SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > General



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Opening of the EZRC core facility oliviera Core Facilities 0 07-02-2012 02:28 AM
Looking for a good illumina core facility mkdir Core Facilities 3 05-13-2012 08:26 PM
Director: Genomics Core Facility kmcarr Academic/Non-Profit Jobs 0 02-14-2012 12:48 PM
Position as Head of the Bioinformatics Core Facility Martinsried01 Academic/Non-Profit Jobs 0 12-06-2011 03:29 AM
Getting started 454, academic center has no apparent core facility dkoelleseattle General 1 09-28-2009 07:20 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-10-2012, 05:39 PM   #1
samanta
Senior Member
 
Location: Seattle

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 109
Default rambling on core facility model

Why Core Facility Model Adopted by US Universities is a Bad Model

http://www.homolog.us/blogs/2012/10/...s-a-bad-model/

Quote:
Over the last decade, most chemistry and biology departments have been increasingly adopting ‘core facility’ models for acquiring latest technologies. The idea is simple. The institutes have ‘core facilities’ for providing various services to researchers working in different research areas. The core facilities are expected to run in ‘business-like’ manner, which means they are supposed to provide services at low cost and do it as ‘efficiently’ as possible.

Few months back, we were chatting with a professor running such a facility, and when he spoke ‘business-like’, that caught our attention. We asked him several questions to figure out how the business gets run, but his numbers did not add up. For example, if we started a similar business right outside his university, we could not make it succeed. Why so? It is because he did not have to pay any rent and he did not have to worry about cost of depreciation of his instruments. Those were covered by the university. He only had to worry about hiring technicians to run the instruments/software, and deliver data to different PIs at the lowest possible cost. He explained that in exchange for free rent and machine cost, he is expected to charge lower fee to University projects than those from the outside.

Even though the above arrangement seems like a good compromise, it is a highly inefficient and dead-end model in our opinion. The core facility is NOT a real business, because it is held hostage by the university. On the other hand, the employees of the facility are not equivalent to the professors, (who become PIs for projects), even though the professors are way behind on the technology scale compared to those working directly with instruments at core facilities. Finally, core facilities are expected to keep costs down, and therefore have very little room for trying different things (aka R&D). So, the managers of core facilities are essentially expected to run high-tech businesses, but with very limited funds for R&D.

The failure of the model can already be seen at a higher scale. Few years back, we were talking a gentleman running a big genome sequencing center, and from his description of the operation, it seemed like he was expected (by NIH) to run the sequencing center as a giant nation-wide ‘core facility’. Essentially, he needed to focus on keeping cost/base down, and collaborate with researchers at different universities to form teams and sequence genomes. Their bioinformatics budget was limited, because NIH diktat for them was to only assemble the genome and find genes at lowest cost, and then let the community figure out the rest. He did execute his model well, but unlike real businesses like BGI, his hands were tied in many respect. For example, when Complete Genomics went down, he did not have the authority to acquire that company to expand his business reach.

A business without reasonable control of its destiny is not a business. A research facility without power to do research is not a research facility. ‘Core facility’ fails on both aspects, and we will be surprised, if their managers do not go nuts trying to fill too many ambiguous roles.
__________________
http://homolog.us

Last edited by samanta; 10-11-2012 at 10:59 AM.
samanta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:27 AM   #2
westerman
Rick Westerman
 
Location: Purdue University, Indiana, USA

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,104
Default

Well it is certainly a provocative title that is likely to get lots of people wandering over to your blog. I think that you are approaching the question from the wrong angle. Will write more once I find the time.
westerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:57 AM   #3
samanta
Senior Member
 
Location: Seattle

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 109
Default

Title? provocative content too

Cutting and pasting here, so that members of this forum are spared from clicking another link. Primarily, we do like to hear what people here think, because they have the most direct experience to criticize our idea(s).
__________________
http://homolog.us

Last edited by samanta; 10-11-2012 at 11:01 AM.
samanta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 01:03 PM   #4
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

Since Core Facilities can not make money they don't follow a business model. Most Institutes support Core Facilities in order to have greater control over quality and turn around time.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO