In article <9edmkj$7go3 at imsp212.netvigator.com>,
"yan king yin" <y.k.y(at)lycos(dot)com> wrote:
> "Constantine Mihailidis" <conmih at tin.it>:
> > Hi, my name is Constantine Mihailidis and I am a med student at the "La
> > Sapienza" University of Rome. I am fascinated by neuroscience and your ideas
> > about possible research on neuroimplants. Do you maintain something like a
> > newsletter to keep interested persons informed. Nevertheless, although you
> > may find this funny I would like to join your group (if you ever create
> > one...) and help by my side in any way I can...
>> You're very welcome =) I was also thinking to start a mailing list, i'll
> post it here soon. Not many people had inquired though.
>> My earlier concept of conducting experiments on-line is not so sound. But
> it might be possible to open labs locally while sharing the expensive
> instruments on-line. Some samples have to be refrigerated so i dont know
> how feasible is that.
>> At first, I had the idea of making the neuro-interface. Then I found that
> it would be nice to open those "self-help" laboratories as well. The two
> things are different and i hope its not too confusing. Please stay tuned,
> and email me anytime if you have questions or suggestions.
I think the private "core facility" concept is unsound. There are
several reasons, I will be short, though:
1. major universities already put these cores in place, for expensive or
low use, or very technical equipment, e.g., fMRI, microscopes confocal
or EM, dna microarrays, transgenic injection facilities, etc. They are
also relatively easy to establish, universities in general like core
facilities.
2. they are extreme money-losing operations. Getting the equipment is
not a big deal, it is usally easy to get a grant for this kind of thing,
since funding agencies, and university dean's love core facilities. the
problem is staffing it, which requires several faculty members part time
and several technicians. plus the equipment becomes obsolete very fast
whcih means someone, almost always a faculty member, spends significant
amount of time getting more equipment (grant writing, making meetings
with people etc). fees associates with cores usually do not cover the
actual costs, but are heavily subsidized by the university. the
reasoning is they are recovering 60% in indirect costs off other grants
you can sustain because you have access to the core and keep publishing
and so on, so it is in their interest. By the way, they get no overhead
on these "equipment' grants from funding agencies.
3. even then core facilities get low utilization in my experience,
people tend to want to run experiments in their own labs or with trusted
collaborators. Most people find that people do a better job when they
have a specific scientific interest in the project. I would personally
rather go to a collaborator across the country than to a core facility
on campus, even in the same building as I am, and I have before.
4. the big problem you would have is:
1. you wouldn't quality or be able to get most federal grants
2. people wouldn't pay the value since they could establish thier own
core: unless,
3. you had special expertise not available anywhere else. Some companies
have done well offering specialized tests at specific rates. That is
they do not attempt to provide a lab, but just certain things they do
very well.
4. you wouldn't be able to find cheap staffing
not to say I think you can do "business" in neuroscience, just not the
way you are proposing.
