Architecture aids research

  This is the final story of a three-part series.

  Form begins to fit function.

  Just as interdisciplinary and translational research is evolving and becoming a greater presence in science at Duke and across the world, the actual facilities and laboratories where these scientists and researchers work have also changed.

  Interdisciplinary research involves research that is cross-departmental while translational research, which can also be interdisciplinary, is the process of taking scientific discoveries and applying that knowledge to marketable products.

  In order for interdisciplinary research to be effective, one must collaborate with many different professionals including physicians, biologists, chemists, scientists and statisticians. The research has become so focused on interdisciplinary studies that it is not enough for researchers to call each other; it is now necessary to try and force them into "accidental" meetings.

  Pat Casey, a James B. Duke professor in the department of pharmacology and cancer biology, said architects are now trying to design buildings around this idea of collaboration.

  The concept, involving designs that maximize the probability of encounters between investigators, has become a top factor in the construction of new research facilities at Duke, including the currently under construction Center for Interdisciplinary Engineering, Medicine and Applied Science, the planned French Science Center and the already constructed Levine Science Research Center. These buildings were not designed for one department, but for many.

  "[This concept] is really kind of state of the art in biomedical research buildings now," said Greg Warwick, the Medical Center and Duke University Health System architect. "We are trying to do this with several of the new buildings."

  Casey said it is commonly known that scientists need people from all fields to tackle "the big questions in science."

  As communication becomes more necessary between departments, building architects and designers are challenging the long-standing departmental institution and providing subtle "extras" designed to facilitate discussion.

  However, the effects of both might not be as positive as originally thought.

  As this new interdisciplinary work changes building design, more scientists have offices away from their respective departments, putting a stress on the long-standing departmental system, Casey said. Most research institutions still rely on the departmental system for organizational structures, however, interdisciplinary work conflicts with the loyalty one scientist might have to his respective department.

  "There is a loss of belonging to the unit," he said. "A department that is too fragmented can be unsettling and almost be counterproductive if there is no unit to belong to. The question becomes how much do you promote interdisciplinary within a single building at the expense of departmental unity."

  This becomes more of an issue with junior faculty, who, Casey said, are more "adventurous" and more involved in interdisciplinary work. "Junior faculty needs to be with their colleagues. This is important for tenure," he explained. "Also, there is the question whether interdisciplinary work is not as supportive of an environment as the department."

  However, to accompany these major changes in how buildings are constructed, designers and architects also aspire to increase communication among the workers, sometimes in vastly different fields, through subtle, and sometimes minor, structural and aesthetic changes.

  Casey said, all the changes in design are aimed at increasing interaction among staff members. One idea involves providing a central equipment and facilities area instead of having individual areas that decrease communication. Other ideas include widening hallways, removing enclaves, installing blackboards and designing pathways which would be heavily travelled--all of which theoretically increase and encourage communication. Another big change is adding a cafeteria or a small coffee shop.

  "The thought behind it is to try and prevent someone from going thousands of miles to a conference to find an answer when someone might be 50 feet away with the same answer," said Casey. "This also increases the awareness between departments."

  Warwick said another theory that is being used in the designing of facilities is the "Open Bench Lab concept." This involves laboratories where people are less walled off and can interact more easily on their research.

  Although this awareness and communication is necessary, in actuality, the concept of increasing interaction might not work as well as it seems like it should.

  "People talk about how the catwalks in the LSRC were designed so people could see each other and talk with them. However, there just is not enough traffic in that building for this idea to work," said Vice Provost for Research Jim Siedow. "The concept was good on paper but not in actuality."

  Moreover, Siedow questioned the placement of offices in the LSRC.

  "They built the LSRC with the design to have different people running into people," he said. "The offices ended up where they did to seem more interactive. But now someone has to make a point to stick their head into somebody's office."

  However, even though there are difficulties to work out, Siedow is confident that the communication and interaction between departments will only increase.

  "It is the wave of the future," he said. "Science is definitely heading in that direction, and now we just have to cross the silos between departments."