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

kramirez@colorado.edu

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

kramirez@colorado.edu

Christina Greever

christina.greever@colorado.edu

303-735-5612

www.colorado.edu/ecenter/greenlabs