Products and Services - Internal Core Facilities vs. Companies
At the end of the day, we are stewards of taxpayer dollars and philanthropic funding. Our obligation is not to defend internal infrastructure for its own sake, but to ensure investigators get the highest value for every dollar spent.
If the best option is external, then we should support that choice. However, too often investigators default to commercial vendors simply because they are unaware that internal cores can provide equal or superior pricing, quality, turnaround time, and-critically-customization and scientific partnership that a for-profit vendor cannot match. Core facilities are not just service providers; we are embedded collaborators who understand the institutional ecosystem and can adapt to evolving scientific needs.
The challenge of cores is visibility. With a transient population of students and postdocs, awareness erodes constantly. That makes passivity a losing strategy.
I strongly support the proactive approach Ralph took. When possible, work with purchasing to identify what is being obtained externally. Then reach out-not to criticize-but to understand why. Those conversations are invaluable. They uncover unmet needs, misconceptions about core capabilities, and opportunities to improve. They also reinforce that we are partners in advancing their science, not competitors for their budgets.
This kind of engagement also forces healthy self-assessment. If a service can be done more efficiently or more cheaply by industry, we should consider sunsetting it. We did exactly that with monoclonal antibody production and purification because commercial providers could do it at lower cost. That allowed us to redirect resources toward areas where we truly add differentiated value, such as antibody discovery.
In my view, a core should offer a product or service only if:
-
There is clear internal need; and
-
It is either unavailable externally or we can demonstrably provide superior value-through quality, expertise, integration, customization, and/or turnaround time.
Anything else risks diluting focus and misallocating institutional resources.
We are here to support investigators and strengthen the institution's science-not to protect legacy offerings. If we consistently align our portfolios with investigator needs and institutional value, both the science and the cores will be stronger for it.
------------------------------
Frances Weis-Garcia
Director, Antibody and Bioresource Core Facility
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - Zuckerman Research Center
New York NY
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-08-2026 12:04
From: Andy Chitty
Subject: External competition for core services
Hello,
I had someone ask me the following question. I have not had to deal with this, so I thought I'd post it here to see if others had similar experiences.
This person was asking if I had guidance on any policies or ways to limit outside vendors who compete with cores and offer similar services from advertising on campus, show up to vendor shows, etc. While my initial thought about it is that cores should not have to worry about outside competition if they are providing novel services, it seems the outside influences there are a bit more problematic than the norm, and they are trying to consider ways to limit this type of activity. Are there any standard practices or policies that other universities use to at least preserve the priority of core services over outside services? They want to approach administration with a precedent.
Thanks!
Andy
------------------------------
Andy Chitty
Executive Director, MGB Research Cores
Mass General Brigham
Boston MA
------------------------------