created: 14th January 1998, last updated: 14th January 1998, © 1998 ABRF
Representatives from all ABRF Research Committees, ABRF News, and the Executive Board met in St. Louis, October 18-19, 1997. Attendees included Scottie Adams, Tom Andersen, Ruth Angeletti, Duane Bartley, Lynda Bonewald, Martha Gunthorpe, Gary Hathaway, Bill Henzel, Alan Mahrenholz, Clayton Naeve, Ron Niece, Nadine Ritter, Dave Speicher, and Reid Townsend. The meeting was graciously hosted by Reid and Elizabeth (Hilliker) Townsend at their home, providing an informal atmosphere conducive to frank and open discussion. The purpose of the session was to consider issues pertinent to research committee activities including overlap of studies, potential for coordinated studies, reduction in committee numbers, and new directions.
The work of the research committees has gained the ABRF much of its current respect and recognition, and has provided data essential both for assessing emerging technologies and for evaluating and validating existing technologies. The goal of the meetings was to assess our research committee issues while in a position of strength, so that this work can continue at the same high level, or higher, meeting both present and future needs of our members.
Questions addressing the future of ABRF were sent to all participants, as well as to senior ABRF members from both large and small resource laboratories:
The importance of the leadership role of the research committees in planning and defining studies was emphasized. This is particularly important for emerging technologies. The difficulties of overlapping efforts of research committees and responsiveness to new technologies was discussed. However, a strong case was made for continuing assessment of mature technologies because of the great value of past ABRF studies for biotechnology in methods validation and in presentation of documentation for FDA approval. Samples for methods validation or testing one's individual performance in the laboratory continue to be extremely useful.
Proposals
Bill Henzel proposed that we consolidate the protein chemistry committees into one Protein Analysis Research Committee, which could accommodate both problems-oriented and technology assessment studies. Such a committee would have all of the varieties of expertise needed in protein analysis. He suggested that this made sense in terms of the way many core labs work.
Reid Townsend suggested that a way of coordinating committees would be to perform collaborative studies. His proposal of a joint study on the Genzyme glycoprotein sample could be a model. This study would require a multi-year effort, and each committee could focus on its own special technologies.
Dave Speicher suggested that existing committees define their mission and scope more narrowly. Committees that deal with mature technologies might be phased out.
Gary Hathaway presented a detailed proposal of reorganization of the committee structure which would establish committees in areas of expertise capable of adjusting to the technological needs of our membership. The proposed organization would have the following structure:
Chemistry Research Groups:
General Committees:
Nadine Ritter again raised the question of how to address the rugged technologies, which are still needed as method and instrument validation standards for research laboratories, as well as for laboratories or individuals wishing to evaluate their own work. This work is important for improving quality practices in laboratories and using test data to establish expectations and system suitability. An ambitious proposal for an enhanced role for the Quality and Compliance Committee was put forward. The QCC and the other research committees will assess the current and past samples from research committees for their potential use as validation standards. It was proposed that the QCC will work with the research committees to develop validation standards for each of these needs. It was suggested that the QCC work together with the peptide synthesis committee as a start in this area. Such validation standards could be rigorously evaluated by members of the QCC for reproducibility and stability. Such standards could be prepared and made available with documentation, perhaps by license to a company.
Lynda Bonewald articulated what the ABRF membership needs from its research committees: 1) quality issues (Did we make the right product, or analyze correctly?), 2) problem solving approaches, and 3) new technologies.
These proposals will be reviewed by the executive board and the board will prepare a plan incorporating as many as possible of the elements of each, providing a flexible and durable mechanism for addressing current and future technological needs of ABRF members.
New Technologies
Many suggestions for current and emerging technologies that need to be addressed were suggested by participants and by respondents to the questionnaire. These generally fell into three categories: sample handling and preparative methods; bioinformatics; macromolecular interactions. Some topics might link protein and nucleic acid chemistries. ABRF has, and should have, several mechanisms for lowering barriers for entry into new technologies, such as workshops/tutorials at the annual meeting and articles in the ABRF News. Many of the above technologies have already been addressed at ABRF '96, ABRF '97, and in the newsletter, and thus are ready for development in research studies. Some technologies that need to be addressed might not be fully performed by facility staff scientists, who instead might maintain and teach the technology.
Language Issues
Lynda Bonewald noted that the term committee has a bad connotation, and proposed that research committees instead be called research groups. This proposal was approved by all.
Strong support for a name change in the organization was suggested to remove the sometimes pejorative word "facilities". Use of the term laboratory would be more inclusive for labs that do not consider themselves core facilities, encouraging them to join the ABRF. Clayton Naeve later suggested the term Advanced Biotechnology Association to reflect the mission of the ABRF and to avoid deterring non-laboratory biotechnology membership, such as bioinformatics. The Executive Board was urged to have a bylaws vote as soon as possible.
The planning session was extremely useful and productive and clearly provided research committee representatives an invaluable opportunity to interact, to propose solutions to existing shortcomings, and to develop ideas for new directions.
Return to the ABRF Home Page