A Novel Paradigm for Expert Core Facility Staff Training

Staying on track - Keeping things running in a high-end scientific imaging core facility

Modern life science research is a collaborative effort. Few research groups can single-handedly support the necessary equipment, expertise and personnel needed for the ever-expanding portfolio of technologies that are required across multiple disciplines in today's life science endeavours. Thus, research institutes are increasingly setting up scientific core facilities to provide access and specialised support for cutting-edge technologies. Maintaining the momentum needed to carry out leading research while ensuring high-quality daily operations is an ongoing challenge, regardless of the resources allocated to establish such facilities. Here, we outline and discuss the range of activities required to keep things running once a scientific imaging core facility has been established. These include managing a wide range of equipment and users, handling repairs and service contracts, planning for equipment upgrades, renewals, or decommissioning, and continuously upskilling while balancing innovation and consolidation.

Challenges and opportunities for bioimage analysis core-facilities

Recent advances in microscopy imaging and image analysis motivate more and more institutes worldwide to establish dedicated core-facilities for bioimage analysis. To maximise the benefits research groups at these institutes gain from their core-facilities, they should be established to fit well into their respective environment. In this article, we introduce common collaborator requests and corresponding potential services core-facilities can offer. We also discuss potential competing interests between the targeted missions and implementations of services to guide decision makers and core-facility founders to circumvent common pitfalls.

Innovating in a bioimaging core through instrument development

Developing devices and instrumentation in a bioimaging core facility is an important part of the innovation mandate inherent in the core facility model but is a complex area due to the required skills and investments, and the impossibility of a universally applicable model. Here, we seek to define technological innovation in microscopy and situate it within the wider core facility innovation portfolio, highlighting how strategic development can accelerate access to innovative imaging modalities and increase service range, and thus maintain the cutting edge needed for sustainability. We consider technology development from the perspective of core facility staff and their stakeholders as well as their research environment and aim to present a practical guide to the 'Why, When, and How' of developing and integrating innovative technology in the core facility portfolio. Core facilities need to innovate to stay up to date. However, how to carry out the innovation is not very obvious. One area of innovation in imaging core facilities is the building of optical setups. However, the creation of optical setups requires specific skill sets, time, and investments. Consequently, the topic of whether a core facility should develop optical devices is discussed as controversial. Here, we provide resources that should help get into this topic, and we discuss different options when and how it makes sense to build optical devices in core facilities. We discuss various aspects, including consequences for staff and the relation of the core to the institute, and also broaden the scope toward other areas of innovation.

Improving light microscopy training routines with evidence-based education

The low reproducibility of scientific data published in articles has recently become a cause of concern in many scientific fields. Data involving light microscopy is no exception. The low awareness of researchers of the technologies they use in their research has been identified as one of the main causes of the problem. Potential solutions have hinted at the need to improve technological and methodological education within research. Despite the pivotal role of microscopy core facilities in the education of researchers being well documented, facility staff (FS) often learn their trade on the job, without receiving themselves any structured education about the technology they teach others to use. Additionally, despite endorsing an important role at the highest level of education, most FS never receive any training in pedagogy, the field of research on teaching and learning methods. In this article, we argue that the low level of awareness that researchers have of microscopy stems from a knowledge gap formed between them and microscopy FS during training routines. On the one hand, FS consider that their teaching task is to explain what is needed to produce reliable data. On the other, despite understanding what is being taught, researchers fail to learn the most challenging aspects of microscopy, those involving their judgement and reasoning. We suggest that the misunderstanding between FS and researchers is due to FS not being educated in pedagogy and thus often confusing understanding and learning. To bridge this knowledge gap and improve the quality of the microscopy education available to researchers, we propose a paradigm shift where training staff at technological core facilities be acknowledged as full-fledged teachers and offered structured education not only in the technology they teach but also in pedagogy. We then suggest that training routines at facilities be upgraded to follow the principles of the Constructive Alignment pedagogical method. We give an example of how this can be applied to existing microscopy training routines. We also describe a model to define where the responsibility of FS in training researchers begins and ends. This involves a major structural change where university staff involved in teaching research technologies themselves receive appropriate education. For this to be achieved, we advocate that funding agencies, universities, microscopy and core facility organisations mobilise resources of time and funding. Such changes may involve funding the creation and development of 'Train-the-trainer' type of courses and giving incentives for FS to upgrade their technological and pedagogical knowledge, for example by including them in career paths. We believe that this paradigm shift is necessary to improve the level of microscopy education and ultimately the reproducibility of published data.

A Postdoctoral Training Program in Bioimage Analysis

We herein describe a postdoctoral training program designed to train biologists with microscopy experience in bioimage analysis. We detail the rationale behind the program, the various components of the training program, and outcomes in terms of works produced and the career effects on past participants. We analyze the results of an anonymous survey distributed to past and present participants, indicating overall high value of all 12 rated aspects of the program, but significant heterogeneity in which aspects were most important to each participant. Finally, we propose this model as a template for other programs which may want to train experts in professional skill sets, and discuss the important considerations when running such a program. We believe that such programs can have extremely positive impact for both the trainees themselves and the broader scientific community.

Best practices and tools for reporting reproducible fluorescence microscopy methods

Although fluorescence microscopy is ubiquitous in biomedical research, microscopy methods reporting is inconsistent and perhaps undervalued. We emphasize the importance of appropriate microscopy methods reporting and seek to educate researchers about how microscopy metadata impact data interpretation. We provide comprehensive guidelines and resources to enable accurate reporting for the most common fluorescence light microscopy modalities. We aim to improve microscopy reporting, thus improving the quality, rigor and reproducibility of image-based science.

QUAREP-LiMi: A community-driven initiative to establish guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility for instruments and images in light microscopy

A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated , quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist's experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g. DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility. In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models and tools, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research. This White Paper (1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; (2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers and observers of such; (3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative and (4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC. To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.

An international survey of Training Needs and Career Paths of Core Facility Staff

Core facilities (CFs) provide a centralised access to costly equipment, scientific expertise, experimental design, day-to-day technical support and training of users. CFs have a tremendous impact on research outputs, skills and educational agendas, increasing the competencies of staff, researchers and students. However, the rapid development of new technologies and methodologies for the life sciences requires fast adaptation and development of existing core facilities and their technical and scientific staff. Given the scarcity of well-defined CF career paths, CF staff positions are typically filled by people having followed either academic or technical tracks. Each academic institution follows different policies and often fails to adequately recognize the merits of CF personnel and to support their training efficiently. Thus, the Core Technologies for Life Science association (CTLS), through the Training working group, has conducted an anonymous online survey to assess the training needs of CF personnel, as well as to identify common characteristics and challenges in this relatively new and dynamic career type. 275 individuals, including core managers and directors, technicians, technologists and administrators, participated in the survey. The survey was divided into 2 sections; the first, applied to all respondents, and the second, specifically targeted core management issues. Training needs in technological areas, financial and soft skills, management and administrative issues were surveyed as well. The lack of clarity and consistency regarding established career paths for CF professionals was evident from the second part of the survey, highlighting geographical or cultural differences. Gender balance was achieved and the distribution was always taken into account. The results of this survey highlight a need to develop better training resources for CF staff, to improve their recognition within academic institutions, and to establish a recognized career pathway.

An international survey of Training Needs and Career Paths of Core Facility Staff

Core facilities (CFs) provide a centralised access to costly equipment, scientific expertise, experimental design, day-to-day technical support and training of users. CFs have a tremendous impact on research outputs, skills and educational agendas, increasing the competencies of staff, researchers and students. However, the rapid development of new technologies and methodologies for the life sciences requires fast adaptation and development of existing core facilities and their technical and scientific staff. Given the scarcity of well-defined CF career paths, CF staff positions are typically filled by people having followed either academic or technical tracks. Each academic institution follows different policies and often fails to adequately recognize the merits of CF personnel and to support their training efficiently. Thus, the Core Technologies for Life Science association (CTLS), through the Training working group, has conducted an anonymous online survey to assess the training needs of CF personnel, as well as to identify common characteristics and challenges in this relatively new and dynamic career type. 275 individuals, including core managers and directors, technicians, technologists and administrators, participated in the survey. The survey was divided into 2 sections; the first, applied to all respondents, and the second, specifically targeted core management issues. Training needs in technological areas, financial and soft skills, management and administrative issues were surveyed as well. The lack of clarity and consistency regarding established career paths for CF professionals was evident from the second part of the survey, highlighting geographical or cultural differences. Gender balance was achieved and the distribution was always taken into account. The results of this survey highlight a need to develop better training resources for CF staff, to improve their recognition within academic institutions, and to establish a recognized career pathway.