In June 1996 the Executive Board appointed a task force to explore how the ABRF can become more active in further promoting the status of biomolecular resource laboratories (see ABRF News 7(2), page 17, June 1996). The mission of this task force was to make specific recommendations and propose actions that the ABRF could take to maintain and further improve the status of resource laboratories and their staffs. The establishment of this task force arose in part from the discussion generated during the workshop on the status of core laboratories and their personnel held at ABRF '96. A summary of this workshop, as well as two letters addressing this topic, appeared in ABRF News 7(2), June 1996.
The task force divided its work into three phases that involved: 1) generating ideas and developing them sufficiently so they could be reasonably well described and defined; 2) soliciting input on these ideas from a small, cross-section of members and 3) prioritizing the ideas and presenting them to the Executive Board in sufficient detail to enable their appraisal. The idea gathering phase of the work was facilitated by discussions that had occurred during the ABRF '96 Status Workshop and that transpired on the ABRF Electronic Mailing List. Other ideas came from the members of the task force and from their informal discussions with others. A similar mechanism, as well as a more formal survey of several ABRF members led to an initial prioritization of these ideas as well as to significant, additional input regarding the ideas themselves. The consensus that arose was that almost all of the ideas had merit and that rather than an obvious "break point", there was a continuum in terms of their relative merit. From this data and discussions within the taskforce arose a "final report" that was presented to the Executive Board at the end of January 1997. Although only a few months have passed since submission of this report, the task force is delighted to report that several of its most highly ranked ideas, which are briefly described below, are already well on their way towards implementation.
Establish Authorship Guidelines. The Executive Board has formed a subcommittee, chaired by Reid Townsend, whose charge is to prepare reasonably concise guidelines for differentiating core laboratory contributions that constitute a collaborative effort (with joint authorship) versus an acknowledgment. The importance of this suggestion derives from the observation that publication is still regarded as one of the highest forms of professional recognition.
Highlight New Services. The Executive Board has asked the Editor of the ABRF News and will ask the organizers of future ABRF meetings to give high priority to highlighting new or non-traditional services that are either not normally found in core laboratories or that represent evolving technologies that might be suitable for inclusion in resource laboratories. This initiative may help to further diversify core lab services, extend core laboratories into areas that are now usually associated with "research" as opposed to services, and may help core laboratories deal with the ever changing technologies upon which they depend.
Biotechniques Course Modules. The Executive Board found this idea to have considerable merit and is working towards implementing it through a task force chaired by Nancy Denslow. Basically, the suggestion is that individual biotechniques course modules (including slides and handouts) be assembled for individual use by ABRF members for seminars and lectures. The purpose of this initiative would be to make it easier for core laboratory staff to become involved in teaching (an activity associated with "traditional" tenuretrack faculty) and to give core laboratory staff increased opportunity to educate tomorrow's users regarding the value of core laboratories and their capabilities.
Management/Negotiation Training. The rationale for this idea, which is already being implemented by the Executive Board, is to better equip core laboratory staff to project a more positive image through training in management techniques and negotiating skills with training provided through publications in the ABRF News, the electronic bulletin board and/or web site as well as workshops at ABRF meetings.
Document Core Lab Achievements. As pointed out by the Executive Board, this item can be interpreted at several levels, with the manuscript that has been submitted to the Encyclopedia of Bioprocess Technology, which chronicles ABRF history and research; the profile on the ABRF that will appear in Analytical Chemistry; and the review chapter for Methods in Enzymology that is being prepared that summarizes the work of the Peptide Synthesis Research Committee all helping attain this goal. The Executive Board also responded that there may be multiple audiences for documents on core lab achievements: users, scientific staff of resource laboratories, administrators, public policy forums, publicity, editorial commentaries and that this item will be considered further by the Executive Board in the future.
Training in Preparing Grant Applications. The idea here is to help core labs become more competitive in terms of attracting instrumentation (and other types of) grants by publishing deadlines, instructions and offering courses on preparing successful applications. This item has already been referred by the Executive Board to both the ABRF News editor and to current and future meeting organizers.
One or More "ABRF" Talks at All ABRF Sponsored Symposia. The Task Force recommended that ABRF should take better advantage of the opportunities it already has for improving the perception of core laboratories among the scientific community. One of the best means to accomplish this is to simply ensure that every ABRF sponsored symposium at every nonABRF meeting include at least one "ABRF" speaker. This speaker would directly stress either the contribution of core laboratory syntheses and analyses to biochemical and biomedical research or would utilize ABRF Research Committee data to help establish more realistic expectations for core laboratories. This item was very well received by the Executive Board and this request has been forwarded to future symposia organizers.
Improve Productivity of Core Laboratories. The Executive Board has asked the Editor of the ABRF News to solicit articles from ABRF Research Committees that are directed at improving the productivity and quality of individual services. These articles might stress realistic means for decreasing costs and or other ways of improving the service such that the user base could be stabilized or expanded.
Extend Voting to Associate Members. The Executive Board concurred with the sentiments of the Status Task Force and progress is being made on this issue. Beth Fowler has convened a subcommittee with the mission of making recommendations about changes in voting membership. Their recommendations are now being edited and will be presented to the Executive Board. The Executive Board hopes that a ballot on an appropriate by-laws change can be sent to the membership in the near future.
Journal Editorials. Increase the level of external appreciation of core laboratories by submitting letters to major journals and by asking Editors of some of these journals to write similar letters that highlight the importance and contribution of core facilities and that help to establish realistic expectations for their capabilities. Copies of these letters and editorials could then be distributed to chancellors, heads of funding agencies, presidents, etc. A related suggestion is to establish more active communications with FASEB and the ASBMB, especially with their Educational Affairs Committee. As indicated in an accompanying article, the ABRF has already made much progress in establishing closer ties with FASEB. In addition, the Executive Board is exploring ways in which to proceed with regard to other mechanisms of increasing the level of external appreciation of core laboratories.
The Status Task Force was co-chaired by Gary Hathaway and Ken Williams and included Karen DeJongh, Sheenah Mische, Al Smith and Kristine Swiderek - all of whom felt privileged to have been given the opportunity to help identify realistic approaches to maintaining and further improving the status of core laboratories and their staffs.
Return to the The ABRF Home Page