Team:Stanford/NotebookPage/31 March 2010
From 2010.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Chrisvanlang (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Template:Stanford_Main_Menu_0910}} <div style="width:720px;text-align:justify"> ==Meeting Agenda== *Watch the following presentations prior to the meeting: 1. Cambridge 2009 2. ArtSc...) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | {{Template: | + | {{Template:Stanford_2010_Main_Menu}} |
- | <div | + | {{Template:Stanford_2010_Notebook}} |
+ | <div class="contents"> | ||
==Meeting Agenda== | ==Meeting Agenda== |
Latest revision as of 22:52, 27 October 2010
![](http://openwetware.org/images/8/8d/Quad_center.jpg)
Home | Project | Applications | Modeling | Parts | Team | Notebook |
Spring: Brainstorming | Spring Meetings
Summer: Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Summaries
|
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
File:IMG 0306.jpg
Fig 1 Plus-delta chart formation
File:IMG 0307.jpg
Fig 2 Plus-delta chart formation
File:IMG 0322.JPG
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