Let’s dive into the results and what we learned.
What Do Scientists Want in a Lab? Start with Collaboration
Understanding what scientists want most is central to designing better research buildings. To illuminate this topic, our survey asks scientists to evaluate what they would prioritize most in the lab environment of the future.
Which elements are most important to you in your primary research building?
Scientists value collaborative space above all (even physical comfort), followed by individual work areas.
Respondents could pick three options.
Respondents could pick three.
Which amenities are most important to you to have in and around your primary science building?
As the previous answer showed, scientists value elements like collaborative space that are often considered amenities. When asked more specifically about different types of amenities, scientists overall value those that simplify their lives like easy transit and food and drink options, followed by wellness-focused amenities. Though answers vary by discipline, with life scientists valuing transit, and social scientists prioritizing green space.
Proximity to Researchers—Even at Other Institutions—Is Paramount
Research buildings have an increasingly important role to play in building relationships among scientists and allied organizations—as suggested by the high priority scientists put on collaborative space.
While all scientists in our survey find value being near colleagues, their opinions on the value of proximity to scientists outside their organization varies by discipline, with engineers valuing it to the highest degree. Research buildings have an opportunity to build on this insight by designing spaces that make easier and more enjoyable to build these types of personal connections.
How important is it for you to be in close proximity (e.g. within walkable distance) to colleagues and outside scientists?
Scientists Think Labs Can Do More to Support Wellbeing
With scientists facing elevated rates of mental illness, the role of the physical environment in promoting wellbeing should not be overlooked. To explore this topic, the survey asks scientists to evaluate their current building’s impact on their wellbeing.
Scientists are mixed at best on whether their current buildings support their wellbeing, with the average answer hovering right around the middle on a five point scale. Life scientists tend to rate their buildings lower than other disciplines do.
How well does your primary science building support your physical and mental wellbeing?
A significant portion of respondents say their research buildings do not support wellbeing. That means it's clear buildings could do more to support healthy scientists, especially considering scientists face higher levels of mental health illness than the general public. Even seemingly modest interventions like introducing more natural elements can increase self-reported wellbeing and creativity by 15%. This is just the tip of the iceberg. How can labs evolve to better support scientists' wellbeing? We believe part of the answer lies in neuroscience.
Interested in viewing the full survey, which contains all questions and responses with additional demographic breakdowns? Please enter your name, title, company and email to receive a link to the report.
NBBJ U.S.
Cathy Bell
Principal
Partnering with NBBJ Fellow and developmental molecular biologist Dr. John Medina, we are researching and applying a range of design strategies, grounded in neuroscience research, that improve physical and mental wellbeing in research buildings. Click the +'s below to learn more.
49.7%
47.3%
43.4%
41.5%
41.3%
40.7%
33.4%
Space to collaborate with others
Adequate space for individual work
The flexibility and customizability to meet your needs
Space to socialize and build connections
Physical comfort (including elements like seating, temperature and air quality)
Views of nature or outdoors
Convenient amenities
Food and Drink Options
Convenient Transit Options
Parks and Green Space
Gym and Fitness Centers
Entertainment and Leisure Options
Child & Family Care
26.2%
32.5%
35.1%
54.3%
55.1%
59.8%
Applying These Insights
Stress is often related to a perceived lack of control over a situation or environment—giving people the ability to adapt their surroundings can help.
Nature has a demonstrable impact on wellbeing—natural materials, daylight, views of greenspace and outdoor areas all play an important role.
Download the FULL Survey Data
Or ready to explore what these insights mean for space optimization, performance and amenity strategies for your research building?
Get the Survey Results
NBBJ GLOBAL
DARIUS UMRIGAR
Principal
Learn More Today.
Pharmacies and Convenience Stores
34.6%
Our survey asked scientists what they want most. Here are a few examples of what they said in their own words.
Outdoor research terraces and green spaces for meetings, brainstorming sessions and team-building activities."
Providing spaces for movement and exercise are a key element in preventing behavioral health issues.
Convenience topped the charts
Wellness followed
Percent who say proximity to colleagues is important
Percent who say proximity to outside scientists is important
We Asked:
We Asked:
We Asked:
What do scientists say they want in their labs?
We Asked:
Respondents were asked to rank from 1 to 5.
Which discipline values collaborative space the most?
Life scientists, likely due to the interdisciplinary nature of life science research, put a premium on collaborative space.
What about differences between academia and industry?
Academic scientists value physical comfort more, perhaps because their work requires long hours of grant writing, lecture prep and grading.
Industry professionals value socialization more, likely due to the numerous departments they need to collaborate with to do their work.
Applying These Insights
Given the value scientists place on being near colleagues and outside scientists, research buildings have an important opportunity to enhance relationship building, collaboration and sense of community. Amenities, social areas and outdoor spaces can become key differentiators that attract talent by enabling scientists to connect both inside and outside the lab.
Landscape is often a secondary priority in research buildings given labs’ intensive technical requirements. But outdoor spaces can play a significant role in creating space for activities like socialization, informal collaboration and chance encounters that typically happen indoors. Rooftop gardens, walking paths, nature preserves and indoor outdoor spaces can provide views of nature and fresh air that enhance productivity and provide informal ways to connect.
The Future Lab
The Future Lab
A Survey About Science Building Design
Understanding scientist needs is critical to ensure research buildings are sound real estate investments that promote investigation, breakthroughs and wellbeing. And yet despite $4.5 billion spent on lab construction in 2020-2021 and another $90 billion in the next 10 years, until now, no comprehensive survey has been conducted to understand what scientists want in their research spaces.
When paired with design solutions, our survey—which polled 1,059 scientists from The New York Academy of Sciences global community—provides valuable insights as to how research buildings can be built differently. And as the results below show, more than 65% of respondents say the design of their primary research building would positively impact their decision to work for an employer.
North America71%
Europe8%
Asia12%
Africa5%
South America
2%
Australia and Oceania
2%
Professional
20+ Years
10-20 Years
<10 Years
Student
Postdoc
Graduate student
Undergraduate student
High school student
Academia
20+ Years
10-20 Years
<10 Years
50%
29%
21%
Yes
76%
No
24%
Life
Sciences
Engineering
Chemical
Sciences
Social
Sciences
Environ.
Sciences
Other, inc. Physical Sciences
Geographic Region
Career Stage & Sector
Scientific Discipline
Actively Work in a Lab
The results of the 20-question survey, which can be viewed in full by downloading a PDF at the top or bottom of this page, is summarized by the six insights below.
Key Survey Insights
Technological Change Requires Rethinking the Cluster
Labs Are Flexible Enough for Today, But Not For Tomorrow
Researchers Desire More Sustainable Buildings
What Do Scientists Want in a Lab? Start with Collaboration
Proximity to Researchers—Even At Other Institutions—is Paramount
Scientists Think Buildings Can Do More to Support Wellbeing
Up Next!
These are the aspirations scientists have for future research buildings as reported in a new survey of scientists by architecture firm NBBJ and The New York Academy of Sciences.
A lab designed for collaboration
A healthy, sustainable research building that simplifies scientists' lives
Flexibility to effortlessly adapt to any research need
A dedicated space for industry partnerships and collaborations to facilitate real-world experiences for students."
Dynamic wayfinding systems and interactive maps to help navigate the building, locate resources, and connect with colleagues."
More common space for interacting with colleagues."
What do scientists say they want in their labs?
Each laboratory and office area should have windows with a view of the outside."
Wellness amenities such as fitness centers or meditation room."
Connect to Nature
Encourage Movement
Support Personal Agency
Why a Survey of Scientists?
Who We Surveyed
Up Next!
Stay tuned for more survey insights in January, covering the following three themes:
Outside the organization
Inside the organization
Download the Full Survey Data
CONTACT
CONTACT
Download the Full Survey Data
"
"
"
"
"
"
Scientists say building design impacts where they want to work
65%
Technological Change Requires Rethinking the Cluster
Labs Are Flexible Enough for Today, But Not For Tomorrow
Researchers Desire More Sustainable Buildings
Available Now:
Get the Survey Results
Groups Ranking Flexibility as Lower Priority:
Chemists
Students
European Scientists
Labs Are Flexible Enough for Today, But Not For Tomorrow
Labs are typically inflexible due to their complex requirements. But with the cost to renovate them approaching $1,200 per square foot, there is clear need for labs to be more adaptable. To explore this topic, the survey asks scientists to evaluate the flexibility of their current building.
Among all needs in a lab building, scientists rank flexibility as one of the top three. For engineers, it is the top ranked priority.
Which elements are most important to you in your primary research building?
We Asked:
What do scientists say they want in their labs?
I wish our building had more flexible technology equipped areas which encourage team work, discussions and problem solving."
"
Groups Ranking Flexibility
as a Top Priority:
Engineers
Advanced Career Scientists North American Scientists
FLEXIBILITY
While a majority of scientists say their current research building can flex to meet their immediate needs, a significant portion do not—including 48% of life scientists and 46% of late career scientists. For life scientists and advanced career scientists, almost half said their current research spaces are not flexible enough.
Is your primary science building flexible and adaptable enough to meet your changing research needs?
We Asked:
YES
59%
NO
41%
My space is not flexible enough
My space is flexible enough
Applying These Insights
While science buildings may be flexible enough to meet today's needs for a majority of scientists, that is likely not the case over the medium and longer term, especially considering that the average R&D facility is 42 years old. That's why we've been thinking about solutions for additional flexibility.
A LAB FOR CHANGING NEEDS
Average
Doesn't support at all
Supports very well
I wish we had more flexible and adaptable spaces to accommodate changing research needs and collaborations in their future."
"
Technological Change Requires Rethinking the Cluster
Labs Are Flexible Enough for Today, But Not For Tomorrow
Researchers Want More Sustainable Buildings
What Do Scientists Want in a Lab? Start with Collaboration
Proximity to Researchers—Even At Other Institutions—is Paramount
Scientists Think Buildings Can Do More to Support Wellbeing
Chemical & Environ.
Flexibility is Low Priority
Flexibility is High Priority
Today
In 15 Years
In 30 Years
What Happens When There‘s Too Much Space?
CBRE. “2024 U.S. Life SciencesOutlook”. Jan. 2024
LifeSciences
Engineering
Social Sciences
North America
Asia
Europe
Who is less likely to feel their labs are flexible enough?
Nearly half (48%) of advanced career scientists, and 46% of life scientists say their labs aren't as flexible as they need them to be.
Life Scientists
Advanced Career Scientists
48%
46%
Applying These Insights
With scientists believing that nearly 60% of their work can be done remotely, organizations have an opportunity to rethink their footprint and refocus on the types of collaborative spaces scientists so clearly prioritize. Working with Prof. Raj Choudhury of Harvard Business School, an expert on the productivity impacts of remote work, NBBJ has explored how organizations across industries can be more effective in a hybrid era by creating less consolidated footprints centered on collaborative hubs.
Boston / Cambridge
New York
New Haven
Northeast Corridor
Computational Center
Retreat Center
Urban Hubs With Cultural Amenities
Wet Lab
Rather than a centralized downtown location, the lab could be a network of satellite locations, a cultural hub, or retreat center. Similarly, as research decentralizes, labs may be driven by lifestyle amenities, resembling mixed-use or entertainment districts as much as clusters, with labs located around public parks or active retail hubs.
Overall:
By Discipline:
By Career Stage:
Percent of work that can be done remotely
59%
Social Sciences
Environ. Sciences
Engineering
Chemical Sciences
LifeSciences
67%
64%
63%
57%
54%
We Asked:
Technology is what makes remote work possible. And as such, scientists believe 59% of their work tasks can now be done effectively outside lab buildings. Social and environmental scientists are particuarly keen on working outside of a traditional lab building.
What percent of your work can be done remotely?
We Asked:
The majority of scientists (72%) say technology disrupts how they work. Though interestingly, 22% report that technology has no impact. When asked to predict how technology will alter the way they work in five years, almost nine out of ten predict it would be disruptive—a significant jump.
To what extent do automation, AI and other technologies disrupt how you work today?
Which discipline thinks technology will be more disruptive in five years?
Chemists, possibly due to advanced computation's rapidly growing role in the chemical sciences.
Which discipline thinks technology is less disruptive today?
Life scientists, possibly due to the nature of wet lab research that stays more consistant over time.
Social scientists, potentially because more of their work is already computer-based.
Which discipline thinks technology is more disruptive today?
Today:
Not At All Disruptive
Disruptive
72%
22%
In Five Years:
Not At All Disruptive
Disruptive
13%
87%
What do scientists say they want in their labs?
Integration of advanced technology, such as smart sensors and AI systems, to enhance productivity and efficiency in research activities."
"
Flexible working arrangements, such as remote work options or flexible schedules, to accommodate the diverse needs of researchers and promote work-life balance."
"
There's no question that technology is changing the way science is conducted, including its ability to make remote work feasible for some scientists. To understand this shift, the survey explores scientists' opinions on the impact of technology and its implications for research building design.
Technological Change Requires Rethinking the Cluster
The 20-question survey queried scientists from across the world, in various stages of their career and in diverse industries.
Building Elements:
Collaboration Space;
Space for Individual Work;
Flexible Space;
Socialization Space;
Physical Comfort;
Views of Nature;
Amenities;
Other.
All Respondents
Engineers
Space for Individual Work
FlexibleSpace
Collaboration Space
Socialization Space
FlexibleSpace
Collaboration Space
Applying These Insights
How green can a lab be? Achieving the significant sustainability goals scientists want can take a number of forms. Sustainable solutions are scalable, ranging from high performance glazing to rooftop PV cells to more progressive approaches such as geothermal wells. Geothermal can help labs essentially eliminate fossil fuel consumption for all end users.
Retrofitting of buildings with energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems to reduce operating costs and environmental impact."
"
Increase the amount of natural light entering the building by adding more windows or skylights, which can help improve mood, productivity, and energy levels."
"
What do scientists say they want in their labs?
Scientists say sustainability is important to very important
83%
However...
Science buildings are not up to modern sustainability standards
60%
Lab Energy Optimization & Efficiency: How to Do it Safely
Scientists resoundingly value sustainability. More than 80% report it is important or very important for lab buildings to reduce carbon and energy use, and this consensus holds across demographic groups.
Yet with an estimated 60% of labs needing urgent energy efficient upgrades, there is clear gap between the desires of scientists and the reality of how their buildings impact the environment.
How important is it to you that your primary science building is sustainable?
We Asked:
Supplemental Cooling at Zones
Roof PV
High Performance Heat Recovery
Water Cooled Chiller Plant
Supplemental Cooling at Zones
Closed Loop Geothermal
High Performance Heat Recovery
Roof PV
Heat Pump Chillers
Researchers Want More Sustainable Buildings
Sustainable design is critically important to scientists given the complex, energy-intensive nature of labs, which consume 5 to 10 times as much energy as office buildings. With this in mind, the survey explores scientists’ opinions on sustainability and its importance to them.
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
New
Previous
Given how technology enables aspects of research to be done remotely, there is a clear opportunity to reorganize the space in life science clusters around the in-person collaboration scientists prioritize, a topic we explore next. This and the other remaining insights were previously released in part one of The Future Lab.
Support labs are centrally located
Support labs are interspersed with primary labs
Support labs are reduced and benching increased within primary labs
The same module can flex to office space where required
Labs can be designed as modular frameworks using a standard grid system to enable different configurations over the medium term, such as labs that convert to support labs, or even offices. And over the long term, hybrid steel and CLT structures can be used to enable labs to morph into entirely new uses, like residential, a concept we have explored with the Regenerative Lab design concept.