New accounting procedure proposals as interpreted by institutions are absurd. For example, if a laboratory has several grants supporting different aspects of research and uses NaCl, the accountants desire that separate bottles be used for each grant project. Rather than the standardization of a uniform lot, and the savings of bulk purchase, the regulators want separate bottles. In the late 1950's, I laughed at the mentality of a Home Economics College's laboratory where there were separate beakers for bean and for pea research - separate because of the source of funds not because of scientific need. Now the regulators and administrators want to impose their ridiculous and wasteful mentality on science.
Science produces fruit only in an atmosphere of freedom.
Rather than a departmental or university family of scientists who work together and freely share, individual fiefdoms have developed where there is competition for release time, recognition, priority of instrument use, space, and facilities. The community of science should attack the unknown and not succumb to the temptation of enlarging an individual's share by eliminating other scientists. No one wants to be the one who is downsized, de-emphasized or eliminated. The technical aspects and the unpredictable nature of the results of much of science makes it unappreciated by the public. Any amount of a chemical is perceived as detrimental when there is a well-known threshold and a dose response.