All Members Community

Hi Everyone.

I was thinking today that it would be useful to distribute to the department chairs a one-pager as to why they should consider placing instrumentation (from startups, retentions, and research grants (if allowed)) into Cores. Then, I got to thinking (and hoping) that someone in ABRF already has this and would be willing to share. Has anyone tried this before?

If no one has done this but would like to, would anyone be interested in forming a working group to make these and share them with the larger community? We could do them per instrument type (ie, microscopes, flow cytometers) or research theme (ie, biochemistry, materials science), or just create some examples in powerpoint that we all can edit. We could even put the ABRF logo on it!

Let me know!

Joe

------------------------------
Joe Dragavon
Director, Advanced Light Microscopy Core
University of Colorado Boulder
Boulder CO
------------------------------

Hi Joe,

I think this is an excellent idea and could be very valuable for the broader community.

About five years ago, I discussed this topic internally with our board, specifically around the risks of placing flow cytometers outside of a centralized core facility. I do not have a formal document, but I think some of the topics we discussed at the time could be useful when developing such a one-pager. For example:

• Inefficient utilization while still carrying full maintenance costs;
• Increased risk of instrument damage and more frequent downtime due to improper use;
• Accelerated wear and tear, often resulting in instruments eventually being underutilized or avoided altogether;
• Limited expertise available for daily maintenance and troubleshooting;
• Increased risk of generating unreliable and non-reproducible data due to insufficient user training and oversight;
• Lack of adequate supervision regarding proper startup, cleaning, QC, and shutdown procedures.

It could also be valuable to balance these risks with the advantages of placing instrumentation within a Core, such as:

• Better utilization and cost efficiency;
• Professional maintenance and quality management;
• Standardized workflows and procedures;
• Improved training and user support;
• Higher data quality and reproducibility;
• Long-term sustainability of infrastructure investments.

I would be interested in contributing to a working group on this topic, especially from the flow cytometry perspective.

Best,
Marjolijn

------------------------------
Marjolijn Hameetman
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
The Netherlands
Operational Manager (mass cytometry expert)
------------------------------

Hi All,

There is a nice resource on the ABRF home page that I think could help with what you are describing.  It was developed by the Core Administrator's Network (CAN) to help communicate the Value of Shared Reseearch Resources. It also includes an infographic on the impact of SRRs and shows an example of placing a microscope in a single lab vs. an SRR.  There is also a downloadable, customizable version of this infographic, so you can tailor it to other scenarios.  

Value of Shared Research Resources
Customizable version

Kym

------------------------------
Kym Delventhal
ABRF Past President
HHMI-Janelia Research Campus
Ashburn VA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2026 01:32
From: Marjolijn Hameetman
Subject: Why place an instrument in a Core

Hi Joe,

I think this is an excellent idea and could be very valuable for the broader community.

About five years ago, I discussed this topic internally with our board, specifically around the risks of placing flow cytometers outside of a centralized core facility. I do not have a formal document, but I think some of the topics we discussed at the time could be useful when developing such a one-pager. For example:

• Inefficient utilization while still carrying full maintenance costs;
• Increased risk of instrument damage and more frequent downtime due to improper use;
• Accelerated wear and tear, often resulting in instruments eventually being underutilized or avoided altogether;
• Limited expertise available for daily maintenance and troubleshooting;
• Increased risk of generating unreliable and non-reproducible data due to insufficient user training and oversight;
• Lack of adequate supervision regarding proper startup, cleaning, QC, and shutdown procedures.

It could also be valuable to balance these risks with the advantages of placing instrumentation within a Core, such as:

• Better utilization and cost efficiency;
• Professional maintenance and quality management;
• Standardized workflows and procedures;
• Improved training and user support;
• Higher data quality and reproducibility;
• Long-term sustainability of infrastructure investments.

I would be interested in contributing to a working group on this topic, especially from the flow cytometry perspective.

Best,
Marjolijn

------------------------------
Marjolijn Hameetman
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
The Netherlands
Operational Manager (mass cytometry expert)
------------------------------

Hi All,

Agreed that i think the customizable version would be great to use as a template. I think for different machines the values would be very different and thats what i think the working group could help with. If we could get something (on average) for all major equipment in cores that we see ourselves fighting to not have in labs that would be very helpful to my institution and also research leadership on why this matters.

I think the biggest thing is explaining to a chair and new recruit "whats in it for them" if the machine goes in a core and not in a lab and why they should still pay for it. So understanding the ongoing maintenance and lifecycle of each of these major equipment will be important as well.

------------------------------
Meghan Kraft
Director of Research Core Facilities
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2026 07:50
From: Kym Delventhal
Subject: Why place an instrument in a Core

Hi All,

There is a nice resource on the ABRF home page that I think could help with what you are describing.  It was developed by the Core Administrator's Network (CAN) to help communicate the Value of Shared Reseearch Resources. It also includes an infographic on the impact of SRRs and shows an example of placing a microscope in a single lab vs. an SRR.  There is also a downloadable, customizable version of this infographic, so you can tailor it to other scenarios.  

Value of Shared Research Resources
Customizable version

Kym

------------------------------
Kym Delventhal
ABRF Past President
HHMI-Janelia Research Campus
Ashburn VA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2026 01:32
From: Marjolijn Hameetman
Subject: Why place an instrument in a Core

Hi Joe,

I think this is an excellent idea and could be very valuable for the broader community.

About five years ago, I discussed this topic internally with our board, specifically around the risks of placing flow cytometers outside of a centralized core facility. I do not have a formal document, but I think some of the topics we discussed at the time could be useful when developing such a one-pager. For example:

• Inefficient utilization while still carrying full maintenance costs;
• Increased risk of instrument damage and more frequent downtime due to improper use;
• Accelerated wear and tear, often resulting in instruments eventually being underutilized or avoided altogether;
• Limited expertise available for daily maintenance and troubleshooting;
• Increased risk of generating unreliable and non-reproducible data due to insufficient user training and oversight;
• Lack of adequate supervision regarding proper startup, cleaning, QC, and shutdown procedures.

It could also be valuable to balance these risks with the advantages of placing instrumentation within a Core, such as:

• Better utilization and cost efficiency;
• Professional maintenance and quality management;
• Standardized workflows and procedures;
• Improved training and user support;
• Higher data quality and reproducibility;
• Long-term sustainability of infrastructure investments.

I would be interested in contributing to a working group on this topic, especially from the flow cytometry perspective.

Best,
Marjolijn

------------------------------
Marjolijn Hameetman
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
The Netherlands
Operational Manager (mass cytometry expert)

Original Message:
Sent: 5/28/2026 9:29:00 AM
From: Christopher Gregory
Subject: RE: Why place an instrument in a Core

Joe,

Thanks for bringing this up.  See below for what we have used with chairs and center directors in the School of Medicine at UNC.  We typically remind them of this annually and we have seen great progress in this area over the last five years.  The earlier in the faculty recruitment/retention or grant writing process that core administrators can be involved, the better!

Everyone is free to use this and add other justifications as it pertains to your institutions.

Why It Makes Sense to Put New Capital Laboratory Equipment in Cores

•Recruitment and retention of faculty – priority access, rates can be subsidized by dept/center

•Equipment service, maintenance, and repair is managed by the core; service contract is paid by the core and built into the rates

•PI does not have to hire new technical expert(s) to learn and manage the equipment

•Avoids duplication of already existing core equipment and avoids unnecessary expenditures

•Benefits the wider research community

•Reduces space requirements in the department or center

Christopher W. Gregory, PhD

Professor and Senior Associate Chair

Department of Genetics

Director, Office of Research Technologies

UNC School of Medicine

5014 Genetic Medicine Bldg.

CB 7264, 120 Mason Farm Road

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

(O) 919-843-6367

(M) 919-448-1257

The one pager illustrating the value of Cores that the CAN produced last year could be a good starting template for this.

Great idea, Joe and good to know that CAN has a template as a starting place.  There are a lot of great comments here and although we do not have documents I have used all of these arguments and the ABRF microscope example with the Cores Executive Oversight Board at my institution.  I would add to Christopher's "what's in it for them" list that all of his points result in the faculty having more funds to direct to their research studies.

I have shared a link to the discussion with some of our core directors.  I will be happy to work on producing some standard one pagers that can be customized by end users. - Janette

------------------------------
Janette Lamb
Institutional Research Cores Program Director
Medical College of Wisconsin
Wisconsin WI
jlamb@mcw.edu
------------------------------

To add to Chris' list and Janette's note about directing more funds to the research program, the PI's grad students will also benefit from hands-on experience working inside the facility and alongside core experts. This will help make them better scientists, and more hirable when they graduate. 

------------------------------
Mary Gauvin
RED Service Centers Director - Core Facilities
Montana State University
Bozeman MT
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2026 10:25
From: Janette Lamb
Subject: Why place an instrument in a Core

Great idea, Joe and good to know that CAN has a template as a starting place.  There are a lot of great comments here and although we do not have documents I have used all of these arguments and the ABRF microscope example with the Cores Executive Oversight Board at my institution.  I would add to Christopher's "what's in it for them" list that all of his points result in the faculty having more funds to direct to their research studies.

I have shared a link to the discussion with some of our core directors.  I will be happy to work on producing some standard one pagers that can be customized by end users. - Janette

------------------------------
Janette Lamb
Institutional Research Cores Program Director
Medical College of Wisconsin
Wisconsin WI
jlamb@mcw.edu
------------------------------

CAN put together a one pager that has some metrics that may be useful!

Natasha Nikolaidis
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN

Hi Joe,
I think this is an interesting idea and would be useful for most of us. It also complement well the SRR value proposition that the Taskforce 1 developed. If Andrew and Megan don't want to take the lead, I can start a working group to develop a survey, the data from which we can use to develop a similar value proposition but intended for department chairs. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Shekhar

Shekhar Patil, PhD
Senior Director, Shared Research Resources (Dean’s CoREs)
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Email: Shekhar.Patil@mssm.edu
Phone: (212) 241-0704



________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering such information to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any further review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this email transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, discard any paper copies, and delete all electronic files of the message. Thank you for your cooperation.