Maintaining a Laboratory Notebook Collection

Randy D. Ralph, MLIS, Ph.D.

In place 1994. Copyright © 1994 Randy D. Ralph.

Background:

Corporate research and development libraries are often charged with the responsibility of circulating and archiving research laboratory notebooks. It is a task which bears significant legal responsibilities within the company. The possible legal consequences of mishandling laboratory notebooks can be grave and they can also be costly for several reasons:

Laboratory notebooks are a company's primary legal record of the intellectual effort behind and content of the new technologies it has developed without which they could not be patented.
Laboratory notebooks are the primary proof of invention, when a company's patents are challenged legally by a competitor, and establish both the inception date and the diligence of its research efforts culminating in patentable, novel technologies.
Laboratory notebooks are a company's repository for raw and interpreted data which are the legal basis for publicly disseminated information about its products and their use and can become its primary line of defense in product liability suits.
Laboratory notebooks are also a company's repository of special or proprietary scientific methodologies used in support of research and development efforts without which it may unnecessarily repeat major research efforts or retrace unproductive steps.
Laboratory notebooks are a significant part of the literal embodiment of the scientific and technical history of a company's research and development efforts and constitute the long-term memory of the science they represent.

For these reasons, it is critically important that laboratory notebooks be handled and maintained properly. Until very recently almost all laboratory notebook collection management programs relied on the standard physical artifacts but there is now an increasing trend toward automated formats which are beginning to be recognized as having equivalent legal standing with the physical artifact.

Circulation Control:

The system for control over the circulation of laboratory notebooks at the company is manually based. The paraprofessional with responsibility for controlling circulation does so using a simple ledger-style log notebook and according to established library policies governing the distribution of laboratory notebooks to staff. A laboratory notebook can only be issued in the name of and for the personal use of a member of the current active scientific staff. Proof of identity in the form of a valid company identification card is required. This, in itself, is insufficient for borrowing privileges. The employee must also have previously filled out and returned a "privilege card," with his/her manager's signature, approving access. If all is in order, the paraprofessional draws a blank notebook from the secured stock, records the notebook number and page range, the date, the name of the person to whom the book is being lent and requires a signature on the appropriate log notebook entry line. The borrower must then sign and date the notebook, itself, in the presence of the paraprofessional as an indication for others of its "ownership." The notebook may then leave the library in the custody of the borrower who retains it for personal use either until it has been filled or until he/she leaves the company.

The paraprofessional in charge of circulating laboratory notebooks noted that one of the principal drawbacks to this manual circulation system, is that it is difficult to determine which laboratory notebooks are still outstanding when notice is received that a staff member has been separated from service with the company for any reason. The log notebook must be manually searched over the entire period of the employee's tenure in order to discover all records of borrowed laboratory notebooks to reconcile against the collection.

It is apparent that this process can be automated using any of a number of database management systems. Even a simple flat ASCII file could accomplish the same end as the logbook, with the notable exception of the signature as proof of receipt, so long as it were adequately backed-up and securely placed. The paraprofessional had suggested this and in consultation with corporate lawyers was advised that the physical logbook with signature was the most legally secure method. Since security is one of the overriding concerns governing the management of laboratory notebook collections, no move was made toward an automated system of circulation control.

Receipt of Completed Pages:

One of the interesting complications in the management of laboratory notebook collections at Company X was that the research library was charged not only with the archival of the notebooks but also with the responsibility to gather and collate completed second (carbon) copy pages. The notebooks, themselves, consisted of two sets of duplicate pages, one set in white bound permanently into the spine of the book, and one set in yellow, with perforations, designed to be removed and returned to the library immediately on completion. Returned "yellow pages" could only be delivered to the library in person. The paraprofessional in charge of circulation was also in charge of receipt of completed pages and was responsible for maintaining a secured interim filing g system for the returned pages which could be used to verify that returned, sequentially numbered pages were received in the proper order. An additional responsibility was to verify that each returned page bore the completion date and the signature of t he "owner" and at least one witness.

The legal reasoning behind this difficult system for handling completed copy pages was that it secured them physically away from the laboratory where they might be damaged, lost or stolen and that it created a uniform, sequential and current legal record. It also forced scientific staff to be diligent in making laboratory notebook entries, the basis for fixing technology as of a specified and witnessed time and date. The white original pages were left in the custody of the borrower as a reference until the entire notebook was returned to the library for processing. The borrower could check also out a used notebook on an extended basis for reference in the laboratory, after processing was complete. The legal yellow copy pages remained in the library, o once returned, and never circulated except for legal purposes. These were maintained as loose numeric ranges of pages held in manila folders within banker's boxes in a secured, fire-safe archive physically separate from the corresponding bound white pages.

Processing of Returned Notebooks:

Upon return to the library, completed laboratory notebooks underwent a series of processes. The paraprofessional in charge of circulation was required to receive the completed notebook directly from the original borrower, unless this was impossible. The appropriate logbook entry was located and the record amended to indicate the notebook's return to the library intact. The library staff person in charge of circulating the notebooks was required to sign the logbook entry indicating that the library had received the bound artifact and that the corresponding sequence of yellow copy pages had also been received in the library and had been archived. Any gaps in the record were considered a most serious matter and needed to be reconciled formally in some manner.

Generally, gaps were caused by physical damage to laboratory notebooks during infrequent laboratory accidents involving corrosive reagents, fire or water. The curator of research documents, generally the research and development library manager, was required to place a signed, dated memorandum in the record in the place in the archive where the gap occurred explaining its cause and ultimate resolution. Damaged laboratory notebooks which contained significant data might be sent out to specialists for reclamation and preservation. Signed and dated xerographic copies of such reclaimed damaged pages were used in place of the originals which might contain reagents that could damage adjacent documents in the archive during long-term storage.

Returned notebooks were routed to any of several library professionals whose responsibility it was to index the contents of the notebook in the pages set aside at the front of the book for this purpose if the author had not already done so. The completed yellow copies were removed and routed back to the staff person responsible for the archival copies for permanent filing. During the indexing process, library information specialists were responsible for creating as many records in the company's on-line index to laboratory notebooks database as required by the intellectual content of the notebook. These records identified the "owner," the page range, the specific technology cited, the official designation for the research project, and associated or corresponding patent applications, conception of invention memoranda or other significant, associated research communications. In addition to assigning keywords which described the conceptual content of a specific notebook page range corresponding to an indexed technology, they were also responsible for complete structural indexing of every significant chemical compound involved. This often required that staff request, in confidence, that new Registry Numbers be established with the Chemical Abstracts Service of Chemical Abstracts for the compounds in question. Complete indexing was an extremely complex process. Several months' backlog was not uncommon.