What changes? I haven't received a ballot nor description of the changes
as of today. Hopefully, it's in the mail.
I agree with Lowell that the ABRF deals with many issues not addressed by
other scientific organizations. An important aspect of the ABRF deals
with many soft people skills such as managing, marketing, client and
administrative relationships that most scientific organization don't
even try to address. Technology will always be a part of the ABRF no
matter what the name is - It's just part of the package in running a core
facility and only one part of running a facility. Interested people
whether or not they run a core facility have always been welcomed to the
conferences and meetings.
The name change will remove part of the perceived stigma of being a
service facility, but in name only. By the way, this perceived stigma
was addressed at one of the ABRF conference.
A core facility director and proud of it.
David T. Chin, Director
UMC Protein Core
e-mail: bcdchin@muccmail.missouri.edu
(573)882-2027 (office and messaging)
http://www.missouri.edu/~pc/
Before sending in my ballot I would appreciate a discussion on this
bulletin board on the pros and cons for the proposed changes in the ABRF
Bylaws. I am certain that the ABRF Executive Board and chairmen of the
research committees have had this discussion, but the topic was not
discussed at the poorly attended annual meeting and no pro and con
positions were sent out with the ballot.
The proposed change in name to "Association for Biomolecular Research and
Technology" from the present name of "Association of Biomolecular Resource
Facilities" reflects the composition of the present membership where many
are not part of a "core facility laboratory" but have a scientific
interest in the analytical tools and methods which are important in core
facilities. However, I have a concern that the name change will result in
a loss of concern for problems unique to the operation of a core facility
which are not scientific but managerial e.g. obtaining shared instrument
grants, maintaining a cost facility, salary surveys reflecting personel
dedicated to service to others thus frequently low on publications,
special problems concerned with the interaction between core facility
directors and institutional administrators, etc.. A great deal of time
and money has been spent and a good reputation has been earned for the
name ABRF and some loss of identity and confusion could be expected by
changing to ABRT.
I find the second bylaw change somewhat less controversial. If a larger
organization requires a larger executive board, so be it - but I found 3
years on the board long enough to of use to the board without taking too
much time away from my regular job. Turnover on the board is important,
but so is experience. The cost of operating the board; phone
conferences, trips to special board meetings, etc. would be expected to
increase by increasing the number on the board -but it may be well worth
the cost.
I encourage the ABRF membership not to vote until they have participated
in or at least listened to a discussion on this bulletin board.
-Lowell H. Ericsson, Dept. of Biochemistry, U. of Washington, Seattle, WA