[mmt]

> Sadly, really only useful for wet labs.

I'm not an insider on the terminology, but it seems a "wet lab" is what a lay person, like myself, thinks of when we hear "a lab" (in the physical sciences context).

What's the "dry" (or is the term of art different?) lab situation you wish it would be useful for?

There could be a different startup opportunity, if it's scalably computer-heavy [1]. I'm aware of computer-controlled instruments for wet labs being a very underserved market (and presumably with high margins for the computer portion), but that seems like a consulting/services/labor-intensive business.

[1] Around HN, that usually means software, but my background is Ops, so I actually consider commodity hardware quite scalable, too, despite the hardware-is-a-nightmare-we-have-to-do-cloud mythology.

[Fomite]

Yeah, "wet lab" is what most people thing of as a "lab". Some fields (lots of the biology and biology-adjacent ones) use "lab" as a logical unit of organization. So Professor So-and-So and their graduate students, postdocs, etc. is "The So-and-So Lab".

"Wet lab" is useful to distinguish people with actual labs vs. my lab, which is just a bunch of people with laptops.

The situation I'm dreaming of, is, for example, it not being my problem when a grad student is having trouble getting software installed on the server. That would be something I'd love a lab manager or dedicated programmer to deal with, but for a small lab, I don't have nearly that level of funding.

[mmt]

> my lab, which is just a bunch of people with laptops.

OK, so it's something akin to Wikipedia's description of "dry lab".

> The situation I'm dreaming of, is, for example, it not being my problem when a grad student is having trouble getting software installed on the server. That would be something I'd love a lab manager or dedicated programmer to deal with

This sounds very much like IT/Helpdesk support, of the kind a programmer or a lab manager typically wouldn't want (and might not be qualified) to deal with, either.

Is there something unique to your lab environment that you couldn't use some kind of shared/general IT helpdesk service, perhaps focused on scientific software users?

If not, there may well be an unmet need that a startup could fill, especially if everyone in each lab needs identical support and they can combine it with some kind of cloud-based service with basics pre-installed. However, if you're looking for unlimited, individualized user support for a limited, flat fee, that's not sustainable.

> I don't have nearly that level of funding

For a service provider, the question then becomes, do you have enough funding for the amount of service you'd require (plus the provider's overhead/profit), even if it's not nearly enough for a full-time person (which can be remarkably expensive in popular tech hubs)?

Reasonable IT support to user ratios are somewhere in the 1:20-1:100 range, which is the same range (for a 3-person lab) as HappiLab's pricing.

[Fomite]

"This sounds very much like IT/Helpdesk support, of the kind a programmer or a lab manager typically wouldn't want (and might not be qualified) to deal with, either." - Not if they were hired with that qualification in mind.

"Is there something unique to your lab environment that you couldn't use some kind of shared/general IT helpdesk service, perhaps focused on scientific software users?" - It's more there are parts of HappiLab that I could see using (managing grant budgets, which was...an unpleasant part of my week last week), etc. but my pain points are slightly different from those of a wet lab, but still within the realm of "I'd prefer someone familiar with academia and research rather than a general purpose group."

[mmt]

> Not if they were hired with that qualification in mind.

That's a big "if". That's why I said "typically". I think you'd find it difficult, if not impossible, to hire someone like that, even though they exist.

This is a conceit I often see in job postings, of listing skills that belong to two (or more!) different specialties. It seems more common in cases where the goal seems to be to have two specialists for the price of one [1].

> "I'd prefer someone familiar with academia and research rather than a general purpose group."

I'm pretty sure "prefer" rather than "urgently need" isn't compelling enough to give a startup a enough of a competitive advantage. There's also not much (if any) synergy with any of the rest of HappiLab's core competencies to make sense as an addon for them.

IT services could be just another vendor HappiLab handles.

[1] Uncharitably, two full-time experts for one salary, but, charitably, merely two half-time experts in one person, which seems likely for startups and other cash-strapped groups.

[Fomite]

"I'm pretty sure "prefer" rather than "urgently need" isn't compelling enough to give a startup a enough of a competitive advantage. There's also not much (if any) synergy with any of the rest of HappiLab's core competencies to make sense as an addon for them.

IT services could be just another vendor HappiLab handles."

Potentially. I think one of the things that will become more important - and will synergize - is the number of wet/dry labs. There are an awful lot of new computational servers being bought by non-tech savvy PIs.

[mmt]

> bought by non-tech savvy PIs.

I'd hope that's not just viewed as an opportunity exploit information assymetry by tech/IT services firms.

I do believe, however, that scientific computing needs are similar enough to general computing needs that this won't be widespread (or at least not for long). It would also mean that it would make sense for a lab services provider to offer generic IT except as a pass-through for convenience (subject to cost-saving disintermediation).

IOW, I doubt you're that special, but that's a good thing!