Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL) Collaboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
2
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN EMSL function types Primary type: shared instrument Secondary: product development, expert consultation
3
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
4
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
5
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Phases of EMSL 1993- Startup Internal funding +subcontract 1996 Development DOE 2000 2001Ongoing- Split operations and research Explore toolset, Develop CORE2000 Pilot study usage Continue CORE2000 Adopt VNC Develop E-Lab notebook Continued operations at EMSL- internally funded NATIONAL COLLABORATORIES Continued research on E- Lab Notebooks and middleware
6
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Access to… Access to instruments Acess to people Access to information
7
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Access to instruments NMR set at PNNL, + other instruments at PNNL Higher powered NMRs are oversubscribed 2x to 3x
8
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
9
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
10
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Technology used CORE 2000 VNC E-lab notebook
11
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CORE 2000 (Collaborative research environment) Screen sharing Chat, whiteboard Video conferencing, remote-control camera on instrument panel Molecular modeling Voting tool Extensible
12
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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?)
13
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
14
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Resource diagram
15
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
16
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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)
17
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
18
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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
19
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Diffusion of innovation Where is EMSL on the adoption curve? Is 25-30% remote use the peak penetration for this facility?
20
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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?
21
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 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?)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.