210 likes | 329 Views
Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL) Collaboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. EMSL function types. Primary type: shared instrument Secondary: product development, expert consultation. EMSL collaboratory basics.
E N D
Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL) Collaboratoryat the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
EMSL function types • Primary type: shared instrument • Secondary: product development, expert consultation
EMSL collaboratory basics • Makes NMR instruments at Pacific Northwest Labs available to external users remotely • DOE funded instruments, mandated 50% of instrument time to external users • EMSL collaboratory has developed both synchronous and asychronous tools to support remote use
Clarification of terms • External users- not housed at PNNL • Remote users- external users who decide to operate instruments remotely • Local experts- scientists who work at PNNL full time
Access to… • Access to instruments • Acess to people • Access to information
Access to instruments • NMR set at PNNL, + other instruments at PNNL • Higher powered NMRs are oversubscribed 2x to 3x
Access to people • Dedicated staff for external user support • Onsite scientists have a fund to charge for assisting external users • Work with onsite scientists often turns into full-fledged collaboration • Remote access means less casual contact with other users- Balkanization
Access to information • Electronic Lab Notebook provides small group workspace • Little demand for larger-scale knowledge management (e.g. other researchers’ experiments) due to the small project size of the scientific work
Technology used • CORE 2000 • VNC • E-lab notebook
CORE 2000 (Collaborative research environment) • Screen sharing • Chat, whiteboard • Video conferencing, remote-control camera on instrument panel • Molecular modeling • Voting tool • Extensible
VNC • Replaced custom tele-viewer • General purpose screen sharing, uses whatever interface is available • Free, open source from AT&T lab London • Supplemented with phone, instrument camera • (Is commoditification the future of collaboratory tools?)
Electronic Lab Notebook • General purpose lab notebook • Form-based text and formula composition, editing, publishing • Image capture+ molecular modeling software • Two levels of security, digital signatures • Can capture direct from instruments, including settings and output • ‘Killer app’ for collaborations that are distributed, image-intensive, or access controlled
Issues from diagram • Flow of money is much simpler than a fee-for-service, one of the EMSL success factors • Balkanization issue- remote users don’t talk to each other (do they need to?) • PNNL very central for information flow, instrument time allocation, opportunity for co-publication
Usage • Instruments oversubscribed for external users, proposals evaluated and time awarded on a 6-month schedule • Remote acces is optional for all remote users, currently is about 25% of use • Not always the same 25%! • Often groups include both collocated and remote collaborators • (E-lab has a separate base of ~1500 registered users)
Motivation of collaborators • Professional support • Local experts have a fund to draw from for external user support • Collaboration (co-authorship) is common between local and remote users • Co-authorship usually given to instrument experts
Diffusion of innovation • Reasons for using: • Save $ on travel • Involve more people, e.g. students, outside collaborators • Occasional changes of plans, e.g. pregnancy • Other factors promoting adoption • Fits with existing practice • Trialability- use students to try out remote access with lower risk • Adoption by new disciplines-- Biologists
Diffusion of innovation • Where is EMSL on the adoption curve? • Is 25-30% remote use the peak penetration for this facility?
Diffusion of innovation • Given that this project has tried a nearly comprehensive set of collaboratory technologies… • What set of CORE 2000 and ELN are most used/ useful?
Operations versus R&D • Some EMSL work was funded to support current users, some R&D • Pragmatic concern for users led to VNC adoption, de-emphasis of some other aspects • Yet there was always some research $ available for advanced development • This balance seems to have been very healthy- (was it?)