MPI-CBG light microscopy facility - advisory board meeting minutes Feb 2010

Minutes from LMF Advisory Board (LMF AB) meeting, 10.2. 2010, 15.30-17.30, SR1

Overview of the past and present situations by Jan

1. At the beginning of the meeting Jan presented an overview of the work of Light Microscopy Facility in last years:
   • Jan pointed out that in last 5 years LMF saw substantial growth in number of users per year from 182 in 2005 to 257 in 2009 and also in the number of instruments bookable by users from 12 in 2005 to 21 in 2009.
   • Jan also indicated that LMF will get 6 new imaging systems to take care of in 2010. LMF has 4.5 staff positions currently. This means that systems/staff ratio will change from 4.6/1 (2009) to 6/1 in 2010. Users/staff ratio is expected to be the same at 57/1. Jan expressed his worries that if LMF gets even more systems to take care of in the future, it will not be able to help users in timely manner: response time within one or two weeks.
   • Jan showed 4 circles of competence which LMF currently covers:
     • Scientific Support of Imaging Projects
     • Bringing New Imaging Technologies to LMF users
     • Maintenance of existing imaging systems
     • Teaching and Training in light microscopy.

The sausage stand queue analogy

Dan seconded Jan's outlook with his explanation that LMF has reached a situation resulting in longer response times to user’s requests.

• Assuming that the LMF needs to cover all four circles of competence equally.
• Assuming staff levels can't increase.
• "Sausages" (service) can only be delivered to customers (users) at a certain maximum rate.
• Adding more equipment or users makes the queue for sausages longer (response time increases - bad for users)

Feedback from LMF AB stake holders during the meeting

Jan and Dan then asked the members of the LMF AB to express their opinion about what the LMF should prioritise in the future.

1. In the following discussion Iva said that she is happy with the LMF service and said that LMF should get more staff if needed.
2. Marino and Ivan clearly stated that there is currently no way to increase LMF staffing (SAB report etc. recommends against increase in services and facilities staffing numbers).
3. Tony presented his strong opinion about the role of the LMF in the institute.
   • Tony said that we are a research institute and LMF role is to support people making discoveries. Whenever we run into the danger that LMF will not be able to support research work due to other workload, teaching is the first thing that should be cut back.
   • Tony believes that it is not the responsibility of LMF to teach PhD students "Basics of Microscopy".
   • LMF, in Tony's opinion, should concentrate on scientific support of advanced imaging projects and on bringing cutting edge technologies in house.
   • This opinion seemed to be supported by majority of members of the LMF AB.
   • According to Tony, teaching basics of microscopy as well as maintenance of the instruments should be outsourced as much as possible.
   • Tony mentioned that LMF should use more Hi-Wi students to cover some of the routine tasks.
   • In his point of view, LMF should support only systems which are located in the ground floor area, other systems should be given to the research groups who will take care of them themselves.
   • Tony also thinks that Bio-Rad two photon system and Leica TCS SP2 should be retired soon.
4. Marino said that he likes the idea of having a more “virtual” LMF, helping to run systems which are also installed in home bases (in fact, already the current situation).
5. Andy suggested that we teach people to "cook their own sausages": lower end microscopy could be done at hombases/labs with training given by homebase/lab staff (perhaps trained by LMF).
6. Ewa said that having access to broad range of imaging systems is essential for her research.
7. Marino brought up the idea that the situation with microscopy support staff could improved if LMF trains selected staff members in the research groups. These persons could then take care of basic maintenance and user introductions to selected systems which are located on home bases.
8. Birgit and Marcus showed that in 2009 LMF taught 5 out of 10 courses offered by the PhD programme.
   • Marcus said that LMF courses are highly appreciated among PhD students, but students would like to have more one – day courses which would cover advanced imaging techniques.
   • Birgit offered to remove 2 weeks of Basic Microscopy Course from the PhD course which takes place every November. LMF would then teach only Principles of Light Microscopy course together with Peter Evennett from RMS.
   • Johannes shared his opinion that we should not underestimate the value of teaching basics of microscopy since it saves people’s time and helps their research in the long run.
9. Johannes added that we are heading in a direction of more conflict when some systems are less accessible than others (i.e. when they are transferred to a homebase, and have scientists attending to them, which invariably biases the availability toward the corresponding group).
10. LMF staff turnover frequency
    • Tony clearly stated that there has to be turnover of staff in the LMF in order to avoid stagnation and presented the example of the EMBL where maximum length of stay used to be 9 years.
    • Dan said that having turnover of LMF staff is necessary in the long term, we just need to be very careful about frequency of turnover.
    • Jan expressed his strong opinion that having frequency of turnover of LMF staff every 2-3 years kills the performance of LMF since it takes 2-3 years to educate staff members to the level where they become really useful LMF staff members. Jan stated that a turnover frequency of 9 years would be reasonable.
    • Ivan also asked Jan if it would benefit the LMF team to have more staff members with Ph.D. degrees, instead of junior staff members, in order to more effectively cover scientific support of imaging projects. Ivan also referred to a second hand example where a post doc found that an LMF staff member was not qualified to discuss the scientific details of a project.
    • Dan's answer to this was that having PhD degree is not a measure of the quality of the assistance a person can give AT a microscope system. further, he expressed his strong opinion that having well trained microscopy technicians in house is essential for success of microscopy imaging in the MPI-CBG.

Wrap Up by Jan

Jan suggested that LMF will now stop taking further imaging systems under its supervision in order to keep maximum system/staff ratio 6/1. This means no additional systems over those already planned for 2010.

Concluding Actions

1. At the end of the meeting, Jan and Dan were asked by the members of LMF AB to prepare draft of the vision of LMF which will be discussed during next meeting of LMF AB.
2. Jan and Dan expect to have this draft strategy ready by the end of February 2010.

Dresden 15.2. 2010

Jan Peychl & Dan White