2009 Evaluation Summary

Responses from: Total: 28  PI: 10  Inves: 9  Other: 8  No Response: 1
Others were: Co-PI, NCRR, Facility Director, P41 Team Member, P30 Center
managment, Invited Speaker from CTSA, P41 Center

Rating Scale:    1=Strongly Agree   2=Agree   3=Not Sure   4=Disagree   5=Strongly Disagree

1 27 2.15 Foster alliances between centers, which are aligned with the...
2 26 2.08 Establish collaborations between centers, which advance scie...
3 28 1.50 Provide opportunities for the Principal Investigators to int...
4 27 1.93 Inform Principal Investigators and staff in the P41 centers ...
5 26 2.54 Discuss development of integrated technology programs to add...
6 27 1.96 Learn about some new emerging technologies, which can advanc...
7 27 2.11 Learn about existing connectivities between Resources and Ce...
8 27 1.85 Learn about possible means of dissemination for Resources an...
9 28 1.93 The meeting met my expectations.
10 28 1.57 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
11 28 1.50 The meeting went according to schedule.
12 27 1.67 The meeting was well planned and executed.
13 28 2.14 The meeting was very beneficial.
14 27 2.07 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
15 26 1.62 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
16 27 1.52 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.

Text Responses:

Question: 17 Responses: 20 What was the MOST valuable experience you had or information...
- Discussions with peers and other Resource PI's.
- Hearing from the NCRR staff
- Get inside into other resources, and their own problems/approaches with translational medicine aspects and other daily problems. I always enjoy to communicate directly with the NCRR staff.
- Briefings from NIBIB staff on terminal-phase funding for P41s and alternate funding mechanisms
- Information about activities at other synchrotron sources, including connections for translational research.
- I liked the longer time for posters. That session still needs organization. Perhaps some grouping in subject areas.

- Interactions with NIBIB staff.
- Hearing about NIBIBs sunset policy - because we will have time to plan for future proposals.
- This was my 1st meeting and a intense learning experience as a center manager, I am not a PI.
- Changes that are forthcoming
- To get an overview of the efforts of many centers during the poster sessions and talks.
- better appreciation of breadth of P41 activities
- I learned about the development of Centers and technologies that I was not aware of previously.
- Direct meeting with other PIs from centers to discuss collaborations.

Banquet guest speaker (David Shaw) was fabulous!!!!
- Talk with program staff and with other related P41 directors
- Poster sessions went very well this year. There was sufficient time to see all posters and to talk to colleagues. This aspect of the meeting was much improved from years past.

Also good to hear about at least a few good examples of P41 and CTSA centers collaborating.
- Interaction with NCRR staff
- Opportunities for training related activities.
Face to face discussion with NIH officers.
- Information about new centers.
- We had a chance to meet and to talk to other colleagues of the P41 program.
Question: 18 Responses: 18 What was the LEAST valuable experience you had or informatio...
- Having to stand, or sit on the floor, during most of the meeting because the room was not designed to hold the number of attendees that showed up.
- Listening to the presentation from the TSRI CTSA
- The K-12 discussion was not well executed ... obviously, kids like computer games, movies etc. but what
should that mean for educational steps? Are we giving in to pressure coming from kids, or are we trying to educate our kids as best as possible? Animations & Co. can be very illustrative, but encourage a consume behavior, rather than active participation.
- Attending the meeting was a waste of time, more than usual. Getting a group of people together who do largely disparate activities is highly challenging in terms of providing content of universal value. I prefer to talk science at a focused topical meeting; thus the posters, while certainly demonstrating exciting science, are mostly irrelevant and the mechanism of everyone walking around does not work. The least valuable information was Mike Marron's talk (in absentia). No info about NCRR changes, funding, trends, etc. of the BTR program. That is potentially the only value of this meeting and it was missing this year.
- Dinner speaker (D. E. Shaw)
- Information on mutant mouse lines (because our center has no use for such, not because it was a bad talk).
Sessions with NIH people are valuable and need more time.
- After dinner speaker.
- Amount of time spent on discussing the NIBIB Sunset policy. The decision was made, it's reality, everyone accept it and move forward.
- N/A
- none
- Education session. There is a large effort in many places concerning K-12 and undergraduate education. This discussion seemed very much out of the expertise of the participants, and idealistic and simplistic.
- discussion of ARRA issues
- Couldn't cover everything...
- Information on CTSA's (-: Only kidding...

I understand the motivation for the scientific talks but some of them were so far afield and did little to encourage me to become interested. Despite such senior status, some presenters did not give good presentations for the diverse audience. Al Johnson was the counter example--terrific and accessible presentation.
- The level of scientific interaction was not really well, I think. I don't think people come here to learn about science. We come here to do business and find more areas of interaction and using each other's technologies. It is OK to have some science included, but it should not be only on the science.
- Panel discussions were less informative.

I did not have enough time to get to all posters.
- This meeting as well as the 2008 meeting devoted too many topics on computational biology and related areas, and were organized by people in the field. These are certainly important and timely topics. However, there are other timely topics carried out by other P41 centers, but were not covered in these two meetings.
Question: 19 Responses: 9 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- We should definitely talk about translational medicine again an see what experiences are made. Also, we should discuss the effect of the ARRA money on our research a year from now. Was it worth all the efforts and did the money effectively stimulate the economy?
- Forecast on projects / topics / technologies that the NIH would like to pursue via NIBIB and NCRR. This could be particularly beneficial to P41 facilities nearing the "sunset" of their funding.
- examples of synergistic interactions between P41 centers
- Cross-disciplinary training programs.
Actual clinical protocols that make use of new technologies (e.g., microrrays, sequencing, etc.).
- I thought the organization was excellent and Joel was a terrific leader, but was surprised sometimes at the low level of engagement in open discussion. I wonder if small, parallel sessions encourage more of the discussion among people with like interests. I hesitate to push discussion of topics that I know are of interest to only a part of the group when in a full session. Small groups that gather from common interest provide a setting more conducive to deeper discussions of topics relevant to the group.
- More nuts and bolts issues regarding running the resource. For example:
1. How do centers track for their annual report.
2. What are good methods for disseminating.
3. How do you fund the resource with limited NCRR dollars...

- I would like to know more about how NIH views the P41 centers and what they think could be neuralgic points that we need to address.
- New centers
How to get more $$ into these programs
- Non-invasive or minimally invasive methods to monitor/detect biological or pathological events in vivo using animal models. These methods/approaches could have potential clinical applications.
Question: 20 Responses: 15 Any additional comments:
- I would like to suggest having round tables instead of rows of tables.
Also, extra tables for networking in the poster session.
- I don't think we should worry about K-12 education at a P41 meeting. We spent too much time talking about it. I did enjoy hearing about SEPA but that was enough.
- I would skip the poster session, or at least make it volontary in favor of more common discussion time.
- Suggest a webinar instead of this meeting. It was not worth the several hundred $K and the time spent in organizing and attending. This is not a comment on the organizing committee, but rather on the concept itself.
- Please encourage moderators and speakers to use the microphone; some (particularly Joel Stiles) consistently declined to do so and were very hard to hear
- Move up the meetings with the NIBIB and NCCR staff to earlier in the meeting (ie, first thing the 2nd day).

The main meeting room at the hotel was too small.

More variety in selection for the meals.
- The additional poster session time was good. I would suggest it would be a good idea to have assigned times for certain poster presenters to stand by their poster. This year it was left up to us, but it appeared that for most of the two poster sessions, very few people were actually standing by their own posters.

More a comment for the NIBIB / NCRR than for this meeting: please reconsider including high-school students as subjects for the training component of the grant could. When done right, these interactions can be mutualy beneficial.
- I was very pleased to have the meeting in one location. I was able to go to my hotel room and be back to the meeting in several minutes.
- Speakers and Chair should be provided with portable microphones. Many times, I couldn't hear the speakers as they tend to wander away from the podium
- The talk about the needs of the mouse community was very interesting in terms of focusing on areas where new resources were needed. Really that should have been more of a focus of his talk and other talks that related to translation.
- better than last years meeting. 15 year decision by NIBIB is kiss of death for those centers. Very bad idea- culling mechanism exists with renewal
- Again, I thought Joel showed great leadership in setting up and running the meeting.

One last technical concern--the venue has difficult acoustics and the availability of only one, fixed microphone was very limiting and the sound system was poor. I suggest we try and do a better job with AV support next time. And yes, if called, upon, I would be willing to help organize this (-:
- David Shaw was a great keynote speaker.
- The posters should be about activities of the resource rather than trying to present the science.
- Badges: Make the names of people much much larger, get rid of space allocated to logos of the granting agencies- just identify who is with NCRR and who with NIBIB

I like this hotel. One improvement would be to have a room set up with round tables for breakfasts and lunches--sitting in rows looking forward is not conducive to discussions