IGEM:Stanford/2010/Notebook/31 March 2010

From OpenWetWare

< IGEM:Stanford/2010 | Notebook
Revision as of 02:16, 15 April 2010 by Anusuya Ramasubramanian (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Fig 1 Plus-delta chart formation
Fig 1 Plus-delta chart formation
Fig 2 Plus-delta chart formation
Fig 2 Plus-delta chart formation
Fig 3 Plus-delta charts
Fig 3 Plus-delta charts

Comments

Agenda Items for the Next Meeting

  • Brainstorm at least three project ideas (just bare bones) in each of the five different iGEM categories
Personal tools