Return on investment for open source scientific hardware development
read more
Citations
Global value chains from a 3D printing perspective
A review of open source ventilators for COVID-19 and future pandemics
Emergence of home manufacturing in the developed world: return on investment for open-source 3-D printers.
Fused Particle Fabrication 3-D Printing: Recycled Materials' Optimization and Mechanical Properties.
3D Printing in the Laboratory: Maximize Time and Funds with Customized and Open-Source Labware
References
Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences.
How open source software works: “free” user-to-user assistance
Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
Reprap ??? the replicating rapid prototyper
The Maker Movement
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (20)
Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Return on investment for open source scientific hardware development" ?
This creates superior scientific equipment in the future with no additional expenditures. In addition, there are numerous types of equipment that could be redesigned as FOSH with low fabrication costs that could be widely applied outside of scientific labs ( e. g. hand held nitrate testers for water quality or use for farmers to determine fertilizer requirements ) that would have enormous potential returns for society. For entities such as the NIH, which are trying to leverage their investments for the greatest common good, FOSH development has extremely high potential ROIs. It is clear that federal funding ( such as through the NIH, NSF, DOE, DOA, DOD, and NASA, etc. ) should be prioritized for the development of open-source scientific hardware because of the enormous potential ROIs for the nation 's scientific community.
Q3. What is the effect of FOSH on the scientific community?
FOSH reduces redundant problem solving in laboratories around the world, accelerates innovation due to rapid laterallyscaled feedback [5-9].
Q4. What is the way to reduce costs for researchers?
For scientists that need access to highlycustomized low-volume tools the open source method and digital replication can result in significant cost savings [6,9,13].
Q5. How many hours did it take to assemble the pump library?
To print and revise the five 3-D printed components took 3 hours, assembly less than 1 hour and software development and Pi wiring less than 16 hours.
Q6. How many times have the designs been downloaded?
As of this writing (Feb. 2015) the designs for the open source pump, which were released in Sept. 2014, have been downloaded from two digital repositories a total of ND = 1035 times (224 on Thingiverse [23] and 811 on Youmagine [24]).
Q7. What is the difficult part of the research?
Experimentalists are perhaps the hardest hit as low-volume, highly-specialized equipment needed to push further scientific progress continues to demand premium and often shockingly high prices on the market.
Q8. How much does it cost to purchase a pump?
The cost to purchase a traditionally manufactured syringe pump, Cp, ranges from $260-$1,509 for a single pump and $1,800-$2606 for a dual pump [22].
Q9. What is the reason for the change in the culture of the maker movement?
It should also be noted that as free and open source hardware becomes more commonplace in the scientific establishment there may be a cultural shift within labs to employ 'makers' to build and troubleshoot open source equipment.
Q10. How many hours can a worker do while printing?
Although the time to print the components is less than four hours on a conventional RepRap, workers can do other tasks while printing.
Q11. What is the reason for the increase in the rate of discovery in science and medicine?
Quantifying the value of an increased rate of discovery in science and medicine because of lower costs or superior equipment or better education entails specific detailed studies.
Q12. What is the purpose of the article?
It is clear that free and open source scientific hardware development should be funded by organizations interested in maximizing return on public investments.
Q13. What is the effect of funding cuts on research success rates?
This creates hyper-competitiveness with the concomitant diminishing of risk taking and innovation among researchers of all ages and desertion of many young investigators [1,2].
Q14. Why should federal funding be prioritized for the development of open-source scientific hardware?
It is clear that federal funding (such as through the NIH, NSF, DOE, DOA, DOD, and NASA, etc.) should be prioritized for the development of open-source scientific hardware because of the enormous potential ROIs for the nation's scientific community.
Q15. What is the value of a syringe pump library?
Consider the case study of a simple open-source syringe pump library design [22], which may be government funded for scientific innovation acceleration, but also have applications in STEM education and medicine.
Q16. What is the way to measure the ROI of a new research project?
For entities such as the NIH, which are trying to leverage their investments for the greatest common good, FOSH development has extremely high potential ROIs.
Q17. How many percent of the research done in this case was funded by the NIH?
The case study presented here found ROIs of 100s to 1000s of percent from a relatively simple scientific device being released under open-licenses.
Q18. How much overhead does the average scientist spend on research?
the national average overhead charged on grants (indirect costs primarily used to subsidize administrative salaries and building depreciation), has climbed to 52% [3], which further limits scientists' ability to do research with the hard-earned funding they do obtain.
Q19. What is the role of the maker movement in the scientific establishment?
Such troubleshooting is already provided in a limited way by technicians, research assistant students and research scientists, but would be expected to expand and provide positions for the growing number of makers as more scientific hardware becomes completely accessible and able to be customized.
Q20. What is the value of a design that is optimized for low-volume scientific equipment?
The savings are maximized for custom low-volume scientific equipment where Cf is generally only 1-10% of Cp [9,17], creating a 90-99% savings.