Science
Analytical instrument obsolescence examined Academic and industrial lab managers mull over ways to replace obsolete instruments and secure trained personnel to operate and repair them The threat of instrument obsolescence and tight federal budgets have conspired to threaten the existence of research analytical laboratories. But despite these and other handicaps, most existing laboratories expect to keep operating in support of basic research, though there may be some serious penalties in the future unless more funds are forthcoming. This was the principal message imparted last month to the Third Annual Conference of the Analytical Laboratory Manager's Association (ALMA), held in Madison, Wis. ALMA is the new acronym replacing ULMA (University Laboratory Manager's Association) after last year's meeting at the University of Iowa. The problem of instrument obsolescence is not confined to academic laboratories. Private industrial research laboratories have the same difficulties, but have the advantage of being able to get quicker budget reactions than can most academic laboratories, which must deal with federal granting agencies and state legislatures. The problem at issue is how to replace obsolete instruments, usually with more sophisticated and more expensive models. One view of the problem came from John Talmadge of the director's office of the National Science Foundation, who represented the director. Talmadge emphasized that the research instrumentation problem is not a federal problem but a national problem, meaning that state governments, cities, and regional authorities also have a stake in solving it. Thus, these groups should contribute to the solution, particularly with funds. Contrary to popular belief, total federal funding for research instrumentation hasn't diminished much, if any, Talmadge says. The Department of Defense, for example, is
considering applications for instrument funding of up to a maximum of $30 million per year for the next five years. The National Institutes of Health has increased last year's funding levels slightly, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has instituted a new funding program. NSF also has made selected increases in certain types of instrument funding. To top it off, Congress is aiding by providing some economic incentives in the form of tax write-offs. One of the problems that faces potential grantees from other than NSF funds is the necessity to satisfy requirements of a mission-oriented agency. Grants made in the Department of Defense-University Research Instrumentation Program, for example, assume that the research involved is acceptable to the mission of the granting agency (Army, Navy, Air Force). In fact, that is seldom a very big obstacle because the indicated areas of interest are numerous and very broadly interpreted. A problem that has become more acute for lab managers is that of securing trained manpower at both the professional and technician levels. In industry, there is much competition for the limited number of positions at the professional level. The total lack of technicians is another problem.
One potential solution suggested by Talmadge lies in the pool of trained eople being discharged constantly y the armed services. Although service-related experience seldom applies directly except in the area of computers, general instrument experience usually adapts readily to particular machines. The experience of lab managers and the prognosis of representatives from several instrument makers leave no doubt that instruments will become more powerful, more sophisticated, and more expensive. They also may become obsolete more rapidly unless the trend toward increased modularization picks up steam. A widely held estimate for the optimum useful lifetime of a typical research instrument is about seven or eight years. The experience of lab managers is that retaining an instrument much beyond that life span is unwise for several reasons: Maintenance costs grow rapidly, the basic power of the instrument often is limited in an age of increased demands on it, and its trade-in value may vanish to the value of junk. This is the main reason for the pressure to replace obsolete instrumentation. To upgrade all the qualified laboratories to "world class" status, DOD has estimated that an infusion of $1.5
Survey shows need for maintenance funds, equipment Capital value of selected labs' instruments 3
Annual Additional maintenance maintenance b cost needed 0 $ Thousands, 1978
Top-echelon universities_ $3500 3200 3000 6000 4000 5000+ Second-echelon universities 2500 2000 3000 3000 3000
Anticipated cost of needed additional equipment"
_ $100+ 200 300 700 350 500
$ 60 60 120 100 250
$ 825 400 830 750 1200 850
170 150 270 400+ 100+
50 70 100 200 50
1800 400 1400 2700 750
—
a Capital value is purchase price, not replacement cost, and not included are single instruments under $10,000 in price, b Maintenance cost is primarily for salaries and direct operating expenses and doesn't include utilities and overhead costs, which would increase maintenance costs three to five times, c This cost is believed to be necessary for proper equipment maintenance, where present maintenance is considered minimal, d Equipment considered necessary to fulfill future laboratory requirements. Source: Thomas C. Farrar, University of Wisconsin
Nov. 8, 1982C&EN
25
Science billion to $2 billion would be necessary. Only a small fraction of that requirement is available. One estimate places available funds at about $250 million over the next few years, and that may be optimistic. The bleak outlook was echoed by Irving Shain, professor of chemistry and chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. He believes that many of the ad hoc decisions made in budgeting for research amount, in effect, to a kind of global decision to downgrade the national research effort. If present trends persist, he sees the research effort becoming impotent. The limited funds also suggest to him that it will be necessary to consider limiting future grant recipients. As painful as it may be, Shain suggests, one way to keep the research effort at as high a level as possible may be to limit grants to the top 40 or 50 research institutions that now do most of the research anyway. That opinion was not shared by all of the attendees at the conference. For political reasons, it may be impossible as a practical matter to restrict granting of federal funds to a preselected list of laboratories. And
even if grants were restricted to an elite group of basic research labs, it's doubtful that this action would produce the desired effect of elevating them to "world class status." Some insight into this problem was provided by Thomas C. Farrar, professor of chemistry and director of the University of Wisconsin's analytical laboratory. Before coming to the university, he was director of the Chemical Research Instrumentation Program at NSF. In that capacity, he conducted an informal survey of chemistry departments in the top 50 category to get a fix on the costs of running a good analytical laboratory. Several important conclusions emerged from that survey. Average capital value of the instruments in a typical lab was about $4 million. The annual maintenance cost was from 10 to 30% of the capital value, depending on how maintenance was calculated. All of the respondents thought that more maintenance money should be expended to optimize instrument operation. Similarly, every respondent wanted to upgrade his or her laboratory with necessary equipment
I' n i r w T F τν·;
Γ ~~ i|H|~ ^ K ^ T p ^
t
^
Poiy-Biok is the technologically advanced resinous flooring system $pe0$Uiy designed for industry. Pê^aB^g^t WtpervioMs to ntoièture/abrasion, $ h w s o l v ^ f f l » ë K r grease and lubricants. Its physical prop$rtie£MWW^^h stand the harsh pounding of equipment mê.m^jMÊÊ^^ Poly-Blqk never needs replaeetiwit; o o r f t 6 ê î % ^ i ^ f f ^ '% % ; sizes and is immediately operational* ^ EASY INSTALLATION \COST EFFECTIVE Fbii further mfobnajK», contact
rdiyeoD Research. Inc. ÇmMmEcc 26350 West Eigfit Mtl^ Rd., SoMthfiel4 Michfgafi 48Cty*$ft) ®$p$k 26
C&ENNov. 8, 1982
to meet anticipated research demands. Farrar notes that although there is a lamentable shortage of funds, funds are available, and he urges a more aggressive attitude on the part of the lab managers in going after them. Although the emphasis is on research, teaching also is a function at most of these university laboratories. However, Farrar says, the practice of accepting "over the hill" research instruments donated for instructional purposes, although appealing, has some negative aspects. There are practical reasons for not doing it. Old or not, all instruments require maintenance, and most of the smaller departments simply don't have the people or funds to maintain even simple instruments properly. Because the state of the art changes rapidly, there is questionable value in training people on anything but the latest instruments. The principles may not change but the practical details do and often they are decisive. In industrial labs, the consensus seems to be that the problems are much the same as those of academic laboratories. Industrial labs also are among the leading elements in industry in fostering cooperative ventures with university laboratories; this leads to some suggestions for increasing both the amount of instrumentation available and better utilization of it. Where direct joint use of instruments is impractical, some of the more creative methods of financing instrument purchases have been considered. In some state universities, the possibility of using revenue bonds has been proposed, as has outright financing through commercial loans. Instrument leasing is another suggested alternative. But as attractive as these possibilities may sound, they all suffer from the problem that any form of credit purchase automatically increases the cost of the instruments, which already are expensive and expected to get even more so. If instrument costs ultimately are determined by the research they serve, it follows that the ultimate restraint may be integrated research funding that includes instrument costs. One of the more painful lessons learned in recent years is that more effort now is required to justify a grant of any kind. As John Talmadge observed to the ALMA conference, researchers are going to have to learn to put up with a lot of unaccustomed inconvenience to support their research. Only the fittest will survive. Joseph Haggin, Chicago
