I know there is probably a lot of complexity I am unaware of, but I am still curious folks' thoughts.
I am surprised you say that doing stuff is faster by hand, can you elaborate what you wife mean by this? Is the bottleneck the user-friendliness of programming the robots? Because I have a hard time believing the actual motion of the researcher pipetting beats the $500k hamilton liquid handlers... could be wrong though!
A few factors off the top of my head (there are more):
- Proprietary communication protocols between equipment from different OEMs. It's possible to automate to a greater extent if every asset speaks the same language. They often don't. Instruments exist in the OEM's walled gardens.
- Robots do save money in the long run, but they are expensive upfront. This is a deterrent, especially labs on a small budget that just don't have the CapEx for robots. This is the case for many academic labs, in particular.
That said, there is progress being made toward automating wet labs to a greater extent. There are projects to standardize protocols so you can have communication between assets from different OEMs. One of my sources from the NIH also told me last week that there are advancements being made in mobile robots that can cart samples from instrument to instrument autonomously.
Is there any chance we can connect for me to ask a few more questions or read some of your reporting? My email is in my profile.
I am currently doing a masters in robotics and my capstone is aiming to do some lab automation. I don't have background in the area, so I am trying to learn everything I can. Thanks!