There are many core analytical laboratories housed in larger organizations
within universities, government installations and biotech/biopharm
companies. While it may be a non-issue to be classified as a "facility" in
an academic or government environment, it can be a significant designation in
some companies. Here, the differences between the terms "facility" and
"laboratory" may rest on such factors as internal versus client base, whether
or not services are revenue producing, impact on reporting hierarchy to
upper management, etc... Sometimes what you call yourself can lead to
internal conflicts if the terminology is misunderstood.
All of these non-scientific issues aside, we do the same kinds of work that
other core laboratories do, and have the same keen interest in the status and
future of the technologies involved. Even more, we are committed to these
technologies for biomolecular product development, characterization and
licensure. I favor a change in the name, but not a change in the mission, of
ABRF. I feel it would better reflect the membership's diversity, encompass
the breadth of our activities, and clarify our role as leaders in
bioanalytical technology assessment.
I don't see why this change should cause us to leave behind anything, least
of all the issues faced by the traditional core facilities which gave rise to
ARBF in the first place. It seems to me to be an expansive rather than an
exclusionary change. It also has the benefit of attracting those with a
vested interest in the technology from other aspects, such as regulatory
bodies. I think with strong leadership on the EB - and we certainly have
had exceptional leaders who care deeply about this group and its future - we
should be able to include these interests without diluting any of the
important issues that form our basic reason for existence.
I also don't feel that we need to worry about the loss of identity in
changing from ABRF to ABRT (or anything similar). While we have a
well-established identity among certain groups of bioanalytical scientists,
we are just gaining independent name recognition in many areas. By having
meetings separate from the Protein Society, we are making our mark as a
stand-alone organization, even though we have been so for over a decade. In
fact, just today I was recruiting a colleague for ARBF who used to go to the
Protein Society meetings. He had never heard of ABRF, so I waxed poetic
about our many values. He had no idea that WE were the group that conducts
those "terrific sample tests" that he used to see at the Protein Society
meetings. I wonder how many other protein scientists are just learning who WE
are? If we are going to change our name, it seems that now is the right time.
Just my thoughts!
Nadine Ritter, Ph.D.
Analytical Validation R&D
Abbott Diagnostics Division
Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Park, IL 60064-3500
Nadine.Ritter@add.ssw.abbot.com