In the new age of the 21st Century, the increase of technological advances has provided scientists with new ways for recording and implementing their data. Since the release of the computer and word processing, scientists have often looked toward the use of keeping notes as well as research in digital format; however, the use of pen and paper has been used for decades within the scientific field. In the article, “Going Paperless: The Digital Lab,” Jim Giles states that “Lab-management software and electronic notebooks are here — and this time, it's more than just talk” (Giles). However, even though he provides an argument for the increasing implementation of electronic notebooks in the lab, the article “Will the iPad Replace Your Lab Notebook?” by Jode Plank, offers a few contrasting as well as noteworthy views. Although both of the articles offer different views on the subject, it is important to underline the theses of both articles, the position of the authors on the subject, as well as the evidence, so that a clear understanding can be made.
Primarily, in “Going Paperless: The Digital Lab,” Jim Giles believes that technology is inevitable and will prove most helpful in keeping data for lab notebooks. After providing some background information on the subject, Giles jumps to the thesis and main argument of his article by stating, “The era of the paperless lab, decades in the making, seems finally to have arrived” (Giles). Although his thesis is somewhat implicitly stated, Giles makes it obvious that he is in favor of digital notebooks over paper notebooks. Throughout his article, he gives strong reasons for the use of electronic equipment implemented in labs as well as a wide range of support from scientists who already have switched over. Even though Giles has a strong argument as well as plenty of examples, it is still important to make an analysis for the opposing view.
In the article, “Will the iPad Replace Your Lab Notebook?” Jode Plank makes a strong argument that paper may be the way to stay. Jode states that “the release of the iPad this week may bring the long-expected replacement of the paper-bound lab notebook by electronic notebooks one step closer;” however, her thesis puts doubt into this statement by offering the question of “are scientists,” “comfortable with electronic lab notebooks?” (Plank). Although Plank does not particularly take a stance for or against the rise of electronic lab notebooks, she does offer valuable information on the pros and cons of both. At the beginning of her article she states that the “advantages of an electronic lab notebook” are that “you can search them,” “you can copy them with the click of a button,” “they are legible,” as well as “you can put some pieces of data in them that you just can’t put into a paper notebook” (Plank). Although she expresses the pros of the electronic notebook, she also offers why paper notebooks may still be the best by stating “the book is a universal format,” “lawyers love them,” as well as “they are cheap” (Plank). Furthermore, Plank acknowledges that a universal format for electronic notebooks needs to be met so that files and digital information can be shared more easily for scientific research.
After analyzing the two articles, it is easy to tell that Giles’s is more convincing. Giles offers a clear argument and even records accounts of certain people who have already made the switch to electronic lab notebooks. Unfortunately, Plank seems to offer a neutral argument that takes a stance on both. Plank also fails in her attempts in that she is too opinionated throughout her article. Furthermore, Plank even shows that she is unsure of her stance on the argument when she states at the end of her article, “I would love to hear your thoughts. Do any of you work in a lab that uses an electronic lab notebook? What system do you use, and how do you like them? How long do you think it will be before we are all using electronic lab notebooks?” (Plank). By offering questions at the end, it is clear that she has not made her mind up over the situation, giving Giles the advantage in that he actually takes a stance on the issue. Although I believe that Giles is more convincing in his argument, the topic of electronic lab notebooks over paper lab notebooks is still an interesting topic. Our society has experienced many technological changes as well as advances, and it is just a matter of time before we see the switch within the current scientific labs that we have today.
Giles, Jim. "Going Paperless: The Digital Lab." 481.7382 (2012): 430-31. Nature. Nature, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/news/going-paperless-the-digital-lab- 1.9881>.
Plank, Jode. "Will the IPad Replace Your Lab Notebook?" (2010). Bitesizebio. Science Squared Ltd., 5 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://bitesizebio.com/articles/will-the-ipad-replace-your-lab- notebook/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment