Hi Carl,
The way we handle long timelapses is to have the charging software set
up so that after 4 hours of continuous login, the charges automatically
drop to 25% of their normal rate for the remainder of the session. (It
used to be 20% but now I am being told to recover more money!). I think
the researchers are still getting a real bargain with that, but at least
it means they can do long timelapses without it being prohibitively
expensive. We ask them to set them up over a weekend if possible, or in
the afternoon if it's just an overnight session, so that we can try to
get users doing full-charge work on during most of the week, but
obviously it's dependent on the microscope and the types of experiments.
Best,
Alison
Carl Boswell wrote:
> If it is a simple modification or new user who needs preliminary data
> (as for a grant), I help the user setup and collect images for no
> charge. If it is a new procedure for everyone, I do the first session
> at no charge to make sure everything is optimized. After that, full
> charge. My rationale is that the system is being used, and the cost
> of running it needs to be recovered. If someone is trying to develop
> either a protocol or algorithm, I view it no differently than someone
> with a long list of treatments that needs to record results.
>
> A bigger conundrum for me is long-term time-lapse (2-3 days), where
> the system is on day and night and no one is tending it. How does one
> justify a $3000 charge for one experiment? Even at half the charge,
> it is still $1500. I guess the experiment had better work. Anybody
> have procedures for this?
>
> C
>
> Carl A. Boswell, Ph.D.
> Molecular and Cellular Biology
> University of Arizona
> 520-954-7053
> FAX 520-621-3709
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Armstrong, Brian <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
> We get around this by simply not charging for any development
> time. We only charge for time spent collecting data (similar to Dr
> Phillips’ suggestion).
>
> There will always be some inherent inequity in the amount of time
> you help some users over others. I do not see any way around that.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
>
> Light Microscopy Core Manager
>
> Beckman Research Institute
>
> City of Hope
>
> Dept of Neuroscience
>
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
>
> Duarte, CA 91010
>
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
> http://www.cityofhope.org/research/support/Light-Microscopy-Digital-Imaging/Pages/default.aspx
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
> Palmer Jr.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:43 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Core lab services vs assay development
>
>
>
> I guess because I don't run a service, I don't understand the
> problem. You are charging simply for hours of scope time,
> personnel time, and expendables. Do you have sets of users who
> lurk around waiting for you to optimize certain protocols before
> asking you to do identical protocols with their samples? If so,
> you could charge them on a sliding scale starting at the same cost
> to the original user. Do you have lab chiefs saying "you charged
> me $X to process five slides but you only charged my colleague
> half that for five of his (because it took half the
> time/expendables)?" If so, you should ask the person who was
> theoretically paying a premium (?) at the start whether s/he was
> glad s/he got the results in the first place (!), and whether s/he
> might be happy with a credit (over and above the reduced
> time/resources from having optimized things) on the next batch of
> slides processed_ identically_. However, unless you have already
> experienced serious cases of the above forms of nit-picking
> behavior, it seems like an awful lot of bean-counting.......
> Generally speaking, life is not fair: a lesson that must be
> frequently re-learned.
>
>
>
>
>
>> This is not a confocal question but is realtive to the management of
>> microscopy service cores.
>>
>> In terms of developing a clear and fair policy for isage fees and
>> cost recovery,
>> the situation is very clear when we are setting up fees for
>> services that are
>> already established, we charge hourly for the use of equipment
>> and we add
>> additional changes if we need to provide assistance or training.
>> This is usually
>> straightforward. The problem is whne we are faced with a project
>> that involves
>> techniques which are not yet familiar to us or involves
>> development time such
>> as writing a protocol or algorithm for image analysis. In one
>> hand I think it is
>> unfair to the first user we charge them for the research and
>> development,
>> learning curve, etc when afterwards this new application may
>> result in a new
>> service that the facility can offer from then on... in the other
>> hand, unless we
>> have R&D built into the operational budget, we need to have a
>> mechanism to
>> recover some of the costs...
>>
>> I have been working on core facilities for about 10 years and I
>> always have
>> handled this problem on a case by case basis, I have never
>> charged strictly
>> according to the established fees for services, however I am
>> always worried
>> about the subjectivity...
>>
>> I would appreciate if anybody could comment on this.
>>
>> Thanks in advance..
>>
>> Leoncio
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
> Bldg 30, Room 310
> 30 Convent Drive
> Bethesda MD 20892
> ph 301-594-0025
> fax 301-402-0396
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. This
> communication may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law
> (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial
> information). Because this e-mail has been sent without
> encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be
> able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with
> the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If
> you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
> any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is
> strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your
> system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive
> further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message
> and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further
> e-mail from the sender.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
Research Assistant Professor and
Director of the Bio-Imaging Resource Center,
The Rockefeller University,
1230 York Avenue,
New York,
NY 10065.
Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
Tel: lab ++ 212 327 7486
Fax: ++ 212 327 7489
|
