Thanks to all of you who responded to my query "operating in the red". The reason I asked the question is that I have been the director of the flow cytometry research lab in the Department of Medicine at Indiana University for the last 10 years, and every year or so, we go through the same story again. The Chief of the Section, the Chairman of Medicine, and the financial officers realize that the lab is losing money and begin to wonder how to fix this and where we can cut our expenses and increase our revenue. This time around I decided to seek "outside help" and have all of you paint the picture of research flow labs in the real world. I was also hoping to receive some information (which I did) about how most of the deficits in different labs are covered. Here is a summary of the responses I got. I received 21 answers; 19 from the U.S. 1 from Germany and 1 from Australia. All responses were from academic institutions. A) Of the 21, fifteen indicated that their labs are continuously in the red ranging from few $thousands to as much as 50% of their budget annually. B) Two labs indicated that they manage to break even but that's because they have no service agreements and the salaries of the operators are not considered as part of the equation. C) One response (that from Germany) was from someone in the process of putting a lab together and did not believe they could break even. D) One lab consistently breaks even, but it is operated by a part time operator and the lab does not keep maintenance agreements in effect. E) One lab breaks even after applying what was named an "accounting marvel" consisting of Cancer Center Support Grant and other federally funded grants plus an agreement with the University to cover major repairs. F) This was the most interesting response (from Univ. of PENN): This lab is in the black "so much so that we have to spend money". This is a huge lab with 6 instruments and a full service contract coverage. The lab serves more than 200 users in 26 different departments/divisions. My feeling on this is that this is a university wide core lab and no one else on campus has been allowed to purchase their own instruments. this way the University has to support one lab only, all the resources can be pooled together, and all the users pay into one big pot. I don't think a core lab can function successfully (financially, that is) in an environment different than this. It is interesting to point out that some of the responses in group "A" came from people who used to direct flow research labs in the 70's and 80's and were never in the black. Some are still in the business with the same experience, while others have left for one reason or the other. It seems not much has changed!!! Again thank you all for your responses. I hope this summary comes in handy for some of you. Edward F. Srour, Ph.D. Indiana University School of Medicine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:49:49 EST