage of science content, the AAAS took the position that “curricula must be changed to reduce the sheer amount of material covered” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, p. 5). Four years later, the AAAS published Benchmarks for Science Literacy , which identified expected competencies at each school grade level in each of the earlier report’s 10 areas of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993).

The NRC’s National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) built on the AAAS reports, opening with the statement: “This nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientific literacy” (p. ix). The NRC proposed national science standards for high school students designed to help all students develop (1) abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry and (2) understandings about scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

In the standards, the NRC suggested a new approach to laboratories that went beyond simply engaging students in experiments. The NRC explicitly recognized that laboratory investigations should be learning experiences, stating that high school students must “actively participate in scientific investigations, and … use the cognitive and manipulative skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scientific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory.

While most educators, scientists, and policy makers now agree that scientific literacy for all students is the primary goal of high school science

education, the secondary goals of preparing the future scientific and technical workforce and including science as an essential part of a broad liberal education remain important. In 2004, the NSF National Science Board released a report describing a “troubling decline” in the number of U.S. citizens training to become scientists and engineers at a time when many current scientists and engineers are soon to retire. NSF called for improvements in science education to reverse these trends, which “threaten the economic welfare and security of our country” (National Science Foundation, 2004, p. 1). Another recent study found that secure, well-paying jobs that do not require postsecondary education nonetheless require abilities that may be developed in science laboratories. These include the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions; distinguish among facts and opinions; identify false premises in an argument; and use mathematics to solve problems (Achieve, 2004).

Achieving the goal of scientific literacy for all students, as well as motivating some students to study further in science, may require diverse approaches for the increasingly diverse body of science students, as we discuss in Chapter 2 .

Changing Role of Teachers and Curriculum

Over the past 20 years, science educators have increasingly recognized the complementary roles of curriculum and teachers in helping students learn science. Both evaluations of NSF-funded curricula from the 1960s and more recent research on science learning have highlighted the important role of the teacher in helping students learn through laboratory activities. Cognitive psychologists and science educators have found that the teacher’s expectations, interventions, and actions can help students develop understanding of scientific concepts and ideas (Driver, 1995; Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble, 1998; Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). In response to this growing awareness, some school districts and institutions of higher education have made efforts to improve laboratory education for current teachers as well as to improve the undergraduate education of future teachers (National Research Council, 2001).

In the early 1980s, NSF began again to fund the development of laboratory-centered high school science curricula. Today, several publishers offer comprehensive packages developed with NSF support, including textbooks, teacher guides, and laboratory materials (and, in some cases, videos and web sites). In 2001, one earth science curriculum, five physical science curricula, five life science curricula, and six integrated science curricula were available for sale, while several others in various science disciplines were still under development (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2001). In contrast to the curriculum development approach of the 1960s, teachers have played an important role in developing and field-testing these newer

curricula and in designing the teacher professional development courses that accompany most of them. However, as in the 1960s and 1970s, only a few of these NSF-funded curricula have been widely adopted. Private publishers have also developed a multitude of new textbooks, laboratory manuals, and laboratory equipment kits in response to the national education standards and the growing national concern about scientific literacy. Nevertheless, most schools today use science curricula that have not been developed, field-tested, or refined on the basis of specific education research (see Chapter 2 ).

CURRENT DEBATES

Clearly, the United States needs high school graduates with scientific literacy—both to meet the economy’s need for skilled workers and future scientists and to develop the scientific habits of mind that can help citizens in their everyday lives. Science is also important as part of a liberal high school education that conveys an important aspect of modern culture. However, the value of laboratory experiences in meeting these national goals has not been clearly established.

Researchers agree neither on the desired learning outcomes of laboratory experiences nor on whether those outcomes are attained. For example, on the basis of a 1978 review of over 80 studies, Bates concluded that there was no conclusive answer to the question, “What does the laboratory accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by less expensive and less time-consuming alternatives?” (Bates, 1978, p. 75). Some experts have suggested that the only contribution of laboratories lies in helping students develop skills in manipulating equipment and acquiring a feel for phenomena but that laboratories cannot help students understand science concepts (Woolnough, 1983; Klopfer, 1990). Others, however, argue that laboratory experiences have the potential to help students understand complex science concepts, but the potential has not been realized (Tobin, 1990; Gunstone and Champagne, 1990).

These debates in the research are reflected in practice. On one hand, most states and school districts continue to invest in laboratory facilities and equipment, many undergraduate institutions require completion of laboratory courses to qualify for admission, and some states require completion of science laboratory courses as a condition of high school graduation. On the other hand, in early 2004, the California Department of Education considered draft criteria for the evaluation of science instructional materials that reflected skepticism about the value of laboratory experiences or other hands-on learning activities. The proposed criteria would have required materials to demonstrate that the state science standards could be comprehensively covered with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent

of instructional time (Linn, 2004). However, in response to opposition, the criteria were changed to require that the instructional materials would comprehensively cover the California science standards with “hands-on activities composing at least 20 to 25 percent of the science instructional program” (California Department of Education, 2004, p. 4, italics added).

The growing variety in laboratory experiences—which may be designed to achieve a variety of different learning outcomes—poses a challenge to resolving these debates. In a recent review of the literature, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004, p. 46) call attention to this variety:

The assumption that laboratory experiences help students understand materials, phenomena, concepts, models and relationships, almost independent of the nature of the laboratory experience, continues to be widespread in spite of sparse data from carefully designed and conducted studies.

As a first step toward understanding the nature of the laboratory experience, the committee developed a definition and a typology of high school science laboratory experiences.

DEFINITION OF LABORATORY EXPERIENCES

Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special equipment to carry out well-defined procedures—obsolete. The committee gathered information on a wide variety of approaches to laboratory education, arriving at the term “laboratory experiences” to describe teaching and learning that may take place in a laboratory room or in other settings:

Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science.

This definition includes the following student activities:

Physical manipulation of the real-world substances or systems under investigation. This may include such activities as chemistry experiments, plant or animal dissections in biology, and investigation of rocks or minerals for identification in earth science.

Interaction with simulations. Physical models have been used throughout the history of science teaching (Lunetta, 1998). Today, students can work

with computerized models, or simulations, representing aspects of natural phenomena that cannot be observed directly, because they are very large, very small, very slow, very fast, or very complex. Using simulations, students may model the interaction of molecules in chemistry or manipulate models of cells, animal or plant systems, wave motion, weather patterns, or geological formations.

Interaction with data drawn from the real world. Students may interact with real-world data that are obtained and represented in a variety of forms. For example, they may study photographs to examine characteristics of the moon or other heavenly bodies or analyze emission and absorption spectra in the light from stars. Data may be incorporated in films, DVDs, computer programs, or other formats.

Access to large databases. In many fields of science, researchers have arranged for empirical data to be normalized and aggregated—for example, genome databases, astronomy image collections, databases of climatic events over long time periods, biological field observations. With the help of the Internet, some students sitting in science class can now access these authentic and timely scientific data. Students can manipulate and analyze these data drawn from the real world in new forms of laboratory experiences (Bell, 2005).

Remote access to scientific instruments and observations. A few classrooms around the nation experience laboratory activities enabled by Internet links to remote instruments. Some students and teachers study insects by accessing and controlling an environmental scanning electron microscope (Thakkar et al., 2000), while others control automated telescopes (Gould, 2004).

Although we include all of these types of direct and indirect interaction with the material world in this definition, it does not include student manipulation or analysis of data created by a teacher to replace or substitute for direct interaction with the material world. For example, if a physics teacher presented students with a constructed data set on the weight and required pulling force for boxes pulled across desks with different surfaces, asking the students to analyze these data, the students’ problem-solving activity would not constitute a laboratory experience according to the committee’s definition.

Previous Definitions of Laboratories

In developing its definition, the committee reviewed previous definitions of student laboratories. Hegarty-Hazel (1990, p. 4) defined laboratory work as:

a form of practical work taking place in a purposely assigned environment where students engage in planned learning experiences … [and] interact

with materials to observe and understand phenomena (Some forms of practical work such as field trips are thus excluded).

Lunetta defined laboratories as “experiences in school settings in which students interact with materials to observe and understand the natural world” (Lunetta, 1998, p. 249). However, these definitions include only students’ direct interactions with natural phenomena, whereas we include both such direct interactions and also student interactions with data drawn from the material world. In addition, these earlier definitions confine laboratory experiences to schools or other “purposely assigned environments,” but our definition encompasses student observation and manipulation of natural phenomena in a variety of settings, including science museums and science centers, school gardens, local streams, or nearby geological formations. The committee’s definition also includes students who work as interns in research laboratories, after school or during the summer months. All of these experiences, as well as those that take place in traditional school science laboratories, are included in our definition of laboratory experiences.

Variety in Laboratory Experiences

Both the preceding review of the history of laboratories and the committee’s review of the evidence of student learning in laboratories reveal the limitations of engaging students in replicating the work of scientists. It has become increasingly clear that it is not realistic to expect students to arrive at accepted scientific concepts and ideas by simply experiencing some aspects of scientific research (Millar, 2004). While recognizing these limitations, the committee thinks that laboratory experiences should at least partially reflect the range of activities involved in real scientific research. Providing students with opportunities to participate in a range of scientific activities represents a step toward achieving the learning goals of laboratories identified in Chapter 3 . 1

Historians and philosophers of science now recognize that the well-ordered scientific method taught in many high school classes does not exist. Scientists’ empirical research in the laboratory or the field is one part of a larger process that may include reading and attending conferences to stay abreast of current developments in the discipline and to present work in progress. As Schwab recognized (1964), the “structure” of current theories and concepts in a discipline acts as a guide to further empirical research. The work of scientists may include formulating research questions, generat-

ing alternative hypotheses, designing and conducting investigations, and building and revising models to explain the results of their investigations. The process of evaluating and revising models may generate new questions and new investigations (see Table 1-2 ). Recent studies of science indicate that scientists’ interactions with their peers, particularly their response to questions from other scientists, as well as their use of analogies in formulating hypotheses and solving problems, and their responses to unexplained results, all influence their success in making discoveries (Dunbar, 2000). Some scientists concentrate their efforts on developing theory, reading, or conducting thought experiments, while others specialize in direct interactions with the material world (Bell, 2005).

Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evaluation (see Table 1-3 ).

Currently, however, most high schools provide a narrow range of laboratory activities, engaging students primarily in using tools to make observations and gather data, often in order to verify established scientific knowledge. Students rarely have opportunities to formulate research questions or to build and revise explanatory models (see Chapter 4 ).

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The ability of high school science laboratories to help improve all citizens’ understanding and appreciation of science and prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers is affected by the context in which laboratory experiences take place. Laboratory experiences do not take place in isolation, but are part of the larger fabric of students’ experiences during their high school years. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes recent trends in U.S. science education and policies influencing science education, including laboratory experiences. In Chapter 3 we turn to a review of available evidence on student learning in laboratories and identify principles for design of effective laboratory learning environments. Chapter 4 describes current laboratory experiences in U.S. high schools, and Chapter 5 discusses teacher and school readiness for laboratory experiences. In Chapter 6 , we describe the current state of laboratory facilities, equipment, and safety. Finally, in Chapter 7 , we present our conclusions and an agenda designed to help laboratory experiences fulfill their potential role in the high school science curriculum.

TABLE 1-2 A Typology of Scientists’ Activities

TABLE 1-3 A Typology of School Laboratory Experiences

Since the late 19th century, high school students in the United States have carried out laboratory investigations as part of their science classes. Since that time, changes in science, education, and American society have influenced the role of laboratory experiences in the high school science curriculum. At the turn of the 20th century, high school science laboratory experiences were designed primarily to prepare a select group of young people for further scientific study at research universities. During the period between World War I and World War II, many high schools emphasized the more practical aspects of science, engaging students in laboratory projects related to daily life. In the 1950s and 1960s, science curricula were redesigned to integrate laboratory experiences into classroom instruction, with the goal of increasing public appreciation of science.

Policy makers, scientists, and educators agree that high school graduates today, more than ever, need a basic understanding of science and technology to function effectively in an increasingly complex, technological society. They seek to help students understand the nature of science and to develop both the inductive and deductive reasoning skills that scientists apply in their work. However, researchers and educators do not agree on how to define high school science laboratories or on their purposes, hampering the accumulation of evidence that might guide improvements in laboratory education. Gaps in the research and in capturing the knowledge of expert science teachers make it difficult to reach precise conclusions on the best approaches to laboratory teaching and learning.

In order to provide a focus for the study, the committee defines laboratory experiences as follows: laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science. This definition includes a variety of types of laboratory experiences, reflecting the range of activities that scientists engage in. The following chapters discuss the educational context; laboratory experiences and student learning; current laboratory experiences, teacher and school readiness, facilities, equipment, and safety; and laboratory experiences for the 21st century.

Abraham, M.R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education . London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Achieve. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts . (The American Diploma Project.) Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans . Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . Washington, DC: Author.

Arons, A. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus , 112 (2), 91-122.

Atkin, J.M., and Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher , 29 , 45-51.

Bates, G.R. (1978). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 83 , 165-169.

Bell, P. (2005). The school science laboratory: Considerations of learning, technology , and scientific practice . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html .

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2001). Profiles in science: A guide to NSF - funded high school instructional materials . Colorado Springs, CO: Author. Available at: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?id=Professional_Development|Resources|Profiles_In_Science [accessed Sept. 2004].

Brownell, H., and Wade, F.B. (1925). The teaching of science and the science teacher . New York: Century Company.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education . New York: Vintage.

Bump, H.C. (1895). Laboratory teaching of large classes—Zoology. [Letter to the editor]. Science, New Series , 1 (10), 260.

California Department of Education. (2004). Criteria for evaluating instructional materials in science, kindergarten through grade eight . Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/documents/scicriteria04.pdf [accessed Nov. 2004].

Champagne, A., and Shiland, T. (2004). Large-scale assessment and the high school science laboratory . Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Jan. 2004].

Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome: Inside the race to unlock human DNA . New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1910a). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1910b). Science as subject-matter and method. Science, New Series , 31 , 122, 125.

Downing, E.R. (1919). The scientific method and the problems of school science. School and Society , 10 , 571.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science , 17 , 397-434.

Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21 (1), 49-58.

Duschl, R. (2004). The HS lab experience: Reconsidering the role of evidence, explanation, and the language of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, July 12-13, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Nov. 2004].

Gould, R. (2004). About micro observatory . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://mo-www.harvard.edu/MicroObservatory/ [accessed Sept. 2004].

Gugliotta, G. (2004). Space sugar a clue to life’s origins. The Washington Post , September 27.

Gunstone, R.F., and Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159-182). London, England: Routledge.

Hall, G.S. (1901). How far is the present high-school and early college training adapted to the nature and needs of adolescents? School Review , 9 , 652.

Harvard University. (1889). Descriptive list of elementary physical experiments intended for use in preparing students for Harvard College . Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Overview. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum . London, England: Routledge.

Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.

Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., and Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense? Journal of Chemical Education , 75 (1), 103.

Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education , 88 , 28-54.

Hollis, J.M., Jewell, P.R., Lovas, F.J., and Remijan, J. (2004, September 20). Green Bank telescope observations of interstellar glycolaldehyde: Low-temperature sugar. Astrophysical Journal , 613 , L45-L48.

Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karplus, R., and Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Klopfer, L.E. (1990). Learning scientific enquiry in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 95-118). London, England: Routledge.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Linn, M. (2004). High school science laboratories: How can technology contribute? Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

Linn, M.C. (1997). The role of the laboratory in science learning. Elementary School Journal , 97 (4), 401-417.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F.F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135-158). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lunetta, V. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching . In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Merton, R.K., and Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mill, J.S. (1963). System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. In J.M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill . Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Original work published 1843).

Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies . New York: American Book Company.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards . National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium . Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1957). Annual report . Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1957/annualreports/start.htm [accessed Nov. 2004].

National Science Foundation. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering workforce . Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsb0407/start.htm [accessed Sept. 2003].

Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 7 , 429-449.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy . London, England: Routledge.

Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 30 , 127-152.

Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education . New York: Palgrave.

Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education , 87 , 64-79.

Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly , 45(2), 341-376.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P.F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J.J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G.W. Ford and L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 31-49). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.B., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A re-assessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the sixties on student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Stake, R.E., and Easley, J.A. (1978). Case studies in science education . Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.

Thakkar, U., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Kisseberth, N., Potter, C.S., Robinson, S., Sinn-Hanlon, J., Stone, D., and Weber, D. (2000). Formative evaluation of Bugscope: A sustainable world wide laboratory for K-12 . Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Special Interest Group on Advanced Technologies for Learning, April 24-28, New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://bugscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/publications/index.htm#papers [accessed May 2005].

Tobin, K. 1990. Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics , 90 (5), 403-418.

Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science education development: A look back. Review of Research in Education , 7 , 282-306.

Whewell, W. (1840). Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history . London, England: John W. Parker.

Whewell, W. (1858). The history of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time (3rd edition). New York: Appleton.

White, B.Y., and Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction , 16 (1), 3-118.

Whitman, F.P. (1898). The beginnings of laboratory teaching in America. Science , New Series , 8 (190), 201-206.

Woodhull, J.F. (1909). How the public will solve the problems of science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 9 , 276.

Woolnough, B.E. (1983). Exercises, investigations and experiences. Physics Education , 18 , 60-63.

Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high school science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nation's high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools:

• What is effective laboratory teaching?
• What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs?
• How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed?
• Do all student have access to laboratory experiences?
• What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students?
• How can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching?

With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculum—and how that can be accomplished.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of laboratory in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• Anti-vivisectionists last night freed a number of animals from a laboratory.
• We have very high safety standards in this laboratory.
• She was taken on as a laboratory assistant .
• a laboratory technician
• Eventually you'll get/ become used to the smells of the laboratory.
• antechamber
• drawing room
• dressing room
• efficiency room
• master bedroom
• meat locker
• multi-chambered
• observation lounge
• utility room
• waiting room

laboratory | American Dictionary

Laboratory | business english, examples of laboratory, collocations with laboratory.

These are words often used in combination with laboratory .

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

Translations of laboratory

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

to move something by pulling it along a surface, usually the ground

Treasure troves and endless supplies (Words and phrases meaning ‘source’)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• American    Noun
• Business    Noun
• Collocations
• Translations
• All translations

To add laboratory to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add laboratory to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

laboratory noun

• Hide all quotations

Earlier version

• laboratory in OED Second Edition (1989)

What does the noun laboratory mean?

There are four meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun laboratory . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

laboratory has developed meanings and uses in subjects including

How common is the noun laboratory ?

How is the noun laboratory pronounced?

British english, u.s. english, where does the noun laboratory come from.

Earliest known use

The earliest known use of the noun laboratory is in the late 1500s.

OED's earliest evidence for laboratory is from around 1594, in the writing of John Dee, mathematician, astrologer, and antiquary.

laboratory is a borrowing from Latin .

Etymons: Latin laboratorium .

Nearby entries

• labiovelarized, adj. 1924–
• labium, n. 1598–
• lablab, n. 1670–
• lablab bean, n. 1852–
• laborant, n. ?a1425–
• laborate, v. 1662–1898
• laborated, adj. 1835–55
• laboration, n. a1500–
• laboratorial, adj. 1807–
• laboratorian, n. & adj. 1824–
• laboratory, n. ?1594–
• laboratory assistant, n. 1831–
• laboratory bench, n. 1870–
• laboratory chest, n. 1769–
• laboratory conditions, n. 1873–
• laboratory frame, n. 1945–
• laboratory school, n. 1861–
• laboratory system, n. 1937–
• laboratory technician, n. 1896–
• laboratory test, n. 1859–
• laboriferous, adj. 1656–76

Meaning & use

My three laboratories serving for Pyrotechnia.

Wee commonly prouide, that they [ sc. medicines] bee prepared in our Laboratorie at home by a [s] kilfull workeman.

A laboratory , or Alchymists workehouse.

He had a Laboratory to prepare all Medicines that he used on his Patients.

Fitting up a Laboratory wth Furnaces, an Assay Table, Mortars, Sives..& other things necessary for making the Assays.

His best pieces were representations of chymists and their laboratories .

To establish in London a laboratory , or manufacture of artificial mineral waters.

Crucibles, bolt-heads, stoves, and the other furniture of a chemical laboratory .

The electro-magnetic machine has been brought from the physical laboratory into the province of engineering.

The establishment of anthropometric and psychometric laboratories ..with special reference to the measurement of the savage tribes that will be gathered there.

We raided the Tryfanos summer home. It was a dry well. There was not a trace of a heroin laboratory .

His laboratory has developed a variety of polymers, called polyanhydrides, that erode in the body like a bar of soap.

In IVF, a donor's egg is removed, fertilized in the laboratory with the sperm and then placed inside the receiving woman.

A modern laboratory requires equipment—election microscopes, centrifuges, cell fractionators, and powerful computers.

• laboratory ?1594– Originally: a room or building for the practice of alchemy and the preparation of medicines. Later: one equipped for carrying out scientific…
• elaboratory 1652– A place where chemical operations are performed, or where medicines are compounded; = laboratory , n. Obsolete exc. Historical .
• lab 1868– A laboratory.

Some more worthy Explorator..shall wholly withdrawe that thick Curtain of obscurity, which yet hangs betwixt Natures Laboratory and Us.

The Soul (like an excellent Chymist) in this internal Laboratory of Man, by a fermentation of our nourishment in the Stomach [etc.] .

The House and Laboratory of the Soul, With all its Vital Furniture's Destroy'd.

Fissures and caverns of rocks are the laboratories , where such operations are carried on.

The soil is the laboratory in which the food is prepared.

Like the atmosphere it [ sc. the sea] is a laboratory in which wonders by processes the most exquisite are continually going on.

A notion neatly turned out of the laboratory of the mind.

Switzerland..is so often called the political laboratory of Europe.

The Bildungsroman is a sort of laboratory in which the hero conducts an experiment in living.

New Prospect, a place where the Great Depression never lifted, supplies Updike with an ideal laboratory in which to cultivate the germ of militant Islamism.

• shop 1517– figurative . A place where something is produced or elaborated, or where a particular operation is performed; spec. the heart, liver, or other…
• workhouse ?1533– figurative . Cf. workshop , n. 1b. Now rare .
• workshop 1561– figurative and in extended use: a (notional) place in which things are produced or created; spec. a centre of industry; frequently in workshop of the …
• childbed 1568– The bed in which a child is born. Also figurative .
• factory 1618– A location or premises in which a product is manufactured; esp. a building or range of buildings with plant for the manufacture or assembly of…
• laboratory 1654– In extended and figurative use. Something likened to a scientific laboratory, esp. in being a site or centre of development, production, or…
• elaboratory 1667– A natural apparatus for elaborating any product of vital action. (Formerly transferred from 1.)
• hotbed 1693– figurative . A place that promotes the rapid growth or development of any phenomenon, esp. of something harmful or undesirable.
• mill 1771– A means or mechanism by which something is created or developed; a crucible, a melting pot.

In order whereunto we have made the Annexed Estimate of what the charge of that and a new Laboratory for fixing shells and Carcasses will amount to.

The New Establishment of the Office of Her Majesty's Ordnance. 1703...Extraordinary Allowances... A Storekeeper at Greenwich, 80 l ... Ditto of Laboratory at Woolwich, 40 l .

The Ammunition Laboratory ..was..set on Fire.

A certain number of men from the regiment of artillery were to be employed in the laboratory as military artificers.

The arsenal, the laboratory [etc.] ..are under his immediate superintendence.

A fuse, invented..by..a person employed in the laboratory at Woolwich.

The explosion of an immense naval laboratory near Richmond, in which were manufactured all the torpedoes, shell, fuses, rockets, signal lights, and ordnance stores for the rebel navy.

Private Joseph Thomas Lawrence, of the Army Service Corps, at once collected the fire extinguishers and proceeded by motor to the laboratory .

Arsenal production had been climbing, and the Richmond ordnance laboratory could now make from 50,000 to 100,000 rounds of small arms ammunition daily.

Air Force officials were considering setting up a weapons laboratory of their own.

He wrote a paper on..German shells... Apparently, memoranda on this still survive in American ordnance laboratories .

• Topkhana 1668– In Turkey: a gun-factory or arsenal, spec. the gun-factories in Galata, Constantinople (Istanbul), during the Ottoman Empire; hence (the current…
• laboratory 1694– Military . A building or department for the manufacture of ammunition and other explosives.

The reverberatory furnace may be used as a melting one, by leaving out the piece called the laboratory , and placing the dome immediately upon the fireplace.

The flame and the smoke which escape from the sole or laboratory pass into condensing chambers.

This consists of a long hearth or laboratory with a monolithic refractory bottom, walls of refractory brick, and an arched roof of refractory brick.

This arrangement permits of cooling the gases outgoing from the laboratory before they pass through the material to be processed.

• hearth 1551– Metallurgy . The floor or bottom of a furnace, on which the ore, metal, etc., is exposed to the flame. Also: a hole at the bottom of a blast furnace…
• sole 1615– The bottom, floor, or hearth of an oven or furnace.
• laboratory 1790– Metallurgy . The hearth of a reverberatory furnace.
• hearth bottom 1821– The floor or bottom of a hearth.
• mouth plate 1852–53 A plate at the mouth of a furnace on which burning coal, etc., sits. Obsolete .
• open-hearth 1870– Relating to or designating a steel-making process (now largely disused) in which scrap iron or steel, limestone, and pig iron are melted together…
• shelf 1879– The charging-bed of a furnace.
• kitchen 1881– Metallurgy . The hearth of a reverberatory furnace. Now chiefly historical .

Pronunciation

• ð th ee
• ɬ rhingy ll

Some consonants can take the function of the vowel in unstressed syllables. Where necessary, a syllabic marker diacritic is used, hence <petal> /ˈpɛtl/ but <petally> /ˈpɛtl̩i/.

• a trap, bath
• ɑː start, palm, bath
• ɔː thought, force
• ᵻ (/ɪ/-/ə/)
• ᵿ (/ʊ/-/ə/)

Other symbols

• The symbol ˈ at the beginning of a syllable indicates that that syllable is pronounced with primary stress.
• The symbol ˌ at the beginning of a syllable indicates that that syllable is pronounced with secondary stress.
• Round brackets ( ) in a transcription indicate that the symbol within the brackets is optional.

View the pronunciation model here .

* /d/ also represents a 'tapped' /t/ as in <bitter>

Some consonants can take the function of the vowel in unstressed syllables. Where necessary, a syllabic marker diacritic is used, hence <petal> /ˈpɛd(ə)l/ but <petally> /ˈpɛdl̩i/.

• i fleece, happ y
• æ trap, bath
• ɑ lot, palm, cloth, thought
• ɔ cloth, thought
• ɔr north, force
• ə strut, comm a
• ər nurse, lett er
• ɛ(ə)r square
• æ̃ sal on

Simple Text Respell

Simple text respell breaks words into syllables, separated by a hyphen. The syllable which carries the primary stress is written in capital letters. This key covers both British and U.S. English Simple Text Respell.

b, d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w and z have their standard English values

• arr carry (British only)
• a(ng) gratin
• o lot (British only)
• orr sorry (British only)
• o(ng) salon

Variant forms

• 1500s– laboratory
• 1600s labaratory , laboratorie , laboritary , labratory

laboratory is one of the 2,000 most common words in modern written English. It is similar in frequency to words like correlation , defendant , flat , maintenance , and medicine .

It typically occurs about 40 times per million words in modern written English.

laboratory is in frequency band 6, which contains words occurring between 10 and 100 times per million words in modern written English. More about OED's frequency bands

Frequency of laboratory, n. , 1750–2010

* Occurrences per million words in written English

Historical frequency series are derived from Google Books Ngrams (version 2), a data set based on the Google Books corpus of several million books printed in English between 1500 and 2010.

The overall frequency for a given word is calculated by summing frequencies for the main form of the word, any plural or inflected forms, and any major spelling variations.

For sets of homographs (distinct entries that share the same word-form, e.g. mole , n.¹, mole , n.², mole , n.³, etc.), we have estimated the frequency of each homograph entry as a fraction of the total Ngrams frequency for the word-form. This may result in inaccuracies.

Frequency of laboratory, n. , 2017–2023

Modern frequency series are derived from a corpus of 20 billion words, covering the period from 2017 to the present. The corpus is mainly compiled from online news sources, and covers all major varieties of World English.

Compounds & derived words

• All compounds & derived words
• Curated compounds
• knick-knackatory , n. 1702– A repository of knick-knacks. Also loosely, a knick-knack.
• physical laboratory , n. 1744– A laboratory for experiments in physical science.
• laboratory chest , n. 1769– A chest for storing ammunition and explosives.
• laboratorial , adj. 1807– Devoted to experimental work; characteristic of or appropriate to a laboratory.
• laboratorian , n. & adj. 1824– A person who works in a laboratory; a person skilled at experimental work; a laboratory technician. Now chiefly U.S.
• laboratory assistant , n. 1831– A person who works in a junior role in a laboratory.
• laboratory test , n. 1859– A scientific test or procedure carried out in a laboratory; spec. a test performed on blood, urine, or other body tissue for the purposes of medical…
• laboratory school , n. 1861– a. A laboratory at which students are given scientific instruction; a teaching laboratory (now rare); b. U.S. an institution affiliated to a college…
• photo laboratory , n. 1867–
• lab , n.² 1868– A laboratory.
• laboratory bench , n. 1870– A workbench in a laboratory.
• research laboratory , n. 1872–
• laboratory conditions , n. 1873– The physical environment under which an experiment or procedure in a laboratory is conducted (which may involve a specified, frequently optimized…
• science laboratory , n. 1875–
• laboratory technician , n. 1896– A person employed in a laboratory to look after equipment or perform tests and procedures.
• laboratory-grown , adj. 1897–
• laboratory-bred , adj. 1910–
• crime laboratory , n. 1914– A laboratory where crime and criminal activity is studied; spec. = crime lab, n.
• police laboratory , n. 1921–
• language laboratory , n. 1931– A room equipped with audio and visual equipment, such as tape and video recorders, for learning a foreign language.
• laboratory system , n. 1937– = laboratory frame, n.
• laboratory frame , n. 1945– (More fully laboratory frame of reference) the frame of reference in which a laboratory is stationary, and with respect to which measurements of…
• space laboratory , n. 1954– A laboratory in space, esp. a small earth-orbiting space station equipped as a laboratory; (also) a terrestrial laboratory that specializes in space…

The whole [ sc. book] concludes with the manner of making the laboratory works, necessary in the course of practice.

Laboratory Stores. Fixed fuses 7¾ inches 250.

Coal-heavers, dust-men, laboratory -men, and others who work among dry, powdery substances.

As the botanist does with plants so does the laboratory -chemist with the salts.

Whether the chemist may not effect in his laboratory -machinery a similar intercombination of deoxidised carbonic acid and water.

My assistant dissolved the substance in a pan over our laboratory fire.

Most of this evidence has had to be tested by laboratory experiments.

Laboratory apparatus for steam distillation.

Laboratory coats, Men's . Strongly made, with step collar, outside breast pocket and two side pockets.

Laboratory studies of her blood, urine, liver function, cerebrospinal fluid, and thyroid activity were not abnormal.

These results were obtained in small-scale laboratory assays.

Multinationals..have long been wary of doing new-drug research in China. They cite concerns about the quality of laboratory work.

• bain 1477–1657 Chemistry . An apparatus for heating through the medium of water, sand, etc., more gradually than by direct exposure to fire. Cf. bath , n.¹
• speculum 1650– A mirror or reflector (of glass or metal) used for some scientific purpose; †a lens.
• filtering paper 1651– Unsized porous paper used to filter liquids; a piece of this; = filter paper , n.
• wheel-fire 1662 In Old Chemistry , a fire completely encompassing a crucible.
• filter paper 1670– Unsized porous paper used to filter liquids; a piece of this.
• sun furnace 1763– a. Roman History a south-facing room with glass or mica windows, designed to trap heat (somewhat rare ); b. an apparatus designed to produce intense…
• respirator 1789 Chemistry . An apparatus for testing the composition of exhaled air. Obsolete . rare .
• candle-ball 1794– A small glass bubble filled with water, which when held in the flame of a candle, bursts with a loud explosion.
• spirit blowpipe 1812– A blowpipe in which the flame is produced by burning alcohol vapour.
• rectifier 1822– Chemistry . An apparatus for purifying or refining a substance, esp. spirit, by distillation. Cf. rectify , v. 3a.
• candle-bomb 1823– A sphere which explodes in the heat of a candle, giving out a brilliant light.
• filter 1823– Any material suitable for use as a filter.
• oxyhydrogen blowpipe 1823– A type of blowpipe in which streams of oxygen and hydrogen meet as they emerge, producing an extremely hot flame by the burning of the hydrogen in…
• shade 1837– Something which affords protection from light, heat, etc. In scientific apparatus: a shutter or other mechanical means of intercepting light falling…
• graduator 1839– One who or that which graduates. A contrivance for concentrating a solution by means of rapid evaporation.
• pipette 1839– Science . A slender tube of small calibre used for obtaining a known small volume of a liquid, esp. in laboratory work, and often incorporating a…
• thistle funnel 1849– A kind of funnel used in chemical operations, having a large bulb between the conical flaring part and the tube, so as to suggest the form of a…
• pressure tube 1852– A tube containing liquid or gas under pressure.
• ozonizer 1858– An apparatus for producing ozone or for treating something with ozone; (also) †a chemical used to generate ozone ( obsolete ).
• dialyser 1861– Chemistry and Biology . An apparatus containing a semipermeable membrane for the separation of dissolved and suspended substances in a liquid by means…
• Liebig condenser 1861– A device for condensing vapour, consisting of two concentric tubes, the vapour and condensate passing through the inner one and a cooling liquid…
• Sprengel pump 1866– A type of vacuum pump which removes air or gas by trapping it in bubbles between short columns of mercury falling down a narrow vertical tube.
• Sprengel tube 1866– †a. The vertical tube forming part of a Sprengel pump ( obsolete ); b. a glass U-tube that narrows to a capillary at each end, used to determine…
• water softener 1867– A chemical agent, or a device or apparatus, used in water-softening.
• mercury pump 1869– An air pump that makes use of mercury, spec. (a) = Sprengel pump n. at Sprengel , n. I.1a; (b) = mercury vapour pump , n.
• Bunsen burner 1870– Used attributively to denote appliances invented by Bunsen. A kind of gas-burner used for heating and for blowpipe work, in which air is burnt…
• dialysator 1877– = dialyser , n.
• test-mixer 1877– See quot.
• tube-condenser 1877– a. A bent glass tube with a stopper at each end through which a smaller tube is passed; b. in a steam engine, a condenser in which the cooling…
• Kipp 1879– Used in the possessive (less commonly absol. or attributively ) to denote an apparatus for the generation of gas by the action of a liquid on a…
• reflux condenser 1880– A condenser mounted or designed so that condensed vapour runs back into the stock of boiling liquid.
• policeman 1888– Science . More fully rubber policeman . A glass rod or tube with a short piece of rubber tubing or other soft attachment on one end, used in the…
• converter 1889– An apparatus for converting one thing into another.
• pressure boiler 1891– A boiler designed to withstand high pressures, for heating liquids above their normal boiling points.
• spot plate 1896– A plate (typically ceramic or plastic) bearing an array of small depressions in which spot tests can be performed.
• hydrogen electrode 1898– An electrode (usually of platinum coated with platinum black) partially immersed in a solution that contains hydrogen ions and hydrogen gas, so that…
• sampler 1902– A device for obtaining samples for scientific study.
• reactor 1903– A tank, vessel, or apparatus in which substances are made to react chemically, esp. one in an industrial plant.
• fume-chamber 1905–
• electrostatic precipitator 1908– = precipitator , n. 2b(b).
• Permutit 1910– A proprietary name for: ion-exchange material used for softening water; equipment and processes that employ such material.
• microburner 1911– A small gas burner.
• salt bridge 1915– a. A tube containing an electrolyte (frequently in the form of a gel) which provides electrical contact between two solutions; b. a structure…
• precipitator 1919– An apparatus for precipitation; spec. (a) chiefly Chemistry a vessel in which precipitation occurs (now rare ); (b) chiefly Engineering an…
• Raschig ring 1920– A small cylindrical ring usually made of glass, metal, or ceramic material, and used in large numbers as packing in towers and columns for…
• microneedle 1921– A very fine needle used in micromanipulation.
• titrator 1928– A person who performs titration ( rare ); (now chiefly) an apparatus used to perform titration automatically.
• laboratory coat c1936– General attributive , as laboratory apparatus , laboratory chemist , laboratory coat , laboratory experiment , laboratory fire , laboratory machinery , labo …
• spray tower 1937– A hollow tower in which a liquid is made to fall as a spray, e.g. to cool it or to bring it into contact with a gas.
• precipitron 1938– A kind of electrostatic precipitator for removing dust or other particulate matter from ventilating air.
• ion exchanger 1941– A solid involved or used in ion exchange. Also: an apparatus for effecting ion exchange.
• potentiostat 1942– A device for controlling or maintaining constant the potential difference between the electrodes in an electrochemical cell.
• chemostat 1950– A device designed to provide a chemical environment that can be regulated and kept stable over a long period, esp. one used for the continuous…
• ESP 1951– Electrostatic precipitator, a device for removing particulate matter from a gas by passing it between electrodes; = precipitator , n. 2b(b).
• Knudsen pipette 1951– Oceanography . Special type of pipette for use in Knudsen titrations.
• pH-stat 1956– A device for automatically maintaining a solution at constant pH.
• cryopump 1958– A vacuum pump in which molecules of gases and vapours are trapped by causing them to condense on a surface maintained at a very low temperature.
• Bunsen lamp Used attributively to denote appliances invented by Bunsen. = Bunsen burner n. at sense a.
• fool's coat 1566–1757 A multicoloured costume worn by a jester; = motley , n. A.3a. Also figurative . Obsolete .
• blue coat 1576– A blue coat as worn by servants, tradesmen, and others of low social status; a similar coat worn by a person provided for at a charitable…
• shop coat 1797– †a. A coat purchased in a shop; b. a coat worn by a person working in a shop.
• long-tail blue 1834–64 A long-tailed blue coat.
• matinee jacket 1882– a. A woman's coat or jacket of a type formerly fashionable for wearing to matinees (now historical ); b. a baby's short outer garment.
• matinee coat 1899– a. = matinee jacket , n. (a) (now rare ); b. = matinee jacket , n. (b).
• campaign coat 1676– A coat worn on a military campaign; a type of coat in general use resembling a military coat of this kind; cf. campaign , n. II.4.
• campaign 1680–92 A coat worn on a military campaign; a type of coat in general use resembling a military coat of this kind; = campaign coat , n. Obsolete .
• dust-coat a1741– See dust-cloak , n.
• hunting-coat 1789–
• pink c1791– Scarlet when worn by fox-hunters; a scarlet hunting coat, or the cloth of which it is made. Cf. hunting pink , n.
• frock coat 1797– A skirted coat. Cf. skirt , n. I.2b, skirted , adj. 1b. A coat that is worn as part of the service or ceremonial dress uniform of various military…
• reading-coat 1830–95 a. A coat to wear while reading; b. = redingote , n.
• wedding-coat 1838–
• zephyr 1843– Any of various lightweight or thin articles of clothing or accessories, such as a light shawl, scarf, or coat; (in later use) spec. a light shirt…
• chore coat 1867– (Originally) any of various coats or jackets worn (typically by men) while doing outdoor chores; esp. a short coat made of a rough sturdy fabric…
• miller's coat 1890 A type of protective coat.
• lab coat 1895– A protective coat, typically of white fabric, worn over ordinary clothing by a worker in a laboratory, clinic, etc. Also: a scientist…
• tea-coat 1899– A garment worn by women at the tea-table (cf. coat , n. I.2b, and tea-jacket ).
• stroller 1901– U.S. A man's suit jacket worn for semi-formal daytime events, typically resembling a tuxedo jacket but without satin or grosgrain on the lapels. More…
• bridge coat 1905– A woman's short evening coat or jacket designed to be worn at bridge parties, often of a luxurious fabric such as velvet or silk, and typically…
• sport coat 1917– = sports coat , n.
• sportster 1929– U.S. An item of clothing suitable for sporting or informal wear; a casually stylish garment or set of clothes. Now rare .
• car coat 1956– A short, square-cut style of coat designed to be worn when driving a car.
• church work a1225– Work on the construction or repair of a church; †a fund set aside for this ( obsolete ). Cf. kirk work , n. , and with Middle English use cf. work , n. …
• kirk work 1418– = church work , n. 1.
• fieldwork 1441– Work done in the field or in the fields, spec. agricultural labour. Also: an instance of work done in the fields; an area of tilled land.
• handythrift a1592 A person's (manual) labour (cf. thrift , n.¹ 1b).
• labour of love 1592– A task undertaken either for love of the work itself or out of love for a person, cause, etc.; work of this nature.
• life's work 1660– = life-work , n.
• shop work 1696– a. Work done or produced in a workshop; b. U.S. = shop class , n. ; c. work in the retail trade, esp. as a shop assistant.
• outwork 1707– Originally: work done out of the house or out of doors. Now usually: work done away from an employer's premises. Also occasionally in Cricket : †= o …
• private practice 1724– Work undertaken for a fee for a private client or patient; a privately run business which provides a service for paying clients; cf. private , adj.¹ …
• tide-work 1739– Work which can be carried on only during hours when the tide is low, or that is paid for by the tide (cf. tide , n. II.8); also, part of the mechanism…
• sales-work 1775 = sale work at sale , n.² 3a.
• marshing 1815– Work done on a marsh.
• benchwork 1825– Work, esp. detailed or intricate work, that is done at a bench or work table in a workshop, laboratory, etc.
• customer work 1825– †a. Scottish weaving done to order for a private or individual customer as opposed to a factory, wholesaler, etc.; cf. work , n. II.17b ( obsolete …
• gang work 1829– Work carried out by labourers in a gang or gangs; cf. work gang , n.
• life-work 1837– The work of a lifetime; the work which is the object or activity of a person's whole life, a career.
• relief work 1844– a. Work provided by the authorities or state for occupying and paying the unemployed; (also) a project providing this; b. charitable work intended…
• sharp practice 1847– Work that demands brisk activity. rare .
• near work 1850– Work involving proximity of the eye to the object.
• staff work 1853– Work done by the staff of a head, director, or executive within an organization, institution, etc.; esp. the planning, coordinating, and other work…
• slop-work 1861– Work cheaply and imperfectly done.
• repetition work 1866– Work characterized by or featuring repetition.
• side work 1875– Additional or subsidiary work; spec. ( colloquial , in a restaurant, etc.) tasks such as setting tables, polishing silverware, etc., carried out by…
• rework 1878– Additional or new work; (also) an instance of this.
• wage-slavery 1886–
• setwork 1888– Repetition work (see repetition , n.¹ compounds C.2).
• busywork 1893– Work that keeps a person busy; repetitive or routine activity, now typically that which is intended to keep a person busy but has little value in…
• shiftwork 1893– †a. A period of time during which a group of workers is scheduled to work; a shift ( obsolete rare ); b. work in which the day, week, etc., is…
• screen work 1912– Acting, directing, etc., for film or television; film or television work.
• location scout 1918– a. A person sent out by a film or television company to look for suitable locations for a film, programme, etc.; b. an act of visiting and assessing…
• gig work 1927– Work performing music (later also comedy, etc.) before a live audience, esp. that in which the performer or group is engaged for a single one-night…
• knowledge work 1959– Work which involves handling or using information.
• WIP 1966– Work in progress.
• telework 1970– Work which involves the use of a telephone. rare .
• co-working 1972– The action, practice, or fact of working in the same office or organization; (also) the practice whereby different organizations make use of a shared…
• Jua Kali 1986– In Kenya: informal work of a kind typically performed outdoors, such as repairs, toolmaking, artisanship, etc.; (also) a person who performs such…
• playwork 1986– British . Work with children involving the organization and supervision of various play activities in a preschool or out-of-school setting.
• laboratory work 2002– General attributive , as laboratory apparatus , laboratory chemist , laboratory coat , laboratory experiment , laboratory fire , laboratory machinery , labo …

The intramuscular endings of fibers in the skeletal muscles of the domestic and laboratory animals.

Among those using this fish as a ‘ laboratory animal’.

An untrained laboratory worm which eats a trained one takes over its responses.

Our experimental group consisted of 100 male and female white laboratory mice.

Five particular strains of laboratory mice can be infected both with scrapie from sheep and with BSE from cows.

The environment was artificial and it made her feel like a laboratory rat.

• laboratory animal ?1891– In the sense ‘designating an animal used for tests or experiments in a laboratory’, as laboratory animal , laboratory mouse , laboratory rat , etc.
• experiment 1667– A person who or thing which is the subject of an experiment, or is experimented upon. rare .
• experimentee 1830– A person who is experimented upon; a person who is the subject of an experiment.
• experimentized 1832–1920 a. n. A person who or group which is the subject of an experiment or experiments; b. adj. designating a person who or animal which is the subject…
• guinea pig 1920– A person or thing used like a guinea pig as the subject of an experiment.
• lab rat 1979– figurative . A person or thing used as a subject for experiment; a person or thing that behaves like an animal used for experimentation.

Entry history for laboratory, n.

laboratory, n. was revised in November 2010.

laboratory, n. was last modified in September 2024.

oed.com is a living text, updated every three months. Modifications may include:

• further revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into laboratory, n. in September 2024.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1901)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View laboratory in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for laboratory, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for laboratory, n., browse entry.

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland

Respiratory viruses continue to circulate in Maryland, so masking remains strongly recommended when you visit Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. To protect your loved one, please do not visit if you are sick or have a COVID-19 positive test result. Get more resources on masking and COVID-19 precautions .

• Vaccines  
• Masking Guidelines
• Visitor Guidelines  

Understanding Clinical Trials

Clinical research: what is it.

Your doctor may have said that you are eligible for a clinical trial, or you may have seen an ad for a clinical research study. What is clinical research, and is it right for you?

Clinical research is the comprehensive study of the safety and effectiveness of the most promising advances in patient care. Clinical research is different than laboratory research. It involves people who volunteer to help us better understand medicine and health. Lab research generally does not involve people — although it helps us learn which new ideas may help people.

Every drug, device, tool, diagnostic test, technique and technology used in medicine today was once tested in volunteers who took part in clinical research studies.

At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we believe that clinical research is key to improve care for people in our community and around the world. Once you understand more about clinical research, you may appreciate why it’s important to participate — for yourself and the community.

What Are the Types of Clinical Research?

There are two main kinds of clinical research:

Observational Studies

Observational studies are studies that aim to identify and analyze patterns in medical data or in biological samples, such as tissue or blood provided by study participants.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials, which are also called interventional studies, test the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions — such as medications, procedures and tools — in living people.

Clinical research studies need people of every age, health status, race, gender, ethnicity and cultural background to participate. This will increase the chances that scientists and clinicians will develop treatments and procedures that are likely to be safe and work well in all people. Potential volunteers are carefully screened to ensure that they meet all of the requirements for any study before they begin. Most of the reasons people are not included in studies is because of concerns about safety.

Both healthy people and those with diagnosed medical conditions can take part in clinical research. Participation is always completely voluntary, and participants can leave a study at any time for any reason.

“The only way medical advancements can be made is if people volunteer to participate in clinical research. The research participant is just as necessary as the researcher in this partnership to advance health care.” Liz Martinez, Johns Hopkins Medicine Research Participant Advocate

Types of Research Studies

Within the two main kinds of clinical research, there are many types of studies. They vary based on the study goals, participants and other factors.

Biospecimen studies

Healthy volunteer studies.

 Goals of Clinical Trials

Because every clinical trial is designed to answer one or more medical questions, different trials have different goals. Those goals include:

Treatment trials

Prevention trials, screening trials, phases of a clinical trial.

In general, a new drug needs to go through a series of four types of clinical trials. This helps researchers show that the medication is safe and effective. As a study moves through each phase, researchers learn more about a medication, including its risks and benefits.

Is the medication safe and what is the right dose?   Phase one trials involve small numbers of participants, often normal volunteers.

Does the new medication work and what are the side effects?   Phase two trials test the treatment or procedure on a larger number of participants. These participants usually have the condition or disease that the treatment is intended to remedy.

Is the new medication more effective than existing treatments?  Phase three trials have even more people enrolled. Some may get a placebo (a substance that has no medical effect) or an already approved treatment, so that the new medication can be compared to that treatment.

Is the new medication effective and safe over the long term?   Phase four happens after the treatment or procedure has been approved. Information about patients who are receiving the treatment is gathered and studied to see if any new information is seen when given to a large number of patients.

“Johns Hopkins has a comprehensive system overseeing research that is audited by the FDA and the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs to make certain all research participants voluntarily agreed to join a study and their safety was maximized.” Gail Daumit, M.D., M.H.S., Vice Dean for Clinical Investigation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Is It Safe to Participate in Clinical Research?

There are several steps in place to protect volunteers who take part in clinical research studies. Clinical Research is regulated by the federal government. In addition, the institutional review board (IRB) and Human Subjects Research Protection Program at each study location have many safeguards built in to each study to protect the safety and privacy of participants.

Clinical researchers are required by law to follow the safety rules outlined by each study's protocol. A protocol is a detailed plan of what researchers will do in during the study.

In the U.S., every study site's IRB — which is made up of both medical experts and members of the general public — must approve all clinical research. IRB members also review plans for all clinical studies. And, they make sure that research participants are protected from as much risk as possible.

Earning Your Trust

This was not always the case. Many people of color are wary of joining clinical research because of previous poor treatment of underrepresented minorities throughout the U.S. This includes medical research performed on enslaved people without their consent, or not giving treatment to Black men who participated in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. Since the 1970s, numerous regulations have been in place to protect the rights of study participants.

Many clinical research studies are also supervised by a data and safety monitoring committee. This is a group made up of experts in the area being studied. These biomedical professionals regularly monitor clinical studies as they progress. If they discover or suspect any problems with a study, they immediately stop the trial. In addition, Johns Hopkins Medicine’s Research Participant Advocacy Group focuses on improving the experience of people who participate in clinical research.

Clinical research participants with concerns about anything related to the study they are taking part in should contact Johns Hopkins Medicine’s IRB or our Research Participant Advocacy Group .

Learn More About Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Medicine

For information about clinical trial opportunities at Johns Hopkins Medicine, visit our trials site.

Video Clinical Research for a Healthier Tomorrow: A Family Shares Their Story

Clinical Research for a Healthier Tomorrow: A Family Shares Their Story

• Britannica Homepage
• Ask the Editor
• Word of the Day
• Core Vocabulary
• Most Popular
• Browse the Dictionary
• My Saved Words
• laboratory (noun)
• language laboratory (noun)
• experiments conducted in a modern laboratory
• a research laboratory
• laboratory experiments/research/studies/tests

• About Us & Legal Info
• Partner Program
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• Pronunciation Symbols

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via Email

How lab design lays the foundation for scientific discovery

Home » Insights » Science + Technology » How lab design lays the foundation for scientific discovery

Mark Paskanik, AIA, Fellow

Lab planning expert | licensed architect.

What is lab planning? Lab planning and design lays the foundation for efficient scientific work. It is the process of taking both basic program elements and highly technical blocks and arranging them to create a space that is both safe and efficient.

Great lab design solves the riddle of how to incorporate more science into less space while creating architectural and engineering balance.

Set Up for Success

In lab planning, the main puzzle pieces that need arrangement are:

• Benching: Includes work tables, casework, and adaptable moveable systems with gases, power, and other utilities.
• Equipment: Ranges from small weighing balances to large freezers and highly technical robots.
• People : Considers how researchers and scientists can be kept safe while working as efficiently and comfortably as possible.

What are the types of labs?

There are several types of labs. Each one requires a slightly different approach to lab planning. Before diving into the various kinds, it’s important to understand the basic difference between wet labs and dry labs .

Testing Labs

Testing labs are usually wet labs and are often used for Quality Control (QC) or analytical purposes. Testing labs often support a bigger piece of the project, such as a manufacturing space, and are responsible for extracting pieces from the line (eg. a drug vial) to test to ensure the product is safe and is doing what is advertised to do.

Research Labs

A research lab could be virtually anything from a dry lab focused on engineering or cancer breakthroughs to a wet lab focused on chemistry research related to pharma or biotech. There is a trend in research labs transitioning from wet lab to dry lab or bioinformatics process as computers allow for more powerful and complex work to be done. Artificial intelligence allows algorithms to make powerful predictions.

Teaching Labs

Academic-based labs have traditionally been found in universities but are now also found increasingly in CGMP facilities that are training and teaching the workforce . Again, they may function as either dry or wet labs.

Lab Guidelines & Practices

The National Institute of Health is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the largest biomedical research agency in the world and provides extensive safety regulations and guidance to labs across America.

Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) became the cornerstone of biosafety practice and policy in the United States upon its first publication in 1984. It remains an advisory document laying out recommendations for “best practices for the safe conduct of work in biomedical and clinical laboratories from a biosafety perspective, and is not intended as a regulatory document.”

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) lays out standards for labs regarding chemical hazards, biological hazards and PPE. There are 28 OSHA-approved State Plans, operating state-wide occupational safety and health programs.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is an American professional association that provides comprehensive reference manuals for the planning, design, and operation of laboratories.

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulate laboratory testing and require clinical laboratories to be certified by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) before they can accept human samples for diagnostic testing.

The American National Standards Institute provides safety standards for clinical and chemical labs; testing labs; and research and development labs in both industrial and educational facilities pertaining to protective clothing and equipment such as lasers, as well as procedures and lab designs that promote safety.

Biosafety Levels

Scientists use biosafety labs to work with contagious materials safely and effectively. These state-of-the-art labs are designed to protect researchers from contamination and prevent microorganisms from entering the environment.

There are very specific criteria to decide which biosafety level is most appropriate for each individual lab. For example, if a lab is working with a live virus, then the mode of transmission (eg. droplet vs. airborne) will decide which biosafety level the lab will need to follow. Biosafety levels are decided by the environmental health and safety group.

There are four biosafety levels (BSLs) that define proper laboratory techniques, safety equipment, and design, depending on the types of agents being studied:

BSL-1 labs are used to study agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adults. They follow basic safety procedures and do not require any special equipment or design features. No special PPE is required for workers.

BSL-2 labs are used to study moderate-risk agents that pose a danger if accidentally inhaled, swallowed, or exposed to the skin. Safety measures include wearing PPE in the form of gloves and eyewear. The labs must have handwashing sinks and waste decontamination facilities.

BSL-3 labs are used to study agents that can be transmitted through the air and could cause a fatal infection. Researchers in these labs perform manipulations in a gas-tight enclosure. The lab includes safety features such as clothing decontamination, sealed windows, directional airflows, filtered ventilation systems. Staff are required to wear a full PPE suit, so the lab needs to be cooler (approximately 66 degrees) to accommodate comfortable working conditions.

BSL-4 labs are used to study agents that pose a high risk of life-threatening diseases for which no vaccine or therapy is available. These labs incorporate all BSL-3 features and are housed separately from other areas. Staff are required to wear full-body, air-supplied suits and to shower when exiting the facility. They will require significant training before being allowed to work in a BSL-4 lab.

Lab Equipment

Choosing the right equipment is a critical part of the lab planning process. This equipment will also control exposure, thereby keeping scientists safe . Here are some of the main pieces of equipment used.

Biological Safety Cabinets

In their 70 years of use, the basic purpose of biological safety cabinets (BSCs) hasn’t changed much: to filter, recirculate, and exhaust air. However, there have been great technological advances during that time.

Today’s BSCs are more sophisticated, diverse, and efficient so lab owners are able to find and install cabinets uniquely suited to their needs. Lab owners should look for the right-sized cabinets for their lab’s specific hazards and biosafety level.

A fume hood is a safety apparatus that acts like a giant exhaust fan. Fume hoods are used in chemistry labs to allow operators to use chemicals in a safe manner. Some chemicals cannot be exposed to the environment safely, so when a lab employee is pouring and mixing such chemicals, it needs to be done in a fume hood with a closeable window in front of them. This window creates a barrier between the operator and any hazardous chemical reactions that could cause toxic fumes. The fume hood also simultaneously pulls exhaust out of the building into the airspace, eliminating the possibility of a spark or explosion.

Isolators are a main form of protection within labs, creating physical barrier between operators and organisms. But they also have a reputation for slowing things down. Traditional isolator setups were once a major barrier to efficiency due to lengthy decontamination and gowning processes. Today’s isolator technology has changed all that through the use of ionized hydrogen peroxide (IHP) to decontaminate materials much faster, making efficient, continuous throughput possible.

Ventilated Enclosures

This equipment is similar to fume hoods; however, instead of exhausting out of the room they employ HEPA filters. This is important when weighing out powders, for example, which can be lighter than air and disperse into the air. The filter traps the powder and stops it from dispersing.

Ventilated enclosures are especially valuable in robotic installations within labs. Although they require far less safety infrastructure than a human worker, robotics do need an enclosed clean room to ensure safe and consistent sample handling. Today’s ventilated enclosures ensure only particulate-free air comes in contact with the robotic work surface.

How do you make a lab layout?

Why do some research facilities produce more patents? Why do some have greater throughput given the same amount of time and space? Not all labs are created equal. While brilliant minds push science forward, great lab design supports their work by anticipating and filling their needs so they can focus on the work.

Designing an efficient and safe lab is a multi-step process. Here’s how our CRB lab design teams use evidence-based research to work with clients and bring their lab vision to life.

Plan for success

A design kickoff meeting gives all stakeholders an opportunity to voice their ultimate vision for their lab . The goal of this meeting is to arrive at a consensus of the purpose of the space and how it will be used. The planning session is also a good time to review client preferences re: the openness of the work environments. There has been a trend of massive open labs, but certain pieces of science need to happen in private spaces. Understanding what works culturally for a certain lab is an important piece of the puzzle.

In many cases, a high-level visioning process can be used in combination with practical approaches to create that vision in a day. Lab owners are often familiar with certain lab layouts, but it can be exciting to bring new configuration options into the mix.

With careful advanced planning and use of interactive, visual tools, the process itself can build consensus and be fun for the groups involved.

Compile an equipment wish list

A huge component of lab design is configuring the equipment layout. Equipment selection will impact almost every aspect of lab planning:

• Spatial planning
• Determination what type of benching on which to place equipment
• Understanding power, data, and backup power requirements
• Planning for plumbing and HVAC services

When selecting equipment and creating a layout, it’s important to think about what could happen five years into the future. For example, a lab may currently need ten freezers, but it might need many more down the road. Good lab design will allow for additional utilities and floor space.

Know your system requirements

Prior to designing a lab, it is important to gather information on the necessary utilities: HVAC, plumbing/piping, and electrical. Here are the questions lab owners should be asking.

How many air changes are required? The regulations do not dictate how many are required per hour for every scenario, so good judgment is required. It tends to be more prescriptive than absolute, with a need for balancing safety with sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Is pressurization required? The reasons can vary but usually, it is for the following. A chemical lab uses chemicals that are hazardous – this creates a negative pressure space to keep these hazards from leaving the lab. In microbiology labs, many times the material or product needs to be protected from us or the spaces outside of the room. In this case, the room is kept at a positive pressure to keep the room in a clean state.

Are there heat gains that need to be accounted for? Some equipment, such as freezers, will generate a lot of heat. Equipment that generates heat will need plenty of space so the heat gains don’t cause overheating issues. This kind of equipment should never be placed, for example, next to the thermostat.

Plumbing/Piping

Would a centralized vacuum system or a point-of-use system work better? A central system can be a large piece of equipment that distributes services throughout the lab from a single room. Current trends show many central systems such as those used for vacuum and pure water are being replaced with point-of-use systems because they require fewer distribution needs and are more cost-effective. They also offer more redundancy and generally require less maintenance for upkeep.

How much power do you need? Labs typically have very high-power needs but the exact wattage per square foot required is based on how the space will be used. One fume hood usually burns as much energy as two houses per year. Freezers, which may need to store products at -80℃, require a lot of power. (Although, there are new freezers that don’t have a compressor and function similarly to a basic refrigerator.)

How can I centralize power? Electrical system requirements will need to be met with a balance of power and cost. For the sake of efficiency, it’s best to locate higher equipment driven needs in central areas.

What kind of backup do I need? Even a momentary power loss can have significant consequences for computerized equipment. In the worst-case scenario, all data can be lost. If it’s critical data, as it often is in a lab setting, then battery power protects it. You might also need larger backup systems in the form of a UPS or generator that will kick on to cover everything from computers to freezers to incubators.

Define lab capacity

Laboratory capacity is a variable component. One lab’s capacity might be determined by its output, while another might be defined by the number of personnel. Each company must determine how it will define capacity for its laboratories. The options for measuring laboratory capacity generally fall into three categories:

• Operations-based: These are the labs that are throughput oriented. A capacity statement for this type of lab would be: “The maximum capacity of X-Laboratory is 10 projects running simultaneously or 5,000 samples tested per day.”
• Equipment-based: These labs are equipment oriented, with only one or two major types of equipment—and lots of it. A capacity statement for this type of lab would be: “The maximum capacity of X-Laboratory is 14 HPLCs.”
• Headcount-based: These labs are personnel oriented. Capacity for this type of lab is based on a careful examination of the amount of bench space that each researcher/scientist requires to do his or her work. A capacity statement for this type of lab would be: “The maximum capacity of X-Laboratory is 10 people.”

A detailed understanding of lab processes will help to determine capacity. It can also ultimately impact the company’s bottom line. For example, identifying lab equipment and processes that can be shared with other groups can help save on future costs and help redefine the most efficient lab capacity for planning purposes.

Creating flexibility

Science is changing faster than ever, and it can be frustrating to feel that a lab is barely complete before it’s time to renovate and accommodate new technology. Traditionally, laboratory design has been based on a rigid layout with rows of benches. In many cases, this can be a very effective and efficient approach, but integrating modular layouts with collaboration and workplace spaces can also have a very positive effect on the culture and environment of the research.

Instead of renovating a lab as science changes, a modular lab design creates adaptable spaces. It may use things like tables on wheels, electrical connections hanging from the ceiling, and sets of plug-and-play quick connects.

Modular designs factor in:

• Relationship of the office to the lab
• Level of openness and flexibility
• Percentage and location of collaboration/interaction spaces
• Blurred lines of territory

Modular layouts can also be set up to run in both east-west and north-south directions. A traditional lab layout is usually based on only one direction, but if your module allows for benches to be rotated 90 degrees you can have more freedom in your design. There are also other unique ways to use a modular layout. A hexagonal shape can create a unique way of displaying work for touring while also increasing the linear feet of usable bench space.

Safety first

Lab safety is constantly in flux. Every industry is under pressure to continually audit their equipment and make decisions about when and how to install the latest solutions. As labs become more sophisticated, their safety infrastructure must keep pace. In many older labs, workers are protected by equipment that was once sufficient but can no longer keep up with modern safety guidelines.

When embarking on a new lab design, it’s important to integrate safety within the project from the start. Here are some to keep in mind:

Chemical storage

It is paramount to incorporate a hazardous chemicals management strategy into your building’s design. The building code has regulations about how certain chemicals should be used or stored in the space. Larger amounts of chemicals will bring in stricter regulations, as will where the building is located. Unfortunately, many labs still don’t organize their chemicals using an effective inventory management system and may not know what potential chemicals are in use.

Good signage

Using good signage is a simple way to promote safety without any added cost. For example, gas bottles and cylinders can be strapped to casework and equipment, but unless they are properly positioned, they can cause safety issues. Post clear signage on how to do so. The same can be said for fire extinguisher locations.

Establish tour routes

Want funding? You will need to show your work. When planning your lab, include tour routes for potential clients and donors so that they can safely visit without affecting efficiency. The bonus? Greater built-in safety from the start.

Lab safety is a complex issue that requires close, individual assessment. One lab’s solution may involve cutting-edge exposure control technology, while another lab may simply need better signage. Regardless of your lab’s scope, keep safety front of mind in every step of lab planning and design.

The Human Factor

If a lab is a place of research, then it is also a place for researchers. Good lab planning, therefore, must take the human factor into account. In the past, lab spaces had a bad reputation for stale air and basement vibes with little or no daylight. There is an increased focus on employee wellness and good workflow to encourage happy workers. Some labs have even gone as far as creating bright, social space like Silicon Valley tech startups.

Bring the outdoors in

Let the sun shine in! Outdoor views positively impact overall well-being and attentional focus. There are specific health benefits too: when your eyes can refocus on different distances, it exercises your dilating muscles. Providing views to lab occupants has been shown to decrease cases of eye strain and nearsightedness.

Daylight also helps regulate circadian rhythms, which improves health and productivity . Employees with views of natural light experienced a reduction in absenteeism and an increase in productivity, job satisfaction, work involvement, and organizational attachment.

Collaboration zones

Collaboration fuels creativity. Therefore, creating comfortable spaces for collaboration is part of good lab design. “Collision” spots—the places along circulation routes and public areas where occupants cross paths—can be leveraged to create serendipitous encounters. These small nooks and other gathering spots can encourage face-to-face interaction and sharing if they include connection (Wi-Fi), comfortable seating, coffee, and other amenities.

It is also very valuable to have designated meeting space within the lab zone. This removes the need for researchers to take off all their PPE, leave the lab space, and travel back and forth from a conference room. By using a location adjacent to the entry/exit to the lab, someone from the outside can come into this interim space with lower levels of PPE required. Consider adding a table, comfortable seating, a whiteboard, and a TV screen to these areas.

Lab planners design spaces for the scientists who use them, not just the science. This means taking ergonomics into account to promote good posture and minimize the exertion and motions to complete a task. Using adjustable chairs, benches, sit-to-stand desks, and other ergonomically beneficial furniture and fixtures contribute to a comfortable and safe work environment.

In the lab, ambient lighting is often insufficient for work at the bench. Beyond proper brightness, task lighting can also provide other important lab features, such as proper color rendering, temperature, directionality, and diffusion.

The bonus? Paying attention to ergonomics boosts productivity . For example, positioning a workstation for easy access to instrumentation and tools saves both time and effort.

Robotic automation

Robotic automation has arrived in labs and it has brought endless exciting opportunities with it. There are three different tiers of automation available to labs:

Entry-level automation

There is probably a low level of automation already in every lab. This might be a small piece of equipment—sometimes no larger than a coffee machine—that automates a repetitive task, such as extracting DNA from samples. Implementing one low-level piece of automation in a lab can free up the scientists significantly, allowing them to use their time and increase productivity more effectively.

Another place to consider adding low-level automation is in the data entry process. Digitizing the system for recording patient and sample information frees up time and personnel. It also ensures more accurate records.

Mid-level automation

A medium amount of automation typically puts a couple of processes into a contained box. There are still manual functions in the lab, but a few repetitive tasks can be eliminated by bringing in an equipment system that addresses part of the process.

This medium example takes our coffee machine and turns it into an entire room that could be 11’ x 20’ in size (call it a Starbucks if you want). In this example, all the equipment associated with both pre- and post-polymerase chain reaction work can be placed on a racking system with a sliding collaborative robot arm.

Pro-level automation

While a high-level of automation or a fully automated process might not be the most expedient or feasible solution currently, it is worth mentioning for the future. In this instance, robotic automation would conduct the entirety of test processing, even moving samples in and out.

While the equipment to make this happen is hard to come by now, new robotics for lab automation are constantly developing. Consider budgeting to invest in more automation as it becomes available to better prepare your lab for future uncertainty and fluctuations. This can create a great opportunity to have a sustainable lab with a greater reduction in air change rates.

QualTex Laboratories incorporated a new 17,000-square-foot production facility with automated blood testing capabilities.

The future of labs

Lab capacity is at an all-time high due to both rapid innovation and pressing pandemic needs. However, the life sciences boom predates the pandemic. From 2009 to the end of 2019, the amount of lab space in the United States grew from 17 million to 29 million square feet , buoyed by big technological advances such as the sequencing of the genome and rising computational prowess. Add in a significant investment in ramping up lab space amid the race for coronavirus therapies and vaccines, and labs are experiencing an unprecedented push. The urgency of creating more lab space has triggered new trends:

Converting empty offices

With the pandemic triggering remote work and thus an exodus from office buildings, life science labs are looking to convert those spaces to fit their needs. After all, researchers cannot do their jobs from home. Commercial landlords are being asked to swap out cubicles for centrifuges. Making the flip isn’t always easy though: labs typically need generous ceiling heights of 15 feet or more to allow for utilities, large amounts of square footage, and solid foundations to protect against vibration.

Banding together

To bolster resilience and reduce overhead, incubator-style lab ecosystems are popping up around the country. Often, these research hubs are located near universities to tap into their talent pool. In these setups, a multi-story building houses lab space on each floor, each hosting a different tenant—often startups in cell and gene therapy or immunotherapy. The hubs combine shared state-of-the-art lab equipment and business services, offering scalable lab spaces and adjacent office spaces for corporate partners, venture capital, and contract service firms. The goal of these ecosystems is to offer spaces for every business from small start-ups to multi-floor tenants.

Building Up

As companies look for lab space, many are headed into the city . An unprecedented number of labs are making their homes in downtown cores. This means they must build up rather than out. This trend brings with it a host of code conundrums, as many chemicals have strict restrictions on how high they can be stored. A thorough knowledge of the applicable regulations and creative solutions are required to make these labs work.

Laboratory owners in all fields are challenged to create research environments with limited budgets and resources. To meet the needs of their people, the planet, and their company’s profit, they need meticulous lab planning and design. Labs should not only meet the vision and business objectives of lab owners, but should also include flexibility, efficiency, safety, and robust utility/engineering systems.

Working with an experienced team of lab designers who understand how to optimize every element, know the relevant regulations, and can bring an intimate knowledge of trends will set your lab up for long-term scientific success.

Ready to start your next lab project? Our laboratory design experts are here to help.

Related Content

How to design an ergonomic laboratory that supports scientific discovery while keeping lab employees healthy, efficient, and productive.

• Career Opportunities
• Supplier Pre-Qualifications
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright © 2024 CRB • All Rights Reserved.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of laboratory noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary