If you check the Web for the term “collaboratory,” you will turn up references to sites of widely varying types, ranging from mere chat rooms maintained by groups obsessed by eccentric intellectual hobbyists to pages that appear to describe, to some degree at least, serious attempts at computer-supported scientific collaboration. This paper, happily, falls into the latter, more respectable category, but I am afraid that is about the best that can be said for it.
The author considers the case of an actual (but unnamed) R&D laboratory that affords access to an instrument called a nanomanipulator. The machine enables examination of biological samples down to nanometer size. A single paragraph sketchily outlines what users can do with the setup. It is implied that it is possible for geographically remote users to perform studies with the apparatus, but it is not explained how access to the equipment is shared and organized.
The paper is mainly devoted to reporting the results of 17 interviews with scientists from various levels of experience, ranging from students to senior managers, regarding their expectations of what they could achieve with such a collaboratory. The responses seemed to me to be rather uninformative, obvious, and tentative, telling readers little that they would not have expected intuitively. Readers may possibly gain more useful information by consulting the papers about collaboratories in the list of references.