great lakes regional center for aids research: 1998 - 2002

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION .

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Great Lakes Regional Center for AIDS Research:

1998 - 2002

Stephanie Teasley

and Jason Yerkie

School of InformationUniversity of Michigan

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION .UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Outline SOC functions

– Primary– Secondary

Description– Goal– History– Organization– Funding– Incentives– Collaboration needs– Supporting needs– Collaboration readiness


Outline (cont.) Access Resource diagram Technology employed Successes and challenges Usage

– Analysis of user behavior– Analysis of user attitudes

Conclusions


SOC functions

Primary– Distributed research center

Secondary– Shared instrument– Virtual community of practice


Description: Goal

To create a “virtual center” for AIDS research, where science at the University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and University of Wisconsin is conducted as if these labs were co-located– Complimentary technological or expertise-based

services– Educational opportunities for all members of the

participating labs.


History

Extending the successes of UARC/ SPARC to the biomedical community

Use only off-the-shelf technologies First ever NIH CFAR grant to be virtual

center.


Organization 10 Founding Scientists

– 2 MI– 4 MN– 3 NU– 2 WI

110 Members– 33 Full – 41 Associates– 24 Research Associates– 9 In training– 3 Affiliates

1 Behavioral Analyst + Research staff


Funding

National Institutes of Health (NCI & NIAID; 5P30CA79458)– 19 Centers of AIDS Research– Only geographically distributed CFAR– approximately $5M per year, 1998-2002


Incentives Funding

– No one site could have individually won a CFAR

Recognition– Highly visible in the AIDS community

Novel capabilities– Opportunity to collaborate with people that

they may not have worked with before


Collaboration Needs Communication:

– Desktop video conferencing (1:1)– Virtual meetings (1:many)

Data Access– Transfer of data, databases, and images– Application sharing

Shared Authoring– Document collaboration

Distance education– Share expertise– Broadcast lectures and seminars


Supporting Needs

Virtual Lab Meetings Virtual Seminars


Collaboration Readiness

Technical All sites had Internet 2

– WI limited access, NU has firewall issues Multiple platforms: WinTel, Mac, and Unix Email adoption similar to biologists

– On average, scientists began using email: 1991 No prior experience using other CMC Phone and fax primary ways of communication

for long distance collaborations


Collaboration Readiness (cont.)

Social (Founding Scientists n=10) 4 pre-existing within-site collaborations

– Communication: face-to-face 4 pre-existing cross-site collaborations

– All between two sites– Communication: phone and email

3.5 anticipated new collaborations– 1 new anticipated cross-site collaboration

One third of new collaborations with scientists who did not know each other


Access: People

Virtual Lab Meetings– AIDS Researchers with complimentary

expertise and interests– Bench scientists and clinicians– Non-human primate researchers


Virtual Lab Meeting


Access: Information

Virtual Seminar Series– Presentations on pre-published work

Website– Directory of members and interests – Announcements and events– Portal for technical assistance and tips on

using collaboration tools


Virtual Seminars


Access: Instruments

Microscope at Minnesota – Real-time view of specimens from

microscope– Discussions with pathologist


Resource Diagram


Technology Employed (OTS) Virtual Lab Meetings

– Microsoft NetMeeting– Timbuktu– Virtual PC

Virtual Seminars– PlaceWare

Desktop Video– USB web cameras– iVisit

Data Sharing– Xerox Docushare


Success and Challenges Membership

– 110 members out of a possible 171 (64%) Virtual Lab Meeting

– Clinical Protocol Development- written faster, got funded, study produced two high quality publications (so far)

Virtual Seminars– 75% of membership participation in at least 1 seminar

Developmental Awardees– Leading to Prestigious RO1 Funding


Case-Study of Founding Scientists

Surveys, interviews, observations, and bibliographic analysis

Focused on:– Satisfaction with tools– Reported Collaborations– Impact on scholarly work


Case-Study: Group Virtual Lab Meetings Lab site = presenter + 22 lab group

members 3 “local” colleagues in different buildings 3 remote sites = 2 collaborators and 1

scientific advisory board member (outside of the Great Lakes area)


Case-Study: Scientist-to-Scientist Virtual Lab Meetings

One-to-one interactions in real time Regularly scheduled meeting time Focused interaction over shared data Accelerates study design, data analysis

and review, presentation preparation Trouble shoot problems as they occur

(e.g., protocol changes, subject recruitment, sample processing)


Case-Study: Satisfaction with Virtual Lab Meetings*

*Survey administered after the first 3 meetings (n=16)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Managing the technology gets in the way oflearning about the science during the meeting.

I prefer to use collaboration technology for myCFAR meetings

The goals of the meeting were accomplished.

Strongly Disagree/Disagree

Neutral

Agree/Strongly Agree


Case-Study: Satisfaction with Virtual Lab Meetings (cont.) "The active participation of investigators

looking at tissues is akin to the free-association process of a good lab meeting.”

"Never seen such detail results of lymph tissue, especially on-line. Had a chance to discuss quality control of specimen processing”

"Major enhancement --- allows for a whole new level of discussion and analysis between PIs."


Case-Study: Reported Collaborations*

*at end of Year 3


Case-Study: Reported Collaborations (cont.)

NU MN

WI

Vaccine & Other Prevention R&D:

Identification of MHC restricted epitopes

Therapeutic R & D:

Primary infection and therapeutic interventionsEpidemiology &

Natural History:

*Genetic diversification of viruses

Pathogenesis:

Trafficking patterns of transduced cells in vivo

MI

Pathogenesis:Pathogenesis ofKaposi’s SarcomaPathogenesis of mucosal

transmission in acute SIV infection


Case-Study: Impact on Scholarly Work

Grants 8 new grants funded

– 1 within-site grant, collaborators had not previously been funded together

– 5 grants involving collaborators across two sites• Only one of these grants involved collaborators who had

previous funding together

– 2 grants from 3 sites. • Prior to CFAR, there were no grants involving

collaborators across 3 sites.

1 additional grant pending with collaborators across two sites


Case-Study: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.)

Publications 14 new papers together

– 9 papers have same-site colleagues• all of these papers were founding scientists

who had published together before the GLR CFAR grant

– 5 papers have cross-site colleagues; • one paper represents a prior co-authored

publication


General Membership: Example of Cross Site Authorship


General Membership Study

Surveys, interviews, observations, and bibliographic analysis

Focused on:– Satisfaction with tools– Impact on scholarly work


General Membership: Cumulative Membership

37

54

77

95

110111108106

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

August-99 December-99 April-00 August-00 December-00 April-01 August-01 December-01 April-02 August-02


General Membership: Motivations for Joining

“Gain information about HIV research, contacts in the fields locally, and perhaps having funding opportunities available”

“Opportunity for effective collaboration” “Participation in research activities; promote

local and regional HIV research” “To take advantage of the shared resources

and to apply for a Developmental Award”


General Membership: Scientific Productivity

Funding 64% increase in NIH funded research

base (context of 33% increase in overall AIDS-related research)

Developmental award winners:– 8 of 9 awardees received subsequent

funding– 4 went on to receive RO1 totaling $5.6M


General Membership: Scientific Productivity (cont.)Publications September 1998 to March 2001 106 Members 558 Publications Top Five Journals (28% of total pubs)

– J. Virology– J. Infectious Diseases– J Immunology– AIDS– Infectious Immunology


General Membership: Scientific Productivity (cont.)

Single author pub is CFAR member: 5% At least 2 authors CFAR members from

same site: 14% At least 2 authors CFAR members from

different sites: 1% One CFAR member author: 80%


General Membership: Satisfaction with Virtual Seminar*

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Attending the virtual seminar gave me access toinformation that I would not have received otherwise

I plan to attend future CFAR virtual seminars

The technology allowed me to participate in thisseminar as I would have had I been in the same room

as the speaker.

Managing the technology gets in the way of learningabout the science during the seminar

*Survey administered after first 5 seminars(n=36)

Strongly Disagree/Disagree

Neutral

Agree/Strongly Agree


General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work

Method: Pair-wise Survey (preliminary data) Respondents: 41

– 37% of total membership Total within site collaborations: 200 Total between site collaborations: 68 Total number of reported collaborators: 82

– 75% of total membership Average reported collaborators: 8.17


General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.)

Work in progress …under review …accepted …rejected Other Total

Within Site 157 30 100 10 42 339

Between Site

54 10 31 3 4 102

Totals 211 40 131 13 46 441


General Membership: Impact on Scholarly Work (cont.)

“Provide ideas and access to lab techniques that our ACTU group doesn't have.”

“We are a small service organization with limited sets of hands, so collaborating with others definitely makes our job easier.”

“Colleagues with additional expertise in HIV/AIDS, including virology immunology. Colleagues with contacts to help develop and implement research proposals.”


Advantages and Disadvantages of Distributed Research Center for

ScientistsPositive: More data

Negative: Greater need for new ways to keep track of shared data

Positive: Potentially more interaction with colleagues

Negative: – Greater need to coordinate schedules– Interactions less rich than f2f

Positive: Extends access to collaborator’s data

Negative: Even more data!!


Some Key Findings Off-the-shelf technology can be used for an

effective collaboratory Where effective is…

– New collaborations created– Faster work (e.g., protocol development)– Support for junior members

Local technology support significantly increased the likelihood of use and adoption

Participation by site PI influences behavior of the members at that site


Questions

Collaboratory support within the context of a “Distributed Research Center”…

Is it the technology or the social organization that influences behavior?

Can we tease these apart, and do we need to?


Questions (cont.)

How to accurately assess effects:– Increase participation in assessments?– Legitimate control group?– Disentangle effects of participant

observers? (blurred distinction between analysts vs. service providers)

great lakes regional center for aids research: 1998 - 2002

Documents