A meeting of the ANU Microscopy and Strategic Advisory Committee (MSTAG) was held at 12 noon on the 17th of August 2005 in the Faculty Board Room, RSBS

Present were: Professor Jonathan Stone (Chair), Dr Ian Williams, Professor Marilyn Ball, Dr Marion Stevens Kalceff, Professor Bruce Walmsley (for Professor Caryl Hill), Dr Andrew Fairbairn, Dr Edie Sevick, Professor Barry Luther-Davies, Dr Sally Stowe, Professor Rob Elliman, Dr John Fitz Gerald, (standing in for Professor Mark Harrison, invited to attend).

1 Apologies were received from Prof Patrick de Deckker and Dr Ray Roberts.

2. New members were welcomed

3. Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted.

4. Matters arising from the previous minutes:

(2a) ANUEMU Leica Confocal Microscope.
Dr Stowe reported that there had been extended problems, and a further delay waiting for the replacement of the UV laser, that had come to the end of its expected life and been replaced under the service contract. However the system was now working well and had been used for about 100 hrs/month since late May, mainly configured with the new upright microscope.

(3). Minutes of a user’s meeting held to discuss the general purpose analytical Schottky FESEM were tabled. Referring to this meeting and several subsequent meetings with interested users, Professor Stone said that the question of variable pressure seemed to be the only unresolved issue, and that further consultation would be undertaken before a decision was made.

(5) ANUEMU Operating Budget – paper on user fees
The user fees paper was deferred.
Dr. Stowe said that in the mid 1990s the EMU had an operating grant of $420K, and the Reserve allocation for major equipment was $200k, a total of $620K. After some small increases, reductions due to the imposition of various levies, and compensating increases over the last few years, the operating grant was now $535K. The EM Reserve allocation had been reduced to $120K, for a total of $655K
If the operating grant alone had increased at the rate of overall university expenditure on academic areas over the period 1992-2003, it would be $758K, which would be brought to $958K if the Reserve allocation had remained at $200K.
Income from internal and external sources was rising sharply, from c $20K in the mid 90’s to $40K in 2004 and an expected $65K in 2005, as more researchers obtained external grants, but it was hard to predict the level where it would plateau.

In the future there would need to be either a substantial increase in the operating grant or a significant change in the charging policy: she sought the committee’s advice.

Professor Stone pointed out that the university had increased the operating grant by $50K in two recent years, once to compensate for levies and again as a perceived increase, but might be agreeable to a similar increment. Professor Elliman said that an amount closer to $200K was needed, with a one-off payment to refurbish the Unit.

Dr Stevens Kalceff discussed the  UNSW EM Unit budget  arrangements.  Dr Stowe said that the ANU EMU hourly cost was about $35/hr without capital equipment costs, $70 with them. User fees were $10/hr for university users with grants, free for those without, with the exception of a few equipment items (laser light microscopes, focused ion beam) with relatively high and predictable operating costs, which were charged at $10-15 /hr with no exceptions. Government departments were charged at $75/hr, commercial rates were c $200/hr.

A discussion of user fees followed. Dr Fairbairn and several other members were of the opinion that higher fees could easily be accommodated in grant applications.

Dr Stowe was asked to prepare a paper on user fees, based on a 20% recovery rate, for the next MSTAG meeting.

5. Installation of Laser Capture Microscope

Dr Stowe reported that although the ARC bid for a laser capture microscope had not been successful, the purchase price of $403K had been reached with contributions from ANU departments and individuals, CSIRO, CSU, and an ANU MEC contribution. A PALM system with twin laser traps had been chosen, and was commissioned in July. It was operating well, jointly managed by ANUEMU and the RSBS Molecular Biology Facility. Several workshops were planned for this year, and another, run by Dr Kathy Heel of the UWA laser capture microscope facility, would be held in association with the biennial conference of the Australian Microscopy Society in Sydney, February 2006

6. ARC LIEF bid for analytical FESEM and 100kV TEM.
Professor Stone recalled that the ANUMEU Coordinator had recommended early purchase of an analytical FESEM to replace an aging workhorse SEM and extend the capabilities of the EMU in a number of areas. However in order to maximise the leverage gained from ANU’s capital equipment funds, the DVC-R had recommended making an ARC bid for two instruments, the FESEM and a 100kV TEM to be sited in JCSMR. The TEM would be considered as part of the ANUEMU. JCSMR were agreeable and, after discussion with a number of parties, Professor Stone had decided to proceed with such a bid, with the provision that the analytical FESEM purchase would take funding priority over the TEM for EM Reserve funds..
An extremely advantageous price had been offered by the vendor of the FESEM recommended by the ANUEMU Facility Coordinator, with a reduction of $50,000 if the instrument were ordered in time for it to be demonstrated at the biennial conference of the Australian Microscopy Society, Sydney, February 2006.

A decision on the advisability of the unresolved extended pressure option (see item 4) was therefore needed soon – other optional items were retrofittable accessories, and with the exception of EDXA, their inclusion would depend on funding availability..

A paper by Dr Stowe outlining the FESEM options, including the advantages of extended pressure, was tabled. She stressed that the new instrument would ideally have been brought into service a year ago, a February 2006 delivery was the best option now available, and that many programs were now dependent upon an 18-year old SEM of inevitably dubious reliability.

Dr Stevens Kalceff pointed out the recognised difficulty in securing ARC funding for “workhorse” items, even as shared equipment in central facilities.

Discussion ensured. Dr Fitz Gerald questioned the need for, and technical advisability of, the extended pressure option. Dr Stevens Kalceff pointed out that some manufacturers now included variable pressure capability as standard on workhorse instruments, and the UNSW “ESEM”, which operated at even higher pressures, was reliable and in great demand, and had attracted many new users. Use of variable pressure options did not detract from the capability of the microscope when working in conventional mode. Dr Stowe pointed out that the pressure range under consideration for the ANU purchase was considerably less (1000 Pa, compared to 4,000 Pa), than that available on the UNSW instrument.

Professor Elliman questioned the need for an early decision, as there might be more funding available later. Dr Stowe pointed out that the availability of more funding would not change her recommendation for the base microscope, and that it was most improbable that more funds would be available than were needed for the recommended microscope plus major accessories.

Animated discussion ensured on the advisability of various of these accessories, in particular cathodoluminescence and cryo-microscopy equipment.

There was clear disagreement within the Committee on the EP and CL options, the Coordinator and a number of the other members (including the external member) recommending or supporting their purchase, others questioning the need for them.

7. (Standing Item) Update of 10-year projection for major microscopy equipment requirements.
Dr Stowe spoke to the three items listed for the future (high resolution FESEM, FEGTEM, “State-of-the art” light microscope), The LM requirement had narrowed to a system capable of live cell imaging, and on present policies its seed funding would not come from the EM Reserve. Its acquisition could proceed independently of the other two. However the two electron microscopes could each be realised with two very different configurations, functions and costs:
The SEM could be a semi-in lens type, which had the best very low kV resolution, and cost about $650K, or an in-lens type with sub-nm resolution at 15kV but lower low-kV performance, at a cost of c $1.3M.(costing based on Hitachi models)
The FEGTEM could range from a relatively ”conventional” TEM 200kV with an in-column energy filter, such as the Zeiss Libra at $2.3M, to a new generation sub-Angstrom resolution TEM such as the FEI Titan 80-300 starting at $5M with enhancements available in roughly $1M increments.

Strategies for acquiring and operating these instruments would obviously be very different. Before too long, a discussion should begin about their relative priority and value.

Professor Luther-Davies spoke of a need in materials science for a high resolution surface profiling interferometer. He informed MSTAG that there were moves towards an extensive nanofabrication facility for the ANU, with clean rooms and high stability zones, which would involve electron beam instruments. Professor Stone said this might be discussed further at the next meeting of MSTAG.

Dr Sevick commented that in 2006 it was likely that large equipment grants requiring MEC funding support would need to be submitted for internal assessment, and that large bids might be staggered by the university to avoid major depletion of MEC funds by ARC proposals in any one year.

8. Other business.

Suggestion of a Review of ANUEMU
Professor Elliman spoke of the extensive building projects planned at the ANU, and suggested that now might be an opportune moment for a review of the ANUEMU. He considered a review would be necessary if substantially more funding was to be obtained. There was discussion about the advisability of including non-EM functions such as light microscopy support within ANUEMU.

Position of ANUEMU Head
Professor Stone said that he had discussed the need for an academic head of the ANUEMU with the DVC-R. It had been decided, with Dr Stowe’s agreement, that an appropriate transition arrangement would be the reclassification of the Facility Coordinator position to an academic (Level C) appointment of 5 years duration.

Discussion under Other Business included the possibility of early purchase of the FESEM, to take advantage of a favorable offer from Hitachi. Again, there was no agreement in Committee, the Coordinator and several other members seeing the advantage, others advising a need to wait for the outcome of the LIEF bid.

The meeting closed at 1.20pm.