Faculty Bibliography

Modern science is teamwork. Leadership is a role, not a position, that can be used to motivate a team to achieve a common goal. Leadership in science encompasses the ability to empower a diverse team and create an inclusive culture that provides supportive energy and commitment so everyone can contribute their best. Put simply, the collective mindset of an organization shapes its culture and performance. We each bring to this collective mindset a set of assumptions, a perspective, methods, or notations. Everyone operates somewhere along a continuum from an inward to outward mindset. Our position on that continuum profoundly affects our performance, influence, and individual effectiveness. In this session we will present best practices for scientific leadership, what makes a leader great, and how one transitions from a manager to a leader that supports and encourages a diverse research community. We will: Define social structures and the importance of knowing social boundaries and perspectives; Define mindset, and understand the impact of inward vs outward focus; Identify the difference between social (role) strain and social (role) conflict; Understand the impact unconscious bias can have on our daily social roles; Develop awareness on how understanding mindset and social roles can help us to be better leader.
Copyright

Shared scientific resources, also known as core facilities, support a significant portion of the research pursued in biomolecular research institutions. The Committee on Core Rigor and Reproducibility (CCoRRe) conducted a survey aimed at the scientific core community to gaininformation on how NIH initiatives on advancing scientific rigor and reproducibility have influenced current services and new technology development in shared scientific resources.In addition, the survey aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities scientific cores have related to implementation of new reporting requirements to identify new practices and resources needed to assure rigorous research. Presented is a rigorous re-analysis of the participants' responses and commentaries. Results revealed mixed perspectives and levels of awareness regarding the NIH guidelines. Many of the perceived challenges to the effective implementation of scientific rigor and reproducibility practices were similarly noted as challenge areas in effectively providing support services in a core setting. Further, most cores routinely use best practices and offer services that support rigor and reproducibility. These factors include access to well-maintained instrumentation, training on experimental design and data analysis, as well as data management. Feedback from the survey will enable the ABRF to build better educational resources and share critical best practice guidelines. ABRF sponsors a central information portal that can be expanded to provide timely information on meetings, training modules, online repositories and webinars supporting research integrity. These resources will provide important tools to the core community and the researchers they serve to positively impact rigor and transparency across the range of science and technology.

In 2017 the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) published a report on maximizing the value of Shared Research Resources. In its report, FASEB made recommendations on a wide range of topics including; improving funding and business operations of shared resource laboratories, increasing discoverability and access, ensuring rigor and reproducibility, and keeping technology and scientific expertise up-to-date to meet evolving research needs. The report was very well-received by the shared research resources community. During this Open Mic session, participants will discuss and share with the ABRF community what their institutions or core facilities are doing in response to the recommendations of the FASEB report. These might include new policies, strategies or initiatives adopted in response to the recommendations of the report, or new thinking and approaches to pre-existing policies, strategies, initiatives or processes.

Over the past few decades, efforts to connect sustainability with the science community has been a grass roots effort at individual institutions. Green lab program managers are a passionate group of individuals working in partnership with laboratory scientists and staff. Every year, additional green lab programs are formed at research institutions across the nation. Leading the charge for a coordinated sustainability plan with green lab managers is the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2SL). With a focus on designing and operating safe, energy-efficient laboratory buildings in partnership with instrument and equipment manufacturers, engineering firms, and utilities, I2SL and the green lab community work together to share advice and best practices to benefit laboratory sustainability to contribute to the challenges faced in the world today. This session will present essential information for implementing green labs best practices for data-driven resource conservation for your core and institution. The CU Green Labs Program at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) was one of the first green lab programs in the nation and will share how green lab programs got their start, and strategies to grow their program in terms of funding, staff, and impact. CU Green Labs utilizes a team approach, working with its scientists, building managers, facilities management, EH&S, campus recycling, and other stakeholders to implement sustainable practices and programs for CU Boulder laboratory occupants. A growing focus of the CU Green Labs has been the promotion of shared research resources and the benefits for efficient use of energy, laboratory space, and research funding; benefits that were recently quantified in a case study for a large shared cell culture lab in Biochemistry at CU Boulder. And the I2SL Bringing Efficiency to Research Grants (BETR Grants) initiative, led by the CU Boulder Green Labs manager, aims to connect actions for efficiency with sponsor research funding.

Shared scientific resources, also known as core facilities, support a significant portion of the research conducted at biomolecular research institutions. The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) established the Committee on Core Rigor and Reproducibility (CCoRRe) to further its mission of integrating advanced technologies, education, and communication in the operations of shared scientific resources in support of reproducible research. In order to first assess the needs of the scientific shared resource community, the CCoRRe solicited feedback from ABRF members via a survey. The purpose of the survey was to gain information on how U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiatives on advancing scientific rigor and reproducibility influenced current services and new technology development. In addition, the survey aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities related to implementation of new reporting requirements and to identify new practices and resources needed to ensure rigorous research. The results revealed a surprising unfamiliarity with the NIH guidelines. Many of the perceived challenges to the effective implementation of best practices (i.e., those designed to ensure rigor and reproducibility) were similarly noted as a challenge to effective provision of support services in a core setting. Further, most cores routinely use best practices and offer services that support rigor and reproducibility. These services include access to well-maintained instrumentation and training on experimental design and data analysis as well as data management. Feedback from this survey will enable the ABRF to build better educational resources and share critical best-practice guidelines. These resources will become important tools to the core community and the researchers they serve to impact rigor and transparency across the range of science and technology.

Progress in biomedical research is largely driven by improvements, innovations, and breakthroughs in technology, accelerating the research process, and an increasingly complex collaboration of both clinical and basic science. This increasing sophistication has driven the need for centralized shared resource cores ("cores") to serve the scientific community. From a biomedical research enterprise perspective, centralized resource cores are essential to increased scientific, operational, and cost effectiveness; however, the concentration of instrumentation and resources in the cores may render them highly vulnerable to damage from severe weather and other disasters. As such, protection of these assets and the ability to recover from a disaster is increasingly critical to the mission and success of the institution. Therefore, cores should develop and implement both disaster and business continuity plans and be an integral part of the institution's overall plans. Here we provide an overview of key elements required for core disaster and business continuity plans, guidance, and tools for developing these plans, and real-life lessons learned at a large research institution in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

Described in this unit are five basic protocols that are widely used for specific and efficient chemical cleavage of proteins in solution. Cyanogen bromide (CNBr) cleaves at methionine (Met) residues; BNPS-skatole cleaves at tryptophan (Trp) residues; formic acid cleaves at aspartic acid-proline (Asp-Pro) peptide bonds; hydroxylamine cleaves at asparagine-glycine (Asn-Gly) peptide bonds, and 2-nitro-5-thiocyanobenzoic acid (NTCB) cleaves at cysteine (Cys) residues. Because the above loci are at relatively low abundance in most proteins, digestion with these agents will yield relatively long peptides