Quantitative geochemical and isotopic techniques are becoming increasingly central to modern geoscience research and research training (Harrison et al., 2015). Such techniques, which are used for geochronology, measuring process rates, tracing material movement, and analyzing chemical constituents and isotopes, are a rapidly growing part of geoscience (Grunsky & de Caritat, 2020;Mogk & Goodwin, 2012). Accordingly, having access to advanced analytic facilities is becoming a prerequisite for securing grant funding, publishing in high-visibility journals, and generally moving up the academic ladder.Despite the increasing importance of these laboratory-based techniques in geosciences, only a small portion of our community has access to them (Cramer et al., 2020). Many geochemical and geochronological laboratory techniques are challenging to perform and time consuming to master. Thus, such laboratories tend to exist at well-resourced institutions focusing on graduate students rather than undergraduate students (Bierman et al., 2014), leaving many students at the start of their careers without training in techniques important for advancing into jobs and graduate education (Trott et al., 2020). Many laboratory techniques require sophisticated infrastructure, such as advanced ventilation systems, climate control, access to ultra-pure water, and management of hazardous materials, further restricting the types of institutions that can build and maintain such facilities.As a result of these limitations, modern laboratory techniques in geoscience are largely unavailable to many members of the community. The absence is particularly acute at community colleges, undergraduate-serving institutions, and colleges and universities that serve students underrepresented in geoscience (Levine et al., 2007;Velasco & de Velasco, 2010). Students of color and those from lower-income and first-generation college families are particularly disadvantaged in terms of access to sophisticated geochemical facilities and the training needed to use such facilities (Bililign, 2019).Because the current academic structure generally revolves around laboratories that serve single Primary Investigators and their students (the majority of whom are graduate students), such inequities persist and can be