Development and transfer of automated methods in neuroscience: The DADTA

In the second half of the 20th century, neuroscientists across North America developed automated systems for use in their research laboratories. Their decisions to do so were complex and contingent, partly a result of global reasons, such as the need to increase efficiency and flexibility, and partly a result of local reasons, such as the need to amend perceived biases of earlier research methodologies. Automated methods were advancements but raised several challenges. Transferring a system from one location to another required that certain components of the system be standardized, such as the hardware, software, and programming language. This proved difficult as commercial manufacturers lacked incentives to create standardized products for the few neuroscientists working towards automation. Additionally, investing in automated systems required massive amounts of time, labor, funding, and computer expertise. Moreover, neuroscientists did not agree on the value of automation. My brief history investigates Karl Pribram's decisions to expand his newly created automated system by standardizing equipment, programming, and protocols. Although he was an eminent Stanford neuroscientist with strong institutional support and computer know-how, the development and transfer of his automated behavioral testing system was riddled with challenges. For Pribram and neuroscience more generally, automation was not so automatic.