What I saw instead were people spending the vast majority of their time pipetting. All the way up the ladder, upto and including postdocs. I sometimes thought our PI had it worse for having to spend most of her time applying for grants.

The AWSification of synbio research would be a game changer. Some labs at Hopkins have tried to build robots but with limited success. Given how cheap labor is at research institutions competing on price will be incredibly difficult.

(I don't work there or anything)

These are extremely dependent on the question being studied and often are not amenable to automation, and may require very rare, expensive, and difficult-to-handle samples. For example, my collaborators work with transgenic mice that are a model for a particular disease, and these mice have to be bred then aged to 12 weeks until they exhibit the phenotype before we can even start doing an experiment. In another model, they have to do brain surgery on each mouse and then wait several weeks for the phenotype.

The 'easy' parts, such as DNA synthesis and sequencing, are already highly standardized and automated, and there is fierce competition to improve the technology and bring costs down.

Any worthwhile work I have ever done has mostly been about grunt work. Along the way there have been cool things (after all Leno made fun of our research [1] once) and insanely fun times. I may not be in research now, but every day I apply the lessons learned from patiently repeating and iterating.

1. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=723226...

It's a difficult problem to solve, because these pesky researchers are always trying out new things that you didn't anticipate - who would've thought! But still, for the mundane things that can be automated, something like this is definitely the way to go. Of course, as other people here point out, figuring out what to actually test is always the hardest part.

I believe they call themselves more of the Github of Science for scientific collaboration. Adding hooks to 'push' the tasks and 'checkout' the findings could be maybe extensible on their platform.

There is a great deal we do not know about cellular biology. Any simulation would be a fairly gross approximation. The point of many experiments is to further our understanding of the model of cellular mechanics.

I think there's also been a lot of independent academic attempts at this (see: http://klavinslab.org/ which is CS/BioE at UWash), but all kind of waded around in the shallow water.

The reason why I think this is compelling because I think almost every synthetic biologist has an existing workflow. It's basically design using some sort of CAD software, order from IDT, receive materials next day, run test by hand, ship to Genewiz for sequencing, etc. That's just one example of a workflow involving 4-5 specialized 'steps'. As the steps get cheaper/faster/better, consolidating and automating this is just a no brainer.

However, a service like Transcriptic may make sense if (a) you're in a company (no free undergrad labor, though summer interns may be a suitable alternative) or (b) you don't already have the equipment and just want to do a one-off collection of a large amount of data. Also, maybe prices will significantly drop as Transcriptic scales up and streamlines their operations. I'll definitely be checking back in the coming years to see if they ever reach the point where it makes sense to use their services.

If anyone in this thread thinks this is an interesting topic I'm easy to reach at max@transcriptic.com.