The question of the centralization of instrumentation on university campuses figures prominently in the committee’s charge, so the committee was interested in finding out more about the instrumentation and facilities with capital costs over $2 million that exist on university campuses. To obtain this information, a survey was drafted and sent to university administrators—namely vice provosts, presidents, and chancellors of research.
The survey, included at the end of this summary, included a request for demographic information regarding the responding institution, questions to the admin-
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 108
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities C Summary of Institutional Survey Results CONTENTS Overview, 108 Types of ARIF at Institutions, 110 ARIF Capital Costs, 111 Institutions Concerns Regarding ARIF, 113 Support for ARIF, 113 Operations and Maintenance Costs, 115 Anticipated ARIF Needs of Institutions, 115 Institutional Survey on Advanced Research Instrumentation, 122 List of Responding Institutions, 126 OVERVIEW The question of the centralization of instrumentation on university campuses figures prominently in the committee’s charge, so the committee was interested in finding out more about the instrumentation and facilities with capital costs over $2 million that exist on university campuses. To obtain this information, a survey was drafted and sent to university administrators—namely vice provosts, presidents, and chancellors of research. The survey, included at the end of this summary, included a request for demographic information regarding the responding institution, questions to the admin-
OCR for page 109
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities istrator regarding current concerns and future needs, and a detailed chart of existing advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) that had been acquired in the preceding 5 years. The survey was distributed to all doctorate-granting universities classified by the Carnegie Foundation as extensive, as well as a wide array of universities falling under the Carnegie intensive classification and to selected historically black colleges and universities. In total, the committee queried over 300 universities and received responses from 51 universities and one independent research institution. Of these, 42 institutions completed the survey, and the remainder indicated only that they did not have any ARIF. A list of respondents is included at the end of this appendix. Although the committee finds the information collected in the survey useful, because of the low response rate the committee believes that the results of the survey provide only examples of the state of ARIF at the specific universities and do not represent the full population. The National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act that requested this study also requested a survey of ARIF instruments. That survey is to be begun in 2005 and will provide a fuller and much more accurate picture of the true state of ARIF at the nation’s universities. The committee believes that the results of this survey underestimate the number of ARIF on university campuses, particularly because a number of the largest research universities, which would be most likely to have many ARIF, did not respond to the survey. Additionally, the committee is familiar with a number of the institutions that did complete the survey but did not report all recently acquired ARIF. Thus, the committee strongly advises that the results of the survey be considered judiciously and that the data not be used for budgeting purposes. Although statistical results concerning the overall number of ARIF and the distribution of ARIF types and costs are not representative, the committee seriously weighed the concerns expressed by universities regarding ARIF. The committee also considered common elements among the ARIF reported, particularly the operation and maintenance costs, the sources of initial capital cost, and the ubiquitous need for support personnel. Of the 42 institutions that completed the survey, 80% were public universities. The total annual budgets of the individual institutions ranged from $47 million to $3 billion. Six institutions reported that they did not have any ARIF without completing the survey. Most (63%) of the 51 respondents indicated that they had not purchased ARIF in the preceding 5 years. Figure C-1 shows the distribution of ARIF reported by the institutions. In total, 33 ARIF were reported. Several institutions reported instruments and facilities older than the requested period or below the $2 million mark; such instruments and facilities are not included in this analysis. One institution also reported a $3 million Defense Advanced
OCR for page 110
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-1 Number of ARIF reported by institutional survey respondents. Research Project Agency development project that is likewise not included because the survey was directed more to ARIF acquisition and construction that the development of new ARIF. With the exception of two institutions, the total capital cost of the ARIF at an institution was below 6% of the total amount of basic and applied (nonclinical) federal research funding it received in FY 2004. TYPES OF ARIF AT INSTITUTIONS The survey charts itemize 33 ARIF purchased or constructed in the preceding 5 years. Of them, 9 were either specially designed or constructed in house, 19 were purchased from commercial vendors, 2 were donated by the government or industry, and 3 were of unspecified origin. Figure C-2 shows the distribution of ARIF reported by field or type, and Table C-1 lists sample instruments for each category and the range of capital costs. The most commonly reported individual instruments were advanced magnetic resonance imagers and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers. Table C-2 lists all the instruments identified by survey respondents.
OCR for page 111
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-2 ARIF at institutions, by field or type. TABLE C-1 Existing ARIF at Institutions, Research Field Field Selected Instruments or Facilities Capital Cost (millions of $) Astronomy Telescope, spectrograph, infrared camera for Magellan 3.9-5 Biology Proteomics-protein structure laboratory 2.7 Cyberinfrastructure Supercomputer 2.0-5.0 Geosciences Ion microprobe, earthquake sensor testing laboratory 2.8-3.8 Materials Electron-beam lithography system, semiconductor production system 2.3-2.5 Human and animal imaging Magnetic resonance imager, human and animal 2.2-2.8 Spectrometry (NMR) NMR spectrometer, 800-900 MHz 2.2-4.8 Physics Infrared camera, pulsed electron accelerator 2.0-15.0 Space MegaSIMS (isotope analysis) 3.5 Facility-supporting equipment Helium refrigerator supplying helium for superconducting magnets at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory 2.9 ARIF CAPITAL COSTS As shown in Figure C-3, almost all (over 90%) of the ARIF reported by institutions had capital costs of $5 million or less. Almost two-thirds (61%) had capital costs of $2-$3 million.
OCR for page 112
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities TABLE C-2 Itemized ARIF, by Price Capital Cost (millions of dollars) Siting Cost (millions of dollars) Annual O&M Cost (millions of dollars) Instrument or Facility Institution 2 Spartan IR Camera Michigan State University 2.2 0.9 0.04 800-MHz NMR and modifications to 600 University of Kansas Center for Research 2.2 1.28 0.25 Magnetom 3T Allegra system (functional magnetic resonance imager) Princeton University 2.204 1.715 0.025 800-MHz NMR University of California, Los Angeles 2.2416 Philips Inera 3.0T magnetic resonance imager Boston University 2.3 0.025 0.2 JEOL 6000 electron beam lithography system University of Tennessee 2.37 0.04969 0.03345 Semiconductor production system University of California, Berkeley 2.4 0.03 0.02 600-MHz NMR University of Illinois, Chicago 2.4 0.08694 0.225 IBM supercomputer Boston University 2.5 0.38 0.115 Varian 9.4T magnetic resonance imager Kansas University Medical Center 2.5 0.32 0.125 Seimens 3T magnetic resonance imager Kansas University Medical Center 2.5 0.2 0.15 JEOL 6000 electron beam lithography system University of Texas, Austin 2.7 2.2 0.07 Proteomics/protein structure laboratory University of Kansas Center for Research 2.7 0.1 0.2 Magnetic resonance imager University of Cincinnati 2.793 Ground data system University of California, Berkeley 2.81 0.48 0.22 CTF magnetoencephalography (cortical and fetal) Kansas University Medical Center 2.8132 0.25 0.05 NanoSIMS 50L ion microprobe Carnegie Institution of Washington 2.85 Helium refrigerator Michigan State University 3.1 Lower extremity enhancer University of California, Berkeley 3.5 0.5 0.3 MegaSIMS University of California, Los Angeles 3.675 0.2 0.35 Atacama cosmology telescope Princeton University 4.5 0.02 0.075 FourStar: wide-field IR survey camera for Magellan Carnegie Institution of Washington 4.83 Bruker AVANCE 900-MHz NMR Michigan State University 5 0.03 0.03 900-MHz NMR spectrometer University of Illinois, Chicago 5 Madison SALT spectrograph University of Wisconsin, 11 2 0.5 Fast-Pulsed Linac User Facility (DOE designed and owned and housed at ISU) Idaho State University 12.5 15.45 2 HPCAT Carnegie Institution of Washington 15 1.8 1 Pulsed electron accelerator Idaho State University
OCR for page 113
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-3 Itemized ARIF, by price. INSTITUTION CONCERNS REGARDING ARIF Institutions had two opportunities in the survey to document their concerns regarding ARIF: in the general survey and for each instrument. On the whole, not many comments were given in the general survey. Figure C-4 shows a histogram of the common comments regarding ARIF listed in the itemized ARIF charts. The most prevalent concern was the difficulty of finding continuing support for the operation and maintenance of ARIF. SUPPORT FOR ARIF Among the ARIF detailed in the survey charts, an array of sources of support for capital costs were listed, from state governments, to the Department of Health and Human Services, to universities and individual university departments. Probably because of the expense, 62% of the ARIF reported had more than one funding source (see Figure C-5). Most (52%) had some institutional commitment, averaging $1.25 million per instrument or facility (see Figure C-6). Data on the ARIF support from NSF were particularly surprising. Eight reported ARIF had NSF as a source of funding, including six for which the amount of funding was explicitly listed. Three of those were for amounts well over $2 million ($3.875, $4.35, and $2.68 million). That yielded an average award amount reported from NSF of $2.29 million. The respondents did not list the particular programs through which the NSF funding was acquired. We speculate that it was obtained through individual NSF divisions.
OCR for page 114
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-4 Major challenges that institutions face with regard to ARIF. FIGURE C-5 Number of funding sources specified.
OCR for page 115
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-6 Frequency of ARIF capital cost sources of support. (The fraction of ARIF supported by various funding sources. For example, institutions contributed to the capital costs of 48% of the ARIF reported.) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Of the instruments detailed in survey charts, 20 had estimates of capital cost, siting cost, and estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. Figure C-7 shows the reported O&M costs as a function of capital costs. The survey did not define O&M costs, nor did it request that institutions do so. It is likely that most institutions are going by the guidelines of OMB Circular A-21, which defines operations and maintenance costs strictly as the costs associated with housing and maintaining an instrument, including utilities. The one clear exception was Boston University, which reported that the annual O&M costs of its IBM supercomputer refer to maintenance but not power. Some institutions included the costs of service contracts and personnel salaries in their estimates of O&M, and others did not. ANTICIPATED ARIF NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONS Many institutions, whether or not they had ARIF, expressed a desire for ARIF. Some detailed ARIF had been proposed but still lacked support. Figure C-8 and the text following it detail the ARIF needs expressed by institutions. Most of these
OCR for page 116
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURE C-7 Reported annual O&M costs for ARIF as a percentage of the capital costs. FIGURE C-8 Anticipated ARIF needs of institutions, by instrument or field.
OCR for page 117
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities needs are categorized by field, with the exception of the nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer (NMR), transmission electron microscope (TEM), and the scanning electron microscope (SEM), which, because of their frequency and multidisciplinary nature, are listed as individual instruments. Several institutions reported that they experience difficulty acquiring the instruments the need due to a sort of chicken-and-egg problem, noting that they need more faculty who can push for the acquisition of the instrument, but they need the instrument in order to attract the faculty. See Table C-3. List of Anticipated ARIF Needs, by Instrument or Field Physics (from two institutions) A high-performance synchrotron beamline $3-$5M A new injection system for the storage ring $2-$7M A whole new accelerator that would complement the existing accelerator/ storage ring $90M Cyclotron for the production of isotopes for medicine and research as well as for the production of particles for detector development Proton or heavy particle accelerator to expand the nuclear science and engineering research activities Linear Collider High energy physics If the Linear Collider becomes a reality NIU High Energy Physics would be interested in calorimeters that are in the tens of millions. Also, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory is promoting a Super Conducting Module Test Facility preparatory to RIA and the LC. This will be an $80 million facility, which would benefit from such an instrumentation program. In total, accelerator structures and refrigeration equipment would fall within the cost range. Lithography E-beam lithography DUV Lithography Tool Electron beam lithography ($2M) focus ion beam lithography ($2M-$5M) State-of-the-art electron beam lithography system Possible extreme ultraviolet lithography
OCR for page 118
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Other New, more powerful imaging magnets with enhanced resolution Genotyping and sequencing equipment Vacuum test facility Carbon 14 Accelerator Molten metal/salt cooled thermohydraulics loop for engineering scale demonstrations and experiments Biocontainment Nanoscience Integrated nano-electro-mechanical system (NEMS) processor to fabricate nanodevices that integrate electronic and mechanical components on a routine basis Third Generation “Maskless” exposure instrument to fabricate nanoelectronic devices Nanoscience and nanotechnology tools Nanoscience/bioscience Nanotechnology (clean room) Spectrometry/spectroscopy Ion microprobe, using secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) SIMS system Dispersive x-ray spectroscopy Electron energy loss spectroscopy Mass spectometry Transmission Electron Microscope Ultra-high-resolution (2 Angstrom) TEM of anticipated cost $2.5M TEM with low temperature Aberration-corrected TEM with scanning capabilities and auxiliary detectors for energy ultra-high-performance analytical TEM (materials science) HRTEM (high resolution transmission electron microscope) A TEM costing approx. $2M NMR A 900-MHz NMR costing approx. $4.5M High-field, or ultra-high-field, NMR spectrometer (in the 850-950 MHz range) A high-field (800 MHz) NMR machine. Such a machine with a cryoprobe that works for both solids and liquids cost $2.2 million
OCR for page 119
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities The TAMUSHSC is collaborating with Texas A&M University in the development of several major core facilities, including a nuclear magnetic resonance facility NMR One additional relatively low-field NMR, ideally a 700-MHz or 800-MHz system Other, Materials Science MBE (molecular beam epitaxy) Advanced plasma etching tools Atomic layer deposition tool Microarray technology Human Imagers High-field clinical magnetic resonance imaging unit Combined computed tomography (CT)/PET unit Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging unit MRI Scanning Electron Microscope Scanning electron microscope Combined STM and SEM (chart) Cyberinfrastructure High-speed supercomputing clusters Large computer Environmental Carnegie Airborne Observatory ~$5M for large-scale ecological research National Ecological Observing Network (UC Boulder) Astronomy A 2.4m telescope at $7.1M Renewable fuel and chemical pilot facility to study the chemistry, thermodynamics, and reaction parameters for optimizing alternative fuels and chemicals from renewable resources.
OCR for page 120
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities TABLE C-3 Institutional Comments Regarding ARIF Category Comment Nature of ARIF Instrumentation in this price range is often accompanied by the need for specialized facilities. Funding agencies should require that institutions demonstrate the ability to provide appropriate facilities, have a mechanism to insure multiple PI access, and have a plan to provide on-going support and maintenance of the instrument. (University of California, Berkeley) $2 million limit We would like to make the point that advanced instrumentation below $2 million is itself very difficult to get through grants; thus advanced should not be confused or equated with expensive. We have trouble getting advanced equipment in grants below $2 million—indeed, even in the $250,000 and below range. (Pennsylvania State University) Primary needs in $0.5M-$1.5M (University of Arkansas) The development of new instruments is an important aspect of science. Larger, cutting-edge instruments often fall into the $2-$100M range, and currently the NSF is not well set up for accommodating this need. The artificial barrier between MRI and MRE should be eliminated—that may go a long way to meet the needs. At the very least this step would allow the NSF to manage the situation rather than having an administratively imposed self-blockage. A percentage reduction of grants may be advisable, but I have no quantitative information that would allow me to make an argument. All I know is that grants are already under undue pressure. … the entirely artificial gap between MRI and MREs needs to be closed. For example, the NSCL upgrade (which provided the best US rare isotope user capability) would cost some $25-$30M in total. This is too small for an MRE and too large for an MRI. Of course this could be broken down into smaller components, but only as a system did it make sense. (Konrad Gelbke, Director of National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory) Additional costs Allowing operations and maintenance costs, even if only for a specified number of years, to be included as part of the original acquisition award would be beneficial to institutions. This would facilitate the movement of the instrument from the acquisition stage into the operations stage, allowing for more rapid implementation and use in research projects. (University of California, Berkeley) The purchase of expensive instrumentation must recognize the long-term commitment that is incurred in staffing the facility with adequately skilled operators. The “user pays” model does not always produce the needed revenue, so that a back-up mechanism needs to be explored. Whether to buy our own instrument or enter into a service agreement with a national lab, or some other entity, should be debated on a case-by-case basis. (Pennsylvania State University)
OCR for page 121
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Category Comment Ongoing maintenance costs are becoming a significant problem for institutions. (University of Tennessee) Our instrumentation problems fall into three areas: (1) resources for new faculty equipment startup costs, which are in the range of $350K-$1M (not including lab renovation); (2) facilities appropriate for shifting from individual faculty lab-based research to interdisciplinary team research. Our facilities consist of many newly renovated faculty labs, but funds are currently not available for the construction of larger core facilities desired by our faculty and conducive for larger-scale interdisciplinary research; (3) funding for staff to operate and maintain expensive equipment that could be shared by investigators. (University of Maryland Baltimore County) Thorough study needed of raising costs associated with maintenance, facilities, technicians, and student training through user fees, college or university subsidies, grants, and industrial contracts. (University of Arkansas) Gap There is a funding gap that needs to be filled. Moderate projects are now cobbled together with MRIs and ITRs. The funding should not be taken from the base program. (Northern Illinois University) Distribution of resources NSF, NIH, NASA, DOE, DOD, and others should collaborate to create and fund a new program to make available large shared computational resources at major research universities. (Pennsylvania State University) I support the model of shared use facilities in which expensive instrumentation is shared by a broad research community within the university and with external collaborators. (Pennsylvania State University) Thorough study for best practices in sharing needed. (University of Arkansas) Proof of feasability in proposals Funding agencies should require that institutions demonstrate the ability to provide appropriate facilities, has a mechanism to insure multiple PI access, and has a plan to provide on-going support and maintenance of the instrument. (University of California, Berkeley) Vendor/facility relationship For some specialized tools, equipment vendors are placing unrealistic facility demands on institutions to provide a “liability release” in the event that the tool does not meet inflated vendor performance claims (e.g., Raith ebeam tools now require a facility with vibration control beyond the limits provided by the best facility at the National Institute of Standards and Technologies 1-A vibration criteria). A realistic balance between facility demands and tool performance must be developed. (University of California, Berkeley)
OCR for page 122
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY ON ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION Today, instrumentation plays a critical role in scientific research and exploration. We would like to get your help in gaining a better understanding of the issues related to instrumentation on your campus and your thoughts on federal policies. This survey is part of a study being conducted by the National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation in response to Section 13(b) of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. The Instrumentation Committee is under the aegis of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). COSEPUP, chaired by Dr. Maxine Singer, is the only joint committee of the three honorific academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Its overall charge is to address cross-cutting issues in science and technology policy that affect the health of the national research enterprise. The study is examining federal programs and policies related to advanced research instrumentation used for interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and disciplinary research. If needed, the Committee will propose policies to make the most effective use of federal agency resources to fund such instruments. Advanced research instrumentation, for the purposes of this survey, is defined as instrumentation that is not categorized by NSF as Major Research Instrumentation ($100,000 to $2 million in capital cost) or as Major Research Equipment (more than several tens of millions of dollars), but instead falls in between these two designations. At present, no general program at the NSF exists to support this category of instrumentation. To respond to its charge from Congress and NSF, the Committee needs to learn more about the way your institution proposes and funds new instrumentation was how it supports and maintains it after installation. The Committee is also interested in your thoughts about current and possible future federal programs and policies for advanced research instrumentation. We hope you will be willing to participate in this important information-gathering effort. We recognize that answering all the questions in this survey may be challenging. We only ask that you do the best you can in providing the information requested. If another person at your institution is better suited to answer this survey, please forward it to them, but please let us know to whom you sent it. We also encourage you to send this survey to any researchers at your institution who may have additional thoughts. Their comments may be sent either to you for compilation or directly to firstname.lastname@example.org. We would appreciate receiving your response by Friday, April 1, 2005. Please return the completed survey via e-mail as an attachment to email@example.com
OCR for page 123
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities or by fax to 202-334-1667. If you have any questions, please contact the study director, Dr. Deborah Stine, at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202-334-3239. Thank you for your time and participation. For more information on the study, please visit our website at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/instrumentation/. National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation MARTHA KREBS (Chair), President, Science Strategies DAVID BISHOP, VP Nanotechnology Research, President, NJNC, Bell Labs MARVIN CASSMAN, Independent Consultant ULRICH DAHMAN, Director, National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory THOM H. DUNNING, Jr., Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign FRANK FERNANDEZ, Distinguished Instititute Technical Advisor, Stevens Institute of Technology MARILYN L. FOGEL, Staff Member, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington LESLIE KOLODZIEJSKI, Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALVIN KWIRAM, Professor of Chemistry, University of Washington, Vice Provost for Research Emeritus WARREN S. WARREN, Professor of Chemistry, Director, NJ Center for Ultrafast Laser Applications, Princeton University DANIEL WEILL, Professor (by courtesy), University of Oregon, Department of Geological Sciences National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation Institutional Survey of Instrumentation Funding and Support
OCR for page 124
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities
OCR for page 125
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities
OCR for page 126
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities LIST OF RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS Arkansas, Little Rock, University of Arkansas, University of Auburn University Boston College Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California, Berkeley, University of California, Irvine, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Riverside, University of Carnegie Institution of Washington
OCR for page 127
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Cincinnati, University of Colorado, Boulder, University of Dartmouth University Idaho State University Illinois, Chicago, University of Iowa State Kansas Center for Research, University of Kansas University Medical Center Lehigh University Loma Linda University Maine, University of Marquette University Maryland, Baltimore County, University of Maryland, College Park, University of Massachussetts, Boston, University of Massachussetts Institute of Technology Michigan State University Minnesota, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, University of New Mexico State University New York, State University of North Carolina, Greensboro, University of Northern Illinois University Oakland University Ohio State University Penn State University Princeton University Purdue University Rice University Rutgers University San Diego State University Syracuse University Tennessee, University of Texas A&M Health Science Center Texas, Austin, University of Washington State University Washington University, St. Louis Wayne State University Wisconsin-Madison, University of
Representative terms from entire chapter: