Feedback from the Science Café roundtables at the ninth European Bioanalysis Forum Young Scientist Symposium: optimizing the work–life balance in a bioanalytical laboratory

Abstract

As part of the European Bioanalysis Forum’s continued commitment to develop young scientists beyond their scientific skills, we also focus on soft skills and a community responsibility during the Young Scientist Symposia, with the Science Café. In previous years, we have focused on topics such as sustainability (green lab) or the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on career development. At the ninth Young Scientist Symposium, the Science Café roundtables focused on the work–life balance and how caring for it can be beneficial for both the individual and the company. Feedback from a premeeting survey and from the discussions during the roundtables can be an important addition to personal and professional development. If organizations are not already focusing on the importance of a healthy work–life balance, they can be inspired to include some aspects of the outcome of the Science Café discussions when developing their staff toward future (scientific) leadership.

Since 2014, the European Bioanalysis Forum vzw (EBF) has organized a Young Scientist Symposium (YSS). The initiative is part of EBF’s mission statement [1] and aims to provide scientific and precompetitive cross-organizational collaboration opportunities. The meeting attendance is mainly reserved for early-career scientists, creating a safe environment which is not biased by senior management/experts leading the discussions; albeit since 2022, the young scientists themselves have welcomed more input from senior leaders to calibrate their scientific and strategic compass. The collaboration of university labs (i.e., University of Bologna, Saarland University and Ghent University) built the necessary bridge to academic labs. For the ninth YSS, we convened in Hasselt, Belgium, on 11–12 May 2023. The agenda and majority of the slides presented at the symposium are published on the EBF website [2]. This year, the symposium was preceded by the first iteration of the EBF University on 10 May 2023, a training session designed to immerse young scientists in the additional layers of drug development. The focus of this training day included understanding the value and responsibility of bioanalysis in drug development; for example, which studies support which decisions? How are bioanalytical data used and (how) can these data impact study design and decisions? What is the value-added impact of bioanalysis representation in discovery or development teams? The goal of the first EBF university was to submerse young scientists in the drug development process to better understand how their work not only adds value but also can be critical to the quality and outcome of development programs.

Ever since the fourth YSS, a ‘Science Café’ (SC) has been part of the YSS program. The SC format focuses on softer skills and/or a community responsibility of our industry. Again, this year, we included a SC on the afternoon of day 1 of the symposium, with a focus on a specific aspect of our community responsibility. The topic for this year was work–life balance, and this manuscript provides feedback from those roundtable discussions.

In preparation for the session, we issued a premeeting survey to the young scientists which focused on four key questions:

• Where can (does) the organization help in creating a more optimal work–life balance?

• What is the impact of overtime and flexible working on work–life balance?

• How can (does) technology facilitate a better work–life balance?

• What is the impact of laboratory automation on work–life balance?

The starting point of the discussions at the meeting was the responses from the aforementioned survey, to which 67 young scientists responded (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’). Of these 67 respondents, 33 were working in pharmaceutical companies, 27 in CROs and five in academia (two respondents did not answer this question). Furthermore, 43 of the respondents answered that their work is mainly lab-based, whereas 22 have roles that are office-based (again, two respondents did not answer this question). At the roundtables, 94 young scientists contributed to the discussions (hereinafter referred to as ‘participants’). Each roundtable was concluded with live anonymous voting using DirectPoll [3] to minimize any bias due to peer pressure or influencing by other votes.

The summary of the SC as presented in this manuscript is split into three sections: work, life and work–life balance.

Work

The COVID-19 pandemic changed working life for many employees, and working remotely has become more common in many sectors. To facilitate remote working, new technologies were offered and existing technologies were implemented more widely. These technologies include, among other things, remote access to data and documents, online meeting platforms, electronic signatures, electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) and laboratory automation. It became clear from the roundtable discussions that these technologies were considered to have the biggest impact on the work–life balance of participants, and they will therefore be discussed in this publication.

Almost all respondents answered that they have the opportunity to attend online meetings and have remote access to work-related files. There was a small difference between respondents primarily working in the laboratory and respondents primarily working in the office. All office-based respondents answered that they have remote access to files, whereas only three-quarters of lab-based respondents have this opportunity. The feeling toward the possibility of online meetings and remote access was mainly positive: most respondents felt that it has a positive impact on their work–life balance, as discussed below. However, some negative aspects regarding online meetings were discussed during the roundtables. Participants felt that it was easier to schedule online meetings compared with face-to-face meetings, resulting in an increase of seemingly unnecessary meetings. When online meetings are considered unnecessary, attendees can be less focused and more likely to multitask. Therefore, it was stressed that, even though it is easier to plan online meetings, consideration should still be given to whether the meeting is necessary.

As more employees are now working remotely, electronic signatures have become a topic of discussion. The use of such signatures both avoids wet-ink signatures and fading during scanning processes and increases efficiency as documents can be reviewed and signed simultaneously by all. They were not as widely offered compared with remote access and online meetings but were still accessible for more than half of respondents. The availability of electronic signatures differed between pharmaceutical companies and CROs: they were available for almost all respondents working in pharmaceutical companies, compared with only half of the respondents working for CROs. No respondents working in academia had access to electronic signature software; however, as mentioned earlier, the sample size was small.

Electronic signatures were considered to have a mainly positive impact, because their use can significantly reduce timelines, paper waste and the burden of report approval. Nonetheless, the young scientists expressed concerns that the evolution of guidelines is not keeping up with the evolution of technology, and this could lead to additional burden if incompatibilities are encountered. It was argued that the guidelines need to evolve together with digitalization.

Besides the tools to facilitate remote working, new technologies like ELNs and automated platforms are also implemented in the laboratories to improve workflows regarding efficiency. As ‘ELN’ was not defined in the survey nor during the roundtables, it is accurate to state that ELNs are not used in all companies at the same level. Nevertheless, less than half of the respondents answered that they use an ELN, a much smaller percentage compared with the other technology tools discussed above. There was a significant difference in ELN usage between pharmaceutical companies on one side, and academia and CRO companies on the other side. In pharmaceutical companies, 70% of the respondents confirmed that they use ELNs; in contrast, ELNs were only implemented in 15% of the CRO companies, while none of the respondents from academia use ELNs. During the roundtable discussions, the feeling toward ELNs was mixed. Participants felt that they can be beneficial in terms of efficiency and data security. However, the readability and findability of data over longer periods of time were mentioned as critical aspects and were of concern to the young scientists.

When it came to laboratory automation, respondents generally answered that there was not much automation implemented regardless of whether they worked for a pharmaceutical company or CRO or in academia. It is valuable to note that, as with the ELN, ‘fully automated assay’ was not defined in the survey or during the roundtables. A ‘fully automated assay’ could be interpreted as anything from automation of all steps within a bioanalytical method all the way to a fully automated sample analysis process covering from sample management to reporting without human intervention. Most of the discussion related to partial automation of the assay (e.g., liquid handlers, plate readers or data management systems). Half of the respondents said that their company has liquid-handling robots implemented in the laboratory, followed by one-third who said that they have access to an automated data management system, and one-quarter who used automated sample-preparation tools. Automated sample management and/or fully automated assays were not very common, as less than 20% answered that their laboratory is equipped with such tools and systems. However, it seems that most respondents had access to some form of automation; only a few reported having access to no automation at all, and those few all worked in academia. In general, responses from young scientists in academia were polarized, having either no automation at all or fully automated assays implemented. However, this could be due to the nature of their research being specific to automated instruments and methodology.

The general view on laboratory automation was very positive, and lab-based respondents in particular felt that some automation tools can support their daily work. However, the young scientists made an argument during the roundtable discussions that laboratory automation only makes sense for standardized work steps that are frequently needed. For example, people working for CROs mentioned that they have fast-changing project work whereby the setup of, for example, an automated assay would probably need more time than the sample analysis itself. There was an entire scientific session at the YSS discussing automation (i.e; session 1 - all presentations of this session are available on the meeting website [2]), where young scientists presented material on the automation of individual steps within a workflow giving greater flexibility compared with fully automated workflows (e.g., small changes can be easily made to platforms between projects to alter the complete workflow, instead of an entire method rebuild). The opinion about laboratory automation having a positive impact was only limited by the fear that tools and systems can replace laboratory technicians and thus employees could lose their jobs. However, it was agreed that automated tools and systems need to be intensively controlled and maintained. In the end, automation therefore means a shift in job responsibilities rather than a replacement of jobs. Furthermore, the participants highlighted that even with automation there is still the need for knowledge about the bioanalytical assay and/or the automated tool/system itself. Hence, well-trained staff is crucial regardless of whether laboratory automation is available and offered by a company or not.

Life

In addition to discussing the technologies offered by companies that impact day-to-day roles and responsibilities, the roundtable discussion also explored how employers can provide support for personal development. It was felt by the participants that offering soft-skills training, wellbeing initiatives and mentoring was just as important as technical training and that these aspects are necessary for employees to work toward a healthy work–life balance.

Only about one-third of respondents stated that their company offered a mentoring program, compared with over half who believed that such programs would be beneficial to their personal development beyond developing their technical skills. One specific area where participants believed a mentor would be beneficial to their work–life balance was in the setting of boundaries. As an example, some participants found it difficult to say no to extra work when they felt under pressure, worried that it would affect their future career progression. Having a more senior mentor who could advise in such situations was seen as a positive offering from a company. It was discussed that in academia, less experienced scientists often benefit from the experience of more senior scientists, and participants working in industry expressed the desire to also benefit from a similar mentoring relationship.

Another important point of discussion was mental burnout at work. This was discussed in detail, and a lot of participants were aware of burnout and strategies for avoiding it. However, all participants agreed on the importance of a company that helps to manage burnout, especially during periods of high stress at work. It was also agreed that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach to managing stress, but over 60% of respondents said their company offered some form of wellbeing initiative to help employees cope. Such initiatives included subsidized sports and gyms, psychological support, mental health rooms and ‘meeting-free’ periods every year. It was mentioned that occasionally extra days off were offered in particularly stressful times. However, these offerings were not always easily accessed and were not equal across different industries. For example, over 80% of respondents working in pharmaceutical companies were offered such schemes, compared with no respondents working in academia. Other difficulties were noted, too, including complicated application processes or limited accessibility hours.

Other important tools for personal development included soft-skills training, such as training on delegation, communication, or time management. While this was seen as having a positive impact on managing a healthy work–life balance and was offered by companies from around 50% of respondents regardless of industry, it was sometimes seen as difficult to access. There was also some negative stigma felt by the young scientist community surrounding non-technical training; some participants mentioned that they did not want to be seen as the first person to apply.

Throughout the roundtables, many tools and ideas were discussed that could be provided by companies to support personal development and maintain the ‘life’ side of work–life balance. Ideas such as mental health tools and soft-skills training were just a few that were mentioned; however, such tools were generally more available in larger pharmaceutical companies, and frustration was felt by participants when they were not always easily accessible.

Work–life balance

The discussion so far has focused on tools offered by an employer for a healthy working environment and personal development. The difficult question is: how can these tools be taken and implemented to maintain a healthy work–life balance? During the roundtables, it was generally felt that work tools such as automation, ELN and e-signatures had a positive impact during the workday but did not necessarily benefit work–life balance. They will therefore not be discussed further in reference to work–life balance in this paragraph. When participants were asked about their preferred working patterns for achieving a healthy work–life balance, flexible working hours, remote work and alternative work patterns were preferred by the majority of respondents. Unsurprisingly, the option of remote work was particularly preferred by respondents with office-based work. Despite the preference for these new ways of working, it became clear during the roundtables that participants had unique reasons for preferring the different strategies. Factors like parental responsibilities and commuting time were frequently brought up as reasons to prefer flexible and hybrid work options. Conversely, lack of a proper home office space and a desire to have a personal connection with colleagues were key reasons why participants preferred to work in the office. Regardless of the preferred strategy, it was clear that having some flexibility and agency to adapt their work life around their personal needs is important to most young scientists.

When asked about which technologies have the most positive impact on work–life balance, remote access to files and online meetings were selected the most. It is, perhaps, unsurprising given that these are technologies that facilitate modern working patterns. Remote work would not be possible without access to work files, and the same is true for online meetings. Almost every respondent answered that online meetings are now a frequently used tool. Therefore, what is offered by most companies was also considered to have the most positive impact on work–life balance. During the roundtable discussions, participants highlighted the positive impact of more easily building connections with colleagues locally and internationally through virtual meetings. While the connections are not as strong as they might be if meetings were face-to-face, the frequency and ease of interactions through virtual meetings was recognized as having a positive impact on building good working relationships.

In contrast, having access to email and online meeting/messaging platforms on phones was identified as having the most negative impact on work–life balance. It became clear in discussions that there is a balance between the positive impacts of having access to work remotely and the negative impact of work creeping into non-work time. Participants expressed that they felt increased pressure to always be available through these platforms, regardless of the time or whether they were working on other tasks. There were also stressful emotions connected to seeing notifications about work appearing on personal devices, as not everyone had a work phone provided by their company.

When respondents were asked if work and personal life should be strictly separated, the majority answered that yes, they should be separated. Lab-based respondents felt particularly strongly about this, with three-quarters of individuals responding that work and personal life should be strictly separated, compared with about half of office-based respondents. These responses may be impacted due to lab-based activities needing to be done on site while office-based tasks can be done remotely.

During the discussions, it became apparent that despite a clear preference for separation, it is not always easy to define the boundary between work life and personal life in practice. A side effect of having work-related technology applications on personal devices is that it naturally allows work to be present in the background outside of the office or laboratory. This is particularly true for employees working in their own home. Reverse examples were also offered, such as making personal calls during working hours (e.g., calling the bank, which may only be open during business hours) or starting a load of laundry while working from home. After the roundtables, most participants agreed that the key was being able to set boundaries for separating work and personal life that could be accepted by both the employer and employee. Interestingly, after the lengthy discussions throughout the SC there was no change in preferences for strict separation of work and personal life.

The SC at the EBF YSS symposia has grown into a forum for our community to discuss topics beyond science or technology. From the ninth YSS SC, the discussions on work–life balance proved to be important to help young scientists in their development and offer ideas they can bring back to their organizations. As take-home messages, we would like to name two.

First, the world – and, by extension, the way we organize our work after the COVID-19 pandemic – is very different compared with before COVID-19, and the changes are affecting us all in more ways than we could have imagined. The new work dynamics, which build on trust and ownership, can have a positive impact on work–life balance as individuals have more control over their schedule. Conversely, the opposite effect is experienced due to the impossibility of separating work time from personal time as a result of continuously being dragged into work-related activities. Young scientists should be empowered to set acceptable work–life boundaries that are supported by management, and both employer and employee should work together to optimize the benefits from the new working dynamics for both sides.

The second take-home message relates to organizations being invited to invest further in creating a more optimal work–life balance for their employees. In many organizations, the awareness of the importance of these programs is growing fast, and a lot is already in place. By continuing to increase and/or optimize their mentoring programs or non-technology-focused trainings to include soft-skills training, wellbeing and other initiatives, the young scientists at the meeting believed organizations can increase their wellbeing as well as the output of their work.

In line with the mission of the EBF, our community will continue to engage in discussions on nonscientific aspects and community responsibility. We hope to continue to support the ideas from the SC on work–life balance from the ninth YSS together with our young scientist community who can be the multiplier of the discussions and recommendations from the ninth YSS.

Disclaimer

The views and conclusion presented in this paper are those of the European Bioanalysis Forum and do not necessarily reflect the representative affiliation or company’s position on the subject.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank S Zadic (employed by Swiss BioQuant during the preparation of the ninth YSS) for her contribution.

Competing interests disclosure

The authors have no competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options and expert testimony.