Connections between laboratory research and climate change: what scientists and policy makers can do to reduce environmental impacts

Abstract

Scientific research, with its myriad disciplines, global reach, and massive economic impact, moves society forward by illuminating new understandings of our planet, its organisms, and the human condition. While the scientific community and life science industry advance knowledge, this comes at a large environmental cost. Scientists across the globe are recognizing the need to be more efficient in their resource use and laboratory operations to avoid the negative impacts of the global research endeavor on our planet and its contributions to worsening human-caused climate change. Furthermore, research as it is conducted today is rife with opportunities for greater efficiency, which directly impacts the amount of funding that is available for all scientists seeking it [[1-4]. Being more efficient in laboratories will help with the 'hyper-competition' for research funding that scientists are currently experiencing [[5, 6]. Engagement by more scientists with laboratory sustainability efforts can accelerate positive changes at institutions and government agencies, leading to widespread, large-scale reductions in resource use by the research sector. Exploration of resource-saving strategies and how policy can encourage and eventually require these strategies are the focus of this article, including outlining how scientists themselves can and should lead on motivating policy change. The worldwide scientific research sector (academic, clinical, pharmaceutical development, etc.) is vast. There are millions of laboratories around the world, and each typically uses five to ten times more energy per square meter than office buildings [[7]. In 2015, the global pharmaceutical industry had a carbon emission intensity 55% higher than the automotive industry [[8]. In addition, the 2019 climate footprint of health care (hospitals and laboratories) was 4.4% of total global emissions, or 2 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the same annual greenhouse gas emissions as 514 coal-fired power plants [[9]. Researchers at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom estimated in 2015 that roughly 20,500 institutions are involved in biological, medical, or agricultural research worldwide, disposing of roughly 5.5 million metric tons of laboratory plastic waste each year [[10]. Some of the most common laboratory equipment required for scientific research such as fume hoods and ultra-low-temperature freezers are also among the highest energy consumers in laboratories [[11-13]. In addition, recent analysis has demonstrated that there is a significant reproducibility issue in science [[6], which also increases the environmental impact of scientific endeavors. Given the immense environmental impact of scientific research, a dramatic shift in how research is conducted and supported is necessary to help combat the global climate crisis. This shift will take many advocates to bring to fruition, including the key decision makers driving research policy and funding, but also scientists themselves. Here, we delve into the positive changes we envision scientists can be a part of, which fall into four main areas: (a) green labs programs and policy, (b) better sharing of equipment and other resources, (c) revisiting the procurement process for research-related purchases, and (d) engaging research funding bodies to call for efficiency and sustainability as they allocate extramural funds. Based on the authors’ research, the following are key areas where the scientific community could lead and work in partnership with their institutions and national governments to drive lasting, widespread change that would benefit our planet, and free up additional financial resources in the current high-demand climate for research funding. Scientists that are taking action to reduce the environmental footprint and climate change impacts of their research are playing an important role in demonstrating support for efficiency and sustainability in laboratory environments. A growing number of research institutions around the world have programs that generally fall under the label of 'green labs programs', all different and institution run that specifically focus on efficiency within laboratories. These programs work via engagement with scientists and in partnership with other institutional stakeholders that impact decisions about laboratories and research. There are also nonprofit organizations such as the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2SL), S-Labs, and My Green Lab, and for-profit consulting groups aiding research institutions from all sectors with greater sustainability within laboratories. My Green Lab has the first internationally recognized Green Lab Certification Program with widespread adoption, but there are also other options [[14], and some research institutions create their own [[15]. Current laboratory sustainability efforts tend to focus on reducing energy and water use, mitigating material and hazardous waste discarded by laboratories, and incorporating green chemistry and greater sharing of equipment into laboratory practices. These are important efforts that can have a large positive impact if implemented at scale, and if your institution does not yet have such programs in place, scientists can help by advocating for them. While voluntary programs and individual laboratory initiatives can have significant effects, even greater lasting impact could be achieved through institutional, corporate, and government-level policy changes that incentivize and even require sustainability in laboratory environments. Fortunately, institutions and corporations are starting to make these types of policy changes and are incentivizing participation in green labs programs. Some universities, such as the University of California, require their campuses to have green labs programs, and include progress in their annual reporting on sustainable practices. The University of Alabama Birmingham encourages laboratories to be a part of their green labs program in order to access recycling opportunities specific to laboratory materials (private correspondence, 2020). Similarly, over 70 institutions of higher education have signed Beyond Benign’s Green Chemistry Commitment to signal their participation in transforming chemistry education, which prepares the next generation of chemists to 'design and develop innovative, efficient, and environmentally sound solutions to the safety and effectiveness of chemical products and processes'. Biotech and pharmaceutical companies are showing their commitment to sustainable research as well. Genentech, a division of Roche, has a decade-old Green BioPharma program that has been working with R&D scientists on sustainable chemistries. In January 2020, AstraZeneca became the first pharmaceutical company to announce their participation in My Green Lab’s Green Lab Certification Program, and reported their efforts in their annual corporate sustainability report. The implementation of green labs programs will be further accelerated by university and corporate commitments related to climate change. In July 2019, networks representing more than 7000 higher and further education institutions declared a climate emergency and pledged to go carbon neutral by 2030 or 2050. Many corporations in the life science industry have committed to meeting the Paris Climate Agreement targets by joining the We are Still in Declarations, or meeting and reporting on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals via the UN Global Compact. Sharing equipment offers another excellent opportunity for reducing the environmental impact of research. Shared equipment results in avoided utility loads, avoided use of energy-intense laboratory space to house duplicative instrumentation, and a reduced need to expand building ventilation and utilities to serve additional equipment needs. Furthermore, equipment sharing reduces the need to manufacture, transport, and dispose (at end of life) unnecessary multiples. Scientists often lead the coordination of equipment sharing between laboratories and are the catalysts for identifying the need for the creation of managed, shared research equipment facilities (a.k.a. core facilities). It is our observation that sharing occurs more frequently for very expensive or utility-intensive equipment, but that there is widespread untapped potential for increased efficiency in science by enhancing sharing equipment outside this high-cost category [[3, 4, 16]. Sharing is a key area where institutions and granting bodies can influence and incentivize action. For example, there has been movement in this direction by a funding council in the UK. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council recognized the value of utilizing research funding more efficiently and effectively through shared equipment resources and has already been encouraging equipment sharing in their grant application process [[17-19]. Based on the authors’ observations and conversations with colleagues, there is much more that can be done at institutions to share equipment and supplies to benefit efficiency, especially if no longer needed by the laboratory that purchased them. Fortunately, the knowledge gained at the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities conferences indicates that more institutions are hiring directors of core facilities and shared instrumentation initiatives to coordinate institution-wide sharing. And more institutions are implementing software tools with scheduling and tracking systems so that available resources can be found and utilized by a variety of laboratories. While these tools often focus on instrumentation, other applications logically follow. For example, surplus single-use plastics can be redistributed before they expire, underutilized fume hoods can be repurposed by other laboratories, and laboratory spaces do not sit unused while others are overcrowded. Sharing laboratory space, beyond just the areas that were designed with sharing in mind (e.g., cores, equipment rooms), is a more efficient use of those laboratory spaces and has the potential for large positive impact through reducing the climate footprint of research. Every square meter of laboratory space is expensive to build and maintain over time. Laboratory buildings have high operational environmental impact, especially due to ongoing airflow requirements for safety (air is heated/cooled to replace air exhausted from laboratories through fume hoods or other means) and the building structures themselves represent significant embodied carbon [[20]. When possible, reorganization and strategic use of existing laboratory space should be a first priority to meet space needs rather than institutions looking to build new laboratory buildings which require large amounts of funding, time, and materials to build, as well as ongoing resources and overhead support to run for decades to come. For example, scientists from different research groups could explore consolidating similar laboratory processes and equipment into shared spaces and designate spaces based on function. Institutions could incentivize such consolidations by providing funding for a manager to oversee these shared spaces. In a case study at the University of Colorado Boulder, a shared laboratory space designated for cell culture research is 30% smaller in floor space compared with an estimate of the laboratory space required if each research group had its own cell culture setups [[16]. When new construction or renovations are necessary, scientists can work with planners to design with efficiency and flexibility in mind and can ask that all laboratory building renovations and new builds exhibit sustainable design and construction, which lowers the baseline resource use of the building. Strategic communication is necessary between stakeholders (including scientists) when design and construction projects are put out for bid so expectations are set early for efficient and sustainable buildings. A collective effort between research groups to reorganize around shared resources as part of a construction or renovation project is beneficial for more efficient space utilization [[16]. This is especially true because sharing avoids a commonly observed inefficiency at research institutions where laboratory space becomes relegated to storage of underutilized equipment and supplies as research demands and foci change over time for individual laboratory groups. Even greater resource conservation in laboratories can be achieved when there are parallel efforts to (a) establish laboratory spaces with efficient infrastructure and equipment while (b) scientists are efficient with resources in laboratories. Scientists and institutions can provide leadership on creating a culture of sustainability in science when onboarding new researchers by including laboratory sustainability topics in interview questions, orientations, and offer letter language. Better resource efficiency through sharing will result in a better allocation of start-up and ongoing research funds and more resilient research institutions. Furthermore, sharing resources can bring institutions and laboratories into compliance with existing national policies that are not typically enforced but could be, such as Code of Federal Regulations related to this topic [[21] in the United States. Finally, creating stronger shared laboratory resources improves recruitment and retention of world-class scientists due to the desirable resources available to them (shared equipment, services, and expertise through the managers/directors of shared resources). Breaking down organizational barriers and providing managed equipment and space resources to all researchers increases research capabilities and open the doors to additional grant opportunities while also reducing the amount of funding that must be requested in applications. This potentially leaves more money available nationally for others who are doing equally ground-breaking, exciting research, which in turn presents an opportunity to address the need for greater equity in the allocation of science funding. This is an important current topic in the United States related to the sustainability of science [[22-24]. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has recently put forth a new set of recommendations [[25] addressing improvements to better maximize all shared research resources, including the need for research institutions and funding bodies to support shared resources and those that manage them. Institutions could find ways to reward scientists and laboratories that are doing an excellent job of utilizing shared resources instead of duplicating what is already available. In the case of universities, research faculty can advise when portions of start-up package funding can be allocated for equipment that will be placed in shared facilities or cores so that those funding resources benefit the new faculty first and foremost but also benefit an entire community of scientists at an institution. Building this expectation into the language of start-up packages would help shift the culture toward more community assets. All of these actions normalize efficiency and change the institutional culture to one that can accomplish the same research for far less expended resources. Procurement of laboratory products is another area where scientists can advocate to make lasting policy changes that can affect resource use for years to come. Scientists can influence purchasing norms at their research institutions by writing emails, serving on committees, and advocating those that make policy decisions regarding laboratory-related procurement. For example, when an institution is going through the request for proposal (RFP) process with laboratory suppliers, scientists and procurement professionals can encourage language in the RFP that requires transparency for more efficient and sustainable product options. Scientists and procurement officers can ask whether distributors and suppliers have a ranking system for more sustainable products such as the ACT Label, which has ten measures by which equipment, chemicals, and laboratory supplies are assessed including energy and water use, packaging, product content, shipping impact, and product lifetime (see Box 1). For universities, if procurement departments are using standard contract language that has been prenegotiated, such as the services provided by E&I, they can request prenegotiated language that includes considerations for sustainability and climate change impacts. Similarly, procurement offices can work to eliminate hurdles, such as sole-source justification, for products that have the ACT Label, Energy Star or related certifications, or other third-party verified resource-efficiency claims. The University of Virginia has begun this process already, by including requests for the ACT Label in RFPs for research and development products. Ensuring that the most efficient equipment on the market can be easily purchased by an institution means that years of energy or water cost avoidance are possible, translating to lower carbon emissions and reduced embedded impact of the products from cradle to grave. To take that a step further, institutions or utility companies can incentivize the purchase of the most efficient equipment by providing rebates to scientists that are willing to purchase energy-efficient equipment. Ultimately, there is a need for organizations to create policy changes that give preferences to and eventually require purchasing more environmentally sustainable products. The Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council and Procurement ACTivists are already making strides in these areas, but there is much work still to be done. The final area of transformation proposed here is related to the funding of scientific research. An efficient laboratory and an efficient institution are able to do more with the financial resources provided (for both direct costs supporting scientists and overhead costs), benefitting taxpayers and the granting agencies as well. This practice on a large scale would allow more science to be funded nationally, whatever country you happen to reside in. The Bringing Efficiency to Research (BETR) Grants initiative is working to bring this issue to the fore in the United States and is encouraging scientists and research institutions to voluntarily include their actions for greater efficiency in science into their grant proposals as a starting point. Examples of this include (1) how scientists are being efficient with resources (energy, water, equipment, space, personnel), (2) whether they use shared research equipment at their institution, (3) if they participate in a homegrown or internationally recognized green laboratory standard, (4) participate in the International Laboratory Freezer Challenge, (5) share laboratory space with neighboring laboratories, or 6) provide sustainability training to research staff. Undoubtedly, granting agencies could have an enormous positive impact by advocating for greater efficiency in science, especially by making connections to the allocation of research funding. Ideas of how to do this include encouraging scientists to discuss laboratory sustainability efforts within grant proposals and modifying policies to enable laboratories to utilize remaining funding at the end of a grant in more sustainable ways rather than quickly spending allocated funds on items a laboratory may or may not need. Granting agencies could also require the topic of sustainability in research to be covered in ethics courses that are already obligatory for graduate students that are supported by certain funding agencies [[26]. Training the next generation of scientists in this way would have far-reaching impact. Action along these lines is already in progress in the United Kingdom. Earlier this year, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) announced its In the the of not funding research that to greater of environmental that we including climate change and plastic waste but also taking action that research, and operations its impact on the of the in the are to have environmental sustainability across all our by and to for our carbon by by that proposed by should be worldwide across the agencies and organizations that scientific research. Many for change in this can be implemented in ways to avoid Even making changes in systems and scientists can take action by using the existing tools available to lead by at their institutions. Scientists can share laboratory equipment and the efficiency of research operations within grant ask suppliers for more sustainable packaging, programs, and energy efficiency of their and make purchasing decisions with environmental impact in Furthermore, scientists can advocate for a green labs program at their institution and their institution to incentivize more sustainable chemicals, and equipment, including these requirements in These actions could free up research funding, that more science could be done with the same financial resources. in order to create widespread, lasting impact, individual actions must be with policy both a shift and to institutional policies and research funding we can that sustainable the rather than the with benefit to the planet and The to and Green for their and of this from the University of and also many working green labs programs, and the Energy the International Institute for Sustainable and in the have their to the collective of knowledge that up the laboratory sustainability

Topics & Concepts