The New Architecture of Science explores how the architecture of advanced nanoscience labs affects the way scientists think, conduct experiments, interact and collaborate. The unique design of the National Graphene Institute in Manchester, UK sheds light on the new generation of 21st century science laboratories. Weaving together two tales of this building, lead scientist and one of the designers, Kostya Novoselov, and architectural anthropologist, Albena Yaneva, combine an analysis of its distinctive design features with ethnographic observation of the practices of scientists, facility managers, technicians, administrators and house service staff. Capturing simultaneously the complex technical infrastructure and the variability of human experiences that it facilitates, contemporary laboratory buildings are shown to be vital settings for the active shaping of new research habits and ways of thinking, ultimately leading to discovery and socio-technical innovations.
Related Link(s)
Interview
Sample Chapter(s)
Foreword
[M] Introduction: The Making of the Graphene Building + [E] Experience of Design
Contents:
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Preamble
- [M] Introduction: The Making of the Graphene Building + [E] Experience of Design
- [M] Location, Location, Location + [E] Experiencing Movement
- [M] Square Shape
- [M] Vibration
- [M] Two for the Price of One + [E] Experiencing the Hidden Building
- [M] Solutions Dictated by the Process
- [M] Design of the Storage Rooms + [E] Experiencing the Flows
- [M] The Key Lab: Clean Room + [E] Experiencing Clean Lab Work
- [M] Variety of Labs
- [M] Transportation Routes + [E] Experiencing Circulation
- [M] Other Functions: Meetings, Conferences, Events + [E] Experiencing Communication
- [M] How We Ended Up with the Roof Garden + [E] Experiencing Breakout
- [M] Atria, Coffee and Writable Walls + [E] Experiencing the Social Life of Science
- [M] Veil Design + [E] Experiencing the Building Envelope
- [M] Future Services + [E] Experiencing Growth
- Conclusions: A New Approach to Science Architecture
- NGI Floor Plans
- Index
Readership: Academics, professionals and students from architecture, urban studies, science and technology studies (STS) programs, and the sciences; general public.
Sample Chapter(s)
Foreword
[M] Introduction: The Making of the Graphene Building + [E] Experience of Design
Interview
The authors of The New Architecture of Science kindly agreed to an email interview with World Scientific in which they shared further insights on the significance of the NGI. The following presents some nuggets of information generously shared in the interview:
Q1: How important are the psychological effects of architecture for the scientists and staff working in the NGI? For example, a quote from page 70: When scientists work in the clean room, they see daylight; they feel connected to the city rather than being “buried,” isolated in a dark black hole. Are such intended effects still effectual? Could you share an anecdote that is not in the present publication?
Authors:
The architecture of the NGI has a positive impact on the spirit and the well-being of the scientists. We would not necessary term all those effects `psychological’ per se although some scientists we have interviewed call them psychological and talk about their feelings. Yet, what the book traces is not that much the individual subjective opinions and perceptions of this type of architecture, but rather the quality of the experience of different `lab dwellers’, ie. the various instrumental practices, the hours spent, the lost track of time, the intensity of communication, the plethora of activities performed in the same compact building, the equipment arrangements, the spatial choreography and the speed of work.
The glass surfaces allow scientists to be connected to daylight, to sun and rain, to the seasons and the `buzz’ of the life outside the lab (the city, the streets, the campus). This porous architecture greatly contributes to the way a science lab is experienced. We could say that this forms one of the distinctive features of all 21st century labs. The transparency of the NGI veil, the viewing corridor and glass windows to the clean room facilitate a visual connection with the lab spaces that have been traditionally planned as dark segregated spaces. In fact, up to the 1950s–60s, science buildings were designed as big windowless black-boxes and consisted of inflexible laboratory modules reflecting the hierarchical nature of science. Science buildings used to impede interaction among scientists from different disciplines, with protected areas and enclosures keeping researchers physically isolated. The obsolescence of such labs emerges in our ethnography as participants recurrently compare the open NGI architecture with traditional buildings on the campus of Manchester University: the Physics building (the Schuster laboratory built in 1967), the Material Sciences Tower (1968) and Chemistry (The Faraday building erected in 1967).
John Whittaker, the head of operations at the NGI, often tells us that `physicists are like bats,’ they often do experiments overnight. Friday night appears to be particularly emblematic for them. We have heard lots of stories about Friday night and weekend ideas. That is a period of quiet time for other campus buildings and an active time for the city. With the Manchester University campus being in close proximity to the city centre, imagine how many young professionals and students heading towards the downtown bars and restaurants on a Friday evening would witness the work of bat-like scientists in the graphene building; the opposite of misty dark cave, the NGI architecture highlights even more the visible steps of science. A dazzling parallel of busy lives: the laboratory meets the city again.
Q2: How has the architecture of the NGI helped with relations between the scientific community and the urban community that surrounds it? Has it helped to demystify science in the eyes of the general public?
Authors:
Yes, definitely. When designing the NGI, we wanted to achieve the dual effect — we wanted to demonstrate that we are doing very serious, cutting edge, world leading science, but also that science is not just like any other job, it cannot be programmed, one must enjoy science. To this end we needed to show the complexity, but also the playfulness of science. Several solutions are there to do it. We provided viewing windows to the basement clean room (and to the clean room at the first floor as well) so people from outside could appreciate complex apparatus, shiny equipment, serious researchers in overall. On another hand, we also produced spaces where artwork or information posters could be placed, so demonstrating that scientists are human beings and science is achievable for everyone. Another solution is the formulae on the façade. It took us a long time to choose a message which would be graphene-oriented. We also hid a few jokes among them. So far, nobody spotted them, though.
Also, the fact that the building can be visited (there are guided tours organised for the general public, for VIP visitors, etc.) and that a certain number of spaces can be viewed by non-scientists interested in graphene work, has greatly helped the process of demystification of science. This allows connecting the city and science in a new way as the building sends an important message: publicmo≠yisspent∈asensib≤way’andalso,science is traceable, it happens here, and it is far from being an alchemical mystery.’ This aspect of the relationship to the city is very pragmatic.
Q3: Could you name your favourite architectural features in NGI based on (a)aesthetic value and (b)functional value?
Kostya Novoselov: I love it all. Every single piece there has a function. It might be a sleeping function — used once a year or so, but it is there. Very hard to choose just a single option. The very split into two buildings — the CUB (utility) and the research — is the most powerful solution.
Another is the transformative conference room with multiple configurations, which is transformable from one to another in minutes. Very comfortable.
The lift. One needs to see it to understand why I love it, but it guarantees that we will not have any problems for years ahead.
The roof garden. Despite Manchester’s weather, it is still used very often.
Albena Yaneva: My favourite architectural feature is the veil. It is neither a solid façade putting a symbolic face’overacontentb⊗,norsimplyanornamentalenvelopewrapπngupthewho≤build∈g→createanenigma.Instead,ithasareference→graphe≠asitconta∈sequations∈scribed∈theperforatedhexagonalmηlstructure.WˆImostlylikeaboutitistˆtheveilworksasadevicetˆs̲thevisib≤steps∈science,the∈scriptions,theforμlas,thetry-outs,themistakes.Thisdeflatesa¬hercommonmyth∈science—tˆdiscoveryhappens∈amagical,double-click’ like moment. The veil design endorses a realistic vision of scientific venture; it says: ‘there is no magic here! Come and try, make mistakes, start over, and you can be part of it.’ In addition, it is hard to disentangle its aesthetic and functional values. The veil covers elegantly huge technical plants and as such shows that there is invariably an aesthetics in the technically good solutions. It simultaneously cares for the visual and perceptual qualities, as much as the mechanical and infrastructural performance.