Created: 1st September 2000, last updated: 30th October 2000, © 2000 ABRF
Instrumentation Survey and Recommendations
Our representative to the Science Policy Committee at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) is David Speicher. David's hard work on this committee has contributed to endorsement by FASEB of substantial increases for instrumentation funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). David is chair of the Instrumentation Subcommittee, charged with determining the instrumentation and infrastructure needs of NIH-funded investigators. This subcommittee conducted a survey of NIH grantees to obtain reliable information on researchers' instrumentation needs. The results of this study were published by FASEB as a separate report and appear later in this section. Based on this report, FASEB will recommend a funding level of $150 million for equipment costing $100,000 or more and $50 million for equipment costing less than $100,000. A recommendation will also be made that the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program support equipment maintenance agreements for up to 3 years when included in the instrument purchase price.
David presented these recommendations to the Public Affairs Executive Committee of FASEB on June 6, 2000. This committee added a motion to increase the cap on spending for individual instruments to reflect the cost of new technologies. On July 12, 1999, David, along with the President of FASEB, Mary Hendrix, and President-Elect, Bob Rich, presented this information to reporters. Reports on this survey have been published in a number of publications, including Nature, Washington Fax, and Chemical and Engineering News. The full report on this survey can be viewed on the Internet (www.faseb.org/opar/instrument/). Hopefully, the Science Policy Committee's efforts will be rapidly translated into expanded funding for shared instrumentation. Due to the lag between grant submission deadlines and approval of NIH budgets, ABRF members and their colleagues that have unmet instrumentation needs are strongly encouraged to immediately plan to submit shared instrumentation grants for the next grant deadline, which is in mid-March, 2001.
ABRF 2001
ABRF2001, "The New Biology: Technologies for Resolving Macromolecular Communications," will be held February 24 through 27, 2001, in San Diego, California. This year, abstracts will be due October 2, 2000, and must be received by electronic submission. John Quakenbush is preparing a premeeting course on analysis and interpretation of gene array data the day before the meeting. Paul Tempst and Dave Schwartz are busy organizing the scientific program. They are requesting that tutorials consist of half lectures and half interaction and discussion. Leaders of tutorials will also be asked to provide handout materials to the participants. Tutorials of this nature will increase the usefulness of the annual meeting to our members.
Nominations for the ABRF Executive Board 2001
Candidates have been selected to run for two positions on the Executive Board. Karen De Jongh and John Stults will rotate off of the Executive Board as of January 1, 2001. These two dedicated individuals have been invaluable to the Executive Board and to the ABRF. When your ballot arrives, be sure to vote for the candidate who not only best serves your interest but also will ensure the progress and maturation of the society.
A recently released Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) report shows that an overwhelming majority of scientific researchers feel that shared equipment and core facilities are essential to their research. However, a majority of researchers felt that existing mechanisms do not adequately fund specialized equipment and shared resources. The most critical needs are for purchasing new specialized equipment and establishing new facilities in emerging technologies. As a result of these findings, FASEB has recommended major increases in instrument funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), together with changes in the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program, to broaden the range of instruments funded by this program and to improve the timeliness of awards.
Approximately 1 year ago, the Science Policy Committee of FASEB initiated an in-depth analysis of biologic scientists' instrumentation needs. An Instrumentation and Infrastructure Subcommittee consisting of David Lester, Mustafa Lokhandwala, Fred Naider, David Speicher (chair), and Stephen White was formed to investigate the problem, with the assistance of Tamara Zemlo and Howard Garrison in the FASEB Office of Public Affairs. The committee initially found that although numerous anecdotal cases suggested that instrumentation needs were not being adequately met at many research institutions, there was a paucity of reliable current data on researchers' instrumentation needs. To address this lack of essential information, a survey questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected NIH RO1 grant recipients in November 1999. Completed surveys were returned by 51% of the recipients by February 2000, and these responses were used to compile a report printed by FASEB in August 2000. The full report is also available via the Internet at www.faseb.org/opar/instrument/report.html or www.faseb.org/opar/instrument/report.pdf. Some of the highlights of the report are as follows:
* Shared equipment and core facilities at my institution are essential for my research: 61% strongly agreed, 23% agreed, 7% were neutral, 6% disagreed, and only 4% strongly disagreed.
* New shared resource technologies and required associated equipment are usually implemented at my institution on a time scale that does not slow my research progress: 5% strongly agreed, 24% agreed, 35% disagreed, and 13% strongly disagreed.
* Increased funding for equipment and related categories should be one of the top priorities in an expanding federal research budget: 24% strongly agreed, 41% agreed, 11% disagreed, and 2% strongly disagreed.
When NIH RO1 principal investigators were asked to prioritize their needs for instruments within their laboratory, the highest priority was to purchase new specialized instruments. Similarly, their highest priorities for shared resources were to establish new facilities and purchase new specialized instruments. A strong second choice was to improve funding for technical and maintenance support in shared resource laboratories. Finally, researchers were asked to list the most important instruments for their research program that should be purchased with government funds over the next 3 years. When these responses were extrapolated to the entire NIH RO1 grantee pool, it indicated annual needs of about $150 million for instruments costing more than $100,000 and about $75 million for instruments costing less than $100,000. These estimates should reflect minimal funding needs in the biologic sciences, because the survey results were extrapolated to only the NIH RO1 population and do not include investigators supported by other funding sources.
The survey results led to FASEB's recommendation that the NIH increase its level of support for shared instrumentation costing $100,000 or more to $150 million per year. FASEB also recommended that the NIH increase its level of support for equipment costing less than $100,000 within existing grant mechanisms such as RO1s and PO1s by $50 million per year. This latter recommendation was only two thirds of the estimated need, because the survey results indicated that scientists had more non-NIH options for funding of minor equipment than major equipment. Highlights of the recommendations for expanding the SIG program in concert with increasing the budget included the following:
* Decrease the time from receipt of applications to award from the current approximately 1 year to 6 months.
* Increase the number of submission deadlines per year.
* Raise the cap to at least $1 million to more fully cover more expensive instruments.
* Allow applicants to bundle two or more unrelated sophisticated instruments that together cost at least $100,000.
* Allow support for maintenance agreements for up to 3 years if included in the purchase price.
The instrumentation survey confirms and validates that current biologic scientific research is increasingly dependent on sophisticated, expensive tools that are frequently part of shared resources. To effectively utilize the tremendous potential of completed genomes and recent technologic advances in proteomics, genomics, imaging, structural biology, bioinformatics, and related disciplines, it is essential to have access to the appropriate instrumentation in a timely manner.
This is a good time for Resource Laboratory Directors and their colleagues to pursue funding options for needed instrumentation. In particular, scientists who would benefit from purchase of sophisticated instruments that fit within the SIG program at NIH and who have the required critical mass of qualifying NIH projects (currently, at least three NIH-funded users and at least 75% of instrument time dedicated to NIH-funded projects) should seriously consider submitting applications for the next deadline, which is likely to be in mid-March 2001. The SIG program is currently a reasonable source of instrumentation funding. If the FASEB recommendations are implemented, it should become an excellent source of instrument funding for institutions with a critical mass of NIH-funded research projects.
It is worth noting that the total number of applications to the SIG program dropped dramatically in the mid-1990s in a delayed response to severe budget reductions in 1992 to 1995, which resulted in funding of only about 10% to 15% of the applications. Although the budget has slowly and steadily increased over the past several years to its current level of $43 million in fiscal year 2000, the application numbers have increased only slowly. The FASEB instrument survey indicates that the relatively moderate application rate apparently reflects the lack of promotion of the SIG program by NIH in the past and the relative lack of timeliness resulting from a single deadline per year and a lengthy delay to time of award. Hopefully, this critically important program will dramatically expand and improve in the near future. Support it by submitting quality shared instrument applications.
A program is available to help ABRF members with limited access to travel funds attend ABRF2001, "The New Biology: Technologies for Resolving Macromolecular Communications," to be held in San Diego, California on February 24 through 27, 2001. A travel award fund has been established jointly by ABRF and Applied Biosystems. The award is intended primarily for scientific staff in resource laboratories. However, facility directors will be considered under special circumstances, such as those from very small laboratories or laboratories located outside of North America. Students or postdoctoral fellows directly associated with the mission of member laboratories may also apply. Travel Awards are available for short as well as long trips.
Applicants for Travel Awards will require a letter of support from their laboratory director or, in cases in which a director is applying, a letter of support from a senior colleague or head of department. Each individual may write only one letter of support. Letters of support should be sent by email to travelaward@abrf.org.
Applicants must complete the form posted at http//www.abrf.org/ABRF/ABRFMeetings/ABRF2001/travelaward.html. Letters of recommendation and applications must be submitted before October 27, 2000, at which time these Web Pages will be closed. Applicants should include information regarding why they feel they would be a good choice for the award, what they hope to gain from attendance, and why they need external financial support.
Support will be awarded only for transportation expenses with the hope that these funds can be used as a seed to request the remainder of expenses from the applicant's home institution. No more than one award will be made to any particular laboratory, and ABRF2000 travel award winners are not eligible for an award to attend ABRF2001. Successful applicants will be notified by December 5, 2000.
In case an applicant does not have an Internet facility or has questions concerning filing an application, please contact Satya Yadav, chairman of the ABRF Travel Award Committee (phone: 216-445-7095; fax: 216-444-2998; email: yadavs@ccf.org).
2001 ABRF Travel Award Selection Committee
Lowell Ericsson, Karen De Jongh, Len Packman, Laurey Steinke, Peter Hunziker, Tim Schlabach (Applied Biosystems representative), and Satya P. Yadav (chair).