an introduction to the association of biomolecular

An Introduction to the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) and

Recent Results of a Laboratory Funding Survey

Jack Simpson, Ph.D.member, Executive Board, ABRF

Sr. Scientist, Advanced Technology Program, Protein Chemistry LaboratorySAIC-Frederick, National Cancer Institute at Frederick

Frederick, MD

Waters Core Facilities Technology SummitOctober 27-28, 2009 - Columbia, MD

www.abrf.org

What is the ABRF?


www.abrf.org

The ABRF is a unique membership association comprised of ~800 scientists working in core and research biotechnology laboratories.

Our members represent over 140 international core laboratories in government, academia, research, industry and commercial settings, and are involved in a broad spectrum of biomolecular technologies.

The ABRF promotes the education and career advancement of scientists through conferences, a quarterly journal, publication of ABRF Research Group studies, and conference travel awards.

The ABRF Research Group studies are sponsored annually to help researchers assess and incorporate new biotechnologies into their laboratories, and are world-renown for their practical and educational benefit.


www.abrf.org

The ABRF Research Groups

Proteomics Standards

Protein Expression

Light Microscopy

Proteomics Informatics

Nucleic AcidsGlycoproteins

ProteomicsMolecular Interactions

Genomic Variation

Protein Sequencing

MicroArrayDNA Sequencing

Metrics across a broad spectrum of biomolecular technologies

Metabolomics


www.abrf.org

ABRF RG’s – Publications and Presentations

Proteomics in Mixtures: Study Results of ABRF-PRG02, D. P. Arnott,M. Gawinowicz, R. A. Grant, W. S. Lane,L. C. Packman, K. Speicher, and K. Stoneg, J. Biomolecular Tech., Vol. 13, 2002.

Nucleic Acids RG 2009 study: Priming strategies for cDNA Synthesis.

MicroArray RG 2009 Study Poster - microRNA Profiling.

Protein Sequencing RG 2009 Study: Comparing Edman and Mass Spectrometry Techniques for N-terminal Sequencing

ABRF – Education Email Discussion Forum – “There are no stupid questions”.

Free and open to all.

Journal of Biomolecular Techniques

ABRF 2010 – Mar. 20-23, 2010 Sacramento, CA

Pre-meeting Courses:

Introduction to Proteomics (includes lab) Proteome Bioinformatics NextGen DNA Sequencing Effective Core Management


www.abrf.org

2007 Survey on Core Lab Funding


www.abrf.org

Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities Survey: Service Laboratory Funding, Ogorzalek Loo R, Nicolet CM, Niece RL, Young M, Simpson JT.; J Biomol Tech. 2009 Jul;20(3):180-5., PMID: 19568457

Abstact: In 2007, The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) Survey Committee surveyed the ABRF membership and scientists at-large concerning the current state of funding in service-oriented laboratories. Questions pertained to services offered, cost recovery, capital equipment funding, and future outlook. The web-based survey, available for 3 weeks, achieved participation from 209 respondents in 13 countries, 77% of which represented academic laboratories. Most respondents (75%) directed their laboratories. Laboratories depend largely on institutional support and customer recharges to fund operations, but National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation Shared Instrumentation Grant programs are considered critical to meeting future needs. Source allocations supporting capital equipment acquisitions, operations, and laboratory director salary are presented.

Data first presented at ABRF 2008 Meeting, February 9-12, Salt Lake City, Utah

2007 Survey on Core Lab Funding – Who?


www.abrf.org

Member of ABRF?

Q #1, total responses: 208

Type of institution


Role of respondent in facility


How long has your facility existed?


Where Does Lab Funding Come From?


www.abrf.org

196 Responses

Full Inst.5% Inst., Recharge & Grants

38%

Inst. Support & User Recharge28%

User Recharge13%

Other2%

User Recharge & Grants14%

Where Does Lab Funding Come From?


www.abrf.orgA

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded

Support from Institution

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded


0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 1411 21 41 61 81 101 121 141

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded


0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 145

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded

Support from Recharge

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 145

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded


0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 145

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded


0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 145

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 1450

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 25 49 73 97 121 1451 25 49 73 97 121 145

Response

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded


B

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141

Support from Program Grants

Perc

ent P

rovi

ded C

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141


Perc

ent P

rovi

ded

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141


Perc

ent P

rovi

ded

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 1411 21 41 61 81 101 121 141


Perc

ent P

rovi

ded C

Response

Capital Equipment Funding Mechanisms


www.abrf.org%

Res

pond

ents

util

izin

g so

urce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

InstituteGrant

SIG State

State EarFed Ear

Donor

EndowedRecruit

DepreciateFees

Other

Capital Equipment Funding


www.abrf.org

0% - Easy 4% - Extremely Difficult

49% - Can be done withproper justification

47% - Difficult

158 Responses

Some Comments


www.abrf.org

Our institution has a good record of supporting instrumentation purchases for resource facilities, but a woeful record in providing/maintaining personnel support (salaries).

We would not exist outside of a strong "subsidy" from the research program of the director, through which equipment maintenance and upgrading is possible.

I have always hoped that someday NIH or NSF would provide a grant structure that would separately fund core facilities for costs other than instruments. It would be a better research investment then any R01 I've read in the last 10 years.

Charge back is a real pain in the neck - more useful factor is the number of users. This has helped justify institutional funding for capital equipment. And of course, that people are satisfied and publishing papers because of the core lab.

The dependence on NIH/NSF shared instrumentation programs is far too high for academic institutions. Not many universities have viable plans for long-term support of service labs.

NIH shared instrumentation grants are absolutely indispensable. Other NIH funding also.

Lab Management


www.abrf.org

A Framework for Managing Core Facilities within the Research Enterprise, Haley, R., J. Biomolecular Tech., 2009, vol 20, 226-230.

Research Technologies: Fulfilling the Promise, Angeletti, R.H., Bonewald, L.F., de Jongh, K., Niece, R., Rush, J. and Stults, J., FASEB J., 1999, vol 13, 595-601

Workshops and Conferences: ABRF and ALMA (Association of Laboratory Managers, www.labmanagers.org )

Lab Management


www.abrf.org

J. Biomolecular Tech., 2009, vol 20, 226-230.

Lab Management


www.abrf.org

Area 1: Visibility and Vision visibility of available core facilities availability of core research facilities (especially for junior and new faculty members) facility access rules, policies, and processes institutional commitment to core facilities (and how this is demonstrated and communicated to faculty members and other stakeholders) presence and role of core facilities in research strategic plans (at unit and institutional levels) understanding of “Who pays for what?” processes and pathways for creating new core research facilities based on faculty needs philosophy and culture for sharing research equipment and technologies at institutional and unit/discipline levels (e.g., differences between biological sciences disciplines and engineering disciplines and how these differences can be mitigated when researchers come together for collaborative, interdisciplinary research)


Lab Management


www.abrf.org


One approach to mapping biomolecular core facilities. Schematic relationship between required core facility subsidy and characteristics of facilities and provided services.

Research Technologies: Fulfilling the Promise – Some Conclusions


www.abrf.org

Core laboratories with new equipment but without long range plans for instrumentation upgrades, staff training, and financial support are fated to become obsolete in only a few years.

High fees are a disincentive to good science and sidetrack scientific opportunities.

Core facilities are specialized research laboratories with staff scientists who contribute to research programs and whose careers must be nurtured.

Successful resource laboratories require a variety of scientists with specialized expertise, communication skills, a lifelong interest in learning, and the ability to share.

FASEB J., 1999, vol 13, 595-601

Thanks and Acknowledgements


www.abrf.org

Waters Corporation

ABRF - Kathryn Lilley, Michelle Detwiler

SAIC - Frederick

an introduction to the association of biomolecular

Documents