Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Strategies for Developing and Innovating Living Stocks Collections: An ESA Workshop Report

2013; Ecological Society of America; Volume: 94; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1890/0012-9623-94.1.118

2327-6096

Jill Petraglia Parsons, Clifford S. Duke,

Research Data Management Practices

Many fields of biological and ecological research depend on a reliable supply of living organisms. Principal Investigators (PIs) who maintain collections of these organisms, or living stocks collections (LSCs), are challenged with providing for innovation and enhancement while simultaneously sustaining the resource for their customers in the research community. As part of the Ecological Society of America's (ESA) efforts to promote the continued development of ecological science and increase the resources available to conduct ecological research, ESA hosted a workshop on Strategies for Developing and Innovating Living Stocks Collections, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and in partnership with the Meridian Institute and Tom Berger of the National Children's Museum. The workshop took place on August 20-21, 2012, and brought together 34 managers of living stocks collections and other stakeholders to address the challenges of collection sustainability, development, and innovation. This workshop built on the 2010 ESA workshop on Strategies for Sustainability of Biological Infrastructure,1 1 For more details on the 2010 ESA workshop on Strategies for Sustainability of Biological Infrastructure, please see the following workshop reports, available online at: http://www.esa.org/science_resources/DocumentFiles/Strategies%20Sustainability%20Biological%20Infrastructure-Workshop%20Report.pdf and http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9623-92.4.426 and explored the value of long-term strategic planning, existing sustainability strategies, current and future collection needs, and opportunities for continued information exchange and collaboration among LSCs. Many living stocks collections in the United States rely significantly on federal agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Park Service, and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for financial support. In recent years, increasing federal investments in science have prompted increasing demands from Congress for the scientific community to demonstrate the actual economic and scientific impacts of these investments. So, more so now than ever, LSCs need to demonstrate their value to science in order to preserve federal funding for their work. Sustenance: funding used to maintain the current status of the collection, such as expenses to feed and house organisms and cover basic overhead costs. Development: funding used to improve efficiency, effectiveness, or expand the collection. Innovation: funding used to develop novel ideas or methods that contribute to scientific advancement. Largent and Geraci determined that, over the last several years, 93% of NSF DBI funding was being used for sustenance, while 6% was used for development and 1% for innovation. Given the broader context within NSF, which strongly encourages funding for transformative research, DBI program managers have increasing difficulties justifying the current level of sustenance funding. Continued investment from the federal government in LSCs may require a combination of: 1) shifting how DBI funds are used so that investment in development and innovation increases, and 2) communicating more effectively and precisely how sustenance funding creates development and innovation in other areas of the scientific community. Bridging the gap between infrastructure investments and research impacts is vital in this process. Justifying funding and demonstrating impact can be challenging, but doing so is essential to preserving vital LSC funding. Agency program managers do not always have the information needed to fully defend increased or even continued funding, and standard NSF grant reports do not always adequately capture the details that are truly needed, especially regarding how NSF's investment in sustaining collections leads to innovation in LSC user communities. Program managers need help from LSC directors to demonstrate both short-term and long-term impacts. For example, if LSC investments in sustaining collections lead to more transformative research, program managers and collection managers alike need better ways to quantify and articulate this fact. Simultaneously, LSC directors have to prioritize their time carefully. Spending too much time gathering information to demonstrate impacts and innovation, and not enough time developing the collection itself, could be detrimental to LSCs. Introducing strategic planning as a tool for achieving collection sustainability; Summarizing existing strategies for development and innovation; Exploring collections' current and future needs; Identifying the challenges to infrastructure and research innovation; and Developing recommendations for future investments in living stocks collections. Defining the purpose of the organization or collection; Establishing priorities and desired outcomes that energize staff; Identifying and planning for current and future challenges and risks; Considering strategic alliances and partnerships that create value; Enhancing effectiveness and collection reputation while providing a tool to measure success; Linking a collection's efforts to the scientific community's needs and attracting investment; and Keeping collections focused on the core mission. Elements of a successful strategic plan include: engaging all stakeholders in open discussions; implementing balanced revenue streams that can provide robust support in fluctuating economies; asking challenging questions during the process; integrating stakeholder feedback to address feasibility; and having the focus and discipline to attain objectives. When considering the current funding climate within federal agencies, it is clear that LSCs need to track the broader impact and value of their collection while including a detailed financial sustainability program in their strategic plans. Going beyond required grant reporting is needed to successfully capture impacts and examples of innovation. This information should be compiled and included in future funding proposals to create strong justifications for continued and future support. Some LSCs represented at the workshop have strategic plans in place already, while others are just beginning the process. All of the collections, however, are already implementing strategies to help them meet immediate sustainability challenges. New revenue streams can arise from pursuing funding from foundations, additional government agencies, and the private sector, or implementing cost recovery programs while providing innovative products and services. One collection experienced a 31% increase in tour revenues from 2011 to 2012. Another collection found itself in a prime position to take advantage of new business opportunities emerging in biofuels production and research. Getting involved with business and the private sector can be daunting for academic organizations; it is vital for collections to maintain their commitment among the scientific community to house and distribute organisms when taking advantage of new and exciting opportunities that enhance sustainability. Controlling costs often involves creating efficiencies, streamlining processes, and sometimes asking staff to take on more responsibilities. Some collections have had success with asking companies to donate equipment and supplies at reduced rates, or requesting host institutions to assist with repairs. Efforts to control costs also demonstrate an LSC's commitment to efficient use of funds. Collections have a variety of media at their disposal for customer and user relations, including websites, videos, word of mouth, open houses and tours, seminars, publications, phone, and email. Many provide quality services to users, including detailed advice about organism care and research. These communication and engagement strategies help retain current users while attracting new ones. Being in constant contact with the user base is incredibly valuable when engaging in collection advocacy work and implementing new revenue streams or user fees—all activities that enhance the collection's overall sustainability. Planning for emergencies is absolutely necessary in LSCs. There are some preventive actions that LSC directors can employ, such as maintaining high animal care standards to prevent disease outbreaks. All LSCs should have a preparedness plan in the event of fires, floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters, and should keep a backup source of organisms in a separate facility, if possible. High frequency staff turnover has the potential to significantly hinder collection development and sustainability. LSC staff require particular training to manage collections appropriately and efficiently, and when a staff member leaves it represents a significant loss of investment. Each collection is different; some are able to hire young workers who become vested in the collection and stay for many years, while others struggle with establishing continuity. Participants identified myriad factors that affect LSC sustainability, including four main issues that resonated with most collections: the challenges of succession planning, implementing user fees, defining collection ownership, and international transport. An LSC is managed by a single individual or PI, and is not nested within a larger group or department; An LSC is managed by part-time faculty, and he or she has additional teaching and research responsibilities; or An LSC is managed by faculty without tenure. Collections with multiple factors are likely to be the most vulnerable. When an LSC manager takes a position elsewhere or retires, universities do not always have a vested interest in maintaining (or developing) a collection, or ensuring that the replacement faculty has the skills needed or an interest in taking on responsibility for managing the LSC. Participants suggested a couple of strategies to help address this important issue. One idea involved more effective communication and outreach, emphasizing that losing an LSC means an acute loss of actual resources, rather than merely a loss of opportunity, which may pose a real risk to future scientific advancement and research. Another strategy is to professionalize the management of LSCs within universities and host institutions, so there is a true commitment to maintain the LSC if a PI leaves. This would involve developing a mechanism that influences the host institution's hiring practices, making the host responsible for finding an appropriate successor. When a collection can effectively demonstrate its use and value to the scientific community and is being used widely on a regular basis, the chances of continued support from both host institutions and federal agencies increase dramatically. Effective succession planning needs to be a constant, intentional process, and those managing the most vulnerable LSCs which are contributing important resources to science need to be particularly meticulous about finding appropriate successors and having a long-term plan in place to ensure collection sustainability. Most participant LSCs implement user fees using different models, and these fees account for between 10% and 50% of their financing strategy. A common challenge was fluctuation in user fee income, and how that creates difficulty in predicting, using, and investing that income back into the collection. Another big challenge is deciding exactly whom and how much to charge. Generally, most participants agreed that they are likely undervaluing their resources, but there was widespread concern that raising fees could price some users out of the marketplace and potentially hinder scientific inquiry and discovery. Ultimately, the only way to determine an appropriate pricing strategy for each LSC is through trial and error, close monitoring, and polling users. One LSC represented at the workshop held online auctions to determine what their user base was willing and able to pay. The proceeds were invested back into the collection to fund staff, who also became advocates for the value of their work and the importance of collection revenue in continuing that work. Base the pricing strategy on covering costs; Continue to identify new users and opportunities for growth; Compare prices with those of similar collections;2 2 Most users are looking for value. Having the lowest price, however, could be perceived as a lack of quality. Provide, to the extent possible, value-added products or services; and Incorporate branding into any user fee strategy to the extent possible; in particular, emphasize the LSC's reputation for quality stocks. Most LSC managers did not think their collection could become self-sustaining through user fees alone. Many agreed, however, that the LSC community could work together to increase user fee implementation success by demonstrating how the traditional exchange of free stocks is no longer viable and showing that accessible user fees enable continued scientific discovery. Overly distinct or unclear definitions of ownership could be crippling operationally for collections, and finding a good balance is key; As collections begin interacting with commercial entities, legal frameworks for ownership will increasingly need to be in place; Legal questions exist currently about what a PI can do with a collection and where it can be distributed, depending on where ownership lies; and There are no established best practices in the LSC community regarding ownership, legal procedures, or material transfer agreements (MTAs). Defining collection ownership will involve making complex decisions about multifaceted issues, and the decisions made can have significant impacts on long-term LSC operation and sustainability. Workshop participants concluded that they needed a venue to clarify some of these issues to address the broader challenges of sustainability, development, and innovation. The USDA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have restrictions in place to regulate the movement of organisms within the US and internationally. These same regulations, however, can make it difficult or impossible for collections to transport stocks across borders. For example, there are severe limitations on the transfer of captive-bred animals that hamper biodiversity and conservation research. PIs also have to navigate invasive species regulations that prohibit moving certain organisms, even if they are not involved in commercial exchange. Such laws make it difficult or impossible to conduct science that LSCs should be able to support. This is a widespread problem for collections, and LSCs need support from the broader scientific community to advocate for changing these policies. Workshop participants identified a number of opportunities available to the LSC community to enhance collection sustainability. Participants also recognized that some opportunities may not apply to every type of collection. These opportunities are grouped into three main themes: investing in shared resources, capturing and communicating impacts, and connecting as a larger community of living stocks collections to share information and advocate for support. Investing in living stocks collections to increase their value to the scientific community and generate shared resources was a recurring theme that emerged during the workshop. Participants also suggested completing the genomic sequencing for non-model organisms in LSCs as a way to increase the value of collections. Once an organism's genome is sequenced, a process that is quickly becoming easier, cheaper, and faster to accomplish, the value of that organism to science increases exponentially. Living stocks with current non-model organisms could become valuable in new, unpredicted ways, contribute to emerging research areas, and potentially foster additional partnerships between agencies such as NSF and NIH. Investing in shared resources such as genome sequencing to increase the research value of LSCs can also create new opportunities for collaboration among biology, ecology, statistics, and other fields, and present new training opportunities for students and early career scientists. Other opportunities for shared resources within the LSC community include tools for communication, public relations, advocacy, and capturing collection impacts. Workshop participants agreed that development and innovation in living stocks collections are tightly connected to sustenance funding. In many cases, however, innovation and development occur when researchers get materials from the collection and use them in their own research elsewhere. To justify continued support, LSC directors must document this off-site use, and agencies should support efforts to collect this data whenever possible. Many LSC directors already compile lists of publications that cite their collections. Some federal agencies, such as NIH and NSF, require grantees to cite any collections they use in their research projects and have mechanisms to highlight recent science advances to the public. More data on demonstrated impacts, and more efficient ways to collect this data, are necessary. Furthermore, information on how and where LSCs are used to create development and innovation in science needs to be interpreted and communicated in a way that resonates with a variety of stakeholders, including the public, federal agencies, individual donors, and users. Most workshop participants were not previously aware of other collections, which demonstrated the lack of communication across the LSC community. Establishing a cross-disciplinary LSC community united by common practices will enable collections to be more powerful as they advocate for support; enhance development by sharing knowledge, materials, and resources; develop best practices; and create strategic plans for vulnerable or endangered collections. These are some of the goals of a new NSF research coordination network (RCN) of microbial germplasm repositories called the US Culture Collections Network (USCCN). This group, and others like it that may develop in the future, present significant opportunities to enhance sustainability, innovation, and development in the LSC community. Clearly articulate the NSF Collections in Support of Biological Research (CSBR) Program's mission and guidelines for documenting the value and use of collections. A clear mission will help PIs create more successful funding proposals. A list of minimum required metrics is needed to provide PIs that are requesting or reporting funds with additional guidance on the information they need to collect, monitor, and report. NSF may also wish to revise language in their solicitations to encourage LSCs to implement business models and strategic plans, rather than state that LSCs need to move toward self-sustainability. There are significant costs to helping users make the best use of LSCs and engaging in high-quality collection acquisition work. When LSC staff spend time educating users about the best employment of their specimens and engage in high quality acquisition work, both of which are important to maintaining and developing a collection, their work in other areas may be affected or reduced. Agencies should be aware of this acute cost for LSCs and acknowledge that additional support and resources would enhance scientific development and innovation. User fees are complex to implement for the various reasons mentioned earlier in this report. • A venue to clarify ownership issues. Although developing strict guidelines regarding ownership and MTAs is likely impossible since LSCs vary drastically, a meeting or workshop to promote information sharing among LSC directors could produce some general guidelines for best practices and ensure that collection managers are aware of existing procedures in this area. It may also be useful to learn more about how other scientific communities, such as natural history museums, botanical gardens, and zoos handle similar issues. • Support for information collection that demonstrates research impacts and innovation. Gathering this information can prove difficult for PIs, who are often playing multiple roles already within their LSCs and have limited amounts of time to devote to such activities. PIs can search proposal abstracts on NSF's website, but information about collection use is not always available. Thus, workshop participants identified the following opportunities for NSF and other agencies to help support these efforts in the LSC community: ▪ Provide some staff time to help LSC directors compile this information, particularly data that are not available in publicly-available abstracts. Agency staff time could also be devoted to writing software or investing in natural language processing to efficiently harvest citations, creating a database to house the information, and analyzing impact metrics. NSF staff informed PIs of CiteSeerX (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu), a scientific literature digital library incorporating autonomous citation indexing, as well as natural language processors that can be used in conjunction with http://www.research.gov/. If these tools do not meet an LSC's needs, a PI should consider submitting a proposal to create an appropriate tool through NSF's Advances in Biological Informatics (ABI) Program. ▪ Consider innovative ways of capturing and reporting the collection data provided to agencies through grant reports and proposals. Possibilities include web-based applications that automatically populate spreadsheets for data analysis, or publishing products to the wider scientific community. ▪ Support a public forum where the LSC community can come together and make better use of impact data. This can create a way for LSC PIs to complete a larger analysis of the total impacts of LSCs on scientific research. ▪ Advertise and promote the value of LSCs more directly through public relations campaigns. There are some selling points that could be brought to the forefront (e.g. keeping mutants alive for 50+ years facilitates scientific collaboration and innovation across decades and generations). Agencies could also consider a mixed model of public communication, moving beyond the “highlights” model to communicate the value of LSCs. Participants also recommended effective and creative methods for gathering impact information: ▪ Gather stories from the user community in a variety of formats (e.g. written stories, videos, podcasts, etc.) and share them with NSF and other supporting federal agencies. ▪ Articulate impact in terms of: 1) the researchers served, and 2) how users address the challenges that agencies see as critical. LSC funding agencies should receive this information as often as possible, whether in proposals, reports, or anecdotal emails. ▪ PIs should advocate for their collections by asking customers to articulate how they use collection organisms and list relevant publications. Users should understand that this information is critical to ensuring collection sustainability. One way to engage users in this activity could be to reward them with discounted user fees when they respond. • Shared community resources. There are a number of resources that could be used to improve efficiency and make collections more useful to the scientific community: ▪ Sequencing of non-model organisms. PIs should write a grant proposal explaining why this resource would be fundamental to their collections and how it meets NSF and NIH grand challenges. Another venue for support in this area is the J. Craig Venter Institute (http://www.jcvi.org/). ▪ Support for strain development and acquisition. Agency support for these efforts could greatly enhance and increase the value of collections. ▪ IT infrastructure and bioinformatics support. Having shared infrastructure resources such as these could create cost savings for LSCs and promote efficiency. ▪ Education resources for users and students. An online clearinghouse of all LSCs in the United States, along with information on their location, how to access them, what they contain, and who to contact for more details could be invaluable for the user community. Education resources to capture, archive, and disseminate knowledge in danger of being lost would also be a valuable service to the scientific community. • Support to foster communication and information sharing among LSCs. Collective action and initiatives can be very powerful when advocating for support in new areas and addressing the sustainability challenges that LSCs face. Additional RCNs within the LSC community could be one way to promote communication and information sharing. Some possible action items for the LSC community or an LSC RCN to address include: ▪ Advocate that all agencies using LSCs help provide financial support and greater stability for collections. ▪ Develop best practices for: cryopreservation and barcoding, diversifying funding sources, implementing user fees, developing ownership protocols, succession planning, and gathering data that captures impacts and innovation. ▪ Share proposals more widely to improve the overall success of LSC proposals. ▪ Advocate for changes in policies and laws that hinder international transport of collection specimens. ▪ Advocate for professionalization of LSC management at universities. ▪ Create strategic plans for vulnerable or endangered collections. ▪ Advocate and seek support for shared resources in the LSC community. Finally, workshop participants and all who manage living stocks collections are encouraged to continue this conversation, share ideas and this report with their colleagues, and tackle some of the recommendations and ideas identified in this workshop. This meeting has helped to define the opportunities and challenges for developing and innovating living stocks collections, but additional efforts are needed to ensure LSCs exist in the future to continue supporting scientific innovation and discovery. Jerry Brand The Culture Collection of Algae The University of Texas at Austin Jelena Brkljacic Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center (ABRC) The Ohio State University Michael Chang Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) National Institutes of Health Pierre Comizzoli Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute National Zoological Park Kevin Cook Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC) Indiana University Gregory Dye Duke Lemur Center Duke University Michael Felder Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center University of South Carolina M. Patrick Griffith Montgomery Botanical Center Ann Hitchcock National Park Service John Jackson Stroud Water Research Center Peter Lefebvre Chlamydomonas Resource Center University of Minnesota Kathy Matthews Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC) Indiana University Kevin McCluskey University of Missouri, Kansas City Fungal Genetics Stock Center (FGSC) Elizabeth Merritt Center for the Future of Museums American Alliance of Museums Joseph Morton Division of Plant and Soil Sciences West Virginia University Maxi P. Richmond Drosophila Species Stock Center University of California San Diego Randal Voss Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center University of Kentucky John Wertz E. coli Genetic Stock Center Yale University William Wilson Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA) Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences Anne Yoder Duke Lemur Center Duke University Chris Young Alverno College Organizing Staff and National Science Foundation Observers Tom Berger National Children's Museum Cliff Duke ESA Director of Science Programs Daphne Fautin National Science Foundation (DBI) Christy Jo (CJ) Geraci AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow National Science Foundation (DBI) Michelle Kelleher National Science Foundation (DBI) Mark Largent AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow Michigan State University Anne Maglia National Science Foundation (DBI) Melody Murray National Science Foundation (DBI) Jill Petraglia Parsons ESA Science Programs Manager Jeffrey Rieke National Science Foundation (DBI) Maria Dolores (MD) Rodriguez Meridian Institute Judith Verbeke National Science Foundation (DBI) Donna Webb National Science Foundation (DBI)