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 ser­

vice-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' instruments3

Annual maintenance

costb

$ Thousands,

Additional maintenance

needed0

1978

Anticipated cost of needed

additional equipment"

Top-echelon universities_ _

$3500 3200 3000 6000 4000 5000+

$100+ 200 300 700 350 500

Second-echelon universities

2500 2000 3000 3000 3000

170 150 270 400+ 100+

$ 60 60

120 —

100 250

50 70

100 200 50

$ 825 400 830 750

1200 850

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

t

ÇmMmEcc

Poiy-Biok is the technologically advanced resinous flooring system $pe0$Uiy designed for industry. Pê^aB^g^t

WtpervioMs to ntoièture/abrasion, $ h w so l v ^ f f l »ëK r grease and lubricants. Its physical prop$rtie£MWW^^h stand the harsh pounding of equipment mê.m^jMÊÊ^^

Poly-Blqk never needs replaeetiwit; oor f t6êî%^i^f f ^ '%

sizes and is immediately operational* % ; ^

EASY INSTALLATION \COST EFFECTIVE

Fbii further mfobnajK», contact

26350 West Eigfit Mtl^ Rd., SoMthfiel4 Michfgafi 48Cty*$ft) ®$p$k

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

26 C&ENNov. 8, 1982

Γ ~~ i|H|~ ̂ K ^ T p ^ ^ I' n i r w T F τν·;

rdiyeoD Research. Inc.