Created: 1st September 1999, last updated: 12th November 1999, © 1999 ABRF
Association Management
On June 8, 1999, the final consensus by the Executive Board for ideal management of the ABRF was (1) to have Professional Association Management (PAM) perform the routine management such as finances, membership, and secretarial services under the direction of Jennifer Watson, (2) to have FASEB continue to manage ABRF meetings under the direction of Marcella Jackson and Jean Lash, and (3) to have Ida Chow act as a Scientific Advisor. Ida Chow is a scientist who works closely with FASEB concerning scientific and funding issues and is the Executive Director of two societies. She will be responsible for keeping up with and offering advice on science policy, funding issues, advertising and assistance for our journal, and preparing grant proposals. Karen DeJongh, our treasurer, is already working closely with Jennifer Watson of PAM to transfer and establish financial services. Membership should be transferred by September 1, 1999 and secretarial services by October 1, 1999. Please be looking for a new ABRF business office mail and email address in the near future. Ida Chow will serve initially on the newly created Scientific Policy Committee and the new Publications Committee. Ruth Angeletti will chair the Science Policy Committee which will also include our scientific representatives to FASEB, Tom Andersen and Dave Speicher, and one other member yet to be determined. Members for the Publications Committee, in addition to Clayton Naeve, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Biomolecular Techniques, are presently being recruited. The members of these two committees will be responsible for composing a list of services needed from Ida Chow.
ABRF2000
Plans are well underway for "ABRF2000: From Singular to Global Analyses of Biological Systems." All ABRF members should have received the announcement for the "Call for Papers." Ruedi Aebersold and Ulf Landegren are recruiting speakers and putting together an outstanding scientific session. The 3-day meeting will be held in the Meydenbauer Center, Bellevue/Seattle, Washington, from February 20 through February 22, 2000. As our first pre-meeting course was such a success at ABRF '99, both a Bioinformatics course and a Management course will be offered for ABRF2000. The 1-day Bioinformatics course will be headed by David Landsman and Ruedi Aebersold. Ron Niece has been responsible for setting up the 2-day Management course to be taught by Claude Lucchesi. As registration is limited to 100 persons for the Bioinformatics course and 30 persons for the Management course (and the previous course was overbooked), it is suggested you make your reservations early.
Associated Meetings
Our associated meeting with the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, held in May 1999, was lead by Ron Niece and addressed Pan American Resource Facilities. Ron Niece gave a short report on the ASBMB meeting and described it as "phenomenal." The meeting was attended by outstanding researchers from Brazil. The concept of the "collaboratory" was also presented at this meeting. A collaboratory may be the next level up from core facilities in which communication is facilitated by video and audio connections, data is reviewed and maintained in an "electronic notebook," and even instrumentation can be operated by long distance. A workshop was presented by the Peptide Synthesis Research Group on the "Analysis of Synthetic Peptides" at the American Peptide Symposium in Minneapolis in June 1999. The workshop, led by Ashok Khatri, the chair of this research group, was well attended.
"Executive Board Review" Versus "Peer Review"
A question arose concerning the difference between Executive Board and peer review of articles. The Executive Board reviews all articles written by ABRF members on ABRF studies before submission for publication and should not be considered peer review. Concerning Web site posters, the following decisions were made by the Executive Board: (1) a Web site poster must be reviewed by the Executive Board before it goes on the Web; (2) the Web site poster cannot be referred to as a peer-reviewed article and therefore cannot be cited; (3) the Web site can be posted in PowerPoint with Excel spreadsheets, electronically linked to the Executive Board before going to the membership; (4) it is suggested that the posters go on the Web within 1 month of the annual meeting; and (5) every effort should be made to turn the Web site poster into a peer-reviewed article (preferably for the Journal of Biomolecular Techniques) in a timely manner.
Innovations Task Force
The present Executive Board reviewed a report of the Innovations Task Force which came to the Board in January 1997. It was determined that many of the suggestions made in this report have become reality, some are presently being instituted, and that some will require additional effort and perhaps new developments. Many of the issues and suggestions of this report have been addressed and instituted, such as tutorials, workshops, and courses. Some issues are in a transition state, such as restricted use of the bulletin board. Although several members of the Executive Board were against restricted use of the bulletin board at the time the document was written, all are now in favor of a free 3-month trial before allowing only password access to members. The ideal software does not exist at this time for instituting this suggestion, but may it be by the time PAM becomes the ABRF association manager. PAM will assist in monitoring membership use of the bulletin board. Other suggestions of the Innovations Task Force included providing services such as training courses, videos, and CD-ROMs. This is a major undertaking that would require enthusiastic ABRF members and corporate support. A survey through the bulletin board will be instituted first to determine membership needs. This idea could potentially become reality within the next 1 to 2 years if the right individuals and needs of the membership are identified.
Biannual Executive Board Meeting
The Executive Board will meet in San Francisco on October 16 and 17, 1999, for the first time with our new association manager, Jennifer Watson. The 2-day agenda is long, but please notify the Board of any issues you would like addressed.
The following is a summary of a presentation made by Ruth Angeletti to the Research Deans Forum of the Association of American Medical Colleges, held May 2 and 3, 1999, in a special session entitled "Strategies for Making the Most of Core Facilities."
Local resource laboratories provide access to cutting-edge technologies and instrumentation. Equally important is access to the expertise required to make projects successful. Although instrumentation is important, it is the people that make the difference in ensuring success.
Several challenges must be addressed to ensure the success of resource technology laboratories: the cost of high-quality resources, a long-term commitment, and attracting and retaining skilled scientists. Risk-taking is essential to new discoveries and is a strength of technology resources. Analytical methodologies in particular, combined with informatics, provide an unbiased approach to science, generating new hypotheses that can be tested and explored. Treating resource laboratories as businesses excludes unanticipated opportunities for which funds are not yet available and impedes start-up of new projects. Including the salaries of resource scientists in cost recovery also robs them of the time they need to implement new technologies. There is a wide range of mechanisms for support of core laboratories. Very few are completely self-sustaining. These laboratories have almost no chance of obtaining shared instrumentation grants, which require evidence of institutional support. At the other extreme are a few laboratories that have instrumentation budgets that ensure their institution's scientists early access to new technology. Long-term commitment is critical, partly because growth and change in technology is continuous, but even more because people are an essential resource.
Although there are many resource scientists in academia, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries provide attractive alternatives for employment. In some areas of expertise, few younger scientists have been trained in the past several decades; this may be a symptom of poor funding and investment in analytical sciences. Why do technology- oriented scientists leave the academic environment? Effective resources require scientists who are able to share; yet, there is a lack of incentives for doing so. Further, there are disincentives from policies, practices, and attitudes that can make employment in the academic environment unappealing. Appropriate positions and professional development for scientists at all levels are essential, as are competitive salaries and other compensation. However, even more important is the research environment--interactive and collegial science and the recognition that core laboratories are specialized research laboratories are key elements in modern biomedical research. When technology becomes strategy and is a key part of collaborative efforts, joint publication is necessary and fair. Participation in the educational process and in planning of technology resources is the remaining piece of academic life in which resource scientists must be included. There may be as many solutions to these issues as there are medical colleges, universities, and research institutes. Serious efforts to provide a full place at the academic table will be rewarded by retaining talented scientists and by enrichment of each institution's research productivity.