Appendix A: Data From User Survey

Primary research categories of respondents:

Research Category Number of Investigators
Macromolecular crystallography XTAL (201 investigators or 76.7% of respondents)
Scattering from noncrystalline materials SNM (26 investigators or 9.9% of respondents)
X-ray spectroscopy XAS (24 investigators or 9.1% of respondents)
X-ray microscopy IMG (11 investigators or 4.2% of respondents)
Other (6 investigators or 2.3% of respondents)
No primary category (8 investigators or 3.1% of respondents)

Total number of responses was 262. Of these, 11 indicated more than one primary category and 8 indicated no primary category. Primary category was assigned as the most frequent use indicated of synchrotrons for experiments (see Table A-2). Those that indicated equal frequency of use in more than one category were included in the analysis for each of those categories. Of those indicating Other, the descriptions were: interferometry; infrared radiochemistry; x-ray standing wave; and detector development.

Table A-1. Work Environment of Structural Biologists
Current Employer Number of Investigators
University 187 (71.4%)
Government Laboratory 34 (12.9%)
Other (private and nonprofit) 18 (6.9%)
Industry 23 (8.8%)
Total 262

Table A-2. Use of Synchrotrons for Certain Experiments
Experiment Symbol Major Use Occasional Once Only Never
Macromolecular crystallography:
XTAL Monochromatic 109 68 16 69
XTAL MAD Phasing 29 36 25 172
XTAL Laue 4 10 19 229
Scattering from noncrystalline materials:
SNM Static 21 14 8 219
SNM Time-resolved 12 10 2 238
X-ray Spectroscopy:
XAS Static 21 10 6 225
XAS Time-resolved 1 7 2 252
X-ray Imaging/ Microscopy

IMG

9 5 0 248
Other 5 1 0 256

The results for Table A-2 were obtained by adding the number of people who responded to each type of experiment for each of four possible answers.

Table A-3. Correlation of Size of Research Group with Number of Years
as an Independent Investigator
First Year as Independent Investigator Number of Investigators Number of Staff Average Size of Research Group Total Number of Researchers Average Anticipated 5-Year Change in Size
1992-97 75 375 6 450 +1.9
1987-91 50 343 7.9 393 +1.2
1982-86 33 223 7.8 256 +1.5
1977-81 27 187 7.9 214 +0.8
Before 1977 77 654 9.5 731 -0.5
Total 262 1782 2044

The results for Table A-3 were obtained by adding the number of investigators who had worked as independent investigators for periods of 5 years at a time. The total number of researchers was obtained by adding the number of postdocs, graduate students, and support staff to the number of investigators for groups of 5 years at a time. This number was divided by the number of independent investigators to find the average size of the research group for each of the periods of time. To find the average anticipated size of research groups in 5 years, that number was added to the total number of investigators, averaged, and the difference between the existing number and the anticipated number was figured.

Table A-4. Correlation of Scientific Discipline with Number of Years
as an Independent Investigator

Number of Investigators
First Year as an Independent Investigator XTAL SNM XAS IMG Other None Total
1992-97 63 2 3 3 2 3 76
1987-91 43 1 3 3 2 0 52
1982-86 23 5 5 1 1 0 35
1977-81 18 4 4 3 1 0 30
Before 1977 54 14 9 1 0 5 83
Total 201 26 24 11 6 8 276
The results for Table A-4 were obtained by counting the number of investigators per category by groups of 5 years. The total is larger than the actual number of respondents because some investigators responded with equal usage frequency to more than one category.

Table A-5. Level and Sources of Research Support
Annual Research Support Number of Investigators Source of Research Support Number of Investigators
$1K-50K 37 NIH 180
$50K-150K 80 Foundation 66
$150K-250K 45 NSF 63
>$250K 65 Industry 57
unspecified 7 DOE 40
No external support 28 Other U.S. government 24
Canada 15
Investigator's Institution 14
Other International 6
State 2
Other Unspecified 4

Table A-6. Biological Use of Synchrotron Radiation Facilities 1994-1996

Total Days Each Year Reported by Users
Year SSRL CHESS NSLS ALS APS SRS LURE DESY PhFac ESRF Total
1994 439 277 883 70 0 24 45 23 75 33 1869
1995 547 275 980 280 2 15 55 37 45 48 2284
1996 671 369 1194 345 110 9 48 53 29 88 2916

These results were obtained by adding the number of days each facility was used by year.

Table A-7. Factors Limiting Use of Synchrotron Radiation by Scientific Discipline

A. Too much time between application for beam time and experiment.
B. Can't readily get synchrotron beam time.
C. Insufficient research support to enable travel to the synchrotron.
D. Burdensome requirements for beam time proposals.
E. Key instrumentation for experiment unavailable at synchrotron facility.
F. Insufficient user support at synchrotron facility.
G. Don't need it for my research.
H. Other
I. Too much radiation damage to samples.
J. Sample problems

Number of Respondents
Factor XTAL SNM XAS IMG None Other Total (% of respondents)
A 121 8 4 2 1 1 137 (52.3)
B 112 6 3 6 1 1 129 (49.2)
C 44 5 7 0 2 2 60 (22.9)
D 41 4 4 1 2 1 52 (19.8)
E 16 4 1 2 1 2 24 (9.2)
F 16 3 0 1 1 1 22 (8.4)
G 15 1 0 0 3 2 21 (8.0)
H 9 2 4 1 0 2 18 (6.9)
I 3 4 1 1 1 2 11 (4.2)
J 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 (2.2)

The results for Table A-7 were obtained by adding the number of respondents to each factor limiting use of the synchrotron facilities by each category of investigation. Description of other factors limiting use were: too busy building beamlines; other demands on researcher's time; enough time for data analysis; we have our own line; convenience of staying home; personnel available; analysis time is rate limiting; proprietary research projects; usual experimental limitations; and small group/large time blocks.

Table A-8. Importance of Synchrotron Radiation to the
Investigator's Future Research Plans

A. Critical
B. Very Important
C. Moderately Important
D. Unimportant
Factors XTAL SNM XAS IMG Other None Total (% of respondents)
A 127 14 16 10 3 3 173 (63)
B 56 6 5 1 2 0 70 (25)
C 18 6 2 0 1 1 28 (10)
D 0 0 1 0 0 4 5 (2)

The results for Table A-8 were found by adding the number of responses of each type of investigator by each level of importance of synchrotron radiation in the future.

Table A-9. Relative Importance of Various Features of Synchrotron Radiation Facilities

A. Fast, efficient X-ray detectors
B. High brilliance/intensity/flux
C. Detectors with high spatial resolution
D. Computing and network services
E. Repeated access for long-term projects
F. High energy resolution
G. User-friendly environment
H. Helpful, readily accessible support staff
I. Rapid access for single experiments or feasibility studies
J. User training
K. On-site data processing
L. Good communication, e.g., user group, Web site, documentation
M. Good ancillary facilities, e.g., cold room, biochemistry lab, stock room
N. Intellectually stimulating environment
O. Good housing and convenient services
P. Other
Feature Essential Important Helpful Occasionally helpful Unimportant No Answer
A 205 38 7 1 0 11
B 191 55 7 1 0 8
C 157 53 17 12 8 15
D 155 70 18 5 0 14
E 146 76 20 4 3 13
F 139 61 25 9 9 19
G 134 82 36 1 0 9
H 134 89 28 3 0 8
I 130 84 27 6 2 13
J 113 79 44 7 7 12
K 109 85 45 12 0 11
L 84 76 67 20 2 13
M 82 92 55 19 2 12
N 52 48 101 28 19 14
O 49 90 88 13 9 13
P 10 2 0 0 1 249

The results for table A-9 were obtained by adding the number of each of five possible responses (essential, important, helpful, occasionally helpful, or unimportant) or no response by each feature of the synchrotron facilities. Descriptions of Other were: stable beam, stable optics out; time slicing; coding system; on-site machine shop; and truly optimal MAD beamlines.

Table A-10. Future Uses of Synchrotron Radiation by Scientific Discipline

A. Crystal structure determination by monochromatic techniques
B. Crystal structure determination by multiwavelength anomalous diffraction (MAD)
C. Determination of multiple crystal structures for proteins provided by site-directed mutagenesis, or as part of drug/ligand studies
D. Time-resolved structure analysis
E. Non-crystalline diffraction
F. Solution scattering of biomolecules and their complexes
G. X-ray spectroscopy
H. Direct imaging by X-ray microscopy
I. Other
Use XTAL SNM XAS IMG Other None Total
A 151 6 3 2 1 0 163
B 101 3 1 2 0 0 107
C 95 2 1 2 0 0 100
D 10 11 1 1 0 0 23
E 4 10 1 1 0 0 16
F 2 10 3 1 0 0 16
G 3 4 20 3 1 0 31
H 1 3 2 9 0 0 15
I 3 2 2 1 3 0 11

The results for Table A-10 were obtained by adding the number of responses of 1 (very frequently) or 2 (regular) to each type of future use by each scientific discipline. The total use for some items is greater than the number of respondents because some investigators indicated use in more than one scientific discipline. Descriptions of Other were: XIFS, interferometry; resonance x-ray diffraction; infrared, radiochemistry; topography and mosaicity; development of x-ray optics; instrumentation development; and detector software development.

Table A-11 and A-12. Collaborations

A total of 151 researchers collaborated with other independent investigators who do not have expertise in synchrotron science.

Table A-11. Collaborations
1994 1995 1996
Number of responses 95 109 125
Number of collaborations 293 332 487

Table A-12. Collaborations by Discipline (Number of respondents in parenthesis)
Discipline 1994 1995 1996
XTAL 127 (62) 158 (76) 258 (901)
SNM 41 (8) 38 (7) 78 (9)
XAS 106 (16) 108 (17) 118 (16)
IMG 16 (8) 25 (8) 30 (9)
Other 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1)

1One additional researcher reported 230 collaborations!

Table A-13. Publications
Number of Publications
First Year as an Independent Investigator 1994 1995 1996
1992-97 32 52 66
1987-91 68 75 95
1982-86 43 53 64
1977-81 47 57 53
Before 1977 109 138 141
Total 299 375 419

This survey was administered by Sheryl Martin and Laura Yust of the Human Genome Management Information System at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]