1 / 45

Great Lakes Regional Center for AIDS Research: 1998 - 2002

Great Lakes Regional Center for AIDS Research: 1998 - 2002. Stephanie Teasley and Jason Yerkie School of Information University of Michigan. Outline. SOC functions Primary Secondary Description Goal History Organization Funding Incentives Collaboration needs Supporting needs

gunda
Download Presentation

Great Lakes Regional Center for AIDS Research: 1998 - 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Great Lakes Regional Center for AIDS Research:1998 - 2002 Stephanie Teasley and Jason YerkieSchool of InformationUniversity of Michigan

  2. Outline • SOC functions • Primary • Secondary • Description • Goal • History • Organization • Funding • Incentives • Collaboration needs • Supporting needs • Collaboration readiness

  3. Outline (cont.) • Access • Resource diagram • Technology employed • Successes and challenges • Usage • Analysis of user behavior • Analysis of user attitudes • Conclusions

  4. SOC functions • Primary • Distributed research center • Secondary • Shared instrument • Virtual community of practice

  5. Description: Goal • To create a “virtual center” for AIDS research, where science at the University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and University of Wisconsin is conducted as if these labs were co-located • Complimentary technological or expertise-based services • Educational opportunities for all members of the participating labs.

  6. History • Extending the successes of UARC/ SPARC to the biomedical community • Use only off-the-shelf technologies • First ever NIH CFAR grant to be virtual center.

  7. Organization • 10 Founding Scientists • 2 MI • 4 MN • 3 NU • 2 WI • 110 Members • 33 Full • 41 Associates • 24 Research Associates • 9 In training • 3 Affiliates • 1 Behavioral Analyst + Research staff

  8. Funding • National Institutes of Health (NCI & NIAID; 5P30CA79458) • 19 Centers of AIDS Research • Only geographically distributed CFAR • approximately $5M per year, 1998-2002

  9. Incentives • Funding • No one site could have individually won a CFAR • Recognition • Highly visible in the AIDS community • Novel capabilities • Opportunity to collaborate with people that they may not have worked with before

  10. Collaboration Needs • Communication: • Desktop video conferencing (1:1) • Virtual meetings (1:many) • Data Access • Transfer of data, databases, and images • Application sharing • Shared Authoring • Document collaboration • Distance education • Share expertise • Broadcast lectures and seminars

  11. Supporting Needs • Virtual Lab Meetings • Virtual Seminars

  12. Collaboration Readiness Technical • All sites had Internet 2 • WI limited access, NU has firewall issues • Multiple platforms: WinTel, Mac, and Unix • Email adoption similar to biologists • On average, scientists began using email: 1991 • No prior experience using other CMC • Phone and fax primary ways of communication for long distance collaborations

  13. Collaboration Readiness (cont.) Social (Founding Scientists n=10) • 4 pre-existing within-site collaborations • Communication: face-to-face • 4 pre-existing cross-site collaborations • All between two sites • Communication: phone and email • 3.5 anticipated new collaborations • 1 new anticipated cross-site collaboration • One third of new collaborations with scientists who did not know each other

  14. Access: People • Virtual Lab Meetings • AIDS Researchers with complimentary expertise and interests • Bench scientists and clinicians • Non-human primate researchers

  15. Virtual Lab Meeting

  16. Access: Information • Virtual Seminar Series • Presentations on pre-published work • Website • Directory of members and interests • Announcements and events • Portal for technical assistance and tips on using collaboration tools

  17. Virtual Seminars

  18. Access: Instruments • Microscope at Minnesota • Real-time view of specimens from microscope • Discussions with pathologist

  19. Resource Diagram

  20. Technology Employed (OTS) • Virtual Lab Meetings • Microsoft NetMeeting • Timbuktu • Virtual PC • Virtual Seminars • PlaceWare • Desktop Video • USB web cameras • iVisit • Data Sharing • Xerox Docushare

  21. Success and Challenges • Membership • 110 members out of a possible 171 (64%) • Virtual Lab Meeting • Clinical Protocol Development- written faster, got funded, study produced two high quality publications (so far) • Virtual Seminars • 75% of membership participation in at least 1 seminar • Developmental Awardees • Leading to Prestigious RO1 Funding

  22. Case-Study of Founding Scientists • Surveys, interviews, observations, and bibliographic analysis • Focused on: • Satisfaction with tools • Reported Collaborations • Impact on scholarly work

  23. Case-Study: Group Virtual Lab Meetings • Lab site = presenter + 22 lab group members • 3 “local” colleagues in different buildings • 3 remote sites = 2 collaborators and 1 scientific advisory board member (outside of the Great Lakes area)

  24. Case-Study: Scientist-to-Scientist Virtual Lab Meetings • One-to-one interactions in real time • Regularly scheduled meeting time • Focused interaction over shared data • Accelerates study design, data analysis and review, presentation preparation • Trouble shoot problems as they occur (e.g., protocol changes, subject recruitment, sample processing)

  25. Strongly Disagree/Disagree Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree Case-Study: Satisfaction with Virtual Lab Meetings* *Survey administered after the first 3 meetings (n=16)

  26. Case-Study: Satisfaction with Virtual Lab Meetings (cont.) • "The active participation of investigators looking at tissues is akin to the free-association process of a good lab meeting.” • "Never seen such detail results of lymph tissue, especially on-line. Had a chance to discuss quality control of specimen processing” • "Major enhancement --- allows for a whole new level of discussion and analysis between PIs."

  27. Case-Study: Reported Collaborations* *at end of Year 3

  28. Case-Study: Reported Collaborations (cont.) Therapeutic R & D: Primary infection and therapeutic interventions Epidemiology & Natural History: *Genetic diversification of viruses MN MI NU Pathogenesis: Trafficking patterns of transduced cells in vivo WI Pathogenesis: Pathogenesis of Kaposi’s Sarcoma Pathogenesis of mucosal transmission in acute SIV infection Vaccine & OtherPrevention R&D: Identification of MHC restricted epitopes

  29. Case-Study: Impact on Scholarly Work Grants • 8 new grants funded • 1 within-site grant, collaborators had not previously been funded together • 5 grants involving collaborators across two sites • Only one of these grants involved collaborators who had previous funding together • 2 grants from 3 sites. • Prior to CFAR, there were no grants involving collaborators across 3 sites. • 1 additional grant pending with collaborators across two sites

  30. Case-Study: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.) Publications • 14 new papers together • 9 papers have same-site colleagues • all of these papers were founding scientists who had published together before the GLR CFAR grant • 5 papers have cross-site colleagues; • one paper represents a prior co-authored publication

  31. General Membership: Example of Cross Site Authorship

  32. General Membership Study • Surveys, interviews, observations, and bibliographic analysis • Focused on: • Satisfaction with tools • Impact on scholarly work

  33. General Membership: Cumulative Membership

  34. General Membership: Motivations for Joining • “Gain information about HIV research, contacts in the fields locally, and perhaps having funding opportunities available” • “Opportunity for effective collaboration” • “Participation in research activities; promote local and regional HIV research” • “To take advantage of the shared resources and to apply for a Developmental Award”

  35. General Membership: Scientific Productivity Funding • 64% increase in NIH funded research base (context of 33% increase in overall AIDS-related research) • Developmental award winners: • 8 of 9 awardees received subsequent funding • 4 went on to receive RO1 totaling $5.6M

  36. General Membership: Scientific Productivity (cont.) Publications • September 1998 to March 2001 • 106 Members • 558 Publications • Top Five Journals (28% of total pubs) • J. Virology • J. Infectious Diseases • J Immunology • AIDS • Infectious Immunology

  37. General Membership: Scientific Productivity (cont.) • Single author pub is CFAR member: 5% • At least 2 authors CFAR members from same site: 14% • At least 2 authors CFAR members from different sites: 1% • One CFAR member author: 80%

  38. Strongly Disagree/Disagree Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree General Membership: Satisfaction with Virtual Seminar* *Survey administered after first 5 seminars(n=36)

  39. General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work Method: Pair-wise Survey (preliminary data) • Respondents: 41 • 37% of total membership • Total within site collaborations: 200 • Total between site collaborations: 68 • Total number of reported collaborators: 82 • 75% of total membership • Average reported collaborators: 8.17

  40. General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.)

  41. General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.) • “Provide ideas and access to lab techniques that our ACTU group doesn't have.” • “We are a small service organization with limited sets of hands, so collaborating with others definitely makes our job easier.” • “Colleagues with additional expertise in HIV/AIDS, including virology immunology. Colleagues with contacts to help develop and implement research proposals.”

  42. Advantages and Disadvantages of Distributed Research Center for Scientists Positive: More data Negative: Greater need for new ways to keep track of shared data Positive: Potentially more interaction with colleagues Negative: • Greater need to coordinate schedules • Interactions less rich than f2f Positive: Extends access to collaborator’s data Negative: Even more data!!

  43. Some Key Findings • Off-the-shelf technology can be used for an effective collaboratory • Where effective is… • New collaborations created • Faster work (e.g., protocol development) • Support for junior members • Local technology support significantly increased the likelihood of use and adoption • Participation by site PI influences behavior of the members at that site

  44. Questions Collaboratory support within the context of a “Distributed Research Center”… • Is it the technology or the social organization that influences behavior? • Can we tease these apart, and do we need to?

  45. Questions (cont.) • How to accurately assess effects: • Increase participation in assessments? • Legitimate control group? • Disentangle effects of participant observers? (blurred distinction between analysts vs. service providers)

More Related