I have read with interest the comments of colleagues about the
proposed name change for ABRF and appreciate all views. I personally feel
that any name change is unnecessary and potentially damaging to our
reputation and recognition. It is true, as Nadine pointed out, that there
are many people who still do not know who or what ABRF is, but in my
experience this has always been those people who are eiher just entering
the field of analytical science (in which case they don't necessarily know
much about other organisations either), or they are principal investigators
who are only concerned with the end-product of the research - not the
techniques that made it possible - and as such they communicate their work
through project-orientated talks which are the stuff of the Protein Society
etc.
The 'stigma' attached to core faclity workers has been mentioned.
One could argue that a change of name would help remove the stigma, but
that is just giving in to the hecklers. Core facility workers should stand
strong against the doubters and show themselves proud to be who they are
and gain the recogntition they (we) deserve. The backing of ABRF is an
important part of that stand and to lose it, at least in perception,
through a name change would do core workers no good at all. I recognise
that some US industrial colleagues do not consider themselves core labs. I
say to them that if the name ABRF is detremental to them getting finance
from their superiors, then they should educate their superiors.
Comments have been made about ABRF being taken as A-BARF. As an
international voice, may I point out that this is entirely US-speak, just
as much as A-BART would be, and to my experience is entirely unknown
elsewhere. With 25% of our membership outside the US, there are a lot of
people to whom these corruptions of the acronym are meaningless. It is a
trivial argument to even consider this corruption as any reason for
changing the name. (I suppose we could ditch the name altogether and just
have a 'squiggle' logo - on the premise that Prince became better known as
'the artist formerly known as Prince' when it was clear that his squiggle
logo had no English verbalisation!)
Most of us accept acronyms for representing organisations but
rarely expand the letters to the full name unless asked to do so by someone
unfamiliar with the name. Even then, the full name rarely says anything
like enough to describe the organisation and a discussion usually follows
to explain things fully. From this stand point I see no value whatever in
changing the ABRF name. It describes what we do and who we are. ABRF was
born out of core facility people. We welcome all other categories of
workers with open arms and value their input, but I believe the heart of
ABRF to still be the core facility workers. Let that heart beat ever
strong.
Oh, ...and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Len
PS Since this is a sensitive issue, I should make it clear that the Prince
comments were in jest, although you can't beat a good squiggle when you are
feeling low..(no, don't ask me to explain it. Just sad British humour!)
******************************************************
Dr Len C. Packman
Assistant Director of Research
Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry Facility
Department of Biochemistry,
University of Cambridge,
80 Tennis Court Road,
Old Addenbrookes Site,
Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK
Tel: +44 (1223) 333639 (including answerphone)
FAX: +44 (1223) 766002
e-mail: lcp2@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk
Visit my WWW page at http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/proj/adr/PNAC/pnac.html