Message-Id: <v03007815af13e9ccd184@[131.215.234.49]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:37:25 -0700
To: "abrfhyp@cco.caltech.edu" <abrfhyp@cco.caltech.edu>
From: "Dirk S. Krapf" <krapf@cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Membership types (fwd)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:37:13 -0500
From: Paul Morrison <morrison@farber.harvard.edu>
To: Recipients of ABRF List <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: Re: Membership types
"Ken Taylor" <KTAYLO@scri.sari.ac.uk> writes:
>
>I've been reading, on the Web site, the conditions which have to be
>met for the different levels of membership of the ABRF and was
>wondering if anyone else was in my position.
>
>The structure in place in my Institute is such that I am ineligible
>to join the ABRF as a director. Although I perform the function of a
>core facility (peptide and DNA design and synthesis + DNA sequencing
>+ related instrument and software training), I am part of a research
>department, and am too low a grade to be formally recognised as being
>an autonomous unit in the manner required for full membership. Many
>other types of analysis covered by the ABRF are also conducted in
>other labs around the site. As far as I am aware there are no plans
>to group things together and create a proper core facility with it's
>own budget and unit head.
>
>I bring this up as I have watched messages pass around about
>various test samples and comparative studies, and feel slightly left
>out. ( A different type of lurking perhaps :-) .)
>Am I alone in this? Or are there others out there who would like to
>participate in these studies, but can't because they're only eligible
>for Associate membership? The recent, welcome, posting about a
>peptide synthesis survey shows some scope for me to contribute. Is
>there maybe a case for a new type of membership to cover people in my
>situation? Or opening up tests and surveys to all?
>
>Perhaps the various committees get enough data back from
>full members to make valid judgments about the state the art in
>different areas. I certainly appreciate that the work involved in
>these studies must be considerable. However, widening the number of
>labs able to submit data could increase the response and hence the
>quality of the results.
>
>Thanks for your time reading this.
>
>Yours provocativly,
>
>Ken Taylor.
>Ken Taylor.
>Peptide and DNA Services.
>Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee.
>Phone 01382 56 27 31 Fax 01382 56 24 26
>WWW URL http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/
This problem keeps getting hashed and rehashed but it seems like we still
haven't reached a good solution. The problem is how we can include Ken and
all other labs that don't have an official "director" or are not
"primarily" set up for resource work. Two words in the first sentence seem
to exclude a lot of labs. The word "must" and "primary".
Off the web site first sentence:
"FACILITY DIRECTOR
Must be the director or manager of a facility which provides analytical or
synthesis related services to other laboratories or divisions as a primary
goal of the facility".
Again as I did last year I had many messages from ABRF members asking why
they did not receive DNA sequencing samples. I go through the ABRF
generated list sent to me for DNASeq and their lab is not listed. I want
their data. The flip side would be the dificulty of sending samples to
everyone thus sending a lot of duplicate samples.
But we should be able to generate a unique list.
-Paul
Paul Morrison
Molecular Biology Core Facilities
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
44 Binney Street
Boston, MA 02115
p_morrison@dfci.harvard.edu
http://mbcf.dfci.harvard.edu