A simple research laboratory protocol to yield better scientists

From experimental procedures to safety manuals, science embraces standardisation. As scientists, we routinely develop protocols that make our experiments safer, more rigorous and more reproducible. We have adopted guidelines for data management, authorship, mentoring and artificial intelligence. Yet we rarely do the same for the interactions between the people who make scientific experiments possible – namely, students, postdoctoral scholars and other laboratory personnel. Too little attention is given to how co-workers conduct themselves as colleagues in the laboratory. 

This lack of clear expectations among the researchers who share a lab has costs that compound the many obstacles to scientific progress. Experiments fail, hypotheses prove incorrect, and unexpected results impede the discovery process. Delays that arise from ad hoc codes of behaviour are far more preventable than these. Examples may seem trivial – borrowing a reagent without asking, booking a precious shared instrument but not using it, forgetting to refill a communal stock solution or failing to communicate a schedule change – but these often lead to lost time, awkward interactions, hard feelings and erosions of trust. These small, avoidable moments quietly accumulate, distracting from discovery and diminishing the collaborative environment on which science depends. 

Enabling lab members to establish shared expectations for everyday interactions can help overcome these challenges and ultimately propel science forward.

• Collaboration is a skill – here’s how to master it
• Spotlight guide: How to advance collaboration across higher education
• Campus Talks podcast: Want to think bigger and achieve more? An academic makes the case for collective research

Having explicit agreements for coexisting is uncommon in scientific research laboratories, but familiar territory for many of us. College room-mate agreements are a well-known example, and one that many students encounter upon arriving at college. At UCLA, for example, these agreements are developed within days of moving into the residence halls. Their real value is not the document itself, but the conversation it requires. From quiet hours and overnight guests to cleaning responsibilities and shared expectations, topics that might otherwise remain unspoken are openly discussed, allowing room-mates to listen to one another, clarify expectations and develop a shared understanding. The outcomes of their discussions are then recorded, where the room-mates collaborate to describe the terms they have agreed upon. The goal is not to create a legal process, but to make expectations explicit before problems arise. For room-mates, these conversations lay the foundation for a healthy living environment. 

For scientists, a similar agreement between lab personnel who share a common space could lay the foundation for a collaborative research environment in which discovery can flourish.

No one wants another bureaucratic protocol, but discussing and documenting shared expectations in a research laboratory need not be burdensome. A universal document – or even a universal name – is unnecessary. Call it a “lab-mate compact”, “benchside manners” or anything that fits your laboratory. What matters most is that lab members periodically engage in an open conversation, learn to listen to one another and work together to shape their shared environment. 

While the specific contents and frequency of discussions will vary across laboratories, the underlying themes are likely to be universal: demonstrating respect for one another, practising active listening, fostering communication, establishing and maintaining shared resources, supporting colleagues, resolving conflict constructively, and encouraging the open exchange of ideas.  

A potential workflow is as follows, based on successful deployment at our institution. Once or twice a year, carve out time for lab mates who share a common space to engage in a productive dialogue about their laboratory environment. Make sure all participants are aware that the goal of the exercise is to improve the day-to-day experiences for everyone. Emphasise that open communication and active listening are crucial. 

The lab members are then asked to identify the topics they think are important. What do they like about their laboratory environment? What would they like to change or discuss? Once the ice is broken, the conversation will follow naturally. We have seen that researchers – like room-mates – have no difficulty sharing their thoughts, and most will find common ground or learn to compromise. If needed, the leader of the lab (for example, the professor or principal investigator) can join the conversation to help facilitate respectful discussion and settle differences. 

The discussion points are recorded, with all members signing to demonstrate their agreement. Future conflicts are minimised, and open dialogue becomes part of the laboratory culture, making these conversations easier over time.

The benefits of discussing and documenting expectations for how lab members work together extend far beyond preventing minor disagreements. Laboratories in which expectations are clearly established are better positioned to build trust, strengthen collaboration and reduce the everyday friction that quietly consumes time and energy. New members can onboard more quickly, trainees may feel more comfortable asking questions, mentoring relationships become stronger, and good laboratory practices – from documentation to reproducibility – are more likely to be reinforced by peers. Over time, these small improvements can foster a healthier, more supportive research environment, improve retention and support scientific discovery. Every misunderstanding prevented is time and mental energy returned to discovery. 

Research laboratories are not only where young scientists learn how to conduct experiments, they are where they develop the skills needed to contribute to science and society. The expectations established during graduate school and postdoctoral training often become the norms that scientists carry throughout their careers as faculty members, industry leaders, entrepreneurs, physicians and managers. By making conversations about communication, collaboration and mutual respect a deliberate part of laboratory culture, we are not simply improving today’s research environment, we are shaping the scientific workplaces of tomorrow. The culture experienced by today’s trainees becomes the culture they will create in tomorrow’s laboratories. 

Science has always advanced by refining its protocols. Perhaps it is time to give the same thoughtful attention to the human interactions that make those experiments possible.

Idriss Njike is executive director of UCLA residential life and first year experience, and Neil Garg is the distinguished Kenneth N. Trueblood professor of chemistry, vice-chair of the department of chemistry and biochemistry and associate dean of research (UCLA Physical Sciences), both at the University of California, Los Angeles.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.