IGEM:Stanford/2010/Notebook/31 March 2010: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Meeting Notes== | ==Meeting Notes== | ||
''''09 Cambridge:''' | |||
*Good Modeling and use of design tools | |||
*Great applicability and utility | |||
*Too many graphs resulted in distraction? | |||
*Good characterization | |||
*User-friendly color scheme | |||
*Good use of abstraction | |||
*Possible: unequal allocation of work | |||
*Noticeable systems out of parts | |||
''''09 ArtScience Bangalore:''' | |||
*Original idea from homeland | |||
*Sense of purpose? | |||
*Presentation seemed out of order | |||
*Succinct and clear presentation | |||
*Lack of data in comparison to other teams | |||
*Community Outreach (gold medal-related work) | |||
''''06 MIT:''' | |||
*Very interactive presentation | |||
*Good level of abstraction | |||
*Good decomposition | |||
*Technically advanced the field | |||
*Good diagrams | |||
*Physically proved their success (via samples) | |||
*Scent/fragrance applications are inexpensive | |||
*Synthetic biology can be fun | |||
*Needed a more contextual basis | |||
*Question posed by Prof. Smolke: Did they meet their goal? Easily-defined milestones | |||
''''08 Caltech:''' | |||
*Equal allocation of work | |||
*Breadth and depth of project | |||
*Spent the right amount of time on hard data/graphs | |||
*2 types from 1 common precursor | |||
*Good idea of random differentiaton | |||
*Presenter exchange | |||
*Perhaps a better citation system for literary sources? | |||
*Was this project too risky or ambitious? What is ambitious or simple? | |||
*Did the division of labor work well? | |||
'''Take home messages:''' | |||
*Good characterization/analysis and modeling | |||
*High quality parts | |||
*Decomposition of project into milestones - easy to define successes or goals | |||
*Have some context or application area (before/after?) | |||
*Have an engaging presentation that involves audience involvement | |||
*Have an engaging or provocative project idea that engages the five senses? | |||
*Consider best work allocation and team knowledge | |||
*Project should advance field and provide foundational advances of some sort | |||
*Project should be communicated on various levels of abstraction (via diagrams) | |||
*Project should allow team members to have fun | |||
==Photographs from Meeting== | |||
[[Image:IMG_0306.jpg|thumb|left|'''Fig 1''' Plus-delta chart formation ]] | |||
[[Image:IMG_0307.jpg|thumb|center|'''Fig 2''' Plus-delta chart formation]] | |||
[[Image:IMG_0322.JPG|thumb|right|'''Fig 3''' Plus-delta charts]] | |||
==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
==Agenda Items for the Next Meeting== | |||
*Brainstorm at least three project ideas (just bare bones) in each of the five different iGEM categories | |||
Latest revision as of 23:16, 14 April 2010
<html> <head> <style type="text/css"> body{background:#FFFFCC} table.menu{ background:#990000; padding:5px; color:black; } font.cell{ font-family:Verdana; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; color:#ffffff; width:99px; text-align:center; padding:0px } font.cell:hover{font-weight:bold; cursor:pointer; text-decoration:none } img{padding-bottom:5px} a.menu{text-decoration:none; color:white} a.menu:visited{text-decoration:none; color:white} </style> </head> </html>
|
Meeting Agenda
- Watch the following presentations prior to the meeting:
1. Cambridge 2009
2. ArtScienceBangalore 2009
3. MIT 2006
4. Caltech 2008
- Consider the following questions during the meeting (with regard to the above presentations):
1. What do you think makes a good igem Project?
2. Personal Likes and Dislike and why
3. Using these presentations, how should we go about developing a project?
- Consider other projects not listed above
Meeting Notes
'09 Cambridge:
- Good Modeling and use of design tools
- Great applicability and utility
- Too many graphs resulted in distraction?
- Good characterization
- User-friendly color scheme
- Good use of abstraction
- Possible: unequal allocation of work
- Noticeable systems out of parts
'09 ArtScience Bangalore:
- Original idea from homeland
- Sense of purpose?
- Presentation seemed out of order
- Succinct and clear presentation
- Lack of data in comparison to other teams
- Community Outreach (gold medal-related work)
'06 MIT:
- Very interactive presentation
- Good level of abstraction
- Good decomposition
- Technically advanced the field
- Good diagrams
- Physically proved their success (via samples)
- Scent/fragrance applications are inexpensive
- Synthetic biology can be fun
- Needed a more contextual basis
- Question posed by Prof. Smolke: Did they meet their goal? Easily-defined milestones
'08 Caltech:
- Equal allocation of work
- Breadth and depth of project
- Spent the right amount of time on hard data/graphs
- 2 types from 1 common precursor
- Good idea of random differentiaton
- Presenter exchange
- Perhaps a better citation system for literary sources?
- Was this project too risky or ambitious? What is ambitious or simple?
- Did the division of labor work well?
Take home messages:
- Good characterization/analysis and modeling
- High quality parts
- Decomposition of project into milestones - easy to define successes or goals
- Have some context or application area (before/after?)
- Have an engaging presentation that involves audience involvement
- Have an engaging or provocative project idea that engages the five senses?
- Consider best work allocation and team knowledge
- Project should advance field and provide foundational advances of some sort
- Project should be communicated on various levels of abstraction (via diagrams)
- Project should allow team members to have fun
Photographs from Meeting
Comments
Agenda Items for the Next Meeting
- Brainstorm at least three project ideas (just bare bones) in each of the five different iGEM categories
