Thanks to all that replied to my email. There were so many responses that
I created a brief summary below. I included the replies too so you can
see the range of responses.
With regards to the reference samples that have been broken here it is my
feeling
that the students were in too much of a hurry when handling them. This
risks damage to the system as well as the standard. It is important that
they realize even though the systems are big and appear to be sturdy it is
still a delicate scientific instrument.
The responses ranged from charging back everything to absorbing all
losses. A couple of the sites that absorb all losses mentioned that their
income from running service samples for local industry provided funding
for this. Sites that charge back see it as encouraging responsibility,
sites that do not see it as encouraging honesty. One site nobly thought
that student should be simultaneously capable of both responsibility and
honesty. One site had offered to allow students to work off the charge as
time
rather than charging the money to the PI's grant.
A few people pointed out that there are alternatives to the ceramic VT
rotors. The rotor that was broken was delivered with the system. We have
purchased third party non-ceramic rotors for VT use in the past and have
found them to be acceptable. We have not done any extreme VT work so I can
only comment on these alternative rotors within a limited range. Unlike
the ceramic rotors, the PEEK rotors are not fragile but I would still
contend that they should not be dropped. If they are dropped and slightly
deformed it is unlikely that a lab manager would find out until a spinning
problem arises which would mean the problem only becomes apparent when the
sample is behaving badly in the probe, not something I'm eager to see with
a
Cryoprobe in the lab.
Several people mentioned not allowing student to use standards. Our
policy is that the students have to leave the system with our standard
CDCl3 shim set loaded and the system locked on a CDCl3 reference sample
so that it is in a known state for the next student. We normally use
sealed homemade CDCl3 standards for this and have only had two homemade
standards broken in over three years. We do not give them access to our
commercial standards. With the last broken "standard" I offered the
student
the option of buying a necked tube from our supply, loading it with CDCl3
and taking it to our glass shop to get it sealed but the student opted for
purchasing a commercial standard.
It seems clear that if a facility is charging breakage costs back to
individuals then a formal policy should be in place but I can sympathize
with the desire to have some freedom to judge the degree of negligence
shown by the user.
I have tried to remove site specific references. Enjoy.
Regards,
Joe
___________________________________________
I make batches of in-house NMR standard every year, approximately 10 each
per nuclei (say 1H, 13C, 31P, and 100% CDCl3). We have about 300 NMR
users commonly employ our spectrometers. Normally, we have a few broken
here and there. In-house samples costs at least 1/3 less than the normal
commercial price. We use the department budget for this.
For spinner issue, we started buying spinners from a private company who
also make their own protocol for Varian and Bruker spinners. They cost
half less than the regular Varian spinner, but materials are different
for different temperature range. We have some for VT. Others are for
regular temp from RT - 60 °C.
For bigger stuff like a probe, we normally use department budget without
asking faculty to contribute.
___________________________________
Excellent question. I have threatened to make people pay for breaking
stuff by doing stupid or against-the- rules stuff, but I never actually
have. In part this is because at least some of the faculty would not
support me, and I don't want the fight.
I do think that users should pay for misuse.
_________________________________
One thing I did way back when was work out a "sweat equity" option -
they have to work as your TA for a set amount of time (and the time was
way above what would be an equivalent $$/hr option). I would say
something like 80 hours (or even more) of TA effort over the next
semester or something (This frees the PI from $$ - which they do not
want to pay anyways, and gives you a chance to concentrate on something
else). They could assist in fills or something (it does mean you would
have to train them though - or at least get them started and have them
shut off the N2 Dewar). I use to make mine haul the Dewar up and down
the elevator - get it filled at the stock room and bring it back. Broom
work and general 409 clean down also burns through their time (you know
those dirty key boards on the console after years of grubby hands - 409
and a cotton swap!). There always seems to be a set of filters that
should be pulled and cleaned out - or a top of a console wiped down. I
am sure you could think of some other things.. If nothing else it
reminds the students that it is not a "machine" but a very expensive
piece of NMR instrumentation and should be handled as such.
___________________________
In general, almost every institution has a Risk Management department
or office. It deals with major damages, usually requiring to file a
report. You have to ask about their standard policy.
Dealing with smaller items is easier. Probably you have some rules
and/or recommendations for handling NMR samples and equipment.
Whoever breaks the rules is financially responsible for repair or
replacement, whether it is a student or his/her supervisor. PI's
should have provisions in their budget for such accidents. As an
alternative, you can increase the hourly recharge rate and allocate
the extra funds to the accidental damage account (make sure it could
be rolled over the years). Ask faculty members what they prefer,
given that none of the alternatives is not an option.
What for the PI asking about your policy, I think he was right. If
you have (or are willing to set) a policy, it has to be written.
(Though nowadays, even what is written and approved used to be
contested. Sorry about that.)
________________________
You should bring this issue to the faculty meeting, let everyone know who
should pay these kind of incidents.
________________________
My two cents worth,
I think it is counterproductive to try to charge users for isolated
misstakes.
Josef Dumais expressed himself what I think is the key point, to get
users to report accidents,and broken items.
We are, but only three departments are involved, having a policy of
solidarity between us.
We do not use hourly rates, but share real costs between the three
involved departments.
I have never had a problem to distribute costs for repairs, or smaller
upgrades.
Another key to this policy is that the group leaders, has to be certain
that all new users are properly informed about what to do, and when to
ask for help. I.e, only one person is replacing the cryoprobe.
______________________
We just absorb repairs into the budget, or pad them in, so to speak. A
huge
expense would result in temporarily increased rates for all users. If one
complains that they are paying for someone else's mistake, I would point
out
to them that the NMR is being repaired so that everyone can use it, so
everyone pays. Again, the users should never be afraid to report a
problem
immediately. We do not make standards available to the users.
______________________
I too have the students pay for the standard as a learning process, be
responsible for your actions. However I am a department facility and they
cover high dollar repairs. It seem to depend on the PI's funding. In the
past
my boss was charged for everything since he had
~$1,000,000 a year in funding, while others got free NMR time ect ect. But
that isn't my call here, I'm the manager but my boss is the chairman
and it's his call what happens.
_____________________
Difficult questions indeed.
Our "policy" is pretty similar to yours in that they are somewhat
informal, and that they depend upon the individual circumstances.
Basically, as you alluded to in your message, I have to weigh whether
the failed component was damaged due to general wear and tear, or was it
due to user negligence. In the two years I've been here, there has only
been one instance where it was negligence, and the PI was more than
happy to pick up the tab. In other occasions, it was a combination of
factors, and I sometimes got some contributions from PIs, and otherwise
it came out of my operating budget.
As for the "big ticket" items such as our cryoprobe, we have a very
small number of approved users of the cp system. This greatly reduces
that chance for accidents, and we have been quite fortunate (at least
since I've been here).
And the research group who regularly do the very low vt-NMR experiments
works with very reactive and unstable compounds (hence the low-T).
Because of the nature of their compounds, they are especially careful,
and so we haven't had any mishaps.
How would I handle your current situation?
It sounds like you have already had a sit-down with the PI. And it
sounds like s/he is reluctant to foot the full bill. If you can't get
even a partial payment, then I'd be inclined to eat the full cost. But
before doing so, I'd advise the Users Committee (if you don't have a
formal committee, then simply advise the PIs) that a new policy will
need to be drawn up. I'd ask for input. But as you said, I'd rather
have people be honest and report when things are broken rather than keep
it quiet. But I don't want to TAX everyone for the costs brought on by
a few offending users. So the solution would have to be some kind of
balance, and I hope that peer pressure would encourage the offenders to
pay for their broken components.
In past locations we did impose a tax on
the users. This was to build up a "contingency fund" so that in the
case of a horrible emergency, we could get things repaired ASAP, and
wouldn't have to search around for the funds to make the necessary
repairs. Once this FUND grew to $35k, the TAX was removed. The $35k
level was chosen as this is the approximate cost to re-energize a magnet
after a quench. You might want to propose such a fund at your facility
to cover these unexpected repair costs.
Here there currently is no such fund. We are moving towards making each
facility more
independent, and once that is fully in place, then I may be able to
implement our own "Capital Improvement Fund" for buy
accessories/components that we'd never be able get by applying to
external funding agencies.
________________________
We have had a number of similar cases , we charge the user group
full cost for replacement of probe spinners , and sealed ref. tubes.
if we can prove there use of poor tubes espically poorly made valved
tubes have damaged probe insert glass we charge that to them also, .
The users and their faculty advisors must sign a damage
responsiblity form before users can use the instruments. I find
those who complain the most are those who contribute less to the
facility and think its a free ride.
____________________
Students can break anything.
The supervisors of students will try to avoid paying for breakages.
I ask for broken Shigemi tubes, NMR tube cleaners, ceramic spinners etc to
be replaced. Financial penalties hurt the supervisors and the students.
I am able to ban students from using the NMR spectrometers. I have only
ever
banned two students. The thought of having to rely on fellow group members
to submit samples, or place the samples in service queue(slow), is
generally
enough to make most students think twice about their actions.
Other wear and tear breakages are adsorbed in the tiny NMR budget.
I hope that some of this helps.
______________________
Good initiative to bring up this issue.
We also have students working in our lab. They are from different places
and with different backgrounds.
Items can break or be damaged. That can happen as an incident for every
person.
I assume no personal injuries occurred and that it is a single incident.
In that case I feel the department should absorb the costs.
If it is more then an isolated incident, like:
- student did not use the right spinner although correct instructed and
checked
- student does not wear personal protection although this was told
several times before
- student does not put the tubes in racks, but leaves then on the table
and he/she was warned about his/her behavior
I would think some additional action is required. As part of a
disciplinary correction, money can be asked as well.
In general I don't feel it is fair to have individuals (or other
departments) paid for damage on hardware.
Those costs should be taken by the owner of the instrument/device.
For what it is worth.
__________________
This seems a good area for the advisory committee for your facility to
assist in setting a formal policy.
Here, we treat accidental breakage as part of our repairs, i.e., the
facility pays for the replacement or repairs. There have been
a couple times when the policy was stretched, as one week where the same
student carelessly broke two ceramic spinners
in a row. But within our department, the faculty have backed the decision
that such breakage is simplest to deal with through
the user fees that cover repairs. We do not have a cryoprobe, but do
allow students to change probes in and out of the
magnets. For more than ten years, I have worried about a student dropping
a probe, or something similar that would be very
expensive, but so far... (knock on wood!). So far we've been ok. I
prefer our policy, as it seems simpler. We just go fix and
replace when needed, without having to place blame and trying to force
specific faculty to come up with money.
___________________
You are correct, the problem is the right balance between
accountability and honesty. I have had careless students break probe
VT dewars when changing gas supplies. So far I have not charged
anyone for breakages, but I would assert the right to stop someone
using instrument, or restrict what they do if they are too careless.
I imagine this decision will be determined by the state of your
finances.
Ceramic spinners are a problem as they are so fragile. After too many
breakages I now use the PEEK VT spinners instead, which I think
are much better. Not cheap but much more durable. You can also use these
all
time and so users no longer need to worry about which spinner to use.
__________________
My 2-cents is that I have NEVER charged users for breaking things, as long
as they tell me immediately what they did, and how they did it. I can use
this as an educational experience to prevent a recurrence. I could tell
stories for hours, but I've seen pretty-much everything in my 25 years of
doing this job.
I had one guy lab EXPLODE the broadband probe on a
Omega-300 by being stupid. He was running liquid N2 in the heat-exchanger
with no N2 flow... the coils filled-up with liquid nitrogen, then he
realized no gas was flowing, so he turned on the VT gas, and pushed all of
that liquid N2 directly into the warm probe. POOF! I ate the cost of the
repair (mostly my time, and instrument down-time, but a couple thousand
dollars in parts).
Since being here, I've had to "eat" stupidity to the tune of up to
$5,000 for a single error. ... I scoff at a few hundred bucks
here... I do that much in a single day running outside service sample for
companies... this is how I finance my users mistakes! <grin>.
I firmly believe that having any policy that requires payment for damage
will create an environment in which people try like hell to hide their
screw-ups, and things will be broken and go unreported.
There was ONE case where I told the PI that he would be responsible for
damage... this was a post-doc, who wanted to run a sealed
thick-walled NMR tube with THF heated to +180 Deg.C. in the probe. We
tested his high-pressure tube in an oil-bath for an extended time, but I'm
pretty sure I talked to the PI and he agreed that he would pay for damage
if
it exploded in the probe. This time, we were very careful, and everything
went smoothly.
OK, you got my 10-cents worth, but it's just one guy's opinion.
_____________
In my facility, since the hourly rate, in most part, is a direct
reflection of the annual cost incurred in maintenance and repair, apart
from labor cost and so on, our policy here is to cover repairs (whether
wear and tear or user negligence) from our annual budget and simply
inflate the cost next year proportional to the number of 'oops! '
incidents. This does lead to a market regulation of sorts and makes
people more responsible on one hand and on the other, relieves someone
like me of the unenviable task of negotiating with a particular
student's P.I. for recovering the cost of the repair. A cryoprobe
indeed deserves different consideration. So far, I do not have one for
open access. If it comes to that, I will insist that only a 'NMR for
dummies' method need be used i.e. the NMR staff setup the experiments
and users simply submit the samples.
____________________
Before replying, let me close my door and turn off the lights and light a
few candles to the NMR gods to not inflict such happenings here! Now, it
is your job to weed out such bad concenration in the sciences. Of course
charge for breakage that is not instrument malfunction. Remember back, you
always fested up to avoid a beating,but still had to pay for the neighbors
window. Formal poloicy is turn yourself in and face the music. Cowards are
shot and banished from the nmr lab. Placards must be worn decrying
the'breake' as a menace to science and a safety hazard to protect the
innocent. Now I will take a vacation day and go play golf so I don't start
breaking stuff in the lab just by being there.
___________________
I suggest to customers that they hide the sealed standard samples, first,
because they are expensive and fragile, and second, some are light
sensitive (CDCl3) and last longs if they are locked away in a drawer.
Speaking for myself, ideally an operator would pay for repakir if it
were the result of carelessness or abuse, not if an honest mistake or
beyond normal normal competence. Practically, the issue is always muddy.
I'll be curious to know the consensus.
_______________________
Interesting.....I wonder why you are using a ceramic spinner when PEEK is
now on the market, including a mass addition as an option at least for the
Bruker variation to add a few grams if this is desired. (The ceramic
version actually weighs in a tad heavier than the normal RT version hence
this option.) The mass addition also provides eddy current braking in the
Z axis......nice if you are using a cryoprobe and Shigemi tubes......or
other pricey delicate devices. Cost is a lot less than the Ceramic
version.....and you can play football with them and they'll probably
survive the outing. (almost student proof.....nothing is 100% student
proof, but it comes close at least.)
Good luck with your cost sharing activities! This is never easy to
achieve.
__________________________________________________
Joe Dumais, Ph. D.
Associate Research Professor
Director of Research Instrumentation Facility Department of Chemistry /
University of Nebraska Lincoln
834 Hamilton Hall / PO Box 880304
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304
Phone (402) 472 6255 / Fax (402) 472 9402
http://www.chem.unl.edu
Received on Mon Oct 22 2007 - 18:46:22 MST