IGEM:Stanford/2010/Notebook/31 March 2010

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 23:16, 14 April 2010 by Anusuya Ramasubramanian (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

<html> <head> <style type="text/css"> body{background:#FFFFCC} table.menu{ background:#990000; padding:5px; color:black; } font.cell{ font-family:Verdana; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; color:#ffffff; width:99px; text-align:center; padding:0px } font.cell:hover{font-weight:bold; cursor:pointer; text-decoration:none } img{padding-bottom:5px} a.menu{text-decoration:none; color:white} a.menu:visited{text-decoration:none; color:white} </style> </head> </html>

Quad center.jpg

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


Agenda Items for the Next Meeting

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