2012 Evaluation Summary

Responses from: Total: 51  NIBIB PI: 19   NIGMS PI: 21   Other: 11   No Response: 0

NIBIB PI

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 19 1.89 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 19 1.95 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 19 2.42 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 19 2.11 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 19 2.68 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 19 2.63 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 19 2.37 The meeting met my expectations.
8 19 1.74 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 19 1.68 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 19 2.05 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 18 2.61 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 19 1.95 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 18 2.11 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 19 1.95 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 19 1.74 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 19 2.00 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 19 3.21 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 8 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- neurological disease
- I suggest that you have two parallel sessions that PI's can attend -- one focused on imaging and related areas and the second on the molecular focus of GMS.
- I recommend either two themes or broader themes like "Following treatments" or "Designing/Guiding therapy" that can be applied across organ systems. Focusing on just the heart was a bit too narrow for me.
- No overall scientific, technology or disease theme for the meeting - PLEASE!!!
Suggested areas to cover include:
Historical developments of some (two or three) individual P41 programs.
Strategies, approaches, advice, pitfalls for P41 renewal (institute or program directors and/or SRAs?).
"How To" perspectives on starting, renewing, and wrapping up (or "translating", in NIBIB-speak) a P41. (PIs)
NIH's perception of important technologies not yet covered by P41s. (P41 director?)
At least one national level presentation on science policy - from e.g. senate science policy committee leader, head of NIH, the national academies, presidential advisor.
- imaging, data-sharing and data mining
- 1) cancer (could be a mix of "'omics" technologies, imaging for dx, therapies)

2) challenges in infectious diseases (effects of TB worldwide, drug resistance in bacteria)

- Cancer research
nanoparticles
- It may be too late to suggest meeting topics now!
Question: 19 Responses: 4 Any additional comments:
- Sponsors for food & alcohol. This year's meeting was dreadful compared to prior meetings in essentially all aspects and in this one in particular. Also, if NIH's commitment to the meeting reflects their commitment to the program, then we are all doomed.
- More NIH program staff need to attend the full meeting and more time needs to be scheduled for the PIs to meet with NIH program staff.
- The location is important to encourage program officers based in DC to come
and talk with us.
- Would like to hear more about the direction of NIH and opportunities. It think that should be a goal of this meeting, but was not very well covered this time. I think that the breakout sessions of NIBIB and NIGMS should be sooner so that we can reconvene and discuss afterwards.

NIGMS PI

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 21 2.19 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 21 1.81 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 21 2.24 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 21 2.48 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 21 2.90 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 21 3.10 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 20 2.55 The meeting met my expectations.
8 21 1.29 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 21 1.86 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 21 1.86 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 21 2.95 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 21 2.67 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 21 2.05 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 21 1.76 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 21 2.19 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 21 2.19 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 21 2.67 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 11 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- Hybrid technologies for structure determination on different scales. Eg. cryo-EM plus X-ray/NMR plus computation
- Nothing comes to mind.
- Neurological diseases (Alzheimer, dementia, etc.)
Cell division / Cancer
- How to convince decision makers, who hold the purse strings, that developing new technologies and methods is critical for scientific progress.
- 1) Interconnecting Multiscale Multimodal Biomedicine
2) The Whole Brain: Molecules to Understanding Disorders
3) Information Technology Meets Biology
- I suggest two smaller topics rather than one huge one, like this year. For topical talks, stick to P41 groups more than users.
- The Data Explosion: Management and Integration of Diverse Data Sorces
- One topic does not give a good opportunity to highlight different technologies
- Expand the coverage of data integration across technology platforms/approaches within a common scientific field
- focus on P41 centers - NO science theme
- Single cell, single molecule technologies
Question: 19 Responses: 13 Any additional comments:
- I like the idea of meeting closer to the NIH campus to attract more NIH personnel.
- More time to communicate with NIH would be useful. One hour at the very end, when some people have already left, is not enough.
- Placing the meeting during spring break (at least it was that or CU) maybe a mixed blessing .. no teaching obligations, but expensive flight tickets.
- It should not be necessary to have such a meeting, but I fear that some key decision makers have forgotten that the majority of scientific advances depend on developing or having access to appropriate tools.
- Given the time taken from active schedules, the costs involved and the general nature of the presentations, I do not think there is a compelling reason to have this meeting. In terms of associated technologies, the P41 directors have already made connections and collaborations and therefore this is not a missing piece provided by this meeting.
- I really like the hotel at the Bethesda metro stop for this meeting, with NO visit to NIH.
- I suggested a rather broad topic so that there would be something to interest most PIs. But I feel the most useful sessions would take the forms of small specialized breakouts where Centers with similar missions could share their progress and discuss potential collaborations.
- The meeting is useful and could be more so with more dedicated time to discussions of center organization and logistics, aspects that arguably are most common among the centers.
- There are many reasons to have a meeting of the PIs.

Some of it is political for the program. This is fine - but that should be clearly indicated by the program.

There should also be a pragmatic outcome ...

If there were not a political reason for this workshop, then it is unclear what was gained from the current meeting. There were many very good talks! But how did that utilize the expertise of the participants?

- A one day meeting, with talks starting the evening before, could probably wrap up around 3pm the next day. This would be a better use of time. I was disappointed to see how many people skip out on the last morning anyway. These meetings could be extremely beneficial to PIs now that the NCRR has been dissolved. However, if the goal is to provide an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions, it would probably be more productive to showcase varied technologies rather than focusing on a single topic. Although representatives of the NIBIB and NIGMS were on hand, a more orchestrated opportunity to interact with them would be welcome.
- The meeting is useful only if the agenda covers topics of interest to most attendees, not just a small subset. I expect we all like to meet and interact with PIs who run similar resources, and with NIH program officials. And we like to hear about administrative changes being considered, particularly if these are discussed early enough for us to have substantive input. We would surely all be prepared to explain what our P41s do, to other NIH staff not directly involved. But it's not clear to me that scientific presentations at this meeting achieve that goal.
Duration and location of the meeting depend on the target audience and the agenda.
- Hopefully, NIGMS will continue to support the P41 PI Meeting and perhaps even seek to enhance the stature of the meeting as well.
- I suggest Day 1 be the formal presentations; the morning of Day 2 could have more programmatic presentations and discussion. We only have 1 hr before lunch for programmatic discussions, and this is divided between NIBIB and NIGMS. The entire morning could be spent discussing opportunities for training, dissemination, etc.

Other

Others were: NIBIB P41 Associate Director, NIBIB P30, CSR, program
staff, program staff from other NIH ICs, NIBIB P41 Staff,
NIH, NIH staff, NIBIB Co-PI

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 11 2.55 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 11 2.09 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 11 2.18 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 11 2.36 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 11 2.64 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 11 2.27 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 11 2.82 The meeting met my expectations.
8 11 1.64 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 11 2.00 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 11 2.09 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 11 2.82 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 11 2.73 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 10 2.20 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 11 1.82 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 11 2.27 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 11 2.55 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 11 2.55 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 3 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- Technical cross-cutting topics (such as large data repositories or high performance computing) tend to be more applicable to all centers so should also be considered a part of the program - have a 1-2h session plus panel on such issues every year could make the meeting more interesting in practice.
- Super Resolution Microscopy Techniques, Novel Imaging Techniques
- microtechnologies
Question: 19 Responses: 3 Any additional comments:
- - Poster sessions should have assigned times for people to be at the posters; most posters were just put up and there was no one at the poster to present it or discuss the technical difficulties addressed

- It would be nice if NIGMS and NIBIB staff could plan to visit the posters and discuss their perspective of how the center's research relates to ongoing research at other centers (possibly using completely different technologies)
- Most valuable part of meeting, as in prior years, was break-out session with NIBIB staff; comments of staff and discussion were very helpful. Thematic presentations during main meeting were in general too narrowly focused to be of general interest.
- I feel these meetings continue to be useful. That said, I was surprised that this year we were asked if the meetings were useful to us and if they should continue. That was part of the mixed messaging that I felt at this year's meeting. To continue, there was much celebration about a 50-year anniversary (pointing out how important longevity and collaborations have been), while also maintaining the extinguishing effect of the NIBIB sunset policy (NIBIB stressing the philosophy that centers should have completed their mission through developing new technology and cures within 15 year maximum durations). I urge NIBIB to rethink the rationale behind having a sunset policy and I want to emphasize that with the 5-year grant cycle, our P41 center tends to reinvent itself (within our capacity) every 5 years as part of our renewal strategy. From my view, the peer-reviewed 5-year cycle works for nurturing and developing novel technologies within P41 resources, within P41-P41 collaborations, and within P41-external collaborations. I feel the P41 meetings are a testament of the positive return on investment for NIBIB and NIGMS. The abundance of novel ideas by the creative research body at P41 centers is clearly expressed at the meetings. To conclude, I feel that enhanced encouragement from NIH will lead to a strong continuation of celebrating the progress and impact of P41 resources. To accomplish this, I specifically recommend that the NIBIB abolish their sunset policy, that all P41 program managers (NIH staff) attend each P41 PI meeting, and that the annual P41 PI meetings continue so that we can continue to receive feedback from the NIBIB and NIGMS.