SAB NewsInsights from The Science Advisory Board's "Flow Cytometry" studyPosted 6/28/2006 In a recent 27-question Science Advisory Board study, over 750 researchers were asked how they use flow cytometry to advance their research goals. One of the questions was meant to ascertain whether researchers would prefer to have access to more sophisticated flow cytometers or whether they were satisfied with standard instrumentation. Particularly insightful responses were selected and their authors were entered into a random drawing for three $20.00 USD Amazon.com gift cards. The question was: Which hypothetical scenario would be the most appealing to you and why?
In this study, there appeared to be a dichotomy between the types of researchers who preferred to use the more sophisticated flow cytometers and those that are happy with standard instrumentation. This first group of scientists professed a keen interest in a hands-on approach to data generation and analysis and did not seem to mind the amount of time it might take to master such a complex instrument. Congratulations to the following Science Advisory Board members who responded to this question and were selected to receive the Amazon.com cards for their contributions: "I'm sure I'm not the only scientist around with a top of the line piece of equipment on the floor that's only being used for the most basic of purposes. Most of the time it's because we have only the vaguest idea of how to use it to the best of its capability. Thus, I'm a firm believer that good training and qualified staff are far better assets than an amazing piece of equipment. It's amazing what sort of experiments we can dream up and do with the most limited and archaic of reagents sometimes!" --Gwyndolen Harburg, Research Assistant University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas "People and the new ideas they contribute are the most important aspect of continuing successful science investigations. If I have to spend all my time learning and operating one instrument it is far more likely future questions will be asked that can be answered only by using that equipment. Science moves forward by asking questions and finding the procedure to answer them, not by having a procedure you are good at and asking only questions it can answer." --*name witheld*, Lab Technician "I want to conduct experiments, not play engineer to an instrument. Flow and go, that's my motto." --Beverly, Ph.D. The entire collection of responses, which have been edited for grammatical clarity, appear below. Please note that the responses are not necessarily the views of the staff of The Science Advisory Board. Although I have never worked at a company with a Flow core facility I would much rather learn a new instrument and be able to analyze my own data. Always prefer capability - I can learn to run just about any instrument I need for my own experiments. As an experienced scientist, I would like to know about my instruments capabilities to be able to use it to its maximum potential and this doesn't deter me from purchasing a top of the line instrument that I will be the sole expert at. Basic everyday use of instruments can be taught to technicians who may not be able to trouble shoot as and when required. As it is our technicians don't do much more than calibrate the machines with beads and manage the use schedule of the machine. I actually did most of the reading and exploring myself. And as a general rule, I would much rather be intimately familiar with the details (though be they technical) of my research than use black boxes. As the saying goes - in God we trust, others present their data! As with any instrument, eventually all the complex difficulties in the "SuperFlow" could be solved with continued use of the instrument and you will then have a top-of-the-line instrument at your disposal. In the end, I would personally have more confidence in data taken on my own instrument under my own supervision, rather than handing samples off to a core lab with an out dated instrument. At some time-point one needs to go for the SuperFlow type in order to fulfill the research needs. Of course, it is a matter of time and effort. Considering the needs of my lab and the labs which will be interested to use the modern instrument I will go for the scenario A. However, for routine purposes the 'going with the flow' type is available where my personal involvement is not necessary. Based on my previous experience with core facility, I think that it is a good solution for common protocols but not for optimization and for cutting-edge protocols / cellular models. In addition, as a private worker of a private company, the confidentiality and sharing of information are a big problem . Because cutting edge science requires experiments that are difficult to perform and analyze. For this, a Flow that can do most is just not good enough. Because I need fast and accurate results, money is no matter. Because I think that the best way to know well the apparatus is to learn by yourself. If a technician operates the instrument, you will not pay attention to "how this cytometer work". That could influence the way you analyze your sample. Because I want the highest grade one, even if I will do all by myself. Because I want to analyze the data myself anyway. To properly interpret data, you have to know the advantages and limitations of your machine, and those you learn best by doing the experiment yourself. Because research is not only about the job to be done.. but to be done properly even if it takes longer and the hard way. Because the current research goals may be change with times, so I hope the equipment would more than meet my current and future research goals. Because we are already doing Scenario B most of the time, I would like to be one of the first to find all the advantages, and learn to run the SuperFlow. It might help me get new information first, and out compete the 'go with the flow' majority. Because with the hands on experience I can get a better understanding of the overall capabilities and inefficiencies of the machine and also would be very useful in the future as well. Currently I have the time to learn and operate the machinery. I enjoy the challenge of learning about new techniques and machinery. In the beginning I may find it frustrating to learn how to interpret data, but I would probably contact someone in the field who is more familiar with it for advice. I could then train someone to do the experiments eventually. Depending on the flow technicians, it is quite limiting but I do not have time or access to the training required to use the sorters personally. Due to the size of our company we are moving away from the core flow lab set-up. Over time, we expect to train experts from different laboratories to team manage flow projects. In this case, it's best to have the best instrumentation and take time to learn it's functions. First, I prefer challenges and would want to learn the use of the instrument. Secondly, I can always teach my coworkers how to use the instrument, and because I and my lab personal know the instrument any errors or miss interpretation of the research data will be easy to be recognized. In scenario B, if the tech leaves the lab for any reason, my research will stop until I find someone to know how to use the instrument. Also interpretation of the data will depend on one person. I prefer the interpretation of the data to be presented and discussed with other people in my laboratory who also have insight into the use of the equipment. Sometimes it is giving us a different explanation of the data, which was missed by the person who was the expert on the equipment. Without knowledge of the instrument, it would also be difficult to present the data and explain it to other researchers. Flow cytometry is rapidly expanding and taking over more and more scientific field by its extended applications. New techniques and possibilities are bound to come to this field, and I would like to be able to use any and each one of them. Have to' go with "A" because learning to operate the cytometer is a "do or die" situation. So, there is no question I would eventually figure out how to use the machine. The bonus is that once I learn how to use it, I will be able to expand into new areas of research given its capabilities. The ability to be progressive in the work I do is worth a little bit of pain up front with respect to getting over the learning curve of operating the machine. Have the best and spare some time to enjoy actually doing it myself. Having used a flow cytometer previously, I have an idea of what I want it to do, therefore I would be more inclined to have immediate access to the instrument at all times as opposed to having to send samples to another site. Obviously a bit of time would be required to learn how to use the instrument, but once the main features have been learned, usage could be fine tuned at a later date. Also, a key feature in purchasing a piece of equipment is the service contract. Most problems I have experienced previously have been solved with a quick phone call to technical services. I always feel in my lab that whatever instrument comes in my lab, I should be one person among others who can be expert concerning that instrument so that I need not depend on any other colleague in handling that instrument. Hence, I always feel that if I'm good in that instrument then I will be able to teach technicians. I always need to know how my data is obtained and will perform my own experiments prior to getting someone else to do a larger study. Any researcher needs to know how their data is obtained (reliability, reproducibility and true identification of artifacts etc.). Often, it is the unexpected result that leads you down a valuable research path, and hence a machine that exceeds the current research needs may soon be one that is adequate for research needs. One can always obtain a skilled technician at a later date. I am already trained and licensed to operate flow cytometers. Also, I am the person who best understands my experiments. I am an engineer too. I like to play with all kinds of equipments. I may need to spend extra time to figure out a whole set of protocols myself, but once it is established. The SuperFlow capability would save you tons of time and energy. I am interested in learning the operation of modern complex flow cytometers that would meet my current and future research goals. To obtain maximum flow cytometry based information it is necessary to exploit such complex instruments to its fullest capacity in order to obtain valuable information on large and small sample volumes, rapidly and reliably. I trust myself most and would like to operate the instrument, analyze and interpret data all by myself using these extremely complex instruments. I am quite capable of learning a new system and I would want the power to do future experiments if need be. I am ready to learn and it will be really good. My work can move faster as I do not have to depend on anybody. I am training undergraduate and graduate students. I think it is important for them to operate and acquire data themselves before to be able to critically analyze them. I am used to learn how to use new instrumentation by myself if I need it and of course, if I had the chance to do it. Of course I need technical assistance, 'cause I can manage to study instructions and literature, but I am definitely not able to solve technical problems. I believe that a really good scientist should aim to understand the principal of every experiment that they do and know how to interpret and analyze data. Only in this way can new frontiers be forged. I can explore further than "meet most of my research goal". I can find the way to use it by myself using a manual! I can learn to do anything that the machine is capable of. I don't like other people to do my experiments for me. I don't like to be limited in any way. I also love a challenge. I believe that I could learn how to use the "SuperFlow" in order to take advantage of all of its benefits. I would hate to think I am missing out on something because I don't have the most advance equipment. I enjoy being a SCIENTIST more than being a MANAGER. To oversee someone without having hands-on participation in any aspect of research work is not an attractive prospect for me. I envision a SuperFlow to not only do the standard flow cytometry but also incorporate a Luminex like system for bead arrays using a microtiter plate acquisition system. That is, pop a microtiter plate of either 96 or 384 wells and let it run. Analysis software would batch the individual files, and standards giving final values. Too optimistic here though. If provided with a manual, there would be no problem in learning how to set up, operate and interpret data as required. We do that already. I have been involved in the operation and maintenance of very sophisticated research equipments for many years in the capacity of chief core Biochemist & director of RIA labs at the Research Services division of VA medical Center Charleston and also at Tulane Medical School. I do not have any difficulty in setting up and operating very complex research equipments and do not depend upon any one's help which is more time consuming. I have extensive hands-on experience in running and interpreting flow cytometric analysis. I don't want anyone else to interpret my results. I probably don't want the top-end instrument for most of my application, however, because it often needs "top-end" maintenance. I have no problems learning to use new instruments. I prefer the hands-on approach and can appreciate the data better if I run the experiments and interpret the data myself. As will have the advantage of using a more powerful instrument. I like learning new things and technologies. I also analyze all the data myself. Data analysis is one of the most exciting things in research. I like scenario A, because primary data analysis is critical, so I prefer to do it by myself, even if I need to learn how to operate the cytometer (that should not be so complicated as I have some experience). I like to analyze my on data. I like to be in control of my experiments. I like to be independent and operating a machine by myself makes me more aware of its capabilities, and possibly will allow me to develop new protocols. I like to have more possibilities and to learn new things. I like to know how things work myself anyway, and being able to meet both current and future research goals would be more of a draw than sitting back and letting someone else do the work. Besides, I'm a bit of a control freak. I like to learn how to use new equipments and understand how they work and I like to learn too new techniques. I like to learn novel techniques and improve my knowledge. I like to study the unknown and the more power for my experiments the better I like it. I devised 10 color flow with no help from the companies and it was lots of fun. I would love to do that kind of work. I love to learn things and more over it gives hands-on experience. I need an a expert and more information additionally. I need the technology, and our financial considerations will be for the better investment. The actual necessity for learning by one's self is artificial; if the SuperFlow is so complex and expensive, advanced, etc, it has to be fairly automated, and pretty much work by itself, doesn't it? I operate a core flow cytometry facility and enjoy working with the instrumentation. Fluidics, optics and electronics are the core of all cytometers and are not terribly difficult to learn or understand. Software usually presents a more significant problem, but there are several excellent post-acquisition data analysis software packages available from third party vendors. Additionally, I prefer to run my own experiments and, more importantly, interpret my own data. Every investigator should understand the principles of cytometry and how to interpret their own data. They should not depend solely on a core facility technician to interpret data for them! I prefer excellent results, it may cost effort but it pays of in a longer time. I prefer flexibility and the ability to interpret data personally. My expectation is that over time the "SuperFlow" system would become more user friendly, either through upgrades/updates or as experience and knowledge is developed internally. With the "Going with the Flow" system, certain aspects would be outside my control. Also, as the need for a technically superior system grow, I would have to revisit either outsourcing to a new location, or purchasing the system anyway. I prefer the "technical superpower" not only because it would cover most of my research goals but it would be suitable for new applications. I prefer to do data analysis by myself and to know where those data coming from. I prefer to interpret data by myself with a powerful tool. I prefer to know how to manipulate the instruments I work with so they can be modified for special purposes. I run experiments and interpret data most of the time. When some other person makes the analysis, I always check it. Besides, I love making new flow cytometry experiments. I run the in-company equivalent of a core cytometry lab - complex machines don't scare me, and basic supplier support is always available (let's face it: realistically, no-one would buy a SuperFlow with no support whatsoever, and basic is good enough for me). I think at this level of research complexity of cytometer has no meaning for me. I trust my research more than that of other people. If there is a mistake at least I know who to blame. I want to know exactly what is happening in my experiments. I will go for Flow Cytometer with SuperFlow because flow cytometer must fulfill all my experimental needs not "most" of them, well for complex instrument, it may be difficult but not impossible, and research is the learning process, so I will prefer that instrument will more efficient and fulfill all my near and future experimental needs comparison with less efficient one. I work in a flow core and learning new technologies and instruments is what we do. It is extremely important that end users (investigators) understand what flow can and can't do for them, how the instruments work, and what their data means. We have found that empowering the investigators to learn instrument operation and data analysis can only further their use of the core, because they understand the capabilities of the instrumentation and what additional applications it can be used for in their research. I would believe more in first hand experience. I would choose to learn how to use the machine because I could get more data from my experiments. This superior data collection would mean that I would have to spend less time at the flow and could more rapidly apply the data to my overall goals. I would choose scenario A for several reasons. If the SuperFlow was the top-of-the-line model, it would likely be costly. So if I were the only one who could be trained to use it, I would worry less about others potentially damaging my equipment. I also like the idea of doing it all myself, start to finish. That way, I would know I could trust the way the raw data and refined data were presented. Scenario A would definitely be my pick if I used flow cytometry a great deal, and could not gauge how complex future flow experiments might be. This way, I wouldn't be stuck with a still-expensive piece of equipment that I would continue to have to put maintenance money into to but that no longer met my needs. I feel strongly in favor of scenario A. I would consider scenario A to be more favorable due to the fact that I prefer conducting and analyzing the results myself, the greater the challenge-the greater the knowledge! Imagine what you would be able to do with that machine once you had your hands on the technique. I would go with the first scenario. I would explore myself and learn to use it to the best of my needs. I would go with the SuperFlow instrument because with some time and effort getting technical expertise shouldn't be too hard. With the advancing technology, it is better to get the top of the line equipment. I would like a new challenge and learn new thing and I will be enjoying to play on this new machine. I would like to be trained and hands on working in sophisticated instruments which helps me to be instrumental to my results rather than depending on assistants to give me my valued data. I would like to choose this scenario since I would like to learn the intricacies of a flow cytometer and all the features that it offers. I would rather do a little more work and get the best results for my dollar. Most scientists should be trained to learn new techniques without to much problem. That is part of the fun of science to learn new things and get the best results you can. So Scenario A is a lot more appealing to me. I would rather interpret my data on my own but I wouldn't compromise with the quality of data that I can get from Super flow. I would rather learn how to use it myself to fulfill my research need. There are always more or less uncertainties involved when rely on someone else. I would still like the capability to interpret my own data. If cost truly were no object the I would find a way to get help - in that respect your scenario is naive in the world of quality science. If cost were no object, I would want to optimize my experimental approaches for maximum results. If I get the opportunity, I love to learn new techniques and like to depend on myself. If I can't, I don't mind working with a technician as long as my research goals are fulfilled. If I really needed such a complex instrument and it was a primary goal for my research I would find the way to operate it. If the machine could do everything that I needed, logic would dictate that I would instinctively know how to conduct my experiments, operate it, and interpret my data. Otherwise, how could the machine do everything that I needed ? If you want something done, it is always better to do it yourself. And also, it is always better to have the capability to do something which you might not need yet, so your research doesn't have to be limited by technical requirements, but only by the limit of your research ability. I'm a "Take the bull by the horn" kind of person. The more challenging the "SuperFlow" I know that in the end I get more satisfaction and usable results out of it than a run-of-the mill "Going with the Flow". In academic situation, I prefer run experiment on my own and can control the experiments and interpret the data. In my environment being ahead of the curve is more important than going with the flow. I would rather learn an extremely new and complex technology with the possibility of beating the competition! In my research, we are developing cutting edge detection methods, therefore, I must be very involved in the design, execution, and analysis of the results. A great tech would be great, but the onus would have to be on me in the end. In research field it's always best to perform experiment by self. Depending to others like skilled technician might make the things delayed and more over other that you no body can feel the soul of your work. It is going to be a waste by just hiring someone who only does Flow since Flow is only small part of my work. It is important for me to understand and to execute all of the steps involved in my research--before handing over to a technician. It will enable me to solve more problems using flow cytometer and try to convince more users to use it for their daily research. It would be nice not only to have the best equipment to meet our research goals, but also to be the super expert at using it. I've been looking for a reason to brush up my skills in flow cytometry! Just for the fact I'll be doing everything by myself, and I would know exactly what I did, where were my mistakes, or why I did in a determined way. Learning how to use new equipment is usually not hard and allows you to better understand all aspects of your experiment (design, acquisition, and analysis). I don't like to trust it to others, even if they do have many years of experience. If you know how to completely utilize a machine that has more capabilities, you are better off than having someone else run your samples on a less useful flow cytometer. Learning is easier then explaining what you really want... Meeting future goals in these troubling times is of crucial importance. Additionally, becoming an expert in a technology never hurts. More cost effective for our environment. More than half the fun of flow is to get your hands dirty and 'tweak' the knobs to see what data comes out. To give up the running of the instrument would be too much to bare. Actually, my current situation is the serviceable flow with myself as the operator and sole in charge. That's what I'm doing now with two serviceable flows (once the ideal mix of parts between the two makes one or both serviceable). To have a "SuperFlow" that would enable me to go for broke and not have to settle for a compromise situation would make life so much more fulfilling. My effort is directed towards the improvement of membrane potential monitoring protocols, thus I prefer to control the experiments in full details. My style is to learn everything myself anyway and I appreciate top technologies so Scenario A has the most appealing features. Never can depend on another. They may not be there when you need them. So it comes back to me doing my work. Give me the manual and away I go. Nice to be on the learning cure...and do not like to be dependent on others totally. On the whole I like to do my research myself rather than farm it out, learning to use new 'toys' in the lab is all part of the fun. Part of the excitement of flow cytometry is the very hands on aspects of the instrument and software in interpreting the data. Performance and the capability of the flow cytometer is my priority. Performance is what matters. Prefer to know by myself and learn more on the functions and interpretation by self. Provided there is a manual included, the time invested in learning how to do things is well spent. Hands on training can get "rusty" if it is not recalled in time. Once you have slogged through the whole system from soup to nuts, you are not EVER going to forget it (in both a good and a bad sense). I can see the allure of scenario B, to many folks but if you truly want to incorporate flow into your research, it is better to become the guru yourself. Pushing the edge with regard to technology is important. Would eventually be able to transfer knowledge of how to operate instrument to others. Research is a field where personal observations and analyses are extremely crucial for the evaluation of the result. Help of an experienced technician in certain techniques is always valuable, but it cannot substitute for personal estimations. Scenario A is essentially how I operate now. Being a raving lunatic geek, having to learn the ins and outs of a complex instrument sounds about as fun as anything can be. Scenario A is extremely appealing because it allows you to become a specialist on a top-of-the-line cytometer and therefore be a resource for others. When you have to learn something on your own you tend to learn the ins-and-outs of the technique which is quite useful when conducting and analyzing independent research. Scenario A since I believe that instruments should be talked to and not used. Scenario A would allow me to grow the applications as needed. Since available funds for a major piece of equipment occur rarely, the purchase of a cytometer which meets present and future needs should keep research cutting edge for a longer period of time. Flexibility of use outweighs the training requirements. Besides, the training keeps the researcher on the cutting edge for a longer period of time as well. Since cost is no object, I could count on vendor support for operation and interpretation of data. If this were not available, no one in their right mind would pay $0.10 for such an instrument. Technicians come and go, and I would never rely solely one person's "expertise" without QA/QC. Best to know how to use the tools of one's professional trade. Besides, if lab could afford the piece of equipment, would certainly figure out the operator and analysis portion solution. Ciao. That scenario choice is probably due to the nature of my character. I like challenges and would not mind the time and effort spent learning something so appealing and technological that, as a bonus, would also offer me valuable results for my research and allow me to explore other possible venues. The best work gets done when I do it all by myself anyway. And later, I could train someone else to take over. The core of research means trying to understand the unknown having potential of future significance. The experiments I do push the capabilities of current flow cytometers. I'd trade a great deal of user support if it allowed me to do experiments I can only dream about today. The flow cytometry technicians that I have worked with have had an incomparable grasp of their equipment at the expense of understanding the underlying biology they are studying. Relying upon someone to conduct your research who doesn't understand your research is foolhardy at best. The former would be most appealing because it creates an environment to explore the hidden trends through the mistakes. I believe and try to make it to the best but I also do believe in "More the mistakes, the more experience I attain" The instruments should have highest possible capabilities such that I can decide which questions I want answered using this instrument. It's unacceptable to withhold my questions because of the instrument's limitations. The work we do in our defense lab does not allow us to send samples elsewhere, That's why! This will reduce time and man power. The work shall be done accurately, without consuming much time, eventual reducing the overall cost and improve the quality of the experimentation. To be able to have the capability to do "SuperFlow" is most appealing. With time more people will become interested in learning it and the responsibility of operating the machine will shift from me to others making it less of a concern. Top-of-line always using new technique that make the 'OLD' technique out of date and improved the performance of old technique. In addition, using some top-line technique can give buyer or people image that more professional. When it come to research techniques & carrying out experiments, I prefer to do my experiments myself & I trust my judgment the most. I admit that a dedicated technician for the instrument is a good way to keep the instrument safe & functioning properly. But I like to learn to operate new instruments & incorporate the new ideas in my research. It all depends on how efficient & useful the instrument is at the end. When you operate yourself, you can do trouble shooting. While complexity is not always the highest mark for usefulness, the potential to derive the most information from a given set of samples is more appealing than obtaining a set of sure results from a machine with limited capacities. While the learning curve with instrumentation may be steep, the background resources available in the community for study and evaluation are more than adequate to supplement the amount of 'tinkering' needed to derive useful, meaningful information. With a technician doing the data for you, I think you will miss some of the important features which can be discovered fortunately or accidentally or by serendipity. So, it is better if you, the scientist; do the job no matter how difficult to learn it might be. Would rather have the ability to handle all the data myself. Do not like to rely on outside help if possible. Sometimes results are needed quickly and we cannot afford to have to wait. Training on new equipment would be expected, but after that we are in control and know exactly what was done to analyze samples. There is less doubt about whether or not a mistake was made. 99% of our flow requirements are basic, so it would not be worth my while to learn to SuperFlow cytometer. For the 1% I could not have run, I'd find a collaborator A experienced technician can save me a lot of time. A fancy machine is no good if I can't maximize it's potential. I'm better off getting optimum results from a sub-standard machine, building on those results, and using that success to validate the need for a high-end piece of equipment on my next grant application. ie. Look at how much we've accomplished by maximizing the equipment we have. Think how much more we could do with a more versatile machine. A good technician is more valuable to me than any piece of equipment - I currently have no time to do all the experiments myself and if I had no one to teach my students to use it wouldn't be used to its capacity anyway A highly skilled technician will always bring more to a project than a piece of equipment. Those skills will increase with tome, while the equipment becomes obsolete, A lot of misinterpretation and misuse of instrument can happen unless there is retraining and revalidation of instrument and procedures from time to time. Scenario A seems to operate in a vacuum and could lead to these problems. A skilled technician and serviceable flow cytometer are the most I concern. A skilled technician is the most critical component of any flow cytometer and will be able to maximize the capabilities of the machine available. Their experience in interpreting data will be more useful in furthering and enhancing advances in research than having the most up to date piece of kit. Advantage of man power As a group leader, I know what I want from the machine. Do not want to be a techie and rather would like to contribute to the problem being solved instead of worrying about fine tuning problems As a PI of a lab, I do not have the time to do all of the flow effort as described in Scenario A. As a PI, I don't have the time to devote to learning a complex instrument with absolutely no input from others. Having a good machine and a free skilled technician sounds like a dream come true! As a smaller company, we would not be able to afford to higher a top rated technician to run the SuperFlow. This technology would not be a defining technology for my company and so pushing the front edge of its capability would not be important. I choose the capable instrument with the hand holding service to complete our standard Flow needs. As I have many other responsibilities and research work other than flow cytometric analysis, I may not be able to do all the experimental works hands on. So I prefer Scenario B As long as it meet my needs, having somebody to help me to learn how to use it and when I have problems it much better than having the most powerful machine. Where I will have to spend time on it just to learn how to use it and I'm not talking about what's going to happen if I have problems!!! As long as it meets most of my research needs and with a great technical service, it's certainly worth it. As long as the scenario meets most of my demand / goals, that is more than sufficient. As time is a huge issue, the running of samples, data analysis ect. decreases the time available for other experiments. If most of my research goals were gained in scenario B, there would be a lot more time for other experiments. At this point in my career I have very limited time for learning an instrument B is the most appealing because I would be free to write grants, etc. Technology is great but why pay for options/functions they you may never use. B is the most appealing scenario to me. Because it can meet most of my research needs with little effort. If I occasionally need SuperFlow, I can always get help from somewhere else. B would give me more advantages in conducting general experiments. Because a central core cytometer, even with limited capability, is more valuable, both in time and money, to the research group as a whole. Because flow cytometry experiments constitute only a minor part of my overall experiments and so the services of a technician from the core facility of the institute is adequate. Because I do not currently need the SuperFlow power in my experiments! Because I have no experience with this equipment directly and it is most important for me to have experimental data that will be correct without artifacts. Research work is not so easy to do but it is catastrophic to make mistake and to present wrong and negative result as positive. Because I like to discuss my work and the results with somebody, who is experienced in the field. Because I'll get more and better results for the money that I have invested Because it can meet most of my research goals. Because it is very time consuming to do everything by trial and error, and sometimes it is better to use something well than to not be sure about your results. Also, you always have to use an alternative technique for validation... Because it would be more comfortable and the results obtained would be more trustful. Because scenario A would take up most of my time in the lab, thus not allowing me to conduct any other experiments. Because the flow cytometer is only a tool, not the target of my research! Because the specialist is more likely to provide quality data. The results are likely to be more reliable, and with minimal interruption. At the end, it will be more cheap and efficient to use the service. Because through my ongoing collaborations and contacts with other labs doing flow cytometry in France and the rest of Europe I could nevertheless get access to the Scenario A choice when specifically required for a given experiment. I could then go or send somebody from my team to learn and undertake those experiments. On an every-day basis, it is much more important to our group to have a piece of equipment that meets most of our needs and can be operated by most/all members of the team whenever needed. Because I can then use my time for purposes that have better implications in my research Better suits my requirements. By having someone else do the flow experiments, I could focus on other work that needs to be done, rather than trying to learn how to operate the machine and then run the samples. Time in science is too precious! Can spend more time on the design of experiments Depends on funds Despite a caveat in having a SuperFlow machine, an experienced technician is always necessary to make sure that the samples are run correctly and if necessary problem solving for those samples that don't want to cooperate. Technical help is worth the money over someone with inexperience trying to run a SuperFlow... Don't have time to learn and run a new machine, as flow cytometry is not the most important technique in my toolbox Don't have time to set up a facility and learn how to use it. Due to the position I am in, I am not always available to carry out research due to other responsibilities. Due to this I would like an "expert" on hand to carry out experiments for me, and to pass on their skills and experience (skills transfer) to other researchers and students in my lab. Ease of use. SuperFlow not needed. Easier Easier for management Efficiency is the most important factor here. I can dedicate my time to doing my research while a specialist operates the flow cytometer for me. It is completely inefficient for everyone to be an expert at everything. Efficiency under the circumstances of our labs Experience is all important in the design and interpretation of flow experiments. Fast data processing; No previous expertise required Flow cytometry is a part of our research but not the main one so taking so much time to master it does not make sense...preferably the core facility one should have the outstanding capacities of SuperFlow and a technician associated with it...also from a budget point of view paying a technician who knows exactly how to perform all stages of the flow analysis is cheaper than our lab investing in an expensive apparatus and reagents that we use only occasionally. Flow Cytometry is a specialized technique and often the domain of core labs. It takes a while before you learn to interpret data and I would much rather prefer it if one person or a group of people were dedicated to understanding the instrument and all of its capabilities. Flow cytometry is an "art" and a trained technician is just as valuable as the machine itself Flow cytometry is just one of the important tools to perform experiments. More important is my idea and experiment design. I'd rather to have more meaningful data out of proper experiments instead of focusing on which high techniques to use or spending more time on learning machine operation. Flow cytometry is not a priority in my research. On the contrary, time is a priority. A balance between technical power and time consumption is necessary. B looks much more reasonable to me. Flow cytometry is not my field of expertise and I don't want to invest that much time and energy into it. I prefer to have a skilled technician that I trust handle the daily operation. Flow cytometry is not the focus of our lab but rather a means to an end. If that process can be done by a tech and becomes more hands off for us, then GRAVY. Most of our research needs is better than all the other techniques out there. I am used to equipment meeting 1/2 our needs. Scenario A isn't scary in terms of data analysis or learning how to use (RTFM right ?). It's that we'd have to do it ourselves (which we do now) and being able to hand that task off to a tech is WAY more valuable use of time......... p.s. make cytometer faster to save us time. That would work well too. Flow cytometry is not the main part of my work, so learning to operate and run a really complex one might take a considerable chunk out of my available time. Also, most of my research can be run and analyzed on the best flow cytometers we now have available in a core facility (FACSAria) so it would have to be a really super-duper machine to have better specs than that. I can run and interpret most of my data myself anyway, so the time saving would be probably of most benefit to me if I had someone to run experiments and analyze data for me. Flow cytometry is only a small aspect of my research and I would be stupid if I try to run such a machine by myself, it is better to have a nice running core unit. Flow cytometry is only one of many tools I use in my work Flow cytometry is not the core of our research, so I would rather spend time learning the details about other, more essential techniques. For the simple reason that we are supposed to get reliable, comparable and true data and we can afford to lose time for setting stuff up. Frees up my time to do other things such as produce and prepare my samples. Get good problem shooting and saving the time of data producing. Good experience and expertise of coworker is most important Hands on experience from the tech is definitely more reliable and will allow less time for trouble shooting. Time savings would be immense. Having a highly trained individual who can troubleshoot and analyze experiments is invaluable. The SuperFlow may have all possible capabilities, but if you are teaching yourself, you are likely to focus on your immediate research needs and most likely will not ever fully take advantage of all the capabilities. A highly skilled technician who knows the "Going with the Flow" machine is in the position to not only help in the experiments that you think you want, but could also suggest others that are also possible with the machine. Having a machine that is capable of everything is only useful if you are able to utilize all those capabilities. I have often found that common equipment that does not have someone who knows how to use it often gets 'shelved' since it is often too time consuming to learn how to use it. Having someone who is high skilled to run the experiment saves me time and effort. In addition, having someone else interpret the data may avoid introducing bias. High staff turnover in an academic lab makes technical assistance essential. Higher throughput and will get more research done with less head scratching. I already use flow cytometry in a core facility and would not have the time and dedication to put to learning all the would be needed to get the work done. As flow cytometry is not central to my research, the time needed to come up to speed and then run the experiments would be burdensome and take away from other aspects of the research. I am not a technician per se, and cannot afford to spend my time doing one method. I have many projects to both run and partake in, so a pragmatic approach is essential. I am presently satisfied with my cytometer efficiency and I do the entire interpretation myself. If the latter machine is going to be a bit better with a person who has experience and can handle the instrument, the work is going to be lot more easier. I believe that to date, the state of the art applications such as 12 parameter flow cytometry are basically a novelty that except for in very exceptional circumstances, don't yield data proportionately useful relative to the time, effort and cost. Advanced rapid sorting capacity could be very useful though. I consider myself a pragmatist. I can easily adopt my work with scenario B. I could always find a flow core at one of the nearby universities or research facilities to do the experiments that my technician could not perform. I currently have no need in my work for a "SuperFlow" nor do I anticipate one. I do not have the time to analyze all samples myself I do not have time. As a senior researcher, I have other responsibilities and this is the compromise I have to make. I don't do enough Flow to justify learning to use a super complex machine. A core flow facility will always be the choice of my lab. I don't have time to run the experiments myself, and I only use basic features that all cytometers have I don't have to spend time optimizing, scheduling time to run it. I would be free to plan other things and receive my data when it is available. I don't need to use flow cytometry so often to spend time studying to work with the instrument I don't use flow cytometry enough to warrant the time necessary to learn how to use the instrument properly and interpret the data. I don't use flow to analyze cells, but mainly to sort them for cloning purposes--way to enrich for GOI expressing cells. I don't need the facility to be self run instead of being run by a manager. I feel that unless Scenario A had an extensive manual and/or training session from the company it was purchased from, learning how to compensate and adjust populations when using multiple read-outs (dyes) would be extremely difficult. I strongly believe there is a need and definite use for skilled operators who extensively study the theory and mechanics behind these machines, the dyes and interpreting data from them and that most researchers do not have the time to commit to learning every caveat and technical limitation of flow cytometry and really only want to use this technique as a tool to answer specific questions on their research. I find this type of instrumentation somewhat intimidating, so I would definitely choose to have a "supertech" to run it rather than a "superflow" cytometer. I had to go with Scenario B, only because my time is to valuable to be used on learning and performing experiments on a new instrument. My time is better spent doing other specialized tasks. If certain tasks came up that could not be handled by the "going with the flow" instrument, we would buy those services somewhere, to get these tasks done. I have a large research group, plus a teaching and admin load. I just don't have time to "play" with new kit much as I'd like to! I have already spent to much time for "learning by doing". I am not young any more, and time seems to matter to me. I have more to do than only flow cytometry. Although I am a researcher and like to get involved in new challenges I must also keep my boss happy. I simply do not have the time to put into an unknown, but sophisticated machine. I have neither the time nor the interest to run such an apparatus myself. I can analyze cells on a simple FACS, but I see it mainly as a core facility. I have never seen any lab setting where a piece of flow equipment was properly maintained without a dedicated and devoted technician. Too many cooks in scenario A would surely lead to a clogged/contaminated/unpredictable machine...I'll take a supertech for the go for the flow any day. I have no time to manage a long learning curve on a new instrument. We have a small research group here and struggle with multiple responsibilities. I have someone to teach me all the applications that I need hence I will save lots of valuable time that can be devoted for research I have time for other more important work and planning. I have to spend my time on research, not delving into details of how the machine works. I know by experience that only a fraction of the people that work in my lab can really understand flow cytometer. So B is unrealistic I like getting help from experts. I need flow cytometer for just basic research goals. I need reliable people to share the workload plus, I believe scenario B is more flexible because the technician can do more than flow cytometry. I personally do not need very high end instrument specs to do what I want with it I prefer B because if no one can help me to use the instrument in scenario A the most probable thing is that I could not use to the maximum the capacities of the instrument. I prefer ease of use in most of the situations and everyday. When I absolutely need the "superflow" for a single exceptional experiment, I will either redesign my experiment so that I can do it with my normal machine, or send my samples to a place where they have a "SuperFlow" I prefer Scenario B, because I value the highly skilled technicians that work in my laboratory and their years of experience. Not to mention science is all about collaboration amongst colleagues. Scenario A is great to explore the potential vast universe of "flow cytometry," and may lead to other discoveries, but I believe its more important to share and discuss research in which Scenario B better facilitates. I rely on my super technical staff and for the Super Flow experiments I am going to tease my colleagues, who have chosen scenario A, to do these experiments. They will work overnight to give me results after I had a good sleep, so I can make the interpretations and write the article, having superb co-authors. I think that most of the power of the instrument is in knowing how to use it effectively and interpret the data accurately, and that it takes years to learn both. I think that to have an experienced technician with insight is very important. And we are so busy, that it is not fun to figure out learning something from scratch. I use flow cytometry very infrequently and for standard immunophenotypicic analysis, so it would be a waste of my time to learn how to run the machine myself, and the machine would sit idle a lot which isn't good for these kind of instruments. My research goals would likely be covered in scenario B I use flow cytometry as one of the tools of my research, not the tool for research. Reliability, ease of use and ability to troubleshoot problems is more important than "SuperFlow" capability. I want to conduct experiments, not play engineer to an instrument. Flow and go, that's my motto. I want to trust that the data was collected properly. Software analysis for these instruments is tricky and requires an incredible amount of time to learn and then perform appropriate data analysis I want to USE flow cytometry in my experiments rather than becoming an expert in it. So I would need an expert who can help me answer the questions that I want to solve by using Flow cytometry. Therefore Scenario B would be more relevant for doing fast track research with no intentions to 'reinvent the wheel'. I would appreciate the services of a skilled technician to troubleshoot problems with the cytometer. Troubleshooting equipment problems can be a major source of time use. If you spend a lot of time doing this, you can eat up your budget and not have quality data to show for it. So a technician who is skilled can save time and money. As well, more experiments can be run and interpreted. At the same time, you can do other projects not involved with the cytometer simultaneously, increasing your productivity several fold. I would be ready for scenario A if I could get some help for my experiments at the beginning I would choose scenario B because I get the results that I want with the help of the skilled technician. From my experience in flow cytometry, it takes years to train a well trained personnel that is capable of doing multiple tasks in FACs machine. I myself tried to learn how to manipulate a FACS machine and found that it takes lots of time, patience and practice to get the results that you want from each individual sample. Hence, a highly skilled and trained technician at hand would be my choice without any doubts. He or she would know how to set up the FACS machine to best suit your needs. I would go with B because the time that we might be spending on learning how to operate it and in interpreting the data could be used in performing other experiments. Moreover, experiments performed by a skilled technician would be more reliable. As far as affordability is concerned would go for serviceable flow cytometer as it is less expensive and can meet most of our research goals. I would like my results as consistent and accurate as possible with minimum trouble shooting. If I had to do the experiments myself and troubleshoot it my time would seem less valuable. I would much rather have someone else (who was skilled and had the techniques to troubleshoot) do "the work" and I get the value of the output. I would not need to spend my time if there are problems. I would not want to limit the use of the "super flow" to just myself. I would prefer having someone to help and conduct the instruction instead of trying to figure out the complex machine. I would prefer scenario B because I would trust the data coming from someone skilled in running the instrument as well as interpreting the data. My data generated wouldn't be as trusted or as reliable coming from myself who would have no clue how to operate and interpret data. I understand that scenario B would meet most of my needs, but that's fine, considering I get along fine now without the "superpower". There is most likely some other assay that can be done instead of a "superpower". I would rather have data that I know is correctly obtained, processed, and analyzed than a machine that could do a million things that I will never need. In the rare event that going with the flow does not meet my needs, I can always find someone else with the expertise and equipment to complete those experiments. I would rather have someone else do the experiments for me. I would rather like to put the instrument to optimal use and get useful data faster on a simpler cytometer with a trained technician, then wasting my time on fiddling with the complexities of a complex instrument. I would rather use the extra time to pursue my research goals, not learn a new system. I'd rather have a capable instrument that is easy to run if it means I can get great results in as short an amount of time as possible. IF expensive equipment is staffed it is then well maintained and researchers get properly trained. If it meets the goals of my research, an extra set of hands is always useful If you have a highly skilled technician, better to use his services so that you can observe and the time for strengthening your knowledge. I would prefer scenario B If you have a Rolls Royce and you don't know how to drive it and have nobody to drive it for you, you have nothing. I'm not a keen flow cytometrist and my analysis needs are very basic. I'm not in a situation where I'm trying to push the envelope with FACS, so option B (and not dealing with a finicky instrument) sounds great. I'm not working with flow cytometry itself, but use flow cytometry as tool for other research work. Therefore, it is important for me to get access to high quality flow cytometry results without having to investigate a lot of efforts to generate these high quality results. I'm reminded of the old adage, "Garbage in, garbage out." If I don't know how to properly setup my instrument and run experiments, the data I get out is likely to be useless. I'd rather have someone with lots of experience to maximize my time and efforts. I'm sure I'm not the only scientist around with a top of the line piece of equipment on the floor that's only being used for the most basic of purposes. Most of the time it's because we have only the vaguest idea of how to use it to the best of its capability. Thus, I'm a firm believer that good training and qualified staff are far better assets than an amazing piece of equipment. It's amazing what sort of experiments we can dream up and do with the most limited and archaic of reagents sometimes! In A it would be likely to attract many other users! In industrial lab, getting projects done by time and with quality is most critical. Scenario B allows that In our practice this is much more cost-effective. In the current days, the speed of research is very important. The faster the better. Therefore, I would like to have an experienced person to speed the experiments. In the event that I would need something highly technical that could not be done on the standard machine, I would probably use an outside service lab that specialized in FACS. Interpretation of FACS data is perhaps the most critical step in experimentation involving FACS. One can have the best cells and the best thought-out experiment but without a thorough understanding of how to analyze and interpret the FACS data, the experiment would be a failure. For this reason, I would choose a skilled technician over a highly specialized machine. Additionally, once you get correctly run and analyze data from the "Going with the Flow" machine, you can always take the data forward using other techniques (which you may be well versed in) to further your experiment. But incorrectly run or badly analyzed data will only nudge you in the wrong direction. It can meet most of my research goals. It is an advantage to be able to have a highly skilled technician for back-up support. Hence, scenario B would be preferred. It is better to have an expert on data interpretation. Otherwise one will struggle to get the correct analysis of the data, making the SuperFlow machine useless, as the going with the flow cytometer can also me most of my research goals!! It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. It would take far to long for me to learn to use it myself. It is important for me to reach the research goals. The technical part is important but every possible option should be used. It is the most practical and likely to be associated with the greatest productivity. It meets most of the goals and run by a reliable person. in case a "SuperFlow" is needed, you can always look for one in other labs/universities etc. It takes a long time for researcher to acquire proficiency in operating the equipment and using application program to analyze. If technician who has a lot of experience is available, we can save much time, do more experiments and plan another experiment. It will save time to perform the tests and improve the reproducibility of any experiments It would save me a lot of time which I could use in writing or designing projects. It's important to have people available who are able to help with the technical aspects of running the cytometer. If something happens to the machine and no one could help, it would serve no research goals at all. It's nice when I don't have to sit in front the FACs machine collecting all the events. The problem that bothers me the most with the core facility is that it's difficult to have my samples run whenever I want to. If that's not a problem in this scenario and the machine meets most of my research goals, I would be happy. Just need specific cells from a population. I just want it to work with the least effort. Nothing I do is 'sophisticated'. Learning how to use the instrument and interpreting the data is just as important, if not more important, as the capability of the equipment. Less time invested. Less work to do and meets most of my research goals. Let me conduct reliable experiments. Likely all I would need are the basics to be able to do my research. Fancy technical results that no one else could repeat would not do me much good (and would take up all of my time).... Maintenance and adapt analysis, the correct adjustment of parameters and an experience in troubleshooting with the equipment is crucial and would largely make up for the lack of "super" performance. More convenient for my research time and abilities More important to have a properly working system with the proper technical support. Most labs are concerned with publications, and the more time it takes to learn a new technique, the less papers are being published. A highly trained technician is an extremely valuable tool to any PI. Most of my needs are relatively straightforward and therefore it would be much more effective to have reliable support to ensure that experiments are successful and happen quickly and robustly. Most of our applications are routine operations Much more efficient to have someone who can use the instrument properly, as it saves time figuring out how to use the instrument and learning how to interpret the data My current needs are such that I do not conduct the Flow work. It is done in a CORE lab so I in essence already have scenario B. Lucky me. My experience has shown that a capable technician is worth his/her weight in gold. Having such a resource in the lab allows me to allocate time to other activities, such as experimental design, literature reading, and writing. My function within our organization no longer includes day to day bench work. Consistency and reliability of results is critical in FACS experimentation, so having someone dedicated to doing the experiments or doing them on a routine basis will be more valuable than new technical features that are not required for my research. Having an instrument with features and capabilities not utilized now is less advantageous as compared to getting consistent and meaningful results now. My needs are not that great at the moment. My needs are very limited (calculating genomes per nuclei) and thus ease of use would outweigh other potential benefits. My purpose of using flow cytometer is limited. So I don't need any special functions. If I can get correct data, I'll be satisfied. The technician's help will be great to achieve my purpose. My research uses flow cytometry but I have no interest in becoming an expert user of a complex instrument in my spare time! My research which depends on a flow cytometer is the 30% of the activities of my lab. So, there is no money, time, and personnel to purchase and manipulate a flow cytometer. My response to this is based on my own personal experience of this exact situation. For myself at least, it is far more judicious use of my work hours to be in the lab developing new experiments, rather than putting in the MANY days/weeks/hours it takes to learn how to operate a sophisticated piece of lab equipment that I only care about for its end-product! My time is most important. FACS is a slow throughput assay- and this is why other companies are creating new higher throughput microscopy techniques to measure events such as cell cycle that could in the past only be done with FACS. Additionally flow is not the easiest machine to learn, fix when a problem arises, and analysis. Thus a highly trained person could probably complete just as much on a slower machine than someone could using a new machine. My time is my most valuable commodity. I have many other important things to do than run a flow cytometer. If someone else can do the job well, that is the preferred choice. My time is too precious to waste with learning how to operate user-unfriendly machines. My use of a flow cytometer does not require a top-of-the-line machine and I prefer to take advantage of an experienced technician and have less headaches. Need technical support in order to fully realize all of the capabilities from the instrument. No machine is better than a piece of junk without an experienced handler. No point in paying for "SuperFlow" if you only need "Going with the Flow" Not enough time in a year to do all that is required now Not enough time to devote to perfecting the art of learning the SuperFlow cytometer without sacrificing other lab goals. Not in a position to do the experiments myself and the instrument fulfills all criteria - complete no brainer. Now, flow cytometers are very common instrument and if we are good at them, it is unlikely that we can have advantage over other competing researchers. Our time is limited and we had better learn other techniques or handling other instruments. Nowadays machines are usually so complex that it is impossible (at least to me) to learn them without training. A well-trained technician can maybe even make up the difference between Super" and "going" On systems as finicky as FACS it is the technician that has more control of data quality than the machine Our goals are fairly simple, and we don't have time to learn how to operate the new instrument. Each day in this lab is packed with experiments because we are trying to get some grants. Sometimes we need to farm out experiments even though it costs money. People and the new ideas they contribute are the most important aspect of continuing successful science investigations. If I have to spend all my time learning and operating one instrument it is far more likely future questions will be asked that can be answered only by using that equipment. Science moves forward by asking questions and finding the procedure to answer them, not by having a procedure you are good at and asking only questions it can answer. Prefer to leave it to experts within the core facility. Prefer to leave all the trouble shooting and maintenance hassles and regulatory hassles to a core facility. No time to do it myself. Primarily because I have no personal experience of a flow cytometer, but rely on someone who does - and will continue to do so. Probably 90% of what we do is pretty basic. labor is expensive and handing over the work to a 3rd party would free up tech time in my lab. Reliability and reproducibility of the data are very important - thus a skilled handling person is more appealing for me that a perfect flow cytometer. There are always several possibilities for measuring and our current use of the flow cytometer is restricted to certain questions. In the future, we would like to update it with a sorter. However, to date only few labs manage to set up the experiments with of sorting protoplasts and than isolating cellular components. Requires less of my time Research has to be performed together!! No one is able to do everything on their own. Work together and learn more. Resource limited for hands to run samples and analyze copious amounts of data. Also, BD technical support is lousy, and I would hate to have to rely on dealing with them directly when things went wrong (which they often do). Just this week we put in a call to BD customer service, to be assured we would be called right back . . . and we are still waiting. Right now I am heavily loaded with and I cant really spend time to learn. Scenario A is unrealistic given my time constraints. Scenario A simply does not reflect the reality of my laboratory where everything operates in a team environment and we never rely on a single individual to be competent to run a major instrument; while there is always the primary technician, we make sure that there are always others who are not far behind in technical skills on major instruments like the cytometer. Scenario A would be the most appealing - but I have no time! So, B would do. Scenario B is more fruitful for long term. Scenario B will allow for a much higher throughput, because of the expert technician. Furthermore, most research applications do not require the high-end features promised in A (which at this point are not important to our research program). BTW, the question is not logically posed, as I would get the SuperFlow with the Tech (as cost is no object)! Science is the priority not the instrument. If my job is done I don't care. Service and experience is most important. Several reasons impact the decision to choose scenario B. Firstly, flow cytometry is a tool that we use occasionally in our research. We do not have need for all the "bells and whistles" that are apparently available with the SuperFlow. Secondly, I do not have the time to be the sole user of the instrument and must rely on others to run experiments. Thirdly, new products continually emerge that can accomplish many of the tasks that flow cytometry can for less money and often less effort and expertise. One example is the ability to run multiplex ELISA-type assays (using ECL-based detection mechanisms) instead of running multiplex bead-based flow cytometry for the detection of proteins. This technology is less expensive and easier to perform. Simply: even if costis no object, good and reliable results as well as time is money which can be spent for other equipment/research. Since flow cytometry is not my major means of data collection/analysis - it would be counterproductive for me to have to teach myself to use a complicated system in order to obtain data. Since I do not have the knowledge to interpret the data and troubleshooting, I would prefer the help from an experienced technician. In term of the power of the flow cytometer, I do not think it is so critical for my research applications. Situation B would be more time saving and I guess decent results can be obtained with not so sophisticated instruments. doing all the tasks on my own may give me an edge over the quality of the result but it will make me lag in time, and time is all we have in today's world. Some of the cytometer on the market have already an impressive number of PMT (numerous colors). Unfortunately, the number of reagent available until recently was limited. Therefore, there is an important gaps between the time the flow cytometer is put on the market and reagents become available. For this reason, I prefer scenario B, less powerful machine and good technician that will have all the reagents needed to run the machine at 100%. Technical assistance is becoming a lifeline in research hence will do without the advantages brought about by "SuperFlow" Technical staff to operate it and troubleshoot the instrument is preferable as I don't have the time. Technical support is vital to good research and diagnostics Technician at a core lab are highly skilled and it do not eat up my time. If I have to prepare the samples and do flow cytometry also, I will be not able to do anything else. Once a core facility is formed at an institute, it is good to use that facility in order to keep it running. In my view, a core facility is a better option then individual machine for a lab. Technology is not always the best substitute for experience. In scenario B, the new cytometer could be up and running in no time. The inevitable problems that arise could be solved more quickly by a skilled technician as well. The ability of others to reproduce our experiments is critical. The amount of throughput would probably be higher, and the experience of the operator would enable more reliable data. The problem with research is that the reagents rather than the instruments often let us down. The best equipment is useless if it cannot be used properly. The delay in the time it took to get the machine up and running is too much. A new advanced flow cytometer takes at least 1 month to get up and running with a lot of help from the supplier. Without this help it would take up to 6 months.. not acceptable when grant applications are due. The flow cytometry is just one of the methods used in the lab. The generation of usable data would be quicker with an experienced technician at the helm. A more expensive machine with bells and whistles won't get me data faster if I have to read the manual and schlog through data analysis. Also, I am less likely to use the high-end features if I have to take time learning the basics. The idea that one can operate and interpret data by himself is pretty fine with me, but if the complexity overwhelms the instrument's controllability and the interpretation of data, then it will turn out to be a catastrophe. In that case, I will prefer to have a machine just fit what I need. The most important issue would be that with this option I would have capability (the technician) to carry out and get the best out of the flow cytometer and because in such capable hands would be able to cover most of my research. I could always collaborate with a lab to deal with the few experiments that I needed to carry out with the "SuperFlow. The possibility to delegate time for the execution of experiments generates time and freedom to theoretically plan new ones and to more solidly interpret the results. In addition, low complexity is less-error-prone. The purpose of my experiments is to obtain the data as soon as possible and as accurate as possible. If I have to learn how to use the machine properly and know how to understand the data analysis it would take time and I would not be able to do things that I need to do most. the experienced technician can provide me the information I need and the information will be more accurate. The reason is the limited time I have The scenario is streamlined and easy to operate. Any technician would be able to run the machine without complex set of training and education. The SuperFlow capacity is great, however, I would be nervous to set up a system that I could not bounce questions to an expert about. If however, I was able to talk to another colleague that was using the SuperFlow, I would probably for with scenario A. The time and effort investment in scenario A would be very high, as well as the likelihood of failed experiments resulting from improperly run or analyzed data. I prefer a slightly less high-powered machine that I know can be used well. The time and experience of a technician to do the work and interpretation would be more valuable to me than one that exceeds my needs. I don't have the time to spend on an instrument like that in scenario A. The trajectory of learning and exploring the machine will take up to much time and valuable time is consumed. There's a comfort level in knowing that I'm not the only one to rely on to figure out where things go wrong. These days, you don't need to understand the nuts and bolts - you need to do system biology that helps you understand everything, even if not thoroughly, at least you can "dabble" and put together a more relevant, complete and helpful picture. Think of it like putting together a simpler jigsaw - it's better to get the whole picture, than have a complicated jigsaw that's very incomplete and doesn't tell you anything. This scenario is most likely to produce the experimental results we want. This scenario more or less exists in our department already, except that the time of the highly skilled technician is a prize hotly contested by many "flow-cytometry-challenged" individuals in the department who prefer to spend their time doing things that are far more interesting than twiddling numerous knobs, interpreting incomprehensible dots and watching multiple tubes fill up. So the idea of having 100% use of the super technician is far more attractive than having to master the skills to be that super technician myself. Thoughts are more important than performance for a researcher. Throughput and reproducibility are the two most important factors for FACS, and scenario B clearly provides that at a low cost in terms of my time and effort. Time and time again we've had to call on service reps to help us trouble-shoot our flow cytometer. Their expertise is highly valuable! Having someone at my disposal at a moments notice would save us some of the downtime we experience and enable our research to move forward at break-neck speed! Time factor-with dead line in the offing to prove the research point, rather have the standardized operational instrument that we know is going to be functional with data analysis output than to spend time to standardize and invent the wheel and learn from scratch. If time were not the factor personally would learn by attending the company workshops and rise up to the challenge. Time is always a premium for investigators. better spend precious time on something else. Being technically competence does not help one's science career as much as scientific competence. Time is money. Even though, in these scenarios, 'cost is no object' for the purchase of the instrument, the time required to learn how to operate the instrument in scenario A would be significant. This would take me away from other money-generating tasks such as data collection for manuscript that are then used to support grant applications (not to mention writing the grants themselves). Time is most important therefore taking the time to learn the SuperFlow would not be the best route. Time is scarce, and flow cytometry is but one of the may techniques we use in the lab. Time is the major factor in Life Science research. You can loose one good paper or patent in fraction of days. And that costs a lot. So you should work in team. The team work give the best results. And technology is concerned all the major cytometer comes to basics parameters Time is very valuable and trying to learn how to operate and interpret data would take more time than I would want to offer. Time limitations. I am more at a desk than at a bench. Time saved is more precious than a little extra mojo. Time, I just can't find enough of it these days to get down to brass tacks and gain true understanding of the ins and outs of the machine on my own Tried and proven methods that can accomplish over 80% of my goals with little or minimum supervision allows me to work on other projects simultaneously with minimal effort and maximizes my results. Use of flow cytometry is secondary nevertheless important part of my research, therefore it is preferable "to get direct answer to question I asked" User friendly, handy and doesn't have to spend more time. Using the flow cytometer is an exercise in patience and repeated uniform methodology. The value of a dedicated technician is invaluable both in the operation and interpretation of results. We are a research AND teaching laboratory. Technical wizardry isn't as important as reliable performance. We are not a rocket-science-research facility, so being a little humble in our demands makes sense. We would be very much satisfied with the option B as long as it meets our everyday needs, and it sounds like it does. We could outsource the more detailed requirements to a supplier. We could use core facilities if our own flow cytometer was not sufficiently advanced. We only need the well-established flow cytometry technology for our research. No need for "SuperFlow" one. The good service will be very helpful and save us a lot of time. However, if you are in the field to explore the new use for flow cytometry technology or need more advanced flow cytometer technology, the scenario A will fit better. We perform a large amount of flow cytometry, which is mostly comprised of multi-color immunophenotyping (3-4 colors). Each user performs their own flow cytometry and analysis. Thus any machine that will speed up either the flow cytometry or the analysis would be a dramatic improvement. What is the use of a warp-capable spaceship if you do not know how to fly it and NO ONE can help you? When specialization is available why go through the hassle of learning and setting up a new instrument. The important thing in lab is to get results at the end of the day without worrying too much about standardization. Saying that, I am not implying that learning new instrument and techniques is a bad idea, but if money is no object then faster the work gets done the better it is. While most of my flow cytometry work is relatively straight forward, scenario A sounds a bit more daunting and the thought of dropping an powerful instrument in the lab with no guidance for operation or data interpretation would not be appealing. I would rather got with the 'safe' option that has limitations, but I am confident in the conduct and analyses of my studies as offered in scenario B. With a skilled technician operating the machine it would leave less room for user error and would allow more time to carry out other experiments With an experienced technician, data can be interpreted more accurately and the whole process of running the experiments can be done faster. Since most research goals can be met, it will be highly efficient and output would be high with this option. With cost as no object, time remains nevertheless a cost center. I would never have the time to explore correctly all of the features of "SuperFlow". And my philosophy is to prefer utilizing a "going with the Flow" at 100% of its performance, instead of a "SuperFlow" at only 25% ! With flow cytometry, a highly skilled technician is an incredible asset. In fact, I make use of highly skilled and experienced techs to assist me every time I learn a new application. I don't have the time or inclination to learn everything I can do with a flow cytometer, and I'm satisfied to learn the fine points of just the few applications that I need to convincingly demonstrate in a paper that I have what I say I have. Without going down to 1 machine - 1 function, I think that a 1 simple robust machine with a few core functions at low price, is the way to go. I believe that too many machines, software, etc. that we use today, have too many functions that are geared toward advanced users. This not only raises the price of each machine/software and causes frequent breakdowns due to complexity, but also confuses the hell out of the end users. Of course, it all comes down to where do we draw the line, but personally, a simple FACS machine that can sort cells, and perform cell cycle analysis and a couple of other parameters more than covers 80-90% of the core functions of a FACS machine. And if I don't even have to do the analyses myself and have a qualified technician to do them, well, the choice is obvious. Without the skilled technician to operate it, the SuperFlow instrument would just be a very expensive doorstop. Would prefer to run my own experiments, but more concerned about time involved in maintenance and service headaches for this "extremely complex" instrument. If the "SuperFlow" were reliable, would go for Scenario A. |
|