Evaluation of the NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program: Reports From Users

June 1996

Prepared for:

The Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program of the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Research Resources has provided costly, state-of-the-art instruments for NIH-supported investigators since FY 1982. Between FY 1982 and 1995, 1,487 instruments were awarded through the SIG program for a total Program expenditure of $296.5 million to graduate schools, medical and other health professions schools, hospitals and research organizations.

An independent, external evaluation targeted the 11-year period FY 1982-1992, during which 1,352 SIG instruments were awarded. SIG Principal Investigators and Major Users defined as NIH-supported investigators who accounted for a significant share of SIG instrument use time were surveyed through two related written questionnaires that addressed user characteristics, instrument usage and sharing arrangements, and the importance of SIG instruments to NIH research. The survey documented the status of SIG instruments ranging in age from 1 to 11 years old at a single point in time, calendar year 1993.

A key finding of the survey was that in 1993 fully 70 percent of the 11-year old instruments were still in service supporting NIH research. Furthermore, 78 percent of the Major Users of the oldest SIG instruments evaluated the instruments as "adequate" for their specific area of research. These findings indicated a greater-than-expected longevity for SIG instruments. Additional findings include:

• About 16,050 scientists nationwide used SIG instruments in 1993:

  • Of these, 69 percent were NIH-supported investigators, accounting for 83 percent of instrument use time.

  • Major Users numbered about 5,300; as a group they registered 76 percent of total use time, or approximately 35,700 hours per week.

  • Six NIH Institutes supported 75 percent of Major User's 3,486 NIH grants for which SIG instruments were used; 72 percent of NIH grants using SIG instruments were for investigator-initiated projects.

  • The 10,750 minor users (those whose share of usage was a small percentage or who were not supported by NIH) accounted for approximately 11,300 hours per week, for a 24 percent share of total SIG instrument use time.

• Seventy-three percent of Major Users rated the SIG instruments as essential for their NIH research -- regardless of instrument age.

• Ninety-six percent of Major Users were readily able to gain access to the instrument.

• Eighty-two percent of the instruments were located in central facilities.

• Fifty-eight percent of the Major Users rated the working condition of their SIG instrument as "excellent."

• A noteworthy 45 percent of Major Users of 11 year old SIG instruments said the instruments were "state-of-the-art" for their specific area of research.

Table Of Contents

1. Background Events
2. Objective and Features of the SIG Program
3. Grant Activity Through FY 1995

1. Purpose
2. Scope
3. Characteristics of Study Instruments
4. Methods
5. Response Rates

B. Major Users

1. Number of Major Users
2. NIH Extramural Research Support
3. Share of Weekly Use
4. Turnover Among Major Users

1. Number
2. Share of Use

E.Longitudinal Changes in Instrument Use

F.Impediments to Full Use

Chapter III: NIH Investigator's Views

1. Importance to Funded and Proposed Research Grants
2. Areas of Impact

C. Instrument Status

1. Technological Status
2. Working Condition

1. Start-up
2. Location
3. Assigned Operator
4. Annual Maintenance Expense
5. Upgrades

C. Instrument Advisory Committees

1. Prevalence and Type
2. Size, Composition and Meeting Frequency
3. Committee Policies

Figures:

Appendices:

The Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was established in 1982 by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR).¹The program goal is to allow extramural scientists to acquire and share advanced analyticalinstrumentation not generally available through other NIH funding mechanisms.² From FY 1982 to 1995, funding for the Program totaled $296.5 million. In FY 1985 annual funding reached $31.8 million and remained at similar levels until FY 1992 when the SIGappropriation dropped to $8.7 million, a decline of 73 percent. A total of 4,041 applications had been received through FY 1995, and 1,487 grants were awarded. Of those, 77 percent were awarded to medical schools and academic institutions (43 percent and 34 percent, respectively).

Evaluation Design

The independent, external evaluation examined the efficacy of the SIG Program at the institutional level. Three fundamental questions were addressed:

1. Were SIG instruments in fact used for NIH-supported research?
2. What were the views of NIH-supported users on such issues as instrument access and sharing arrangements, working condition of the instruments, and impact of instrument use on NIH research?
3. How were SIG instruments administered and maintained by grantee institutions?

To address those questions, SIG Principal Investigators and Major Users -- defined as NIH-supported investigators accounting for a significant share of SIG instrument use time -- were surveyed regarding the 1,352 instruments awarded during the first 11 years of the SIG Program, FY 1982-1992. Since the instruments under consideration ranged in age from 1 to 11 years, the evaluation focused on instrument activity at a single point in time -- calendar year 1993 -- to gain perspective on the useful lifetime for these state-of-the-art instruments.

Selected Findings

Instruments In-Service Supporting NIH Research: Responses to the Principal Investigator questionnaire indicated that in 1993, 87 percent of the NIH instruments awarded between FY 1982 and 1992 were in service supporting NIH research. Included in this group was a surprisingly high percentage of older instruments: 70 percent of 11 year old SIG instruments were still in service in 1993. Thus, the vital role played by SIGinstruments in NIH research extends over a long period -- more than a decade for the oldest instruments. The longevity of instrument use in NIH research attests to the utility of federal investments by the SIG Program.

Users and Use: Of the 16,050 scientists using SIG instruments in 1993, 69 percent were NIH-supported investigators.³ NIH-supported investigators accounted for an average of 83 percent of instrument use time, or approximately 39,000 hours for a typical week.

Approximately 5,300 Major Users utilized SIG instruments in service in 1993; they accounted for an average of 76 percent of total use time, or roughly 35,700 hours per week.

The 10,750 minor users -- individuals whose share of instrument use represents a small percentage or who were not supported by NIH -- accounted for approximately 11,300 hours per week, a 24 percent share of total SIG instrument use time.

For all SIG instruments, weekly usage averaged 46 hours. In addition, Principal Investigators reported that the amount of usage by all users for two-thirds of the SIG instruments had increased over time.

NIH Research Support: A total of 3,486 individual NIH grants -- mostly investigator initiated research projects -- were listed as supporting the Major User's research for which the SIG instruments were used. Seventy-five percent of these grants were awarded by six NIH Institutes ranked in order: the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Cancer Institute; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke .

Importance to Research: Seventy-three percent of Major Users considered SIG instruments "essential" for conducting their NIH-supported research projects. Fifty-two percent of Major Users reported a "very significant" impact on their ability to conduct research -- research that could not have been carried out without the instruments.

Sharing Arrangements: Ninety-six percent of Major Users reported that in 1993 they were "always able" (55 percent) or "usually able" (41 percent) to gain access to SIG instruments when needed for their research.

Technological Status : Ninety-seven percent of Major Users labeled one-year old SIGinstruments as "adequate" for their specific area of research, while 83 percent classified the same instruments as "state-of-the-art." Older instruments received unexpectedly high ratings: 78 percent of 11 year old instruments were considered adequate for the research purposes of the Major Users; and a lower, but still noteworthy, 45 percent were judged state-of-the-art by the same evaluators.

Location: Eighty-two percent of SIG instruments were located in central facilities, including departmental (43 percent), interdepartmental (30 percent), and interinstitutional (9 percent) facilities.

Working Condition: Fifty-eight percent of Major Users evaluated the working condition of their SIG instruments as "excellent." Most of the remaining respondents rated instrument condition as "above average" (23 percent) or "average" (14 percent). The estimates of working condition were lower for older SIG instruments.

Annual Maintenance Expense: Average instrument maintenance expenses in 1993 ranged from a high of $15,300 per instrument for cytometers to as low as $4,800 per instrument for other spectrometers.

Upgrades: By 1993, 40 percent of all SIG instruments had undergone a significant upgrade. While half had been upgraded once, the remaining half had been upgraded two or more times.

Advisory Committees: With few exceptions, use of newer instruments was overseen by an advisory committee. Overall, 70 percent of all instruments had operative advisory committees.

Closing Note

Replacement of obsolete instruments, as well as acquisition of instruments of totally new design and capabilities, is frequently necessary to maintain the level of research that will keep the United States at the forefront of scientific knowledge and technology.⁴

Introduction

Much of this Nation's health-related research is carried out using technologies and resources developed and supported by the National Center for Research Resources(NCRR)¹, the largest center at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Rather than focusing on a single illness or disease, the NCRR supports multidisciplinary programs designed towork in conjunction with research activities funded through other Institutes at the NIH. With an emphasis on shared resources and economies of scale, NCRR-supported programs have achieved a significant leveraging of research dollars.

One such program is the NCRR's Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program, which allows extramural scientists to acquire and share expensive, analytical instruments not generally available through other NIH funding mechanisms. The SIG Program was designed to address the special needs associated with the acquisition and upgrading of these shared-use instruments. The Program was modeled after and replaced a predecessor program initiated by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in 1979.

An independent, external evaluation of the NCRR's SIG Program is documented in this report. The following overview of the SIG Program -- including Program background, the objective and main features, and its funding history through FY 1995 -- is presented as a foundation for considering the evaluation design presented on page 7.

A. Program Overview

1. Background Events

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, new instruments were developed that opened new horizons to biomedical researchers and provided greater levels of sensitivity, flexibility, and computational power. Examples of these new instruments included nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, electron microscopes, and cell sorters. In combination with improved computational and graphics software, these technologies gave biomedical researchers valuable new tools in their efforts to find causes and cures for a wide range of diseases. As a result, the popularity of the instrumentation grew, extending beyond the relatively small group of investigators interested mainly in development of the technology itself, to include large numbers of biomedical scientists from a variety of disciplines.

Due to increased demand for the instrumentation, as well as certain characteristics of the instruments themselves, several problems arose. For example, anecdotal information suggested that access to new instruments was largely restricted to instrumentation specialists; and diffusion of technological capabilities to the general research community was increasingly constrained. With price tags of $75,000 or more, these state-of-the-art instruments were too expensive to be obtained through individual NIH research project grants. Moreover, as technological advances accelerated, the period of time during which new instruments were considered state-of-the-art, or the best generally available, gradually compressed.

In addition, NIH-supported investigators were experiencing a steady erosion in the funding necessary for the purchase and upkeep of scientific equipment that qualified as state-of-the-art. After the unprecedented R&D; infrastructure buildup of the 1960s in response to the Soviet scientific challenge, government funds earmarked for R&D; facilities and equipment had declined markedly; and an entire generation of equipment purchased for those facilities was outmoded by the late 1970s. For example, equipment in use at top-ranked universities had a median age twice that of the instrumentation available to leading industrial research laboratories.² In addition, research funding was losing ground to inflation, making it less likely that instrumentation resources would be replenished.

The shortage of state-of-the-art instrumentation created backlogs and constraints on NIH research in many disciplines. By the early 1970s, the instrumentation situation was the focus of a series of reports; and in the mid 1980s, a rigorous comprehensive study was launched to investigate the earlier, largely anecdotal assessments of the problem. For the years 1982-1983, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Study of Academic Research Instruments reported that:

• 72 percent of university department heads surveyed stated that critical experiments were unable to be conducted due to a lack of equipment;

• 20 percent of the scientific equipment inventoried by universities was obsolete and no longer in use in research;

• 22 percent of all instrument systems then in use in research were more than 10 years old; and

• Only 52 percent of instruments in use were in excellent working condition.

In spite of findings indicating a pressing need for advanced analytical instrumenta-tion, there remained concern at the federal level about unnecessary duplication of equipment. Although federal grantees were under a mandate to achieve efficient instrument sharing, the Presidentially-appointed Grace Commission noted that sharing was still not being carried out efficiently, despite regulations requiring administrators of grantee institutions to certify that no unnecessary duplication of research equipment was taking place. The Commission recommended that federal science agencies address the problem by first teaching grantee institutions how to share expensive equipment and instruments, and then encouraging them to do so.

2. Objective and Features of the SIG Program³

The SIG Program was launched in FY 1982 to enhance the accessibility and sharing of instrumentation not usually available to biomedical researchers through regular NIH grants. The Program allows investigators to acquire analytical instruments that fall below the regional facility scale in terms of sophistication and price, but above that of routine laboratory equipment. The stated objective of the SIG Program is:

... make available to institutions with a high concentration of NIH-supported biomedical investigators, research instruments which can only be justified on a shared-use basis and for which meritorious research projects are described.^4,5

In addition to providing improved access to expensive, analytical instruments, the shared-use provision of the SIG Program benefits medical science in at least two other ways. First, it fosters collaboration among the traditionally fragmented specialties of the basic, applied, and clinical sciences by serving analytical instrumentation needs in all areas of biomedical research -- from fundamental molecular biology to clinical research and population studies, from cancer and cardiovascular disease studies to genetic and infectious disease studies. Some of the greatest advances in medicine have occurred at the juncture of disciplinary boundaries.

Second, the shared-use feature of the SIG Program addresses the perceived need for institutions to manage their scientific resources more efficiently, and to integrate research activities into local, central core facilities whenever possible. In times of reduced funding for biomedical research, increased costs for advanced equipment, and shorter instrument lifetimes, efficient sharing of resources is imperative.⁶

• Sharing. To encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research groups and departments, a core group of major users (MUs) with a minimum of three NIH-supported investigators is required. The SIG Program is very specific regarding sharing and the priority to be given to NIH-supported scientists,as illustrated in the FY 1996 SIG ProgramAnnouncement:
  

  A major user group of three or more investigators should be identified. A minimum of three major users must be Principal Investigators on NIH peer-reviewed research support at the time of award .... The application must show a clear need for the instrumentation by projects supported by multiple NIH research awards and demonstrate that these projects will require at least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument. ⁷

• Oversight Guidelines. Key provisions concerning grantee institution oversight responsibilities under the SIG Program include:
  
  • Identifying a Principal Investigator (PI) to provide administrative/scientific oversight for the requested instrumentation, including but not limited to: establishing an internal advisory committee to assist with oversight; developing a plan for day-to-day management of the instrument, including supervising its operation and providing technical assistance; specifying plans for sharing arrangements and monitoring instrument use; and submitting a final progress report to NCRR within 90 days following the end of the project period describing instrument use, listing all users, and indicating the value of the instrument to the research of the major users and the institution.

  • Assuring the long-term maintenance and operation of the instrument.

• Award Amount. The SIG Program sets forth minimum and maximum award amounts, currently $100,000 and $400,000, respectively ⁸. The maximum award amount does not correspond to a ceiling on instrument cost; an institution may apply additional funds from other sources toward the purchase of SIG instrumentation.

• Eligibility for Grant Awards. Institutions eligible to apply include health professions schools, graduate schools, hospitals, and research organizations. Foreign institutions and profit-making organizations are not eligible to apply.

• Grant Mechanism. The grants are for one year, non-renewable and cover the direct cost of acquiring new instrumentation or updating existing research instruments.
  

  ---

  ⁷NCRR, SIG Program Annoucement, Fiscal Year 1996.
  ⁸The minimum and maximum award amounts changed over the course of the Program. In FY 1982, the SIG award floor was $75,000, with a ceiling of $250,000. In FY 1984, the ceiling was increased to $300,000, and by FY 1989, the floor and ceiling award had risen to $100,000 and $400,000, respectively.

  ---

• Application Requirements. The Program requires that investigators describe how the proposed instrumentation would enhance the progress of their research projects. Applicants must provide an estimate of the percentage of use by each MU.

  The SIG application requires a complete justification and description of the proposed instrumentation, including a justification for the chosen manufacturer and model, with a comparison to other available instruments. Also required is a description of the technical expertise available and an inventory of similar instruments currently available at the institution.

• Application Review. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit by the NIH Division of Research Grants (DRG). Reviewers evaluate each MU's justification of how the instrument would enhance their current research; whether they have access to similar instrumentation; availability of technical expertise to properly use the instrument; plans for sharing; and the institution's commitment for continued support of instrument operation and maintenance. A review for Program relevance is conducted by the National Advisory Research Resources Council (NARRC) of the NCRR.

3. Grant Activity Through FY 1995

Through FY 1995, a total of 4,041 applications had been received and 1,487 awards granted. The numbers for applications and awards, by year, are shown in Figure 2. In general, trends in the numbers of applications and awards reflect annual changes in SIGProgram funding. Nonetheless, between FY 1992 and 1995 the application success rate was about half that of preceding years, because the number of applications declined only modestly in comparison to the sharp drop in funding.

B. Evaluation

The evaluation represents the first assessment of the performance of a specific national, shared-use instrumentation program. The data collection consisted of a census of the 1,352 instruments awarded during the first 11 fiscal years of the SIG Program, with a particular focus on circumstances in calendar year 1993. Instruments, ranging in age from 1 to 11 years in 1993, were examined at that single point in time, which provided a longitudinal perspective that led to new insight into instrument life-cycles. The evaluation was designed to address specific aspects of SIG Program performance; the following describes the evaluation purpose, scope, characteristics of instruments included in the study, methods of data collection and analysis, and survey response rates.

1. Purpose

The evaluation was conducted to determine if the SIG Program has fulfilled its intent by addressing the NIH extramural research communities' need for advanced, shared-use analytical instrumentation. The findings will inform federal policy and program management decision makers responsible for the future funding and direction of the Program. In addition, by completing the partially-drawn picture provided by previous studies,¹⁰ these findings may support policy-level considerations of analytical instrumentation support for NIH-supported research in the years to come.

2. Scope

As reflected in the questions for SIG PIs and MUs, which focused on circumstances of SIG instruments at a single point in time -- calendar year 1993, -- the evaluation addresses the SIG Program's intent by documenting how well the Program was working at the institutional level. The selection of evaluation topics was guided by the SIG Program Announcement (Appendix A), which states the formal objective and identifies distinctive Program features. These topics are subsumed in three fundamental questions:

1. Were the SIG instruments used for NIH-supported research?

2. What were NIH-supported users' views on Program topics, such as instrument access and sharing arrangements, operating condition of the instruments, and effects of instrument use on their NIH research?

3. How were SIG instruments administered and maintained by grantee institutions?

Questions 1-3 are addressed separately in Chapters II, III and IV, respectively.

3. Characteristics of Study Instruments

As noted, the study universe included the 1,352 analytical instruments purchased with SIG Program awards during FY 1982 through 1992. For most analyses, these instruments were aggregated into analysis subgroups defined by instrument age, instrument class, or grantee institution type.

Instrument age was defined by the federal fiscal year of the SIG Program award for each instrument in the study universe. Instrument age in 1993 ranged from one year for FY 1992 awards to 11 years for FY 1982 awards as shown in Figure 2. For 2 to 8 year old instruments awarded from FY 1985 to 1991, the age cohorts by year were roughly similar in size, ranging from 139 to 171 instruments per year. For 1, 9, 10, and 11 year old instruments, the yearly age cohorts were smaller, ranging from 23 to 116 instruments peryear.

Based on an instrument classification scheme developed for the NCRR Scientific Subproject System,¹¹ the instruments examined in the evaluation were categorized into 11 broad classes as follows:

• Computer Graphics and Image Systems, including central computational facilities (computers, supercomputers, mini-supercomputers, array processors, biomedical networking equipment), image analysis computer graphics and molecular modeling systems;

• Cytometers, including flow cytometers, fluorescence activated cell sorters, anchored cell analysis and sorting systems;

• Electron Microscopes, including transmission and scanning electron microscopes, accessories for cryoelectron microscopy;

• Mass Spectrometers, including tandem and Time-of-Flight mass spectrometers;

• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectrometers, 200 through 750 MHz spectrometers including wide-bore instruments for small animal and limb studies and magnetic resonance imagers;

• Other Spectrometers, including electron spin resonance, electron paramagnetic resonance, Fourier transform infrared, ENDOR, Raman spectrometers; circular dichroism spectropolarimeters; pulsed laser light sources for micro- and mass spectrofluorimeters; time-resolved fluorescence and stopped flow spectrophotometers;

• Protein/DNA Sequencers, including amino acid analyzers, protein sequencers, peptide synthesizers, oligonucleotide synthesizers and sequencers, phosphor-imagers;

• Quantitative Microscopes, including light or fluorescent (video-enhanced or digital-imaged) microscopes, laser scanning confocal microscopes, acoustic microscopes;

• Radiology Instruments, including gamma and cesium irradiators, biomagnetic and tomographic systems, biomedical cyclotrons;

• X-Ray Diffractometers, including rotating anode x-ray generators; high intensity diffractometers; area detectors; crystallographic data collection systems; and

• Miscellaneous Instruments, including fermentors; ultrasound devices; eyetrackers; motion-analysis systems.

Since the SIG instruments were categorized into classes, the evaluation did not treat specific instrument types within a class; for instance, it did not distinguish analytically between 300 MHz, 400 MHz, and 500 MHz NMR spectrometers.

NMR spectrometers were the most commonly awarded instruments, accounting for 219 of the 1,352 awards, or 16 percent.(Figure 3) The top four instrument categories --NMRs, electron microscopes, protein/DNA sequencers, and computer graphics and image systems -- represented 59 percent of the SIG instruments in the study universe.

With advances in instrumentation in the 1980s and early 1990s, the distribution of SIG awards by instrument class changed over time.¹² Some of the shifts that occurred were:

• Awards for protein/DNA sequencers, quantitative microscopes, and radiology equipment generally increased.

• Awards for electron microscopes and cytometers generally decreased.

• Awards for NMRs, mass spectrometers, computer graphics and image systems, x-ray diffractometers and other spectrometers remained relatively constant.

Through FY 1992, a total of 251 institutions had received SIG Program awards. For this report, SIG grantee institutions are characterized as (1) medical schools, (2) academic institutions, (3) research organizations, and (4) "other." The "other" category includes hospitals, schools of pharmacy, dentistry, public health, veterinary medicine, and optometry, and health departments. Each of these "other" organizations accounted for 5 percent or less of SIG awards in the study period. More than three-quarters of the grants were awards to medical schools (43 percent) and academic institutions (34 percent). (Figure 4)

4. Methods

a. Data Collection

A SIG award, unless administratively extended, is usually active for one-year. This is only the beginning of the total period of time for which SIG instruments are in service for NIH research purposes. Therefore, to obtain data unavailable from NIH in hard copy, electronic files or other existing sources, the evaluation relied on survey research. A survey was considered a feasible method for obtaining a sufficient number of observations on SIG instruments in the field.

The 1993 Survey of Extramural Shared Instrumentation Activities was developed by Abt Associates Inc. and James Bell Associates and consisted of two questionnaires mailed between September 1994 and June 1995. Appendix B contains copies of the questionnaires. The Principal Investigator Questionnaire was sent to current PIs of the 1,352 SIG instruments awarded between FY 1982 and 1992. As part of their questionnaire, the SIG PIs identified investigators who were MUs in 1993. Based on those responses, a Major User Questionnaire was then mailed to all 4,018 investigators identified by SIG PIs as MUs of SIG instruments in 1993. Sixty-three percent of the SIG PIs also identified themselves as MUs. This subgroup -- PI-MUs -- responded to an identical set of questions asked of MUs in a separate section of their questionnaire.

b. Data Analysis

A multistage analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons. First, response rates for subgroups defined by instrument class, grant year, and grantee institution type were examined and found to be generally consistent with the overall response rates for PIs and MUs. Second, frequency distributions of aggregate responses to individual survey items were assessed. Third, cross-tabulations were developed to identify differences across major categories, as defined by instrument age, instrument class, and grantee institution type. In addition, differences in MU subgroups were analyzed, i.e., MUs who were also SIG PIs versus other MUs.

Analysis of variance and t-tests were used to determine if key variables such as weekly instrument use (in hours) differed significantly between instrument age, instrument class, institution type, MU type, and other categorical indicators. For small samples and ordinal-interval-level comparisons of the above categories, nonparametric methods such as ranked-differences and chi-squared tests were employed. Longitudinal differences were examined for significance; in some cases, data were collapsed into groups of older and newer instruments, i.e., FY 1982-87 versus FY 1988-92. Receiving the most attention in the analyses were the 87 percent of instruments reported by SIG PIs as being in service in 1993. This in service rate is the basis for national estimates of total users and hours of usage, estimates which include reported values plus those measures estimated for nonrespondent investigators using in service instruments.

5. Response Rates

Of the 1,352 PI Questionnaires mailed out, 1,025 or 76 percent, were returned. Although the response rate varied somewhat by year of award and across instrument classes, there was no indication of nonresponse bias (Figures 5a and 5b): the distribution of age and class of instrument was similar for instruments for which the PI was a respondent or a nonrespondent (as shown in Appendix C). Of 4,018 MU Questionnaires mailed, 2,245 or 56 percent of identified users were returned. Taking into account nonresponse to the PI survey and MU survey, the response rate for MUs was 42 percent. There were comparable response rates among MUs of various classes and ages of instruments, and among instruments shared by larger and smaller numbers of MUs.

Variance estimates were calculated for both the PI and MU surveys. These calculations included a correction for finite population size and, in the case of the MU survey, a correction for design effects associated with clustering. In general, confidence intervals for survey responses were approximately:

• ±2 percent for estimates of proportions from the PI survey; and,

• ±2 percent for estimates of proportions from the MU survey (since the increased power from the increased sample size was counteracted by the design effects associated with clustering).

In addition, confidence intervals were calculated for national estimates of the number of instrument users and the number of weekly hours of SIG instrument use. These calculations for national estimates, which appear in Chapter II, are explained in footnotes.

Chapter II

Instrument Use

The SIG Program provides funding for the acquisition of state-of-the-art analytical instruments to be shared principally by Public Health Service (PHS)-supported investigators involved in meritorious research. This intent is reinforced in the Program Announcement, which requires that: (a) a minimum of three MUs must have PHS peer-reviewed research support at the time of the award; and (b) PHS research projects will require at least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument.

This chapter presents findings on the use of SIG instruments at a single point in time, calendar year 1993. After a brief overview of use in 1993, findings are reported separately for major and minor users, including the number of users, share of instrument use time and, for MUs only, the NIH awarding unit funding their research grant involving SIG instrument use. The chapter also addresses turnover among MUs, key differences in use by instrument class, and the views of SIG PIs on historical changes in use and impediments to greater use. As noted above, these descriptive findings are based on frequency distributions and bivariate comparisons (cross-tabulations) by instrument age and instrument class.

A. Overview of Use

To obtain a general description of instrument use in the period under study, SIG PIs were asked: "On average, how many hours per week in calendar year 1993 (including week- days/evenings/weekends) was the SIG instrument actually used?" (The PIs were informed that use included the development of instrument use techniques and methods, and time spent training staff involved in conducting the research for which the SIG instrument was used. General student training was excluded.)

The responses to this and other questions pertaining to instrument use in 1993 indicated that an estimated 1,175 of the 1,352 SIG instruments awarded from FY 1982 (87 percent) through 1992 were in service supporting PHS research¹³. An unexpectedly high percentage of the 11 year old instruments, 70 percent, were still in service (Figure 6). A total of 16,050 scientists utilized the SIG instruments in 1993¹⁴, and approximately 11,000,or 69 percent, were PHS-supported investigators¹⁵ -- those expected to make the greatest use of SIG instruments. PHS-supported investigators accounted for an average of 83 percent of instrument use time, or about 39,000 hours for a typical week, and about 2 million hours annually. Including usage by non-PHS users, usage totaled almost 2.5 million hours per year in 1993. (Figure 7) For all instruments, the average number of hours per week that each instrument was in use was 46. Older instruments (six to 11 years) were in use an average of 45 hours per week, while newer instruments (one to five years) were in use 50 hours per week, (weekly hours of use by instrument class is discussed on p. 22).

B. Major Users

An MU is defined as a PHS-supported investigator who accounts for a significant share of SIG instrument use time.

1. Number of Major Users

SIG PIs were asked: "Identify up to ten PHS-sponsored MU investigators, each of whom accounted for a significant share of SIG instrument use in 1993."

The total number of MUs for all SIG instruments in service in 1993 was 5,300. The average varied slightly by instrument age; it was highest, 5.2 MUs per instrument, for one to three year old instruments and lowest, 4 MUs per instrument, for instruments 7 years or older. Thirty percent of MUs used more than one SIG instrument in 1993 and 7.5 percent used more than one class of instrument. In this latter case, one of the instrument classes was likely to be NMRs, computer graphics and image systems, quantitative microscopes, or electron microscopes. Sixty-three percent of SIG PIs were also MUs; together, PI-MUs comprised 14 percent of total MUs and were distributed uniformly among instrument ages and instrument classes.

2. NIH Extramural Research Support

Seventy-five percent of the PHS grants received by MUs were awarded by six NIH Institutes ranked in order: the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Cancer Institute; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke . (Figure 8) One percent of grant support was funded by a non-NIH PHS organization and the remainder (24 percent) were funded by 15 other NIH Institutes and Centers (see Appendix D for abbreviations).

Seventy-two percent of MUs' NIH grants were awarded for investigator-initiated research projects, predominantly RO1s, (traditional research projects); 15 percent of grants were split between "research program projects" and "centers;" and the remaining 13 percent supported a mix of other research activities, e.g., cooperative agreements and trainee and fellowship programs.

3. Share of Weekly Use

SIG PIs were asked: "Record the estimated average share of use time in 1993 for each identified PHS-sponsored major user, including yourself if you are a major user."

MUs accounted for 76 percent of total use time for all instruments in service, about 35,700 hours per week and 1.9 million hours per year (Figure 9). MUs' share of instrument use was slightly higher for newer instruments when compared to older instruments. MUs accounted for 78 percent of total use of newer instruments (one to five years old); for older instruments (six to 11 years old) MUs' percentage of total use was 73 percent. For a given instrument, shares of use were likely to be unevenly distributed among the individual MUs. For example, the first three MUs identified by the SIG PI accounted for the largest proportions of instrument use time: 32 percent, 17 percent, and 12 percent, respectively, or a combined 61 percent of total use time. Finally, for one of five instruments, MUs alone accounted for all (100 percent) of average weekly hours of use.

4. Turnover Among Major Users

Mus were asked: "When did you first use the SIG instrument to conduct research?" MU turnover was identified by comparing responses to this question with responses about the date when the SIG instrument first became operational for use in PHS-supported research (see p. 33).

About one-third of MUs first used the SIG instrument two or more years after it became operational. This suggests substantial turnover in the MU population. However, turnover was lower for PI-MUs than for MUs generally. A moderately smaller proportion of PI-MUs (21 percent) first used the instrument two or more years after it became operational.

C. Minor Users

1.Number

2. Share of Use

SIG PIs were asked: "What estimated share of time used in 1993 did additional PHS-sponsored users account for?" They were also asked: "What estimated share of time used in 1993 did the non-PHS-sponsored users account for?"

The response indicated that minor users accounted for about 11,300 hours per week of SIG instrument use, or 587,600 hours in 1993. The minor users' share of total SIG instrument use time in 1993 was 24 percent. It was somewhat larger for older instruments, because the non-PHS minor users' share was substantially greater for these instruments. As shown in Figure 9, non-PHS minor users accounted for a 21 percent share of use for 11 year old instruments compared to 7 percent for one year old instruments.

D. Instrument Class Differences

The reports of PIs about SIG instrument use revealed several notable differences among instrument classes. These spanned several aspects of use, including the following:

• Protein/DNA sequencers accounted for the largest percentage of total users (27 percent), which was not surprising given the relatively high number of instruments and users per instrument in that class. (Figure 10a)

• NMR spectrometers exceeded other instrument classes in percentage of total hours of use time in 1993 -- 35 percent versus 16 percent for protein/DNA sequencers, the instrument class with the next largest percentage of total 1993 instrument use time. (Figure 10b)

  

• Compared to the average of 46 hours per week for all instrument classes, NMRs and x-ray diffractometers had twice the average weekly use, at 90 and 91 hours, respectively. Electron microscopes and cytometers had the lowest average hours of use. ( Figure 11)

  

• The highest average number of users per instrument (31) occurred with protein/DNA sequencers, while x-ray diffractometers and other spectrometers had the lowest (nine and eight users, respectively).

• X-ray diffractometers had the highest proportion of use by non-PHS minor users (31 percent) while percentage of use by non-PHS minor users was lowest for quantitative microscopes, cytometers, and computer graphics and image systems, (16 percent or less).

E. Longitudinal Changes in Instrument Use

SIG PIs were asked: "In your estimation, has the amount of use of the SIG instrument by all users changed since the SIG instrument became operational?" The number of SIG PIs who reported somewhat or greatly increased use was much larger for newer SIG instruments: 95 percent for one year old instruments compared to 41 percent for 9 year old instruments. (Figure 12) The 66 percent of PIs who reported increased use ranked the following reasons for the increase: publicity and increased demand, greater awareness by scientists of instrument capability, funding increases, improved availability and accessibility, and wider applications. For one instrument class, electron microscopes, a majority of SIG Pis (52percent) reported decreased use since the instrument became operational

.

F. Impediments to Full Use

As instruments age and new technology is introduced into commercially available instruments, the likelihood of SIG instrument obsolescence increases. Since full or maximal use of scientific instrumentation is not always possible, SIG PIs were asked: "If the SIG instrument was not fully utilized sometime in 1993, was this because...?" Respondents were given both a menu of possible reasons and space on the questionnaire to record other reasons.

These responses identified reasons for non-use of instruments on one or more occasions in 1993, but not the severity or persistence of problems over time. For many instruments, more than one reason for non-use was provided. The predominant responses ranked were: instrument was broken or not functioning properly; not enough investigators skilled in the application of the instrument; use was too expensive for some investigators; operator was needed but not available; instrument was obsolete; instrument was not reliable, precise, or consistent; and instrument was placed in an inconvenient location, thereby limiting access. In addition, "other reasons" for curtailed use included the availability of competing technologies, holidays-only availability, and the need for instrument recalibration.

Chapter III

NIH Investigators' Views

Through the shared-use of state-of-the-art SIG instruments, it is expected that NIH-supported investigators will be able to expand the horizons of knowledge in their areas of biomedical research. As the intended direct users of SIG instrumentation, the views of these NIH investigators -- in particular, the uniquely situated MUs -- provide valuable insight into the institution-level implementation and operation of instruments acquired with SIG Program grants.

This chapter presents MUs' views¹⁶ on the contribution made by SIG instruments to their NIH-supported research generally, and in specific areas, such as the ability to conduct research that could not have been done previously. It also summarizes the opinions of MUs on the arrangements for shared-use and on instrument condition.

A. Contribution to NIH-Supported Research

1. Importance to Funded and Proposed Research Grants

MUs were asked, considering the specific NIH-supported research projects for which they used the SIG instrument in 1993: "Rate the importance of the SIG instrument in this research." Seventy-three percent described the instrument as "essential," 23 percent called the instrument "somewhat important," and four percent said the instrument was "peripheral." The percentage of MUs who rated SIG instruments "essential" did not vary significantly by instrument age (Figure 13), which indicates that SIG instruments play a continuous, vital role in supporting NIH research over a long period of time -- more than a decade for the oldest SIG instruments. Perhaps a closer look would reveal a difference in research applications for newer versus older instruments, with state-of-the-art instruments expected to devolve from cutting-edge research applications into "workhorse" applications when the instruments are no longer technologically advanced. Whatever the explanation, the MUs' reports suggest that SIG instruments make a long-term contribution to NIH research. MUs' ratings of instrument importance did vary somewhat by instrument class, from a low of 62 percent for quantitative microscopes to a high of 80 percent for NMRs.

MUs were also asked: "List one or more pending PHS-sponsored research applications that would involve use of the SIG instrument and rate the importance of the SIG instrument to that proposed research." The findings on pending PHS applications matched those for active PHS-supported research grants; 78 percent of MUs rated the SIG instrument as "essential" to the proposed research.

2. Areas of Impact

For additional information concerning their views on the contribution of SIG instruments to NIH research, MUs were asked: "Considering your entire usage of the SIG instrument, how great an impact has it had on your PHS research in each of the following areas: ability to conduct research that could not be done previously, ability to publish research, ability to gain research funds, ability to attract research collaborators, and ability to recruit and retain investigators?"

Commenting on the fundamental issue addressed by the SIG Program, 52 percent of MUs reported a "very significant" impact on ability to conduct research that could not have been done previously. Between 19 and 36 percent reported "very significant" impact on publications, ability to gain research funds, collaboration, and recruitment and retention (Figure 14). The consistency in impact ratings across instrument ages was noteworthy. Small differences were found between instrument classes. For example, 59 percent of MUs reported that NMRs had a "very significant" impact on ability to conduct new research while only 44 percent rated electron microscopes and miscellaneous instruments as "very significant" in that regard.

PI-MUs were more likely than other MUs to report that the SIG instruments had a "very significant" impact. The percentages for PI-MUs ranged from 9 to 19 points higher, depending on area of impact. Ratings by both PI-MUs and other MUs were highest on ability to conduct research not previously possible, and lowest on recruitment and retention of investigators.

B. Sharing Arrangements

Chapter II provided findings about numbers of NIH-supported researchers and instrument use time devoted to their projects. These findings confirmed that SIG instruments were used by multiple NIH-supported investigators. On the more subtle topic of whether MUs thought they had good access to the instrument, MUs were asked: "In general, how would you rate your ability to gain access to the SIG instrument in 1993?"

Ninety-six percent of MUs reported that they were either "always able" (55 percent) or "usually able" (41 percent) to gain access. Of the remainder, three percent said they were "sometimes able," and less than one percent said they were "usually unable" or "never able" to gain access. Reasons cited by the small group of MUs with access difficulties included very heavy instrument use, instrument down time, and breakage.

Though MUs' perceptions of access were consistent across instrument ages, they varied by instrument class. Protein/DNA sequencers and radiology instruments were considered the most accessible; 64 to 66 percent of respondents were "always able" to access these instruments (Figure 15). As for least accessible instruments, only 37 to 44 percent of MUs reported that they were "always able" to access quantitative microscopes, x-ray diffractometers and NMRs. For some instrument classes, such as cytometers and quantitative microscopes, PI-MUs were more likely to report being "always able" to access the SIG instruments than were other Mus.

C. Instrument Status

In past studies, distinctions were made between the working condition of instruments and two dimensions of technological status. Working condition describes whether instruments are sufficiently accurate and reliable enough to support biomedical research. On the other hand, technological status makes a distinction between state-of-the-art sophistication and adequacy for research. Depending on advances in commercial instrumentation and the specific course of research being pursued, an instrument might represent the state-of-the-art in technological sophistication and/or it might be adequate for research. When more technologically advanced instruments become commercially available, existing instruments are no longer state-of-the-art. However, these former state-of-the-art instruments are often quite adequate for performing vital research activities.

1. Technological Status

MUs were asked: "Please rate the current technological status of the SIG instrument, including any upgrades. The rating should be from the perspective of your specific area of biomedical research." MUs were asked two questions: "Is the SIGinstrument state-of-the-art in your area?" and "Is it (the SIG instrument) adequate to meet your research needs?"

Eighty-three percent of the one year old instruments were said to be "state-of-the-art," which was almost double the percentage for the 11 year old instruments (Figure 16). The percentage of MUs who said the SIG instrument was "adequate" for their research was also higher for newer instruments; 98 percent of the one year old instruments were considered adequate for research compared to 78 percent of the 11 year old SIG instruments. Overall, Mus were more likely to evaluate SIG instruments as being adequate for research than to label them"state-of-the-art."

Designating SIG instruments as "state-of-the-art" varied according to instrument class. Radiology instruments and other spectrometers had the highest proportion of "state-of-the-art" instruments, 74 percent and 77 percent, respectively. NMRs were least frequently considered state-of-the-art, at only 47 percent. Across instrument classes, the proportion of MUs rating SIG instruments as adequate for their research ranged from 79 percent for mass spectrometers to 95 percent for electron microscopes (Figure 17). There were differences between PI-MUs and other MUs, with a smaller number of PI-MUs (79 percent) stating the instrument was adequate for their research, as compared to 88 percent of the other Mus

.

2. Working Condition

SIG PIs and MUs were asked: "Considering the frequency and severity of breakdowns, as well as the required precision and consistency of instrument measurements, how would you rate the SIG instrument's working condition during 1993?"

The ratings of working condition were lower for older SIG instruments. "Excellent" ratings were highest, 70 percent, for one-year-old instruments with FY 1992 awards and lowest, 49 percent, for instruments 11 years old. (Figure 18) Overall, 58 percent of respondents rated the working condition of their SIG instruments as "excellent," with no difference between PIs and MUs in this regard. Most of the remaining respondents rated instrument condition as "above average" or "average," 23 and 14 percent respectively, while five percent labeled instrument working condition as "below average" or "poor." The ratings of "excellent" also varied by instrument class, ranging between 68 percent for electron microscopes and 52 percent for NMRs.

Chapter IV

Instrument Maintenance and Administration

With SIG Program awards, recipient institutions accept certain instrument maintenance and administration responsibilities that must be fulfilled to assure long-term, continuous use of the instruments. For example, the Program Announcement stipulates that grantee institutions must identify a PI to provide administrative and scientific oversight of each instrument, and encourages the institution to establish an internal advisory committee to assist with oversight. In addition, the Program Announcement requires assurances by the institution of its commitment to the future operation and maintenance of the instrument, including specific plans for shared-use and day-to-day maintenance and management. This chapter summarizes findings about provision for instrument maintenance, sources of funds for instrument operation, and characteristics of instrument advisory committees.

A. Instrument Maintenance

Physical start-up period and location, assignment of an operator, initiation of upgrades, and maintenance expenses all indicate the institution's commitment for maintenance and support for the long-term operation of SIG instruments.

1. Start-up

The process of acquiring, installing, and testing advanced analytical instrumentation can consume differing amounts of time and resources depending on factors such as the manufacturer's supply of the specific instrument model and the availability of suitable space and technical expertise needed for installation and testing. SIG PIs were asked: "When was the SIG instrument first used for PHS-sponsored research?"¹⁷

Forty-six percent of the instruments were first used for NIH research the same year as the award, and 36 percent were first used the year after the award. A small proportion (12 percent) were first used for PHS-research two or more years after the SIG award, and 6 percent were first used for PHS research prior to the SIG grant award. The latter instruments probably were on lease when the award was made, since SIG awards do not cover previously purchased items.

2. Location

Although the SIG Program Announcement allows location flexibility, institutions are encouraged to integrate research activities into central facilities whenever possible. SIG Pis were asked: "Where is the SIG instrument currently located: in an investigator's laboratory or facility; in a departmental laboratory or facility; in an interdepartmental laboratory or facility; in an interinstitutional laboratory or facility; or other?"¹⁸ In this context, an interinstitutional facility could be either (a) a facility serving multiple components of a large institution, e.g., a medical school and school of public health or (b) a facility shared by investigators from separate institutions.

Eighty-two percent of SIG instruments were located in central facilities, either a departmental (43 percent), an interdepartmental (30 percent), or an interinstitutional facility (9 percent). According to SIG PIs, their own laboratories were the least common location, housing only 18 percent of the instruments.

Instrument location differed between medical schools and academic institutions, which together housed almost eight out of ten SIG instruments. In academic institutions, SIG instruments were twice as likely to be located in departmental labs, 53 percent, than in interdepartmental labs, 25 percent. In medical schools, however, the percentages of instruments in departmental labs and interdepartmental labs were quite similar at 37 and 33 percent, respectively.

3. Assigned Operator

Depending on instrument class and the technical capabilities of users and their staffs, an assigned operator may or may not be required. SIG PIs were asked: "Was an instrument operator assigned to the SIG instrument?"

Protein/DNA sequencers and cytometers were most likely to have an assigned operator, 88 and 87 percent, respectively. Other spectrometers were least likely to have assigned operators, 37 percent. (Figure 19)

4. Annual Maintenance Expense

Preventive and remedial maintenance ensures that SIG instruments are ready and able to support research in both the short- and long-term. SIG PIs were asked: "How much was spent to maintain the SIG instrument during 1993?"

The average per instrument maintenance expenses ranged from a high of $15,300 per instrument for cytometers to a low of $4,800 per instrument for other spectrometers (Figure 20).

5. Upgrades

The recent evolution of commercially available analytical instrumentation typifies the breakneck pace of technological development. Some instruments, such as certain computing and imaging system components, are rapidly displaced by more advanced, next-generation models. Upgrades -- modifications to enhance instrument capability and performance -- may extend the usefulness of some instruments to research. SIG PIs were asked: "Since the SIG instrument first became operational, has it been significantly upgraded? For each significant modification, please list: the year it was completed; the approximate cost, and a brief description of the change."

Forty percent of SIG instruments had undergone a significant upgrade at least once since becoming operational; these were evenly split between instruments that were upgraded once and those that had been enhanced two to five times. For 69 percent of the upgraded instruments, the first significant improvement in capability occurred within four years of the award, while 27 percent were first upgraded five to ten years after that date. Four percent reported an upgrade the same year as the award.

The proportion of upgraded instruments was somewhat higher for older instruments, six to 11 years old, at 41 to 54 percent, compared to newer instruments, one to five years old, at 19 to 37 percent. Also, cytometers and computer graphics and image systems were most likely to be upgraded, 60 and 58 percent, respectively, while the least upgraded instruments were electron microscopes, 17 percent. (Figure 21a) The average cost per upgrade ranged from as low as $14,000 for protein/DNA sequencers to as high as $42,800 for radiology instruments (Figure 21b).

B. Funding Sources

SIG PIs were asked: "What percent of SIG instrument operator compensation was met by each of the following sources of funds during 1993: user fees; institution, departmental, or laboratory funds; funds allocated from other PHS awards; other federal awards, and other (please specify)?" Using the same list of response choices, SIG PIs also were asked: "What percent of the maintenance costs were met by each of the following sources of funds during 1993?"

Fifty-two percent of SIG instrument operators were compensated by a single funding source, usually institution funds, but also by PHS funds, user fees, or other federal awards. The remaining 48 percent of operators were compensated by a combination of funding sources.

Reflecting the pattern for operator compensation, for most of the instruments with 1993 maintenance expenses, there was sole reliance on either user fees (24 percent), institution funds (23 percent), or PHS funds (14 percent) to cover these costs. Maintenance for the majority of the remaining instruments was funded most frequently by a combination of sources. For 1 percent of instruments, maintenance expenses were paid entirely by "other" (non-PHS funds).

C. Instrument Advisory Committees

1. Prevalence and Type

The SIG Program Announcement encourages but does not require an advisory committee for SIG instruments. PIs were asked: "Is there an instrument advisory committee for administration and/or oversight of the SIG instrument?" If so, they were also asked: "Which one of the following best describes the SIG instrument advisory committee: an advisory committee established solely for this SIG instrument; the Biomedical Research Support Grant (BRSG) committee (required for NIH BRS Grants); or some other standing committee (e.g., core facility management committee)?"

Seventy percent of SIG instruments in service in 1993 had an advisory committee. With few exceptions, newer instruments (one to five years old) were overseen by an advisory committee. Older instruments were less likely to have an operative advisory committee. For example, 93 percent of one year old instruments had an advisory committee, compared to 48 percent of the nine year old instruments.

While 42 percent of the advisory committees were characterized as having been established solely for the SIG instrument, 54 percent were other standing committees, such as one overseeing core facilities. For 4 percent of instruments with advisory committees, the BRSG committee was identified as the overseeing body.

The percentage of instruments overseen by SIG-dedicated committees was generally high for newer instruments, one to five years old; the proportion of SIG-dedicated committees was between 45 and 55 percent. For instruments six to ten years old, SIG dedicated committees ranged from 20 to 41 percent.¹⁹

SIG dedicated advisory committees were more prevalent at medical schools (50 percent) than academic institutions (28 percent).

2. Size, Composition and Meeting Frequency

SIG PIs were asked three questions about advisory committee size and composition: (1) "What was the size of the advisory committee in 1993?" (2) "In 1993, how many members of the SIG instrument advisory committee were: members of your laboratory; members of your department, but not your laboratory; members of your institution, but not your department; not members of your institution?" and (3) "How many members of the advisory committee were investigators who used the SIG instrument during 1993?" To gauge the level of committee activity, SIG PIs were also asked: "How many times did the advisory committee meet to discuss the SIG instrument in calendar year 1993?"

Seventy-five percent of the committees had between 3 and 5 members, and 95 percent had at least one member who was also a SIG instrument user. Excluding advisory committee members from other institutions and the PI's laboratory, representing about 4 percent and 17 percent of total members, respectively, the advisory committees were composed primarily of members of the PI's department (but not his/her laboratory) and members of the PI's institution (but not his/her department) (Figure 22).

Among advisory committees that held a meeting in 1993, 32 percent had one meeting; 53 percent had two, three or four meetings; 14 percent met five to 12 times; 1 percent met more than 12 times up to a maximum of 50.

3. Committee Policies

SIG PIs were asked: "Since the SIG instrument became operational, has the advisory committee established policies or procedures concerning the following matters:

• publicizing the availability of the instrument;

• determining hours the instrument is available for use;

• establishing standards for users (e.g., excluding certain areas of research or types of biological samples);

• selecting among potential users;

• scheduling use of the instrument (e.g., sign-up sheets, user logs);

• outlining maintenance schedules or procedures;

• increasing the user pool (e.g., outreach to potential users); and

• other (please specify)."

Eighty-eight percent of advisory committees had established written SIG instrument policy in one or more areas.²⁰ Policies were most prevalent among committees for radiology instruments (100 percent), quantitative microscopes (97 percent), and NMRs (93 percent). Mass spectrometers had the lowest percentage of advisory committees with one or more policies (69 percent).

The most commonly created policy, established by 70 percent of committees, addressed instrument use scheduling. In addition, about one-half of the committees established policies for publicizing the instrument, available hours, user standards, and maintenance. Policies for selecting among investigators seeking use were least common: only 28 percent of committees had such a policy. Finally, other specific policies established by SIG advisory committees (other than those listed on the questionnaire) concerned topics such as user fees, training, and instrument upgrades.

.

Closing Note

The provision of advanced, shared-use analytical instrumentation is as crucial to NIH research today as it was when the SIG Program began in 1982. Research opportunities continue to expand with the emergence of improved and entirely new instruments. For example, scanning confocal microscopes, not commercially available until recently, introduced into the field of cell biology a powerful new capability for dynamic, three-dimensional microscopy of living cells. As observed in an earlier study:

Replacement of obsolete instruments, as well as acquisition of instruments of totally new design and capabilities, is frequently necessary to maintain the level of research that will keep the United States at the forefront of scientific knowledge and technology. ²¹

Appendix A

NCRR Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program Announcement, FY 1996

NCRR Shared Instrumentation Grant

NIH GUIDE, Volume 25, Number 1, January 26, 1996

PA NUMBER: PA-96-017

P.T. 18

Keywords:

INSTRUMENTS/INSTRUMENTATION/DEVICE

National Center for Research Resources
Application Receipt Date: March 27, 1996

PURPOSE

The National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) is continuing its competitive Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program initiated in Fiscal Year 1982. The (1992) National Report on Academic Research Equipment and Equipment Needs for Biological Sciences, cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation, identified research equipment of the type provided through this program as top-priority. The objective of the program is to make available to institutions with a high concentration of NIH-supported biomedical investigators expensive research instruments which can only be justified on a shared-use basis and for which meritorious research projects are described. Awards under this Program Announcement (PA) will use the Shared Instrumentation Grant mechanism (S10).

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Under the general research support authority of Section 301 (a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, Shared Instrumentation Grant awards are made to public and non-profit institutions only. For purposes of these guidelines, an "institution" is defined as the organizational component identified on page 1, item 11 of the PHS 398 (rev. 5/95), for which descriptive information is provided on page 9-10 in the PHS 398 kit. These institutions include health professional schools, other academic institutions, hospitals, health departments, and research organizations. Federal institutions, foreign institutions, and for-profit institutions are not eligible to apply. Racial/ethnic minority individuals, women, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply as Principal Investigators.

An eligible institution may submit more than one application for different instrumentation for the March 27, 1996, deadline. However, if several applications are submitted for similar instrumentation from one or more eligible institutions on the same campus of a university, documentation from a high administrative official must be provided stating that this is not an unintended duplication but part of a campus- wide institutional plan.

MECHANISM OF SUPPORT

Shared Instrumentation Grants (S10) provide support for expensive state-of-the-art instruments utilized in both basic and clinical research. Applications are limited to instruments that cost at least $100,000 per instrument or system. The maximum award is $400,000. Because the nature and scope of the instruments that may be requested will vary, it is anticipated that the size of an award will vary also.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This program is designed to meet the special problems of acquisition and updating of expensive shared-use instruments which are not generally available through other NIH mechanisms, such as the regular research project, program project, or center grant programs. Proposals for research on advancing the design or for the development of new instrumentation will not be considered.

Types of instrumentation supported include, but are not limited to, nuclear magnetic resonance systems, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers, protein sequencer/amino acid analyzers and cell sorters. Support will not be provided for general purpose equipment or purely instructional equipment, personal computers, personal work stations, printers, and ethernet interfaces. Proposals for "stand alone" computer systems will only be considered if the instrument is solely dedicated to the research needs of a broad community of NIH-supported investigators.

Awards will be made for the direct costs of the acquisition of new, or the updating of existing, research instruments. The institution must meet those costs (not covered in the normal purchase price) required to place the instrumentation in operational order as well as the maintenance, support personnel, and service costs associated with maximum utilization of the instrument. There is no upper limit on the cost of the instrument, but the maximum award is $400,000. Grants will be awarded for a period of one year and are not renewable. Supplemental applications will not be accepted. The program does not provide indirect costs or support for construction or alterations and renovations. Cost sharing is not required. If the amount of funds requested does not cover the total cost of the instrument, the application should describe the proposed sources(s) of funding for the balance of the cost of the instrument. Documentation of the availability of the remainder of the funding, signed by an appropriate institutional official, must be presented to NCRR prior to the issuance of an award. Requests for a multiple instrument purchase totalling over $400,000 must specify and justify which instrument(s) should be supported within the $400,000 ceiling.

Applicants proposing the direct purchase of an instrument that the institution has secured or is planning to secure via a leasing agreement are strongly encouraged to consult with their institutional sponsored projects office regarding applicable PHS policy prior to executing the leasing agreement. If the leasing agreement was executed more than one year prior to submission of the SIG application, the applicant must provide strong justification for the requested Federal funds. Further, the instrument must be considered state-of-the-art at the time of submission of the SIG application. Since the intent of the program is to promote sharing, a major user group of three or more investigators must be identified. A minimum of three major users must be Principal Investigators on NIH peer reviewed research grants at the time of the application and award. For purposes of this program research grants are defined as those grants awarded with the following activity codes: P01, R01, U01, R29, R35, and R37. The application must show a clear need for the instrumentation by projects supported by multiple NIH research awards and demonstrate that these projects will require at least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument. Major users can be individual researchers, or a group of investigators within the same department or from several departments at the applicant institution. NIH extramural awardees from other nearby institutions may also be included.

If the major user group does not require total usage of the instrument, access to the instrument should be made available to other users upon the advice of the internal advisory committee. These users need not be NIH awardees, but priority should be given to NIH-supported scientists engaged in biomedical/behavioral research.

To encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research groups, and departments, and to foster a collaborative multidisciplinary environment, instruments should be integrated into central core facilities, whenever possible. Each applicant institution must propose a Principal Investigator who can assume administrative/scientific oversight responsibility for the instrumentation requested. An internal advisory committee to assist in this responsibility should also be utilized. The Principal Investigator and the advisory group are responsible for the development of guidelines for shared use of the instrument, for preparation of all reports required by the NIH, for relocation of the instrument within the grantee institution if the major user group is significantly altered, and for continued support for the maximum utilization and maintenance of the instrument in the post-award period.

A plan should be proposed for the day-to-day management of the instrument including designation of a qualified individual to supervise the operation of the instrument and to provide technical expertise to the users. Specific plans for sharing arrangements and for monitoring the use of the instrument should be described.

If a grant award is made, a final progress report will be required that describes the use of the instrument, listing all users and indicating the value of the instrumentation to the research of the major users and to the institution as a whole. This report is due within 90 days following the end of the project period.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

The research grant application form 398 (rev. 5/95) is to be used in applying for these grants. These forms are available at most institutional offices of sponsored research and may be obtained from the Office of Grants Information, Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7910, Bethesda, MD 20892-7910, telephone (301) 435-0714, e-mail: girg@drgpo.drg.nih.gov.

1. Form page 1 (Face page of the application) -

Item 1. Name the type of instrument requested. (Note in bold type at the bottom of the face page if a duplicate application has been sent to NSF or to another organization or agency.)

Item 2. Check the box marked "YES" and enter the title and number of this program announcement.

Item 4. If human subjects are involved in the research, follow the instructions for completing Item 4 on the Face Page of Form PHS 398, certifying that an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved by PHS has reviewed and approved the protocols involving human subjects. If the protocols are ongoing and have already received prior IRB review and approval within one year of the submission date of this application, then additional IRB review is not necessary. However, this fact must be noted in Item 4 on the Face Page, and, if space is insufficient, the date(s) of prior IRB review and approval of each protocol involving human subjects should be listed in the "Research Plans."

Item 5. If live vertebrate animals are involved in the research, follow the instructions for completing Item 5 on the Face Page of Form PHS 398, verifying that an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approved by PHS (OPRR) has reviewed and approved the protocols involving animals. If the protocols are ongoing and have already received prior IACUC review and approval within three years of the submission date of this application, then additional IACUC review is not necessary. However, this fact must be noted in Item 5 on the Face Page and, if space is insufficient, the date(s) of prior IACUC review and approval of each protocol involving animals should be listed in the "Research Plan."

Item 6. Write in 04/01/97 through 03/31/98.

Item 8A. Use this block to give the total amount requested from NCRR for this instrument or system.

Item 11. Insert the appropriate code identification.

2. Form page 2. Complete the abstract as directed. Under "Key Personnel," give data on the Principal Investigator and the major user group as required.

3. Form page 4. Describe the instrument requested including manufacturer and model number. The model chosen should be justified by comparing its performance with other available instruments. Provide a detailed budget breakdown of the main equipment and accessories requested including tax and import duties, if applicable. An itemized quote from a vendor should be included. If a project involves a potential biohazard, funds for accessory containment equipment for the instrument or instrument system may be included in the requested budget.

4. Form page 5. Budget Estimates for All Years. Not applicable; do not complete.

5. Form page 6 - Biographical Sketch. In addition to the personnel listed on page 2, include a biographical sketch of the person(s) who will be in charge of maintenance and operation of the instrument and a brief statement of the qualifications of the individual(s). Biographical sketches should not exceed 2 pages for each individual.

6. Form page 7 - Other Support. Provide the requested information for each major user and for each application for the same instrumentation sent to NSF or another organization or agency.

7. Research Plan section of the application. (If this is a revised application, note the special instructions on page 15 in the PHS 398 kit regarding completion of this section of the application.)

Provide information relative to the points identified under criteria for review including:

a. Inventory similar instruments existing at the institution or otherwise accessible; describe (with supporting documentation) why they are unavailable or inappropriate for the proposed research and provide a clear justification why new or updated equipment is needed, including accessories.

b. The major users should describe their research projects and indicate how the requested instrumentation and/or accessories would enhance the progress of their research projects. While most projects are included in currently funded applications, some represent new directions. In the case of funded projects, the description should not exceed four pages per user but should point out the benefit of the proposed instrument to the research objectives of each major user. New directions and their requirements for the proposed instrumentation should be described in sufficient detail to allow adequate review (including preliminary data or supplemental materials). Use a table to list the names of the users, brief titles of the projects, the NIH grant numbers and the estimated percentage of use. List the page number of this table under "Table of Contents" (Form page 3) after "Resources and Environment." Make a separate table to indicate the major users' needs for requested accessories. If possible, each user should highlight those publications that demonstrate the user's expertise in using the requested instrumentation.

c. Describe the organizational plan including the internal advisory committee for administration of the grant.

d. Submit a specific plan for long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument. Provide documentation (e.g., separate letters signed by appropriate institutional officials) describing the required institutional commitment in support of the proposed plan.

Applications must be received by March 27, 1996. Applications received after this date will not be accepted for review in this competition and will be returned to the applicant. The completed, signed original and four exact photocopies of the signed application and any appendix material* must be sent to:

*Since the appendix will not be duplicated, if glossy photographs or color images are included, a separate set of originals must accompany each application.

One copy of the application and appendix material must be addressed to:

REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS

Applications that are complete and responsive to the program announcement will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened in accordance with NIH peer review procedures. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will receive a written critique and may undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of applications under review, will be discussed, assigned a priority score, and receive a second level review by the National Advisory Research Resources Council, NCRR. Applications are reviewed by specially convened initial review groups of the Division of Research Grants (DRG) for scientific and technical merit and for program considerations by the National Advisory Research Resources Council (NARRC) of the NCRR. Approximately half of the applications will be reviewed at the September 1996 NARRC meeting and the remainder at the NARRC meeting in February 1997. Funding decisions on all applications received for the March 27, 1996, deadline will not be made until the program receives an appropriation for FY 1997. The Council date will not affect funding decisions.

Applications that request a single instrument with a total purchase cost of more than $500,000, and that would normally be eligible for submission to both NIH and NSF, may be submitted to NIH for joint funding with NSF by including necessary NSF documentation. The Agencies will review such proposals in a special review group that will be convened by NIH as a special NIH study section with NSF participation. Under this arrangement, the agencies may offer joint funding in excess of the current award limit of $400,000. Contact the NSF Division of Biological Instrumentation and Resources for additional information on the NSF documentation (cover sheet and cost sharing agreement).

Review Criteria

The Scientific Need

The extent to which an award for the specific instrument would meet the scientific needs and enhance the planned research endeavors of the major users by providing an instrument that is unavailable or to which availability is highly limited.

Technical Expertise

The availability and commitment of the appropriate technical expertise within the major user group or the institution for use of the instrumentation.

Management Plan

The adequacy of the organizational plan for use of the instrument and the internal advisory committee for oversight of the instrument including sharing arrangements.

Institutional Commitment

The institution's commitment for continued support of the utilization and maintenance of the instrument.

Overall Benefit

The benefit of the proposed instrument to the overall research community it will serve.

AWARD CRITERIA

In making funding decisions, the NCRR will give consideration to ensure program balance among various types of instruments supported and/or geographic distribution of awards.

INQUIRIES

Inquiries are encouraged. The opportunity to clarify any issues or questions from potential applicants is welcome. Direct inquiries regarding programmatic or scientific issues to:

Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to:

AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS

The PHS strongly encourages all grant and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

Appendix B

Appendix B is available for viewing through the free Internet Utility, Adobe Acrobat.

If you do not have the Adobe Acrobat reader, click here to download .

Principal Investigator Questionnaire

Major User Questionnaire

Appendix C

Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program Awards and Survey Responses By Instrument Class and Fiscal Year (FY 1982 through 1992)

Sources: IMPAC (NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination), and 1993 AAI/JBA Principal Investigator Survey of Extramural Shared Instrumentation Activities.

^a Responses include 127 grants where a response was received but the survey response was not sufficient to use in the analysis: the instrument was not in service.

Major User Survey Responses by Instrument Class and Fiscal Year (FY 1982-92)

FISCAL YEAR: Major Users Identified/ (Survey Responses)
Instrument Class
		1982		1983		1984		1985		1986		1987		1988		1989		1990		1991		1992		TOTAL
Cytometers		10 (7)		7 (0)		24 (13)		35 (15)		42 (24)		57 (38)		97 (43)		36 (20)		70 (35)		75 (42)		20 (14)		473 (251)
Electron Microscopes		14 (10)		48 (26)		72 (42)		92 (48)		77 (47)		37 (20)		60 (36)		46 (30)		52 (30)		39 (24)		7 (4)		544 (317)
Quantitative Microscopes		0 (0)		0 (0)		1 (0)		21 (8)		7 (0)		3 (2)		22 (10)		67 (43)		73 (29)		43 (24)		5 (2)		242 (118)
Radiology Instruments		0 (0)		19 (14)		14 (7)		17 (9)		0 (0)		11 (8)		16 (10)		22 (10)		15 (4)		21 (14)		9 (2)		144 (78)
Computer Graphics and Image Systems		0 (0)		13 (8)		10 (4)		11 (4)		28 (11)		58 (35)		50 (24)		36 (20)		49 (23)		79 (34)		44 (26)		378 (189)
Protein/DNA Sequencers		0 (0)		23 (11)		41 (15)		65 (41)		95 (39)		82 (40)		86 (32)		93 (59)		77 (52)		94 (53)		15 (5)		671 (347)
Mass Spectrometers		8 (5)		50 (34)		24 (14)		37 (21)		48 (24)		53 (33)		56 34)		23 (22)		67 (30)		76 (57)		24 (9)		466 (283)
Other Spectrometers		5 (0)		3 (1)		2 (1)		16 (4)		18 (13)		9 (5)		9 (5)		39 (25)		21 (12)		32 (8)		1 (0)		155 (74)
X-Ray Diffractometers		0 (0)		11 (6)		13 (8)		13 (6)		9 (5)		20 (13)		4 (3)		15 (12)		13 (10)		7 (7)		3 (3)		108 (73)
NMR Spectrometers		10 (8)		24 (19)		62 (39)		94 (48)		87 (56)		92 (50)		81 (45)		87 (53)		84 (60)		75 (50)		30 (16)		726 (444)
Miscellaneous Instruments		17 (15)		4 (1)		6 (6)		14 (6)		9 (4)		4 (2)		30 (19)		7 (7)		7 (5)		10 (6)		3 (0)		111 (71)
Total, All Respondents		64 (45)		202 (120)		269 (149)		415 (210)		420 (223)		426 (246)		511 (261)		471 (301)		528 (290)		551 (319)		161 (81)		4,018 (2,245)

Source: 1993 AAI/JBA Major User Questionnaire, Survey of Extramural Shared Instrumentation Activities..

Appendix D

Abbreviations