I know PIs who do that but most of the time I do not think it is because of cuts in grant funding or a lack of access to the latest technique. It seems simpler and less of a hassle to outsource then to do it themselves. But where is the "research" then? An idea is put across, samples are collected, RNA is extracted, samples are then outsourced and the data is sent to the PI. I personally feel that takes away all the trill of doing science.

Not necessarily - a lot of what is outsourced is routine, and usually time consuming work, leaving researchers free to do the more thrilling stuff! I can't comment on whether it is an increasingly common trend though, as I'm only starting out.

We do that for some experiments. I have not built an expression construct in-house in years. I routinely send RNA out to have microarrays run. It is generally cheaper and faster to do it this way. Does take some of the fun out of it but even academic labs here are under pressure to produce more product (pubs) faster with less money.

Neeta, from my experience, in academy each project is conduced by a single student , who is not really an expert in all the required procedures). It is phisically impossible to perform a serious study that contains multiple animal groups with sufficient number of animals in each group by only two hands. In the CRO company there is a group of technitians, veterinars, Study Directors, QA and R&D who will perform, control, analyze and supervise this study in shorter period of time and with higher quality. This statement is true for studies related to development stage, but not for the research stage.

In my perception, yes it is. World-wide economy is going through the sink and research is taking a beating everywhere. In developed countries is just simpler and cheaper to contract services elsewhere to meet the stringent demands of the actual scientific establishment. However, in a third-world research environment like Mexico it is still cheaper to rely in our own human resources. We only outsource what we have no equipment to do ourselves, but it is expensive if you compare the costs to what would be if we only had our own. Current National science policies limit the purchasing of very expensive equipment and computers even if we have the money. Most intellectual property issues are resolved through collaborations, agreements or by simply blinding the other part.

I think it really depends on the technique...if its too tedious and you can get it done from a company for less to make time for the people in your lab to work on more productive things...it can be done...but I haven't seen this so much!!

I'm agree that is not necessary, but in countries where science is on the knees and the budget is smaller than that of homeless dogs, this is a good option for the development of science and at least in the applied aspect, and even for the business.

Yes. This is becoming common practice. In some situations, however, in-house core facilities can do the job. Science has become a fast-paced industry. Personally, I don't like it.

I would love to open a company and offer outsourcing!!!

Sanjeevani. Your institution should have a group that can help with this. However, they will demand a percent of your profits. nevertheless, this might be appropriate if they are willing to provide investment capital.

Yes. It is a common practice, especially in clinical investigations to outsource even across the globe nowadays. It is not due to the lack of funds, however. It is primarily due to the lack of high-throughput technology, expertise and experience available in their own labs. Typically, most clinical labs acquire the samples-mostly blood from patients and store them. When there is a new aspect that they want to try, then they outsource them. In most cases, it is simple and reliable since there are more and more companies around the globe that can generate data for you, including GWAS, microRNA profiling, gene expression profiling, SNPs, RNA-seq, nextgen sequencing etc. It is also economical since you do not have to buy costly equipment, hire people with appropriate training and experience in a certain technology. It is impossible to have people with appropriate training and expertise in all cutting edge technologies in most labs. I am sure that the IP issues are taken care of by the host institutions. However, it is necessary to have the knowledge to understand and interpret the data, and further analyze the data in their own labs. Typically, this requires bioinformaticians and many Ph.D s with expertise and knowledge in the areas of investigation. Times are changing and yet there is still some room for thrill of doing science-depending on how you look at it.

One caveat is that how reliable the data that are generated by these outsourcing agencies and who will be responsible for the integrity of science. I think right now there are many unanswered questions. Although I am not against outsourcing since some excellent sources available. However, it is not clear to me that outsourcing is anyway regulated. As some of you know that many concerns were raised about generating qRT-PCR data and the MIQE guidelines were formulated as a consequence. I think it is time to regulate other aspects of research, including outsourcing high tech investigations.

When experiments are outsourced, and I know of some PIs who have done this, I don't see them mentioning the "outsourcing" part in their publications. They just mention the platform, model etc. for instruments which were used but not state the fact that the work was outsourced. Maybe I am just old school.

Pressures of having to perform or to publish papers should not be compromised on the quality of data being generated by the outsourced agencies. When I started out, I had limited equipments in the lab, and when I wanted to outsource, I visited the company that offered the service. It is an international company with a base here. But after seeing some of their lab practices, I decided not to outsource the samples to them. This is just my personal experience.

Yes, the outsourcing and virtual corporation model is certainly in vogue. Outsourcing to academics can be advantageous to acquire their unique expertise, once you get past legal documents over IP rights. Unfortunately for CROs, academic labs have an advantage in that their overhead is heavily subsidized by our tax dollars. I believe that its unfair to small business and creates an uneven playing field. Due to past problems with academic contractors, their focus and reliability, I prefer an arms-length relationship with smaller, highly specialized, and reliable contract labs. At a successful CRO, the focus is on customer relations and a quality work product. CROs that allow access to client scientists add to a CRO's capabilities and bolster confidence in the outcome.

I think so, especially for high-throughput technologies. There are so many companies around the word that can generate reliable data for you.

Yes, this is a new and interesting trend in science. Of course, as a lab or unit you can not do everything and science and scientific journals (even of low impact) expect these days COMPLETE stories. And, everything is possible - so do everything possible. What needs to be considered as well is that things like getting approval for ethics in animal studies as well for human trials takes much less effort and time in some countries and the professionals in CRO´s and other service providers know exactly how to do it.

I think there should be more outsourcing possibilities. In highly competitive fields of science getting data quickly maybe crucial. This is espacially true if there is no expertize inhouse and a company that offers the needed services is right behind the corner. Why to bother establishing a new technique or teaching students if there is a reliable way of getting results fast? But as Jayaraman mentioned one has to be sure that you get trusted good qulity data. 

Outsourcing life science work in USA has been an accelerating trend for 40 years, originating primarily with toxicology and now with nearly everythuing imaginable from synthesis to formulations testing to regulatory to report writing to clinicl trials etc etc. This is primarily a commercial activity. In academia, over the same period of time, "core centers" developed for -omics, microscopy, NMR, MS etc. Not new at all, but there are challenges with paying for all of this and managing the quality. Most projects, vs. experiments, have multidisciplinary components that demand a networked approach. The very traditions of academic science are changing as teams become required where individuals were once sufficient. FUNDING in this new way is not easy. There remains much stress to the research community as a result.

this is mostly due to the lack of high end technologies, which is not possible for every researcher to arrange at his place, so as far as this aspect is concerned outsourcing is very helpfull in saving time and money for expert and genuine results. but it does have certain demerits such as IPR etc, so proper procedures should be there to govern such interactions.

Dear..., only my two cents...it might be economic and easy to outsource some - most, if not all 'experiments' one can think of .. I agree with the honorable poster above, Sundararajan Jayaraman, in saying > expertise and >>> experience available in their own labs>>.

I think it is / could be something like "managemental disease" as nowadays is seen frequently in administration and planning (be it financial or engineering): outsourcing to external experts is modern, but not always cheap and sometimes not really for the benefit of the client seeking advice. “Doesn't cost the world” and "off we go".... Beware of loosing / lost knowledge due to the fact that anybody?/one can outsorce less important and highly sophisticated experiments as well to (commercial) companies and perhaps in the first time unknown (scientific) staff (exception: e.g. sophisticated expression constructs and other special techniques). So do we want really “commercialized academia"? Who is going to control and to interpret (methods used as well as acquisited data), who is going to – after a while of doing so - educate students… unfortunately I do not believe that (at least in academic institutions) a given standard of knowledge can be kept or – as considered optimal – can advance knowledge and future visions if one passes experience and knowledge to extramural companies which usually have to have a look for shareholder value or at least for their own profit (if it is a small(er) private “institute”). Will such companies or outsource institutions add / contribute to the development of future technology? I see that outsourcing becomes more and more common, even in really big institutions due to the financial as well as the situation of reduced personal staff and the latter at the expense of experienced staff awaiting retirement without a chance given to exchange or pass on their elaborate knowledge to younger colleagues or - at best- designed successors. A much better way IMHO would be to increase possibilities and willingness of networking, more enthusiasm for collaborations for all those lacking modern equipment or are in need of some specific technology). So, in the end, unfortunately I don’t have really answers for the questions Sebastian Darr has asked above, but have found easily – within all the answers given so far (cf. Neeta Sinnappah-Kang , “caveat” by Sundararajan Jayaraman ) - some obstacles to accept “outsourcing” experiments or even routine technology as being gainful for science or - at least - academia.

i totally agree with Wolfgang Muss and Sundararajan Jayaraman

If I want to test an idea for a potential drug, I may need a synthetic chemist to make it ($300K), a vivarium ($2M) to dose animals and observe them ($300K), a bioanalytical lab ($2M) to develop an assay for the drug in blood ($50K) and then I can analyze the pharmacokinetics and write a paper. If I must have acute toxicology in rodents ($50K) under GLP......etc. In academia we rarely have the money or means to coordinate such a menu of activites and our own labs are funded in relative isolation to do only 1 or 2 things well. This must be one reason that so called "translation" is so difficult to do and so easy to talk about.

Dear Sébastian,

Science requires funding to develop knowledge. The social changes in our times include the scientific community, and different strategies to overcome challenges are needed. The relationship between companies and the academic are evolving; especially in emerging countries where funding is limited and needs are many. Mostly, collaboration within researchers is rewardingly ethical and honest. Outsource experiments with fellow scientists with the proper equipment for researchers from poor countries (Latin America, Africa …) is regarded as an opportunity to gain knowledge. Hope I answered your question.

Best regards,

Dr. Agustín Rascón

I think most would agree that outsourcing is unavoidable due to limitations in technology, expertise, and experience available in most labs. This requires utmost trust and integrity of the companies that can provide data for a fee. Core facilities are actually a primitive form of outsourcing. Over the years, we have learned that we need to fully cooperate and closely communicate with the Core to get reliable data. Some investigators cannot be bothered with technical issues which may lead to poor quality of data acquisition. The same rules apply to outsourcing also. If the investigator is not knowledgeable in the technology, it may slacken the quality control and eventually the quality of data obtained. The investigators need to go half the way to assure that the other half is done properly and the data will be reliable and reproducible. Unless the people involved in acquiring, processing and interpreting the data from the outsourcing facility is also a co-author in the paper, there is no way they will be held accountable for the integrity of the data published. In that case, the investigators may have to compromise the IP. Therefore, the investigators have the burden of making sure everything is done properly to the best of their ability in the absence of active participation including writing of the manuscript by the data provider. This will avoid many controversies, hypes and retractions of papers in the near future. Therefore, we must implement guidelines to regulate these activities before it is too late. Finally, this also applies to mega data crunching by outsourcing since this is also available for a fee now.

In my opinion, outsourcing experiments is done primarily to gain access to new instrumentation that is too expensive to acquire for limited sample sets. It is becoming more difficult these days for academic researchers to write successful instrumentation grants. A new top of the line sequencer or FTMS, etc. can cost upwards of $1M and is out of reach of a modest lab; it is a matter of financial efficiency.

It is natural selection to commission work/research to those who have the knowledge and resources - why re-invent the wheel ?

I do have concerns about the 'integrity' of data collected this way. How is reliability guaranteed? (This is true even if all the data is gathered by a single institution anyway). I suspect it might be an even more elaborate process when multiple 'stake holders' are involved. My experience of the 'negative' of outsourcing is limited to importing a compound for an undergaduate experiment in medicinal chemistry. The result was a compound that was not what was advertised as being supplied. Frustrating!

I don't think anyone has mentioned the matter of 'authorship.' I have to confess to being more than mildly amused when I see a 3-page paper in 'Nature' (or any journal) listed with 20+ authors. Can this really be? I visualise that global networking will lead increasingly to this situation.

The matter of grant money has also been raised. How do we indicate our involvement with research funding to our 'own' institutions? This has implications for government funded universities (like my own) because they fund not only by numbers of students but by research output. So does one paper with 26 authors carry the same weight as one with 4? How do impact factors measure the quality of such multi-author works?

More questions than answers ... certainly! By the way, I support the principle of collaboration. I want to pass on my knowledge and skills to the new generation.

Interesting dialogue! Cheers!

not only in clinical practice..it is prevalent in other fields as well.......I have confirmed information that some people(with so called big connections) in taxonomy and biotechnology are also doing same thing....chemicals are procured and are then recycled in connivance with the suppliers..same chemical is billed and resupplied under different batch....most of the technicians maintaining consumption register forge the consumption record to keep paper work as per requirement...can't the granting agencies, say of India come under single umbrella...create centralized facilities at district level under charge of some known figure...this will help in preventing duplication of chemicals and equipment ;and prevent suppliers from finding black sheep...not only it will save grants..but also outsourcing

Good point Arvinder!

Outsourcing may not be always discouraged as it may-

a) invite fresh ideas

b) reduce bias

c) stengthen partnership.

The extent to which the research ethics is respected and the intellectual property is protected may depend on the intellectual culture and regulatory climate prevalent in the country.

I agree that there is an increase in number of people and scientists going for outsourcing. Some labs are doing it as a fashion, some to save their time and produce data at faster rate. However there are some labs which are not well equipped/equipped to carry out some experiments which require sophisticated instruments and chemicals. In that case they have no option but to get the things done from outside. At the same time they have to keep in mind the quality of the data which is coming out of that outsourced lab. In my opinion we need to regulate the whole thing rather than just negating the importance of this practice.

Another factor to consider is when in the product life time is outsourcing performed. If you are in the early stage of reserach, you will want to have most of the research performed in-house in order to have control over the raw data and speccally if you are trying to avoid IP difussion to the outside world. Later on during routine manufacturing, you will probably outsource any tasks that do not qualify as "core competence".

The compay size will also determine if outsourcing is viable solution. Global players will have the financial and the human ressources to put new labs, analytics and testmethods in place when they need it. SMEs will not have this possibility, and will therefore outsource instead of building in-house ressources for maybe a one time experiment.

in brief: Perform "core competence" activities in house

Out sourcing or sharing of energies is known since ages ….with some different terminology (like barting/import-/export, in search of economical sources) and was confined mostly to 2M s (materials and machineries).In pharmaceutical industry out sourcing is common and well regulated by FDA in the form of Loan licensing or Third-party Licensing controlled by GMP norms. The word out sourcing became popular when 3rd M (Manpower) energies were needed to share in a larger global requirements due to rapid changes and needs in technology (Information Technology, computers and Clinical trials of medicines etc.) and is going to be there with much demand in more areas of human life as it is not possible to have all facilities of equipments and intellectuals confined to one place, be it industry or R&D based academic institutions and the interactions between both always results the benefits of society. It will be interesting to see the demand for qualified human subjects when the recent experiments on tapping energy from “human power houses” gets success in mass scale .

It seems obvious for at least some weakly trained and resources labs across the globe. The cost incurred through outsourcing is not overwhelming as towards the end, their will be results to analyse and publish that too in high output journals. I think it is very important to get valued data from the outsourcing experiments as many times the researcher is in the dark as not being able to directly work on the technology to which the project belongs. Although i am of the feeling, that it improves networking and collaborations so important towards equality in research.

In general, a possibility to use outsourcing depends on economoical, political situation in country as well as strict rules and regulations to prevent a grab of intelectual property as well as invested money on projects. Novodays in Russia exist grandiose outsoursing projects by government "Nanotech", and "Skolkovo".

At tis moment Nanotech has poor results. This company could not realise the idea and investment - a lot of money (multy mlns USA dollars).

What is the problem here?

Novodays everithing is changing very fast and if you get a weak idea and try to apply it as outsourcing company - sometimes you will loose. Outsourcing company is to be able toforecast and sort out the best projects!

I think, it is only beginning of the new era of scientific community. Future in cooperation and mutlidisciplnary translational research. Naked theory without experience and experimental research is anochronism and who is going to generate ideas and build concepts should be very experienced researcher. If you are not able to do experiments how your can set up research design to check your hypothesis.

Hi all, nice discussion Sebastian!

it's indeed an interesting question and we do see this more and more often. At least the outsourcing encourages collaboration and knowledge exchange between, labs, industrial partners, private sector and academia, even countries. This will have the certain advantage of not having to rediscover the wheel each time it's needed. As for the PhDs they will be able to concentrate on where, I believe, their strength lies, their capacity for innovation plus as Wouter Hendrixx says it : asking the most pertinent questions. They will have to learn to lead or pilot projects.

As for intellectual property, what's common now is either the outsourcing client buys a service (with 0 property sharing) or, when the technology is very special and costly, a collaboration can be signed with agreement on the property sharing between both ends. These agreements are open for negotiation.

I find that outsourcing will encourage the democratization of scientific research, hopefully on a global scale.

Outsourcing is at times more cost effective than trying to do it yourself. This is especially so ıf the technology ıs new. In many cases the saving in time (salary) and resources far outways the desire to do it yourself, freeing up funds for more specialıst inhouse experments that you would not want to be widely lnown if working in a competative area. We have done this on occassion so we could concentrate on work that only we could do.

You can´t outsource experiments indeed. You may buy some standard services (i.e sequentiation) but you can´t outsource ideas, abilities and so on. There is (hopefully) a little bit of magic touch when you are testing an hypothesis (that´s what experiments are for), so you can't transfer this. You can´t "believe" the data just because you´ve paid for it. It is clear some procedures are expensive and not easy to do. The way, I think, is colaborative, and commited, work rather than outsorcing.

I think academic institutions is better

Outsourcing saves time and money both ,but the researchers' domain of experience decreases.Better to have collaborative work rather than completely depending on industry to run your experiment.The reliability of the experiment outsourced has to ensured by some regulatory authorities. It is not yet time when machines and technology become scientist and not human being!

In my opinion, experiment outsourcing will become more and more popular in scientific research.

I know of a local University that has been outsourcing its research to foreign countries in the name of colloborative partnership.The irony is that those who claim the authorship are not the ones who conduct the experiments, but rather those who formulate hypotheses . This is unethical and it is bad for research but the authorities look the other way. As a result, it will deprive the younger researchers of the experience to conduct experiments, which is bad for academia and for research in general.

I think we should differentiate - what kind research can be usefull for outsoursing and what kind is not!

Small projects and PhD projects are mainly should be done without outsourcing.

In my opinion, when researchers get promising preliminary results with great scientific and practical impact on technology in future, this kind research can be a subject of outsorting. For example, many promising ideas in medicine in hands of owners, difficult to apply them into practice. In these cases outsourcing companies could be usefull.

Colloboration: if someone does part of experiment it is not outsorcing - it is "colloboration" or "joint research", as well as consultation with experts!!! Sometimes to draw whole picture of your findings you need an advice from experienced researcher.

I support the idea of shareness and cooperation iin both idea and technology, which would make us go furher and faster.

Yes, this is common practice, especially in the last decade. For example, my alma mater, U of Louisville, had a relationship with Churchill Downs to measure fentanyl in horse serum in the early 1980s. Since then, they have gotten more into outsourcing relationships. Pricing and reduction of infrastructure overhead have been motivators. The key is establishing communications and best business practices at the beginning of a collaboration. As for IP, while confidentiality argeements are standard, there will always be a danger of inappropriate transfer. The only option is to choose collaborators that are trustworthy.