Promises/Manual Labor Paradox: The Accountability Style of On-Site Validation in Microbiology Laboratory Automation

Abstract

This study investigates the role of validation reports in legitimizing laboratory automation through artificial intelligence and robotic systems in clinical microbiology. Based on a qualitative analysis of thirty reports authored by expert microbiologists between 2016 and 2023 across eight countries—Australia, Belgium, China, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—we examine how technological promises are made accountable. Building on Science and Technology Studies (STS) and the sociology of expectations, we approach these reports not as mere sources of “objective” information, but as instruments of accountability that link future-oriented promises with conventional laboratory practices—particularly manual labor. We argue that they embody a distinct accountability style, diverging from an ethics-driven approach often found in influential STS contributions. Automation promises—largely framed through managerial values—actualize their contractual character when articulated through metrics designed to assess satisfactory performance. Yet numerical results alone are insufficient to legitimize devices that mostly match the performance of manual labor. A paradox emerges: while manual labor serves as the gold standard against which automation is assessed, for automation to be validated, manual labor must be discursively problematized as an “entrenched habit”—a hindrance to addressing contemporary healthcare challenges. We argue this constitutes an essential feature of the validation accountability style.