3 ms·

> I wonder how much potential there is to make them a lot more reliable and easier to use. Other kinds of instruments in the lab have gotten much more reliable

> I wonder how much potential there is to make them a lot more reliable and easier to use. Other kinds of instruments in the lab have gotten much more reliable and much easier to use over time, though this is not a particularly quick process. But I suspect this depends a lot on how well you can isolate the fragile parts of the equipment from the users. Going to 100 kV makes everything a little more forgiving in theory. SEMs that operate in the 10 kV range can be had for a full order of magnitude cheaper, although that price probably scales a bit with achievable resolution. But for an example, the 200 kV/300 kV microscopes can't change temperature by +- 1°F over a 24 hour period without the lenses going out of alignment (presumably because of the resistance change in the electromagnets). >Regarding the last paragraph, it's incredibly frustrating if you see time on expensive instruments wasted because there aren't enough experts around and people have to try and figure out stuff for themselves. But it seems that it's almost always easier to buy another expensive instrument compared to hiring an expert on a permanent position. The NIH and NSF have been quite willing to provide money to purchase microscopes. They are far less willing to provide money to cover annual operational expenses.

passwordoops 3y ago
>The NIH and NSF have been quite willing to provide money to purchase microscopes. They are far less willing to provide money to cover annual operational expenses. This is a fundamental issue worldwide. I completed grad school in Canada, post-doc in the US setting up both labs with various GC-MS systems, then worked in the EU with laser spectroscopy and mass spec companies... Everyone had the same lament. Plenty of money for new toys, pennies for operations. Heck even now, after a decade away I decided to go back and the Prof had to apologize because in spite of nearly $10M for new equipment over the past four years, they only have $60K annually for an expert to run them. They're lucky I made bank and my wife is paid pretty well so I'm taking the plunge, but frack...
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Shame there isn't an ability to pay operators $60k and also buy a $200k "custom widget" from the operator's LLC...
  - nervousvarun 3y ago
    It’s public money….Audits are going to exist. Annual “custom widgets” would likely be noticed.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      Not really. Auditors are accountants (or accountant adjacent) and have no clue about the technology. If the resesrcher says "we need it" then they have to take their word for it. Source: 10 years on the side of companies selling custom widgets
      - pbmonster 3y ago
        Come on, at 200k a piece, that auditor is going to want to see at least 2 competing offers for that widget, which page-long explanations why the specific one was chosen. And if you're going to argue nobody else is offering exactly that, a technologically literate auditor (read: external consultant) might show up when you try that the second or third time in as many years.
        passwordoops 3y ago
        I'm going in the assumption that you don't have much experience with public procurement in scientific research. 1- Companies like Thermo, Agilent and all the others spend a long time developing "sole-source" documents. Effectively a list of BS specs that only they can achieve and/or offer. Sometimes it's a specific technology (e.g. "must be this patented tech because reasons" and pull out a bunch of references) or a specification. Like Thermo is infamous for "molecules per ion" with some of their mass specs. It's totally meaningless on a practical level and can't even be accurately assessed. But they made it up, and anytime a competitor tried to put down a better number the response is "prove it". The competitor can't. That's one way to ensure you'll win. It can also be buried in the main cost of the instrument, or listed as a critical upgrade, whatever. 2- you're giving waaaaay too much credit to the University or Research Institute evaluators. This has always worked, somehow or other, there's a way around the rules for a determined researcher to get their toy. Plus, if $200K is awarded for instrumentation, then $200K is precisely what the widget will cost. You can argue with hypothetical "this is how they world should work", I'm speaking from a decade of experience of sitting in sales meetings with our rep shooting a number from the cuff that's high enough to make it worth his while to file an ROQ, but within the range to fly with procurement, and can be sole-sourced. Sometimes every year for 3 or 4 years, especially if the researcher is a star who consistently brings in grants. Also, I don't know where you are, but if an external consultant is hired (LOL) they're probably already consulting the companies on getting around public procurement rules

passwordoops 3y ago

>The NIH and NSF have been quite willing to provide money to purchase microscopes. They are far less willing to provide money to cover annual operational expenses. This is a fundamental issue worldwide. I completed grad school in Canada, post-doc in the US setting up both labs with various GC-MS systems, then worked in the EU with laser spectroscopy and mass spec companies... Everyone had the same lament. Plenty of money for new toys, pennies for operations. Heck even now, after a decade away I decided to go back and the Prof had to apologize because in spite of nearly $10M for new equipment over the past four years, they only have $60K annually for an expert to run them. They're lucky I made bank and my wife is paid pretty well so I'm taking the plunge, but frack...

ethbr1 3y ago
Shame there isn't an ability to pay operators $60k and also buy a $200k "custom widget" from the operator's LLC...
- nervousvarun 3y ago
  It’s public money….Audits are going to exist. Annual “custom widgets” would likely be noticed.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    Not really. Auditors are accountants (or accountant adjacent) and have no clue about the technology. If the resesrcher says "we need it" then they have to take their word for it. Source: 10 years on the side of companies selling custom widgets
    - pbmonster 3y ago
      Come on, at 200k a piece, that auditor is going to want to see at least 2 competing offers for that widget, which page-long explanations why the specific one was chosen. And if you're going to argue nobody else is offering exactly that, a technologically literate auditor (read: external consultant) might show up when you try that the second or third time in as many years.
      - passwordoops 3y ago
        I'm going in the assumption that you don't have much experience with public procurement in scientific research. 1- Companies like Thermo, Agilent and all the others spend a long time developing "sole-source" documents. Effectively a list of BS specs that only they can achieve and/or offer. Sometimes it's a specific technology (e.g. "must be this patented tech because reasons" and pull out a bunch of references) or a specification. Like Thermo is infamous for "molecules per ion" with some of their mass specs. It's totally meaningless on a practical level and can't even be accurately assessed. But they made it up, and anytime a competitor tried to put down a better number the response is "prove it". The competitor can't. That's one way to ensure you'll win. It can also be buried in the main cost of the instrument, or listed as a critical upgrade, whatever. 2- you're giving waaaaay too much credit to the University or Research Institute evaluators. This has always worked, somehow or other, there's a way around the rules for a determined researcher to get their toy. Plus, if $200K is awarded for instrumentation, then $200K is precisely what the widget will cost. You can argue with hypothetical "this is how they world should work", I'm speaking from a decade of experience of sitting in sales meetings with our rep shooting a number from the cuff that's high enough to make it worth his while to file an ROQ, but within the range to fly with procurement, and can be sole-sourced. Sometimes every year for 3 or 4 years, especially if the researcher is a star who consistently brings in grants. Also, I don't know where you are, but if an external consultant is hired (LOL) they're probably already consulting the companies on getting around public procurement rules