2013 Evaluation Summary

Responses from: Total: 45  NIBIB PI: 23   NIGMS PI: 17   Other: 4   No Response: 1

NIBIB PI

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 23 1.91 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 23 1.39 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 23 1.96 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 23 1.96 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 23 1.91 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 23 2.30 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 23 1.43 The meeting met my expectations.
8 23 1.30 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 23 1.57 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 23 1.74 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 23 2.04 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 22 2.14 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 23 2.65 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 23 2.61 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 23 1.83 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 23 1.74 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 23 2.91 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 6 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- Issues with Translation/First-in-Man studies of new technology developed through P41 centers.
- The theme of this year's meeting was "Answering big questions requires a big effort". Fine. Although there were allusions to integration across scales, disappointingly, no one explicitly stated the big questions. How about a redo, except require that the organizers state the big questions, the health relevance of the big questions, and the relevance of the questions to the rest of the NIH.
- NIH Funding Policy.
- Please avoid having a meeting next year.
- Limits of detectability or other phyiscal limits to the goals. This year one person pointed out that in mass spec only about 1 in a 1000 ions is detected. I know another field in which the best published detectability is 8 orders of magnitude worse than theoretical. This type analysis would much better define the TR&D future for NIBIB and NIGMS.

It would also be desirable to compare relative TR&D, service, etc., efforts for different P41 Centers.
- I really liked the short summaries of other centers. Perhaps we can have that earlier in the meeting (i.e. first day) so that there is time to discuss with people about their centers and research after we hear the overview. That would also be a good preview for the posters. Poster session not at 7am would be nice. No-one came to that.

For topics, I would like to hear about balancing basic research with the 'innovation' and 'relevance' requirements of NIH (i.e. how do we prove relevance if we are building new tools and cannot 'prove' relevance until we get them to a point where we can answer relevant biomedical problems.

Also... for a more general topic I suppose the 'brain' (Alzheimer's, other neural disorders, etc.) might be interesting
Question: 19 Responses: 9 Any additional comments:
- I think that the rapid fire session is a great idea. Should be continued and may be better placed at the start of the meeting.
- Joachim Kohn is an outstanding master of ceremonies. I really liked the rapid fire presentations, and I agree with having that session earlier in the meeting.
- Food was an absolute rip-off. Disgraceful. Lack of social event impeded networking. If NIH can't fund one, at least have a reception with cash bar. Need NIH personnel to be there. NIBIB presentation was uninspired, to say the least.
- As a member of the organizing committee for the meeting, I noted the following to improve on for next year:
- Though applauded, the USB drive with abstract book was impractical; preference was mentioned for the printed booklet, which is in hand through the meeting and is a good place for taking notes (next to associated abstracts)
- Breakfast seemed criticized for its timeliness and choice of offerings
- Handicap access at hotel is limited / challenging (in some cases need to procure a special key)
- Rapid fire session should be placed at the beginning of meeting to give time afterwards for the presenters to connect with others
- Font on name badge should be much larger, to read names easily at a glance
- In these tines of budget cuts, I'd rather spend the money (and time) on my students. The only useful meeting purpose is to have discussions with POs and other NIH officials about my specific center. I can do this on an as-needed basis. The dissemination and collaboration aspects of a P41 are often center-specific. Similarly,given other time commitments, meeting with other PIs in areas outside my research field has diminishing returns. Therefore, replace the annual meeting with an annual teleconference, where general information can be disseminated efficiently and at minimal cost to all.
- Speakers should focus on goals, and effort needed to achieve them, and not just boast about what they have done or how big their lab is. We know that everyone is smart and productive. What we, and especially NIH, need to know is what enabling technologies need to be developed.

The short talks were more valuable than the long talks. The reverse could have been true if the long talks were focused in accordance with the other comments I provided.

It was embarrassing to hear so many people beg for money this year.

For such accomplished PIs, the slides and presentations were rather poor - cluttered, small print, no clear message.

Please use much larger print on name tags.
- The food situation was really out of control this time. The food was not the best (coffee break was OK). Also, there did not seem to be any control over who paid for the coffee break and who did not. I would almost prefer a hotel with a coffee shop inside or nearby for breakfast because $27 for breakfast was not worth it. However, at that hotel there are really not any options nearby for getting your own food.
- The three minute talks were fairly useful. It would be better to have these before poster sessions.
- I would recommend eliminating the poster session and replacing it with the 3 slide presentations from each center.

NIGMS PI

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 17 1.71 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 17 1.47 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 17 1.82 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 16 1.81 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 17 2.12 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 17 2.35 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 17 1.71 The meeting met my expectations.
8 17 1.41 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 17 1.35 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 16 1.44 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 16 2.06 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 17 1.94 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 17 2.76 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 17 2.12 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 17 1.65 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 17 1.82 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 16 3.00 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 7 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- The 3 minute lightning talks were great ! Do these on the first day next time, though, to permit time to talk to the presenters.
- Contributions of centers to high-profile biomedical research.
- Focus more on political issues than pure science ... We are too diverse when it comes to science, but we all have some common problems such as center organization, dissemination, grant writing etc.
- I very much enjoyed the short Center overviews. Please do this again next year, but have them at the beginning of the meeting. I find these much more valuable than the opening keynote presentations.
- Hybrid technologies for determining macromolecular structure and function.
- The rapid fire presentations were very helpful so I suggest we feature them next year and place the session earlier in the meaning to allow more meaningful follow up.
- Bridging experiments and computations
Bridging across scales
Neurosignal transmission: from molecular interactions to connectomics
Question: 19 Responses: 10 Any additional comments:
- Even after registration, I did not receive some of the email exchanges, for example those sent by NIGMS people which went only to the Director.

Name tags are very small and difficult to see. I know most people know each other, but the whole point of the name tag is to be easily readable.

Thanks much for your great job.
- The way food is charged is a real problem. My institution limits domestic food to $55/day, meaning I will be out some $70 for pretty mediocre food. If it were charged as a registration fee or something, then it would be reimbursable. The amount they charge for the food is ridiculous, particularly since the food is only so-so.

Hotel and meeting site internet access was abysmal.

For those of us traveling by plane, plane tickets can be MUCH cheaper if we arrive or depart on a Saturday. As long as there is SOME scheduled activity on Sunday, we can justify this, even if the meeting doesn't really start until Monday, but with no Sunday activities, this is difficult to get reimbursed even with the cost savings. Alternatively, having the meeting start late Thursday, run all day/evening Friday, then departing Saturday would also solve the problem and save a LOT of money.
- The arrangements for paying for food per-meal were annoying, and nobody checked whether people at breakfast and coffee breaks had actually paid (and $23 for a coffee break is ridiculous). I suggest a single fee for food, with possibly a separate item for the banquet.
The Rapid-Fire session worked quite well; would be good to have it earlier so people could go to posters for centers they found interesting afterwards.
- Keep the format as is!
The previous Hotel we had some years ago was better ... but this is fine, nevertheless.
- Reduce the number of longer presentations and have more time to talk with colleagues.

Set up a time before dinner to have a reception (funded by industry) to talk with colleagues.
- Excellent meeting. I enjoyed the rapid-fire summaries presented. I suggest that they be extended and used instead of posters (unless the poster viewing time is extended).
- The 'fast forward' talks were very useful, and should be included in the program, so that all Center chairs (attending the meeting) will have the opportunity to present their center. The time alocated to each speaker may be increased to 4 minutes. The poster session did not seem very useful to me.
A central theme is useful but should be broad enough to stimulate the active participation of a broad audience.
- I liked the 3 minute talks, and think they should be kept to 3 minutes, but it would be better to have them at the beginning of the meeting, before the poster sessions in particular.

I think the posters should have more time and perhaps have food there to draw in more people.

The technical talks at times got way way too specific for such a broad audience. Perhaps the talks should all be kept short and the speakers should be coached to address a general audience. This has generally been a problem at these meetings in my opinion, this meeting was perhaps better than previous ones but still a problem.

It would be good to have more time for discussion and interaction with the NIGMS staff about more technical matters and about opportunities, and not so much about details of how annual reports will be filed etc.
- I was glad to see an entire session devoted to outreach issues. This is a unique aspect of P41 centers and deserves explicit attention each meeting.
- I think that the poster session did not work too efficiently. Most people didn't attend the session and those who were presenting were not sure if they had to stand by the posters at all as no one really came by. There were very few people who viewed them. A suggestion is to have people become more involved with the posters or the most efficient way I was to have more fire sessions for all the centers. In this regard I also suggest that there be a break between every 10 speakers (perhaps interweave the fire session with other single talks). Having the fire session all at once was a bit exhausting....although this was a highlight for me. I really enjoyed this session. Also the NIH panel was really good and informative.

Other

Others were: NIBIB program director, NIBIB P30, NIGMS Program, NIBIB P41

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 4 1.75 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 4 1.25 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 4 2.00 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 4 1.25 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 4 2.50 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 4 2.25 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 4 1.50 The meeting met my expectations.
8 4 1.25 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 4 1.75 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 4 1.50 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 4 1.50 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 4 2.25 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 4 2.50 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 4 2.25 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 4 1.25 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 4 1.25 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 4 3.00 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 1 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- Opportunities to collaborate
Question: 19 Responses: 2 Any additional comments:
- The rapid talks were very beneficial. I recommend having them prior to poster sessions next year.
- Please move the meeting to DC proper. Rockville is a major hassle to get to and from and only costs our grants extra money in cab fare. At $200 a night, we can easily find a better hotel in Dupont Circle or somewhere else close to the metro and DCA! And, for those of us arriving in time for dinner or leaving after lunch, it would be so much nicer to be in an actual urban area where we can walk to a variety of different restaurants! Please, please move the meeting away from Rockville.

The short talks by nearly 30 center directors was fantastic - so informative! Keep this going in future meetings! And, move it to a spot early on in the meeting to foster more interactive discussions between center personnel throughout the rest of the meeting time.

It is very helpful that so many NIH staff show up and are accessible throughout the meeting - this is a key aspect to making the meeting successful.

Not Specified

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

QuesCntScoreText
1 1 2.00 The meeting is useful to foster alliances with other centers...
2 1 2.00 The meeting is useful to interact with staff from the NIGMS ...
3 1 2.00 The meeting is useful to inform Principal Investigators and ...
4 1 3.00 The meeting is useful to learn about new emerging technologi...
5 1 2.00 The meeting is useful to learn about possible means of disse...
6 1 2.00 It is useful to have a central theme for the meeting.
7 1 2.00 The meeting met my expectations.
8 1 1.00 The presenters were well versed and knowledgeable in the are...
9 1 1.00 The meeting went according to schedule.
10 1 1.00 The meeting was well planned and executed.
11 1 3.00 The meeting was very beneficial.
12 1 4.00 I had an opportunity to share problems and seek solutions wi...
13 1 4.00 There was sufficient time to look at posters and talk to col...
14 1 2.00 The hotel venue was suitable for the meeting.
15 1 1.00 It is useful to have an annual PI meeting for the BTRCs.
16 1 1.00 It is useful to combine the meeting for NIBIB and NIGMS.
17 1 5.00 Would you prefer the meeting to be 1 day/1 night?

Text Responses:

Question: 18 Responses: 1 Please suggest possible meeting topics for next year:
- Sharing software and computation resources - big data was a great topic but it's just the first step.
Question: 19 Responses: 0 Any additional comments: