Dr. J. Russell Nelson came to ASU in 1981 to be University President and he retired in 1989. He was born in Oregon but grew up in California and Utah. He received his PhD from UCLA and proceeded to teach at the University of Minnesota. He honed his administrative skills at the University of Colorado. When he arrived at ASU he was given the task of moving the university to a research university. In the interview he talks about the lack of teaching space and the effort required to reorient the faculties’ focus. Nelson spoke at length about several buildings, Hayden Library and the Nelson Fine Arts Center. There is discussion about getting around the Regents to get funding for the West Campus and the effort required to clean up the athletic department.

Panel Discussion by J. Russell Nelson, Frank Sackton and Brent Brown on the history of ASU during the presidency of Russell Nelson, 1981 -- 1989. Recorded in February 2006. It was a wide ranging discussion including the birth of West Campus, the coming of the Cardinal football team, handling NCAA violations including protecting Jim Brock, moving the research agenda forward toward a Research 1 University.

Charlie Arntzen joined ASU in August 2000 as the Florence Ely Nelson Presidential Endowed Chair and retired in 2016 from the School of Life Sciences and Biodesign Institute. Charlie was the founding Director of the Biodesign Institute.
Important ASU stories include:
1) the creation of the Biodesign Institute,
2) the design and operation of the Biodesign labs,
3) the development of ZMapp to fight Ebola,
4) The New American University - a discussion of the importance of collaboration, and
5) several comments about Presidents Coor and Crow and Provost Glick

Born in Pittsburgh, PA and raised in a small town in Indiana (Seymour, IN), Harold Fearon received his BA in Management and his MBA from Indiana University where he became interested in teaching as a career. After his military service, he went to Michigan State University where he received his PhD in Management with a dissertation titled “Purchasing Research in American Business”. His specialty was industrial purchasing.

Harold was invited to come to ASU to be part of the College of Business by a former professor from IU who had moved to ASU. He talks about how he promised to only stay 2 years and has been here close to 30! During his time at ASU he was chair of the Department of Management in the College of Business. He became chair of the Department of Purchasing, Transportation and Operation which he founded to support the increase in interest in the purchasing field. After his retirement, he established a research institute (the first institute located at the ASU Research Park) that was nationally supported called The Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies (CAPS). He also was the founder and first editor of the “Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management” which is still in publication today. In his spare time, he was co-founder of the Rio Salado Bank, a community bank in Tempe, about which he relates many funny events!

Born in Arizona, the son of educators, Lattie F. Coor was the 15th President of ASU. He attended NAU for his undergraduate degree and went on to receive his masters and PhD from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. He remained at Washington University as a faculty member, eventually becoming its Vice Chancellor. In 1976, Lattie left to become the 21st President of the University of Vermont. In January of 1990, Lattie returned to Arizona to become the 15th President of ASU, remaining as President until 2002. After his retirement as President of ASU, Lattie stayed as a Professor and Ernest W. McFarland Chair in Leadership and Public Policy in the University's School of Public Affairs. He also co-founded the Center for the Future of Arizona where he continues to serve on the Board of Directors.

In his interview, Lattie recaps his life growing up in Arizona during the war years, providing many stories of his experiences with the various prisoner of war camps located in Arizona. He indicates that originally he thought he would become a lawyer and perhaps enter a political career, but then early on in his post-secondary work, he was greatly influenced by one of his professors at NAU and turned to pursuing a career in academics. From there he unfolds the story of his life as a professor and an academic administrator.

The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions. When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.

The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions. When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.

The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions.When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.