Business
Table 3: University of Kansas core service laboratories
tion of the higher market rate for the services rendered. This translates into higher fees for services, but too much external work proves to be a disincentive to funding support and subsidi- sation by the home university. Otherwise the uni- versity will essentially be subsidising the work of external researchers.
Center For Cancer Experimental Therapeutics (CCET), the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation (KTEC), the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA) and the KUMC Cancer Center. In addition, funding is derived from NIH grants and private funding. Collaborations with federal- ly funded researchers provide crucial support to the screening lab. This grant funding is often derived in the form of supporting aims in large grants, where HTS is a critical component of a major funded project.
The KU HTSL is a shared resource of the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) Cancer Center and the University of Kansas Department of Research and Graduate Studies (KU RGS). Administration and organisation is provided both by external and internal advisory boards. Individual projects are managed by the collaborating principal investigator alongside the HTS director and HTS project managers. In addition to its work with researchers and clients, the KU HTSL core synergises with other service cores at the University of Kansas to provide a greater range of capabilities for research and drug discovery.
The broad clientele of the KU HTSL, to inter- nal and external, non-profit and for-profit enti- ties, provides much needed financial support. However, these extracurricular services need to be balanced with services to the supporting insti- tution, to ensure proper service to local universi- ty researchers’ needs, and to bring value to the investment made by the supporting groups at the university. One advantage in work with for-prof- its and external institutions is the implementa-
62
HTS rate structure and pricing variables The ATSCFs are established, for the most part, by funding received from the state or federal agencies. As such, the rate structure that the ATSCFs are mandated to follow are governed, in the United States, by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21: Cost Principles for Educational Institutions. OMB Circular A-21 is a government circular that sets forth the rules gov- erning the eligibility, accounting principles and cal- culation of costs in support of sponsored research. Every service in each core laboratory has three dis- tinct rates: Internal federal rates, external federal rates, which is about 5% more than the internal rates, and external market rates. The latter may be established on a case-by-case basis. The rates are set through a rigorous evaluation of costs of labour, materials and lab administration costs. Sadly, the rates are also influenced by inertia; deci- sions about programme funding that were made many years ago. Further, the rates need to be regu- larly subjected to a reasonability test. The academic HTS core relies on a three-tier rate structure for collecting fees for its services: 1. Institutional investigators comprise researchers from within the parent institution, and within state, and receive the best possible, lowest rate for services thanks to subsidies from the department hosting the HTS lab. 2. External academia and non-profit organisations, either from within or outside of state bounds, also provide valuable col- laborations but are not subsidised to the degree of internal researchers. The fees they do pay are well below CRO prices, however. 3. Industry or for- profit organisations, regardless of location in/out of state, have the highest rate structure. HTS service cores recoup money from internal department support and fees to cover salaries, con- sumables and other costs. The fees charged for HTS services range very broadly, dependent on sev- eral pricing variables, based on the type of assay, consumables, equipment and labour hours required. Variables include assay development time requirements, the type of HTS screen needed, the type of assay desired, the plate format, and other variables (Table 5).
Drug Discovery World Winter 2011/12
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80