the many benefits of shared equipment in collaborative spaces · kathy ramirez-aguilar cu green...
TRANSCRIPT
Saving funding, resources, & researcher time while utilizing lab space efficiently:
The many benefits of
shared equipment in collaborative spaces
Kathy Ramirez-Aguilar
CU Green Labs Program Manager
University of Colorado Boulder
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Learn about inefficiencies that can result under an
“ownership” mentality for equipment resources in individual
labs.
2. Learn about the many advantages of managed, shared lab
equipment in shared spaces.
3. Learn about successful examples of equipment sharing
occurring at CU-Boulder.
4. Gain an understanding of why there is a need to connect
efficiency to federal funding of research on university
campuses.
Lab research can change directions
In which direction will the next
discovery lead a lab’s research?
It can be hard to predict.
Equipment that a lab needs now,
may not be needed by the lab
later.
Understandably, a lab may not want to let equipment
go because they may need it in the future.
As a result, it is not uncommon to find
unused or underutilized equipment in labs
Inefficiencies from Ownership Model
or
individual equipment in individual lab space
Now we are talking about a lot of $$$: Laboratory space is one of the most expensive university spaces to build and maintain. It is also one of the most energy intensive spaces on campus.
Equipment duplication leads to not only
inefficient use of equipment resources, but
importantly, space resources
Space is an important factor in the overhead
rate calculation
Two general components of overhead costs:
1. Administrative costs (capped at 26%)
2. Facilities costs (not capped)• Building and equipment depreciation
• Operations & maintenance of facilities
• Other (library, interest on facility debt)
Facilities costs calculation greatly
depends on space assigned to
federal funded research:
sp
ac
e
=
ov
erh
ea
d
rate
s
=
fun
din
g f
or
dir
ec
t c
os
ts
Inefficiencies contribute to the difficult & rising
competition for federal funding that our
scientists are facing
+Lack of
increase
in federal
research
funding
Rising fed.
$ going to
overhead
as univ.
research
space
expands
Rising
competition
for federal
funding
=
More
university
scientists
competing
for federal
funding
+
Inefficiencies mean scientists spending more
and more time writing grants
Less time doing
research
+Focusing on
projects that are
likely to get
funding
Problem: Lack of awareness of what equipment
resources exist on campus and where to find them
Solution: Shared Instrument Website
http://www.colorado.edu/sharedinstrumentation/
Many thanks to UC-Santa Barbara for sharing platform with CU-Boulder.
Uniform Guidance CFRs
requiring equipment sharing & avoid duplication
Uniform Guidance CFR 200.313 c2 “must also make equipment available for use on other projects
or programs currently or previously supported by the Federal
Government, provided that such use will not interfere with the
work on the projects or program for which it was originally
acquired.”: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=597cf895a4e1859ccf447c54c795d4b3&node=se2.1.200_1313&rgn=div8
Uniform Guidance CFR 200.318 d “must avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items” : http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=2:1.1.2.2.1.4.31&rgn=div7
CU-Boulder cores
have
manager/director
and typically
contain very
expensive
equipment
Shared equipment with
managers can extend
beyond just super
expensive equipment
Example: Biochemistry
Shared Instrument Pool
Range of equipment from
plate reader, centrifuges
to very specialized,
expensive equipment.
Saves funding
Saves time
Managers provide equipment expertise
Attracts talent & promotes collaboration
Benefits space & equipment utilization
Compliance with CFRs
In line with campus sustainability goals
Managed, shared equipment in shared spaces
benefits science and scientists
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility
Christina Greever, CU Green Labs
Theresa Nahreini, Cell Culture Director
Kathy Ramirez-Aguilar, CU Green Labs
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
Facility is at 100% capacity
One full-time director
16 laboratories with 70 active users
4 departments/institutes
13 labs use facility every day
11 labs have multiple users every day
7 labs and two outside companies have
been turned away since 2012 due to lack
of capacity.
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
BSL-1 and BSL-2 work
Different types of cell culture:
general, primary, viral, insect, and
bacterial invasion of mammalian
cell hosts
Much of equipment donated by
faculty over the years
12 BioSafety Cabinets
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
What if we were going to start from scratch?
$266,000 $504,000
Shared Cell Culture 16 individual set-ups
Basic Equipment Needs for Cell Culture
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)What if we were going to start from scratch?
Space Requirements in assignable sq.ft. (ASF)
1550 ASF 2300 ASF
Shared Cell Culture 16 individual set-ups
• Additional $750,000 to construct
at $500/GSF plus 25% soft costs
• Additional $244,000 to renovate
at $250/ASF plus 30% soft costsUse a factor of 1.6 to
convert from ASF to GSF.
750 ASF 1200 GSF
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
What if we were going to start from scratch?
Time for logistics/duties
31 hr/wk 170 hr/wk
Shared Cell Culture
(supervisor)
16 individual set-ups
Additional $3500/week or
$182,000/year in labor costs
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
Other Ongoing Savings
~$65,000/year savings in media preparation,
bulk fetal bovine serum, promotional supplies,
EH&S/Green Labs ethanol re-use
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
Summary of Savings for Shared Facility
Upfront Costs (new construction)
Equipment $238,000
Construction $750,000
TOTAL: $988,000
Ongoing Costs
Labor $182,000/yr
Supplies $65,000/yr
TOTAL: $247,000/yr
Upfront Costs (renovation)
Equipment $238,000
Construction $244,000
TOTAL: $482,000
Ongoing space savings:
Avoiding cost to maintain
& ventilate more space
Avoiding lab space loss
due to storage of
underutilized equipment
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
Qualitative Benefits
Community cooperation and
collaboration
Expertise of supervisor
Standardized training for safety
& avoid contamination
Microplasm testing
FBS testing for compatibility
with cell lines
Connect labs that can aid each
other
No over-purchasing of
consumables
Keeping scientists focused
on science
New PIs don’t waste time
getting set-up
No need to hold onto
equipment when research
changes
Case Study: Biochemistry Cell Culture Facility (cont.)
Collecting Input from Users
Dr. Sabrina Spencer, a faculty member at CU Boulder whose lab uses the cell culture facility: “I really like the shared facility. [It] saves a new small lab like mine from buying a bunch of equipment up front. Having a core director prevents a 'tragedy of the commons' where no one is responsible for fixing problems. [The] main downside is that there have been several bacterial contaminations. But these even happened when my postdoc lab at Stanford had its own tissue culture facility.”
CU-Boulder LASP:
Taking sharing to a
whole new level!
LASP=Laboratory
for Atmospheric
and Space Physics
Shared equipment in shared spaces is a win-win.
1. Scientist more money for research, easier access to
equipment resources, & support
2. Tax-payer & government better use of federal dollars
3. University space & resource efficiency (financial
benefits)
4. Environment reduced research footprint
QUESTIONS?
Contact Information:
Kathy Ramirez-Aguilar
Christina Greever
303-735-5612
www.colorado.edu/ecenter/greenlabs