This roundtable discussion was organized to stimulate some discussion about the status of core facilities and the people that work in these laboratories. Core facilities serve an essential function within the scientific community by providing state-of- the-art biotechnological services to researchers. However there is an impression among core laboratory personnel, whether real or perceived, that their status within the general scientific community is seemingly lower than it should be considering the enormous contributions that they make to the success of biological research projects. This perception had been discussed by ABRF members for some time and was recently addressed in an Open Letter in ABRF News (Vol. 6 (4) 2-3, December 1995). The huge success of ABRF has likely improved the status of core facilities and their staff, but there still exists the potential to bring even greater recognition to the services that they provide. This roundtable discussion was a directed step toward achieving this goal.
The discussion focused on defining ways in which the major problems facing core facility personnel may be addressed and solved. There were four key speakers, who each gave an overview of some of the problems they saw facing core laboratories and their personnel. These speakers were William Henzel (Genentech, Inc.), Mike Rohde (Amgen, Inc.), Ruth Hogue Angeletti (Albert Einstein College of Medicine), and Beth Fowler (AutoImmune, Inc.). The presentations were followed by discussion from the audience, which was moderated by Dan Marshak (Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.).
The first topic addressed during the panel presentation was increasing the collaborative interactions of core facility endeavors. Bill Henzel introduced the concept that core laboratories could either provide a service to end-users or establish collaborations with investigators. Whereas service might involve a specific analysis with payment of a fee, collaborations typically result in some form of scientific accomplishment such as a publication. It should be realized that not all services require the same amount of effort, and hence they will not all have the same reimbursement. These points provoked a lengthy discussion. Many felt that what a core facility provides at its most basic level is a service, and that sample preparation (e.g., peptide synthesis, DNA synthesis), sample analysis (e.g., amino acid analysis, protein sequencing), data reliability, and error analysis are all part of this service. It is carried out in a competitive market and provides the starting point for investigators to solve their unique problems. The service typically will require consultation. One means of gaining scientific recognition is to provide more than these straightforward analyses. As the scientific problem becomes complex, involving decisions about the requirement of further steps to continue the investigation and the interpretation of complex results, creativity will be required and the service crosses over into the realm of a collaboration. If a significant intellectual contribution is made, authorship on a scientific publication should result.
During the discussion it was suggested that the difference between service and collaboration might be considered in terms of how costs are reimbursed. Costs do need to be covered, and how that will happen should be defined at the outset. It may often be perceived that if fees are paid, the core laboratory personnel have provided a service and thus should not necessarily be included on a publication. However, some discussion participants felt that core facilities should be acknowledged regardless of how the costs were reimbursed, because publications help obtain grants to maintain the quality of services provided by the facility. By obtaining the best equipment, through either fee-for-use charges or grants, a core laboratory provides investigators that make use of their services with the ability to carry out state-of -the-art analyses, which in turn will enable those investigators to tackle increasingly more complex scientific and biological questions. This ultimately will assist these investigators in writing high quality manuscripts and in obtaining further grant support.
The second panelist, Mike Rohde, pointed out that the status of core laboratories may be improved when they gain respect within the scientific community. For this to happen the laboratory must view itself as offering collaborations. The leader of the facility should instill this philosophy in all personnel in the laboratory. No member of the laboratory is merely a button -pusher, and all personnel should think of themselves as part of the project being undertaken. Laboratory personnel must make time to discuss projects with their collaborators, providing an opportunity for the processes involved to be explained and for the strategies employed to be defined in a manner that will match the needs of the investigator. Thus the collaborators, even if they are located within the same company, may be educated so they understand what is involved in carrying out analyses within a core facility.
Collaborations should continuously be nurtured and maintained through two-way discussions where the results, as well as any problems and successes, can be explained. Communication should be on-going so that all the parties involved are well-informed of any progress, as well as problems, as they arise. Rather than simply returning a result sheet, one can maintain a continuous communication that will increase the interactive nature of the collaboration. In addition one should determine whether the initial actions generate new questions, allowing further development of the collaboration, or whether the results obtained actually end the collaboration. When a successful collaboration is completed, the expected outcome will typically be a publication. Core laboratory personnel should not be hesitant to make the point that their work entitles them to co -authorship if they have made a significant contribution to the study, and one way to do that is to offer to write part of the manuscript. One should also be prepared to end a collaboration if it is unsuccessful.
While the first two speakers primarily focused on developing the collaborative nature of core facility interactions with users, many of the audience felt that the emphasis should be placed on developing more appreciation for the contributions of core facility servicesthose rather routine but technologically sophisticated analyses and syntheses that are reimbursed through fees. This topic of developing and promoting the value of core facility services was introduced by Ruth Hogue-Angeletti. Ruth pointed out that there will generally be a fee, imposed by administrators, which may represent a large or small part of the costs incurred for carrying out analyses. This fee structure may interfere with the interactions between the core laboratory and the investigator because investigators may think it entitles them to more services than are actually covered by the fee. This can interfere with the trust between the core laboratory and the investigator and can lead investigators to think of the core laboratory personnel as their technicians, regardless of their academic rank. These investigators need to be made aware that the services provided by the core laboratory represent research in themselves and that the technology provided represents state-of-the art strategies in today's scientific world.
The technologies used by core laboratories, and their biological applications, are advancing at a rapid pace, which experimental biology laboratories are unlikely to be aware of in many instances. It is the responsibility of the core laboratory to point out how this technology may be linked with experimental biology and to explain how the work performed will benefit the research projects at hand. The goals of the core facility should be articulated to the investigator, and a common ground may be defined where all parties will benefit from the interactions established.
It is most important that the user community become aware of how the core facility can benefit them, and this education may be achieved in a number of ways. Creative approaches should be introduced that fit the local environment. Mini-symposia may be organized consisting of seminars related to the technology offered by the core laboratory. The value of the core laboratory will be significantly enhanced if talks by satisfied, productive users are included in the schedule. Workshops about new techniques could be given, either as a lecture series or as a laboratory training program with handouts, sample data, and references. Small groups could be brought into the laboratory to view the latest equipment and learn what it can do. Core laboratory personnel should attend internal seminars so they can become aware of the current research environment and determine whether their technologies could benefit the projects presented. If future interactions seem likely informal conversations may be initiated, outlining what the core laboratory can offer. Pilot projects could be established with investigator laboratories, even without fees if appropriate. One very important means of gaining respect for the laboratory is through execution of a successful, well-designed series of experiments that the investigator will subsequently discuss with colleagues. By providing an excellent service the core laboratory may develop "missionaries", who will believe in its value and promote its services to other potential users.
Further ways in which core laboratories could make users aware of their value were brought up during the discussion. It was pointed out that the core laboratory personnel need to maintain a positive self-image. They must believe that the service they provide is excellent and that what they are doing is important. They should establish their credibility and take pride in the fact that they do provide an important function that investigators need because they themselves lack the technological resources or expertise to perform the work that the core laboratory provides. Core laboratory personnel should not diminish their achievements but rather promote them and be confident. Even if authorship does not result from all interactions, a list of projects that the laboratory has contributed to can be maintained and used as necessary. The focus should be on high-quality work. High standards should be maintained, and the researcher's interests should be borne in mind so that the specific biological questions under consideration may be answered. The core laboratory should also maintain an ability to change as the science, technology, and needs of their community change, thus maintaining a state-of-the-art facility.
It was also suggested that core laboratories could make users aware of their value by pointing out that their services are not routine and that every sample tackled may present unique problems. They can explain to the investigator how much time will be spent on each sample and include a space on the results sheet for the number of hours spent on each project. They should also sit down with the investigator and review the protocols used, as well as the strategies one can take, the results obtained, and any further experiments that might be suggested. If the project is about to expand into a major time commitment, this should be explained to the investigator.
Beth Fowler pointed out that personal interactions are crucial in setting the tone that core facility contributions are essential parts of the entire research project. The task of making a core facility valuable to those around it is facilitated by understanding the culture of the institution and determining the style that suits the individual. Core facility directors should clearly articulate their vision of the facility's role in the institution and inspire all personnel working in the facility to share that vision and work towards achieving it. That vision should be communicated to colleagues to develop supporters outside the facility, who will help achieve it. Steps may be taken to improve relationships with those that are unappreciative of the services provided. Negotiating skills may be applied when interacting with end-users, and these should result in positive attitudes and good feelings. One should find something good to recognize in all interactions and should publicize the achievements of the facility and its personnel.
There are ways in which the Association can assist in improving the overall status of core facilities within the general scientific community. ABRF can publicize the contributions of core laboratories through internal publications and recognition, external publications, and external recognition of achievements through awards. Resources that ABRF could provide include syllabi and materials for biotechnology courses, which could be used by core laboratories for education purposes. References on current technologies, training on negotiating skills, and symposia on management techniques could also be provided. In addition, ABRF provides a strong network for core laboratory personnel. This forum allows for exchange of methods, dissemination of new techniques, establishment of professional interactions, and promotion of the value of services provided by its members.
Finally it was suggested that the World Wide Web could be a valuable resource for improving the status of core laboratories. The ABRF WWW Homepage could be linked to individual facility homepages, enabling investigators that use core facilities to become aware of how extensively the services offered by core laboratories are used and also how widespread they are. This would be an ideal forum to outline the missions, goals, and expectations of core laboratories and could serve as a starting point for education of investigators as well as core laboratory personnel.
Overall this roundtable initiated a great deal of discussion among the ABRF membership about how core laboratories could improve their status. As a result, two letters appear in this issue of ABRF News entitled "Avoiding Misperceptions through Language" and "Excellence and Success: Critical Elements for Improving the Status of Core Laboratories" (see pp. 4-5). These letters present some immediate, practical steps that core laboratory personnel can take to convey the value of their contributions to the biomedical research community. They represent the first in a series of actions that the ABRF and its members can take to elevate the status of core laboratories to the high level they deserve.
The author may be contacted at ZymoGenetics, Inc., 1201 Eastlake Ave. East, Seattle, WA 98102.
Return to the The ABRF Home Page