CTLS-2016 and the Formation of a Pan-European Professional Society through the Lens of an ABRF Founding Member

Core Technologies for Life Science (CTLS) held its second meeting at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) Heidelberg in June of 2016.¹ Scientists and administrators gathered to listen to their peers speak about technologies provided in their core facilities, as well as the organization and administration of such resources. Attendees benefited from vendor participation during exhibit hours and accompanying workshops. Note that Bill Hendrickson, Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) president, was invited to give a plenary talk, discussing ABRF vision and activities.

It was a very productive and worthwhile event, not only because 235 scientists from 21 different countries gathered to listen, learn, and network within this emerging community but also because CTLS formally came together by acclamation of the assembled group. More than 100 attendees became founding members of this pan-European core-facility organization. If you think about what this group—led by Spencer Shorte (Institute Pasteur), Patrick England (Institute Pasteur), and Reiner Pepperkok (EMBL Heidelberg)—had to do to organize the meeting and set the stage for the formal organization, it is impressive. To constitute CTLS formally within the European Union (EU), it had to navigate the various regulations, laws, and funding mechanisms of the individual 28 different countries, along with those of the larger EU umbrella. CTLS leadership structure includes a 24-member Executive Council, further led by a 6-member Board of Directors with specific offices. Membership categories consist of Full Members, Associate Members (commercial), and Partner Institutions/Organizations Members.

Why did I attend CTLS-2016? Nearly 3 decades ago, a few proteomics scientists, including myself, were involved in a very similar organizational effort that culminated in the formation of the ABRF, and I wanted to watch the birth of this new professional society of research resource laboratories.²

Let us look at the differences between then and now: in 1985, we recognized that many of us were running samples from noncollaborating laboratories as a significant portion of our sample load. Four years later, we realized that we had a critical mass and formally constituted the professional organization for people in research resource laboratories—what we now call core or shared resource facilities. ABRF members were predominantly based in the United States, so we had a relatively homogenous group when it came to regulations, laws, and funding mechanisms within which we operated—a much simpler starting point than CTLS encountered. The simpler demographics allowed ABRF to begin with a leadership group consisting of only a 6-member Executive Board, which was later enlarged to 8.

Technology in our laboratories in 1985 was very different from what it was in 2016. Recall that most modern, automated instrumentation, capable of processing micro- and nanoquantities of samples, was commercialized earlier in the 1980s in the form of automated Edman degradation. How these new instruments operated under ordinary laboratory conditions was yet to be understood and was a significant focus of the early organizers. Automation of solid-phase synthesis of DNA and peptides soon followed, with DNA sequencing and mass spectrometry appearing later in the decade. Since the 1980s, even more new technologies have been established in core settings. CTLS has come of age in a time of a large repertoire of life science core technologies and is meeting the challenge of bringing many of them under its umbrella from the beginning. This second area of diversity not only adds to the challenges of getting this ship off the ground but also makes it a richer network from the beginning than decades ago.

Besides the differences noted above, similarities between ABRF and CTLS should also be highlighted. Members of both of these organizations are dedicated to their user base and goals of supporting scientific advancement with robust research resource facilities. Staff commitment to making the core facility enterprises as productive as possible is phenomenal and at least partially fueled by the knowledge that their facilities make resources available to many scientists who otherwise would not have access. Members also know their expertise is important to scientists by providing ideas related to available resources and knowing how best to integrate them into each researcher’s experimental endeavors. They take pride in the fact that the core facilities provide an economical route to accelerating research advances and are thus good stewards of public and private funds. Core staff members work hard to keep their level of expertise and instrumentation current in a constantly changing environment of technology by being the bridge between scientists and vendors, especially when new technologies and advancements emerge. These core scientists are remarkable for their deep interest in helping others by using their expertise to leverage a technology when addressing scientific questions. This dedication unites core scientists, which is manifested in these 2 professional organizations. These attributes made research resource people successful in ABRF and will make the CTLS endeavor similarly successful.

I must admit that even though I have been through the process, it is still exciting to see the birthing of this sister organization for core facilities. I like to think that all of the efforts put into forming ABRF may have helped CTLS with its process by providing a successful example. CTLS has the potential to make an impact on accessibility and productivity and increase the scientific impact and value for its colleagues. I applaud the efforts of the CTLS network, encourage both organizations to work together, and wish CTLS a very successful future.