A meeting of the ANU MICROSCOPY STATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MSTAG) was held at 1pm on the 7th October in the Faculty Board Room, RSBS.

Present were: Prof. Jonathan Stone (Chair) , Prof Patrick de Deckker, Prof Barry Luther-Davies, Dr Tim Senden, Dr Edie Sevick, Dr Zbigniew Stachurski, Dr Sally Stowe, Prof Bruce Walmsley (in lieu of Dr Frances Shannon), Dr Rosemary White, Dr Ian Williams

1. Apologies were received from Dr Paul Cooper and Professor Simon Ringer

2. The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed.

2a. Matters arising from the previous minutes: Dr Stowe reported that the problems in commissioning of the upright microscope for the confocal system had been identified. The microscope had been completely replaced by Leica, both systems were now running under XP, and the computer would be upgraded. Unrelated problems with the pinhole had been identified and a replacement ordered. The microscope was expected to be fully functional shortly.

3. Update of 10- year projection for major microscopy requirements.

Dr Stowe tabled the projection currently published on the web-site. The proposal she had circulated for an updated projection was discussed:

a) items which were the subject of bids in 2004:
(i) General purpose Schottky FESEM with EDXA, EBSP, cryo, extended pressure, cathodoluminescence...etc). ARC Linkage Bid/EM Reserve.
A letter from Dr Stachurski had been circulated, outlining the concerns of some CSEM members that the proposed instrument compromised the performance of the base SEM in order to accommodate a number of accessories, and that the new warm cathode FESEM be “a high quality base instrument limited to and appropriately equiped for imaging, EDAX and EDSD”.
Several other committee members said that they had also been contacted by people concerned that the new machine would offer no improvement over the existing Hitachi 4500 SEM for high resolution work, and that the needs of materials science users were not being sufficiently considered. Some users had raised the possibility of finding more funds if needed for a better quality base instrument.
Dr Stowe responded that the exact model to be purchased had not yet been determined, but the one which had formed the basis for costing the bid was designed and marketed as a “materials” analytical machine. The warm FESEM was not intended as a replacement for the high resolution Hitachi 4500, which was a cold cathode FESEM and was scheduled to be the next SEM replaced. Price was not a factor - optimal high resolution and optimal general-purpose analysis designs were fundamentally incompatible, and because of the number of SEMS in the Unit there was no need for a compromise. The warm FESEM would replace the aging and very heavily used Cambridge 360 (a tungsten/LaB6 instrument) and to some extent the (tungsten) JEOL 6400, and would improve on all capabilities of those instruments, including a marked improvement in resolution. Moreover it was not an option to move from the commitment, expressed in the Linkage bid, to purchase an up-to-date general-purpose machine. After the funding had been secured there would be extensive discussion of the particular instrument to be purchased. Professor Stone expressed support on this matter.

It was agreed that Professor Stone would call an open meeting of interested parties within a few weeks to discuss the matter.

(ii) Laser Cell Capture Microscope. ARC Linkage and MEC, with major contributions from CSIRO and ANU researchers. Noted

b. Ultramicrotomes.
Dr Stowe said that these were comparatively low-cost items but could not be covered from operating funds. Existing instruments were around 30 years old and inadequate for many purposes. Dr White pointed out that the manufacturer no longer supplied crucial parts.
Agreed

c. General Purpose 100kV TEM. See item 6.

d. 2007 onwards. High resolution energy filtered TEM, High resolution SEM. Dr Stowe said that from the existing usage patterns or other factors there was no clear reason to prioritise one or the other of these, and the future requirements of users needed to be explored.

e. State of the art light microscope. (2008 onwards). A multiphoton confocal was a possibility, but the field was advancing quickly and new instruments might become available.

4. Distribution of Microscopy Requirements and Resources across Campus.
The purpose of gathering this information was to provide a baseline and background for MSTAG discussions of future requirements. Dr Stowe tabled a preliminary draft showing the sites of existing microscopes, and asked for the committee members’ help in collecting further information on microscopy use and arrangements in different areas.
It was agreed that the committee needed to be aware of all major microscopes on campus, not simply those which were available for general use.

5. ANUEMU Operating Budget.
Dr Stowe reported that the operating budget of the ANUEMU would be in crisis in 2005. A decade ago there was approximately $100K remaining after salaries, in 2005, in spite of some reduction in staff, there would be no funds remaining at all. Income was rising (in 2003 almost $30K from user’s research grants, and $20K from external earnings), but was not sufficient to maintain operations. Professor Stone said that representation would be made to the VC to reassess the funding.
The committee warmly endorsed the request for increased funding. Several members pointed out the large contribution ANUEMU made to the work that enabled many groups to bring research grants onto the ANU and to produce publications, directly contributing to RIGB funding. Dr Stowe was asked to provide committee members with the names of ANUMEU users in their areas, to assist them in estimating the contribution made to RIGB. The possibility of increasing returns from user fees, particularly as single prepayments to minimise administrative costs, should be explored.
Dr Stowe was asked to draft a paper on user fees for the next meeting.

6. MSTAG response to JCSM bid for a replacement TEM.
Professor Walmsley requested an endorsement from MSTAG for the current JCSMR MEC bid to replace the TEM in the JCSMR, which was 18 years old and heavily used. JCSMR was contributing $80K.

Dr Stowe pointed out that the replacement had been listed on the 10-yr microscopy projection for some years. The ANU should have two instruments of this type. ANUEMU had one. As long as the JCSMR instrument continued to be available to outside users as a backup to the ANUEMU instrument, the JCSMR siting was in fact an advantage to ANUEMU since it effectively freed space for a more specialised column.
Professor Walmsley said the instrument would be heavily used within JCSMR but, like the present TEM, would also be available to other areas if needed. The access arrangements were the responsibility of Cathy Gillespie. It was suggested that the new microscope might be placed on the web booking system.

The recommendation of the committee was that the proposal was consistent with the overall strategy for microscopy resources at the ANU and should be assessed on its scientific merits, which in the opinion of the committee were very high. It was agreed that Dr Stowe should prepare a letter for the JCSMR committee to that effect, and attend the MEC site visit as a representative of MSTAG.

7. Other Business
Dr Senden raised the lack of a formally expressed role for the MSTAG, particularly in relation to the Microscopy Sub-Committee of MEC (whose functions were no longer published on the ANU website), and to the DVC(R). Professor Stone said that MSTAG should provide advice as and when it was requested. To date MEC had not formally referred any items to its Sub-Committee. Dr Sevick pointed out that in practice the functions of MSTAG substantially overlapped those of the Microscopy Sub-Committee.

The meeting closed at 2.40pm